|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 10, 2021 15:23:15 GMT
I guess you can also chuck Camden into the group to give you more room to play with.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 10, 2021 15:41:38 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. Hounslow, Kingston and Richmond will all have new ward boundaries with electorates to be revealed in March, then we can do all the calculations all over again. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 10, 2021 15:44:24 GMT
Not crossing the Thames is obviously what one would do in an ideal world but I did find in doing an all London plan that it was necessary to do so. Maybe the new wards in most of Middlesex will make it easier to avoid it. However it happened before with the old Richmond & Barnes seat including East Twickenham and my plans involved linking the bulk of Twickenham 'proper' with Richmond which is not so illogical (ie the St Margarets and North Twickenham, South Twickenham and Twickenham Riverside wards with the 7 Richmond wards South of the Thames). As I say I'd ideally not do that but I'd sooner do it than causing a mess out of the rest of Middlesex by trying to accommodate too many electors in too few seats
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434 
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Feb 10, 2021 17:02:00 GMT
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. Hounslow, Kingston and Richmond will all have new ward boundaries with electorates to be revealed in March, then we can do all the calculations all over again. Hounslow, yes, but have the orders been made yet for Kingston and Richmond? I thought they were going to be done on the old wards. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,917
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Feb 10, 2021 17:20:08 GMT
Hounslow, Kingston and Richmond will all have new ward boundaries with electorates to be revealed in March, then we can do all the calculations all over again. Hounslow, yes, but have the orders been made yet for Kingston and Richmond? I thought they were going to be done on the old wards. Richmond yes, Kingston no, but also yes in Merton. I had a quick look at the Merton changes and I don't think they'll affect the conclusion that it's easy enough to draw four seats in Merton, Kingston and Richmond south of the Thames, and neither of course do the Richmond ones. |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Feb 10, 2021 18:30:16 GMT
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. I can see the rationale for this but it would cause uproar. I'm hoping City/Westminster/Camden/Brent/Ealing with 9.22 will be good for 9 seats but it all turns on the new wards (it's not too difficult with the old ones - can't we simply keep them, please?). |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,917
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Feb 10, 2021 19:18:14 GMT
I would suspect that the BCE will want to leave the 5 Harrow and Hillingdon seats unchanged. I think the new ward boundaries may change that. In particular the three Harrow wards in Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner have gained a substantial area in the ward review, nearly 4000 local government electors. Harrow West is only above the lower limit by 2421, so I think it's likely to fall below after realignment. If it does, then perhaps that will allow it to gain territory from Harrow East and that in turn to take some territory in Barnet. |
|
|
|
Post by jacoblamsden on Feb 10, 2021 19:46:41 GMT
I have never used Boundary Assist before so had a go for the first time – no idea how to upload images to this forum, sorry, so my ramblings will have to suffice. Started in my old home patch of Bromley but ran out of time to do all of South London – I will try and finish it off when I have another spare hour. There are a fair few orphan wards and I wasn't too bothered about borough boundaries, but I’d argue the alternative is much worse – some other plans on this thread managed to impressively split all of Bromley, Beckenham and Orpington!
1. Orpington (70,379) – (Orpington, Petts Wood and Knoll, Farnborough and Crofton, Chelsfield and Pratts Bottom, Bromley Common and Keston, Biggin Hill and Darwin) – keeps the 4 Orpington wards and 3 ‘rural’ Bromley wards together in one constituency.
2. Bromley and Chislehurst (71,035 - Bromley Town, Plaistow and Sundridge, Bickley, Chislehurst, Cray Valley East and Cray Valley West) – keeps the 3 Bromley wards together and reunites the Crays currently split between Orpington and Bromley/Chislehurst. Loses Mottingham and Chislehurst North which is no great loss since contains very little of Chislehurst – that ward is better moved into an Eltham-based constituency, thus uniting Mottingham in one seat.
3. Beckenham (74,847 – Clock House, Copers Cope, Kelsey and Eden Park, Shortlands, West Wickham, Hayes and Coney Hall and Bellingham) – this is better than the current seat in that it brings all of Beckenham back in to one constituency, rather than the centre being split between Beckenham and Lewisham West. Bringing in Bellingham from Lewisham may not be ideal, but it is the natural Lewisham ward for this seat to grab to bring it up to quota since it is out on a limb in the current Lewisham West seat and contains part of Beckenham Place Park as well as Beckenham Hill station.
4. Bexleyheath and Sidcup (74,433 – St Mary and St James, Sidcup, Longlands, Blendon and Penhill, Blackfen and Lamorbey, Bexleyheath and Crook Log) – the 4 Sidcup wards, the 2 Bexleyheath wards and Bexley Village.
5. Erith and Crayford (74,032 - Barnehurst, Northumberland Heath, Erith, Slade Green and Northend, Belvedere, Crayford, West Heath and Thamesmead East) – contains all of Erith, Belvedere and Crayford, as well as the part of Thamesmead in Bexley.
