2023 Review - London

[where2travel]

Listening to him, you'd think Bob Neill is trying to claim that Chislehurst and Kidbrooke are at opposite ends of the earth. They're at each end of the proposed constituency, and I'm sure the folk of Chislehurst don't spend much time in Kidbrooke or think they have much in common with the residents there. However, it's only just over 5 miles between the two and on main roads, I'm not sure using this argument will go very far when he asks how an MP can be expected to serve such different areas (talking about schooling and healthcare).

It's mentioned that he and Gareth Bacon have come up with alternative proposals. I wonder if they have genuinely done that, or if they have solved their local "problem" or gripe and just moved the problem to somewhere else in the borough, and not really solved it in full.

[islington]

Aug 10, 2021 22:26:57 GMT where2travel said:

Listening to him, you'd think Bob Neill is trying to claim that Chislehurst and Kidbrooke are at opposite ends of the earth. They're at each end of the proposed constituency, and I'm sure the folk of Chislehurst don't spend much time in Kidbrooke or think they have much in common with the residents there. However, it's only just over 5 miles between the two and on main roads, I'm not sure using this argument will go very far when he asks how an MP can be expected to serve such different areas (talking about schooling and healthcare).

It's mentioned that he and Gareth Bacon have come up with alternative proposals. I wonder if they have genuinely done that, or if they have solved their local "problem" or gripe and just moved the problem to somewhere else in the borough, and not really solved it in full.

Well, indeed.

I have submitted a plan for south London that separates Eltham and Chislehurst so it might well commend itself to Sir Bob Neill. In this specific area, it's a big improvement over the BCE scheme. But there's a price to be paid for this elsewhere, for instance in Beckenham where the BCE plan is excellent and mine is pretty grim.

On the whole I think my south London plan solves more difficulties than it creates, which is why I submitted it, but I acknowledge it has significant drawbacks so I'm not optimistic of its prospects.

I suppose if your focus is on getting the best possible plan for Bromley, never mind the consequences elsewhere, you could do something like this I suppose. (NB: This is not my submitted plan.)

[evergreenadam]

Aug 11, 2021 8:25:20 GMT islington said:

Aug 10, 2021 22:26:57 GMT where2travel said:

Listening to him, you'd think Bob Neill is trying to claim that Chislehurst and Kidbrooke are at opposite ends of the earth. They're at each end of the proposed constituency, and I'm sure the folk of Chislehurst don't spend much time in Kidbrooke or think they have much in common with the residents there. However, it's only just over 5 miles between the two and on main roads, I'm not sure using this argument will go very far when he asks how an MP can be expected to serve such different areas (talking about schooling and healthcare).

It's mentioned that he and Gareth Bacon have come up with alternative proposals. I wonder if they have genuinely done that, or if they have solved their local "problem" or gripe and just moved the problem to somewhere else in the borough, and not really solved it in full.

Well, indeed.

I have submitted a plan for south London that separates Eltham and Chislehurst so it might well commend itself to Sir Bob Neill. In this specific area, it's a big improvement over the BCE scheme. But there's a price to be paid for this elsewhere, for instance in Beckenham where the BCE plan is excellent and mine is pretty grim.

On the whole I think my south London plan solves more difficulties than it creates, which is why I submitted it, but I acknowledge it has significant drawbacks so I'm not optimistic of its prospects.

I suppose if your focus is on getting the best possible plan for Bromley, never mind the consequences elsewhere, you could do something like this I suppose. (NB: This is not my submitted plan.)

‘Welling and Thamesmead East’ looks interesting!

[YL]

Aug 10, 2021 22:12:53 GMT evergreenadam said:

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.

The BCE have broken this "rule" themselves in at least three places (Irchester in North Northamptonshire, Blackheath in Sandwell and Bowness & Levens in South Lakeland; arguably also Miles Platting & Newton Heath in Manchester, but the area in question goes into a three borough seat and I guess Manchester might well be the one to run the elections in it) so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[islington]

Aug 11, 2021 9:34:48 GMT evergreenadam said:

Aug 11, 2021 8:25:20 GMT islington said:

Well, indeed.

I have submitted a plan for south London that separates Eltham and Chislehurst so it might well commend itself to Sir Bob Neill. In this specific area, it's a big improvement over the BCE scheme. But there's a price to be paid for this elsewhere, for instance in Beckenham where the BCE plan is excellent and mine is pretty grim.

On the whole I think my south London plan solves more difficulties than it creates, which is why I submitted it, but I acknowledge it has significant drawbacks so I'm not optimistic of its prospects.

I suppose if your focus is on getting the best possible plan for Bromley, never mind the consequences elsewhere, you could do something like this I suppose. (NB: This is not my submitted plan.)

