|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 13, 2021 8:15:15 GMT
Initially I did this but I had an excess of voters further West (Ealing/Hillingdon) and needed to increase the electorate of the Willesden seat which was best achieved by adding Cricklewood (moving the Harrow ward of Edgware into the Hendon seat followed from that). No doubt a better plan in that whole area could be achieved by splitting a ward - Ideally I'd like to split Welsh Harp as it annoys me as is and actually that could solve the very problem I've identified here You can keep 5 seats for Barnet-Camden and 7 for Hackney-Haringey-Enfield but I think you do need to give Islington the City to avoid excess electorate somewhere else. This was my initial plan which I have posted before but I will have another look when I get some spare time. I'm pretty happy with the Middlesex area (I would have posted a more zoomed in image of the area but Imgur seems not to be working today). I agree with and endorse the Commission's plans for Ealing/Hammersmith & Chiswick but differ substantially elsewhere. The split of Heston is a notably bad suggestion as it's totally unnecessary. I've been playing around more and end up with only two solutions. The first with the City still linked with Westminster results in the arrangement I posted upthread which I think is OK but I do believe you're right that linking the City with Islington is the key to the whole thing. Accepting that is difficult for me (and I know from previous attempts will be for others) but if we can get over that I do think you've nailed it in this area and that plan can't be improved upon. My other concern as I mentioned is the Willesden/Neasden/Kingsbury seat. This can be resolved by swapping Welsh Harp and Kingsbury for Alperton, Tokyngton and Wembley Park but it would be a shame to split up such a beautifully formed Wembley seat and for little real gain. I would say I'd probably stick with Commissions plans in Hounslow and Hillingdon purely to save capital for arguing for changes elsewhere (i'm fairly uninterested in Hounslow but agree that in Hillingdon, Harefield and Manor should swap places in the way you've proposed). I hope you will be making a submission along these lines and I certainly will (talking just of Middlesex here - I would propose something different to both the commission plan and yours in East London while in South London I would be happy with their plan)
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 13, 2021 10:24:11 GMT
You can keep 5 seats for Barnet-Camden and 7 for Hackney-Haringey-Enfield but I think you do need to give Islington the City to avoid excess electorate somewhere else. This was my initial plan which I have posted before but I will have another look when I get some spare time. I'm pretty happy with the Middlesex area (I would have posted a more zoomed in image of the area but Imgur seems not to be working today). I agree with and endorse the Commission's plans for Ealing/Hammersmith & Chiswick but differ substantially elsewhere. The split of Heston is a notably bad suggestion as it's totally unnecessary. I've been playing around more and end up with only two solutions. The first with the City still linked with Westminster results in the arrangement I posted upthread which I think is OK but I do believe you're right that linking the City with Islington is the key to the whole thing. Accepting that is difficult for me (and I know from previous attempts will be for others) but if we can get over that I do think you've nailed it in this area and that plan can't be improved upon. My other concern as I mentioned is the Willesden/Neasden/Kingsbury seat. This can be resolved by swapping Welsh Harp and Kingsbury for Alperton, Tokyngton and Wembley Park but it would be a shame to split up such a beautifully formed Wembley seat and for little real gain. I would say I'd probably stick with Commissions plans in Hounslow and Hillingdon purely to save capital for arguing for changes elsewhere (i'm fairly uninterested in Hounslow but agree that in Hillingdon, Harefield and Manor should swap places in the way you've proposed). I hope you will be making a submission along these lines and I certainly will (talking just of Middlesex here - I would propose something different to both the commission plan and yours in East London while in South London I would be happy with their plan) I've also been looking closely at the plan posted by pepperminttea and it's got some real positives. South of the river it's much better than the BCE plan, with fewer cross-borough seats, and apart from a handful of ward swaps this is pretty much what I'm likely to submit in this area.
In north London, however, I have some issues.
In Newham/TH, I agree that it involves less disruption to the current pattern if the boundary is crossed in the south and I'm impressed by the plan's novel way of doing this - not 100% convinced by it but seriously thinking about it.
