Local government boundary and electoral changes

[Pete Whitehead]

@histirc' ward names lol. St Dunstans goes back to 1959, Lansbury to 1978 and Banglatown to 2002

[stepney]

Feb 1, 2013 22:45:46 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

@histirc' ward names lol. St Dunstans goes back to 1959, Lansbury to 1978 and Banglatown to 2002

1959 is practically halfway through the period of local borough government in London, but St Dunstan's as a church is a little more historic than that. I think Shadwell and Millwall are the only ward names to have been retained all the way through since 1900.

[Pete Whitehead]

Well I'll give them St Dunstans. Hell I'd give them Lansbury too to be fair

[stepney]

Only if there's a Thatcher ward of Barnet. Or indeed if there's an Attlee ward of Tower Hamlets.

Me, I don't really like naming wards after party leaders.

[greatkingrat]

Councils have the power to rename their wards (with a 2/3 majority) anyway, so in many ways it doesn't matter what the LGBCE recommend as they can change it back before the next elections.

[Pete Whitehead]

Feb 2, 2013 8:24:08 GMT stepney said:

Only if there's a Thatcher ward of Barnet. Or indeed if there's an Attlee ward of Tower Hamlets.

Me, I don't really like naming wards after party leaders.

Isn't it named after the Lansbury estate though really (which is of course named after George Lansbury). Do you have a problem with Churchill ward in Westminster?

[stepney]

Feb 2, 2013 9:22:27 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Isn't it named after the Lansbury estate though really (which is of course named after George Lansbury). Do you have a problem with Churchill ward in Westminster?

The old Lansbury ward covered the whole of the Lansbury Estate, but now half of the estate is in the current Limehouse ward. All of the argument in favour of keeping the name Lansbury has centred entirely on George Lansbury rather than the name of the estate. Really it's been Labour and Respect vying to cloak themselves in the socialism-champion of the poor-Rates Revolt etc. mantle of Lansbury, so as a Tory the obvious reaction is to support 'Poplar North'.

As for Churchill, he rather transcends party politics. Isn't that ward named after Churchill Gardens though? I don't see that Churchill himself would have any other connection with Pimlico.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Feb 2, 2013 9:38:41 GMT stepney said:

As for Churchill, he rather transcends party politics. Isn't that ward named after Churchill Gardens though? I don't see that Churchill himself would have any other connection with Pimlico.

Oh rubbish does Churchill transcend party politics. Churchill Gardens was named after him in 1950 when he was leader of the opposition and an active party politician.

[YL]

I hope no-one proposes renaming my ward Clegg.

[stepney]

Feb 2, 2013 9:51:36 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Feb 2, 2013 9:38:41 GMT stepney said:

As for Churchill, he rather transcends party politics. Isn't that ward named after Churchill Gardens though? I don't see that Churchill himself would have any other connection with Pimlico.

Oh rubbish does Churchill transcend party politics. Churchill Gardens was named after him in 1950 when he was leader of the opposition and an active party politician.

Give over. I know full well he was Leader of the Opposition and an active party politician in 1950. You know exactly what I mean. The Times Guide for that year describes the member for Woodford thus: "His vision of leadership inspired the British people with the will to win during the long year when they stood alone against the might of Nazi Germany. Mr. Churchill is universally recognised as the architect of the victory of the United Nations..." I don't have the pre-war Times Guides but I'll bet none of them give the member for Bow and Bromley any similar laudations.

At any rate, I would make an exception to (what I would prefer to be) the rule of not naming wards after party politicians for Churchill. But not for George Lansbury, who even his own party didn't want in the leadership.

[Pete Whitehead]

There is a Baldwin ward in Malvern Hills which must have been named for the former MP for the area and party leader/PM. There is of course a Disraeli ward in Wycombe and there used to be a Gladstone ward in Brent - though that was named for Gladston Park, that in turn had been named for William Gladstone

[erlend]

Churchill did manage to get a certain amount of cross party respect even when he was PM. I seem to remember Labour treated him well for his 80th in 1954. On the other hand his behaviour as Home Secretary in the pre WW1 era (I think) left some sour memories. My Mother born a generation later in a mining family said that other people could have done as well in WW2.

I think naming places after the departed is one thing. But not while they are alive. And I also dislike the Aussie habit of giving names of irrelevant politicians to electorates a silly. Perhaps no worse than the Yankee method of numbering them. We have arguments over our names (see this forum passim) but I prefer a name that is relevant.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Feb 2, 2013 10:05:30 GMT stepney said:

Feb 2, 2013 9:51:36 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Oh rubbish does Churchill transcend party politics. Churchill Gardens was named after him in 1950 when he was leader of the opposition and an active party politician.

Give over. I know full well he was Leader of the Opposition and an active party politician in 1950. You know exactly what I mean. The Times Guide for that year describes the member for Woodford thus: "His vision of leadership inspired the British people with the will to win during the long year when they stood alone against the might of Nazi Germany. Mr. Churchill is universally recognised as the architect of the victory of the United Nations..." I don't have the pre-war Times Guides but I'll bet none of them give the member for Bow and Bromley any similar laudations.

