|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Feb 7, 2022 22:36:18 GMT
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.
I suppose I'd better own up to being the "member of the public in Barnet" who submitted both of 85346 and 85393. I think I worked out almost everything in both using Boundary Assistant - but ended up finalising my responses in enough of a hurry that, given the amount of north London I was covering in 85393, I couldn't work out in the available time how to get legible enough screencaps of the relevant Boundary Assistant maps into my submission. By the way, I might as well remark that the first of the two alternative schemes in 85393 is mostly a partial version of the second scheme. What happened was that I started off doing what I felt to be a best possible version, according to the rules, of a constituency map for Barnet, and then worked through the consequential run-on effects that this had on the BCE proposals for neighbouring boroughs. Perhaps not surprisingly, my first attempts ended up affecting everything from the Lea to Heathrow, with what I felt to be differing levels of desirability in different boroughs. I managed to dump my distinctly dubious proposals for Hillingdon when I found some proposals for polling districts in the new Harrow wards - which gave me two different possibilities (subject to the missing polling district electorate numbers working) for a split ward in Harrow instead. I was (and still am not) also not convinced that my proposals for Enfield and Haringey were any better (at best) than the BCE proposals, though they were sufficiently OK as not to cause me to abandon my Barnet proposal. But, in order to have three constituencies in quota when devising the Barnet proposal, I'd had to leave one ward (Edgware) in a constituency crossing the A5 - and the remaining Barnet wards from the two BCE constituencies crossing the A5 would themselves form a constituency distinctly better than the ones it was replacing. So I ended up with the two alternatives - the first, a less extensive one which contained the changes just for Brent, Harrow and this constituency, while retaining the BCE constituencies for the rest of Barnet, and the second, a more extensive one containing my original Barnet proposal and the run-on changes for Enfield and Haringey as well and the Brent and Harrow ones. |
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Feb 8, 2022 10:15:15 GMT
Lots of objections to Petts Wood and Knoll being moved from Orpington into Bromley. This comment is not untypical:I made a second submission (85350) which suggests a way of avoiding this by splitting Darwin ward.
|
|
|
|
Post by gerrardwinstanley on Feb 8, 2022 12:05:04 GMT
Lots of objections to Petts Wood and Knoll being moved from Orpington into Bromley. This comment is not untypical:I made a second submission (85350) which suggests a way of avoiding this by splitting Darwin ward. Yes, because a boundary change will, too, result in the death of thousands of people. Do people really think engaging in such hyperbolic nonsense benefits their point? |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 8, 2022 12:48:43 GMT
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.
...
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 presume that islington was being sarcastic in pretending to think that I am the former SDP MP. Not the first time we have been conflated. My London proposal is indeed the abovementioned. See also my comment on Ludlow / Ludlow & Bridgnorth / Shropshire South. www.bcereviews.org.uk/node/54858/view |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Feb 8, 2022 12:56:00 GMT
Lots of objections to Petts Wood and Knoll being moved from Orpington into Bromley. This comment is not untypical:I made a second submission (85350) which suggests a way of avoiding this by splitting Darwin ward. Yes, because a boundary change will, too, result in the death of thousands of people. Do people really think engaging in such hyperbolic nonsense benefits their point? At least they didn't suggest that proposed boundary changes would lead to "race riots" and "another Kosovo", unlike some of the residents of Rowley Regis in the West Midlands... |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 8, 2022 13:29:15 GMT
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 in pretending to think that I am the former SDP MP. Not the first time we have been conflated. My London proposal is indeed the abovementioned. See also my comment on Ludlow / Ludlow & Bridgnorth / Shropshire South. www.bcereviews.org.uk/node/54858/viewI'm sure I haven't got a sarcastic bone in my body. Well, anyway, I wasn't being sarcastic on this occasion because until just now I knew you only by your pseudonym. I genuinely thought it might be the former MP, who after all represented a seat in this part of London for many years. I've no idea what he's doing these days but it's not inconceivable that even in old age (he's 88) he might maintain an interest. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 8, 2022 13:37:50 GMT
I presume that islington was being sarcastic in pretending to think that I am the former SDP MP. Not the first time we have been conflated. My London proposal is indeed the abovementioned. See also my comment on Ludlow / Ludlow & Bridgnorth / Shropshire South. www.bcereviews.org.uk/node/54858/view I'm sure I haven't got a sarcastic bone in my body. Well, anyway, I wasn't being sarcastic on this occasion because until just now I knew you only by your pseudonym. I genuinely thought it might be the former MP, who after all represented a seat in this part of London for many years. I've no idea what he's doing these days but it's not inconceivable that even in old age (he's 88) he might maintain an interest. He lives in Kent. Many years ago someone from BBC Radio Kent (or whatever) phoned me to ask me to comment on the resignation of Somebody as Chair of the Whatever Health Authority (or whatever it was). It made me realise that - if the BBC had my contact details but not his - then I must have reached the position of being more famous than he is. |
|
|
|
Post by redtony on Feb 8, 2022 21:00:57 GMT
Anything on the new westChelsea and Fulham seat
This seems to be a Labour marginal as we will see from the May council eletions
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 9, 2022 9:38:24 GMT
Anything on the new westChelsea and Fulham seat This seems to be a Labour marginal as we will see from the May council eletions You may be right, but it's far from a given that it will survive the second phase of the current review. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 11, 2022 13:05:02 GMT
Adam Gray's plan is good
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 11, 2022 13:10:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 11, 2022 13:19:12 GMT
I didn't realis. I thought he was mrtoad |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 11, 2022 14:07:30 GMT
It is superbly presented and we could all usefully learn from this.
