Luton

As mentioned in my previous post I have finally got around to looking at the Boundary Commission’s revised proposals for their review of parliamentary constituencies for England. I appreciate that this is something of an academic exercise given that the row within the Coalition Government over House of Lords reform has resulted in a situation where Parliament is unlikely to approve these proposals. However, here are the details for the record.

The initial proposals for the Eastern Region, including the sub-region of Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, where published in September 2011. You can read what I wrote about them at the time here:

• The proposed new parliamentary boundaries for Luton
• The proposed new Luton North and Dunstable constituency
• The proposed new Luton South constituency

After public consultation on these proposals the Commission published their revised recommendations in October 2012. These revised proposals do seem to me to be an improvement. Given the constraints that the Commission have had to work within, what they are now suggesting appears to work more coherently with the nature of Bedfordshire and so make better sense than the original.

The proposals

The proposals for changing Luton South and creating a new Luton North and Dunstable seat remain unchanged from the commission’s first report.

In the north Bedford would remain much as it is now with the addition of the Bromham ward to the West. The North Bedfordshire constituency becomes a do-nut around Bedford and takes in the whole of the northern end of the county — upwards from Potton and Biggleswade in the East and Ampthill in the west.

Despite its name returning in the revised proposals the old Mid Bedfordshire seat would still essentially disappear. Just under 30% of it go to make up the new North Beds seat and just under 40% of it, including Flitwick, Woburn and Harlington, go into a stretched South West Bedfordshire constituency. This seat loses Dunstable and is pulled northwards as far as Cranfield.

The remaining bits of the old Mid Beds seat (about 27% of it) as well as bits of the old North East Beds seat go to make up part of a new cross-county seat with parts of Hertfordshire. This includes the villages to north and north east of Luton (including Streatley, Barton-le-Clay, Silsoe, Shefford, Henlow, and Stotfold). This new Mid Bedfordshire and Harpenden constituency is made up of about 45% of the old Hitchin and Harpenden constituency. As well as containing Harpenden itself, it includes Wheathampstead, Kimpton, and the villages to the east of Luton. It also takes in the ward to the south of Luton and Dunstable, containing Caddington and Slip End, from the old South West Beds seat.

• Details of the proposals for the Eastern region (including Bedfordshire)
• Maps of the proposed constituencies for Bedfordshire & Hertfordshire

The rationale

It is the changes to Luton that are key to understanding the logic behind what the Commission has proposed for Bedfordshire, and they were also the most controversial.

The new tighter rules for how many voters a constituency has makes Luton too large to be a single constituency and too small to have two. So parts of of the town need to be combined with somewhere else to make the numbers work. The Commission have taken the view that the logical place to join with is the town of Dunstable.

Dunstable and North Luton are both urban areas that are part of the same conurbation. The border between the two crosses a continuous built up area. A stranger who travels across that boundary would be unlikely to realise that they have just moved between towns. The two towns share a transport network and other services — not least the Luton and Dunstable Hospital.

The alternatives are also poorer. The best of these, and the one that I thought we might end up with when this process started, would be to combine parts of the north of Luton with the town of Houghton Regis, which is also part of the conurbation. However, Houghton Regis is smaller than Dunstable and so this change would also require bringing in some more rural bits of the county — those villages to north of the urban area. However, the Commission have sought to avoid making mixed urban and rural constituencies when they can.

The other alternatives would require crossing the county boundary into Hertfordshire — either to pick up the villages to the East or, as some have suggested, extend a Luton South constituency further south and combining with Harpenden. Both of this have significant drawbacks.

Once the decision to combine Dunstable with north Luton has been made, alongside the approach to the north of the County, the knock on effects on the other constituencies are largely unavoidable. The Commission has adjusted, and I believe improved, the proposals but the essential impact on the centre and south west of Bedfordshire remains largely the same.

I had meant to post some more stuff here over the last couple of weeks but the reason why I have failed, other than being generally busy, was that I decided to write a quick post about the Boundary Commission’s revised recommendations for changing the parliamentary boundaries for Luton and the rest of Bedfordshire.

