|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Nov 23, 2022 17:45:39 GMT
Finally slogging thru these reports and I stumbled on a footnote
"BCE-79433,19
19This response is often referred to as 'Preston' in other representations (Preston being the published hometown of the respondent), since the respondent did not consent to their name being published."
Now who could that be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 18:02:40 GMT
Finally slogging thru these reports and I stumbled on a footnote "BCE-79433, 19
19This response is often referred to as 'Preston' in other representations (Preston being the published hometown of the respondent), since the respondent did not consent to their name being published." Now who could that be? Not me. I only wrote one letter for the NW region and I consented for my name to be published, they use it in full in the Revised Recommendations report. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 23, 2022 18:11:17 GMT
Finally slogging thru these reports and I stumbled on a footnote "BCE-79433, 19
19This response is often referred to as 'Preston' in other representations (Preston being the published hometown of the respondent), since the respondent did not consent to their name being published." Now who could that be? Not me. I only wrote one letter for the NW region and I consented for my name to be published, they use it in full in the Revised Recommendations report. I actually thought it probably wasn't you. The names were too boring for one thing. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Nov 23, 2022 18:27:07 GMT
Not me. I only wrote one letter for the NW region and I consented for my name to be published, they use it in full in the Revised Recommendations report. I actually thought it probably wasn't you. The names were too boring for one thing. Eh. I didn't read the submission itself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 18:42:45 GMT
Not me. I only wrote one letter for the NW region and I consented for my name to be published, they use it in full in the Revised Recommendations report. I actually thought it probably wasn't you. The names were too boring for one thing. That's my calling card! |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Dec 2, 2022 8:49:58 GMT
The deadline for comments is fast approaching, any useful suggestions that I could include in my comments would be appreciated. Particularly interested in smaller practical ward swaps or name changes as they are unlikely to make big changes at this stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 2, 2022 9:56:00 GMT
The deadline for comments is fast approaching, any useful suggestions that I could include in my comments would be appreciated. Particularly interested in smaller practical ward swaps or name changes as they are unlikely to make big changes at this stage. It's totally up to you whether you think either or both of these is a good idea, but I'm proposing two alterations in south London. - Croydon East gains S Norwood ward and the whole of Woodside; the Addiscombe wards go to Croydon West in exchange. This recognizes that Addiscombe has particularly strong links with the central Croydon area, which is already in Croydon W. It also keeps the whole S Norwood area together, whereas the BCE plan (even with the ward split) cuts off much of the southern part of S Norwood in Woodside ward; and anyway, S Norwood is on the eastern side of the borough and doesn't belong in a seat based on the western side. In this form Croydon E logically comprises the whole of four distinct communities on the east of the borough: (from north to south) S Norwood; Shirley; Addington; New Addington.
- A five-way ward rotation in Lambeth and Southwark: Goose Green into Dulwich & W Norwood - this ward is essentially the East Dulwich area, thus ensuring the seat contains much more of Dulwich proper; Nunhead & Queen's Rd into the Lewisham W seat, which in this arrangement I'd call Lewisham W & Peckham Rye or, perhaps better, Lewisham W & Nunhead - admittedly this divides Peckham, but it does it in a reasonably logical way keeping the central area of Peckham along the High Street in the following seat; Camberwell Green into Peckham, which gets rid of the BCE's outrageous boundary through the middle of Camberwell (far worse than the proposed division of Peckham), and means the seat can keep its current name of Camberwell & Peckham; this leaves Newington as an orphan ward in Vauxhall but given its alignment and its close ties to Kennington this isn't unreasonable, and Vauxhall is compensated for the loss of Camberwell Green by retaining Larkhall, which is part of the current seat so that's fewer electors moved; and finally Coldharbour into the BCE's Lambeth Central, which means that the whole central Brixton area is in the same seat, and if adopted this would make it the first time since 1885 (I've checked) that there hasn't been a constituency boundary through the middle of Brixton - and the seat would be better named as Clapham & Brixton in this arrangement. No seat is harmed by this rotation; I'd say the effect on the Lewisham W seat is neutral and the other four seats are all distinctly improved.
