2023 Review - London

[islington]

Having had a further night to sleep on it, one change I'd definitely make to the 'first stab' map I posted yesterday evening would be to exchange Northwick Park and Queensbury wards, thus making the Harrow South seat somewhat more compact whilst still keeping Wembley within range (76897 in this configuration).

I'm still mulling over the changes suggested by Peter Wilkinson in Camden and ilerda in K&C and H&F. Another option in the latter case is simply (compared with my map) to swap Brook Green and Hammersmith Broadway, and call the seats 'Hammersmith North and Chiswick' and 'Hammersmith South and Fulham'. This gives a cleaner boundary without involving an additional cross-border seat.

I've been looking with great interest at the maps posted by Pete Whitehead but of course, his ideas include a cross-Thames seat and that's something I wanted to avoid.

[Pete Whitehead]

I wanted to avoid crossing the Thames too but it seems that this cause too many compromises elsewhere and have therefore accepted this on the basis that there is precedent in doing so in this area and there are obviously close links between Richmond itself and the riverside part of Twickenham (and they share a borough). I've tweaked some of what I've posted above (including earlier plans in East London) and I'm fairly happy with the overall scheme though will doubtless tweak further (I keep changing my mind about the exact arrangement between Hayes/Southall/Ealing North as there are several different combinations which work).  I also considered 

[mattb]

For what it's worth, here is my effort. Slightly less respectful of borough boundaries but I would argue more respectful of communities and existing constituencies. I was determined to avoid a cross-Thames seat (rightly or wrongly).

[Pete Whitehead]

Getting 32 seats into that area of North and West London isn't too difficult - the new wards definitely help here. One or two of these are distinctly non-ideal. The first 10 are identical to my original plan and I'm happy enough with them.
I should definitely prefer not to cross the Thames so if South London plays ball I could go with this

[Pete Whitehead]

[Pete Whitehead]

There's a couple of sub-optimal seats in both my plans above but this was a short morning's work and could doubtless be improved upon, therefore I'm persuaded that the Thames should be treated as a 'sacrosanct' boundary (my instincts and prejudices would always have favoured that but I am pragmatic enough to shift approach if that created better boundaries overall)

[islington]

Well, if Pete Whitehead can get 32 seats into that area of north London, with its entitlement of 32.67, then I'm sure that with south London's entitlement of 28.91 he'll have no trouble fitting in the requisite 29 seats.

I've just 'liked' the plan posted by mattb because, frankly, there's a lot to like in it. He's mentioned his greater willingness to cross borough boundaries but at a quick count he has 43 seats within a single borough - not very much less than my own plan posted on Friday, in which I was consciously trying to reduce boundary-crossings and ended up with 46 single-borough seats. He's clearly benefited from boundary-crossing in Barnet, where he has kept Edgwarebury with Edgware (unlike me) and Mill Hill with Hendon (unlike Pete). Also in this general area, I appreciate the ingenuity of his Pinner & Northwood (although it leaves Harefield very much isolated at the western end) and this allows him to create beautifully logical and compact seats based on Harrow town and Wembley.

Unlike some plans, Matt's avoids crossing the boundary between Edmonton and Tottenham and I think this is right because Northumberland Park and Bruce Castle wards are integral to Tottenham (indeed the original village of Tottenham was in this area and the ancient parish church still is). But I can't support his treatment of Wood Green. The three key wards here are Noel Pk, Woodside and Bounds Gn, which really need to be kept together if at all possible (this comment applies to Pete's schemes also).  

In south London, it's interesting that Matt and I have independently found that, although on the numbers there's no compelling reason to cross the Wandsworth-Merton boundary, in practice it makes life far easier on both sides of the line if one Merton ward is treated with Wandsworth (Colliers Wood in his plan and Graveney in mine).

And Matt - sorry, but unless I've miscalculated I think your Beckenham-and-leftover-bits-of-Croydon seat is oversize: 82569 by my count.

 

[islington]

... And I see he has. Pete, your 29-seat south London crossed with my previous post.

I'm also struggling with a name for 'Horrible Leftovers'. If you'd like to take the opportunity to create some muddle and confusion, you could call it 'Hayes and Addington', surely?

"Don't call me 'Shirley'."

"That's it!"

Sorry, joking aside, I've really no idea what to call it. My equivalent seat (different boundaries) I called 'Biggin Hill' but it's far from ideal.

[Pete Whitehead]

Mar 28, 2021 11:18:27 GMT islington said:

... And I see he has. Pete, your 29-seat south London crossed with my previous post.

I'm also struggling with a name for 'Horrible Leftovers'. If you'd like to take the opportunity to create some muddle and confusion, you could call it 'Hayes and Addington', surely?

"Don't call me 'Shirley'."

"That's it!"

Sorry, joking aside, I've really no idea what to call it. My equivalent seat (different boundaries) I called 'Biggin Hill' but it's far from ideal.

