|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 17, 2021 10:36:23 GMT
This is far from being a bad plan - certainly better than the BCE's - but: - The two seats involved in your ward split are both very near the upper limit, so you're relying a lot on helpful PD numbers.
- An easy exhange is to swap Harefield and Ruislip Manor wards, improving both seats.
- Your Edmonton/Tottenham is a mess (whereas the BCE's Edmonton is actually quite good).
- While I personally, as a resident of the proposed seat, don't have a particular problem with pairing the City with Islington S, I think there will be huge pressure to maintain the City-Westminster link so you're at risk of pitchforks here, or the City equivalent (a viciously sharpened spreadsheet, perhaps, or worse still you might have the lads of the Crimson Permanent Assurance out for blood).
- You've followed pepperminttea in reinstating the former terrible boundary through Ealing town centre, which we got rid of at the last review.
But still pretty impressive overall, and congrats on working out how to post maps.
Edited to add: Oh, yes, and I'd consider swapping Primrose Hill and Kentish Town S wards so as to keep Kentish Town together and avoid cutting so close to Camden Town.
Don't agree at all re. Ealing. A split of Ealing town is not ideal but the thing is Ealing proper is *already* split on current boundaries due to Northfields being in Southall. If anything returning Walpole to Ealing Southall is better than currently due to Northfields no longer being an 'orphan' ward. Also any plans that avoid moving Walpole cause terrible butchery elsewhere e.g. splits of Southall. Your own plan, in avoiding moving Walpole, basically shoves a good chunk of Hammersmith proper and a random bite out of Kensington and Chelsea into a 'Fulham' seat. These are far worse than just moving Walpole. rcronald . One other thing I'd suggest is you can easily eliminate that unfortunate split of Heston proposed by the commission by moving Heston, Cranford and Hounslow West into a constituency with the Brentford wards, Isleworth and Osterley. Meanwhile put Feltham with the rest of the Hounslow proper wards and Heathfield (from Richmond borough). Agree on Ealing and Hounslow. |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434 
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jul 17, 2021 14:32:35 GMT
Regarding Hounslow, I wasn't planning to suggest any changes to the BCE scheme because although it isn't the best available (in my view) the alternatives aren't very satisfactory either. The map below shows what is, for my money, the least bad solution in this area. Given that it seems inevitable that one ward of Hounslow town will end up being separated from the rest, I think South is a better choice than West because it's further from the town centre and is separated from it by a major physical barrier in the form of the railway line. But this arrangement is a lot further from minimum change than the BCE's suggestion. But my main reason for posting this map is to float some ideas elsewhere in west London, picking up the suggestion of rcronald of putting Hanger Hill in Ealing North. The leaves an Ealing South & Acton seat (I suppose you'd call it) involving two wards of H&F (and a not-great boundary in the White City area). It allows Hammersmith to be much better nested in its seat and keeps a Chelsea & Fulham seat, but Kensington then spills over into Westminster so we are running up an additional borough boundary-crossing compared with my preferred scheme for this area - but of course you may feel that doesn't matter. There are good things elsewhere in this plan. I like the east-west split of Harrow, the Wembley seat is excellent and Willesden is not bad. I'm not sure what you'd call the yellow seat to its south - Queens Park, perhaps.
I still don't agree with the suggestion of pepperminttea of putting Walpole in with Southall. I agree that Northfields ward ideally doesn't belong in a Southall seat and I'm perfectly prepared to believe the residents dislike the arrangement. But I don't see how their pain is diminished by shifting Walpole as well, a ward that belongs even less in Southall. But if you want to do it, this map easily permits a three-way swap of Walpole into Southall ('Ealing West & Southall'?), N Hanwell into Ealing N (which splits Hanwell but has the merit of keeping Ealing N unchanged), Hanger Hill into Ealing E & Acton (for want of a better name). I acknowledge that many aspects of this plan have been posted upthread, so I'm not claiming massive originality. But I don't think exactly this version has appeared before, and I'd welcome comments.
For ease of reference I've posted my preferred plan below, minimizing the borough crossings, keeping Ealing town centre united (indeed Ealing C & Acton is unchanged), a very tidy Paddington seat, Willesden also is very solid but Wembley and Harrow are messier and I've reluctantly accepted the BCE's min-change approach to Hounslow.
 |
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Jul 17, 2021 15:05:29 GMT
so we are running up an additional borough boundary-crossing compared with my preferred scheme for this area - but of course you may feel that doesn't matter.
