Archive for the ‘Birmingham’ Category

Articles

2018 Review: Birmingham & Black Country – full submission

In Birmingham,boundary changes,Dudley,redistricting,Sandwell,Walsall,West Midlands,Wolverhampton on December 12, 2017 by dadge

This counterproposal covers the 26 seats of Birmingham (excluding Sutton Coldfield) and the Black Country (excluding Wolverhampton). The Commission’s proposals for Sutton Coldfield and Wolverhampton proposals are acceptable, although I’m submitting separately a possible improvement to the latter.

The Commission’s revised proposals for the West Midlands region are generally good. When it comes to the West Midlands county itself (excluding Coventry) several serious problems remain. This counterproposal addresses those problems seat by seat. It would be better if the Commission respected metropolitan borough boundaries more, but this counterproposal, whilst not accepting the argument that the flexibility afforded by the Commission’s policy of amorphous blobbism (i.e. treating regions as single units with little respect for the local authority boundaries within them) is necessary, does go along with it: it includes six cross-border seats, only one fewer than in the Commission’s proposals. It also keeps the number of split wards to a minimum: there are four to the Commission’s three.

Here is a summary map of my counterproposals, taken from the interactive Google map at https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1uqlgR6_V01Q023524AzUZWA2EijxAoSK

bce bbc0


1. Aldridge 76,572
18. Walsall 73,255
4. Erdington 73,557
6. Hodge Hill 77,643
3. Birmingham Central 77,926
9. Small Heath 77,267
5. Hall Green 72,658
7. Kings Norton 71,831
8. Northfield 75,118
11. Edgbaston & Warley South 76,863
19. Warley North 71,590
12. Halesowen & Cradley Heath 78,132
16. Stourbridge 72,591
10. Dudley 78,270
20. Wednesbury 72,803
14. Sandwell Valley 76,523

Aldridge, Brownhills & Bloxwich (1)

As per the Commission’s proposals. The name is a bit of a mouthful; I’m just calling it Aldridge. “Walsall Wood” might be a clever name for this seat.

Walsall & Oscott (18)

Problems: (1) the seat excludes Pleck, which is a central part of the town, and (2) it includes the orphan Oscott ward of Birmingham, thereby splitting the Kingstanding/Perry Beeches part of the city between seats.

Solutions: (1) put Pleck back in the seat, and (2) add the Great Barr & Yew Tree ward from West Bromwich. Still an orphan ward, but with better defined margins. Yew Tree and the Delves have always been closely connected. (3) Rename the seat to Walsall Town (rather than simply “Walsall”, in order to distinguish it from the borough).

Erdington & Perry Barr (4)

Problem: inclusion of the Perry Barr ward. In Birmingham terms, the Walsall Road (the heart of the Perry Barr ward) is geographically distant from the communities that make up Erdington. If the Perry Barr ward didn’t have its Witton tail, the idea of joining Perry Barr to Erdington would be out of the question.

(According to the Commission’s report (p 33) no-one proposed adding Perry Barr to Erdington except John Bryant, a member of the public from Kent whom the Commission like to quote because he’s a fundamentalist dissectologist like they are, i.e. he treats the country like a jigsaw and refuses to split wards even when local circumstances and local people suggest otherwise.)

Solutions: (1) Include Oscott ward instead of Perry Barr. Oscott and Kingstanding wards are the two wards that cover the Kingstanding area of north Birmingham – it’d be good not to have them split between seats. (2) Put Castle Vale in the Hodge Hill seat. The Vale is part of Erdington, but it is a self-contained community, with two shopping centres and a clear boundary with the Pype Hayes area. (3) Rename the seat Erdington.

(Note: my preferred option** is still to split the Oscott ward, with the part of Perry Beeches north of the M6 going into the constituency on the other side of the motorway. However, I’m not recommending that here because it doesn’t work as a solution in the context of the Commission’s revised proposals.)

Hodge Hill (6)

Problem: the inclusion of the Stechford ward means that the Yardley area will be split between constituencies. However, retaining the existing constituency boundary would create difficult knock-on effects on other seats. So the southern boundary of the seat is accepted.

Proposal: to add Castle Vale to the seat, in order to bring the size of the Erdington seat within quota. Although the Vale is separated from the rest of the Hodge Hill seat by the M6, the two parts are strongly linked by the A452, and people from Hodge Hill and Washwood Heath shop at the Fort and Castle Vale retail parks.