This was not a quick post.

In researching and writing it up I rather got lost in the subject. Which is a bit silly given the vote in parliament last week means that they are even less likely to be put in place than they were when the House of Lords reforms collapsed.

It is not so much the proposed boundaries themselves that I have got lost in, which are pretty straightforward once you’ve got your head around them, but the story that the report, the written submissions, and the transcript of the two days of public evidence, tells about how the different communities in southern Bedfordshire (or at least their elected representatives) see themselves and each other. It is a tale of identity, different ideas of urban and rural, party politics, misconceptions, genuine fears, and sadly I suspect lurking at the back of it is different forms of prejudice. It also provides evidence for the motivations behind many of the decisions that have taken place in local politics over recent years — much of them deeply irrational when looked at objectively. Most of this I was vaguely aware of — but now feel I should have understood better — and reading this has helped bring some clarity.

What I am talking about here, if you hadn’t already guessed, is how Luton is mistrusted — indeed to some extent feared — by its near neighbour Dunstable and the rural communities of south Bedfordshire. How important being “rural” is to those communities. And why the quite logical proposal to create a parliamentary constituency that combined Dunstable with the north of Luton generated such an extreme reaction from some.

This at least is the picture that the background papers to the Boundary Commission’s report gives us as presented at least by members of the local political class. How deeply this picture accurately reflects the views of the local population is an open question. Perhaps the controversy over the new boundaries might have given us some clues to this if it hadn’t been cut short by the bigger national controversy at Westminster.

As you can tell I have ended up with a much wider subject to talk about than the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies! A subject that may take me a while to do proper justice to.

But first the boundary proposals themselves…

One of the things that I have regularly featured on this blog over the years is the disgrace of former Luton South MP Margaret Moran whose political career went up in flames when she was accused of a wholesale fiddling of her expenses.

That accusation finally went to trail last week at Southwark Crown Court. Although it is a pretty unusual trail.

Moran cannot be found guilty as she has been declared ‘unfit to plead’ due to mental illness. The jury will still have to decide whether or not the expense fiddling took place — but if the case is proven — no punishment will be given out. The Telegraph has a good explanation of this odd legal situation.

The trail should resume this morning.

More from me on Margaret Moran can be found here.

The best piece of news I heard last week was that the police had recovered the Wenlok Jug.

In May of this year the Wenlok Jug, a large bronze medieval jug which is the prize object in the collection of Luton’s museum service, was stolen from the Stockwood Discovery centre. The theft made national news and later featured on BBC One’s Crimewatch programme.

The theft was a severe blow to Luton Culture who were responsible for looking after it and a loss that I know was felt very deeply by museum staff. So I was delighted to hear that the police had recovered the jug and arrested two people. Well done to Bedfordshire Police.

The jug itself is an impressive object – if to be honest a little ugly – and has I think a real presence that helps you to get a sense of that period. It “feels” medieval!

I am really really pleased that it has been found  and returned.

This is how the Wenlok Jug is described by the museum;

“The Wenlok Jug is of enormous historical significance to the Luton area. Made approximately 1400-1500 AD, it is one of only three similar jugs in the UK and of the three, bears the earliest maker’s mark. It is made of bronze, stands 31.5cm tall, weighs 6.1kgs and is decorated with the English coat of arms, the East Anglian coat of arms and the inscription ‘My Lord Wenlok’. The inscription could relate either to the first Lord Wenlock who lived near Luton, or William Wenlock (died 1391) who is buried under St Mary‟s Parish Church of Luton. He was a canon of King’s Chapel and Master of Farley Hospital for the poor.”

More here:

• Photo: Detective Inspector Martin Peters returns the recovered Wenlok Jug to Director of Museums Karen Perkins
• Luton Today: Museum’s delight after jug is found
• Luton on Sunday: Wenlock theft felt like an ‘attack’
• The British Museum on the three medieval jugs

Here’s a little home town related science fiction oddity.