This is what the two areas would look like.  |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Dec 2, 2022 12:14:24 GMT
The deadline for comments is fast approaching, any useful suggestions that I could include in my comments would be appreciated. Particularly interested in smaller practical ward swaps or name changes as they are unlikely to make big changes at this stage. It's totally up to you whether you think either or both of these is a good idea, but I'm proposing two alterations in south London. - Croydon East gains S Norwood ward and the whole of Woodside; the Addiscombe wards go to Croydon West in exchange. This recognizes that Addiscombe has particularly strong links with the central Croydon area, which is already in Croydon W. It also keeps the whole S Norwood area together, whereas the BCE plan (even with the ward split) cuts off much of the southern part of S Norwood in Woodside ward; and anyway, S Norwood is on the eastern side of the borough and doesn't belong in a seat based on the western side. In this form Croydon E logically comprises the whole of four distinct communities on the east of the borough: (from north to south) S Norwood; Shirley; Addington; New Addington.
- A five-way ward rotation in Lambeth and Southwark: Goose Green into Dulwich & W Norwood - this ward is essentially the East Dulwich area, thus ensuring the seat contains much more of Dulwich proper; Nunhead & Queen's Rd into the Lewisham W seat, which in this arrangement I'd call Lewisham W & Peckham Rye or, perhaps better, Lewisham W & Nunhead - admittedly this divides Peckham, but it does it in a reasonably logical way keeping the central area of Peckham along the High Street in the following seat; Camberwell Green into Peckham, which gets rid of the BCE's outrageous boundary through the middle of Camberwell (far worse than the proposed division of Peckham), and means the seat can keep its current name of Camberwell & Peckham; this leaves Newington as an orphan ward in Vauxhall but given its alignment and its close ties to Kennington this isn't unreasonable, and Vauxhall is compensated for the loss of Camberwell Green by retaining Larkhall, which is part of the current seat so that's fewer electors moved; and finally Coldharbour into the BCE's Lambeth Central, which means that the whole central Brixton area is in the same seat, and if adopted this would make it the first time since 1885 (I've checked) that there hasn't been a constituency boundary through the middle of Brixton - and the seat would be better named as Clapham & Brixton in this arrangement. No seat is harmed by this rotation; I'd say the effect on the Lewisham W seat is neutral and the other four seats are all distinctly improved.
This is what the two areas would look like. Splitting Addiscombe West from Woodside would reintroduce a big problem which has been solved by the revised proposals, and would be completely bonctulous. No way can Addiscombe be considered part of “West” Croydon. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 2, 2022 12:41:14 GMT
It's totally up to you whether you think either or both of these is a good idea, but I'm proposing two alterations in south London. - Croydon East gains S Norwood ward and the whole of Woodside; the Addiscombe wards go to Croydon West in exchange. This recognizes that Addiscombe has particularly strong links with the central Croydon area, which is already in Croydon W. It also keeps the whole S Norwood area together, whereas the BCE plan (even with the ward split) cuts off much of the southern part of S Norwood in Woodside ward; and anyway, S Norwood is on the eastern side of the borough and doesn't belong in a seat based on the western side. In this form Croydon E logically comprises the whole of four distinct communities on the east of the borough: (from north to south) S Norwood; Shirley; Addington; New Addington.
- A five-way ward rotation in Lambeth and Southwark: Goose Green into Dulwich & W Norwood - this ward is essentially the East Dulwich area, thus ensuring the seat contains much more of Dulwich proper; Nunhead & Queen's Rd into the Lewisham W seat, which in this arrangement I'd call Lewisham W & Peckham Rye or, perhaps better, Lewisham W & Nunhead - admittedly this divides Peckham, but it does it in a reasonably logical way keeping the central area of Peckham along the High Street in the following seat; Camberwell Green into Peckham, which gets rid of the BCE's outrageous boundary through the middle of Camberwell (far worse than the proposed division of Peckham), and means the seat can keep its current name of Camberwell & Peckham; this leaves Newington as an orphan ward in Vauxhall but given its alignment and its close ties to Kennington this isn't unreasonable, and Vauxhall is compensated for the loss of Camberwell Green by retaining Larkhall, which is part of the current seat so that's fewer electors moved; and finally Coldharbour into the BCE's Lambeth Central, which means that the whole central Brixton area is in the same seat, and if adopted this would make it the first time since 1885 (I've checked) that there hasn't been a constituency boundary through the middle of Brixton - and the seat would be better named as Clapham & Brixton in this arrangement. No seat is harmed by this rotation; I'd say the effect on the Lewisham W seat is neutral and the other four seats are all distinctly improved.
