|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 11, 2021 12:46:51 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.
That’s pretty good, though I would suggest some changes to names: Croydon NW Croydon NE & Penge Wimbledon and North Kingston
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 11, 2021 13:49:16 GMT
Apologies if this is duplicating anybody else's map, but I thought I'd try combining Croydon with Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham and assigning eight seats to Greenwich, Bromley and Bexley. It's unlikely to happen as Lambeth will probably get treated alone, but it works surprisingly neatly: Croydon South 71541 Croydon East 70110 - Woodside is an awkward fit but there isn't quite room for Addiscombe under this orientation Croydon West 76048 Streatham & Croydon North 75235 - ideally would have Streatham Hill rather Knight's Hill Brixton 75065 - again, in an ideal world it'd take Tulse Hill instead of Streatham Hill Vauxhall 72874 Dulwich & West Norwood 70201 Camberwell & Peckham 72127 Bermondsey 71267 Deptford & Rotherhithe 73587 - Peckham Rye is an awkward fit Lewisham Central 70649 - if you want neater lines you can swap Rushey Green for Blackheath, but I wanted to keep Catford together Lewisham East 71706 Greenwich & Woolwich 70518 Eltham 73604 Erith & Thamesmead 73602 - alternatively, you can swap the three eastern wards for West Heath and East Wickham, or you can just swap Slade Green for Northumberland Heath Bexleyheath & Crayford 76937 Orpington 70474 - numbers don't quite work for swapping Biggin Hill and Pett's Knoll Bromley 71515 Beckenham 76625 - I think this is pretty close to the pre-2010 seat Sidcup & Chislehurst 70235
|
|
|
Post by martinwhelton on Feb 11, 2021 18:01:27 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.
On your proposed Mitcham and Morden, the new Wandle ward takes in part of the existing Wimbledon Park, Trinity and Abbey wards, though the existing seat is now within quota. If in the event that Pollards Hill ended up in a Croydon seat(which I hope not) the seat would be better named Croydon West and Pollards Hill. If the Kingston border is crossed it's much more likely to happen in the New Malden area especially as it's current split between Kingston and Merton though this proposal does split Wimbledon town centre. Kingston will be using the existing ward boundaries whilst Merton will be using the new ones.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 11, 2021 19:07:25 GMT
Well, I agree it would be good to avoid crossing the Merton-Croydon border and you can do it if you put Bexley in with Croydon and Bromley. But the trouble with that is (a) it makes it really difficult to draw sensible seats in Bromley and (b) you are drawing a lot of relatively small seats in southeast London, the ripple effect of which means that seats north of the Thames have to be well above average size, thus seriously limiting the scope for drawing reasonable boundaries in that area.
But if you link Bexley with the boroughs to its west, then seats in south east London are that little bit bigger, easing pressures elsewhere, and Bromley comes out quite nicely. But the drawbacks are that there's then no obvious way of avoiding a Croydon/Merton seat (but don't let me put you off from trying to find one), plus you have a Thames crossing to worry about.
As someone said just upthread, it's swings and roundabouts. There's no such thing as a perfect scheme.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 11, 2021 19:13:59 GMT
If in the event that Pollards Hill ended up in a Croydon seat(which I hope not) the seat would be better named Croydon West and Pollards Hill. Please no. That would be on a par with those wordy Scottish obscurantisms.
|
|
|
Post by londonseal80 on Feb 12, 2021 21:05:54 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.
