|
|
Post by islington on Jan 23, 2021 13:50:26 GMT
There's a drop down menu at 'Settings'. You want 'Show Constituency Labels'.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 23, 2021 13:54:08 GMT
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? You'd have to lose a Hornsey ward - probably Alexandra. Also means that the only ward Tottenham could add after losing Harringay would be Woodside, which isn't going to lead to a pretty map. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 23, 2021 19:13:25 GMT
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? It is much easier to include in a Tottenham seat. You do not need to break up Hornsey & Wood Green at all and you only need to remove one ward from it to get it into quota-Stroud Green is the easiest ward to remove. The easiest solution, as I have now found, is: 1. Remove Stroud Green ward from Hornsey & Wood Green. 2. Add Bush Hill Park ward to Enfield Southgate. 3. Add Ponders End ward to Enfield North. 4. Add Northumberland Park, Tottenham Hale and White Hart Lane wards to most of Edmonton, creating Edmonton & Tottenham North. 5. Add Brownswood and Woodberry Down wards in Hackney to compensate, creating Tottenham South & Woodberry Down. 6. To the remainder of Hackney North & Stoke Newington, remove Dalston ward and add King's Park ward. 7. Add Dalston ward to Hackney South & Shoreditch and then remove De Beauvoir and King's Park wards from it. 8. Add De Beauvoir ward to Islington South & Finsbury. 9. Leave Islington North unchanged. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 23, 2021 19:43:02 GMT
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? It is much easier to include in a Tottenham seat. You do not need to break up Hornsey & Wood Green at all and you only need to remove one ward from it to get it into quota-Stroud Green is the easiest ward to remove. The easiest solution, as I have now found, is: 1. Remove Stroud Green ward from Hornsey & Wood Green. 2. Add Bush Hill Park ward to Enfield Southgate. 3. Add Ponders End ward to Enfield North. 4. Add Northumberland Park, Tottenham Hale and White Hart Lane wards to most of Edmonton, creating Edmonton & Tottenham North. 5. Add Brownswood and Woodberry Down wards in Hackney to compensate, creating Tottenham South & Woodberry Down. 6. To the remainder of Hackney North & Stoke Newington, remove Dalston ward and add King's Park ward. 7. Add Dalston ward to Hackney South & Shoreditch and then remove De Beauvoir and King's Park wards from it. 8. Add De Beauvoir ward to Islington South & Finsbury. 9. Leave Islington North unchanged. That was my option 2, but I still think it's an inferior option. There's only one road connecting Stroud Green to Harringay ward and Stroud Green's borders with Hornsey and Crouch End ward are not very noticeable on the ground. Whereas Noel Park ward is extremely well-connected to Tottenham and although it's just as well-connected to the rest of Wood Green, the road that forms the boundary is one of the major local roads. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jan 23, 2021 20:57:41 GMT
It is much easier to include in a Tottenham seat. You do not need to break up Hornsey & Wood Green at all and you only need to remove one ward from it to get it into quota-Stroud Green is the easiest ward to remove. The easiest solution, as I have now found, is: 1. Remove Stroud Green ward from Hornsey & Wood Green. 2. Add Bush Hill Park ward to Enfield Southgate. 3. Add Ponders End ward to Enfield North. 4. Add Northumberland Park, Tottenham Hale and White Hart Lane wards to most of Edmonton, creating Edmonton & Tottenham North. 5. Add Brownswood and Woodberry Down wards in Hackney to compensate, creating Tottenham South & Woodberry Down. 6. To the remainder of Hackney North & Stoke Newington, remove Dalston ward and add King's Park ward. 7. Add Dalston ward to Hackney South & Shoreditch and then remove De Beauvoir and King's Park wards from it. 8. Add De Beauvoir ward to Islington South & Finsbury. 9. Leave Islington North unchanged. That was my option 2, but I still think it's an inferior option. There's only one road connecting Stroud Green to Harringay ward and Stroud Green's borders with Hornsey and Crouch End ward are not very noticeable on the ground. Whereas Noel Park ward is extremely well-connected to Tottenham and although it's just as well-connected to the rest of Wood Green, the road that forms the boundary is one of the major local roads. I agree Stroud Green does not belong in Tottenham. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Jan 23, 2021 21:32:10 GMT
