sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979 
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Feb 10, 2021 2:43:29 GMT
Starting again from scratch is something I've done far too many times already. I really hope that the Boundary Commission will grasp the nettle by the horns and realise the sense of splitting wards in order to avoid orquardly disruptive contrafibularities.
What would be helpful is a hard and fast rule for the BCE to consider. Something like:
Any ward with an electorate greater than 15% of the quota can be split between two seats in exceptional circumstances.
The 'exceptional circumstances' would be things like local authorities that are entitled to a whole number of seats, but where it is impossible to fit them in because all possible contiguous seats consisting of n wards are under quota and all seats consisting of n+1 wards are over.
There seem to be a lot of situations where all the wards are around 11-12k, and six wards is always just too small and seven is just too big.
If Na h-Eileanan an Iar with its 20,000 horrendously overrepresented Teuchters and a dachshund called Colin can stand alone, I think democracy can handle the division of Hayes and Coney Hall into two separate constituencies!
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,722
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 10, 2021 3:32:18 GMT
I don't mind walking 11 minutes to the polling station. I do mind if I go straight past a different polling station on the way; I do care that my elderly neighbours have to do the same journey; I do mind if the decision is reversed for no good reason and has to be undone again. Ahhh! Bless!! Are there no postal votes? Are there no proxy options.? Are there no car lifts? Are there no wheelchairs? Is Croydon snoflake city? Again, you miss the point. I don't mind walking 11 minutes, or 20 minutes, or even 30 minutes. What I do object to is that only 2 minutes away from where I live is another polling station which (at that time) served a different polling district. On your 21 mile drive, did you drive past other polling stations which were closer to your home, but which served different areas? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 10, 2021 7:06:42 GMT
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Feb 10, 2021 7:42:15 GMT
This is identical to what I've done with these three boroughs, and, on balance, is probably the least-bad solution. Only thing I really don't like is the 'Bromley and Chiselhurst' name - e.g. if using 'Croydon' to refer to the entire borough, I'd be consistent if and when using borough names in adjacent seats.
I know the seats are currently named this way and 'minimal change' and all that. But that doesn't mean it doesn't irritate the fuck out of people like me.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 10, 2021 8:12:29 GMT
For the Bexley-Bromley-Croydon group, I'm inclined to suggest having two constituencies crossing from Bromley into Croydon. I think it's fairly unarguable that New Addington is the part of Croydon most separate from the rest of the borough, so I think they ought to be the first to be removed. You then need a couple of extra wards to go. In an ideal world it'd be the two Selsdon wards, but a) that means you end up with two very thin constituencies in central/southern Croydon and b) it makes an awful mess of Bromley. So instead I suggest removing the two Shirley wards. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about this plan, but it minimises change to most constituencies and the only area that does really badly out of it is Orpington:  That would be an abomination. New Addington has no connections (literally) with Bromley at all, and is culturally and psephologically completely different. It has a connection with the rest of Central/East Croydon, albeit fairly tenuous. Shirley is also part of Croydon, not connected properly to West Wickham. My version recognises the reality that the best place to straddle over the Croydon borough boundary is to the north of Croydon, where the wards begin to merge into the demographics of inner London. Ideally, that would normally be Lambeth - but, due to Lambeth being its own thing with a whole 3 constituencies - the next best bit is the Penge/Crystal Palace area. And of course your version of Croydon Central would have a Labour majority of 9k, which literally nobody would want to happen. It's certainly true that given trends in the area, your version would be preferable for Labour. Otherwise I don't really agree - New Addington's transport links to Bromley are rubbish, but there are a few bus connections. The ward boundary between Shirley North and Kelsey and Eden Park is absolutely seamless. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 10, 2021 8:57:39 GMT
This is identical to what I've done with these three boroughs, and, on balance, is probably the least-bad solution. Only thing I really don't like is the 'Bromley and Chiselhurst' name - e.g. if using 'Croydon' to refer to the entire borough, I'd be consistent if and when using borough names in adjacent seats. I know the seats are currently named this way and 'minimal change' and all that. But that doesn't mean it doesn't irritate the fuck out of people like me.