That’s pretty good, though I would suggest some changes to names: Croydon NW Croydon NE & Penge Wimbledon and North Kingston Mitcham and Morden on those boundaries would now cover all of Morden but less of Mitcham 🤣
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 13, 2021 12:47:37 GMT
For the last few years I have been assuming that the most suitable place for creating a cross-border Croydon constituency would be in the north Croydon/ Lambeth area, but that has now gone out of the window with the fact that Lambeth has enough electorate for 3 constituencies of its own. Therefore the starting point for the whole of south-east London is my assumption that we are constrained by the fact that Lambeth and Sutton will have 3 and 2 whole constituencies on their own (respectively). Therefore any contrafibularities have to start with Croydon crossing the border with Bromley (preferably to the north somewhere) and/or Merton (preferably not at all) or both.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 13, 2021 15:36:20 GMT
Thankfully the rise in electoral registrations in the Deptford area around Goldsmiths University means Lewisham and Greenwich can be paired together with no ward splits at this time: 1. Deptford & Greenwich (76,155). Succeeds Lewisham Deptford. Contains the Lewisham wards of Brockley, Deptford, Evelyn, New Cross Gate, and Telegraph Hill, and the Greenwich wards of Greenwich Peninsula and Greenwich West. 2. Lewisham East (71,456). Contains the Lewisham wards of Bellingham, Blackheath, Catford South, Downham, Grove Park, Hither Green, and Lee Green. 3. Lewisham West (70,899). Succeeds Lewisham West & Penge. Contains the Lewisham wards of Crofton Park, Forest Hill, Ladywell, Lewisham Central, Perry Vale, Rushey Green, and Sydenham. 4. Eltham (73,604). Gains Blackheath Westcombe ward. 5. Woolwich (72,478). Succeeds Greenwich & Woolwich. Loses both Greenwich wards and Blackheath Westcombe, gains Abbey Wood, Plumstead, and Thamesmead Moorings wards. Having looked again, I have concluded that the best option for Southwark (given that it is not quite large enough for 3 seats in this review) is for it to take one Lewisham ward. This should be New Cross Gate, given it small size and good links to Bermondsey. Furthermore, this means my general plan for Lewisham and Greenwich can stay (Lewisham East, Lewisham West, Eltham, and Woolwich are not affected by these changes in my plan): 1. Dulwich & Peckham (71,720). Succeeds Camberwell & Peckham in practice despite containing less than half of the old Camberwell & Peckham seat. Contains the wards of Dulwich Hill, Dulwich Village, Dulwich Wood, Goose Green, Nunhead & Queen's Road, Peckham, Peckham Rye, and Rye Lane. 2. Camberwell (70,411). New seat. Contain the wards of Camberwell Green, Champion Hill, Chaucer, Faraday, Newington, North Walworth, St George's and St Giles. 3. Bermondsey (71,622). Succeeds Bermondsey & Old Southwark. Contains the Southwark wards of Borough & Bankside, London Bridge & West Bermondsey, North Bermondsey, Old Kent Road, Rotherhithe, South Bermondsey, and Surrey Docks, and the Lewisham ward of New Cross Gate. 4. Deptford & Greenwich (70,826). Succeeds Lewisham Deptford. Contains the Lewisham wards of Brockley, Deptford, Evelyn and Telegraph Hill, and the Greenwich wards of Greenwich Peninsula and Greenwich West. Lambeth is simple: 1. Streatham (69,785). Loses Tulse Hill ward. Sadly Streatham & Clapham is not possible under the March 2020 electorates as it does not quite hit the 69,724 minimum. 2. Vauxhall (72,934). Loses Vassall ward. 3. Norwood (74,713). Succeeds Dulwich & West Norwood. Loses all Southwark wards, gains Tulse Hill and Vassall wards in Lambeth.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 3, 2021 14:31:06 GMT
I promised myself that until we got the new ward data I was going to steer clear of the relevant boroughs. But anyway, and just for fun because so much of the area will change when we get the new wards, here's a stab at west London with no ward splits and no seat crossing the Thames. The second of these requirements is tricky because it effectively means 29 seats south of the Thames and therefore 46 seats north of it; and with plans already in place assigning 14 seats to metropolitan Essex plus TH, that leaves 32 seats for everything else despite its entitlement of 32.67. So seats must be kept big where possible. This is a way of doing that, with some elements in common with the all-London plan posted a long way upthread by mattb and acknowledging with thanks the theft of his solution in the tricky Hounslow area (everything else has been done independently even though some seats coincide with his plan). All in all, it could be worse and the only complete car wreck is in Barnet, where new wards may yet come to the rescue. On the whole, it's more respectful of LA boundaries than mattb's plan, but there are still too many orphan wards (three in Hackney alone). Using the Thames as a boundary had the knock-on consequence that Merton could afford to unload only one ward into a Croydon seat, forcing a not-very-satisfactory restructuring in the latter borough. The division of New Addington is especially unfortunate.