2023 Review - London

[greenhert]

Jan 12, 2021 22:12:04 GMT martinwhelton said:

Jan 12, 2021 19:46:35 GMT greenhert said:

Barnet and Brent (since Camden can indeed stand alone this time):

1. Willesden (71,749). Succeeds Brent Central and resembles the old Brent East seat. Loses Harlesden, Stonebridge, Tokyngton and Welsh Harp wards and gains Brondesbury Park, Kilburn, and Queens Park wards (i.e. the "Kilburn" of the current Hampstead & Kilburn).
2. Wembley (70,807). New seat. Contains the Brent wards of Alperton, Harlesden, Northwick Park, Stonebridge, Sudbury, Tokyngton, and Wembley Central. Resembles the old Brent South seat.
3. Queensbury & Golders Green (75,101). Succeeds Brent North. Loses Alperton, Northwick Park, Sudbury, and Wembley Central wards in Brent, and gains the Brent ward of Welsh Harp and the Barnet wards of Golders Green and West Hendon.
4. Hendon (70,986). Loses West Hendon ward.
5. Finchley (approx. 73,300). Succeeds Finchley & Golders Green. Loses Golders Green ward and gains part of Coppetts ward.
6. Chipping Barnet (approx. 70,000) Loses part of Coppetts ward.

This allows Harrow and Hillingdon to remain paired together with all their respective constituencies intact.

All three have new ward boundaries which will be used for the review. With all three having two-member wards it will make the process far easier. Figures for the new wards are in the process of being calculated.

Barnet: s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/Reviews/Greater%20London/Barnet/Final%20Recs/Barnet%20Final%20Recs%20Report%20web.pdf

Brent: s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/Reviews/Greater%20London/Brent/Final%20Recs/Brent-finalrecsreport-web.pdf

Camden: s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/Reviews/Greater%20London/Camden/Final%20Recs/Camden%20Final%20Recommendations%20web_0.pdf

I will adjust my proposals accordingly once I have the relevant electoral figures on the new ward boundaries of Barnet, Brent and Camden respectively. Boundary Assistant does not have that data yet.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

I doubt the councils have worked out the 1 March 2020 electorates for the new wards yet.

Splitting the new wards along polling district lines is also not possible at the moment - a new set of ward boundaries means a polling district review, and that has its own procedure to be gone through. It will be a big advantage if councils have set their new polling districts before commencing the electoral register canvass in the summer.

[Peter Wilkinson]

Jan 12, 2021 22:12:04 GMT martinwhelton said:

Jan 12, 2021 19:46:35 GMT greenhert said:

Barnet and Brent (since Camden can indeed stand alone this time):

1. Willesden (71,749). Succeeds Brent Central and resembles the old Brent East seat. Loses Harlesden, Stonebridge, Tokyngton and Welsh Harp wards and gains Brondesbury Park, Kilburn, and Queens Park wards (i.e. the "Kilburn" of the current Hampstead & Kilburn).
2. Wembley (70,807). New seat. Contains the Brent wards of Alperton, Harlesden, Northwick Park, Stonebridge, Sudbury, Tokyngton, and Wembley Central. Resembles the old Brent South seat.
3. Queensbury & Golders Green (75,101). Succeeds Brent North. Loses Alperton, Northwick Park, Sudbury, and Wembley Central wards in Brent, and gains the Brent ward of Welsh Harp and the Barnet wards of Golders Green and West Hendon.
4. Hendon (70,986). Loses West Hendon ward.
5. Finchley (approx. 73,300). Succeeds Finchley & Golders Green. Loses Golders Green ward and gains part of Coppetts ward.
6. Chipping Barnet (approx. 70,000) Loses part of Coppetts ward.

This allows Harrow and Hillingdon to remain paired together with all their respective constituencies intact.

All three have new ward boundaries which will be used for the review. With all three having two-member wards it will make the process far easier. Figures for the new wards are in the process of being calculated.