There are good things elsewhere in this plan. I like the east-west split of Harrow, the Wembley seat is excellent and Willesden is not bad. I'm not sure what you'd call the yellow seat to its south - Queens Park, perhaps. I acknowledge that many aspects of this plan have been posted upthread, so I'm not claiming massive originality. But I don't think exactly this version has appeared before, and I'd welcome comments.
For ease of reference I've posted my preferred plan below, minimizing the borough crossings.
1.My proposal for that part of London only has one borough crossing more, something I am presonally willing to accept. 2.I was acctually having a hard time thinking of a constituency name for Queens Park. 3.I think that using each others maps make our future maps better and as the Americans say, Iron sharpens iron! |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jul 17, 2021 15:36:22 GMT
I agree about 'iron sharpens iron' and one of the most appealing things about this site is that it seems to be generally accepted that any plans posted are fair game to be picked up by anyone else. (This definitely goes for mine, if anyone wants to steal one of my suggestions). I'm still not persuaded by plans, like those put forward by pepperminttea and the BCE, that involve crossing the border between Ealing and H&F. But, fiddling with maps as one does, it struck me that although College Pk & Old Oak includes part of East Acton Iincluding the tube station) and is a logical ward to take, Wormholt as the other ward results in a rotten boundary carving up the White City area. Wendell Park, on the other hand, is much more of an Acton-facing ward and gives a far tidier boundary so maybe it would be a better choice if you're looking for another H&F ward to join College Pk in an Ealing-based seat. |
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Jul 17, 2021 15:45:18 GMT
I was trying to find a way of putting both White City wards in the same consituency but I considered the domino effect too much unless you want to give wendell park.
I excpected South London to be easier but Bromley + Bexley + Greenwich (especially Eltham) is a nightmare.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 17, 2021 23:06:00 GMT
I agree about 'iron sharpens iron' and one of the most appealing things about this site is that it seems to be generally accepted that any plans posted are fair game to be picked up by anyone else. (This definitely goes for mine, if anyone wants to steal one of my suggestions). I'm still not persuaded by plans, like those put forward by pepperminttea and the BCE, that involve crossing the border between Ealing and H&F. But, fiddling with maps as one does, it struck me that although College Pk & Old Oak includes part of East Acton Iincluding the tube station) and is a logical ward to take, Wormholt as the other ward results in a rotten boundary carving up the White City area. Wendell Park, on the other hand, is much more of an Acton-facing ward and gives a far tidier boundary so maybe it would be a better choice if you're looking for another H&F ward to join College Pk in an Ealing-based seat. I would favour moving Southfield ward to the Hammersmith and Chiswick seat as most of that ward is considered to be Chiswick by those that live in the W4 postcode area. You may be able to avoid the awkward boundary between White City and Wormholt wards by transferring White City and Shepherds Bush Green wards to the Ealing Acton seat to compensate. Chiswick would be in one seat as would Shepherds Bush north of Uxbridge Road. |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jul 18, 2021 12:27:05 GMT
"West Ham" (a Central missing from the ward name?) I made this point to the LGBCE this repeatedly. Stubbornly refused to engage. Instead they introduced a brand new “East Ham” ward too. It's not an altogether unreasonable name: it covers the original village of West Ham, ancient parish church and all.
There are a lot of far worse ward names elsewhere.
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jul 18, 2021 12:41:17 GMT
Another non-split East:  Problem areas are: Lansbury is really Poplar and should be in that seat (this is why I'm commending pepperminttea's version), Weavers is really Bethnal Green and should be in that seat, parts of the Canning Town wards are really not Canning Town and should be in the West Ham seat. It turns out that you can fix all three objections (splitting Canning Town N; indeed you need to for this version) ... by also splitting the Isle of Dogs, moving the western ward into Stepney. Don't think I'll recommend that to the Commission. I've reposted the above to say that although I'm supporting the BCE in most of east London (split ward and all), in Newham and TH I'm in favour of the plan suggested here by Pete Whitehead . I don't agree with minionofmidas about Lansbury ward: it's not 'really Poplar' at all, it's essentially the South Bromley area and that would be a better name for the ward. Poplar is the area south of the East India Dock Road, either side of Poplar High Street (the clue's in the name). So I don't see any problem in including Lansbury in the blue seat (which I'd call simply 'Stepney'); and if you're going to have a Dockland seat, it really has to go to the Dogs (but I'd prefer to revive the name of 'Poplar & Canning Town', which was used before in this area). |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jul 18, 2021 13:26:31 GMT
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). 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. I'm rapidly coming round to the plan put forward by pepperminttea in northwest and west London but the bit I've put in bold above implies that this plan requires, or at least is made much easier by, the separation of the City from Westminster.
