The only news website
dedicated to Lichfield & Burntwood

Lichfield MP Michael Fabricant “very disappointed” after latest voting boundary plans are unveiled

Lichfield’s MP says he is “very disappointed” after plans to move parts of the constituency into the Tamworth voting area were not reversed.

Michael Fabricant

Michael Fabricant

The latest proposals from the Boundary Commission for England kept the previous plans to move Whittington and Streethay into the neighbouring constituency.

Conservative MP Michael Fabricant – who had previously branded the new boundaries as “nonsense” said there were practical reasons why a rethink was needed in this area.

“I am very disappointed with this decision,” he said. “It cuts a corner of Lichfield off with the nonsense of the London Platform of Lichfield Trent Valley Station being moved to Tamworth while the Manchester and Crewe platform will remain in Lichfield.

“How I would have been able to argue for the lifts to be fitted at the Lichfield Trent Valley with my only having responsibility for half the station?

“It will also be a huge shame to lose Whittington and I hope I will be able to maintain my close ties with St Giles Hospice.”

A volunteer wrote this. Say thanks with a coffee.

Advertisements
Founder of LichfieldLive and editor of the site.

16 Comments

  1. Steve

    17th October, 2017 at 9:23 am

    Unable to stop the boundary changes.
    Unable to stop the Secretary of State from agreeing to an unwanted development.
    Lifts at Trent Valley, when are they arriving? Been hearing about them for years.
    Poor pavement conditions and crazy parking, impacting on blind and disabled people, What are you doing about it?

    It seems we need a more effective MP, rather than one who is disappointed all the time and disappoints us.

  2. Ken

    17th October, 2017 at 9:37 am

    Lichfield MP disasappointed at having several thousand votes carved off his majority more like.

  3. Fabtastic

    17th October, 2017 at 10:47 am

    To be fair to Tamworth constituency; Chris Pincher is a useless c**t too.

  4. Darryl Godden

    17th October, 2017 at 11:03 am

    I was going to say, but Fabtastic got there before me, don’t expect a sudden rush of collaboration and interaction, Chris Pincher is about as effective as a cat flap in an elephant house.

  5. nellygb

    17th October, 2017 at 11:44 am

    @Fabtastic OUCH!!

  6. Steve Norman

    17th October, 2017 at 1:34 pm

    Another MP arguing for a lift will be the best hope for passengers I would suggest – almost any other MP.

    Of course if there was any way Burntwood could go back to Cannock that would be great news for Burntwood’s ignored electors – like the ones trying to save the Green Belt or wanting 21st century health facilities and so on.

    Burntwood needs an MP who will justify his salary but with First Past The Post system that’s not going to happen anytime soon.

  7. Rob

    17th October, 2017 at 4:45 pm

    Cannock?
    You’re welcome to it, a right dump.

  8. Ben

    17th October, 2017 at 7:06 pm

    How are you trying to save the greenbelt when your answer is to move the industrial units to the periphery of Burntwood …..which so happens to be green belt.

    I fail to see how this is helpful and why you keep trying to use this as a point in every debate. So maybe it is better to stop dragging up that Burntwood needs to be saved.

    Ps I live in Burntwood but want a house to live in and a job. Ignored millennials paying the price yet again.

  9. John Griffin

    17th October, 2017 at 8:20 pm

    Ignored millennials? Get with the programme, pretty well everyone is ‘ignored’, that’s modern UK capitalism. No voice (thanks Fabbo), nothing except a small wage packet and a wide-open wallet. Try blaming the right people and it ain’t the over-60s, ethnic minorities or the EU – it’s Fabbo and his chums.

  10. Ben

    18th October, 2017 at 4:24 pm

    I think you missed what I was really getting at. How can a dig be made about Burntwood having an ignored electorate when the man/group itself is doing exactly the same. I have messaged the action group multiple times and have not once had a response.

  11. Dave Smith

    19th October, 2017 at 2:49 pm

    I am going to have to agree with Ben on this one. As a fellow Burntwood resident is it disgusting to see the lack of clarity of Burntwood’s direction. The “Action Group” mentioned have proposed ideas such as moving the vinegar factor out of Burntwood, closing down the current stores at sankeys, and ignoring the rules and regulations of community planning.