The Times may be referred to as our national newspaper of record but that does not mean that its judgments are unimpeachably correct in all circumstances. In any case the quote you have offered does not serve to support the contention. It does not state that Churchill had transcended party politics. It just says that he lead the nation as Prime Minister to win the war. He did that while a party politician. Lloyd George did the same in the Great War and he remained just as much a party politician.

At any rate, I would make an exception to (what I would prefer to be) the rule of not naming wards after party politicians for Churchill. But not for George Lansbury, who even his own party didn't want in the leadership.

On one level Lansbury was profoundly outside party politics. He had things he believed in (Women's suffrage, pacifism) for which he was prepared to stand up even when it split and damaged his party. That cannot be said of Churchill to the same extent; he did not actually damage the Conservatives when he objected to its stances over India in 1930, Edward VIII in 1936 and appeasement in 1935-39.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Feb 2, 2013 9:38:41 GMT stepney said:

The old Lansbury ward covered the whole of the Lansbury Estate, but now half of the estate is in the current Limehouse ward. All of the argument in favour of keeping the name Lansbury has centred entirely on George Lansbury rather than the name of the estate. Really it's been Labour and Respect vying to cloak themselves in the socialism-champion of the poor-Rates Revolt etc. mantle of Lansbury, so as a Tory the obvious reaction is to support 'Poplar North'.

On the grounds that unnecessary change should be opposed, except when there's an opportunity to be childishly spiteful?

[cibwr]

Feb 2, 2013 11:34:45 GMT erlend said:

Churchill did manage to get a certain amount of cross party respect even when he was PM. I seem to remember Labour treated him well for his 80th in 1954. On the other hand his behaviour as Home Secretary in the pre WW1 era (I think) left some sour memories. My Mother born a generation later in a mining family said that other people could have done as well in WW2.

I think naming places after the departed is one thing. But not while they are alive. And I also dislike the Aussie habit of giving names of irrelevant politicians to electorates a silly. Perhaps no worse than the Yankee method of numbering them. We have arguments over our names (see this forum passim) but I prefer a name that is relevant.

IIRC both Walsall and Rhondda refused to contribute to a memorial fund for Churchill..... not sure what he had done to Walsall though.

[stepney]

Feb 2, 2013 12:27:35 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

On the grounds that unnecessary change should be opposed, except when there's an opportunity to be childishly spiteful?

No, not at all (except insofar as spiting someone like Lutfur Rahman is a public good). It's just that all the argument in favour of retaining a Lansbury ward has been based on Labour history which I find distasteful, as I would find it distasteful if someone said there should be a Thatcher ward in Barnet because of her towering presence in the Tory Party. Naming a political construct like a ward after either of them because of their political importance seems to me to disfranchise those of a different view who actually live there.

Whereas I do genuinely view Churchill as above party politics through his war leadership, notwithstanding the deliberate misconstruing of my argument by the hon. member for Paddington.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Feb 2, 2013 18:04:03 GMT stepney said:

Feb 2, 2013 12:27:35 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

On the grounds that unnecessary change should be opposed, except when there's an opportunity to be childishly spiteful?

No, not at all (except insofar as spiting someone like Lutfur Rahman is a public good). It's just that all the argument in favour of retaining a Lansbury ward has been based on Labour history which I find distasteful, as I would find it distasteful if someone said there should be a Thatcher ward in Barnet because of her towering presence in the Tory Party. Naming a political construct like a ward after either of them because of their political importance seems to me to disfranchise those of a different view who actually live there.

The ward is currently named East India & Lansbury. It does not change significantly under the proposals and continues to include a large portion of the Lansbury estate. The fact that the campaign to save the ward name is being carried out in an idiotic manner does not constitute grounds to support a change of name. Supporting a change of name to Poplar North is simply spite.

[stepney]

Feb 2, 2013 19:21:04 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

The ward is currently named East India & Lansbury. It does not change significantly under the proposals and continues to include a large portion of the Lansbury estate. The fact that the campaign to save the ward name is being carried out in an idiotic manner does not constitute grounds to support a change of name. Supporting a change of name to Poplar North is simply spite.

Oh well, so be it, it's spite then. I suppose if the Barnet Tories ever did get a ward named Thatcher, the Barnet Labour Party would never support changing it to something else when they got the chance, because that would simply be spite.

[erlend]

I can ask without looking at a map 'Does the estate dominate the ward'?

[East Anglian Lefty]

Feb 2, 2013 19:38:37 GMT stepney said:

Feb 2, 2013 19:21:04 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

The ward is currently named East India & Lansbury. It does not change significantly under the proposals and continues to include a large portion of the Lansbury estate. The fact that the campaign to save the ward name is being carried out in an idiotic manner does not constitute grounds to support a change of name. Supporting a change of name to Poplar North is simply spite.

Oh well, so be it, it's spite then. I suppose if the Barnet Tories ever did get a ward named Thatcher, the Barnet Labour Party would never support changing it to something else when they got the chance, because that would simply be spite.

I'd like to think the Barnet Labour Party would have somewhat more useful things to spend their time on than arguing over a ward name.