Barnet: s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/Reviews/Greater%20London/Barnet/Final%20Recs/Barnet%20Final%20Recs%20Report%20web.pdf

Brent: s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/Reviews/Greater%20London/Brent/Final%20Recs/Brent-finalrecsreport-web.pdf

Camden: s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/Reviews/Greater%20London/Camden/Final%20Recs/Camden%20Final%20Recommendations%20web_0.pdf

The new ward boundaries should make the process rather easier, but not far easier. In Barnet, for instance, (and other boroughs seem similar) there are only 9 two-member wards but 15 three-member ones, and the two-member wards are somewhat clustered rather than spread evenly across the entire borough. With wards (or rather voter/councillor ratios) as large as Barnet ones, with wards all three-member, one can easily have a situation where (as is actually demonstrated by greenhert 's Chipping Barnet and Finchley constituencies) the typical ward size is precisely wrong for allowing constituencies to be created within quota without splitting wards (in this case, because 6 typically sized wards end up below quota whereas 7 such wards are above quota - greenhert 's six-ward Hendon only works because it contains the two largest wards in Barnet). A few two-member wards can certainly sometimes solve this problem - but if that means (as can be the case) that one is looking for every constituency in a borough to have, say, 19 councillors, this only works if one can construct three sensible constituencies, two of which contain precisely 2 two-member wards and one containing precisely 5 two-member wards. One is often lucky, but not always - some calculations I did a few months back suggested that Barnet might be one of the unlucky cases.

At least in the short term, circumstances are made worse because the Boundaries Commission has an apparent tradition of refusing to consider ward splits unless they are aligned to polling district boundaries. But these are new wards, and polling district boundaries are decided by local authorities after ward boundaries have been formally approved but before the first elections in which they are used - which almost certainly means that they will not be available until far later this year, after the Boundaries Commission has published its initial proposals. Until then, the Boundaries Commission is highly unlikely to give any consideration to proposals including split wards.

All of which probably raises the repeated prospect of constituencies consistently drawn to cross borough boundaries to get them in quota without ward splits, and pairings (or, more likely, larger groupings) of boroughs specifically created to allow such behaviour.

Added: I see that Davıd Boothroyd beat me to it with some of my later comments here.

[martinwhelton]

Jan 13, 2021 0:50:22 GMT Peter Wilkinson said:

Jan 12, 2021 22:12:04 GMT martinwhelton said:

All three have new ward boundaries which will be used for the review. With all three having two-member wards it will make the process far easier. Figures for the new wards are in the process of being calculated.

Barnet: s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/Reviews/Greater%20London/Barnet/Final%20Recs/Barnet%20Final%20Recs%20Report%20web.pdf

Brent: s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/Reviews/Greater%20London/Brent/Final%20Recs/Brent-finalrecsreport-web.pdf

Camden: s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/Reviews/Greater%20London/Camden/Final%20Recs/Camden%20Final%20Recommendations%20web_0.pdf

The new ward boundaries should make the process rather easier, but not far easier. In Barnet, for instance, (and other boroughs seem similar) there are only 9 two-member wards but 15 three-member ones, and the two-member wards are somewhat clustered rather than spread evenly across the entire borough. With wards (or rather voter/councillor ratios) as large as Barnet ones, with wards all three-member, one can easily have a situation where (as is actually demonstrated by greenhert 's Chipping Barnet and Finchley constituencies) the typical ward size is precisely wrong for allowing constituencies to be created within quota without splitting wards (in this case, because 6 typically sized wards end up below quota whereas 7 such wards are above quota - greenhert 's six-ward Hendon only works because it contains the two largest wards in Barnet). A few two-member wards can certainly sometimes solve this problem - but if that means (as can be the case) that one is looking for every constituency in a borough to have, say, 19 councillors, this only works if one can construct three sensible constituencies, two of which contain precisely 2 two-member wards and one containing precisely 5 two-member wards. One is often lucky, but not always - some calculations I did a few months back suggested that Barnet might be one of the unlucky cases.

At least in the short term, circumstances are made worse because the Boundaries Commission has an apparent tradition of refusing to consider ward splits unless they are aligned to polling district boundaries. But these are new wards, and polling district boundaries are decided by local authorities after ward boundaries have been formally approved but before the first elections in which they are used - which almost certainly means that they will not be available until far later this year, after the Boundaries Commission has published its initial proposals. Until then, the Boundaries Commission is highly unlikely to give any consideration to proposals including split wards.