Elsewhere in east London, though, I don't like the split of Chingford, and the separation of Hornchurch from Upminster means a degree of disruption to the current scheme that the BCE has avoided by means of a ward split. Except in Newham/TH therefore, my submission will support the BCE plan in east London.
It's in the central north London area that I have most problems with pepperminttea's plan. LIke a number of other schemes, it chops Tottenham in half and shoves the northern part in with Edmonton. This is completely unnecessary - the BCE scheme doesn't do it and neither should any alternative. If the Enfield-Haringey boundary is to be crossed, it should be in the Southgate / Wood Green area (incidentally such a seat previously existed 1918-1950). This approach allows the whole of Southgate and WG to be included in the seat, avoiding the boundary through the middle of WG that is also a feature of many schemes posted here.
If you hive off only two wards on the northern side of Hackney, rather than three, then Hackney South can lend a ward to get the numbers up in Islington South, meaning in turn that the City can continue its long association with Westminster. As a resident of the area, let me add that personally, I have no problem with a City / Islington link; but I recognize that realistically, any plan proposing it is likely to come under withering fire on that ground alone, regardless of the plan's other merits. So I'd avoid suggesting such a link unless it's really unavoidable (which it clearly isn't).
Mention of Westminster brings me to my other major beef with pepperminttea's scheme, namely the total carnage in the Paddington area, sliced up between three seats when it can and should be kept together.
Sorry: this is coming across as more critical than I intended, and I'm certainly not dismissing a plan that has a lot of very good points. But the splitting of Chingford, Tottenham and Wood Green is very hard to justify, especially since all three are kept together in the BCE plan. And as for Paddington, I acknowledge it is also split three ways in the BCE plan but surely this is the sort of feature our submissions should seek to remove.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 13, 2021 10:43:22 GMT
The Chingford area is the least attractive part of pepperminttea's plan but that's not an element I'm supporting (in fact I'm entirely in agreement with the Commission in that part of East London but differ on Newham/Tower Hamlets and Havering/Barking & Dagenham). I differ with Pepperminttea there also although in the latter case it would be OK if Gooshays were swapped for Squirrel's Heath (or alternatively Heaton were swapped for Emerson Park)
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 13, 2021 10:54:56 GMT
Just to add that the arrangement that pepperminttea has suggested for Barnet is something I hadn't previously thought of and I's seriously thinking of stealing it.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 13, 2021 11:32:11 GMT
Looking just at the 'Middlesex' area, i.e. everything north of the Thames and east of the Lea (or Lee) except for TH, this area has 32 seats in the BCE scheme and in pepperminttea's scheme and in my preferred scheme.
But in the BCE scheme, no fewer than 18 of those seats cross LA boundaries; whereas in my scheme the number is 12, and at a quick count I think pepperminttea's total is the same as mine.
In short there is a serious issue in this area about reducing the excessive number of cross-borough seats in the BCE scheme.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 13, 2021 11:48:44 GMT
I've been playing around more and end up with only two solutions. The first with the City still linked with Westminster results in the arrangement I posted upthread which I think is OK but I do believe you're right that linking the City with Islington is the key to the whole thing. Accepting that is difficult for me (and I know from previous attempts will be for others) but if we can get over that I do think you've nailed it in this area and that plan can't be improved upon. My other concern as I mentioned is the Willesden/Neasden/Kingsbury seat. This can be resolved by swapping Welsh Harp and Kingsbury for Alperton, Tokyngton and Wembley Park but it would be a shame to split up such a beautifully formed Wembley seat and for little real gain. I would say I'd probably stick with Commissions plans in Hounslow and Hillingdon purely to save capital for arguing for changes elsewhere (i'm fairly uninterested in Hounslow but agree that in Hillingdon, Harefield and Manor should swap places in the way you've proposed). I hope you will be making a submission along these lines and I certainly will (talking just of Middlesex here - I would propose something different to both the commission plan and yours in East London while in South London I would be happy with their plan) I've also been looking closely at the plan posted by pepperminttea and it's got some real positives. South of the river it's much better than the BCE plan, with fewer cross-borough seats, and apart from a handful of ward swaps this is pretty much what I'm likely to submit in this area.
