2023 Review - London

[rcronald]

Jul 19, 2021 9:15:26 GMT islington said:

Jul 19, 2021 3:07:08 GMT rcronald said:

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 them Eltham & Chislehurst is hard to avoid.

This is one of the reasons I've gone for Bromley-Bexley-Croydon instead. This leaves Greenwich-Lewisham-Southwak, 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.

My issues with Pepperminttea’s South London map are:
1.Giving Eltham Charlton.
2.I prefer the BCE’s Croydon map.
3.Central Lewisham seat is a bit messy.

[islington]

Jul 19, 2021 9:26:57 GMT rcronald said:

Jul 19, 2021 9:15:26 GMT islington said:

I agree. If you go for a Bromley-Bexley-Greenwich grouping them Eltham & Chislehurst is hard to avoid.

This is one of the reasons I've gone for Bromley-Bexley-Croydon instead. This leaves Greenwich-Lewisham-Southwak, 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.

My issues with Pepperminttea’s South London map are:
1.Giving Eltham Charlton.
2.I prefer the BCE’s Croydon map.
3.Central Lewisham seat is a bit messy.

1. I agree, I'd exchange Charlton and Shooter's Hill.
2. I disagree: PT's version avoids crossing the border with Merton and the ward split.
3. I agree, I'd swap Blackheath and Rushey Gn to give a more natural east-west split.

(I did say my agreement with PT's plan was subject to a few ward swaps.)

My main issue with PT's plan is the treatment of Beckenham, but this seems to be insoluble. In my view it's slightly less bad if you swap Kelsey and Coper's Cope, but it's still grim. Ironically the BCE's Beckenham seat is excellent.

[pepperminttea]

Jul 17, 2021 14:32:35 GMT islington said:

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.

I think the first plan is actually pretty good  . Hanger Hill in Ealing North isn't great but I've seen worse and it does get all of Hanwell in the same seat. It also keeps Heston together which I think should priority (splitting it is unnecessary) And yes I'd call the yellow Brent-Westminster constituency Queens Park. Maybe this could be the one to suggest to the commission?

The second map I really don't like, as I've said before. Hammersmith proper is completely split between two seats and the bite out of K&C looks really weird. Harrow-Brent is a mess too when it really need not be. As you say the East-West split with a united Wembley is the best option there. 

[pepperminttea]

Jul 18, 2021 14:45:47 GMT cogload said:

Wouldn't it easier to elect MP's by Borough using STV and open lists? I mean it would save all this boundary fiddling.. 😬😉😘

I imagine it would have to be on larger units than boroughs. The London boroughs are small enough that the results wouldn't be proportional. Assembly constituency might work though. Though if the UK even does transition to PR-type system, I imagine it will be to the Scottish/Welsh Parliament electoral system which obviously still retains single member constituencies.

[Pete Whitehead]

I like those (second) plans for Westminster west to Hounslow and is what I will propose myself. That central Harrow seat is appaling though (and the other one ain't great either)

[samdwebber]

I see in the case of my borough, Bromley, the review uses current ward names and boundaries which came into force in 2002. These have recently been updated and come into legal force and will become official at the 2022 local elections next year. In the case of the new ward names and boundaries will these be taken into account in the next version of the constituency boundary proposals?

Presumably to avoid split wards in different constituencies, this will be taken into account in the next round of proposed new constituencies?

Any advice on this would be welcome.

[andrewp]

Jul 27, 2021 11:05:40 GMT samdwebber said:

I see in the case of my borough, Bromley, the review uses current ward names and boundaries which came into force in 2002. These have recently been updated and come into legal force and will become official at the 2022 local elections next year. In the case of the new ward names and boundaries will these be taken into account in the next version of the constituency boundary proposals?

Presumably to avoid split wards in different constituencies, this will be taken into account in the next round of proposed new constituencies?

Any advice on this would be welcome.