All of which probably raises the repeated prospect of constituencies consistently drawn to cross borough boundaries to get them in quota without ward splits, and pairings (or, more likely, larger groupings) of boroughs specifically created to allow such behaviour.

Added: I see that Davıd Boothroyd beat me to it with some of my later comments here.

The new polling district boundaries are unlikely to be finalised in most London boroughs until the Autumn(especially with the locals likely to be delayed) and the draft recommendations are due to be published in the summer. Councils which had electoral changes orders passed before the 1 December, 2020 are in the process of providing this information in advance of the review as the draft recs will be based on the new boundaries. The information has already been provided by Enfield and Lewisham and the following councils will also be providing March 2020 electorates to the commission. Most should have the information available shortly.
1) Barnet
2) Brent
3) Camden
4) Ealing
5) Haringey
6) Harrow
7) Hammersmith and Fulham
8) Hillingdon
9) Hounslow
10) Islington
11) Merton
12) Richmond
13) Sutton
14) Westminster

They will also take account of prospective ward boundaries which will be finalised in the next three months in these boroughs.
1) Barking and Dagenham
2)Bromley
3) Greenwich
4) Havering
5) Kingston
6) Lambeth
7) Newham
8) Waltham Forest
9) Wandsworth

For Barking & Dagenham, Havering and Lambeth - they will almost certainly be based on the existing boundaries as the proposals are unlikely to be finalised until after the draft recommendations have been published. The proposals may well be changed for the revised boundaries as the orders are likely to be in place by then.

[East Anglian Lefty]

In most cases I'd think polling districts aren't likely to change radically, because they're usually based on proximity to a location which is suitable for use as a polling station. So whilst calculating an exact electorate is going to be difficult (and thus splits may be hard with two seats both at either the top or bottom end of the range) I'd think it would be possible to make a submission calling for a ward split upon a given line, subject to the exact delineation of polling district boundaries. This is particularly the case where there's little local dissension over the ideal boundaries or the group making the submission also controls the relevant borough, as enabling a decent pattern of ward splits feels like a relevant thing for polling district reviews to take into consideration.

[Deleted]

[East Anglian Lefty]

Wards allowing, it looks like the best groupings for North London are as follows:

• Islington, Hackney, Haringey, Enfield (9)
• Camden (2)
• City, Westminster, K&C (3)
• Brent, Barnet (6)
• Harrow, Hillingdon (5)

That then leaves you with Hammersmith and Fulham, Ealing, Hounslow and the bits of Richmond north of the Thames (ie Twickenham.) You can fit in 8 seats here, but it's tricky (and I haven't checked how this affects South London - one problem at a time.) I can't see a way of doing it without Ealing, as otherwise it's a very narrow grouping and the key connecting wards are awkward sizes.



Hammersmith E & Fulham 70485
Hammersmith W & Chiswick 73105 - triborough seat, includes Southfield
Ealing Central & Acton 70478 - includes orphan ward of College Park & Old Oak
Ealing N 74389 - unchanged
Southall & Heston 70932
Brentford & Isleworth 72600 - includes Elthorne and Northfield from Ealing
Feltham & Hounslow W 72176 - includes Heathfield and Whitton from Richmond
Twickenham 76868 - includes Hanworth

Putting Hanworth in with Twickenham isn't strictly necessary, but the alternative was stretching Brentford & Isleworth across 3 boroughs and I think this looks a little neater (caution: may not be the same as actually being neater.)

[greenhert]

Jan 13, 2021 10:50:53 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Wards allowing, it looks like the best groupings for North London are as follows:

• Islington, Hackney, Haringey, Enfield (9)
• Camden (2)
• City, Westminster, K&C (3)
• Brent, Barnet (6)
• Harrow, Hillingdon (5)

That then leaves you with Hammersmith and Fulham, Ealing, Hounslow and the bits of Richmond north of the Thames (ie Twickenham.) You can fit in 8 seats here, but it's tricky (and I haven't checked how this affects South London - one problem at a time.) I can't see a way of doing it without Ealing, as otherwise it's a very narrow grouping and the key connecting wards are awkward sizes.