In north London, however, I have some issues.
In Newham/TH, I agree that it involves less disruption to the current pattern if the boundary is crossed in the south and I'm impressed by the plan's novel way of doing this - not 100% convinced by it but seriously thinking about it.
Elsewhere in east London, though, I don't like the split of Chingford, and the separation of Hornchurch from Upminster means a degree of disruption to the current scheme that the BCE has avoided by means of a ward split. Except in Newham/TH therefore, my submission will support the BCE plan in east London.
It's in the central north London area that I have most problems with pepperminttea's plan. LIke a number of other schemes, it chops Tottenham in half and shoves the northern part in with Edmonton. This is completely unnecessary - the BCE scheme doesn't do it and neither should any alternative. If the Enfield-Haringey boundary is to be crossed, it should be in the Southgate / Wood Green area (incidentally such a seat previously existed 1918-1950). This approach allows the whole of Southgate and WG to be included in the seat, avoiding the boundary through the middle of WG that is also a feature of many schemes posted here.
If you hive off only two wards on the northern side of Hackney, rather than three, then Hackney South can lend a ward to get the numbers up in Islington South, meaning in turn that the City can continue its long association with Westminster. As a resident of the area, let me add that personally, I have no problem with a City / Islington link; but I recognize that realistically, any plan proposing it is likely to come under withering fire on that ground alone, regardless of the plan's other merits. So I'd avoid suggesting such a link unless it's really unavoidable (which it clearly isn't).
Mention of Westminster brings me to my other major beef with pepperminttea's scheme, namely the total carnage in the Paddington area, sliced up between three seats when it can and should be kept together.
Sorry: this is coming across as more critical than I intended, and I'm certainly not dismissing a plan that has a lot of very good points. But the splitting of Chingford, Tottenham and Wood Green is very hard to justify, especially since all three are kept together in the BCE plan. And as for Paddington, I acknowledge it is also split three ways in the BCE plan but surely this is the sort of feature our submissions should seek to remove. Isn't splitting Tottenham (or what I thought of as Tottenham anyways; some of that is historically Wood Green I think?) unavoidable unless you link Hackney thru (ie chop up) Islington instead? What's avoidable is linking it with Edmonton. The double nibbling into Hackney that's the alternative to Islington & City (of course the commission somehow managed to do both...) strikes me as a bit of amorphous blobbery even though it helps keep more of Tottenham together. I know what plan I'd support if I were from Hackney! I really can't comment on the consequences for points west in Middlesex and find all-London maps hard to read there. Which is a handicap in trying to decide what scheme I like... Pretty much happy with, or at least able to accept the rationale behind, what the commission is proposing in South and East London, a couple minor issues and some names aside.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 13, 2021 12:08:32 GMT
I've also been looking closely at the plan posted by pepperminttea and it's got some real positives. South of the river it's much better than the BCE plan, with fewer cross-borough seats, and apart from a handful of ward swaps this is pretty much what I'm likely to submit in this area. In north London, however, I have some issues. In Newham/TH, I agree that it involves less disruption to the current pattern if the boundary is crossed in the south and I'm impressed by the plan's novel way of doing this - not 100% convinced by it but seriously thinking about it. Elsewhere in east London, though, I don't like the split of Chingford, and the separation of Hornchurch from Upminster means a degree of disruption to the current scheme that the BCE has avoided by means of a ward split. Except in Newham/TH therefore, my submission will support the BCE plan in east London. It's in the central north London area that I have most problems with pepperminttea's plan. LIke a number of other schemes, it chops Tottenham in half and shoves the northern part in with Edmonton. This is completely unnecessary - the BCE scheme doesn't do it and neither should any alternative. If the Enfield-Haringey boundary is to be crossed, it should be in the Southgate / Wood Green area (incidentally such a seat previously existed 1918-1950). This approach allows the whole of Southgate and WG to be included in the seat, avoiding the boundary through the middle of WG that is also a feature of many schemes posted here. If you hive off only two wards on the northern side of Hackney, rather than three, then Hackney South can lend a ward to get the numbers up in Islington South, meaning in turn that the City can continue its long association with Westminster. As a resident of the area, let me add that personally, I have no problem with a City / Islington link; but I recognize that realistically, any plan proposing it is likely to come under withering fire on that ground alone, regardless of the plan's other merits. So I'd avoid suggesting such a link unless it's really unavoidable (which it clearly isn't).