Like many I have fond memories of scifi TV from my childhood. Those series from the 70’s and 80’s that I grew up watching have helped form a cultural backdrop and set of reference points that I have carried with me into adult life. Not least because so many of my friends are involved in Who or other fandom at one level or another.

I loved Doctor Who, Hitchhiker’s Guide, Blake’s 7 and of course Star Trek. But one series I couldn’t get into was Space: 1999.

It might have been the Kubrick influenced visuals or the sternness of the lead characters but I remember as a kid feeling that the series was cold and more than a little sinister. Also I didn’t really buy into the whole “moon knocked out of orbit” thing. This impression has put me off revisiting it as an adult. Although I have been told I am not missing much.

Yet this has also meant that until recently I was unaware of the curious Luton related fact that the town appears in one of the episodes. Well strictly speaking the name “Luton” features.

In an episode called “The Rules of Luton” broadcast in October 1976 the travellers from Moon Base Alpha come across a planet called Luton and fall foul of the laws of its inhabitants.

I am not sure whether any inference should be drawn from the fact that the inhabitants of “Luton” are intelligent plant based life forms!

Apparently the American writer of the episode saw the name on a road sign and liked the look of it.

Early on Monday morning (9 July 2012) I went to watch the Olympic Torch be carried along Dunstable Road in Luton, not far from my house. The photos I took are below:

More on the Olympic Torch in Luton can be found here:

• VIDEO: Day 51 of the Olympic Torch Relay – it’s Luton
• Hundreds line route as Olympic flame leaves Luton

I’ve been getting quite a few visitors here looking either for information about the procession of the Olympic torch through Luton or the date of this year’s Luton Carnival. In an attempt to be helpful here is some basic information about the events of this coming weekend and links to other sources of information.

Friday 6th – In the evening there will be day one of the Love Luton Festival in Popes Meadow headlined by The Wanted.

Saturday 7th – The Luton Mela will take place in Wardown Park and day two of the Love Luton Festival in Popes Meadow headlined by Olly Murs.

Sunday 8th – We will have this year’s Luton Carnival followed by the arrival of the Olympic Torch. Then there will be an Olympic celebration event in the evening.

Monday 9th – Finally the Olympic Torch procession will head off from Luton in the early morning.

Olympic Torch route

Route details taken from the LBC website:

“On Sunday 8 July the relay in Luton starts in London Road at 6.12pm and progresses via Castle Street, George Street, Manchester Street, New Bedford Road and the Wardown Park pathway to Old Bedford Road and an evening celebration event at Popes Meadow.

On Monday 9 July the Torch sets out from St George’s Square at 6.39am and progresses via Manchester Street, George Street, Park Street, Castle Street and the A505 Chapel Viaduct to Dunstable Road”

The Torch then continues into Dunstable.

More information

• More details of the weekends events from the Herald & Post

• Love Luton 2012 Festival Weekend pages from Luton Borough Council

Apologies for the break in service.

I’ve had a busy few months work wise and so have lacked some of the time, and if I am honest some of the inclination, to keep up with the blogging. So I have missed writing about a number of things I would otherwise have commented on. I’m choosing to make a bit of an effort to get my blogging mojo back and so thought it would be useful to catch up on some those things.

Given that the last two posts on this blog were about the the row over Vince Cable’s choice of Prof Les Ebdon as the new director of the Office of Fair Access it is only fair that I comment on how that issue resolved itself. Going all the way back to the 20 February I am pleased to see that Cable stuck to his guns, ignored the snobbery of various right-wing commentators and the objections of Tory backbenchers (and one or two Tory cabinet members), and appointed Professor Ebdon to the role.

Here is the BBC report on the apointment and also from the BBC footage of Cable announcing his decision in the House of Commons. Also the press releases from the University of Bedfordshire and from OFFA itself.

