2023 Review - London

[Pete Whitehead]

I've had another crack at North West London. I think some of this is similar to mattb 's plan (the Harrow and Wembley seats look familiar) but unfortunately his map has gone missing so I can't compare. I've never been a fan of the Hammersmith & Chiswick formulation that seems so popular here but this does admittedly allow for some neater neighbouring seats. My remaining Hounslow seats still have issues in terms of splitting Heston etc but are an improvement on my earlier offering and other seats work out well in Ealing and in Kensington & Chelsea.

[Pete Whitehead]

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)

I don't know why I didn't notice this at the time but for seats 11-13 if we move Streatham Hill into Streatham & Norbury (obviously), Knight's Hill (back) to Dulwich & West Norwood and Coldharbour into Clapham that reunites most of Brixton in a single seat (and most of Clapham) - rename that Brixton & Clapham. That seat still takes slightly more of the current Streatham than the other one so is technically the successor seat while Streatham & Norbury is the new extra seat in South London.
I'm pretty happy with that whole arrangement and fairly happy with what I've got North of the river too

[johnloony]

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.

Obviously you've got the names of Croydon Central and Croydon South the wrong way round

[Pete Whitehead]

Mar 29, 2021 14:28:02 GMT johnloony said:

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.

Obviously you've got the names of Croydon Central and Croydon South the wrong way round

Yes obviously because I had been playing around with an existing plan but as you'll see from above I've moved on from that arrangement anyway

[islington]

I'm also having a bit of a facepalm 'why-didn't-I-spot that before' moment, coupled with an uneasy feeling that I'm about to suggest something that's been posted before (in which case I apologize, but it gets hard to keep track), but -

If you want to have only one seat crossing the the Croydon boundary, and doing so in the Crystal Palace area, how about this?

Its main drawback - and not a minor one - is that it cuts terribly close to the bone in Beckenham town centre.

Croydon South - 74718.

Croydon East - 74250. With Shirleys, Addingtons, &c.

Croydon West - 73323.

Croydon North and Beckenham - 76935. Well, it includes the railway station, the old parish church and (just about) the High Street so I think by the skin of its teeth it justifies the name.

Bromley North - 72997. We've definitely had this before, generally under the name of 'Bromley and Chislehurst', but I've changed the name so that I can call the next seat ...

Bromley South - 73203. Because otherwise I've no idea what I could possibly call it. In general when it's hard to find a name I take it as a warning sign that the seat is untidy or lacks focus but I'd say this works pretty well despite its unnamability. The numbers work fine if it exchanges Petts Wood and Kelsey with the previous seat and I keep switching them back and forth because I can't decide which arrangement I prefer.

Edited to add: Or, put Kelsey in Bromley N, Chelsfield in Bromley S, and Petts Wood into Orpington & Sidcup - the last of which makes a lot of sense because Petts Wood runs very close to Orpington town centre. With these changes: Bromley N 74617; Bromley S 72138; Orpington & Sidcup 73248.

[kevinlarkin]

Avoiding a Bromley/Croydon crossing while keeping Beckenham, Bromley and Orpington in one piece. If a ward split was allowed I would put Cray Valley East and the Poverest part of Cray Valley West in Orpington, with Chislehurst and the rest of Cray Valley West forming part of a Chis'n'Sid constituency.

[islington]

Still in London, I commented before on the desirability of keeping together the three core Wood Green wards, and here's my preferred plan which does this.

If preferred the Southgate & Wood Green seat can take Bowes ward from Edmonton in exchange for Winchmore Hill.

In my view if Wood Green is kept together its most natural partner is Southgate, and this approach also helps with the numbers given that north London seats need to be kept large and Enfield + the WG wards + Alexandra Park = 226243 = 3.08 and the fact that this can be divided into three large seats is immensely helpful in allowing a reasonable solution in the rest of this group of boroughs (which altogether adds up to 672903 = 9.17 = 9).