This is what the two areas would look like. Splitting Addiscombe West from Woodside would reintroduce a big problem which has been solved by the revised proposals, and would be completely bonctulous. No way can Addiscombe be considered part of “West” Croydon. Sorry but I am resolute in my bonctulosity because the S Norwood area has even less to do with west Croydon than Addiscombe and moreover is grievously carved up in the BCE revised scheme. The Woodside ward split doesn't help here - it just divides S Norwood in a different way to the ward boundary, but it's equally unsatisfactory.
On the other hand, Addiscombe closely adjoins, and is very strongly linked to, the town centre area, so I'd also argue for this plan on those grounds.
Turning to names: yes, in this scheme the seat I've called 'Croydon West' is actually more 'Croydon Central and West', but I don't like that kind of name. At an absolute push I might settle for 'Croydon West and Addiscombe'; or I suppose even 'Croydon Central' wouldn't be totally unreasonable.
But it's how the seat works on the ground that matters - the name is a secondary consideration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 2, 2022 12:57:42 GMT
Would dividing the two Addiscombe wards themselves be that bad? I don't know how strong the identification is with Addiscombe there, but you could put Selson Vale & Forestdale in Croyson South instead of PH&W, Woodside and SOuth Northwood in Croydon East and Addiscombe West and PH&WG in Croydon West
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 2, 2022 17:52:17 GMT
Would dividing the two Addiscombe wards themselves be that bad? I don't know how strong the identification is with Addiscombe there, but you could put Selson Vale & Forestdale in Croyson South instead of PH&W, Woodside and SOuth Northwood in Croydon East and Addiscombe West and PH&WG in Croydon West Well, I'm uneasy about splitting the Addiscombes and the boundary between Selsdon and Selsdon Vale isn't great either, but it's better than the BCE scheme so feel free to suggest it.
But the proposal I put forward went in before I saw your post. It is BCE-111554. |
|
peter
Conservative
Posts: 47 
|
Post by peter on Dec 4, 2022 21:55:43 GMT
I am surprised that having detached the City from Islington in the revised proposals, Islington's southern constituency becomes just Islington South. Finsbury has been included in a constituency name since 1868, Finsbury (1868-85) Finsbury East and West (1885-1918), Finsbury again (1918-1950), Shoreditch and Finsbury (1950-1974) and finally Islington South and Finsbury (1974 to date.) Finsbury was a former Metropolitan Borough and as noted, Islington South and Finsbury has been an established constituency name since 1974. Inadjoining Hackney the southern constituency has been Hackney South and Shoreditch since 1950 and the northern constituency, Stoke Newington and Hackney North since 1950. I hope that this will be reconsidered and Finsbury remains in the constituency name.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Dec 4, 2022 22:30:00 GMT
I am surprised that having detached the City from Islington in the revised proposals, Islington's southern constituency becomes just Islington South. Finsbury has been included in a constituency name since 1868, Finsbury (1868-85) Finsbury East and West (1885-1918), Finsbury again (1918-1950), Shoreditch and Finsbury (1950-1974) and finally Islington South and Finsbury (1974 to date.) Finsbury was a former Metropolitan Borough and as noted, Islington South and Finsbury has been an established constituency name since 1974. Inadjoining Hackney the southern constituency has been Hackney South and Shoreditch since 1950 and the northern constituency, Stoke Newington and Hackney North since 1950. I hope that this will be reconsidered and Finsbury remains in the constituency name. I think nowdays, most people when they hear the name Finsbury think of Finsbury Park rather then the old borough, so I think just calling it Islington South is simpler and clearer. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 4, 2022 23:22:39 GMT
I am surprised that having detached the City from Islington in the revised proposals, Islington's southern constituency becomes just Islington South. Finsbury has been included in a constituency name since 1868, Finsbury (1868-85) Finsbury East and West (1885-1918), Finsbury again (1918-1950), Shoreditch and Finsbury (1950-1974) and finally Islington South and Finsbury (1974 to date.) Finsbury was a former Metropolitan Borough and as noted, Islington South and Finsbury has been an established constituency name since 1974. Inadjoining Hackney the southern constituency has been Hackney South and Shoreditch since 1950 and the northern constituency, Stoke Newington and Hackney North since 1950. I hope that this will be reconsidered and Finsbury remains in the constituency name. Indeed it has actually been since 1832 and the Finsbury division up until 1885 included all of what is now the borough of Islington as well as Stoke Newington and Holborn. I accept it may be a bit anachronistic to include the name of a borough which ceased to exist before many of us were born, but I would say its the kind of anachronism we like (and note they haven't proposed this in the case of either the aforementioned Holborn or Stoke Newington) |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 5, 2022 9:43:14 GMT
I am surprised that having detached the City from Islington in the revised proposals, Islington's southern constituency becomes just Islington South. Finsbury has been included in a constituency name since 1868, Finsbury (1868-85) Finsbury East and West (1885-1918), Finsbury again (1918-1950), Shoreditch and Finsbury (1950-1974) and finally Islington South and Finsbury (1974 to date.) Finsbury was a former Metropolitan Borough and as noted, Islington South and Finsbury has been an established constituency name since 1974. Inadjoining Hackney the southern constituency has been Hackney South and Shoreditch since 1950 and the northern constituency, Stoke Newington and Hackney North since 1950. I hope that this will be reconsidered and Finsbury remains in the constituency name. Indeed it has actually been since 1832 and the Finsbury division up until 1885 included all of what is now the borough of Islington as well as Stoke Newington and Holborn. I accept it may be a bit anachronistic to include the name of a borough which ceased to exist before many of us were born, but I would say its the kind of anachronism we like (and note they haven't proposed this in the case of either the aforementioned Holborn or Stoke Newington) Normally, I'd agree because I think it's right to be conservative about seat names of such long vintage.