6. Eltham and Welling (75,685 – Eltham North, Eltham West, Eltham South, Middle Park and Sutcliffe, Coldharbour and New Eltham, Mottingham and Chislehurst North, East Wickham and Falconwood and Welling) – it may be a three borough seat, but I’d argue that a constituency comprising the 4 Eltham wards, the 2 Welling wards and the 2 Mottingham wards is pretty sensible really – more so than the present Eltham which splits Mottingham and takes in areas which are really southern suburbs of Woolwich.
7. Woolwich (72,013 – Woolwich Riverside, Woolwich Common, Shooters Hill, Glyndon, Plumstead, Abbey Wood, Thamesmead Moorings) – all of Woolwich and areas that look to Woolwich contained in one seat.
8. Sydenham and Penge (Penge and Cator, Crystal Palace, Sydenham, Forest Hill, Perry Vale, Crofton Park and Dulwich Wood) – the two Penge wards and the three Forest Hill wards, Upper Sydenham and Sydenham Hill. A shame Lower Sydenham (in Bellingham ward) had to be moved into Beckenham, but at least there was another Sydenham, this time in LB Southwark, that could be brought in to replace it.
9. Greenwich and Blackheath (72,023 – Greenwich West, Peninsula, Charlton, Kidbrooke with Hornfair, Blackheath, Blackheath Westcombe and Lewisham Central) – this one’s really annoying. I wanted Lee Green in this seat and Lewisham Central to join Catford and Hither Green but that would make this seat 77 electors too big. At least this unites Blackheath in a single seat whereas it is currently split into two.
10. Catford and Grove Park (75,231 - Hither Green, Catford South, Grove Park, Downham, Rushey Green, Ladywell and Lee Green) – all makes sense apart from that split of Lewisham town centre, but I don't think that could have been avoided without tearing up these plans and starting again.
So that leaves Brockley, Deptford, Evelyn and Telegraph Hill from Lewisham to join a constituency with wards from LB Southwark - to be continued.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 10, 2021 20:01:02 GMT
I've plotted that on a map (can post if you want) and it looks good. It definitely reflects natural communities in this area well. The only problem I think is that you have two seats comprising wards from three boroughs - it isn't a problem for me but you might have a problem persuading the BCE. I've avoided a couple of decent, coherent seats on the grounds that they do that (eg in Barnet/Brent/Harrow)
|
|
|
|
Post by jacoblamsden on Feb 10, 2021 20:05:26 GMT
I've plotted that on a map (can post if you want) and it looks good. It definitely reflects natural communities in this area well. The only problem I think is that you have two seats comprising wards from three boroughs - it isn't a problem for me but you might have a problem persuading the BCE. I've avoided a couple of decent, coherent seats on the grounds that they do that (eg in Barnet/Brent/Harrow) If you could post the map, that would be great. The two three borough seats aren't ideal I agree, but I suppose I started this exercise with the aim of getting every LB Bromley ward into a sensible looking seat which won't be the BCE's top priority! I also may have stored up some problems for the rest of South London but I guess I'll find that out when I pick this up later. The rest will also be more of a challenge since apart from Croydon , I only very vaguely know the rest of South London. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 10, 2021 20:27:31 GMT
I've plotted that on a map (can post if you want) and it looks good. It definitely reflects natural communities in this area well. The only problem I think is that you have two seats comprising wards from three boroughs - it isn't a problem for me but you might have a problem persuading the BCE. I've avoided a couple of decent, coherent seats on the grounds that they do that (eg in Barnet/Brent/Harrow) If you could post the map, that would be great. The two three borough seats aren't ideal I agree, but I suppose I started this exercise with the aim of getting every LB Bromley ward into a sensible looking seat which won't be the BCE's top priority! I also may have stored up some problems for the rest of South London but I guess I'll find that out when I pick this up later. The rest will also be more of a challenge since apart from Croydon , I only very vaguely know the rest of South London.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 10, 2021 20:34:11 GMT
It can be adapted to prevent the three borough Eltham seat. I think Mottingham also fits quite well with Grove Park, Downham etc. Leaves Eltham relatively little changed  The problem with the Dulwich Wood ward thing is that though most of the electorate is in the Sydenham Hill/Crystal Palace area which fits well with the neigbouring wards in Bromley and Lewisham, the boundary cuts right through the middle of Dulwich Village - then again Highgate Village is divided in quite the same way as it happens to be in different boroughs. Think this would be a hard sell though |
|
|
|
Post by where2travel on Feb 10, 2021 21:05:28 GMT
If you have to pick a ward from LW&P to add to a Beckenham seat (in addition to Clock House) then Penge & Cator is a far better fit than Bellingham (although I realise that may have been discounted based on the numbers or for another reason).