Hammersmith E & Fulham 70485
Hammersmith W & Chiswick 73105 - triborough seat, includes Southfield
Ealing Central & Acton 70478 - includes orphan ward of College Park & Old Oak
Ealing N 74389 - unchanged
Southall & Heston 70932
Brentford & Isleworth 72600 - includes Elthorne and Northfield from Ealing
Feltham & Hounslow W 72176 - includes Heathfield and Whitton from Richmond
Twickenham 76868 - includes Hanworth

Putting Hanworth in with Twickenham isn't strictly necessary, but the alternative was stretching Brentford & Isleworth across 3 boroughs and I think this looks a little neater (caution: may not be the same as actually being neater.)

Harrow and Hillingdon are already paired in terms of boroughs, of course, and all their constituencies (including conveniently PM Boris Johnson's seat of Uxbridge & South Ruislip) can stay intact.

You do not need to include Islington in a pairing this time-simply rearrange the wards.

"Fulham and Barons Court" would be a better name for Hammersmith East & Fulham.

If you are willing to split Brentford ward you can avoid the triborough seat, and it also means only one Ealing seat (Ealing East & Acton) has to be a cross-borough seat.

Overall however this is the best plan for West London. Linking six boroughs is not ideal but unfortunately there is no other viable solution.

[greenhert]

As for Wandsworth: Leave Tooting intact, split Fairfield ward to get both Putney and Battersea into quota.

[johnloony]

Jan 11, 2021 22:50:09 GMT johnloony said:

Jan 11, 2021 20:29:33 GMT kevinlarkin said:

First attempt at South London. Requires improvement.


1 Old Bexley & Sidcup 74317 Yes
2 Bexleyheath & Crayford 69948 Yes
3 Erith & Thamesmead 76728 Yes
4 Greenwich & Woolwich 69824 Yes
5 Eltham & Lee 74778 Yes
6 Lewisham North 70578 Yes
7 Lewisham South 75622 Yes
8 Dulwich & Peckham 71720 Yes
9 Camberwell & Walworth 74903 Yes
10 Bermondsey & Deptford 74417 Yes
11 Vauxhall and Borough 73988 Yes
12 Bromley & Chislehurst 72997 Yes
13 Beckenham 72978 Yes
14 Penge & Norwood 71615 Yes
15 Orpington 70474 Yes
16 Brixton & West Norwood 74773 Yes
17 Croydon South 71527 Yes
18 Croydon East 70201 Yes
19 Streatham 71449 Yes
20 Croydon West 71183 Yes
21 Battersea 71952 Yes
22 Putney 73038 Yes
23 Tooting 76986 Yes

Two split wards: Fairfield in Wandsworth and Waddon in Croydon.

Obviously the BCE won't want to split wards anyway, but in any case your proposed split of Waddon ward doesn't align with polling district boundaries. Your Croydon South would still fit within the permitted range without any part of Waddon.

Correction: what I meant was "without splitting any part of Waddon". Waddon would still have to be in Croydon South if SAV & SVF are both in Croydon East/Central

[greenhert]

So far I believe the following constituencies in Greater London can be left intact:

1. Romford
2. Harrow East
3. Harrow West
4. Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner
5. Uxbridge & South Ruislip
6. Hayes & Harlington
7. Tooting
8. Sutton & Cheam
9. Carshalton & Wallington
10. Ealing North

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 12, 2021 19:46:35 GMT greenhert said:

Barnet and Brent (since Camden can indeed stand alone this time):

1. Willesden (71,749). Succeeds Brent Central and resembles the old Brent East seat. Loses Harlesden, Stonebridge, Tokyngton and Welsh Harp wards and gains Brondesbury Park, Kilburn, and Queens Park wards (i.e. the "Kilburn" of the current Hampstead & Kilburn).
2. Wembley (70,807). New seat. Contains the Brent wards of Alperton, Harlesden, Northwick Park, Stonebridge, Sudbury, Tokyngton, and Wembley Central. Resembles the old Brent South seat.
3. Queensbury & Golders Green (75,101). Succeeds Brent North. Loses Alperton, Northwick Park, Sudbury, and Wembley Central wards in Brent, and gains the Brent ward of Welsh Harp and the Barnet wards of Golders Green and West Hendon.
4. Hendon (70,986). Loses West Hendon ward.
5. Finchley (approx. 73,300). Succeeds Finchley & Golders Green. Loses Golders Green ward and gains part of Coppetts ward.
6. Chipping Barnet (approx. 70,000) Loses part of Coppetts ward.