Mention of Westminster brings me to my other major beef with pepperminttea's scheme, namely the total carnage in the Paddington area, sliced up between three seats when it can and should be kept together. Sorry: this is coming across as more critical than I intended, and I'm certainly not dismissing a plan that has a lot of very good points. But the splitting of Chingford, Tottenham and Wood Green is very hard to justify, especially since all three are kept together in the BCE plan. And as for Paddington, I acknowledge it is also split three ways in the BCE plan but surely this is the sort of feature our submissions should seek to remove. Isn't splitting Tottenham (or what I thought of as Tottenham anyways; some of that is historically Wood Green I think?) unavoidable unless you link Hackney thru (ie chop up) Islington instead? What's avoidable is linking it with Edmonton. The double nibbling into Hackney that's the alternative to Islington & City (of course the commission somehow managed to do both...) strikes me as a bit of amorphous blobbery even though it helps keep more of Tottenham together. I know what plan I'd support if I were from Hackney! I really can't comment on the consequences for points west in Middlesex and find all-London maps hard to read there. Which is a handicap in trying to decide what scheme I like... Pretty much happy with, or at least able to accept the rationale behind, what the commission is proposing in South and East London, a couple minor issues and some names aside. Well, only a single Hackney ward needs to be transferred to Islington S and the natural candidate is de Beauvoir, which is covered by the N1 postcode and probably prefers to think of itself as Islington anyway. And this allows Islington N to be kept unchanged. Apart for a localized issue in Newham / TH about where the new seat should go, east London I agree is good in the BCE scheme (especially considering the holy hash they made of it in their initial proposals in the 2018 review). In south London, if you are going to split a ward to give three whole seats to Wandsworth (3.02), then it seems perverse not also to treat Lambeth (2.96) by itself as well (with no ward split required). This means that Croydon's boundary with Bromley needs to be crossed, which is the basic feature that I think pepperminttea has got right and the BCE has got wrong. This also allows you to eliminate the Croydon / Merton crossing in the BCE scheme as well as the split ward in Croydon (the latter is less of an issue now that I've joined the Holy Congregation of Split Ward True Believers, but it's still a plus).
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 13, 2021 12:38:02 GMT
Isn't splitting Tottenham (or what I thought of as Tottenham anyways; some of that is historically Wood Green I think?) unavoidable unless you link Hackney thru (ie chop up) Islington instead? What's avoidable is linking it with Edmonton. The double nibbling into Hackney that's the alternative to Islington & City (of course the commission somehow managed to do both...) strikes me as a bit of amorphous blobbery even though it helps keep more of Tottenham together. I know what plan I'd support if I were from Hackney! I really can't comment on the consequences for points west in Middlesex and find all-London maps hard to read there. Which is a handicap in trying to decide what scheme I like... Pretty much happy with, or at least able to accept the rationale behind, what the commission is proposing in South and East London, a couple minor issues and some names aside. Well, only a single Hackney ward needs to be transferred to Islington S and the natural candidate is de Beauvoir, which is covered by the N1 postcode and probably prefers to think of itself as Islington anyway. And this allows Islington N to be kept unchanged. Apart for a localized issue in Newham / TH about where the new seat should go, east London I agree is good in the BCE scheme (especially considering the holy hash they made of it in their initial proposals in the 2018 review). In south London, if you are going to split a ward to give three whole seats to Wandsworth (3.02), then it seems perverse not also to treat Lambeth (2.96) by itself as well (with no ward split required). This means that Croydon's boundary with Bromley needs to be crossed, which is the basic feature that I think pepperminttea has got right and the BCE has got wrong. That comes at a heavy price in and around Lewisham, though. Lots of change and a very odd triborough seat. And in Croydon too actually. (But then the commission's plan comes at a price in Eltham & Chislehurst.)You can do that anyways! Probably should, too. [/div][/quote] okay, you probably need to split another ward to amend the BCE scheme to accomodate his Merton/Kingston/Richmond.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 13, 2021 16:32:17 GMT
I'm still mulling the exact detail of my south London submission but it will be very much along the lines of pepperminttea's plan (which incidentally I don't think contains a triborough seat).