Looking at all the proposals Bromley comes out a bit of a mess whichever way the borough is carved up.
|
|
|
|
Post by jacoblamsden on Feb 10, 2021 21:38:06 GMT
If you have to pick a ward from LW&P to add to a Beckenham seat (in addition to Clock House) then Penge & Cator is a far better fit than Bellingham (although I realise that may have been discounted based on the numbers or for another reason). Looking at all the proposals Bromley comes out a bit of a mess whichever way the borough is carved up. You're right about Penge and Cator being the more natural fit with Beckenham, but it was far too big a ward. I agree that Bellingham doesn't really fit that nicely with Beckenham, but then again the Bellingham ward boundary with Perry Vale is the River Pool, and the boundary with Catford South is the railway line and the River Ravensbourne so it is not like it naturally sits in either a Lewisham East or West constituency. |
|
|
|
Post by jacoblamsden on Feb 10, 2021 21:43:59 GMT
It can be adapted to prevent the three borough Eltham seat. I think Mottingham also fits quite well with Grove Park, Downham etc. Leaves Eltham relatively little changed The problem with the Dulwich Wood ward thing is that though most of the electorate is in the Sydenham Hill/Crystal Palace area which fits well with the neigbouring wards in Bromley and Lewisham, the boundary cuts right through the middle of Dulwich Village - then again Highgate Village is divided in quite the same way as it happens to be in different boroughs. Think this would be a hard sell though Swings and roundabouts I guess - it removes the tri-borough seat, creates a nice 'Lewisham and Greenwich' and unites Thamesmead but then again splits Welling, Bexleyheath and Mottingham! |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Feb 11, 2021 10:26:57 GMT
The least bad solution, I agree, but it makes a holy mess of Beckenham.
But really, this is all speculative because these Bromley wards are not going to be used. Can someone remind me when the new ward data are expected?
|
|
|
|
Post by martinwhelton on Feb 11, 2021 10:41:15 GMT
The least bad solution, I agree, but it makes a holy mess of Beckenham. But really, this is all speculative because these Bromley wards are not going to be used. Can someone remind me when the new ward data are expected?
The existing Bromley wards will be used in the review as the order was passed after December 1st. |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Feb 11, 2021 11:31:01 GMT
Thank you.
I stand corrected.
|
|
|
|
Post by where2travel on Feb 11, 2021 11:57:27 GMT
The least bad solution, I agree, but it makes a holy mess of Beckenham. As do most of the suggestions for this corner of Bromley. Taking off Copers Cope to sit with Bromley & Chislehurst, and leaving Kelsey & Eden Park in a Crystal Palace seat is a bit of a mess. It's arguably not much worse than the current arrangement where Beckenham (the area) is split across two seats (albeit split in a fairly neat way), although putting West Wickham in a third seat is splitting things up further with this proposal. |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Feb 11, 2021 12:26:36 GMT
Well, in that case, this:
Revert to Plan A with 10 seats for the Southwark-to-Bexley combo, and Bromley then falls reasonably well into three seats on its current wards, with only the Penge area squeezed out to be treated with Croydon. Names and numbers (starting at the eastern end):
Orpington - 70474. Bromley and Chislehurst - 72997. Beckenham - 72978. This is not the most elegantly-shaped constituency ever seen but its internal comms are good and it contains the whole town centre. Croydon North and Penge - 71665. The only seat that crosses the Croydon-Bromley boundary, and it does it in a logical place. Croydon Central - 70697. Or 'East' if you prefer. New Addington isn't very well connected with the rest of the seat, but then again, New Addington isn't really well connected with anywhere. Croydon South - 74718.
Croydon West - 72716 approx. Takes two wards from the eastern end of Merton. The number is approximate because of Merton ward chages, but in fact the two wards concerned (Pollards Hill and Longthornton) are hardly altered. Mitcham and Morden - 77118 approx. This is slightly over the limit but three of the wards involved (Figge's Marsh, Abbey, Merton Pk) are due to be slightly trimmed by ward changes, whereas little if any territory is to be added. So I'm reasonably confident that we shall lose more than the 56 electors necessary to get within range. Incidentally, the tightness of the numbers in this area reinforces the value of treating Graveney ward with Wandsworth/Lambeth. Wimbledon and Norbiton - 75255 approx. The name is negotiable. Ward changes in Merton will increase the electorate but we are talking only about some very minor boundary shifts and we have headroom of over 1800 electors before this seat goes out of range. Kingston and Surbiton - 75685. The current seat less Norbiton. Sutton and Cheam - 71494 approx. This and the following are shown for completeness' sake. The new wards seem to follow the existing constituency boundary very closely so I think we'll be fine on numbers. Carshalton and Wallington - 72545 approx.
Of course all this will mean a cross-Thames seat, which isn't ideal but at least will relieve the pressure of numbers north of the river. As for the specifics of such a seat, it will depend on new wards in Hounslow so we'll cross that bridge (so to speak) when we come to it.
Apologies if this duplicates anyone's earlier post, I haven't checked back through the thread.
|
|