‘Welling and Thamesmead East’ looks interesting!

I saw it more as 'Erith and Welling' but I don't dispute your basic point.

But that was the brief I set myself. I was trying to think what might please Sir Bob and Mr Bacon so my priority was to get Bromley right and then fit everything else around it. Actually it came out better than I expected and it might be improved by swapping Vassall and Clapham Common so as to avoid splitting Clapham and create a better Brixton seat. But I can't deny that, as you say, Bexley is a mess.

[islington]

Aug 11, 2021 9:39:28 GMT YL said:

Aug 10, 2021 22:12:53 GMT evergreenadam said:

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.

The BCE have broken this "rule" themselves in at least three places (Irchester in North Northamptonshire, Blackheath in Sandwell and Bowness & Levens in South Lakeland; arguably also Miles Platting & Newton Heath in Manchester, but the area in question goes into a three borough seat and I guess Manchester might well be the one to run the elections in it) so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

I agree. A 'rule' like that has no statutory authority and the BCE clearly doesn't consider itself bound by it. At best it's a 'guideline' and probably in practice not even that.

[evergreenadam]

Aug 11, 2021 11:10:09 GMT islington said:

Aug 11, 2021 9:34:48 GMT evergreenadam said:

‘Welling and Thamesmead East’ looks interesting!

I saw it more as 'Erith and Welling' but I don't dispute your basic point.

But that was the brief I set myself. I was trying to think what might please Sir Bob and Mr Bacon so my priority was to get Bromley right and then fit everything else around it. Actually it came out better than I expected and it might be improved by swapping Vassall and Clapham Common so as to avoid splitting Clapham and create a better Brixton seat. But I can't deny that, as you say, Bexley is a mess.

Don’t worry, I’m only teasing, I understand the purpose of the exercise. But it does show what could happen if the tail is allowed to wag the dog.

And now you’ve got me thinking who would win Welling and Thamesmead East! An unglamorous marginal if there ever was one!

[sirbenjamin]

There should be a rule that any local authority that bleeds over into another one to create a seat should not have to include insurgent bits of a third LA to make up a seat.

I would far rather have non-contiguous en/exclaves and fewer boundary crossings overall than the abject hidedousness of multiple 'knock-on effect' crossings.

I don't doubt that this is probably OCD/Autism-related, but it makes my eyes and brain hurt to the extent that I sometimes have to stop looking at maps because I get so angry about it!

[islington]

Right, I'm booked in at Central Hall, Westminster at 3pm on Thu 24 Feb.

[islington]

Apologies if someone has posted this before, but here's an alternative way of assigning 14 seats to the north London area.

Compared with my submission, which also assigns 14 seats to the identical area, it preserves Enfield N unaltered (except for ward realignment) and it gives a much better Southgate seat. It's also closer to the BCE scheme: whereas, in my submission for this area, only two seats (Edmonton and Hackney N & SN) were aligned with the BCE, in this plan a further four, making six in all, are exactly as proposed by the BCE: Enfield N, Finchley & MH, Hornsey & WG and Tottenham. Unlike the BCE plan, it still respects the obvious A5 dividing line along the western borders of Barnet and Camden.

The main drawbacks are an extra cross-border seat (five out of the 14 rather than four in my submission) and the BCE version of Tottenham, which is more awkwardly shaped than in my submission.

I'm booked in at the public hearing on 24 Feb and I'm minded to suggest this as an alternative approach.

[martinwhelton]

All the London representations - many interesting counter proposals: www.bcereviews.org.uk/node/6485

[Wisconsin]

Lib Dems’ London-wide response:
www.bcereviews.org.uk/node/80979/view

[iain]

I note the Conservatives appear to have proposed removing Kingston town centre (Grove ward) from Kingston & Surbiton. This is not only illogical but looks absolutely vile on a map - neither would it do the Tories any favours in regaining Richmond Park.

Edit - as have the Greens. Bizarre.

[islington]

Here's a list of the London submissions listed by the BCE as 'useful links'. I've listed them by BCE reference number. Those by political parties are in bold. I've added a very few words about some of them, based on first impressions, but obviously there's a huge amount to digest here.