    The young are being missed out on because there is little in Burntwood that is aimed to increase their want to live here. I welcome new builds in areas that are never used. The BAG are only looking out for themselves and care little for the future generation of Burntwood. Sadly, this is a view taken by the vast majority of people around here.

  12. John Griffin

    19th October, 2017 at 8:25 pm

    There are plenty who bemoan the lack of facilities and want to do something about it but are hamstrung by the lack of funds low priority and bureaucracy. BAG are essentially a Tory-led group arguing vapidly against another Tory group, while a Tory government rides roughshod over the lot.

  13. Ben

    23rd October, 2017 at 6:49 pm

    I am pretty sure I have seen the Labour Party group push the action groups campaign many times. With many of their ‘key’ members out there campaigning using this groups as a aid to gain voters. I have frequently laughed at the fact they have the central governments post propsing housing immediately followed by a link to BAG and their petition.

    Therefore that was an utterly ridiculous pop shot at the Tory party where there are probably many more applicable things you could have argued against them.

  14. John Griffin

    25th October, 2017 at 8:53 pm

    The local Labour Party cooperates with BAG to some extent. I don’t.

  15. Cllr Robert Birch

    5th November, 2017 at 10:14 am

    A little off topic from the original post, but in response to the comments regarding BAG and the Labour Party:

    As a Burntwood Labour Councillor who has attended some of the Burntwood Action Group meetings to observe what is going on in the community. I should make it clear that it does not mean I, or my group act in direct support of BAG. We are there to represent and advocate for the public as a whole and not to push the agenda of a single pressure group. I will also point out that a new group is forming as a spin off from BAG using the phrase I coined during my election campaign, “Better Burntwood” as their new name . In no way do I directly support the formation of the group or the use of the same phrase to use as their name, so please don’t make the incorrect link between my recent election campaign and this new group. They are, of course, free to use whatever name they wish and to organise in the community however they see fit. I do support the right of local residents to organise in the community, to get their ideas put forwards to those people elected to make decision. If forming local campaign groups is how people want to do this than that is fine and is their right in a free society.

    It should be clear to everyone that the Councillors collectively, from all parties or none, have significantly more support in terms of people who turn out to vote in elections, than BAG or subsequently Better Burntwood have from their membership numbers and so the only people who can truly claim to speak for the people of Burntwood, in a democracy, are the elected representatives of the people, the Councillors. BAG and Better Burntwood have their own views and their own agendas and as such they speak for their supporters but cannot rightly claim to speak for the people of Burntwood. The Council are elected for that purpose. With all the local politics going on at the moment by such allegedly none political groups, please remember that the Council are the ones who are democratically elected, backed by legislation and accountable at the ballot box. To pass any level of decision making to local pressure groups would be undemocratic and most likely unlawful.

    In the Labour Group we welcome the engagement of groups such as BAG, but we also take account of the views of the silent majority and not just those with the loudest voice. We held our Labour Councillors surgery yesterday to give local people the opportunity to come and raise their issues with us and had members of the public turning up for a Neighbourhood Plan consultation, which had been cancelled some weeks ago, but which BAG and Better Burntwood had been continuing to advertise on leaflets and on their Facebook pages. Will BAG and Better Burntwood be held to account for this misinformation?

    At a recent meeting between BAG representatives and the Labour Group we made it clear to BAG that some of the issues they are raising, the Labour Party have been campaigning for, for years. Other plans they are pushing, we are in opposition to. There is however a misconception that the Council are all powerful on local issues and a lack of understanding that areas such as the industrial estates, shopping centres and car parks in the area are privately owned. As such land owners will make their own plans for their property.

    It would be wrong to think that Labour support BAG and Better Burntwood. It would be right to think that Labour support listening to the voices of local people, including both organised groups and the silent majority, who don’t necessarily support the groups but who also have an opinion. Decision making should never be in the hands of unelected groups or individuals.

    Politics without accountability brings bad decision making and worse.

  16. Johnneo

    5th November, 2017 at 1:57 pm

    so Michael fabricants latest campaign is to save the pumping station for the nation and the publicity that goes with it. Still no word on his governments decision regarding the 750 houses at curborough. His silence his deafening! Coming soon, Michael fabricant demands more coffee shops.