Not least as mine doesn't include Biggin Hill..

[kevinlarkin]

Just to say that New Addington into Bromley will not go. Forget pitchforks and burning torches, they will be launching the Spitfires and Hurricanes from Biggin Hill.

[Pete Whitehead]

There's a way to avoid it actually which just involves changing those three seats and leaves Croydon South with pretty similar boundaries to currently.

[minionofmidas]

Mar 28, 2021 11:47:59 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

There's a way to avoid it actually which just involves changing those three seats and leaves Croydon South with pretty similar boundaries to currently.

"it's not pretty" would be an understatement but that's at least the general direction New Addington ought to ideally be linked with.

[Pete Whitehead]

I think this is prettier (going in a completely different direction - was always dubious about a Croydon/Bromley link and if it has to be done it should be in the Crystal Palace area)

[where2travel]

It seems like Bromley will be a bit of a mess somewhere whichever way you look. I agree the Crystal Palace area is probably the neatest point to cross any Bromley/Croydon borough. However I don't think combining the two Shirleys with Beckenham and West Wickham is too bad (that's in some proposals), although I'm much less sure about combining the Addingtons with a Bromley seat (as seems to be the general feeling here).

A lot of proposals are putting Mottingham in with Eltham, and that looks sensible enough - geographically it's probably better but it feels fine too.

If the election is fought on the new Bromley ward arrangements, the main change in the borough seems to be reverting from a Cray Valley East/West arrangement back to the (old north and south) St Paul's/Mary Cray split. I don't know if that makes it easier or harder to hive off one part (St Paul's) into Bexley. Given the two Cray wards are split across seats now, then I assume it's no big deal going forwards (the only difference now being that they both sit in Bromley seats).

[mattb]

Mar 28, 2021 11:01:43 GMT islington said:

And Matt - sorry, but unless I've miscalculated I think your Beckenham-and-leftover-bits-of-Croydon seat is oversize: 82569 by my count.

 

Oops, that's an error on the map I posted - Coopers Cope should be in Bromley & Chislehurst, then everything works!

[mattb]

Mar 28, 2021 12:16:53 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I think this is prettier (going in a completely different direction - was always dubious about a Croydon/Bromley link and if it has to be done it should be in the Crystal Palace area)

The big upside of the Bromley-Croydon link is you can keep all of Orpington together. (and get prettier seats in Croydon).

[greenhert]

My West London plan: ibb.co/xs3pqFq

1. Mitcham & Morden (75,565). Gains Merton Park ward.
2. Wimbledon & Coombe (75,714). Succeeds Wimbledon. Loses Merton Park ward in Merton, gains both Coombe wards in Kingston-upon-Thames.
3. Surbiton & Malden (75,685). Succeeds Kingston & Surbiton. Loses Norbiton ward.
4. Richmond & Kingston (75,001). Succeeds Richmond Park. Loses both Coombe wards, gains Norbiton ward.
5. Twickenham (76,331). Loses Heathfield ward.
6. Feltham (70,302). New seat. Contains the Richmond ward of Heathfield and the Hounslow wards of Bedfont, Feltham North, Feltham West, Hanworth Park, Hanworth Village, Hounslow Central, Hounslow Heath, and Hounslow South.
7. Heston & Isleworth (70,311). Succeeds Brentford & Isleworth. Loses both Brentford wards, all Chiswick wards, Hounslow Central, and Hounslow South wards, and gains Cranford, all Heston wards, Hounslow East and Hounslow West wards.
8. Hammersmith & Chiswick (71,301). Succeeds Hammersmith. Gains both Brentford wards and all Chiswick wards in Hounslow, loses Addison, Avonmore, Brook Green, Fulham Reach, Grove, Hammersmith Broadway, and West Kensington in Hammersmith & Fulham.
9. City of London, Old Westminster & St Marylebone (74,901). Succeeds Cities of London & Westminster. Loses Hyde Park ward, gains Abbey Road, Church Street and Regent's Park wards.
10. Paddington & Kensington North (71,573). Succeeds Westminster North. Loses Abbey Road, Church Street, and Regent's Park wards in the City of Westminster, and gains Hyde Park ward in the City of Westminster and the Kensington & Chelsea wards of Colville, Dalgarno, Golborne, Notting Dale, and St Helen's.
11. Kensington South & Chelsea (71,112). Succeeds Kensington. Loses Colville, Dalgarno, Golborne, Notting Dale and St Helen's wards, and gains the Kensington & Chelsea wards of Brompton & Hans Town, Chelsea Riverside, Redcliffe, Royal Hospital, and Stanley, and the Hammersmith & Fulham ward of West Kensington.
12. Fulham & Barons Court (73,505). Succeeds Chelsea & Fulham. Loses all Kensington & Chelsea wards, and gains the Hammersmith & Fulham wards of Addison, Avonmore, Brook Green, Fulham Reach, Grove, and Hammersmith Broadway.