This allows Harrow and Hillingdon to remain paired together with all their respective constituencies intact.

I'm aware I have put West Hendon in a Kingsbury seat but I have been working on a holistic, all-London approach which avoids ward splits. If you are going to go in for this kind of specific pairing (and I'm not at all opposed to that if it can work), then your cross borough seat is the worst option - as you are splitting wards left, right and centre you are not constrained to do it. The logical link between Barnet and Brent lies in the area of The Hyde (ie the Queensbury, Fryent, Colindale, West Hendon wards) or around Cricklewood (Dollis Hill, Mapesbury, Childs Hill, Golders Green). Any cross borough seat should ideally be based in one of these areas. The links between Queensbury and Golders Green are virtually non-existent.
Fortunately the new ward boundaries may help a lot here, reconfiguring the Child's Hill and Golders Green wards and creating a Cricklewood ward covering the whole of the Edgware Road frontage of both these wards, so this could plausibly (with the pared down West Hendon) be linked with Neasden and Willesden. Alternatively West Hendon and Colindale South may fit with the Kingsbury/Queensbury area. But I do not think you would want to link the far North of Brent with the far South of Barnet

[Pete Whitehead]

I did wonder about moving just the HRE and HRD polling districts from West Hendon into a North Brent seat to bring Hendon into quota, but HRE (which really is Kingsbury) wouldn't provide enough voters on its own and HRD (West Hendon estate area) crosses the Edgware Road - if you could divide it just along the Edgware Road it would make some sense. However I somehow suspect the BCE are not yet ready for the concept of the orphan polling district..

[Peter Wilkinson]

Jan 13, 2021 9:29:09 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

In most cases I'd think polling districts aren't likely to change radically, because they're usually based on proximity to a location which is suitable for use as a polling station. So whilst calculating an exact electorate is going to be difficult (and thus splits may be hard with two seats both at either the top or bottom end of the range) I'd think it would be possible to make a submission calling for a ward split upon a given line, subject to the exact delineation of polling district boundaries. This is particularly the case where there's little local dissension over the ideal boundaries or the group making the submission also controls the relevant borough, as enabling a decent pattern of ward splits feels like a relevant thing for polling district reviews to take into consideration.

Certainly, they are unlikely to change radically where a ward's boundaries remain substantially the same or where new ward boundaries follow existing polling district boundaries - and beyond that, there are indeed cases where a division within a ward is pronounced enough (even if a little fuzzily) that one could predict polling district boundaries approximately along a given line and be sufficiently certain and accurate that, if the line does produce a suitable ward split, one could hope to convince the Boundaries Commission to provisionally accept it pending the actual polling districts delimitation.

But, particularly when ward boundary reviews are quite as radical as the latest round in London have been, there will be a fairly high proportion of cases where none of the above apply. For instance, in the part of Barnet where I live, three existing three-member wards (High Barnet, Underhill and Oakleigh) have, very roughly speaking (there are boundary changes, mostly minor, involved with four other wards), been converted into three smaller two-member wards (High Barnet, Underhill and Whetstone) with the leftover areas of the old wards becoming a new three-member ward (Barnet Vale). As things happen, the part of High Barnet ward transferred to Barnet Vale consists of a single large polling district (in which I happen to live) which I would expect to continue essentially unchanged. However, the Barnet Vale ward boundaries with both Underhill and Whetstone seem to cut straight through existing polling districts, as does the greatly revised ward boundary between High Barnet and Underhill (effectively, my local polling district is large enough that High Barnet needed to take perhaps a thousand voters off Underhill). Basically, my local polling district is almost the only one across the four wards that looks solid enough to me at this stage to sustain a ward split, if one were to be needed and it happened to fit. While this will be towards the worse end of expectations, I can't imagine that there aren't a number of cases like this elsewhere.

[evergreenadam]

Jan 13, 2021 11:40:26 GMT greenhert said:

Jan 13, 2021 10:50:53 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Wards allowing, it looks like the best groupings for North London are as follows:

• Islington, Hackney, Haringey, Enfield (9)
• Camden (2)
• City, Westminster, K&C (3)
• Brent, Barnet (6)
• Harrow, Hillingdon (5)

That then leaves you with Hammersmith and Fulham, Ealing, Hounslow and the bits of Richmond north of the Thames (ie Twickenham.) You can fit in 8 seats here, but it's tricky (and I haven't checked how this affects South London - one problem at a time.) I can't see a way of doing it without Ealing, as otherwise it's a very narrow grouping and the key connecting wards are awkward sizes.