In this response, I'm cutting out the maps from the original because the resulting post looks too unwieldy. And I'm inserting my points at the relevant places in the original. 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. I'm slightly in two minds on this, but if one's doing it, then (as you've done in all six options) adding De Beauvoir from Hackney to Islington South does seem the way to go. On the old ward boundaries (which are all we have figures for at the moment), there definitely are problems with a Barnet/Brent pairing - briefly, the current configuration and sizes of Barnet wards (specifically on the Chipping Barnet side of the borough) seems to make it mathematically impossible to construct a set of constituencies within quota without either ward-splitting or crossing the Enfield boundary. And I have only come across precisely one ward and one way of splitting it that enables a Barnet/Brent pairing that doesn't lead to a pitchfork-bait map on the Barnet side. Unfortunately, I very much doubt whether this split will still work (or even be feasible) with the new ward map for Barnet - though I hope (but am not confident) that it will produce some reasonable new possibilities (and hopefully without split wards). What is annoying is that a Barnet/Enfield/Haringey grouping can quite easily produce a decent map with constituencies vaguely similar to the current ones - but, as I discovered when I looked further (and you seem to confirm), any attempt at a Hackney grouping that does not include Haringey automatically seems to produce pitchfork bait in Islington (or alternatively Tower Hamlets). And once one has Hackney and Haringey, Enfield has to be included to get the quotas right. So,... My favourite too - though I do have some slight worries about Charambolous' majority. Also reasonable. In principle, Southgate and Wood Green is a good pairing, though splitting Wood Green is indeed something of a minus. But what it does to Enfield N is a rather worse minus. Oakwood, and even more Cockfosters, connect far more with Southgate than with Enfield proper. Not pitchfork bait - but still on balance not as good as the previous options. I agree. This really does prove that correcting for one problem can all too easily produce something worse. Now, this Enfield W is pitchfork bait. Cockfosters is in practice almost entirely disconnected from the rest of the proposed constituency by a couple of miles of green belt with little communication across it - a main road running along part of the Cockfosters/Oakwood border, with nothing more for over a mile on its Cockfosters side than a golf club, some riding stables and quite a bit of farmland; a minor road through open country a mile or so further north, and a footpath or two going across which are quite nice - on a fairly warm and sunny spring or autumn day, with no appreciable rain for the last week or so. But this degree of disconnection between physically neighbouring wards is a surprisingly common occurrence in the more rural outer reaches of London. My response? Combine my responses to options 4 and 5. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 23, 2021 21:52:18 GMT
In this response, I'm cutting out the maps from the original because the resulting post looks too unwieldy. And I'm inserting my points at the relevant places in the original. 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. I'm slightly in two minds on this, but if one's doing it, then (as you've done in all six options) adding De Beauvoir from Hackney to Islington South does seem the way to go. On the old ward boundaries (which are all we have figures for at the moment), there definitely are problems with a Barnet/Brent pairing - briefly, the current configuration and sizes of Barnet wards (specifically on the Chipping Barnet side of the borough) seems to make it mathematically impossible to construct a set of constituencies within quota without either ward-splitting or crossing the Enfield boundary. And I have only come across precisely one ward and one way of splitting it that enables a Barnet/Brent pairing that doesn't lead to a pitchfork-bait map on the Barnet side. Unfortunately, I very much doubt whether this split will still work (or even be feasible) with the new ward map for Barnet - though I hope (but am not confident) that it will produce some reasonable new possibilities (and hopefully without split wards). What is annoying is that a Barnet/Enfield/Haringey grouping can quite easily produce a decent map with constituencies vaguely similar to the current ones - but, as I discovered when I looked further (and you seem to confirm), any attempt at a Hackney grouping that does not include Haringey automatically seems to produce pitchfork bait in Islington (or alternatively Tower Hamlets). And once one has Hackney and Haringey, Enfield has to be included to get the quotas right. So,... My favourite too - though I do have some slight worries about Charambolous' majority. Cutting out the rest of the discussion for coherence (although thank you, it was all very cogent.) What do you think could be done to prop up Charambolous' majority without causing conniptions in Enfield N? Crossing the A10 doesn't seem justifiable, none of the neighbouring wards of Enfield N are particularly friendly, and Wood Green isn't possible without knock-on consequences to Enfield N. Barnet might be an option, but on 2018 figures (admittedly, possibly more misleading in Barnet than elsewhere) the wards there aren't substantially to the left of Bush Hill Park anyway. I don't like it, but I think it might be the least worst option. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 23, 2021 22:04:27 GMT