Brentford & Isleworth technically disappears but the new seat of Feltham is notionally Labour (Lab +0)
Wimbledon & Coombe becomes notionally Lib Dem (LD +1, Con -1).

[evergreenadam]

Mar 28, 2021 19:21:41 GMT greenhert said:

My West London plan: ibb.co/xs3pqFq

1. Mitcham & Morden (75,565). Gains Merton Park ward.
2. Wimbledon & Coombe (75,714). Succeeds Wimbledon. Loses Merton Park ward in Merton, gains both Coombe wards in Kingston-upon-Thames.
3. Surbiton & Malden (75,685). Succeeds Kingston & Surbiton. Loses Norbiton ward.
4. Richmond & Kingston (75,001). Succeeds Richmond Park. Loses both Coombe wards, gains Norbiton ward.
5. Twickenham (76,331). Loses Heathfield ward.
6. Feltham (70,302). New seat. Contains the Richmond ward of Heathfield and the Hounslow wards of Bedfont, Feltham North, Feltham West, Hanworth Park, Hanworth Village, Hounslow Central, Hounslow Heath, and Hounslow South.
7. Heston & Isleworth (70,311). Succeeds Brentford & Isleworth. Loses both Brentford wards, all Chiswick wards, Hounslow Central, and Hounslow South wards, and gains Cranford, all Heston wards, Hounslow East and Hounslow West wards.
8. Hammersmith & Chiswick (71,301). Succeeds Hammersmith. Gains both Brentford wards and all Chiswick wards in Hounslow, loses Addison, Avonmore, Brook Green, Fulham Reach, Grove, Hammersmith Broadway, and West Kensington in Hammersmith & Fulham.
9. City of London, Old Westminster & St Marylebone (74,901). Succeeds Cities of London & Westminster. Loses Hyde Park ward, gains Abbey Road, Church Street and Regent's Park wards.
10. Paddington & Kensington North (71,573). Succeeds Westminster North. Loses Abbey Road, Church Street, and Regent's Park wards in the City of Westminster, and gains Hyde Park ward in the City of Westminster and the Kensington & Chelsea wards of Colville, Dalgarno, Golborne, Notting Dale, and St Helen's.
11. Kensington South & Chelsea (71,112). Succeeds Kensington. Loses Colville, Dalgarno, Golborne, Notting Dale and St Helen's wards, and gains the Kensington & Chelsea wards of Brompton & Hans Town, Chelsea Riverside, Redcliffe, Royal Hospital, and Stanley, and the Hammersmith & Fulham ward of West Kensington.
12. Fulham & Barons Court (73,505). Succeeds Chelsea & Fulham. Loses all Kensington & Chelsea wards, and gains the Hammersmith & Fulham wards of Addison, Avonmore, Brook Green, Fulham Reach, Grove, and Hammersmith Broadway.

Brentford & Isleworth technically disappears but the new seat of Feltham is notionally Labour (Lab +0)
Wimbledon & Coombe becomes notionally Lib Dem (LD +1, Con -1).

Edited following clarification that Shepherd's Bush Green ward would be in the Fulham and Barons Court seat.
12 - Crossing the RBKC / H&F boundary at Lillie Road is not ideal, the West London Line being a strong physical barrier.  What about keeping West Kensington in the Fulham seat and transferring Sands End to the Kensington & Chelsea seat?  Controversial perhaps, but it would link the riverside housing developments in one ward.
8 - Should be Chiswick and White City instead.
8 - Is good in theory however Brentford is split across three wards on the new boundaries not two, so it would divide Brentford town centre between seats.
6 & 7 - These are awkward, splitting Hounslow town centre. Cranford has contiguous development with Hounslow West ward so keeping these two together would be more important than keeping Cranford with the Heston wards.
2 - I think the Merton / Kingston cross boundary seat needs to be in the New Malden area rather than Coombe to make it successful.

I’d be keen for Ealing to be included in this block and see what better options might emerge.

[greenhert]

You can include Ealing in this block and also avoid splitting Brentford-but it does mean combining potentially as many as eleven London boroughs plus the City of London (Brent, City of London, Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kensington & Chelsea, Kingston-upon-Thames, Merton, Richmond-upon-Thames and Westminster) for constituency redrawing purposes!

[evergreenadam]

Mar 28, 2021 20:46:54 GMT greenhert said:

You can include Ealing in this block and also avoid splitting Brentford-but it does mean combining potentially as many as eleven London boroughs plus the City of London (Brent, City of London, Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kensington & Chelsea, Kingston-upon-Thames, Merton, Richmond-upon-Thames and Westminster) for constituency redrawing purposes!

I know, but I think that Borough boundaries will become less of a barrier in people’s minds when they see what the 5% rule creates as the potentially available options. There are going to some very tortured seat shapes and seat names.