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Mar 3, 2021 19:32:11 GMT
I promised myself that until we got the new ward data I was going to steer clear of the relevant boroughs. But anyway, and just for fun because so much of the area will change when we get the new wards, here's a stab at west London with no ward splits and no seat crossing the Thames. The second of these requirements is tricky because it effectively means 29 seats south of the Thames and therefore 46 seats north of it; and with plans already in place assigning 14 seats to metropolitan Essex plus TH, that leaves 32 seats for everything else despite its entitlement of 32.67. So seats must be kept big where possible. This is a way of doing that, with some elements in common with the all-London plan posted a long way upthread by mattb and acknowledging with thanks the theft of his solution in the tricky Hounslow area (everything else has been done independently even though some seats coincide with his plan). All in all, it could be worse and the only complete car wreck is in Barnet, where new wards may yet come to the rescue. On the whole, it's more respectful of LA boundaries than mattb's plan, but there are still too many orphan wards (three in Hackney alone). Using the Thames as a boundary had the knock-on consequence that Merton could afford to unload only one ward into a Croydon seat, forcing a not-very-satisfactory restructuring in the latter borough. The division of New Addington is especially unfortunate.
It can’t be long to wait now! We are in March already!
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Mar 3, 2021 19:32:53 GMT
All in all, it could be worse and the only complete car wreck is in Barnet, where new wards may yet come to the rescue. I am glad you acknowledge that - your proposals for Barnet are HORRIBLE! The only direct connections between Hale and Mill Hill wards and the rest of your Chipping Barnet constituency are along a stretch of the A1 through a mile or so of Green Belt (with the A1 then running across a very narrow westerly extension of the current Chipping Barnet constituency out into Hertfordshire) and a minor road, again across half a mile or so of Green Belt, along the edge of Hale, with all the housing on it in Totteridge ward (assigned by you to Finchley). In turn, Brunswick Park ward only connects with the rest of your proposed Finchley constituency across the main Kings Cross railway line, with one of the only two road bridges across the line being right on the boundary with Enfield and the other actually crossing from Brunswick Park into Oakleigh ward (kept by you in Chipping Barnet), with only the pavement for a hundred yards or so in Coppetts ward. (Otherwise, there is just a not very welcoming foot tunnel). Your Hendon/Golders Green constituency might not be too bad (excepting the orphan ward from Brent) in an otherwise better plan. And the two Hendon wards going into Harrow don't exactly have much in common apart from having western boundaries along the A5. Though, to be fair, the tolerances involved in dividing Barnet among constituencies of the right size without splitting wards are so hair-raising that I am somewhat surprised that you have come up with any solution (particularly without crossing Barnet's boundaries with Enfield, Haringey or Camden). So far as the new wards go - in theory, a mix of 15 three-member and 9 two-member wards should in principle significantly ease the problems of finding a solution, but the way in which the different wards are mixed looks as if this may not be the case in practice. So far as I have can see, it's all going to depend on the actual numbers.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 3, 2021 19:43:31 GMT
It would still be legal if you swapped Oakleigh and Brunswick Pk wards, but you might reasonably think that's even worse.
(I'm sure the foot tunnel is delightful.)