My current best plan has six cross-border seats south of the Thames compared with eight in the BCE plan.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 13, 2021 16:54:04 GMT
I'm still mulling the exact detail of my south London submission but it will be very much along the lines of pepperminttea's plan (which incidentally I don't think contains a triborough seat). ...you're right. "Londonwide map without borough boundaries looked at on a phone" is my only excuse. Got tripped up by those two wedgeshaped wards, New Cross Gate and Telegraph Hill. I apologize for any inconvenience.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 13, 2021 17:04:45 GMT
Well, only a single Hackney ward needs to be transferred to Islington S and the natural candidate is de Beauvoir, which is covered by the N1 postcode and probably prefers to think of itself as Islington anyway. And this allows Islington N to be kept unchanged. Apart for a localized issue in Newham / TH about where the new seat should go, east London I agree is good in the BCE scheme (especially considering the holy hash they made of it in their initial proposals in the 2018 review). In south London, if you are going to split a ward to give three whole seats to Wandsworth (3.02), then it seems perverse not also to treat Lambeth (2.96) by itself as well (with no ward split required). This means that Croydon's boundary with Bromley needs to be crossed, which is the basic feature that I think pepperminttea has got right and the BCE has got wrong. That comes at a heavy price in and around Lewisham, though. Lots of change and a very odd triborough seat. And in Croydon too actually. (But then the commission's plan comes at a price in Eltham & Chislehurst.)You can do that anyways! Probably should, too.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 13, 2021 17:15:27 GMT
"Keen to understand what would need to happen to cut the Merton / Croydon link."
Well, at the Merton end, nothing. The BCE's Mitcham seat is only 69883 so you can simply add Longthornton and it's still in range at 76877.
What happens at the Croydon end depends whether you link the borough with Lambeth, as per BCE, or Bromley, as I'd prefer.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 13, 2021 17:31:34 GMT
You can do that anyways! Probably should, too. I think eliminating the Merton / Croydon crossing would be worthwhile. The orphan Longthornton ward does not look good in Croydon North. I might have had less concern if both Longthornton and Pollards Hill had been included in Croydon North. Keen to understand what would need to happen to cut the Merton / Croydon link. on the Merton/Richmond/Kingston side? Numbers are tight but I refer you back to pepperminttea's plan - the broad outline of seats remains the same. On the Croydon/Lambeth/Southwark/Lewisham side you'd probably be adding Norbury Park to n if you don't want to be shifting wards all over Croydon, and then... ugh. Clapham & Brixton has the surplus population you need, moving Streatham a little north, but the ward sizes in Lambeth are not helpful. If you want to stay as close to the commission map as possible (but do you? Splitting the area east-west into Brixton and Streatham seats sounds good to me) you'd need to have two ward splits.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 13, 2021 17:32:49 GMT
"Keen to understand what would need to happen to cut the Merton / Croydon link." Well, at the Merton end, nothing. The BCE's Mitcham seat is only 69883 so you can simply add Longthornton and it's still in range at 76877. Ah. That's even better.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 13, 2021 22:06:42 GMT
Found a way to keep the four Chiswick wards together as per the recommendations of the previous review, whilst uniting more of Shepherds Bush in the same seat. It would involve one seat with wards from three local authorities but in this case I don’t think it matters. The Ealing Acton and Shepherds Bush seat along the Uxbridge Road corridor has historical precedent.