Ladywood (3)

Problem: Inclusion of the Soho & Victoria ward, an orphan Sandwell ward. This ward is an integral part of the town of Smethwick; therefore the Commission is splitting that town.

Solution: Include the Nechells ward instead. This ward is part of the existing Ladywood constituency, so including it will significantly reduce the amount of change. In order to do this, four polling districts (CTH CTI CTJ CTK) will need to be included in the Small Heath seat. This would actually be a good thing, since it would bring all parts of Bordesley Green and Small Heath together in the same seat.

I suggest renaming the seat to Birmingham Central. There has been a Central seat before, and the name seems appropriate for a seat that includes the Aston area as well as Ladywood.

Yardley (9)

Problems: (1) the name: the centre of Yardley isn’t in the seat; (2) the proposed seat stretches from Sheldon to Aston, a “bacon strip” of wards obviously put together because of the numbers game the Commission is playing.

Solutions: (1) name the seat Small Heath – this name is more appropriate and has a long pedigree. (2) Remove the Nechells ward and replace with Acocks Green, thereby reducing the amount of change to the seat. Add polling districts CTH CTI CTJ CTK from Nechells ward in order to unite the Wyndcliffe and Holy Trinity areas with the rest of Bordesley Green and Small Heath and bring the electorates of this and the Central seat into the permitted range.

Hall Green (5)

Proposals: (1) Remove Acocks Green ward and add Moseley ward, thereby reverting the seat to its current boundaries. (2) Transfer polling district DEG (Swanshurst Park) from Springfield ward to the Kings Norton seat in order to bring that seat up to quota.

Brandwood (7)

Proposals: (1) remove Moseley ward and add Kings Norton ward. This will unite the Bournville-Cotteridge-Kings Norton area along the A441 in one seat. (2) Add polling district DEG (Swanshurst Park) in order to bring the electorate of the seat up to quota. (3) Rename the seat to Kings Norton – a name with pedigree.

Northfield (8)

Problem: the inclusion of Bromsgrove district wards, making up just 7% of the electorate of the seat. My original proposal** respected the county boundary. It isn’t necessary to include Worcestershire wards in a Birmingham seat, and it’s bad practice to do so, but in order to reduce the amount of upheaval in this counter-proposal I’ve left the Rubery wards in the Northfield seat.

Proposal: remove Kings Norton ward and add Bartley Green ward. This reverts the seat largely to its pre-1997 boundaries and unites the areas either side of Shenley Lane.

Edgbaston & Selly Oak (11)

Proposals: (1) Transfer Bartley Green to the Northfield seat, where it used to be. (2) Add the Abbey and Old Warley wards from Sandwell to this seat. These two wards are more suitable for a cross-border seat than the Soho & Victoria ward that the Commission is proposing to add to the Ladywood seat. Brandhall and Bearwood face Quinton and Harborne across the Hagley Road. (3) Rename the seat Edgbaston & Warley South.

Warley (19)

Problems: (1) Includes orphan Dudley ward (St Thomas) which splits Dudley town between seats. (2) Includes only part of Smethwick – Smethwick is split between three seats.

Solutions: (1) Return St Thomas ward to a Dudley seat. (2) Include all three Smethwick wards (Smethwick, Soho/Victoria and St Pauls) in this seat. (3) Add Rowley ward to this seat. It’s not ideal to split the Rowley Regis area, but the Rowley ward does have good links with Tividale and Oldbury. (4) Rename the seat Warley North.

Halesowen & Rowley Regis (12)

Problem: the Netherton ward, which is part of Dudley town, has been included in this seat to make the numbers up.

Solution: Transfer the Netherton ward to the Dudley town seat. In order to facilitate this, transfer the Wollescote/Cradley and Dudley Wood wards from the Stourbridge seat and remove the Rowley ward. On balance, having Wollescote in the Halesowen seat is preferable to having Woodside in the Halesowen seat. (2) Rename the seat Halesowen & Cradley Heath.

Stourbridge (16)

Proposal: move Brierley Hill town centre into this seat. (A lot of the town is in the proposed seat already.) Transfer Cradley/Wollescote and Quarry Bank/Dudley Wood wards to Halesowen seat. Include Wordsley ward, all of Brierley Hill ward, and Brockmoor part of Brockmoor/Pensnett ward in this seat. Possibly rename the seat Stourbridge & Brierley Hill.

Dudley (10)

Problems: This seat includes only half of Dudley town, and half of Brierley Hill.