But in this case, and speaking as an elector in the said seat, I don't think the 'Finsbury' reference is very meaningful these days. Moreover, brevity is a virtue so 'Islington South' is fine.
I'd also be quite happy with plain 'Hackney North' and 'Hackney South' since Stoke Newington and Shoreditch are now well absorbed into Hackney.
There's a better case for keeping 'Holborn & St Pancras'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 5, 2022 9:51:32 GMT
Indeed it has actually been since 1832 and the Finsbury division up until 1885 included all of what is now the borough of Islington as well as Stoke Newington and Holborn. I accept it may be a bit anachronistic to include the name of a borough which ceased to exist before many of us were born, but I would say its the kind of anachronism we like (and note they haven't proposed this in the case of either the aforementioned Holborn or Stoke Newington) Normally, I'd agree because I think it's right to be conservative about seat names of such long vintage. But in this case, and speaking as an elector in the said seat, I don't think the 'Finsbury' reference is very meaningful these days. Moreover, brevity is a virtue so 'Islington South' is fine. I'd also be quite happy with plain 'Hackney North' and 'Hackney South' since Stoke Newington and Shoreditch are now well absorbed into Hackney. There's a better case for keeping 'Holborn & St Pancras'.
Indeed. I can live with plain 'Hackney North', 'Hackney South', 'Islington South'. 'Camden South' though would invite a violent response. I don't think pitchforks are very common in this part of the world, but I dare say other sharp implements are in plentiful supply.. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Dec 5, 2022 9:57:41 GMT
Basically, hardly anybody now knows where Finsbury is (the area is generally known as Clerkenwell now), and as greatkingrat rightly says most people would assume that the area in question is Finsbury Park, several miles away at the opposite end of the same borough. Although Finsbury has been in a constituency name for a century & a half, it's time to accept that its time is up as the name could actually seem confusing to people now, which is not the point of constituency names.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 5, 2022 11:22:05 GMT
I am surprised that having detached the City from Islington in the revised proposals, Islington's southern constituency becomes just Islington South. Finsbury has been included in a constituency name since 1868, Finsbury (1868-85) Finsbury East and West (1885-1918), Finsbury again (1918-1950), Shoreditch and Finsbury (1950-1974) and finally Islington South and Finsbury (1974 to date.) Finsbury was a former Metropolitan Borough and as noted, Islington South and Finsbury has been an established constituency name since 1974. Inadjoining Hackney the southern constituency has been Hackney South and Shoreditch since 1950 and the northern constituency, Stoke Newington and Hackney North since 1950. I hope that this will be reconsidered and Finsbury remains in the constituency name. As Pete Whitehead has pointed out, 'Finsbury', as a constituency name, actually goes back to 1832. Strictly speaking, Finsbury is the area around Finsbury Pavement and Finsbury Square in the extreme south east of the current LB Islington. But when, in (or about) 1634, the ancient hundred of Ossulstone was split into four divisions because of its rapidly growing population as London expanded beyond its traditional limits, the name was applied to a much wider area (see map). The name probably reflects the fact that the Finsbury area, being right on the boundary with the City, was the first part of that division to get really built up.  These divisions persisted a long time, being treated more as if they were hundreds in their own right rather than merely parts of Ossulstone, and they strongly influenced the drawing of Parliamentary boroughs in 1832. Tower Hamlets PB was identical to Tower division; Finsbury division (less its rural northern parts outside the Bills) and Holborn division (less Westminster, which was already a PB in its own right) were also reflected in the new electoral arrangements, except that, to balance up the population, the Holborn area itself was included in Finsbury PB; and the PB comprising the rest of Holborn division (except Westminster) was called Marylebone instead.
