Solihull's new political map confirmed ahead of major 2026 elections
The final recommendations for how Solihull's political map will be carved up have been published.
And the Local Government Boundary Commission has resolved an issue which caused friction between councillors last year.
The Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBC) has published its final proposed electoral map for the borough which includes new wards and boundaries and would see the biggest change for two decades.
READ MORE: Extension opposed by neighbours set for approval despite home 'not conforming'
For more stories from across Solihull including BHX, breaking news, politics and what's on, sign up to our MySolihull newsletter
Under the changes there would continue to be 17 three-councillor wards but with some having different names.
The LGBC's proposed ward names would be:
Arden
Balsall and Berkswell
Blythe
Castle Bromwich
Chelmsley Wood
Dorridge and Hockley Heath
Elmdon
Kingshurst and Fordbridge
Knowle
Lyndon
Olton
Sharmans Cross
Shirley South
Shirley West
Silhill
Smith's Wood
St Alphege and Monkspat
Residents are to be represented by 51 councillors, the same as the current set-up.
The LGBC is tasked with updating the map to ensure electoral equality for voters and 16 ward boundaries have been changed.
As reported by the Local Democracy Reporting Service one of the most contentious debates had been over where the boundary should fall between the Castle Bromwich and Smith's Wood wards.
The commission originally recommended the 'Cars' estate - the area between Lanchester Way and Auckland Drive - be moved from the current Smith's Wood ward to the Castle Bromwich ward.
The Conservative group on Solihull Council opposed that, arguing residents in that area saw themselves as part of Smith's Wood.
The commission is now proposing including Buckingham Road in the Castle Bromwich ward, instead of the Cars Area, after hearing the feedback.
In another change the Commission said: 'We propose retaining the existing boundary between Lyndon and Olton wards, following significant local responses which indicated our draft recommendations did not reflect local links.'
Prof Colin Mellors, chairman of the Commission, said: 'We are very grateful to people in Solihull.
'We looked at all the views they gave us - they helped us improve our earlier proposals.
'We believe the new arrangements will deliver electoral fairness while maintaining local ties.'
Changes will become law once approved by Parliament and this is set to happen before next year's local elections, when all councillors will be standing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Without a Badenoch/Farage pact, the Left will rule Scotland for decades to come
Did Zia Yusuf's dramatic (and as it turns out, temporary) resignation on the day of the Hamilton by-election cost Reform the seat? Of course not. The idea that chaos in Reform puts off its voters is based on a misunderstanding of what motivates those voters. Reform exists because the older parties failed. You might argue that not all of that failure was their fault. Some of the issues that enrage the electorate – poor public services, high taxes, rising prices, dwindling social capital – are the products of a lockdown that 93 per cent of the country demanded. Others are products of our demographic decline: nations with elderly populations are bound to be less dynamic. Equally, though, there have been unforced errors and broken promises, above all on immigration. Reform is a howl of protest against those betrayals. It is an essentially negative vote, and I say that in no slighting spirit. Every party attracts negative votes. I used to get lots of them as a Conservative MEP when people wanted to punish Labour governments. Negative votes can take you, Trump-like, to the very top. I simply make the point that Reform's supporters show scant interest in their party's policies, let alone its personnel. Reform came from nowhere in the Hamilton by-election despite not having a leader in Scotland. It is hard to imagine the famously resilient electors of Lanarkshire determining their vote on the basis of an unelected party official resigning in London. If we want to play 'what if', the thing that might have given Reform the extra 1,471 votes it needed was the backing of the local Conservatives. Not every Tory would vote for Reform in the absence of a Conservative candidate, of course. Still, the electoral system used for Holyrood argues strongly for a deal at next year's Scottish Parliament election. Just as the SNP and the Scottish Greens used to maximise their representation by focusing respectively on the constituencies and the top-up list, so Reform and the Tories should do the same in 11 months' time. In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the parties have similar policies but different electorates. The Scottish Conservatives are strong in the Borders and the north-east, Reform in the more populous Central Belt. An understanding between them would leave both with more MSPs next May. Such a deal in Wales might have put Reform into office had the principality not just ditched that voting system and adopted EU-style proportional representation, but that's another story. How many Tory and Reform voters would co-operate? Although the two manifestos are compatible – lower taxes, strong defence, less wokery, secure borders, growth over greenery – tonal and aesthetic differences remain. Some Reform supporters will never vote Conservative, either because they can't forgive the tax rises and immigration failures of the last administration or, conversely, because they are former Labour voters who would never back the party of Margaret Thatcher. Some Conservatives – a smaller number – recoil from a party they see as a Trumpian personality cult. One way to express the difference is this. The Tories, after three and a half centuries, have a sense of the trade-offs and complexities involved in holding office. Reform is in the happy position of being able to claim that it is simply a question of willpower. Consider the issue of immigration. On Friday, Kemi Badenoch embarked on a major overhaul of the Blairite juridical state. She asked her shadow law officers to look at all treaties and domestic laws that hinder elected ministers from fulfilling their promises, and set five tests by which to measure success. Will we be able to deport people who should not be here, protect our veterans from 'lawfare', prioritise British citizens in housing and welfare, keep malefactors in prison, and get things built? Meeting all five tests is hard, but not impossible. Badenoch wants to take her time and get it right. But, to some, it will come across as equivocation. 