|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Feb 7, 2021 0:11:09 GMT
Is it specifically outlawed to create constituencies with detached parts or just a convention not to do it?
|
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Feb 7, 2021 10:24:06 GMT
Lambeth/Wandsworth without ward split: Battersea & Clapham Common (76290) Putney & Wimbledon Park (73361 approx.) Streatham (70858) Tooting (76986) unchanged Vauxhall & Queenstown (74176) West Norwood (75433) ibb.co/xspMnkQAnd with: Battersea (68322 + part of 11003) Putney (65665 + part of 11003) Streatham (69785) Tooting (76986) unchanged Vauxhall (72934) West Norwood (74713) ibb.co/25zSTYz |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 7, 2021 10:29:40 GMT
Is it specifically outlawed to create constituencies with detached parts or just a convention not to do it? Pretty sure its the latter - the last seats with detatched bits went out of existence as recently as 1983 IIRC. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 7, 2021 10:29:44 GMT
Is it specifically outlawed to create constituencies with detached parts or just a convention not to do it? Answer is that it's not part of the law, but the Boundary Commissions have decided at the start of the review that they won't. The booklet "A guide to the 2013 Review" published at the start of it says in paragraph 35: "As far as possible, the BCE seeks to create constituencies: • from wards that are adjacent to each other; and • that do not contain ‘detached parts’, i.e. where the only physical connection between one part of the constituency and the remainder would require travel through a different constituency." |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Feb 7, 2021 14:53:09 GMT
Woolwich and Thamesmead - 72110. It's unfortunate that both this seat and the previous one cross the boundary with Bexley, which means that each seat contains an orphan ward and that there is no seat wholly in Greenwich. But at least this arrangement keeps Woolwich and Woolwich Common together; and the Eltham seat, even with the orphan ward, is also an improvement on YL's. It is possible to get rid of the two orphan wards while retaining your plan further west, and to return to something closer to the current map in Bexley. What I can't find is a way (at least not a whole ward one) of doing this while retaining Woolwich Riverside and Woolwich Common in the same seat. One way is to move Woolwich Common into Eltham, return East Wickham to Old Bexley & Sidcup, which would retain its realigned boundaries, and add West Heath to Woolwich (Riverside) & Thamesmead. (It doesn't work with Belvedere in that seat instead of West Heath.) Or East Wickham and Falconwood & Welling could be the two Bexley wards in the cross-borough seat, but it seems natural to cross in the Thamesmead area. Regarding Wandsworth my inclination is definitely to keep the problems caused by its awkward ward map within the borough, either by accepting the "Riverside" seat or splitting a ward, rather than introducing a mass of cross-borough seats. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 7, 2021 15:45:56 GMT
Woolwich and Thamesmead - 72110. It's unfortunate that both this seat and the previous one cross the boundary with Bexley, which means that each seat contains an orphan ward and that there is no seat wholly in Greenwich. But at least this arrangement keeps Woolwich and Woolwich Common together; and the Eltham seat, even with the orphan ward, is also an improvement on YL's. It is possible to get rid of the two orphan wards while retaining your plan further west, and to return to something closer to the current map in Bexley. What I can't find is a way (at least not a whole ward one) of doing this while retaining Woolwich Riverside and Woolwich Common in the same seat. One way is to move Woolwich Common into Eltham, return East Wickham to Old Bexley & Sidcup, which would retain its realigned boundaries, and add West Heath to Woolwich (Riverside) & Thamesmead. (It doesn't work with Belvedere in that seat instead of West Heath.) Or East Wickham and Falconwood & Welling could be the two Bexley wards in the cross-borough seat, but it seems natural to cross in the Thamesmead area. Regarding Wandsworth my inclination is definitely to keep the problems caused by its awkward ward map within the borough, either by accepting the "Riverside" seat or splitting a ward, rather than introducing a mass of cross-borough seats. Thanks YL.
The fundamental point is that once you remove four Greenwichy wards in the west of the borough, there are a lot of different ways of getting four seats into the remainder of Greenwich plus Bexley. All your suggestions above are perfectly reasonable, although my view is that keeping Woolwich Common in a Woolwich seat overrides my reluctance to create orphan wards; especially when one of the boundary-crossings involved (Woolwich-Thamesmead) is so natural. (As for the other, Blackfen can go into the Eltham seat if you want to keep Welling and E Wickham together.)
Another non-orphan possibility I looked at very closely is to put Bexleyheath and Crook Log, which it would be good to keep together if possible, into the Bexley & Sidcup seat; with Erith taking Thamesmead E; and Welling and E Wickham in a Woolwich & Welling seat. At first glance this last doesn't look like the most natural arrangement but E Wickham Lane, an important thoroughfare locally, ties the Bexley wards to the rest of the seat. But again, this scheme involves putting Woolwich Common into Eltham.