In this response, I'm cutting out the maps from the original because the resulting post looks too unwieldy. And I'm inserting my points at the relevant places in the original. I'm slightly in two minds on this, but if one's doing it, then (as you've done in all six options) adding De Beauvoir from Hackney to Islington South does seem the way to go. On the old ward boundaries (which are all we have figures for at the moment), there definitely are problems with a Barnet/Brent pairing - briefly, the current configuration and sizes of Barnet wards (specifically on the Chipping Barnet side of the borough) seems to make it mathematically impossible to construct a set of constituencies within quota without either ward-splitting or crossing the Enfield boundary. And I have only come across precisely one ward and one way of splitting it that enables a Barnet/Brent pairing that doesn't lead to a pitchfork-bait map on the Barnet side. Unfortunately, I very much doubt whether this split will still work (or even be feasible) with the new ward map for Barnet - though I hope (but am not confident) that it will produce some reasonable new possibilities (and hopefully without split wards). What is annoying is that a Barnet/Enfield/Haringey grouping can quite easily produce a decent map with constituencies vaguely similar to the current ones - but, as I discovered when I looked further (and you seem to confirm), any attempt at a Hackney grouping that does not include Haringey automatically seems to produce pitchfork bait in Islington (or alternatively Tower Hamlets). And once one has Hackney and Haringey, Enfield has to be included to get the quotas right. So,... My favourite too - though I do have some slight worries about Charambolous' majority. Cutting out the rest of the discussion for coherence (although thank you, it was all very cogent.) What do you think could be done to prop up Charambolous' majority without causing conniptions in Enfield N? Crossing the A10 doesn't seem justifiable, none of the neighbouring wards of Enfield N are particularly friendly, and Wood Green isn't possible without knock-on consequences to Enfield N. Barnet might be an option, but on 2018 figures (admittedly, possibly more misleading in Barnet than elsewhere) the wards there aren't substantially to the left of Bush Hill Park anyway. I don't like it, but I think it might be the least worst option. If you're looking to prop up Charambolous' majority then my proposal which swapped Cockfosters for Coppetts would have that effect (though it wasn't entirely his majority I had in mind). Obviously this involved a further borough crossing though so would be outside the scope of this four-borough scheme. Option 2 for me incidentally, but Option 1 is fine |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 24, 2021 13:57:14 GMT
Eventually got round to looking at this (without waiting for the new wards). Reasonably happy, but inevitably includes the usual quotient of compromises to make it all work. No seats crossing the Thames and no 3-borough seats (though in a couple of places you could get prettier seats if you gave yourself that luxury). I have accepted a handful of orhpan wards, some worse than others. The new seats (no surprises) are Poplar & Royal Docks and Dulwich & Peckham. Other than that, every existing seat has an obvious successor, although the transformation of Beckenham into Shirley & West Wickham is awkward and that is probably the worst seat on this plan. I think 65 of the seats are comprised over 80% from their predecessor.     |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 24, 2021 15:02:47 GMT
The Wembley and Hendon seat is distinctly dodgy. I'm hopeful that the new ward boundaries will allow for much more sensible groupings in that area (if not a straight Barnet/Brent pairing a combination of those boroughs with Harrow and Hillingdon should work out OK)
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 24, 2021 15:19:09 GMT
My assumption as far as the new ward boundaries go is this:
Hendon can lose the (slightly reduced) West Hendon ward and that will bring it in quota.