No they won’t be updated, because the Bromley electoral changes order was made on 1st April 2021, and only prospective changes where the order was in place on 1/12/20 will be used, so the current ward boundaries will be used in Bromley. The extract from the review guidance is:

‘The Act says that the BCE may have regard to ‘local government boundaries’ in developing its proposals. The Act defines such boundaries in England as the boundaries of: counties and their electoral divisions; districts and their wards; London boroughs and their wards; and the City of London. The 2020 Act has now introduced the concept of ‘prospective’ boundaries: this means that the local boundaries we may have regard to are – where applicable – not those actually in place on the operative date of 1 December 2020, but future ward/electoral division boundaries that have been made by Order by that date, but not yet implemented on the ground. The maps published alongside the BCE’s proposals (in hard copy and on the BCE website) will show the relevant local government boundaries’

[martinwhelton]

Certainly, a flaw in the legislation with some boroughs using the new ward boundaries as the order had been passed before 1 December 2020 and 9 boroughs using the existing ones.

These are the 9 boroughs using the old ward boundaries which will cease to exist in May 2022:
1) Bromley 2) Greenwich 3) Lambeth 4) Wandsworth 5) Newham 6) Barking and Dagenham 7)Havering 8) Waltham Forest 9) Kingston-Upon-Thames

It will result in a number of split wards across London.

Jul 27, 2021 11:21:37 GMT andrewp said:

Jul 27, 2021 11:05:40 GMT samdwebber said:

I see in the case of my borough, Bromley, the review uses current ward names and boundaries which came into force in 2002. These have recently been updated and come into legal force and will become official at the 2022 local elections next year. In the case of the new ward names and boundaries will these be taken into account in the next version of the constituency boundary proposals?

Presumably to avoid split wards in different constituencies, this will be taken into account in the next round of proposed new constituencies?

Any advice on this would be welcome.

No they won’t be updated, because the Bromley electoral changes order was made on 1st April 2021, and only prospective changes where the order was in place on 1/12/20 will be used, so the current ward boundaries will be used in Bromley. The extract from the review guidance is:

‘The Act says that the BCE may have regard to ‘local government boundaries’ in developing its proposals. The Act defines such boundaries in England as the boundaries of: counties and their electoral divisions; districts and their wards; London boroughs and their wards; and the City of London. The 2020 Act has now introduced the concept of ‘prospective’ boundaries: this means that the local boundaries we may have regard to are – where applicable – not those actually in place on the operative date of 1 December 2020, but future ward/electoral division boundaries that have been made by Order by that date, but not yet implemented on the ground. The maps published alongside the BCE’s proposals (in hard copy and on the BCE website) will show the relevant local government boundaries’

[samdwebber]

Many thanks for the 2 comments above andrewp & martinwhelton

It does seem that this should be taken into account if at all possible to avoid very messy situation for electoral services!

Surely far neater to avoid ward splits in different constituencies if at all possible?

If the next election to be fought on the new boundaries, how quickly before they come into force once the next draft of proposals are published? Im aware there is an early August deadline for submissions.

[greatkingrat]

Having wards split between constituencies after boundary changes is certainly not a new phenomenon, and council seem to cope with it OK. Ultimately you have to have a cut off date, and whatever date you pick there will always be some areas where the new wards aren't confirmed until after the cut off.

[islington]

Right, I've put in my three London submissions.

BCE 73466 - South London

BCE 73494 - Newham & TH

BCE 73747 - North and West London

Alea jacta est and all that.

[Peter Wilkinson]

I've been considering the possibility of making a last-minute submission to the BCE relating to north and west London, and getting somewhat annoyed that some of the options I would like to have considered would require ward splits - but it is very difficult even to consider these because of the lack, following recent LGBCE reviews, of polling district information in most of the boroughs concerned (including Barnet, where I live).

So I checked on the current situation for Barnet, and found the relevant information, which turned out to be very much what I wasn't hoping to find:

• 4 October 2021: 1st draft of new polling district map to be considered by Barnet Council's Constitution and General Purposes Committee (CGP), to be followed by a public consultation on the proposals during October and November.
  
• 6 January 2022: Final draft of new polling district map to be considered for approval by the CGP.
  