Hammersmith E & Fulham 70485
Hammersmith W & Chiswick 73105 - triborough seat, includes Southfield
Ealing Central & Acton 70478 - includes orphan ward of College Park & Old Oak
Ealing N 74389 - unchanged
Southall & Heston 70932
Brentford & Isleworth 72600 - includes Elthorne and Northfield from Ealing
Feltham & Hounslow W 72176 - includes Heathfield and Whitton from Richmond
Twickenham 76868 - includes Hanworth

Putting Hanworth in with Twickenham isn't strictly necessary, but the alternative was stretching Brentford & Isleworth across 3 boroughs and I think this looks a little neater (caution: may not be the same as actually being neater.)

Harrow and Hillingdon are already paired in terms of boroughs, of course, and all their constituencies (including conveniently PM Boris Johnson's seat of Uxbridge & South Ruislip) can stay intact.

You do not need to include Islington in a pairing this time-simply rearrange the wards.

"Fulham and Barons Court" would be a better name for Hammersmith East & Fulham.

If you are willing to split Brentford ward you can avoid the triborough seat, and it also means only one Ealing seat (Ealing East & Acton) has to be a cross-borough seat.

Overall however this is the best plan for West London. Linking six boroughs is not ideal but unfortunately there is no other viable solution.

The new ward boundaries will have a big impact on the Chiswick/Brentford area as the existing Brentford ward is oversized.

[Wisconsin]

Jan 13, 2021 1:14:33 GMT martinwhelton said:

They will also take account of prospective ward boundaries which will be finalised in the next three months in these boroughs.
1) Barking and Dagenham
2)Bromley
3) Greenwich
4) Havering
5) Kingston
6) Lambeth
7) Newham
8) Waltham Forest
9) Wandsworth

Who is ‘they’ here? I thought the statute was pretty clear on taking into account only one set of wards - ie either the current set or the prospective set - but not both.

[evergreenadam]

Jan 15, 2021 17:28:22 GMT Wisconsin said:

Jan 13, 2021 1:14:33 GMT martinwhelton said:

They will also take account of prospective ward boundaries which will be finalised in the next three months in these boroughs.
1) Barking and Dagenham
2)Bromley
3) Greenwich
4) Havering
5) Kingston
6) Lambeth
7) Newham
8) Waltham Forest
9) Wandsworth

Who is ‘they’ here? I thought the statute was pretty clear on taking into account only one set of wards - ie either the current set or the prospective set - but not both.

I’m unclear on how this will in practice too.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Islington-Hackney-Haringey-Enfield for 9 seats seems like a fairly natural grouping to me. Islington can stand alone, but only if you completely reshuffle the two seats, which seems daft when Islington S just needs one ward to get in quota. Haringey and Enfield work for 5 small seats, but if you do that then Hackney almost certainly ends up in a pitchfork bait grouping involving West London. So unless there are problems in Barnet that pairing with Brent and a judicious ward split won't solve, I'm working on the presumption that this is a natural sub-unit. Here are six ways of doing it:

Option 1



Islington N (73970) - unchanged
Islington S & Finsbury (75905) - gains De Beauvoir from Hackney S
Hackney S & Shoreditch (75117) - loses De Beauvoir to Islington S and King's Park to Hackney N, gains Dalston from Hackney N
Hackney N & Stoke Newington (75401) - loses Dalston to Hackney S and Brownswood and Woodberry Down to Tottenham S, gains King's Park from Hackney N
Tottenham S & Woodberry Down (71991) - loses Tottenham Hale, Northumberland Park and White Hart Lane to Edmonton, gains Noel Park from Hornsey and Brownswood and Woodberry Down from Hackney N. Tottenham S & Manor House might be an alternative name?
Hornsey & Wood Green (76067) - loses Noel Park to Tottenham S
Enfield Southgate (75002) - gains Bush Hill Park from Edmonton
Edmonton & Tottenham N (72606) - loses Ponders End to Enfield N and Bush Hill Park to Southgate, gains Tottenham Hale, Northumberland Park and White Hart Lane from Tottenham
Enfield N (76824) - gains Ponders End from Edmonton

