|
|
Post by islington on Apr 3, 2022 23:09:33 GMT
London now submitted: BCE-94748. This comprised changes to a few of my proposed seats in Barnet, Enfield and Haringey.
It's been a busy Sunday.
But I found time to complete the BCE questionnaire. It seems I'm an Eric.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 7, 2022 17:29:39 GMT
From the main review thread: |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 7, 2022 18:32:00 GMT
 Not much changed from the initial proposals (blue line) in this part of London |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 7, 2022 18:53:41 GMT
More drsatic change in North London - generally much improved from the initial proposals. Much better in Barnet and Hampstead & Highgate is good. I don't care at all for Southgate & Wood Green (for which I blame islington ) but one dud seat in a group of 14 isn't bad..  |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 7, 2022 19:05:17 GMT
More drsatic change in North London - generally much improved from the initial proposals. Much better in Barnet and Hampstead & Highgate is good. I don't care at all for Southgate & Wood Green (for which I blame islington ) but one dud seat in a group of 14 isn't bad.. The Hornsey seat in this map is pretty bad as well. Then again, the only other viable option is to split Tottenham in half and make a mess of the two northernmost Barnet seats. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2022 19:10:10 GMT
More drsatic change in North London - generally much improved from the initial proposals. Much better in Barnet and Hampstead & Highgate is good. I don't care at all for Southgate & Wood Green (for which I blame islington ) but one dud seat in a group of 14 isn't bad.. I can see a little dog, bottom left. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Nov 7, 2022 19:12:55 GMT
I assume the changes to Edmonton and Enfield N are motivated solely by making the numbers work further west, and that the change to Edmonton makes no sense on the ground. Is that correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 7, 2022 19:16:07 GMT
I assume the changes to Edmonton and Enfield N are motivated solely by making the numbers work further west, and that the change to Edmonton makes no sense on the ground. Is that correct? If you swapped Bowes and Winchmore Hill, which would make more sense on the ground (although it would drastically reduce the area linking Southgate and Wood Green), the Southgate & Wood Green seat would be 8 voters over quota (Edmonton would be fine and would be the same as the initial proposals) |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 7, 2022 19:38:58 GMT
 Again an improvement overall, especially in Brent and Westminster though Queens Park & Little Venice is a studid name (good seat though, should just be called Queens Park). Half the seats here are unchanged from the initial proposals (for the most part they were ok to start with) |
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,065
|
Post by nyx on Nov 7, 2022 20:04:19 GMT
What I find quite neat about these proposals, from what Pete Whitehead has posted so far, is that every London seat seems to have a clear successor. With there being precisely one new seat, Stratford and Bow. Some existing seats have been chopped around a bit, most notably Westminster North becoming Queen's Park and Little Venice, but overall it seems there's more continuity in the revised proposals than in the initial ones. If you swapped Bowes and Winchmore Hill, which would make more sense on the ground (although it would drastically reduce the area linking Southgate and Wood Green), the Southgate & Wood Green seat would be 8 voters over quota (Edmonton would be fine and would be the same as the initial proposals) There could have been a clause in the original guidelines saying something like "A seat can go above or below the quota by up to 200 voters if it avoids a lot of difficulties in the neighbouring seats". Or you just split the ward to shove those 8 voters into the other seat. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 7, 2022 20:09:36 GMT
 Not sure if this is an improvement on the initial proposals or not - I was reasonably happy with what they proposed and made no submission for South London. Richmond Park & Kingston Central is an ugly seat and Lambeth Central is an uninspired name (albeit it is not so different from the previous incarnation of that seat). I think Croydon could have been done better given they've been prepared to split wards and I don't much like the Lewisham seats (they each make a fair bit of sense on the ground but just don't look right to me - I preferred the initial proposals in that area) Edit: NB - where I have split wards (eg in Croydon, Woodside) my boundary may not reflect the actual split proposed |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 7, 2022 20:21:50 GMT
 Very little change here - just sorting out the Orpington/Bromley boundary using the device (as mentioned elsewhere, suggested by kevinlarkin) of splitting Darwin. Pretty decent set of boundaries with the one change proposed representing a significant improvement |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 7, 2022 20:37:16 GMT
Not much changed from the initial proposals (blue line) in this part of London In Havering they've not only split three wards (three!), they've ignored PD boundaries to do it, instead apparently basing the proposal on new Havering wards that were decided long after the statutory cut-off date. So it's a breach not only of their own guidance but arguably of the statutory rules as well. They are asking for a judicial review here.