Solutions: Add the St Thomas and Netherton/Woodside/St Andrew wards to this seat to unite the main parts of the town in one seat. Include Wordsley ward, all of Brierley Hill ward, and the Brockmoor part of Brockmoor/Pensnett ward in the Stourbridge seat. Possibly change the name of the seat to Dudley Castle to distinguish it from the borough.

Darlaston & Tipton (20)

Problems: (1) The Pleck ward from the centre of Walsall has been included in this seat; (2) Friar Park ward (mostly Wednesbury) has been omitted from the seat; (3) the name of the seat omits Wednesbury, which is the main town in the seat.

Solutions: (1) Remove Pleck; (2) add Friar Park ward. Now all the wards that make up Darlaston, Wednesbury and Tipton are in the seat. (3) Rename the seat, either simply to Wednesbury, or possibly to “Wednesbury, Tipton & Darlaston”.

West Bromwich (14)

Problems: (1) Greets Green & Lyng ward has been split; (2) The seat includes part of Smethwick (via a second split ward); (3) the seat includes a Wednesbury ward (Friar Park); (4) the seat includes an orphan Birmingham ward, Handsworth Wood.

Solutions: (1) Keep all of the Greets Green/Lyng ward in the seat, and (2) put all of the St Pauls ward in the Smethwick (“Warley North”) seat; (3) transfer Friar Park ward to the Wednesbury seat.

(4) My original plan** kept Handsworth Wood in a Birmingham seat. In order to base this counter-proposal as closely as possible on the Commission’s revised proposals, I’ve kept the Handsworth Wood ward in the West Bromwich seat. It’s not a very good ward to use for this purpose, since it’s really one of a pair with its neighbouring Lozells/East Handsworth ward, and it’s separated from West Bromwich by Sandwell Valley. However, perhaps a virtue can be made out of this unfortunate choice. If the Perry Barr ward is added to the new seat instead of to the Erdington seat, Handsworth Wood is no longer an orphan, and the seat can be named Sandwell Valley because the seat surrounds it. Perry Barr ward is a reasonable fit: it merges into Sandwell’s Newton ward at Hamstead.

The Commission’s splitting of wards in Sandwell seems somewhat bizarre. The borough really is the poor relation of their redistricting process – not only has the Commission breached its border six times (see map below), it’s unnecessarily split wards in the borough, going against its own policy. The Commission’s policy, as I understand it, is that wards may be split in extremis if the knock-on effects of not doing so would be unacceptable seats elsewhere. In this case the Commission has done the opposite: it’s avoided splitting wards in Birmingham at all costs, leaving loose ends to be tied in Sandwell. What it should have done – and what I have done – is split wards in Birmingham in order to mitigate problems elsewhere.

bce sandwell nos

In the end I split three wards in Birmingham in order to construct better seats both in the city and throughout the sub-region. I submit that that’s a reasonable compromise, and certainly better than the two splits in Sandwell, one of which divides West Bromwich between seats, and the other one of which divides Smethwick between seats.

Summary of improvements:

  1. Pleck is in the Walsall seat.

  2. Oscott is in a Birmingham seat.

  3. There’s no Sandwell ward in the Ladywood seat.

  4. Nechells ward is in the Ladywood seat instead of the Yardley seat.

  5. Hall Green almost unchanged from the existing seat.

  6. Smethwick is united in one seat instead of being split between three seats.

  7. Woodside is in the Dudley seat instead of in the Halesowen seat.

  8. There’s no Dudley ward in a Warley seat.

  9. Dudley town is united in one seat instead of being split between three seats.

  10. Friar Park is in the Wednesbury seat.

  11. No split wards in Sandwell.

Of course, eradicating these faults in the Commission’s revised proposals has required a few compromises to made, but I commend those compromises to you as necessary in order to improve the overall picture of constituencies in Birmingham and the Black Country. Also, the two split wards in Sandwell have been replaced with three split wards in Birmingham, although I hope you’ll agree that the splits are reasonable.

***

A note on wards. The Commission has a policy of not splitting wards. In general terms this a sensible policy, since it reduces the permutations from an infinite number to something more manageable. However, when the law was changed to reduce the permitted leeway in seat size from +/-10% to +/-5% this made the policy unworkable. It reduced the number of possible arrangements in authorities with large wards like Birmingham and Dudley to zero, or close to zero, and blindly pursuing the policy has led the Commission to propose ludicrous “bacon strip” seats and multiple cross-border seats and orphan wards, leeching neighbouring authorities to make up the numbers. The irony of this situation is not lost on psephologists who clearly remember how the Commission insisted for so long that the process was not a numbers game – a position with which the courts agreed.