In 1885 Finsbury PB was confined to the southern part of its former area and was split into three constituencies: East, Central, and Holborn. And in 1900 when metropolitan boroughs were set up, the Holborn parliamentary division became a MB in its own right. The other two divisions were combined to form Finsbury MB, but its municipal head office was erected in the Clerkenwell area, thus causing further confusion about the identity of Finsbury because the building still called Finsbury Town Hall is firmly in Clerkenwell. (It was in this building that my wife and I were married in 1996.) To complicate matters still further, when in the mid 19th century the inhabitants of the thoroughly urbanized area of Finsbury proper petitioned for a park, they were appeased by naming the planned 'Albert Park' as 'Finsbury Park' instead, even though this park is in the present Haringey LB two or three miles to the north of Finsbury itself. So there you go. To most modern inhabitants of this part of London, Finsbury Park and Finsbury Town Hall are both better known than the original area of Finsbury itself. Long story short: I agree it should be dropped as part of a constituency name.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 18, 2023 18:58:43 GMT
This isn't a serious suggestion, and it would be too late anyway, but one must do something to fill the idle days of awaiting the BCE's final scheme and I fell to wondering whether it was possible to get rid of the Wandsworth ward split without throwing out the BCE's entire south London scheme.
I came up with this. The nine seats involved cover an area identical to nine seats in the BCE's revised plan, so it has no knock-on consequences elsewhere. Everything is contiguous and legal, and although there is a fair bit of boundary-crossing, no seat extends into more than two boroughs. I reckon eight of these seats work quite well, and I'm actually rather pleased with this version of Clapham. The fly in the ointment is a long thin Brixton seat that looks like a rocket leaving the launch pad.
I do reiterate that I'm sold on the Wandsworth ward split so I wouldn't have submitted this even if I'd thought of it in time.
Wimbledon & Coombe - 71641 Tooting - 70916
Wandsworth & Putney - 76668 Battersea & Vauxhall - 74297 Clapham - 75309 Brixton - 76106 Dulwich & West Norwood - 72767 Camberwell & Peckham - 70243
Lewisham West & Nunhead - 70592
 |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jan 18, 2023 19:32:17 GMT
This isn't a serious suggestion, and it would be too late anyway, but one must do something to fill the idle days of awaiting the BCE's final scheme and I fell to wondering whether it was possible to get rid of the Wandsworth ward split without throwing out the BCE's entire south London scheme.
I came up with this. The nine seats involved cover an area identical to nine seats in the BCE's revised plan, so it has no knock-on consequences elsewhere. Everything is contiguous and legal, and although there is a fair bit of boundary-crossing, no seat extends into more than two boroughs. I reckon eight of these seats work quite well, and I'm actually rather pleased with this version of Clapham. The fly in the ointment is a long thin Brixton seat that looks like a rocket leaving the launch pad.
I do reiterate that I'm sold on the Wandsworth ward split so I wouldn't have submitted this even if I'd thought of it in time.
Wimbledon & Coombe - 71641 Tooting - 70916
Wandsworth & Putney - 76668 Battersea & Vauxhall - 74297 Clapham - 75309 Brixton - 76106 Dulwich & West Norwood - 72767 Camberwell & Peckham - 70243
Lewisham West & Nunhead - 70592
I really like that version of Clapham - Clapham Junction isn't part of what traditionally would be called "Clapham", but the two are conflated especially by younger people. It's also an area where the borough boundary isn't particularly strong on the ground, except for the part through the Common (but even there you could argue it's a focal point for communities either side rather than a hard barrier). I also find the idea of Vauxhall and Battersea intriguing - Nine Elms is very much an extension of the former, being dominated by high rise and redevelopments by the river. But the rest of Battersea feels rather more separate, so I don't think I like the idea yet. I say yet, because given a decade or two community ties might well shift to bring the two closer together. |
|