[greenhert]

My plan for North West London (also updates part of my West London plan): ibb.co/n62hK2h

1. Kilburn (76,629). New seat. Contains the Brent wards of Alperton, Brondesbury Park, Harlesden & Kensal Green, Kilburn, Queens Park, Roundwood, Stonebridge, and Tokyngton.
2. Kingsbury (75,089). Succeeds Brent Central in practice. Loses Harlesden & Kensal Green, Roundwood, Stonebridge & Tokyngton wards, and gains Barnhill, Kenton, Kingsbury, and Queensbury wards.
3. Wembley & Harrow South (76,352). Succeeds Brent North in practice. Loses Alperton, Barnhill, Kenton, Kingsbury and Queensbury wards in Brent, and gains Wembley Park ward in Brent and the Harrow wards of Greenhill, Harrow-on-the-Hill, Marlborough, North Harrow, and West Harrow.
4. Harrow East (76,478). Gains Wealdstone South ward.
5. Harrow West & Northwood (75,847). Succeeds Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner in practice. Loses all Ruislip wards and both Harefield wards in Hillingdon, and gains the Harrow wards of Headstone, Rayners Lane, Roxburne and Roxeth.
6. Ruislip & Harefield (76,667). Succeeds Uxbridge & Ruislip South in practice. Loses Colham & Cowley, Hillingdon West, Uxbridge, and Yiewsley wards, and gains the wards of Eastcote, Harefield Village, Ickenham & Harefield South, and Ruislip.
7. Uxbridge & Hayes (74,968). Succeeds Hayes & Harlington in practice. Loses Heathrow Villages, Pinkwell and Yeading wards, gains Colham & Cowley, Hillingdon West, Uxbridge & Yiewsley wards.
8. Heston & Heathrow (76,238). New seat. Contains the Hounslow wards of Cranford, Heston (all), Hounslow Central, Hounslow East, Hounslow West, and Osterley & Spring Grove, and the Hillingdon wards of Heathrow Villages and Pinkwell.
9. Feltham & Isleworth (73,981). Succeeds Feltham & Heston. Loses Cranford, Heston (all), and Hounslow West wards in Hounslow, and gains the Hounslow wards of Hounslow Heath, Hounslow South, and Isleworth, and the Richmond-upon-Thames ward of Heathfield.
10. Brentford, Chiswick & Hammersmith (75,254). Succeeds Brentford & Isleworth. Loses the Hounslow wards of Hounslow Central, Hounslow East, Hounslow Heath, Hounslow South, Isleworth and Osterley & Spring Grove, and gains the Hammersmith & Fulham wards of College Oak & Old Park, Coningham, Ravenscourt, Wendell Park, White City, and Wormholt.
11. Southall & Yeading (73,422). Succeeds Ealing Southall. Gains the Hillingdon ward of Yeading.
12. Ealing North (72,985). Unchanged.
13. Ealing Central & Acton (74,683). Unchanged.

My Fulham & Barons Court proposal from my earlier plan adds Shepherd's Bush Green ward to its makeup.

Notional effects:
Disappearing seats: Hammersmith, Harrow West (Lab -2)
New seats: Heston & Heathrow, Kilburn (Lab +2).

[greenhert]

Barnet & Camden can be paired together easily:

1. Holborn & St Pancras (75,084). Loses Highgate and Kentish Town North wards.
2. Hampstead (76,228). Succeeds Hampstead & Kilburn. Loses all Brent wards, gains the Camden wards of Highgate and Kentish Town North and the Barnet ward of Childs Hill.
3. Finchley & Golders Green (76,311). Loses Childs Hill ward, gains Friern Barnet ward (which was in the former Finchley constituency).
4. Hendon (71,496). Loses Edgwarebury ward.
5. Chipping Barnet (76,187). Loses Friern Barnet ward, gains Edgwarebury ward.

[evergreenadam]

Mar 29, 2021 15:59:59 GMT greenhert said:

My plan for North West London (also updates part of my West London plan): ibb.co/n62hK2h