To see how futile the task is of forming seats in Birmingham on the basis of whole wards, consider the following: the electorate of Birmingham (excluding Sutton Coldfield) is 616,632. Therefore the 36 wards have an average electorate of 17,045. Four whole wards have an average electorate of 68,180 and five whole wards have an average electorate of 85,225. Given that the permitted range is 71,031 to 78,507, it can be seen that it’s impossible to form whole-ward seats in the city, except where through luck there’s the odd ward or two considerably above or below the average size. Hopefully this gives a flavour of how crass the unwillingness to deviate from the whole-ward policy had become.

As a footnote to the footnote, it should also be noticed that (a) the Birmingham wards that the Commission is using as its building blocks are obsolete, having been replaced by new wards last year, and (b) the electorates being used by the Commission are also out of date, having been considerably affected by the registration drives before the EU referendum and the 2017 general election.

Advertisements

Articles

2018 Review – West Midlands v2.0

In Birmingham,boundary changes,boundary commission,Coventry,Dudley,News,redistricting,Sandwell,Stoke,Walsall,Warwickshire,West Midlands,West Midlands county,Wolverhampton on October 23, 2017 by dadge

The Commission has published its revised recommendations, and there are many improvements. Warwickshire will now have the sensible arrangement of seats that had been obvious to everyone except the Commission. And they have accepted my proposals for Stoke and Newcastle, which is nice.

The map of Birmingham and the Black Country is looking a bit better, but there are still the following (main) problems:

  1. Pleck removed from Walsall*
  2. Oscott ward in a Walsall seat*
  3. Handsworth Wood in a Sandwell seat
  4. Handsworth split between seats
  5. Oddly shaped Erdington seat going up to the Scott Arms*
  6. Smethwick split between three constituencies*
  7. East Smethwick in a Birmingham seat*
  8. Nechells in a sinuous Yardley seat*
  9. Yardley split between seats
  10. Rubery in a Birmingham seat
  11. Netherton in the Halesowen & Rowley Regis seat*
  12. Dudley town split between seats*
  13. East Dudley town in a Sandwell seat*
  14. Friar Park ward not in the Wednesbury seat*
  15. Greets Green in the Tipton seat*

My counter-proposal (interactive map) solves 11 of those 15 problems (shown by stars), but creates five new ones:

  1. Perry Barr in a Sandwell seat
  2. Yew Tree in a Walsall seat
  3. Castle Vale in the Hodge Hill seat
  4. Bearwood and part of Oldbury in a Birmingham seat
  5. Rowley Regis split between seats

But I think that reducing the overall number of problems from 15 to 9 is quite good going. Also, I’d say we go from having eight bad constituencies (out of 20) to just one (can you guess which one?!) so I think that’s definitely an improvement. Excluding the seats in Wolverhampton and Sutton (which have general support), my proposed seats are:

  1. Aldridge, Brownhills & Bloxwich 76572
    18. Walsall 73255
    14. Sandwell Valley 76523
    4. Erdington 73557*
    6. Hodge Hill 77643* (includes Castle Vale DLC DLG DLH)
    3. Birmingham Central* 77926
    9. Small Heath 77267* (includes Bordesley Green CTH CTI CTJ CTK)
    5. Hall Green 72658*
    7. Kings Norton 71831* (includes Swanshurst Park DEG)
    8. Northfield 75118
    11. Edgbaston & Warley South 76863
    19. Warley North 71590
    20. Wednesbury, Tipton & Darlaston 72803
    10. Dudley 78270*
    16. Stourbridge 72591* (includes Brockmoor J05 J06 J07)
    12. Halesowen & Cradley Heath 78132

The stars indicate seats that include parts of split wards. (I have 4 split wards compared to the Commission’s 3.) Seats in bold include wards from two boroughs. (I have 8 compared with the Commission’s 9. Not a big difference there, but this counter-proposal doesn’t make wholesale changes. In an ideal world we’d be looking at something like my original plan, which only had 3 cross-border seats.)

Map of seats listed above:

bce bbc0

If you prefer all or part of this plan to the Commission’s proposals, email them by 11/12/17 at information@boundarycommissionengland.gov.uk

Articles

Unsplit Birmingham!