Anyway, this is all just filling in time until we get the particulars regarding the new wards.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Mar 3, 2021 21:10:45 GMT
It would still be legal if you swapped Oakleigh and Brunswick Pk wards, but you might reasonably think that's even worse. (I'm sure the foot tunnel is delightful.) Anyway, this is all just filling in time until we get the particulars regarding the new wards. Actually, while that would certainly not be good (it replaces the Brunswick Park/Coppetts practical disconnect with a theoretically worse East Barnet/High Barnet one), the Brunswick Park/East Barnet and Oakleigh/Totteridge boundaries are soft enough that each is a pairing which one could reasonably want to keep in the same constituency. And, except along the Enfield boundary, East Barnet and some neighbouring parts of Brunswick Park tend to look towards High Barnet as the local main shopping centre. So, admittedly, does the northern third of Oakleigh - but the rest of Oakleigh looks more to Whetstone and North Finchley. Anyway, as you say, this is all pretty pointless until we have the new wards, with their figures, to play with - in which East Barnet and Brunswick Park remain much the same as currently, but it seems to be all change in the other wards I have been discussing here. (Declaration of interest: I grew up in Brunswick Park, lived for 20 years in East Barnet, and now live in High Barnet.)
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 4, 2021 10:30:38 GMT
Peter Wilkinson may wish to look away now, because this division of Barnet is, if anything, even worse. But it allows an arrangement that, compared with the plan I posted yesterday, avoids crossing the Barnet-Brent and Ealing-Harrow boundaries (at the expense of a Brent-Ealing crossing). With everything else, apart from the nine seats shown, remaining as I had it yesterday, this means that Barnet/Harrow/Hillingdon are treated together for 8 seats (entitlement 8.11) and Ealing/Brent/Camden/Westminster/City together for 9 (9.22). In addition, we have groupings as per yesterday's version of the plan of Enfield/Haringey/Hackney/Islington with 9 (9.17) and K&C/H&F/Hounslow/Twickenham with 6 (6.16).
Although new wards mean this won't be the final scheme (which is just as well in the case of Barnet), I'm cautiously hopeful that these groupings may survive because with an entitlement of 32.67 for this area as a whole, but with only 32 seats available, they offer a reasonably equitable way of sharing out the odd 0.67 of a seat.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 4, 2021 12:44:26 GMT
Here's an alternative way of getting 9 seats into Croydon/Bromley/Bexley that avoids the division of Beckenham town. I've shown it as part of a scheme for 29 seats in south London that incorporates the plan put forward by East Anglian Lefty for 8 seats in Southwark/Lewisham/Greenwich and also avoids any crossing of the Croydon-Merton boundary. The Mitcham seat comes in at only 25 shy of the maximum but I think the Merton ward changes would tend to trim off a few electors rather than add any; and the three seats wholly in Croydon work pretty well in this scheme (Broad Green and Woodside can be exchanged if preferred). On the minus side, the Croydon-Bromley and Bromley-Bexley boundaries are both double-crossed and the Bromley & Chislehurst seat is a bit of a mess as is Biggin Hill & Addington (or whatever you'd call it), but I don't think either is unworkable.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 4, 2021 14:46:01 GMT
Or you can do this, which gives much tidier-looking versions of Bromley & Sidcup, Orpington and Biggin Hill (or whatever you want to call it). The price is paid for this in the form of two seats crossing the Greenwich-Bexley boundary, although they both do it in logical places.
Of course we are not awaiting new wards in these boroughs, so these ideas are being put forward with more seriousness than the north London scheme I posted yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 5, 2021 11:58:01 GMT
Still looking at south east London, which at least makes a certain amount of sense because there are no new wards pending in this area, I'm looking at treating these six boroughs boroughs together with a collective entitlement of 16.85 = 17. With 29 seats in all south of the Thames and with Sutton good for 2, that leaves the rest of south London, including Richmond proper but not Twickenham, with 10.10 = 10. Ideally I'd like to treat Southwark/Lewisham/Greenwich separately for 8, for which East Anglian Lefty has provided a perfectly good plan upthread; but after removing Sidcup and Longlands wards I can't find a way of getting two seats out of the rest of Bexley. Alternatively, I can do it if I take St Mary's as well; but then I can't find a satisfactory arrangement in Bromley. It would be great if someone could point out a solution to one or both of these conundrums (conundra?) that I've overlooked. At least this approach means no Croydon-Merton seat so martinwhelton will be happy. Anyway, assuming that crossing the Greenwich-Bexley border is not a fatal flaw, I feel the 17-seat scheme below has a lot going for it.