The obvious difference is that the borough of Croydon is the town of Croydon (or as it was the county borough) with relatively minor appendages. Bromley borough is a collection of several smaller towns/boroughs of which Bromley itself is only one. It would have been ridiculous to name Orpington as Bromley East or Beckenham as Bromley West. Conversely while there are distinct neighbourhoods within Croydon, they are just neighbourhoods of Croydon so to name the seats as (for example) Thornton Heath & Norbury or Addiscombe & Addington would make little sense without referencing Croydon itself*. Croydon North describes exactly what it is. Bromley & Chislehurst does likewise. *you could make an exception in the case of Croydon South, or at least the pre-1997 version of it which was based largely on the old Coulsdon & Purley UD but the time to have done that is long passed and with the seat now including Waddon as well as South Croydon the current name remains most appropriate. You presumably aren't advocating that Hornchurch & Upminster should be renamed Havering East or that Ilford South be renamed Redbridge South ? |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Feb 10, 2021 9:18:52 GMT
You presumably aren't advocating that Hornchurch & Upminster should be renamed Havering East or that Ilford South be renamed Redbridge South ? Presumably I am! The two Ilford seats are particularly annoying given that they're named after a borough long since dissolved. The idea that the entire area covered by them is all 'Ilford' in any other sense is insane. But as I say, it's the doing things different ways in different places that I really don't like. My preference would be for Lewisham Deptford; Wandsworth Battersea; that sort of format. With cross-borough seats just using two place names, one from each borough in the Hampstead & Kilburn for. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 10, 2021 9:33:28 GMT
Presumably I am! The two Ilford seats are particularly annoying given that they're named after a borough long since dissolved. The idea that the entire area covered by them is all 'Ilford' in any other sense is insane. But as I say, it's the doing things different ways in different places that I really don't like. My preference would be for Lewisham Deptford; Wandsworth Battersea; that sort of format. With cross-borough seats just using two place names, one from each borough in the Hampstead & Kilburn for. The problem with the Ilford seats is that the alternative name is Redbridge, which is also the name of a specific place in that borough and so just as capable of being misinterpreted. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Feb 10, 2021 9:41:10 GMT
The problem with the Ilford seats is that the alternative name is Redbridge, which is also the name of a specific place in that borough and so just as capable of being misinterpreted. Indeed - this is why I'd want consistency. Either use borough names to refer only to boroughs or portions thereof, or avoid them altogether in that context. It's the slapdash mix'n'match approach and lack of logic that pisses me off. And I think much of this comes from the deference to existing boundaries and names, even when the existing arrangements date from various different points in history and are consequently inconsistent. Also when there's a XXX North without a matching South anywhere. |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,433
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Feb 10, 2021 9:53:18 GMT
These inconsistencies in Redbridge, Croydon and Bromley are more apparent than real: they reflect the various historic administrative geographies of the respective areas. Obviously it's possible to argue against this as an approach, but it certainly isn't 'slapdash'.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Feb 10, 2021 11:30:27 GMT
For the Bexley-Bromley-Croydon group, I'm inclined to suggest having two constituencies crossing from Bromley into Croydon. I think it's fairly unarguable that New Addington is the part of Croydon most separate from the rest of the borough, so I think they ought to be the first to be removed. You then need a couple of extra wards to go. In an ideal world it'd be the two Selsdon wards, but a) that means you end up with two very thin constituencies in central/southern Croydon and b) it makes an awful mess of Bromley. So instead I suggest removing the two Shirley wards. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about this plan, but it minimises change to most constituencies and the only area that does really badly out of it is Orpington: Erith & Crayford 74032 - optionally, swap West Heath and Bexleyheath Bexleyheath 70311 - if you make the swap, you obviously need a different name Orpington & Sidcup 72431 - there are a lot of ways of arranging wards to make this seat, but whatever happens* you end up having to lose one 'core' Orpington ward. Farnborough is picked here because it looks neater on a map Bromley & Chislehurst 74369 - gains Shortlands Hayes & New Addington 75473 - better names are almost certainly available Beckenham & Shirley 76446 Croydon South 71628 Croydon Central 73866 Croydon North 75016 * There is a way to keep those wards together if you rejig the Bexley seats and pair Sidcup with Chislehurst, but you end up having to put Crystal Palace ward in the Southwark-Lewisham-Greenwich group. I like that arrangement for Croydon, as per my plan earlier in thread. I also keept Orpington together, and maintained the pattern of existing seats in Greenwich/Lewisham, but with other downsides and more cross-borough seats overall. Weirdly I quite liked my Sidcup & Cray Valley (!)  |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,916
|
Post by YL on Feb 10, 2021 11:36:34 GMT
If you've got a Bexley/Bromley/Croydon group, how are things going to work further west? Obviously we don't have the electorate figures in some of the boroughs yet, but neither Merton nor Kingston can stand alone, and the pairing of them doesn't work either. Both of them together with the part of Richmond south (east really) of the Thames for four big seats? ( islington's suggested grouping of boroughs, which was what I'd been working with, would require a cross-Thames seat in Richmond.) |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 10, 2021 12:17:28 GMT