1. Kilburn (76,629). New seat. Contains the Brent wards of Alperton, Brondesbury Park, Harlesden & Kensal Green, Kilburn, Queens Park, Roundwood, Stonebridge, and Tokyngton.
2. Kingsbury (75,089). Succeeds Brent Central in practice. Loses Harlesden & Kensal Green, Roundwood, Stonebridge & Tokyngton wards, and gains Barnhill, Kenton, Kingsbury, and Queensbury wards.
3. Wembley & Harrow South (76,352). Succeeds Brent North in practice. Loses Alperton, Barnhill, Kenton, Kingsbury and Queensbury wards in Brent, and gains Wembley Park ward in Brent and the Harrow wards of Greenhill, Harrow-on-the-Hill, Marlborough, North Harrow, and West Harrow.
4. Harrow East (76,478). Gains Wealdstone South ward.
5. Harrow West & Northwood (75,847). Succeeds Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner in practice. Loses all Ruislip wards and both Harefield wards in Hillingdon, and gains the Harrow wards of Headstone, Rayners Lane, Roxburne and Roxeth.
6. Ruislip & Harefield (76,667). Succeeds Uxbridge & Ruislip South in practice. Loses Colham & Cowley, Hillingdon West, Uxbridge, and Yiewsley wards, and gains the wards of Eastcote, Harefield Village, Ickenham & Harefield South, and Ruislip.
7. Uxbridge & Hayes (74,968). Succeeds Hayes & Harlington in practice. Loses Heathrow Villages, Pinkwell and Yeading wards, gains Colham & Cowley, Hillingdon West, Uxbridge & Yiewsley wards.
8. Heston & Heathrow (76,238). New seat. Contains the Hounslow wards of Cranford, Heston (all), Hounslow Central, Hounslow East, Hounslow West, and Osterley & Spring Grove, and the Hillingdon wards of Heathrow Villages and Pinkwell.
9. Feltham & Isleworth (73,981). Succeeds Feltham & Heston. Loses Cranford, Heston (all), and Hounslow West wards in Hounslow, and gains the Hounslow wards of Hounslow Heath, Hounslow South, and Isleworth, and the Richmond-upon-Thames ward of Heathfield.
10. Brentford, Chiswick & Hammersmith (75,254). Succeeds Brentford & Isleworth. Loses the Hounslow wards of Hounslow Central, Hounslow East, Hounslow Heath, Hounslow South, Isleworth and Osterley & Spring Grove, and gains the Hammersmith & Fulham wards of College Oak & Old Park, Coningham, Ravenscourt, Wendell Park, White City, and Wormholt.
11. Southall & Yeading (73,422). Succeeds Ealing Southall. Gains the Hillingdon ward of Yeading.
12. Ealing North (72,985). Unchanged.
13. Ealing Central & Acton (74,683). Unchanged.

My Fulham & Barons Court proposal from my earlier plan adds Shepherd's Bush Green ward to its makeup.

Notional effects:
Disappearing seats: Hammersmith, Harrow West (Lab -2)
New seats: Heston & Heathrow, Kilburn (Lab +2).

I don't think the Feltham and Isleworth seat will be popular. Could you get Cranford, Hounslow West and Hounslow Heath in the Feltham seat and have a Heston and Isleworth seat with Hounslow Central, Hounslow East and Hounslow South? There are historical precedents.

[greenhert]

Mar 29, 2021 19:56:21 GMT evergreenadam said:

Mar 29, 2021 15:59:59 GMT greenhert said:

My plan for North West London (also updates part of my West London plan): ibb.co/n62hK2h

1. Kilburn (76,629). New seat. Contains the Brent wards of Alperton, Brondesbury Park, Harlesden & Kensal Green, Kilburn, Queens Park, Roundwood, Stonebridge, and Tokyngton.
2. Kingsbury (75,089). Succeeds Brent Central in practice. Loses Harlesden & Kensal Green, Roundwood, Stonebridge & Tokyngton wards, and gains Barnhill, Kenton, Kingsbury, and Queensbury wards.
3. Wembley & Harrow South (76,352). Succeeds Brent North in practice. Loses Alperton, Barnhill, Kenton, Kingsbury and Queensbury wards in Brent, and gains Wembley Park ward in Brent and the Harrow wards of Greenhill, Harrow-on-the-Hill, Marlborough, North Harrow, and West Harrow.
4. Harrow East (76,478). Gains Wealdstone South ward.
5. Harrow West & Northwood (75,847). Succeeds Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner in practice. Loses all Ruislip wards and both Harefield wards in Hillingdon, and gains the Harrow wards of Headstone, Rayners Lane, Roxburne and Roxeth.
6. Ruislip & Harefield (76,667). Succeeds Uxbridge & Ruislip South in practice. Loses Colham & Cowley, Hillingdon West, Uxbridge, and Yiewsley wards, and gains the wards of Eastcote, Harefield Village, Ickenham & Harefield South, and Ruislip.
7. Uxbridge & Hayes (74,968). Succeeds Hayes & Harlington in practice. Loses Heathrow Villages, Pinkwell and Yeading wards, gains Colham & Cowley, Hillingdon West, Uxbridge & Yiewsley wards.
8. Heston & Heathrow (76,238). New seat. Contains the Hounslow wards of Cranford, Heston (all), Hounslow Central, Hounslow East, Hounslow West, and Osterley & Spring Grove, and the Hillingdon wards of Heathrow Villages and Pinkwell.
9. Feltham & Isleworth (73,981). Succeeds Feltham & Heston. Loses Cranford, Heston (all), and Hounslow West wards in Hounslow, and gains the Hounslow wards of Hounslow Heath, Hounslow South, and Isleworth, and the Richmond-upon-Thames ward of Heathfield.
10. Brentford, Chiswick & Hammersmith (75,254). Succeeds Brentford & Isleworth. Loses the Hounslow wards of Hounslow Central, Hounslow East, Hounslow Heath, Hounslow South, Isleworth and Osterley & Spring Grove, and gains the Hammersmith & Fulham wards of College Oak & Old Park, Coningham, Ravenscourt, Wendell Park, White City, and Wormholt.
11. Southall & Yeading (73,422). Succeeds Ealing Southall. Gains the Hillingdon ward of Yeading.
12. Ealing North (72,985). Unchanged.
13. Ealing Central & Acton (74,683). Unchanged.