Hammersmith and Chiswick 75,656 Add Southfield ward from Ealing Central and Acton Remove White City and Shepherds Bush Green
Ealing Acton and Shepherds Bush 74,489 Add White City and Shepherds Bush Green wards from Hammersmith and Chiswick Remove Southfield
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 14, 2021 9:00:26 GMT
Found a way to keep the four Chiswick wards together as per the recommendations of the previous review, whilst uniting more of Shepherds Bush in the same seat. It would involve one seat with wards from three local authorities but in this case I don’t think it matters. The Ealing Acton and Shepherds Bush seat along the Uxbridge Road corridor has historical precedent. Hammersmith and Chiswick 75,656 Add Southfield ward from Ealing Central and Acton Remove White City and Shepherds Bush Green Ealing Acton and Shepherds Bush 74,489 Add White City and Shepherds Bush Green wards from Hammersmith and Chiswick Remove Southfield Southfields extends well into Acton Vale and can't be counted as a Chiswick ward. There's a case to be made that the borough boundary is in the wrong place and that the southern third of this ward would more logically be switched to Hounslow; but it's not the role of this review to address issues like that.
My preference is that the current Ealing C & Acton seat should be left alone (subject to ward realignment) and the BCE's proposed split through the middle of Ealing town is something I'll be seeking to rectify in my submission.
I do accept, though, that there's a decent case for doing something like the below (you can swap Earl's Ct and Brompton wards if you prefer). In its favour is the retention of a Chelsea & Fulham seat; also, that Hammersmith town centre is much better nested in its seat.
On the other hand, it's an extra LA boundary-crossing compared with my (currently) preferred plan, which has a seat uniting the whole of K&C, except that Earl's Ct and Redcliffe wards go into a 'greater Fulham' seat (I'd just call it 'Fulham') comprising the whole southern part of H&F but unfortunately, because of numbers, cutting very close the Hammersmith town.
It's a fine balance. I'd be almost equally happy with either outcome. But I definitely don't think this is the right place to cross the Ealing boundary, so I'll be objecting to that aspect of the BCE scheme.
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Jun 14, 2021 21:13:22 GMT
Found a way to keep the four Chiswick wards together as per the recommendations of the previous review, whilst uniting more of Shepherds Bush in the same seat. It would involve one seat with wards from three local authorities but in this case I don’t think it matters. The Ealing Acton and Shepherds Bush seat along the Uxbridge Road corridor has historical precedent. Hammersmith and Chiswick 75,656 Add Southfield ward from Ealing Central and Acton Remove White City and Shepherds Bush Green Ealing Acton and Shepherds Bush 74,489 Add White City and Shepherds Bush Green wards from Hammersmith and Chiswick Remove Southfield Southfields extends well into Acton Vale and can't be counted as a Chiswick ward. There's a case to be made that the borough boundary is in the wrong place and that the southern third of this ward would more logically be switched to Hounslow; but it's not the role of this review to address issues like that.
My preference is that the current Ealing C & Acton seat should be left alone (subject to ward realignment) and the BCE's proposed split through the middle of Ealing town is something I'll be seeking to rectify in my submission.
I do accept, though, that there's a decent case for doing something like the below (you can swap Earl's Ct and Brompton wards if you prefer). In its favour is the retention of a Chelsea & Fulham seat; also, that Hammersmith town centre is much better nested in its seat.
On the other hand, it's an extra LA boundary-crossing compared with my (currently) preferred plan, which has a seat uniting the whole of K&C, except that Earl's Ct and Redcliffe wards go into a 'greater Fulham' seat (I'd just call it 'Fulham') comprising the whole southern part of H&F but unfortunately, because of numbers, cutting very close the Hammersmith town.
It's a fine balance. I'd be almost equally happy with either outcome. But I definitely don't think this is the right place to cross the Ealing boundary, so I'll be objecting to that aspect of the BCE scheme.