But I have found 31 cross-borough seats at a quick check (there may be more) and it is not necessary to have anything like that number.
He has two ward splits. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, but his choices are odd in that both of them could easily have been avoided.
He advocates crossing the Enfield boundary to take in parts of Tottenham. I can see the logic of this, if you don't know the area. But if you do, then you will know that Tottenham and Edmonton are clearly distinct communities - not only that, but people in the area know exactly where the boundary lies. It is much more than just a line on a map. Whereas Enfield's boundaries in the Southgate area are much more porous, so this is where the line should be crossed. Originally I wanted to link Southgate with Wood Green but I've now come round to linking it with Brunswick Park and Friern Barnet instead. This has the knock-on effect of requiring another cross-borough seat but my total of such seats across London is still only 25 compared with 31 in the BCE scheme and at least 31 in Adam Gray's plan.
The boundary through the middle of Brentford seems a bit gratuitous since it can easily be avoided.
I'm not saying there isn't any good stuff here, because there plainly is, and I say again that the way he has presented his plan is a lesson to us all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 11, 2022 14:41:42 GMT
It is superbly presented and we could all usefully learn from this. But I have found 31 cross-borough seats at a quick check (there may be more) and it is not necessary to have anything like that number.
He has two ward splits. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, but his choices are odd in that both of them could easily have been avoided.
He advocates crossing the Enfield boundary to take in parts of Tottenham. I can see the logic of this, if you don't know the area. But if you do, then you will know that Tottenham and Edmonton are clearly distinct communities - not only that, but people in the area know exactly where the boundary lies. It is much more than just a line on a map. Whereas Enfield's boundaries in the Southgate area are much more porous, so this is where the line should be crossed. Originally I wanted to link Southgate with Wood Green but I've now come round to linking it with Brunswick Park and Friern Barnet instead. This has the knock-on effect of requiring another cross-borough seat but my total of such seats across London is still only 25 compared with 31 in the BCE scheme and at least 31 in Adam Gray's plan. The boundary through the middle of Brentford seems a bit gratuitous since it can easily be avoided. I'm not saying there isn't any good stuff here, because there plainly is, and I say again that the way he has presented his plan is a lesson to us all.
I've also advocated this and I do know the area. South of the N Circular its all the same |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 11, 2022 17:52:59 GMT
 ? I’m certainly not Adam Gray, though we are both based in West London! |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 11, 2022 17:55:10 GMT
It is superbly presented and we could all usefully learn from this.
But I have found 31 cross-borough seats at a quick check (there may be more) and it is not necessary to have anything like that number.
He has two ward splits. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, but his choices are odd in that both of them could easily have been avoided.
He advocates crossing the Enfield boundary to take in parts of Tottenham. I can see the logic of this, if you don't know the area. But if you do, then you will know that Tottenham and Edmonton are clearly distinct communities - not only that, but people in the area know exactly where the boundary lies. It is much more than just a line on a map. Whereas Enfield's boundaries in the Southgate area are much more porous, so this is where the line should be crossed. Originally I wanted to link Southgate with Wood Green but I've now come round to linking it with Brunswick Park and Friern Barnet instead. This has the knock-on effect of requiring another cross-borough seat but my total of such seats across London is still only 25 compared with 31 in the BCE scheme and at least 31 in Adam Gray's plan.
The boundary through the middle of Brentford seems a bit gratuitous since it can easily be avoided.
I'm not saying there isn't any good stuff here, because there plainly is, and I say again that the way he has presented his plan is a lesson to us all.
I agree that the boundary through Brentford is awful and unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 11, 2022 18:00:33 GMT
I didn't realis. I thought he was mrtoad What you mean is, you don't know him from Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by redtony on Feb 11, 2022 20:51:43 GMT
There is merit in tottenham from northumberland park going rightup to the NCR certainly from the high road to the Lea
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Feb 12, 2022 9:56:46 GMT
? I’m certainly not Adam Gray, though we are both based in West London! Ever green and not grey? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 20, 2022 10:19:45 GMT
This is the Tory plan for London.
Now, am I alone in thinking that the Tories have gone quite badly off the rails here?
Apart from the seven split wards, some easily avoidable, there are some areas where they have made what I can only describe as a holy mess. Enfield and Islington suffer particularly badly, and Bromley/Greenwich/Lewisham is pretty painful as well. The narrative arguments for these arrangements are thin and unconvincing, and in the case of Islington they pretty much throw their hands in the air and say (not in so many words), "It's only Islington, what do we care?"
All right, I accept that south east London is genuinely tricky and any proposal is going to have its flaws, but in Enfield and Islington there are obvious alternatives involving far less disruption.
I'm not dismissing the whole plan - north west London is not too bad, for instance - but overall this exhibits a sharp reduction in quality compared with Tory submissions to the zombies, and it's my impression that the same is true of Tory plans elsewhere in England. I'm wondering whether there have been changes in personnel since last time; does anyone know?
Edited to add: Apologies, I did the Tories an injustice. It's not seven split wards, it's eight.
|
|
? I’m certainly not Adam Gray, though we are both based in West London!