My Fulham & Barons Court proposal from my earlier plan adds Shepherd's Bush Green ward to its makeup.

Notional effects:
Disappearing seats: Hammersmith, Harrow West (Lab -2)
New seats: Heston & Heathrow, Kilburn (Lab +2).

I don't think the Feltham and Isleworth seat will be popular. Could you get Cranford, Hounslow West and Hounslow Heath in the Feltham seat and have a Heston and Isleworth seat with Hounslow Central, Hounslow East and Hounslow South? There are historical precedents.

You can, although it does mean that the Feltham-based seat will contain wards from three different boroughs (two wards from Hilingdon, one ward from Richmond-upon-Thames, and six wards from Hounslow, something I am determined to avoid.

[carlton43]

Mar 29, 2021 20:05:31 GMT greenhert said:

Mar 29, 2021 19:56:21 GMT evergreenadam said:

I don't think the Feltham and Isleworth seat will be popular. Could you get Cranford, Hounslow West and Hounslow Heath in the Feltham seat and have a Heston and Isleworth seat with Hounslow Central, Hounslow East and Hounslow South? There are historical precedents.

You can, although it does mean that the Feltham-based seat will contain wards from three different boroughs (two wards from Hilingdon, one ward from Richmond-upon-Thames, and six wards from Hounslow, something I am determined to avoid.

A feltham based seat does sound to me to be a bit risque.

[jbp79]

This is my first attempt at a proposal for South London. I have spent some time working in South London so I have some knowledge of the area and I think this seems like a good, workable, proposal.

I have followed the statutory principles throughout and tried to maintain the rule of minimum change where possible. I have tried to put together natural communities and South London identities like Brixton, Camberwell, Balham and Putney but it has been difficult to avoid one or two split wards in the east of the map. However, this could be remedied through bringing a single polling district from a neighbouring constituency in to form the new constituency within quota. Furthermore, I have avoided constituencies that cross the Thames, using the river as a natural boundary. Finally, I feel that splitting Kingston upon Thames into north and south constituencies is needed given the ward sizes involved in forming new constituencies in London.



1. Wallington and Coulsdon – 73,502. Yes
2. Sutton and Cheam – 71,284. Yes
3. South Croydon – 75,350. Yes
4. Central Croydon – 74,230. Yes
5. North Croydon – 75,016. Yes
6. Carshalton and Morden – 75,770. Yes
7. Surbiton – 74,995. Yes
8. Wimbledon and North Kingston – 70,272. Yes
9. Battersea, Borough and Bankside – 70,938. Yes
10. Richmond – 72,380. Yes
11. Streatham – 70,517. Yes
12. Tooting and Mitcham – 71,759. Yes
13. Putney – 76,263. Yes
14. Bermondsey – 72,974. Yes
15. Dulwich – 70,201. Yes
16. Camberwell and Peckham – 72,399. Yes
17. Brixton – 76,812. Yes
18. Forest Hill – 73,838. Yes
19. Balham – 74,656. Yes
20. Lewisham – 75,566. Yes
21. Rotherhithe – 76,717. Yes
22. Erith and Bexleyheath – 69,162. (-562)
23. Bromley – 70,434. Yes
24. Orpington – 72,325. Yes
25. Erith and Thamesmead – 72,821. Yes
26. Beckenham – 76,625. Yes
27. Greenwich and Woolwich – 69,824. Yes
28. Sidcup and Crayford – 69,100. (-624)
29. Eltham – 76,270. Yes

[Pete Whitehead]

Mar 29, 2021 15:12:55 GMT kevinlarkin said:

Avoiding a Bromley/Croydon crossing while keeping Beckenham, Bromley and Orpington in one piece. If a ward split was allowed I would put Cray Valley East and the Poverest part of Cray Valley West in Orpington, with Chislehurst and the rest of Cray Valley West forming part of a Chis'n'Sid constituency.