I really don't agree actually. Both the College Park & Old Oak and Wormholt wards contain part of the area considered locally to be Acton so I would actually argue this is the best place to cross the Ealing boundary. I would probably call the constituency 'Ealing Acton' though. This is certainly better than pairing them with Kensington with which they are poorly connected. Remember the Ealing-H&F pairing also has precedent in the form of the Ealing, Acton and Shepard's Bush seat that existed from 1997-2010. Walpole returning to Ealing Southall is also just a reversion to before the last set of boundary changes. Honestly the Ealing area is probably my favourite part of the Commission's plan in North London (perhaps at least in part because I independently came up with the same thing ).
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Jun 14, 2021 21:57:26 GMT
I've been playing around more and end up with only two solutions. The first with the City still linked with Westminster results in the arrangement I posted upthread which I think is OK but I do believe you're right that linking the City with Islington is the key to the whole thing. Accepting that is difficult for me (and I know from previous attempts will be for others) but if we can get over that I do think you've nailed it in this area and that plan can't be improved upon. My other concern as I mentioned is the Willesden/Neasden/Kingsbury seat. This can be resolved by swapping Welsh Harp and Kingsbury for Alperton, Tokyngton and Wembley Park but it would be a shame to split up such a beautifully formed Wembley seat and for little real gain. I would say I'd probably stick with Commissions plans in Hounslow and Hillingdon purely to save capital for arguing for changes elsewhere (i'm fairly uninterested in Hounslow but agree that in Hillingdon, Harefield and Manor should swap places in the way you've proposed). I hope you will be making a submission along these lines and I certainly will (talking just of Middlesex here - I would propose something different to both the commission plan and yours in East London while in South London I would be happy with their plan) I've also been looking closely at the plan posted by pepperminttea and it's got some real positives. South of the river it's much better than the BCE plan, with fewer cross-borough seats, and apart from a handful of ward swaps this is pretty much what I'm likely to submit in this area.
In north London, however, I have some issues.
In Newham/TH, I agree that it involves less disruption to the current pattern if the boundary is crossed in the south and I'm impressed by the plan's novel way of doing this - not 100% convinced by it but seriously thinking about it.
Elsewhere in east London, though, I don't like the split of Chingford, and the separation of Hornchurch from Upminster means a degree of disruption to the current scheme that the BCE has avoided by means of a ward split. Except in Newham/TH therefore, my submission will support the BCE plan in east London.
It's in the central north London area that I have most problems with pepperminttea's plan. LIke a number of other schemes, it chops Tottenham in half and shoves the northern part in with Edmonton. This is completely unnecessary - the BCE scheme doesn't do it and neither should any alternative. If the Enfield-Haringey boundary is to be crossed, it should be in the Southgate / Wood Green area (incidentally such a seat previously existed 1918-1950). This approach allows the whole of Southgate and WG to be included in the seat, avoiding the boundary through the middle of WG that is also a feature of many schemes posted here.
If you hive off only two wards on the northern side of Hackney, rather than three, then Hackney South can lend a ward to get the numbers up in Islington South, meaning in turn that the City can continue its long association with Westminster. As a resident of the area, let me add that personally, I have no problem with a City / Islington link; but I recognize that realistically, any plan proposing it is likely to come under withering fire on that ground alone, regardless of the plan's other merits. So I'd avoid suggesting such a link unless it's really unavoidable (which it clearly isn't).
Mention of Westminster brings me to my other major beef with pepperminttea's scheme, namely the total carnage in the Paddington area, sliced up between three seats when it can and should be kept together.