• 1 March 2022: Publication of Electoral Register using the new wards and polling districts (presumably, this means that the Electoral Register as published in December 2021 will still use the old wards and polling districts, and this will in principle be the otherwise standard March notice of alteration of that register).
• 5 May 2022: Borough council elections, using the new wards and polling districts and stations.

This does not specify when (or even if) electorate figures for the new polling districts, matching the March 2020 dataset being used by the BCE, will be made available (either by Barnet Council or by the ONS), but they presumably cannot be prepared until after Barnet has approved its new polling districts in January, and the availability of resources for this preparation will very much be in competition with the preparations for and conduct of the May council elections.

I have not (at least yet) tried checking how Barnet's timetable compares with those of other London boroughs, but I would be rather surprised if Barnet were the only borough whose timetable will be quite this late.

The BCE timetable for publication of its revised proposals and the secondary consultation period (including public meetings) for the 2023 review is "early 2022" - unless this is interpreted to mean May or later, I am finding it difficult to see how polling district figures for Barnet (and probably other boroughs) can be expected to be available in time for the BCE's reference when preparing its revised proposals, and not much easier to expect them to be available at any time during the secondary consultation period. So, there doesn't seem to be much possibility, even during the later parts of the review, of getting the BCE to look seriously at plans for north or west London which would need a split ward in an affected borough.

[YL]

Jul 29, 2021 17:33:05 GMT Peter Wilkinson said:

I've been considering the possibility of making a last-minute submission to the BCE relating to north and west London, and getting somewhat annoyed that some of the options I would like to have considered would require ward splits - but it is very difficult even to consider these because of the lack, following recent LGBCE reviews, of polling district information in most of the boroughs concerned (including Barnet, where I live).

So I checked on the current situation for Barnet, and found the relevant information, which turned out to be very much what I wasn't hoping to find:

• 4 October 2021: 1st draft of new polling district map to be considered by Barnet Council's Constitution and General Purposes Committee (CGP), to be followed by a public consultation on the proposals during October and November.
  
• 6 January 2022: Final draft of new polling district map to be considered for approval by the CGP.
  
• 1 March 2022: Publication of Electoral Register using the new wards and polling districts (presumably, this means that the Electoral Register as published in December 2021 will still use the old wards and polling districts, and this will in principle be the otherwise standard March notice of alteration of that register).
• 5 May 2022: Borough council elections, using the new wards and polling districts and stations.

This does not specify when (or even if) electorate figures for the new polling districts, matching the March 2020 dataset being used by the BCE, will be made available (either by Barnet Council or by the ONS), but they presumably cannot be prepared until after Barnet has approved its new polling districts in January, and the availability of resources for this preparation will very much be in competition with the preparations for and conduct of the May council elections.

I have not (at least yet) tried checking how Barnet's timetable compares with those of other London boroughs, but I would be rather surprised if Barnet were the only borough whose timetable will be quite this late.

The BCE timetable for publication of its revised proposals and the secondary consultation period (including public meetings) for the 2023 review is "early 2022" - unless this is interpreted to mean May or later, I am finding it difficult to see how polling district figures for Barnet (and probably other boroughs) can be expected to be available in time for the BCE's reference when preparing its revised proposals, and not much easier to expect them to be available at any time during the secondary consultation period. So, there doesn't seem to be much possibility, even during the later parts of the review, of getting the BCE to look seriously at plans for north or west London which would need a split ward in an affected borough.

A couple of pages back (post here) I linked a tweet by the BCE on this issue. I'd suggest contacting them and asking how to handle this situation if you think a split ward in Barnet would make a significant improvement.

Fortunately nowhere I wanted to split a ward was on that list. (I'm not making a London submission.)

[iain]

Jul 29, 2021 17:33:05 GMT Peter Wilkinson said:

I've been considering the possibility of making a last-minute submission to the BCE relating to north and west London, and getting somewhat annoyed that some of the options I would like to have considered would require ward splits - but it is very difficult even to consider these because of the lack, following recent LGBCE reviews, of polling district information in most of the boroughs concerned (including Barnet, where I live).