Southwark and Bermondsey - 70602. All seats in Southwark and Lewisham lifted with thanks from the scheme posted by EAL back on 9 Feb. Camberwell and Dulwich - 70698.
Peckham - 72453. Lewisham West - 70899. Lewisham East - 71456. Greenwich and Deptford - 70826. Eltham - 74069. Woolwich and Welling - 74766. There are good communications between the Bexley element and the rest of the seat. Erith and Thamesmead - 75137. Bexleyheath and Crayford - 74622. If preferred Slade Green and Barnehurst can be exchanged with the previous seat. Sidcup and Chislehurst - 73006. I'm very happy with this arrangement. Orpington - 70379. Compared with the current seat, loses Cray Valley E and gains Bromley Common. Bromley and Beckenham - 72349.
Addington and West Wickham - 73579. I've really no idea what to call this. Normally, I'd take this as a warning sign that the seat lacks coherence and definition but in this case, although ideally one would not cross the Croydon-Bromley boundary in this area, the seat is reasonably compact and its internal links quite good. There is an alternative arrangement whereby this seat gains Bromley Town and Plaistow from the previous seat in exchange for Selsdon and the Shirleys (Beckenham 75209, Bromley & New Addington 70719). This has the merit of separating Beckenham from Bromley but it involves yet more border-crossing and it leaves New Addington horribly isolated, so I prefer the arrangement as mapped. Croydon North - 76837. Croydon Central - 70192.
Croydon South - 74718. I feel all the Croydon seats come out nicely in this plan.
|
|
|
Post by martinwhelton on Mar 5, 2021 14:03:31 GMT
Here's an alternative way of getting 9 seats into Croydon/Bromley/Bexley that avoids the division of Beckenham town. I've shown it as part of a scheme for 29 seats in south London that incorporates the plan put forward by East Anglian Lefty for 8 seats in Southwark/Lewisham/Greenwich and also avoids any crossing of the Croydon-Merton boundary. The Mitcham seat comes in at only 25 shy of the maximum but I think the Merton ward changes would tend to trim off a few electors rather than add any; and the three seats wholly in Croydon work pretty well in this scheme (Broad Green and Woodside can be exchanged if preferred). On the minus side, the Croydon-Bromley and Bromley-Bexley boundaries are both double-crossed and the Bromley & Chislehurst seat is a bit of a mess as is Biggin Hill & Addington (or whatever you'd call it), but I don't think either is unworkable.
The northern part of Merton Park ward goes into the new Wimbledon Town and Dundonald ward so you would lose electors from Mitcham and Morden.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 5, 2021 18:31:45 GMT
Or indeed this, which avoids any crossing of Greenwich-Bexley, although Croydon-Bromley is still double-crossed.
Eltham - 73604. Woolwich - 72478. Erith and Crayford - 74032. Bexleyheath - 70311. Orpington and Sidcup - 73803. Not a marriage made in heaven, but not all that bad either and with good internal road links. Bromley and Chislehurst - 72997. Biggin Hill - 75473. For want of a better name (I'm almost tempted to call it Bromley South and the previous seat Bromley North). Although the boundary-crossing isn't great, there's a direct road link between New Addington and Biggin Hill and all in all this is a good compact seat. Beckenham - 76446. Includes the Shirley wards from Croydon; again, not great but not all that bad either and all tied together by the A222. Croydon North - 75261. Again, a pretty good north/central/south split of Croydon, although slightly different from the previous map. If preferred, Woodside and W Thornton can be exchanged between this seat and the following one.
Croydon Central - 73621. Croydon South - 71628.
The other seats as I had them before.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Mar 23, 2021 16:35:23 GMT
Without peeking at your plans, I've done some preliminary calculations and I'm going to "do" London in 3 parts at 9 am Wed/Thu/Fri. The city seems to have got slightly easier compared with zombie reviews and pre-review plans, although the slight under-representation puts some pressure on the numbers.
|
|