After re-alignment to new ward boundaries, 84898 electors are moved. This is the least-change option and I think it's probably the neatest on a map. On the downside, Wood Green is split. From a partisan basis, not terrible for Labour, even though Edmonton & Tottenham N is a pack. Ponders End shores up Enfield N a little (not that it particularly needs it) and whilst Bush Hill Park is comfortably the most Conservative bit of Edmonton, it wouldn't cut into Charambolous' majority that much.

This would definitely be my preference out of the options I've presented.

Option 2



Islington N (73970) - unchanged
Islington S & Finsbury (75905) - gains De Beauvoir from Hackney S
Hackney S & Shoreditch (75117) - loses De Beauvoir to Islington S and King's Park to Hackney N, gains Dalston from Hackney N
Hackney N & Stoke Newington (75401) - loses Dalston to Hackney S and Brownswood and Woodberry Down to Tottenham S, gains King's Park from Hackney N
Tottenham S & Woodberry Down (71991) - loses Tottenham Hale, Northumberland Park and White Hart Lane to Edmonton, gains Stroud Green from Hornsey and Brownswood and Woodberry Down from Hackney N. Tottenham S & Manor House might be an alternative name?
Hornsey & Wood Green (76067) - loses Stroud Green to Tottenham S
Enfield Southgate (75002) - gains Bush Hill Park from Edmonton
Edmonton & Tottenham N (72606) - loses Ponders End to Enfield N and Bush Hill Park to Southgate, gains Tottenham Hale, Northumberland Park and White Hart Lane from Tottenham
Enfield N (76824) - gains Ponders End from Edmonton

The same as option 1, except the three Wood Green wards are kept together. 85788 electors are moved. My personal feeling is that Noel Park doesn't really distinct from Tottenham and that a boundary along Lordship Lane is no worse than one along Turnpike Lane, whereas the ECML is a clear boundary. YMMV

Option 3



Islington N (73970) - unchanged
Islington S & Finsbury (75905) - gains De Beauvoir from Hackney S
Hackney S & Shoreditch (75117) - loses De Beauvoir to Islington S and King's Park to Hackney N, gains Dalston from Hackney N
Hackney N & Stoke Newington (75401) - loses Dalston to Hackney S and Brownswood and Woodberry Down to Tottenham, gains King's Park from Hackney N
Tottenham & Woodberry Down (74064) - loses Harringay to Hornsey and White Hart Lane to Southgate, gains Brownswood and Woodberry Down from Hackney N.
Hornsey (76100) - loses Woodside and Bounds Green to Southgate, gains Harringay from Tottenham
Southgate & Wood Green (76883) - loses Cockfosters and Oakwood to Enfield N, gains Woodside and Bounds Green from Hornsey and White Hart Lane from Tottenham
Edmonton (71669) - gains Brimsdown from Enfield N
Enfield N (73714) - loses Brimsdown to Edmonton, gains Cockfosters and Oakwood from Southgate

This option crosses the Enfield-Harringay boundary in the west rather than the east. There's probably an equally good case for either option, as the most notable boundary on the ground is the North Circular which is north of the borough boundary either way, but I only have personal experience of the eastern option so I'd welcome other opinions. 97325 electors are moved, so it's more disruptive. Wood Green is split which isn't great, but putting Harringay in with Hornsey is fine as it is by some distance the 'least Tottenham' Tottenham ward. From a partisan perspective Southgate becomes a safe seat but Enfield N becomes a marginal again.