In Birmingham,boundary changes on November 1, 2011 by dadge

The City of Birmingham (including Sutton Coldfield) has 10 constituencies: Erdington, Perry Barr, Ladywood, Hodge Hill, Yardley, Edgbaston, Hall Green, Selly Oak, Northfield and Sutton Coldfield.

A review of the constituencies is going on, and with the national reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600, Birmingham will only be entitled to 9 and a half MPs. So, two wards from Birmingham will have to be put together with an area outside the city to form a new cross-border constituency. That’s bad enough, but what’s much worse is the plan the Boundary Commission has come up with: it proposes SIX cross-border seats which include bits of Birmingham put together with other areas, plus it proposes two seats which combine parts of Birmingham with parts of Sutton Coldfield:

(The city boundary is shown by a thick black line. The proposed constituencies are shown by thick blue lines.)

OUT OF Birmingham
1. Oscott Ward (Great Barr) -> Walsall
a. Kingstanding Ward -> Sutton
3. Soho ward (Winson Green) -> Smethwick
4. Shard End ward -> Meriden
6. Sheldon ward -> Solihull

INTO Birmingham
2. Castle Bromwich ward -> Erdington
b. Sutton New Hall ward (Walmley) -> Erdington
5. Old Warley ward (South Oldbury) -> Harborne

You can see from the map that Solihull is also being split – the Commission plans to put some of Shirley in the Kenilworth seat. (pdf)

How has this happened?

Under pressure from politicians, the Commission has decided that, rather than respect our cities and communities, it will, for its own convenience, and the convenience of the politicians, split our cities apart. This is not just happening in Birmingham – several other cities are affected, including Liverpool, Nottingham and Southampton.

What can we do about it?

We can tell the Commission and the politicians: “Split my ward, not my city! Let’s make democracy make sense.”

If we split two Birmingham wards, probably Oscott and Bartley Green, we can keep the city together and keep the changes to our constituencies as small as possible. It’s not rocket science.

Act now!

Email the Boundary Commission

Email your MP

Download, print and distribute the information map

Articles

Back to sunny Soho

In Birmingham,electoral register on October 22, 2011 by dadge

For the third year, I’ve been out on the streets of Soho, canvassing for the city council’s Elections Office in order to get as many people onto the electoral register as possible. The process has been made a lot quicker, easier and cheaper this year by the use of data matching, by which I guess they mean they match non-responding households up with council-tax records. So all that’s left for me and my fellow canvassers is to check on the 14% of non-responding households that they don’t have any data for. In my case the percentage is a bit higher – instead of 250 houses to visit, this year I have to go to 100.

After three years, I’m getting know the area (and some of the people) pretty well. Although it’s right on the edge of town (and a stone’s throw from the WBA ground) it seems just as much a part of Birmingham as any other. The Soho ward is a bit of an artificial creation, combining as it does three distinct communities: South Handsworth, Winson Green and an area you could call East Cape Hill or West Rotton Park or Summerfield Park or NW Edgbaston. 🙂 (It would really be better if the ward was split into 3 wards with 1 councillor for each.)

The Boundary Commission propose to tack the ward on to a new Smethwick seat (pdf) but only the Cape Hill quarter has any connections with Smethwick.

In the current boundary review, I’ve proposed that the ward should be part of a Perry Barr or Handsworth seat, with my street in Oscott at the other end of the constituency, and that seems a good plan to me. The parish and town of Handsworth stretched all the way from the Hockley Brook to Sutton Park and it’s a shame that there hasn’t been a Handsworth constituency since 1983 – currently the area is divided between the Ladywood and Perry Barr seats.

 Map from A Vision of Britain

By the way, 9th November is the 100th anniversary of the town of Handsworth leaving Staffordshire and becoming part of the city of Birmingham in the county of Warwickshire.

Articles

Is Halton the whipping boy?

In Birmingham,Cheshire,Merseyside,North West,redistricting on October 20, 2011 by dadge

One of the consequences of the 5% Law is that particular communities get, what’s the best word, leeched? cannibalised? to satisfy the needs of the Boundary Commission. Depending on which metaphor you prefer, their blood or their body parts are removed to give life to constituencies in bigger neighbours. (The technical term I use for this is tacking.)

The relationship of Cheshire to Halton (a council formed from the towns of Widnes and Runcorn) is a case in point. In order to satisfy the requirement for electoral equality – and god forbid that anyone might split a ward instead – the Commission and the political parties have all come up with plans that butcher/drain the district.