Friern Barnet (successor to Coppetts) will probably need to be split roughly in half with the southern half going to Finchley & Golders Green which will bring Chipping Barnet in quota. Hopefully it will be possible to divide the ward on fairly sensible lines (ie along Friern Barnet Road.)
The new Cricklewood will then be detached from F&GG and join with West Hendon in a cross borough seat with the 6 Brent wards which roughly correspond to the old Brent East in a Willesden & Cricklewood seat.
The Roundwood, Harlesden and and Stonebridge wards will join with a collection of 4 or 5 wards around Wembley (the creation of a number of two member wards in this area make this task a lot easier than it has been - I think Alperton, Tokyngton, Wembley Central and Wembley Hill will work).
The remaining 9 wards in Brent should work for Brent North. There are plenty of options for juggling the wards around Wembley to make this work though I can see fewer sensible options in Barnet (West Hendon and Colindale South linking with Kingsbury and Queensbury etc could work but would leave Hendon needing to find voters from elsewhere. It may be this is where bringing Harrow into the equation could come into play.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jan 24, 2021 15:45:41 GMT
Eventually got round to looking at this (without waiting for the new wards). Reasonably happy, but inevitably includes the usual quotient of compromises to make it all work. No seats crossing the Thames and no 3-borough seats (though in a couple of places you could get prettier seats if you gave yourself that luxury). I have accepted a handful of orhpan wards, some worse than others. The new seats (no surprises) are Poplar & Royal Docks and Dulwich & Peckham. Other than that, every existing seat has an obvious successor, although the transformation of Beckenham into Shirley & West Wickham is awkward and that is probably the worst seat on this plan. I think 65 of the seats are comprised over 80% from their predecessor. That won’t fly. Shepherds Bush and Osterley/Isleworth are a carve up for starters. To be honest until we get the electorates for the new ward boundaries I wouldn’t bother trying to work out Hammersmith and Fulham or Hounslow constituencies as so much will change. |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 24, 2021 15:53:20 GMT
The Wembley and Hendon seat is distinctly dodgy. I'm hopeful that the new ward boundaries will allow for much more sensible groupings in that area (if not a straight Barnet/Brent pairing a combination of those boroughs with Harrow and Hillingdon should work out OK) This might be less uncomfortable (but a lot more change from existing). Hopefully the new wards might assist as you suggest.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 24, 2021 16:55:19 GMT
This would be quite a neat plan for Barnet/Brent - Obviously I can't tell if the numbers work exactly but it looks like they might. Friern Barnet would need splitting with the greater part going to Finchley  |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 25, 2021 11:30:58 GMT
Decided to investigate the pitchfork-bait Hackney-Westminster option and it's not as bad as I feared. Obvious it's appalling if you just try to link Hackney to Westminster via the city, because it's an absurd snake, but if you go via Islington then you can get something that's merely suboptimal:  Westminster N (70481) - gains Hyde Park Finsbury & Cities of London & Westminster (73315) - loses Hyde Park, gains Clerkenwell and Bunhill. The name is clunky, but I can't imagine them getting away with only using two of those elements. Islington S & Shoreditch (75059) - loses Clerkenwell and Bunhill, gains the two Hoxton wards and De Beauvoir Islington N (73970) - unchanged Hackney S (74212) - loses the two Hoxton wards and De Beauvoir, gains Dalston and Shacklewell Hackney N & Stoke Newington (73337) - loses Dalston and Shacklewell Obviously the big flaw there (aside from the disruption to Islington S) is the awkward curve round Holborn. Which has a very similar number of electors to Finsbury. Which you could clear up, at the cost of even more unnecessary disruption, by adding Camden into the grouping:  Hackney N & Stoke Newington (73337) - as above Hackney S (74212) - as above Islington S & Shoreditch (73011) - loses