Plus some reaction from the Lib Dem blogosphere: Liberal England: Vince Cable right to hold firm over Professor Les Ebdon and Offa and Lib Dem Gains: Les Ebdon appointed by Vince Cable.

While there are many things that make me uncomfortable about the Liberal Democrats participation in the coalition government – there are other things that remind me why it was right decision for the Party to take part. This is one of them.

The whiff of snobbery that I was detecting in the row over Vince cable’s choice of Prof Les Ebdon as the new director of the Office of Fair Access seems to becoming a stench. Witness this extraordinary article from Charles Moore in the Telegraph.

Apparently the retiring University of Bedfordshire Vice Chancellor, Prof Ebdon, is unsuitable to be the head of this body designed to ensure the as wide a range of people as possible can get access to a university education because he “will never understand poor people like Jude the Obscure”.

Now you may wonder why the deep knowledge of a fictional character in one of the great novels of Thomas Hardy is an essential requirement to head up a body that is about fairness in education. Well according to Mr Moore, Hardy’s hero was awestruck by Oxford. Apparently it is now an essential requirement for today’s modern student that they should emulate Jude and be afraid of their university.

By way of a little dig at Luton, Mr Moore goes on to explain that Prof Ebdon is opposed to this view and believes that universities should be “user-friendly”. So what is needed instead to head up this body is “a leading ex-public school headmaster”.

Believe me, I’m not making this nonsense up! Go read for yourself.

I said before that my judgement was that Prof Ebdon was a good choice for this role, but I did have some reservations in taking that view. Witnessing the Tory right puff themselves up to ridiculous proportions in order to oppose the appointment has shoved those reservations right out the window.

So it is Ebdon for OFFA for me!

I had previously made a passing reference to the “retirement” of Prof Les Ebdon from his post as Vice Chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire. If we were wondering what Les would do next it wasn’t long before we found out. Business secretary Vince cable has chosen to appoint him as the new director of the Office for Fair Access, a watchdog designed to ensure that people from all backgrounds are able to benefit from higher education.

There is no question that during his time at the University of Bedfordshire Prof Ebdon has been a highly effective and successful advocate for the expansion of university education and for making it available to people from all walks of life. He has been a fixture on the local political scene for most of the time that I’ve been significantly involved in it and in the latter years he has developed a certain national profile. He always gave me the impression of being a bit of a canny operator. So my judgment, for what it is worth, is that he was a very good choice to fill this post.

So it is disappointing that his appointment has become the subject of a very fierce and public political row.

In voting against his appointment the Tories on the Business, Innovation and Skills select committee have started off a tussle that appears to be going straight to the top of the coalition government. Our Vince is standing by his choice, but there seems to be a significant lobby that wants to prevent our Les from getting the job.

Prof Ebdon has been outspoken and he clearly has an agenda, which is controversial in some quarters, and as chair of the Million+ group of new universities I wouldn’t be surprised if he hasn’t ruffled a few feathers amongst those leading our more established educational institutions. So it seems the man has enemies.

So I smell a slight whiff of conspiracy over this. One that I wouldn’t be surprised is heavily motivated by snobbery. OK, my perspective may be slightly too influenced by the works of Tom Sharpe or certain episodes of Yes Minister, but the Guardian has reported that;

“Private schools and the country’s 20 leading research universities are thought to have lobbied against Ebdon’s appointment.”

I’ve also just seen this article on the Daily Mail’s website which claims;

“were Professor Leslie (‘Les’) Ebdon of the University of Bedfordshire to have his way our finest universities would slide their way irreversibly down the international league tables.”

Read it, note the spurious invention of “ebdonology”, the assumption that the only thing holding back people from getting a university education is ‘poor standards in schools’, and the belief that measures to establish fairness will “create social injustice by depriving really able candidates of the places they clearly deserve at major universities” (ie. the children of middle class Mail readers), and you will see precisely why Professor Ebdon should be supported in his attempt to secure this position.

I very much hope this is a battle that Vince Cable wins.