In fact, only relatively small adjustments are needed, shifting only four wards. The relatively small Willesden seat in PT's plan, only 71122, can gain Cricklewood & Mapesbury and Brondesbury Pk, and lose Harlesden & Kensal Gn. These changes are arguably an improvement anyway, since they consolidate the seat's coverage of Willesden proper as well as very helpfully increasing its electorate to 75880. Harlesden, meanwhile, is well connected along the Harrow Road with PT's Queen's Park seat, which can make up the numbers on its eastern side by adding Abbey Road ward: this brings it to 75534, also helpfully well above average. And the loss of Abbey Road means that Westminster now has room for the City.
I think that subject to these changes and a few tweaks elsewhere I'm now signed up to PT's plan in NW & W London - even the horrible boundary through the middle of Ealing.
|
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 9,144
|
Post by cogload on Jul 18, 2021 14:45:47 GMT
Wouldn't it easier to elect MP's by Borough using STV and open lists? I mean it would save all this boundary fiddling.. 😬😉😘
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 18, 2021 15:05:45 GMT
Why? Whether you have single member or multi-member constituencies they still need to be reviewed periodically, and if you want the constituencies to be more or less equal you won't always be able to use whole council areas as building blocks.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 18, 2021 15:24:14 GMT
Why? Whether you have single member or multi-member constituencies they still need to be reviewed periodically, and if you want the constituencies to be more or less equal you won't always be able to use whole council areas as building blocks. not while you're limiting yrself to so few MPs, anyhow. ;D |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jul 18, 2021 15:58:02 GMT
Here's my version of the excellent plan by pepperminttea for west London, subject to a few tweaks in south Brent and Westminster to allow the City to be accommodated; and a handful of ward swaps affecting only limited areas, thus having no implications for the wider map.
I'd really like to thank PT for this plan. I'm still not wild about reverting to the pre-2010 split of Ealing town, to be honest, but I've decided to swallow that in the interests of a better plan overall. I'm especially a fan of the Wembley seat, but it's also good to keep recognizable versions of Kensington and Chelsea & Fulham, which my previous plan failed to achieve, the Harrow seats are much improved on my version, and the treatment of Hammersmith town centre is far superior.
I wish I were wearing a cap so I could doff it.
 Cities of London and Westminster - 72862. Queens Park - 75534. Or it might be 'Maida Vale and Harlesden' or some such name. Willesden - 75880. Wembley - 76463. Harrow East - 76299. Harrow West - 74060. Ruislip and Pinner - 75700. Uxbridge - 71510. Hayes and Harlington - 72897. Hounslow and Feltham - 75749. Twickenham - 75889. Brentford and Heston - 75831. Ealing Southall - 75085. Ealing North - 72985. Ealing Acton - 75345. Hammersmith and Chiswick - 74800. Chelsea and Fulham - 76481. Kensington - 75980.
|
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Jul 18, 2021 17:09:38 GMT
Here's my version of the excellent plan by pepperminttea for west London, subject to a few tweaks in south Brent and Westminster to allow the City to be accommodated; and a handful of ward swaps affecting only limited areas, thus having no implications for the wider map.
I'd really like to thank PT for this plan. I'm still not wild about reverting to the pre-2010 split of Ealing town, to be honest, but I've decided to swallow that in the interests of a better plan overall. I'm especially a fan of the Wembley seat, but it's also good to keep recognizable versions of Kensington and Chelsea & Fulham, which my previous plan failed to achieve, the Harrow seats are much improved on my version, and the treatment of Hammersmith town centre is far superior.
I wish I were wearing a cap so I could doff it.
Cities of London and Westminster - 72862. Queens Park - 75534. Or it might be 'Maida Vale and Harlesden' or some such name. Willesden - 75880. Wembley - 76463. Harrow East - 76299. Harrow West - 74060. Ruislip and Pinner - 75700. Uxbridge - 71510. Hayes and Harlington - 72897. Hounslow and Feltham - 75749. Twickenham - 75889. Brentford and Heston - 75831. Ealing Southall - 75085. Ealing North - 72985. Ealing Acton - 75345. Hammersmith and Chiswick - 74800. Chelsea and Fulham - 76481. Kensington - 75980.