If you've got a Bexley/Bromley/Croydon group, how are things going to work further west? Obviously we don't have the electorate figures in some of the boroughs yet, but neither Merton nor Kingston can stand alone, and the pairing of them doesn't work either. Both of them together with the part of Richmond south (east really) of the Thames for four big seats? ( islington's suggested grouping of boroughs, which was what I'd been working with, would require a cross-Thames seat in Richmond.) I've been working on four seats for Merton, Kingston and Richmond south of the Thames. It's pretty easy to do as the ward sizes are quite helpful. One ward from Twickenham then needs to go in with Hounslow. This is trickier, but just about everything to do with Hounslow's wards is tricky. |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Feb 10, 2021 12:21:27 GMT
If you've got a Bexley/Bromley/Croydon group, how are things going to work further west? Obviously we don't have the electorate figures in some of the boroughs yet, but neither Merton nor Kingston can stand alone, and the pairing of them doesn't work either. Both of them together with the part of Richmond south (east really) of the Thames for four big seats? ( islington's suggested grouping of boroughs, which was what I'd been working with, would require a cross-Thames seat in Richmond.) This was my effort - but I have everything south of the river in one big group, whereas I know most in here want smaller sub-groups of boroughs. I am generally not too worried about crossing borough boundaries when appropriate.  |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,433
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Feb 10, 2021 12:53:55 GMT
If you've got a Bexley/Bromley/Croydon group, how are things going to work further west? Obviously we don't have the electorate figures in some of the boroughs yet, but neither Merton nor Kingston can stand alone, and the pairing of them doesn't work either. Both of them together with the part of Richmond south (east really) of the Thames for four big seats? ( islington 's suggested grouping of boroughs, which was what I'd been working with, would require a cross-Thames seat in Richmond.) Yes, I've been thinking about this.
I'm attracted by the 8-seat Southwark/Lewisham/Greenwich as suggested by johnloony , especially in the modified version posted by East Anglian Lefty . With a bit of luck it should avoid having to put any Merton wards in a Croydon seat and it holds out the very attractive prospect of being able to use the Thames as a boundary.
If you give:
6 seats to Wandsworth/Lambeth (possibly slipping in a Merton ward if to avoid splits)
8 to Southwark/Lewisham/Greenwich;
9 to Croydon/Bromley/Bexley; 2 to Sutton;
4 to Merton/Kingston and Richmond south of the Thames (maybe less one Merton ward); then you have 29 seats south of the Thames. That leaves 46 for everything north of the Thames, where we already have decent plans assigning 14 to metropolitan Essex plus TH. We are now left with 2397559 electors = 32.67 but only 32 seats available. I'm not saying this is impossible but it may not be easy. Enfield/Haringey/Hackney is 7.22 which looks very tight for 7; throwing in Islington as well makes it 9.16, which should work better. That leaves 1724656 = 23.50 = 23.
Twickenham/Hounslow/H&F = 367740 = 5.01. This is tempting but it leaves 1356916 = 18.49 for the rest. But if you could squeeze in K&C as well it would give 452346 = 6.16 = 6, which might not be impossible bearing in mind wards are nice and small in H&F and K&C; in this case leaving 1272310 = 17.34 = 17.
This could be either: Hillingdon/Harrow/Barnet = 595453 = 8.11 = 8, leaving the rest with 676857 = 9.22 = 9; or Hillingdon/Ealing/Brent = 602044 = 8.20 = 8, leaving 670266 = 9.13.
This is going to be fun, isn't it?
|
|
🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️
Conservative & Unionist
Party hats roasting on an open fire...
Posts: 3,987
Member is Online
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 10, 2021 12:59:55 GMT
What would be helpful is a hard and fast rule for the BCE to consider. Something like: Any ward with an electorate greater than 15% of the quota can be split between two seats in exceptional circumstances. I think we should go further. It should be divided so that the portion in each constituency would be a valid local government ward, and the Local Government Commission should be directed to hold an interim review to split such wards to bring the boundaries into line with Parliamentary constituencies. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 10, 2021 13:27:59 GMT
If he is a vicar and goes by Father he must be an Anglo-Catholic rather than a Roman. Which makes it a Vicarage not a Manse It's a bit odd when the church the ward is named after isn't included in the ward. Huh. I had always assumed it was a inconsequential language difference rather than an Anglican/Presbyterian divide. There was a Welsh sit-com (well, it was a situation; I never found any trace of comedy) with the title "Teulu'r Mans" (The Family of the Manse). So the form appears to have some currency in Wales. But the word I should have used was vicarage. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 10, 2021 14:11:04 GMT
If you've got a Bexley/Bromley/Croydon group, how are things going to work further west? Obviously we don't have the electorate figures in some of the boroughs yet, but neither Merton nor Kingston can stand alone, and the pairing of them doesn't work either. Both of them together with the part of Richmond south (east really) of the Thames for four big seats? ( islington 's suggested grouping of boroughs, which was what I'd been working with, would require a cross-Thames seat in Richmond.) Yes, I've been thinking about this.