So I checked on the current situation for Barnet, and found the relevant information, which turned out to be very much what I wasn't hoping to find:

• 4 October 2021: 1st draft of new polling district map to be considered by Barnet Council's Constitution and General Purposes Committee (CGP), to be followed by a public consultation on the proposals during October and November.
  
• 6 January 2022: Final draft of new polling district map to be considered for approval by the CGP.
  
• 1 March 2022: Publication of Electoral Register using the new wards and polling districts (presumably, this means that the Electoral Register as published in December 2021 will still use the old wards and polling districts, and this will in principle be the otherwise standard March notice of alteration of that register).
• 5 May 2022: Borough council elections, using the new wards and polling districts and stations.

This does not specify when (or even if) electorate figures for the new polling districts, matching the March 2020 dataset being used by the BCE, will be made available (either by Barnet Council or by the ONS), but they presumably cannot be prepared until after Barnet has approved its new polling districts in January, and the availability of resources for this preparation will very much be in competition with the preparations for and conduct of the May council elections.

I have not (at least yet) tried checking how Barnet's timetable compares with those of other London boroughs, but I would be rather surprised if Barnet were the only borough whose timetable will be quite this late.

The BCE timetable for publication of its revised proposals and the secondary consultation period (including public meetings) for the 2023 review is "early 2022" - unless this is interpreted to mean May or later, I am finding it difficult to see how polling district figures for Barnet (and probably other boroughs) can be expected to be available in time for the BCE's reference when preparing its revised proposals, and not much easier to expect them to be available at any time during the secondary consultation period. So, there doesn't seem to be much possibility, even during the later parts of the review, of getting the BCE to look seriously at plans for north or west London which would need a split ward in an affected borough.

Don't think anyone would want to split a ward there, but Haringey has not yet carried out its review of PDs.

[kevinlarkin]

Just managed to get my essay-crisis proposal for NW and N Central London in before the deadline. I even had time to make a second submission supporting the commission's proposals in Wandsworth and Lewisham and proposed a non-intuitive split ward method of keeping Petts Wood in Orpington.

[samdwebber]

In light of the Petts Wood & Knoll ward proposal mentioned above, which sees the ward leaving Orpington constituency for the first time since 1945, I am informed by a former Cllr in the constituency that the highly influential Knoll Residents Association polled its residents on the boundary proposals.

Knoll News informs readers of the result in its Summer 2021 edition:

91% of residents wished to stay in the Orpington Constituency with 4% content with a move to Bromley and 5% undecided.

The Association's campaigning was successful on the local borough level when they forced the Boundary Commissioners to think again and keep them as part of Petts Wood not Orpington on a ward level. We will see how they get on this time!

[Pete Whitehead]

Aug 9, 2021 15:17:03 GMT samdwebber said:

In light of the Petts Wood & Knoll ward proposal mentioned above, which sees the ward leaving Orpington constituency for the first time since 1945, I am informed by a former Cllr in the constituency that the highly influential Knoll Residents Association polled its residents on the boundary proposals.

Knoll News informs readers of the result in its Summer 2021 edition:

91% of residents wished to stay in the Orpington Constituency with 4% content with a move to Bromley and 5% undecided.

The Association's campaigning was successful on the local borough level when they forced the Boundary Commissioners to think again and keep them as part of Petts Wood not Orpington on a ward level. We will see how they get on this time!

They will need to be able to present a viable alternative. Without redrawing the whole map of South London the only one I can see involves a ward split. Moving Farnborough & Crofton to Bromley instead of Petts Wood & Knoll would leave Orpington below quota and probably isn't much of an improvement in community terms (Crofton is not quite as close to the centre of Orpington as Knoll but isn't far off). A more logical move may be Biggin Hill and Darwin wards into Bromley, they being at least as well connected to the Keston area as they are to Oprington. Orpington excluding those wards but including Petts Wood & Knoll would be 744 below quota.