A really nice map! I would personally recommend two changes. 1.Give the City of Westminster Abbey road instead of Church Street. 2.Give North Henwell to Southall, Walpole to Acton and Hanger Hill to North |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 18, 2021 20:44:29 GMT
Problem areas are: Lansbury is really Poplar and should be in that seat (this is why I'm commending pepperminttea's version), Weavers is really Bethnal Green and should be in that seat, parts of the Canning Town wards are really not Canning Town and should be in the West Ham seat. It turns out that you can fix all three objections (splitting Canning Town N; indeed you need to for this version) ... by also splitting the Isle of Dogs, moving the western ward into Stepney. Don't think I'll recommend that to the Commission. I've reposted the above to say that although I'm supporting the BCE in most of east London (split ward and all), in Newham and TH I'm in favour of the plan suggested here by Pete Whitehead . I don't agree with minionofmidas about Lansbury ward: it's not 'really Poplar' at all, it's essentially the South Bromley area and that would be a better name for the ward. Poplar is the area south of the East India Dock Road, either side of Poplar High Street (the clue's in the name). So I don't see any problem in including Lansbury in the blue seat (which I'd call simply 'Stepney'); and if you're going to have a Dockland seat, it really has to go to the Dogs (but I'd prefer to revive the name of 'Poplar & Canning Town', which was used before in this area). (my quoted comment refers to a different map, if anybody's confused) I consider this map as quite acceptable (and better than the commission map which I suppose is also acceptable) but the Lansbury Estate is certainly considered as part of Poplar everywhere that I can find and stands over territory that was part of Poplar proper before the Blitz. The ward extends further north and east though into areas that were built up compartively late, filling in the territory between Poplar and Bromley (and mostly in the ancient Bromley parish). I take it there is no hard and fast boundary between the two today. I think including Bromley in a seat simply named "Stepney" when there are both "Poplar" and "Bow" seats is going to confuse some people, though. (And using "Bromley" is going to confuse other people.  ) |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jul 18, 2021 21:05:44 GMT
I've reposted the above to say that although I'm supporting the BCE in most of east London (split ward and all), in Newham and TH I'm in favour of the plan suggested here by Pete Whitehead . I don't agree with minionofmidas about Lansbury ward: it's not 'really Poplar' at all, it's essentially the South Bromley area and that would be a better name for the ward. Poplar is the area south of the East India Dock Road, either side of Poplar High Street (the clue's in the name). So I don't see any problem in including Lansbury in the blue seat (which I'd call simply 'Stepney'); and if you're going to have a Dockland seat, it really has to go to the Dogs (but I'd prefer to revive the name of 'Poplar & Canning Town', which was used before in this area). (my quoted comment refers to a different map, if anybody's confused) I consider this map as quite acceptable (and better than the commission map which I suppose is also acceptable) but the Lansbury Estate is certainly considered as part of Poplar everywhere that I can find and stands over territory that was part of Poplar proper before the Blitz. The ward extends further north and east though into areas that were built up compartively late, filling in the territory between Poplar and Bromley (and mostly in the ancient Bromley parish). I take it there is no hard and fast boundary between the two today. I think including Bromley in a seat simply named "Stepney" when there are both "Poplar" and "Bow" seats is going to confuse some people, though. (And using "Bromley" is going to confuse other people. ) When the Lansbury Estate began to be built around 1950 the whole area was part of Poplar MB so yes, to that extent, it's Poplar - but by that test, so were a lot of other places because Poplar MB extended far to the north including, e.g., Old Ford, which certainly wouldn't be considered part of Poplar in normal discourse.
And anyway the Lansbury Estate only covers the part of Lansbury ward west of the railway, i.e. probably less than half of the whole ward.
Taking 'Poplar' as meaning 'Poplar proper', and not the whole of the much larger former MB, I'd say that the Lansbury Estate is arguably Poplar, but equally arguably South Bromley; and the other half, east of the railway, is much more definitely South Bromley, and I'd point out that the rather grim post-industrial area at the eastern end, next to Bow Creek, is Bromley Marsh, not Poplar Marsh.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 18, 2021 21:13:55 GMT
(my quoted comment refers to a different map, if anybody's confused) I consider this map as quite acceptable (and better than the commission map which I suppose is also acceptable) but the Lansbury Estate is certainly considered as part of Poplar everywhere that I can find and stands over territory that was part of Poplar proper before the Blitz. The ward extends further north and east though into areas that were built up compartively late, filling in the territory between Poplar and Bromley (and mostly in the ancient Bromley parish). I take it there is no hard and fast boundary between the two today. I think including Bromley in a seat simply named "Stepney" when there are both "Poplar" and "Bow" seats is going to confuse some people, though. (And using "Bromley" is going to confuse other people. ) When the Lansbury Estate began to be built around 1950 the whole area was part of Poplar MB so yes, to that extent, it's Poplar - but by that test, so were a lot of other places because Poplar MB extended far to the north including, e.g., Old Ford, which certainly wouldn't be considered part of Poplar in normal discourse.