53975 – John Cartwright (is this the old Lab then SDP MP?). Detailed counter-proposals for SE London.
61555 – Adam Gray. This is a comprehensive all-London plan: at a very quick glance, a lot of good stuff here but some elements I’m not happy with. Top marks for presentation, though.
63179 – Anonymous member of the public. Covers 23 seats in N & W London but I haven’t looked at it yet.
67759 – Jonathan Stansby of Altrincham. Covers north London. I haven’t looked at it yet.
73466 – This is my proposal for S London.
73494 – Also mine, for Newham & TH.
73747 – And mine again, for N & W London.
78064 – Also covering N & W London but from some bloke called Pete Whitehead, whoever he is.
79433 – From an unnamed member of the public in Preston, in a format I can’t read but apparently covering all London.
79496 – Labour’s submission. It’s nicely presented but it seems much more interested in S London than N London; in fact it seems to suggest only one ward swap (in Haringey) north of the Thames. It does say that “we will consider any other proposal which may be made”.
80979 – Lib Dems. At first glance, doesn’t look bad.
81615 – Lewis Baston. Covering N & W London. Something of a curate’s egg – a lot of good stuff alongside some very strange proposals.
83054 – An analysis from Levi Wolf of Bristol University of the BCE’s initial proposals for the whole of England.
83421 – The Greens’ scheme – I haven’t looked at it yet.
83681 – Pete Challis. Covers S London. I haven’t looked in detail but it has a large appendix detailing ‘electoral disruption’.
85271 – An unnamed member of the public living in Ealing. I haven’t been through it, but it wants to keep the current Ealing C & Acton seat, and keep the City united with Westminster.
85346 – A member of the public resident in Barnet. Ward swaps affecting Ealing, Hounslow and H&F; a separate set of ward swaps affecting Camden, Hackney, Islington and the City; and name changes in Enfield and Barnet.
85352 – Oliver Raven of Burnham-on-Sea. Covers the whole of London, but ‘unfortunately I’ve left myself too little time on this occasion to explain my thinking’. There are maps, though.
85357 – Lewis Baston again, S London this time.
85393 – From a member of the public in Barnet. Actually two alternative schemes, both covering parts of N London, described in narrative but no maps.
85615 – From a member of the public in Cambridge, suggesting some name changes but (at a quick glance) no boundary changes.
86589 – The Tory scheme. From the merest glance (all I’ve had time for), it seems to involve a lot of ward splits.

[Pete Whitehead]

Feb 7, 2022 18:00:06 GMT islington said:

Here's a list of the London submissions listed by the BCE as 'useful links'. I've listed them by BCE reference number. Those by political parties are in bold. I've added a very few words about some of them, based on first impressions, but obviously there's a huge amount to digest here.

53975 – John Cartwright (is this the old Lab then SPD MP?). Detailed counter-proposals for SE London.
61555 – Adam Gray. This is a comprehensive all-London plan: at a very quick glance, a lot of good stuff here but some elements I’m not happy with. Top marks for presentation, though.
63179 – Anonymous member of the public. Covers 23 seats in N & W London but I haven’t looked at it yet.
67759 – Jonathan Stansby of Altrincham. Covers north London. I haven’t looked at it yet.
73466 – This is my proposal for S London.
73494 – Also mine, for Newham & TH.
73747 – And mine again, for N & W London.
78064 – Also covering N & W London but from some bloke called Pete Whitehead, whoever he is.
79433 – From an unnamed member of the public in Preston, in a format I can’t read but apparently covering all London.
79496 – Labour’s submission. It’s nicely presented but it seems much more interested in S London than N London; in fact it seems to suggest only one ward swap (in Haringey) north of the Thames. It does say that “we will consider any other proposal which may be made”.
80979 – Lib Dems. At first glance, doesn’t look bad.
81615 – Lewis Baston. Covering N & W London. Something of a curate’s egg – a lot of good stuff alongside some very strange proposals.
83054 – An analysis from Levi Wolf of Bristol University of the BCE’s initial proposals for the whole of England.
83421 – The Greens’ scheme – I haven’t looked at it yet.
83681 – Pete Challis. Covers S London. I haven’t looked in detail but it has a large appendix detailing ‘electoral disruption’.
85271 – An unnamed member of the public living in Ealing. I haven’t been through it, but it wants to keep the current Ealing C & Acton seat, and keep the City united with Westminster.
85346 – A member of the public resident in Barnet. Wards swaps affecting Ealing, Hounslow and H&F; a separate set of ward swaps affecting Camden, Hackney, Islington and the City; and name changes in Enfield and Barnet.
85352 – Oliver Raven of Burnham-on-Sea. Covers the whole of London, but ‘unfortunately I’ve left myself too little time on this occasion to explain my thinking’. There are maps, though.
85357 – Lewis Baston again, S London this time.
85393 – From a member of the public in Barnet. Actually two alternative schemes, both covering parts of N London, described in narrative but no maps.
85615 – From a member of the public in Cambridge, suggesting some name changes but (at a quick glance) no boundary changes.
86589 – The Tory scheme. From the merest glance (all I’ve had time for), it seems to involve a lot of ward splits.