Elsewhere in London north of the Thames, I'm not unhappy with what they are proposing. I wasn't particularly wedded to that Southgate & Wood Green seat, and in fact I changed my mind about it in my second submission, but although undeniably ugly, it has a certain logic about it because it helps avoid problems elsewhere. And its internal communications - along the Piccadilly line - are far better than you would expect from its misshapen appearance on the map. So I don't mind taking the blame for it.
I think better solutions were available in Hounslow but what they're proposing isn't disastrous.
I'll think about south London tomorrow.
|
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,065
|
Post by nyx on Nov 7, 2022 21:52:03 GMT
So it looks like every constituency has a fairly clear successor, with the extra seat coming from Streatham being divided into Lambeth Central (41117 voters from Streatham and 34343 from Vauxhall), and Streatham and Norbury (39464 voters from Streatham and 36586 from Croydon North).
Which is probably somewhat awkward for Bell Ribeiro-Addy, as despite having a choice of which seat to stand in, I expect she'd have a selection contest whichever she goes for, and her wing of her party is no longer as relevant now as it was when she became an MP in 2019.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 7, 2022 21:54:24 GMT
Not much changed from the initial proposals (blue line) in this part of London In Havering they've not only split three wards (three!), they've ignored PD boundaries to do it, instead apparently basing the proposal on new Havering wards that were decided long after the statutory cut-off date. So it's a breach not only of their own guidance but arguably of the statutory rules as well. They are asking for a judicial review here. Somewhat notable that in the same section of the report they say that aligning to new ward boundaries in Walthamstow isn't sufficient justification to split a ward. |
|
andrea
Non-Aligned
Posts: 7,813
|
Post by andrea on Nov 7, 2022 22:11:43 GMT
So it looks like every constituency has a fairly clear successor, with the extra seat coming from Streatham being divided into Lambeth Central (41117 voters from Streatham and 34343 from Vauxhall), and Streatham and Norbury (39464 voters from Streatham and 36586 from Croydon North). Which is probably somewhat awkward for Bell Ribeiro-Addy, as despite having a choice of which seat to stand in, I expect she'd have a selection contest whichever she goes for, and her wing of her party is no longer as relevant now as it was when she became an MP in 2019. I think only Eshalomi has a substantial territorial claim over the new Vauxhall. It would mean that she can get it without a contest. So, Ribeiro-Addy could be slotted into Lambeth Central and Streatham & Norbury can go to Reed. (In the previous boundary changes, Labour defined territorial claim as 40% of your current seat going into the proposed one) Edit: I don't think 40% of current Vauxhall goes into Lambeth Central. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Nov 7, 2022 22:37:33 GMT
Somewhat notable that in the same section of the report they say that aligning to new ward boundaries in Walthamstow isn't sufficient justification to split a ward. They also rejected a request to use the new ward boundaries for Newham so there'll be three split wards to complicate things for Electoral Services and potentially cause misallocation. |
|
|
|
Post by redvers on Nov 7, 2022 22:44:03 GMT
Not much changed from the initial proposals (blue line) in this part of London In Havering they've not only split three wards (three!), they've ignored PD boundaries to do it, instead apparently basing the proposal on new Havering wards that were decided long after the statutory cut-off date. So it's a breach not only of their own guidance but arguably of the statutory rules as well. They are asking for a judicial review here. That'll be weird as elsewhere they have clearly rejected proposals to align with new boundaries that came after December 1st 2020. |
|
wallington
Green
The Pride of Croydon 2022 award winner
Posts: 1,322 
|
Post by wallington on Nov 8, 2022 8:45:07 GMT
Not sure if this is an improvement on the initial proposals or not - I was reasonably happy with what they proposed and made no submission for South London. Richmond Park & Kingston Central is an ugly seat and Lambeth Central is an uninspired name (albeit it is not so different from the previous incarnation of that seat). I think Croydon could have been done better given they've been prepared to split wards and I don't much like the Lewisham seats (they each make a fair bit of sense on the ground but just don't look right to me - I preferred the initial proposals in that area) Edit: NB - where I have split wards (eg in Croydon, Woodside) my boundary may not reflect the actual split proposed The settled on Croydon boundaries are pretty bad. I know it was always going to be a bit of a headache, but yeah.... not a fan of the town centre split around Fairfield, Park Hill and Addidcombe West. The Woodside split is not great either. Would have rather have seen South Norwood and Upper Norwood stick together. Personally I was more of a fan of the original proposals and the shoe horning in of Longthornton from Merton. But you're never going to please everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Nov 8, 2022 9:48:12 GMT
Thank you Pete Whitehead for the maps.. this is by far the best set of London proposals we’re going to get with the 5% rule, just think back to the last 2 reviews. Beggars and choosers ect ect |
|