'Why can't you just say now that you would leave the European Convention on Human Rights?', they ask. I have no doubt that that is where she will end up. But we need policies, not slogans. Leaving the ECHR is not a skeleton key that unlocks every door. Our problems go far deeper. Outside the ECHR, we would be constrained by numerous other international accords: the UN Refugee Convention; the Paris Agreement on climate change (under which our Australia Free Trade Agreement is being challenged in court); the Aarhus Convention, which caps costs for activist groups bringing eco-challenges. Even the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been used both to challenge deportation orders and to block welfare reforms. All these things need to be looked at, calmly and thoroughly. Nor is it just foreign treaties. The last Labour government passed a series of domestic statutes that constrained its successors: the Human Rights Act, the Climate Change Act, the Equality Act and a dozen more. We need to tackle these, too. What, if anything, should replace the ECHR? Do we update our own 1689 Bill of Rights? Do we offer a CANZUK version? Do we rely on pure majoritarianism? Even if all the obnoxious laws were swept away, what would we do about Left-wing activists who become judges rather than go to the bother of getting themselves elected to anything, and who legislate from the bench? Can we return to the pre-Blair arrangements where the lord chancellor is in charge? My point is that all this requires patience, detail and nuance. But a lot of voters are understandably impatient, and regard nuance as the sign of a havering milksop – a nuancy-boy, so to speak. They see not a Conservative Party determined to repair the broken state machine so that it can deliver on its manifesto, but a bunch of vacillating wets shying away from simple solutions. This worries me. Suppose that Nigel Farage were to form the next government and leave the ECHR, only to find that illegal immigrants continued to arrive, that judges continued to apply the rules asymmetrically, and that every one of his statutes ended up being snarled up in the courts? What would be the impact on our democracy? I pick the example of immigration because it is the most salient, but much the same applies across government. Reducing spending involves trade-offs, and anyone who pretends that there are huge savings to be made by scrapping DEI programmes or cutting waste has not looked at the figures. The same is true of reducing welfare claims, scrapping quangos, reforming the NHS and raising school standards. The diagnosis may be easy, but the treatment will be long and difficult, and will require more than willpower. In his response to Yusuf's resignation, Farage reminded us why he is a successful politician. He blamed Islamophobic trolls for making his party chairman's life impossible, thereby both anticipating the 'no one can work with Nigel' charge and reinforcing his non-racist credentials. The same calculation led him to condemn Tommy Robinson, and played a part in his falling-out with Rupert Lowe. Farage knows that there are hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Muslims, many of whom, like his white supporters, are former Labour voters in decaying northern towns. Unnoticed by the national media, Farage has been reaching out to these communities. Imagine Farage's political nous and personal energy allied to the detailed policy work that the Tories are undertaking. Imagine his reach, whether in Hamilton or in some of those Muslim-dominated old industrial towns, complementing the traditional Conservative appeal to property-owners. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Next year's Scottish elections will be the first test of whether figures on the British Right are prepared to put country before party. A possible by-election in Jacob Rees-Mogg's old seat may be another. But one thing is already clear. If the two parties are taking lumps out of each other all the way to the next general election, they will lose – and they will deserve to. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the amount of foreign aid it spends on hotel bills for asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has learnt. New figures released quietly by ministers in recent days show the Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year - that is only marginally less than the £2.3bn it spent in 2024/25. The money is largely used to cover the accommodation costs of thousands of asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the UK. The Home Office said it was committed to ending asylum hotels and was speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The figures were published on the Home Office website with no accompanying notification to media. Foreign aid is supposed to be spent alleviating poverty by providing humanitarian and development assistance overseas. But under international rules, governments can spend some of their foreign aid budgets at home to support asylum seekers during the first year after their arrival. According to the most recent Home Office figures, there are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Labour promised in its manifesto to "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds". Contracts signed by the Conservative government in 2019 were expected to see £4.5bn of public cash paid to three companies to accommodate asylum seekers over a 10-year period. But a report by spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) in May said that number was expected to be £15.3bn. Asylum accommodation costs set to triple, says watchdog Asylum hotel companies vow to hand back some profits On June 3, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Committee she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation and added: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether." The Home Office said it was trying to bear down on the numbers by reducing the time asylum seekers can appeal against decisions. It is also planning to introduce tighter financial eligibility checks to ensure only those without means are housed. But Whitehall officials and international charities have said the Home Office has no incentive to reduce ODA spending because the money does not come out of its budgets. The scale of government aid spending on asylum hotels has meant huge cuts in UK support for humanitarian and development priorities across the world. Those cuts have been exacerbated by the government's reductions to the overall ODA budget. In February, Sir Keir Starmer said he would cut aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% by 2027 - a fall in absolute terms of about £14bn to some £9bn. Such was the scale of aid spending on asylum hotels in recent years that the previous Conservative government gave the Foreign Office an extra £2bn to shore up its humanitarian commitments overseas. But Labour has refused to match that commitment. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, said: "Cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government. "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul." Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said the government was introducing "savage cuts" to its ODA spending, risking the UK's development priorities and international reputation, while "Home Office raids on the aid budget" had barely reduced. "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict," she said. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK," she said. "The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "Labour promised in their manifesto to end the use of asylum hotels for illegal immigrants. But the truth is there are now thousands more illegal migrants being housed in hotels under Labour. "Now these documents reveal that Labour are using foreign aid to pay for asylum hotel accommodation – yet another promise broken." A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. "We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026." Is the government meeting its pledges on illegal immigration and asylum?