Could John Cartwright be our own johnloony?
An unnamed member of the public fom Preston who posts in a difficult to read format also sounds like a former member of this site.
Adam Gray has posted here and Olver Raven is obviously known to us as well. greatkingrat has made submissions before (member of the public in Barnet?)
Pete Challis is a familiar name but I can't place it

[Pete Whitehead]

And obviously I'm being incredibly dense, but I can't find any of the links to these submissions

[islington]

Feb 7, 2022 18:08:52 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Feb 7, 2022 18:00:06 GMT islington said:

Here's a list of the London submissions listed by the BCE as 'useful links'. I've listed them by BCE reference number. Those by political parties are in bold. I've added a very few words about some of them, based on first impressions, but obviously there's a huge amount to digest here.

53975 – John Cartwright (is this the old Lab then SPD MP?). Detailed counter-proposals for SE London.
61555 – Adam Gray. This is a comprehensive all-London plan: at a very quick glance, a lot of good stuff here but some elements I’m not happy with. Top marks for presentation, though.
63179 – Anonymous member of the public. Covers 23 seats in N & W London but I haven’t looked at it yet.
67759 – Jonathan Stansby of Altrincham. Covers north London. I haven’t looked at it yet.
73466 – This is my proposal for S London.
73494 – Also mine, for Newham & TH.
73747 – And mine again, for N & W London.
78064 – Also covering N & W London but from some bloke called Pete Whitehead, whoever he is.
79433 – From an unnamed member of the public in Preston, in a format I can’t read but apparently covering all London.
79496 – Labour’s submission. It’s nicely presented but it seems much more interested in S London than N London; in fact it seems to suggest only one ward swap (in Haringey) north of the Thames. It does say that “we will consider any other proposal which may be made”.
80979 – Lib Dems. At first glance, doesn’t look bad.
81615 – Lewis Baston. Covering N & W London. Something of a curate’s egg – a lot of good stuff alongside some very strange proposals.
83054 – An analysis from Levi Wolf of Bristol University of the BCE’s initial proposals for the whole of England.
83421 – The Greens’ scheme – I haven’t looked at it yet.
83681 – Pete Challis. Covers S London. I haven’t looked in detail but it has a large appendix detailing ‘electoral disruption’.
85271 – An unnamed member of the public living in Ealing. I haven’t been through it, but it wants to keep the current Ealing C & Acton seat, and keep the City united with Westminster.
85346 – A member of the public resident in Barnet. Wards swaps affecting Ealing, Hounslow and H&F; a separate set of ward swaps affecting Camden, Hackney, Islington and the City; and name changes in Enfield and Barnet.
85352 – Oliver Raven of Burnham-on-Sea. Covers the whole of London, but ‘unfortunately I’ve left myself too little time on this occasion to explain my thinking’. There are maps, though.
85357 – Lewis Baston again, S London this time.
85393 – From a member of the public in Barnet. Actually two alternative schemes, both covering parts of N London, described in narrative but no maps.
85615 – From a member of the public in Cambridge, suggesting some name changes but (at a quick glance) no boundary changes.
86589 – The Tory scheme. From the merest glance (all I’ve had time for), it seems to involve a lot of ward splits.

Could John Cartwright be our own johnloony ?
An unnamed member of the public fom Preston who posts in a difficult to read format also sounds like a former member of this site.
Adam Gray has posted here and Olver Raven is obviously known to us as well. greatkingrat has made submissions before (member of the public in Barnet?)
Pete Challis is a familiar name but I can't place it

I assumed it was the former Greenwich councillor of this name.

[islington]

Feb 7, 2022 18:10:26 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

And obviously I'm being incredibly dense, but I can't find any of the links to these submissions

Here.

www.bcereviews.org.uk/node/6485

They are mostly in order of reference number (which BCE has helpfully not included on the list of links) - except where they aren't. (The political parties are listed together near the end, as is the Bristol analysis.)

[michaelarden]

Feb 7, 2022 16:07:28 GMT iain said:

I note the Conservatives appear to have proposed removing Kingston town centre (Grove ward) from Kingston & Surbiton. This is not only illogical but looks absolutely vile on a map - neither would it do the Tories any favours in regaining Richmond Park.

Edit - as have the Greens. Bizarre.

Actually Kingston Town Centre covers two wards - Grove and Canbury - so it isn't that illogical and looking bizarre on a map isn't a valid objection for the BCE.

[kevinlarkin]

85271 is mine. It was very much a last minute effort and there is a mistake in the Brent/Harrow/Barnet area which creates a tri-borough seat.