Sorry: this is coming across as more critical than I intended, and I'm certainly not dismissing a plan that has a lot of very good points. But the splitting of Chingford, Tottenham and Wood Green is very hard to justify, especially since all three are kept together in the BCE plan. And as for Paddington, I acknowledge it is also split three ways in the BCE plan but surely this is the sort of feature our submissions should seek to remove. Oh I agree the Commission's plan in North East London is better than mine. I got bogged down in trying to draw 9 constituencies in Havering, B&D, Redbridge and WF with no ward splits and that was the only way I could figure out doing it. I might look at that area again with a fresh eye allowing myself 1 ward split. Re. Haringey-Enfield, I agree that a split of Tottenham isn't ideal but neither is a constituency stretching from Cockfosters to Wood Green with Bowes in Edmonton (that's the only way I could figure out of doing it that way without a splitting ward, which is why I opted for the Tottenham split). Perhaps having Cockfosters, Grange Park, Oakwood and Bush Hill Park in a united 'Enfield' seat with Edmonton covering the east the borough and Carterhatch split between the two(not shown in image) would be better? Yeah I get that putting the city with Islington will be controversial but I'd rather bite the bullet and do it as it makes the rest of North West London much less tricky. I'm sure if people are that upset that it becomes unfeasible you could split a ward in Westminster to make it work. Ideally Paddington wouldn't chopped to that extent but avoiding crossing the Westminster-K&C boundary creates a real mess in K&C and H&F leading to at least one terrible constituency (e.g. your suggested one that contains both South Kensington and the eastern fringes of Acton). Plus the Hyde Park ward has long been separate from the rest of Paddington anyway, whilst Bayswater and Lancaster gate fit demographically well with the Kensington constituency whilst northern Paddington and its neighbouring areas of Brent also work well. I'm not claiming this arrangement is perfect but I don't think its bad, Paddington is an area that varies wildly demographically and the people in the north of the area have little in common with those living in the south. And don't worry about being critical, especially if it's constructive, that's what's this site's for . I'm going to have a look again at my plan, perhaps with a more open mind to ward splits (the Battersea one was the only one I went for in the end). For example the 'Cray Valley' seat in South London is something I'd rather not of done as it splits Orpington, but the much neater 'Chislehurst & Sidcup' was an irritating 135 voters short!
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 14, 2021 22:01:31 GMT
Southfields extends well into Acton Vale and can't be counted as a Chiswick ward. There's a case to be made that the borough boundary is in the wrong place and that the southern third of this ward would more logically be switched to Hounslow; but it's not the role of this review to address issues like that.
My preference is that the current Ealing C & Acton seat should be left alone (subject to ward realignment) and the BCE's proposed split through the middle of Ealing town is something I'll be seeking to rectify in my submission.
I do accept, though, that there's a decent case for doing something like the below (you can swap Earl's Ct and Brompton wards if you prefer). In its favour is the retention of a Chelsea & Fulham seat; also, that Hammersmith town centre is much better nested in its seat.
On the other hand, it's an extra LA boundary-crossing compared with my (currently) preferred plan, which has a seat uniting the whole of K&C, except that Earl's Ct and Redcliffe wards go into a 'greater Fulham' seat (I'd just call it 'Fulham') comprising the whole southern part of H&F but unfortunately, because of numbers, cutting very close the Hammersmith town.
It's a fine balance. I'd be almost equally happy with either outcome. But I definitely don't think this is the right place to cross the Ealing boundary, so I'll be objecting to that aspect of the BCE scheme.
I really don't agree actually. Both the College Park & Old Oak and Wormholt wards contain part of the area considered locally to be Acton so I would actually argue this is the best place to cross the Ealing boundary. I would probably call the constituency 'Ealing Acton' though. This is certainly better than pairing them with Kensington with which they are poorly connected. Remember the Ealing-H&F pairing also has precedent in the form of the Ealing, Acton and Shepard's Bush seat that existed from 1997-2010. Walpole returning to Ealing Southall is also just a reversion to before the last set of boundary changes. Honestly the Ealing area is probably my favourite part of the Commission's plan in North London (perhaps at least in part because I independently came up with the same thing ). I agree with Pepperminttea. The severance between White City/W12 and North Kensington by the West London Line is really bad on the ground. The only crossing points for pedestrians are way up at North Pole Road or on the south side of Harrow Road or on the south side of the Grand Union Canal. In a vehicle you can cross the railway via the Westway flyover but can’t get back to ground level until you have reached City of Westminster. On the tube you can cross between Wood Lane and Latimer Road. It doesn’t make for a good pairing at all.
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Jun 14, 2021 22:06:10 GMT
Just to add that the arrangement that pepperminttea has suggested for Barnet is something I hadn't previously thought of and I's seriously thinking of stealing it. You are more than welcome to do that
|
|