Halton has an electorate of 92,550 so at least 12,000 voters do have to find a home in another constituency, and currently some Runcorn wards are in the Weaver Vale seat. That seat’s being abolished, so another home needs to be found. In my plan Cheshire is “full up” so I’ve put some Widnes wards in the St Helen’s South seat.

Whether you like that or not, at least I’ve maintained the principle of only dividing Halton between two seats. Dividing Halton between three seats, as under the Boundary Commission or Lib Dem plans, or four (!) seats, as under the Tory and Labour plans, is unfortunate to say the least, and is not a product of any deep thought about the ties that particular wards have with neighbouring areas*, but simply about making the numbers up in other seats.

*Notice that some of the areas that the main proposals link Halton with are hardly “neighbouring” at all, such is the desperation that is caused by the mania not to split any Cheshire wards. The Commission links Ditton with Bromborough (20 miles), Labour link Beechwood with Chester (15 miles), and the Tories link the eastern edge of Runcorn with Alderley Edge (20 miles).

And the same thing is happening around the country, where, for example, instead of reviewing Liverpool, Birmingham, Sheffield and Leeds on their own, with a couple of split wards in each, the Commission is leeching their smaller neighbours.

If splitting wards causes a bit of suffering to the communities in these cities or in Cheshire, isn’t that at least fairer than causing suffering to the communities in their neighbouring areas, whose only crime is to live nextdoor, and where towns are being divided just in order to make life a bit easier for the Commission and its political allies?

If you’d like to make a comment to the Commission about its policy with regard to tacking, you can email them.

Articles

“Brum’s Battle Lines Drawn”

In Birmingham,News,redistricting on October 13, 2011 by dadge

I’ve been in contact with the Birmingham Mail for about a week, and today the articles Neil Elkes has written were published under the headline “Brum’s Battle Lines Drawn“:

“My plan” for Birmingham  is actually Phil Davies’s plan. My original plan was similar but Phil’s (see below – map from the Vote UK forum) is very likely to succeed because it’s the minimum-change option.

Since the Birmingham hearings aren’t till next month, I expect quite a head of steam to have built up by then and they’ll be quite lively. Email the reporter at Neil.Elkes@Birminghammail.net and the Commission at westmidlands@bcommengland.x.gsi.gov.uk

Articles

Ask Locus: Can Birmingham be reviewed on its own?

In Birmingham,electoral register,redistricting on October 4, 2011 by dadge

Over on the Re-Stirred forum, bunnyson asks:

Is it possible for Birmingham to be redrawn, using current wards, without grabbing Solihull or other authorities’ wards?

Just by using current wards, no.

Birmingham, with an electorate of 731,731, is entitled to just over 9 and a half seats. If the Commission gives it 10 seats, the average size would be 73,173. The legal minimum size is 72,810 so it is possible to review the city on its own, just very messy.

It’d be nice if all the 40 wards were the same size, but they vary from 16,461 (Erdington) to 20,011 (Springfield). The current Erdington constituency has an electorate of 67,598, i.e. more than 5,000 short of the required number, and I guarantee that there is no combination of whole wards in north Birmingham that could create a seat of the required size.

So, the only way is ward-splitting. A better mathematician than me could work out how many of the city’s wards would have to be sliced up, but it would be a lot.

And if we went down that route, the main people to suffer would be the voters of Solihull and Warwickshire. Together they’re entitled to just under 7 and a half seats, so if Birmingham gets 10, they’d get 7. Except that wouldn’t be possible, since that’d mean an average seat size of 81,243, well above the legal limit. So just to keep their seats down to around 80,000 they’d have to give 9,000 voters to Coventry, and to accommodate them you’d have to split a couple of wards in Coventry.

Anyway, we’d end up with 10 seats in Birmingham with 73,000 voters in each, 7 in Warwickshire and Solihull with 80,000 voters in each and 3 in Coventry with 75,000 in one and 80,000 in the other two. It doesn’t sound too bad, I suppose, but it is a bit unfair and (more importantly) it tears up the electoral map.

Postscript 1: There is a point of view that says that if a city is entitled to X number of seats, then just give it those seats, and leave it up to the cityfolk to apportion them. Unfortunately (?) the powers that be decided that 5% law doesn’t apply to local authorities, it applies to individual seats.

Postscript 2: It’s widely regarded to be true (and having done some canvassing myself, I agree) that there’s thousands of people missing off the electoral roll in Birmingham. If we can somehow get those people onto the roll, maybe we could get our extra half an MP back.