If a split ward is allowed I'd go for this



CH5 is clearly separated from Chislehurst village and physically belongs with the Crays. The alternative to this is that all of Chislehurst has to go in with Orpington and Cray Valley East in with Sidcup which is far from ideal (but probably not so bad that a ward split can be justified - ie it is hardly exceptional circumstances)

[kevinlarkin]

Mar 30, 2021 10:36:32 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

If a split ward is allowed I'd go for this



CH5 is clearly separated from Chislehurst village and physically belongs with the Crays. The alternative to this is that all of Chislehurst has to go in with Orpington and Cray Valley East in with Sidcup which is far from ideal (but probably not so bad that a ward split can be justified - ie it is hardly exceptional circumstances)

Yes that probably is better, but while that part of Chislehurst ward may belong physically with the Crays it is of a different character. The top end of Leesons Hill is all big detached houses and well object to the ward being split in that way.

[Wisconsin]

Do the Commission use the phrase ‘exceptional circumstances’?

In my opinion, that criterion is no more or less important than the other statutory factors and we should not describe as being special (even if the Commission treat it as sacrosanct).

If you think a ward split is clearly the best solution, we can point to many many occasions as the bill was passing through Parliament that MPs and Peers were made aware of the issues in areas with large wards, and we okay with it.

[akmd]

Mar 30, 2021 10:33:43 GMT jbp79 said:

9. Battersea, Borough and Bankside – 70,938. Yes

No. Just no.

[YL]

Mar 30, 2021 16:41:07 GMT Wisconsin said:

Do the Commission use the phrase ‘exceptional circumstances’?

In my opinion, that criterion is no more or less important than the other statutory factors and we should not describe as being special (even if the Commission treat it as sacrosanct).

If you think a ward split is clearly the best solution, we can point to many many occasions as the bill was passing through Parliament that MPs and Peers were made aware of the issues in areas with large wards, and we okay with it.

I don't think we'll know what the Commission's approach is going to be until they publish the "Guide to the 2023 Review", but they have used that phrase in the past. They did propose splitting a number of wards in the second zombie review though (including the one I live in, as it happens) so I hope they will be open to some, especially as if they're not West Yorkshire is going to be a terrible mess.

I think most posters on here tend towards the over-cautious on ward splits. I think there are various reasons: the Commission's past approach, the fact we don't have electorate data at a sub-ward level, and in the case of at least one poster a strong dislike of them. There may also be a reluctance to propose them in areas we don't know that well.

[Pete Whitehead]

Yes I am going on their past attitude which may have changed now but I still take the view they should be avoided on the whole where not really necessary. In West Yorkshire they absolutely are necessary and I've found it much easier to make the seats I want in Greater Manchester with a single ward split in the city but in other areas they have not been necessary including London. Clearly in this case it isn't - it is just that I should prefer to include one ward in a constituency rather than another and going for my less preferred option doesn't make for awful boundaries.
I've also suggested a series of ward splits in Northamptonshire to maintain more or less existing arrangements and I do think that is better than the alternatives that have been suggested (actually the best solution would be to be allowed to use the previous district ward boundaries but this isn't an option)

[bsjmcr]

Going by most of these, and not being from London I'm so not sure how more or less safe successors of the Uxbridge seat will be - it seems pretty likely that Johnson's seat is to be abolished, so where would he move? If he even stands again that is. Is Ruislip the more Tory area than Uxbridge? But the MP for the very safe Ruislip North(wood) and Pinner is brand new and not too old so surely wouldn't want his career curtailed either, unless a Lords seat awaits...

I was thinking that Johnson would move to RNP after the rather sudden retirement of Nick Hurd perhaps to give up his seat to Johnson but alas that wasn't the case.

Possible return to Henley? The MP there isn't ancient but would be at retiring age by 2024.