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Reform UK struggles to find friends to share council power
Reform UK's success in the recent local elections has propelled many councillors with limited or no political experience into council chambers across England. While Reform UK's rise was the big story of those elections, almost half of the councils up for grabs were not won outright by any single party. That means many of those newbie councillors are now navigating so-called hung councils, where parties with little in common often work together to get the business of local government done. But so far, it hasn't panned out that way for Reform UK, which isn't involved in any formal coalitions, pacts or deals in areas where there were local elections this year. This was despite rampant speculation about Reform-Conservative coalitions ahead of the polls, with party leaders Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage not ruling out council deals. So, what's going on? In some places - Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Leicestershire - Reform UK has enough councillors to form minority administrations and is attempting to govern alone. In other areas where coalitions were possible, Reform UK has either shunned co-operation or vice versa. Where Reform UK has explored potential partnerships locally, its policies have been viewed with suspicion by the established parties. In Cornwall, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives refused to work with Reform UK, even though it was the biggest party and had won the most seats. Instead, the Lib Dems teamed up with independent councillors to run Cornwall Council as a minority administration. That infuriated Reform UK's group leader in Cornwall, Rob Parsonage, who branded the coalition deal "undemocratic" and "a total stitch-up". Did other parties contrive to exclude Reform UK? The newly minted Lib Dem council leader, Leigh Frost, does not think so. "The reality is our core values at heart of it just stand for two very different things and it makes working together incompatible," Frost told the BBC. "And then Reform was given two weeks to try to form an administration and chose not to." Frost said Reform UK's Cornwall candidates mainly campaigned on immigration. This was echoed in conversations with other local party leaders across the country. The BBC was told Reform's candidates had little local policy to offer and mostly focused on national issues, such as stopping small boats crossing the English Channel. Slashing "wasteful spending" by councils, like Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) in the US, was also a common campaign theme. In Worcestershire, where Reform won the most seats but fell short of a majority, the party's supposed lack of local policy was a major sticking point for the Conservatives. "They haven't got a local prospectus and that was part of the problem," said Adam Kent, Tory group leader on Worcestershire County Council. "They didn't stand on any local issues. It was on national politics. How can you go into coalition with somebody if you don't even know what they stand for?" Joanne Monk, the Reform UK council leader in the county, said she only had "a brief couple of chats" with other party leaders but was uncompromising on coalitions. "I'm damned sure we're not on the same wavelength," she said. She followed the lead of Farage, who ruled out formal coalitions at council level but said "in the interests of local people we'll do deals", in comments ahead of the local elections. In Worcestershire, Reform UK's minority administration may need to do deals to pass key decisions and avoid other parties banding together to veto their plans. Recognising this, she acknowledged other parties were "going to have to work with us at some point". In Northumberland, the Conservatives retained their position as the largest party and gave the impression they were willing to entertain coalition talks with Reform UK, which gained 23 seats. "I said I would work with anyone and my door is open," said Conservative council leader Glen Sanderson. "But Reform the next day put out a press release saying the price for working with the Conservatives would be extremely high. So on that basis, I assumed that was the door closed on me." No talks were held and the Conservatives formed a minority administration. Weeks had passed after the local elections before Mark Peart was voted in as Reform UK's local group leader in the county. As a result, he wasn't in a position to talk to anybody. "Everything had already been agreed," Peart said. "It was too late." Reform UK sources admitted the party was caught a bit flat-footed here and elsewhere as many of its new councillors got the grips with their new jobs in the weeks following the local elections. A support network for those councillors, in the form of training sessions and a local branch system, is being developed by the party. But this week Zia Yusuf, one of the key architects behind that professionalisation drive and the Doge cost-cutting initiative, resigned as party chairman, leaving a gap in the party's leadership. Reform UK's deputy leader, Richard Tice, said the party's success at the local elections "was partly because of the significant efforts and improvements to the infrastructure of the party" spearheaded by Yusuf. Though Yusuf is gone, the party has considerably strengthened its foundations at local level, after gaining 677 new councillors and two mayors. A Reform UK source said party bosses will be keeping an eye out for stand-out councillors who could go on to become parliamentary candidates before the general election. They said in areas where Reform UK runs councils as a minority administration, it's going to take some compromise with other parties and independents to pass budgets and key policies. In the messy world of town halls and council chambers, that could be a tough apprenticeship. Reform UK prepares for real power on a council it now dominates Sir John Curtice: The map that shows Reform's triumph was much more than a protest vote Reform UK makes big gains in English local elections