The CH5 polling district of Chislehurst ward (the Leesons Hill area on the other side of Chislehurst Common from the rest of that ward) has around 900 electors so that would work without bringing Eltham & Chislehurst below quota. That would be a perfectly good arrangement as far as I'm concerned but I fear it would fall foul of the arcane rule the BCE have invented re: not having split wards in cross borough constituencies (Greenwich council would presumably be in charge of elections in Eltham & Chislehurst).

An all-Bromley alternative would be to split Darwin to include DA3 and DA4 (also around 900 voters) in Orpington. This area (Hazelwood) appears to have slightly better links to Oprington than to Biggin Hill and certainly than to Bromley (though I have little local knowledge of this area of London).

Do you know if the influence of the Knoll Residents Association extended as far as to have made an alternative submission for this area?

[samdwebber]

Thanks Pete Whitehead! You have clearly put a lot of thought into your submission concerning my part of the world.

I expect the Knoll Residents Assoc will have made a submission and encouraged their members to do the same but don't know for certain as I live in another part of the borough which is set to become part of 'Eltham and Chislehurst' if the initial proposals are retained.

I know Gareth Bacon submitted an alternative which he mentions in passing here (https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=248552980431346) and similarly my own MP Bob Neill did too.

[Pete Whitehead]

Aug 10, 2021 14:06:47 GMT samdwebber said:

Thanks Pete Whitehead! You have clearly put a lot of thought into your submission concerning my part of the world.

No I've not made any submission for South London - I'm broadly content with the Commission proposals there (with minor quibbles of which the example you identify would be one, but not enough to motivate me to submit an alternative).
My submission for London was solely concerned with 'my' part of the world, that is to say the 32 constituencies covering what the BCE have called the 'North Central and North West London sub-region' (or what roughly corresponds to the county of Middlesex)

[evergreenadam]

Aug 9, 2021 16:52:34 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Aug 9, 2021 15:17:03 GMT samdwebber said:

In light of the Petts Wood & Knoll ward proposal mentioned above, which sees the ward leaving Orpington constituency for the first time since 1945, I am informed by a former Cllr in the constituency that the highly influential Knoll Residents Association polled its residents on the boundary proposals.

Knoll News informs readers of the result in its Summer 2021 edition:

91% of residents wished to stay in the Orpington Constituency with 4% content with a move to Bromley and 5% undecided.

The Association's campaigning was successful on the local borough level when they forced the Boundary Commissioners to think again and keep them as part of Petts Wood not Orpington on a ward level. We will see how they get on this time!

They will need to be able to present a viable alternative. Without redrawing the whole map of South London the only one I can see involves a ward split. Moving Farnborough & Crofton to Bromley instead of Petts Wood & Knoll would leave Orpington below quota and probably isn't much of an improvement in community terms (Crofton is not quite as close to the centre of Orpington as Knoll but isn't far off). A more logical move may be Biggin Hill and Darwin wards into Bromley, they being at least as well connected to the Keston area as they are to Oprington. Orpington excluding those wards but including Petts Wood & Knoll would be 744 below quota.

The CH5 polling district of Chislehurst ward (the Leesons Hill area on the other side of Chislehurst Common from the rest of that ward) has around 900 electors so that would work without bringing Eltham & Chislehurst below quota. That would be a perfectly good arrangement as far as I'm concerned but I fear it would fall foul of the arcane rule the BCE have invented re: not having split wards in cross borough constituencies (Greenwich council would presumably be in charge of elections in Eltham & Chislehurst).

An all-Bromley alternative would be to split Darwin to include DA3 and DA4 (also around 900 voters) in Orpington. This area (Hazelwood) appears to have slightly better links to Oprington than to Biggin Hill and certainly than to Bromley (though I have little local knowledge of this area of London).

Do you know if the influence of the Knoll Residents Association extended as far as to have made an alternative submission for this area?

If you can’t have split wards in a cross Borough constituency then that makes suggesting alternatives in London very difficult. I can’t understand why it would be so harmful.