Option 4



Islington N (73970) - unchanged
Islington S & Finsbury (75905) - gains De Beauvoir from Hackney S
Hackney S & Shoreditch (75117) - loses De Beauvoir to Islington S and King's Park to Hackney N, gains Dalston from Hackney N
Hackney N & Stoke Newington (75401) - loses Dalston to Hackney S and Brownswood and Woodberry Down to Tottenham, gains King's Park from Hackney N
Tottenham & Woodberry Down (74505) - loses Harringay and West Green to Hornsey, gains Brownswood and Woodberry Down from Hackney N.
Hornsey (75921) - loses Woodside, Bounds Green and Noel Park to Southgate, gains Harringay and West Green from Tottenham
Southgate & Wood Green (76621) - loses Cockfosters and Oakwood to Enfield N, gains Woodside, Bounds Green and Noel Park from Hornsey
Edmonton (71669) - gains Brimsdown from Enfield N
Enfield N (73714) - loses Brimsdown to Edmonton, gains Cockfosters and Oakwood from Southgate

Much the same as option 3, except that Wood Green is kept together in exchange for Hornsey taking a Tottenham ward that really doesn't fit. I very much do not like this, but it is an option. 96884 electors are moved.

Option 5



Islington N (73970) - unchanged
Islington S & Finsbury (75905) - gains De Beauvoir from Hackney S
Hackney S & Shoreditch (75117) - loses De Beauvoir to Islington S and King's Park to Hackney N, gains Dalston from Hackney N
Hackney N & Stoke Newington (75401) - loses Dalston to Hackney S and Brownswood and Woodberry Down to Tottenham, gains King's Park from Hackney N
Tottenham & Woodberry Down (74064) - loses Harringay to Hornsey and White Hart Lane to Southgate, gains Brownswood and Woodberry Down from Hackney N.
Hornsey (76100) - loses Woodside and Bounds Green to Southgate, gains Harringay from Tottenham
Southgate & Wood Green (76883) - loses Cockfosters and Grange Park to Enfield N, gains Woodside and Bounds Green from Hornsey and White Hart Lane from Tottenham
Edmonton & Enfield E (73409) - gains Brimsdown and Enfield Lock from Enfield N, loses Bush Hill Park to Enfield W
Enfield W (72347) - loses Brimsdown and Enfield Lock to Edmonton, gains Cockfosters and Grange Park from Southgate and Bush Hill Park from Edmonton

Similar to option 3, but the Enfield seats are realigned somewhat, with Edmonton taking Enfield Lock and Enfield W taking Grange Park and Bush Hill Park. 109127 electors are moved. Unifies the centre of Enfield, but I'm not entirely sure I like this orientation from an aesthetic viewpoint. And from a partisan viewpoint this is not very far off the most Tory seat you could draw in Enfield.

Option 6



Islington N (73970) - unchanged
Islington S & Finsbury (75905) - gains De Beauvoir from Hackney S
Hackney S & Shoreditch (75117) - loses De Beauvoir to Islington S and King's Park to Hackney N, gains Dalston from Hackney N
Hackney N & Stoke Newington (75401) - loses Dalston to Hackney S and Brownswood and Woodberry Down to Tottenham, gains King's Park from Hackney N
Tottenham & Woodberry Down (74505) - loses Harringay and West Green to Hornsey, gains Brownswood and Woodberry Down from Hackney N.
Hornsey (75921) - loses Woodside, Bounds Green and Noel Park to Southgate, gains Harringay and West Green from Tottenham
Southgate & Wood Green (76248) - loses Cockfosters and Grange Park to Enfield N, gains Woodside, Bounds Green and Noel Park from Hornsey
Edmonton & Enfield E (73409) - gains Brimsdown and Enfield Lock from Enfield N, loses Bush Hill Park to Enfield W
Enfield W (72347) - loses Brimsdown and Enfield Lock to Edmonton, gains Cockfosters and Grange Park from Southgate and Bush Hill Park from Edmonton

Combines option 4 and option 5. Moves 116723 electors and hence is the most disruptive plan.

[evergreenadam]

Jan 23, 2021 10:44:30 GMT evergreenadam said:

Jan 15, 2021 17:28:22 GMT Wisconsin said:

Who is ‘they’ here? I thought the statute was pretty clear on taking into account only one set of wards - ie either the current set or the prospective set - but not both.

I’m unclear on how this will in practice too.

I think options 4 and 6 have merit. I like the Southgate and Wood Green idea but not if includes White Hart Lane ward.
Enfield West looks good too.
Would it be possible to include Woodberry Down in a Hornsey seat instead of West Green?

[johnloony]

Jan 12, 2021 16:27:45 GMT 🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️ said:

Where do you get the little black circles with the numbers on them? They look useful for keeping track of things but I can't find them