Caledonian & Holloway, gains the two Hoxton wards and De Beauvoir Islington N (73970) - unchanged St Pancras & Lower Holloway (70030) - successor to Holborn & St Pancras, loses Bloomsbury, Gospel Oak, Haverstock, Holborn & Covent Garden and King's Cross, gains Caledonian and Holloway Hampstead & Highgate (69849) - successor to Hampstead Kilburn, pulls out of Brent and gains Gospel Oak and Haverstock Westminster N (70481) - as above Holborn & Cities of London & Westminster (75782) - loses Hyde Park, gains Bloomsbury, Holborn & Covent Garden and King's Cross I can't say I love either of those options, but they're probably tolerable if it allows nicer options elsewhere. I'd also note that whilst you can get three seats out of K&C, Westminster and the City, in practice you tend to have at least one ward that really doesn't fit if you do that (though the new boundaries in Westminster might help.) And given that the obvious groupings of local authorities in West London are all on the small side, freeing up K&C's 1.15 quotas might make things slightly easier there too. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 25, 2021 12:04:34 GMT
I fear the new Westminster ward boundaries may make things more tricky rather than less. For the Westminster/City/K&C arrangement on current boundaries your Westminster North as above works with the cities then taking Royal Hospital, Brompton and Queens Gate leaving the rest of K&C to form the third seat (Queens Gate sits a little awkwardly in that seat but the numbers work. Not sure that arrangement would work with the new boundaries a chunk of Marylebone being taken by Regent's Park. The numbers are very tight as is with an average electorate of c.70,500 for that trio of boroughs
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Feb 3, 2021 13:05:29 GMT
Tried doing a London plan but ended up 20,000 voters short north of the river and vice versa. Going to start again from scratch since I cant see any way to recover from that situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 3, 2021 13:26:22 GMT
Starting again from scratch is something I've done far too many times already. I really hope that the Boundary Commission will grasp the nettle by the horns and realise the sense of splitting wards in order to avoid orquardly disruptive contrafibularities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Feb 3, 2021 16:45:25 GMT
May be useful to note that adding the Roehampton & Putney Heath ward to the current Wimbledon constituency gives an electorate of 77,008 which is 54 electors within quota.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Feb 3, 2021 19:44:05 GMT
Just as a first stab (and deliberately not having looked at the other suggestions, so apols for any duplication) - B&D, Havering, Redbridge, WF = 9.03 = 9 Barnet, Harrow, Hillingdon (not the most natural of groupings) = 8.11 = 8 Bexley, Greenwich, Lewisham, Southwark = 10.15 = 10
Brent, City, H&F, K&C, Westminster = 7.13 = 7 Bromley, Croydon, Kingston, Merton = 10.09 = 10 Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey = 9.12 = 9 Ealing = 2.91 = 3 Hounslow, Richmond = 4.16 = 4 Islington = 1.95 = 2 Lambeth = 2.96 = 3 Newham, TH = 5.02 = 5 Sutton = 1.96 = 2 Wandsworth = 3.02 = 3
There's some flexibility here: e.g. if Camden could be treated alone for 2 seats (unlikely), then the rest of its group would have 7.21 = 7. Or, in the same area, if Islington can't easily be divided into 2 then it could be added to this group for 11.07 = 11. Elsewhere, Ealing is small for 3 and Hounslow/Richmond large for 4 so they might be merged, giving 7.07 = 7. Edited to add: Or, as someone suggested above, split the E London grouping. Redbridge/WF at 4.90 should be all right, but I worry that B&D/Havering at 4.13 = 4 might be rather tight.
I believe the bolded ones are the ones where we have all the ward electorates. Solutions without ward splits exist for all of them, though I'm not convinced they're all really satisfactory. As kevinlarkin said, a non-split Wandsworth needs a complete re-draw, with a long riverside constituency. (But I've seen worse in actual proposals.) For the Southwark to Bexley group the solution I currently have has a Dulwich seat with a weird appendage in Lewisham; I did find a couple of others but thought they were even worse. |
|