And anyway the Lansbury Estate only covers the part of Lansbury ward west of the railway, i.e. probably less than half of the whole ward.
Taking 'Poplar' as meaning 'Poplar proper', and not the whole of the much larger former MB, I'd say that the Lansbury Estate is arguably Poplar, but equally arguably South Bromley; and the other half, east of the railway, is much more definitely South Bromley, and I'd point out that the rather grim post-industrial area at the eastern end, next to Bow Creek, is Bromley Marsh, not Poplar Marsh.
yes, the ancient parish boundary runs nw-se (not w-e) across the ward though it is not recognizable on the ground. I did not mean Poplar MB when I said Poplar. |
|
|
|
Post by where2travel on Jul 18, 2021 21:26:29 GMT
I was trying to find a way of putting both White City wards in the same consituency but I considered the domino effect too much unless you want to give wendell park. I excpected South London to be easier but Bromley + Bexley + Greenwich (especially Eltham) is a nightmare. I assume you mean the Eltham & Chislehurst proposal? Given there needs to be a cross borough seat in this area, I don't actually think this one is as bad as some of the other ideas thrown about on here. The Mottingham & Chislehurst North ward sticks out of Bromley and feels more naturally part of Greenwich/Eltham anyway, which just leaves Chislehurst. However, the link isn't too bad given it's an edge of borough ward and the A208 runs straight from Mottingham through Chislehurst to easily join it all together. That said, I'm sure some of the folks of Chislehurst proper would prefer to maintain their constituency links with their neighbours in affluent Bickley and the other leafy parts of Bromley. |
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Jul 19, 2021 3:07:08 GMT
I was trying to find a way of putting both White City wards in the same consituency but I considered the domino effect too much unless you want to give wendell park. I excpected South London to be easier but Bromley + Bexley + Greenwich (especially Eltham) is a nightmare. I assume you mean the Eltham & Chislehurst proposal? Given there needs to be a cross borough seat in this area, I don't actually think this one is as bad as some of the other ideas thrown about on here. The Mottingham & Chislehurst North ward sticks out of Bromley and feels more naturally part of Greenwich/Eltham anyway, which just leaves Chislehurst. However, the link isn't too bad given it's an edge of borough ward and the A208 runs straight from Mottingham through Chislehurst to easily join it all together. That said, I'm sure some of the folks of Chislehurst proper would prefer to maintain their constituency links with their neighbours in affluent Bickley and the other leafy parts of Bromley. What I meant is that it is alot harder to create a S.London map then the N.London map because it is very difficult to create something decent in the Bromley+Bexley+Greenwich area as every time I try to create something more appropriate Eltham ends up somethinng like 100-500 over max. |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jul 19, 2021 9:15:26 GMT
I assume you mean the Eltham & Chislehurst proposal? Given there needs to be a cross borough seat in this area, I don't actually think this one is as bad as some of the other ideas thrown about on here. The Mottingham & Chislehurst North ward sticks out of Bromley and feels more naturally part of Greenwich/Eltham anyway, which just leaves Chislehurst. However, the link isn't too bad given it's an edge of borough ward and the A208 runs straight from Mottingham through Chislehurst to easily join it all together. That said, I'm sure some of the folks of Chislehurst proper would prefer to maintain their constituency links with their neighbours in affluent Bickley and the other leafy parts of Bromley. What I meant is that it is alot harder to create a S.London map then the N.London map because it is very difficult to create something decent in the Bromley+Bexley+Greenwich area as every time I try to create something more appropriate Eltham ends up somethinng like 100-500 over max. I agree. If you go for a Bromley-Bexley-Greenwich grouping then Eltham & Chislehurst is hard to avoid. This is one of the reasons I've gone for Bromley-Bexley-Croydon instead. This leaves Greenwich-Lewisham-Southwark, which works out nicely for 8, and Lambeth to be treated alone for 3. However, if you go for the BCE's Croydon-Lambeth-Southwark arrangement, here's a way of doing it that avoids the split ward and the breach of the Croydon-Merton boundary. I'm not saying it's pretty (and it's not my preferred plan) but it's all legal.
 Actually I think pepperminttea has (as usual) more or less nailed it in south London, subject to the odd ward swap here and there. |
|
)