I'm attracted by the 8-seat Southwark/Lewisham/Greenwich as suggested by johnloony , especially in the modified version posted by East Anglian Lefty . With a bit of luck it should avoid having to put any Merton wards in a Croydon seat and it holds out the very attractive prospect of being able to use the Thames as a boundary. If you give:
6 seats to Wandsworth/Lambeth (possibly slipping in a Merton ward if to avoid splits)
8 to Southwark/Lewisham/Greenwich;
9 to Croydon/Bromley/Bexley; 2 to Sutton;
4 to Merton/Kingston and Richmond south of the Thames (maybe less one Merton ward); then you have 29 seats south of the Thames. That leaves 46 for everything north of the Thames, where we already have decent plans assigning 14 to metropolitan Essex plus TH. We are now left with 2397559 electors = 32.67 but only 32 seats available. I'm not saying this is impossible but it may not be easy. Enfield/Haringey/Hackney is 7.22 which looks very tight for 7; throwing in Islington as well makes it 9.16, which should work better. That leaves 1724656 = 23.50 = 23. Twickenham/Hounslow/H&F = 367740 = 5.01. This is tempting but it leaves 1356916 = 18.49 for the rest. But if you could squeeze in K&C as well it would give 452346 = 6.16 = 6, which might not be impossible bearing in mind wards are nice and small in H&F and K&C; in this case leaving 1272310 = 17.34 = 17.
This could be either: Hillingdon/Harrow/Barnet = 595453 = 8.11 = 8, leaving the rest with 676857 = 9.22 = 9; or Hillingdon/Ealing/Brent = 602044 = 8.20 = 8, leaving 670266 = 9.13.
This is going to be fun, isn't it?
I would suspect that the BCE will want to leave the 5 Harrow and Hillingdon seats unchanged, which doesn't make the maths any easier - most natural combinations of boroughs end up giving north London one more seat than it's entitled to. Assuming you leave Harrow and Hillingdon alone, give two seats to Camden, treat Enfield, Haringey, Hackney and Islington as a group for 9 seats and assign 14 seats to Tower Hamlet and east of the Lea, that leaves 16.47 quotas north of the Thames and space for 16 seats. Given that in a lot of boroughs the natural combinations of wards tend to cluster round the bottom of the acceptable range, that's pretty tight. I do wonder if it might end up making sense to consider the City along with Newham and Tower Hamlets just to make the group of 16 slightly easier to deal with. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,916
|
Post by YL on Feb 10, 2021 14:21:58 GMT
What would be helpful is a hard and fast rule for the BCE to consider. Something like: Any ward with an electorate greater than 15% of the quota can be split between two seats in exceptional circumstances. I think we should go further. It should be divided so that the portion in each constituency would be a valid local government ward, and the Local Government Commission should be directed to hold an interim review to split such wards to bring the boundaries into line with Parliamentary constituencies. For three of the last five General Elections the ward I lived in was been split between constituencies. It's not that big a deal, and your suggestion would be entirely impractical in many of the areas most likely to be affected. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,916
|
Post by YL on Feb 10, 2021 14:25:11 GMT
I would suspect that the BCE will want to leave the 5 Harrow and Hillingdon seats unchanged, which doesn't make the maths any easier - most natural combinations of boroughs end up giving north London one more seat than it's entitled to. Assuming you leave Harrow and Hillingdon alone, give two seats to Camden, treat Enfield, Haringey, Hackney and Islington as a group for 9 seats and assign 14 seats to Tower Hamlet and east of the Lea, that leaves 16.47 quotas north of the Thames and space for 16 seats. Given that in a lot of boroughs the natural combinations of wards tend to cluster round the bottom of the acceptable range, that's pretty tight. I do wonder if it might end up making sense to consider the City along with Newham and Tower Hamlets just to make the group of 16 slightly easier to deal with. ... or with Islington or Camden, depending on how those boroughs work out? |
|