In the end, there's no perfect plan here. But there is an encouraging variety of imperfect plans from which to choose.
|
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Feb 7, 2021 16:14:17 GMT
Bexley/Greenwich/Lewisham/Southwark with only three cross-borough seats: Bermondsey (70602) Camberwell (76096) Dulwich & Forest Hill (72237) Eltham & Lewisham East (75658) Erith & Crayford (74032) Greenwich (76292) Lewisham Deptford (73725) Lewisham South (75866) Plumstead & Welling (75685) Sidcup & Bexleyheath (74433) ibb.co/bLJJVk5 |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Feb 7, 2021 16:33:06 GMT
Barking & Dagenham/Havering/Redbridge/Waltham Forest with only three cross-borough seats: Barking (72317) Dagenham & Upminster (73843) Hornchurch (70362) Ilford North (72829) Ilford South & Chadwell Heath (72742) Romford (72267) unchanged Walthamstow East & Chingford (75189) Walthamstow West & Leyton (76762) Woodford & Leytonstone (76429) ibb.co/C9wQqc8 |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 7, 2021 18:40:53 GMT
It is possible to get rid of the two orphan wards while retaining your plan further west, and to return to something closer to the current map in Bexley. What I can't find is a way (at least not a whole ward one) of doing this while retaining Woolwich Riverside and Woolwich Common in the same seat. One way is to move Woolwich Common into Eltham, return East Wickham to Old Bexley & Sidcup, which would retain its realigned boundaries, and add West Heath to Woolwich (Riverside) & Thamesmead. (It doesn't work with Belvedere in that seat instead of West Heath.) Or East Wickham and Falconwood & Welling could be the two Bexley wards in the cross-borough seat, but it seems natural to cross in the Thamesmead area. Regarding Wandsworth my inclination is definitely to keep the problems caused by its awkward ward map within the borough, either by accepting the "Riverside" seat or splitting a ward, rather than introducing a mass of cross-borough seats. Thanks YL.
The fundamental point is that once you remove four Greenwichy wards in the west of the borough, there are a lot of different ways of getting four seats into the remainder of Greenwich plus Bexley. All your suggestions above are perfectly reasonable, although my view is that keeping Woolwich Common in a Woolwich seat overrides my reluctance to create orphan wards; especially when one of the boundary-crossings involved (Woolwich-Thamesmead) is so natural. (As for the other, Blackfen can go into the Eltham seat if you want to keep Welling and E Wickham together.)
Another non-orphan possibility I looked at very closely is to put Bexleyheath and Crook Log, which it would be good to keep together if possible, into the Bexley & Sidcup seat; with Erith taking Thamesmead E; and Welling and E Wickham in a Woolwich & Welling seat. At first glance this last doesn't look like the most natural arrangement but E Wickham Lane, an important thoroughfare locally, ties the Bexley wards to the rest of the seat. But again, this scheme involves putting Woolwich Common into Eltham.
In the end, there's no perfect plan here. But there is an encouraging variety of imperfect plans from which to choose.
Surely having the Thamesmead area in one seat is a good idea, regardless of whether a Borough boundary is crossed? |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 7, 2021 18:44:21 GMT
Is it specifically outlawed to create constituencies with detached parts or just a convention not to do it? Pretty sure its the latter - the last seats with detatched bits went out of existence as recently as 1983 IIRC. That is correct. Stirling, Falkirk & Grangemouth existed until 1983 despite consisting of non-contiguous boroughs. It should be illegal to create parliamentary constituencies with detached parts, but the issue has not come up in any Boundary Review since that for the 1983 general election. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 7, 2021 18:46:29 GMT
Thanks YL.
The fundamental point is that once you remove four Greenwichy wards in the west of the borough, there are a lot of different ways of getting four seats into the remainder of Greenwich plus Bexley. All your suggestions above are perfectly reasonable, although my view is that keeping Woolwich Common in a Woolwich seat overrides my reluctance to create orphan wards; especially when one of the boundary-crossings involved (Woolwich-Thamesmead) is so natural. (As for the other, Blackfen can go into the Eltham seat if you want to keep Welling and E Wickham together.)
Another non-orphan possibility I looked at very closely is to put Bexleyheath and Crook Log, which it would be good to keep together if possible, into the Bexley & Sidcup seat; with Erith taking Thamesmead E; and Welling and E Wickham in a Woolwich & Welling seat. At first glance this last doesn't look like the most natural arrangement but E Wickham Lane, an important thoroughfare locally, ties the Bexley wards to the rest of the seat. But again, this scheme involves putting Woolwich Common into Eltham.
In the end, there's no perfect plan here. But there is an encouraging variety of imperfect plans from which to choose.
Surely having the Thamesmead area in one seat is a good idea, regardless of whether a Borough boundary is crossed? Arguably the same can be said for areas like Kilburn and Queensbury. This should have been sorted out by the London Government Act 1963 but was not because of the notion that the existing boroughs/urban districts would be used for the creation of the London Boroughs we know today, hence the disunity of communities like Kilburn, Queensbury, Thamesmead etc. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 7, 2021 18:52:50 GMT
Is it specifically outlawed to create constituencies with detached parts or just a convention not to do it? Answer is that it's not part of the law, but the Boundary Commissions have decided at the start of the review that they won't. The booklet "A guide to the 2013 Review" published at the start of it says in paragraph 35: "As far as possible, the BCE seeks to create constituencies: • from wards that are adjacent to each other; and • that do not contain ‘detached parts’, i.e. where the only physical connection between one part of the constituency and the remainder would require travel through a different constituency." Although in practice they haven't stuck strictly to this - eg at least one of the Reviews proposed added Carpenders Park to Hertsmere, and waved away objections that there was no direct road link. And all of them have kept Milton separate from Cambridge, even though the detached bit of Milton ward cannot be accessed either on foot or by road except by passing through Cambridge. |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Feb 7, 2021 19:29:00 GMT
Answer is that it's not part of the law, but the Boundary Commissions have decided at the start of the review that they won't. The booklet "A guide to the 2013 Review" published at the start of it says in paragraph 35: "As far as possible, the BCE seeks to create constituencies: • from wards that are adjacent to each other; and • that do not contain ‘detached parts’, i.e. where the only physical connection between one part of the constituency and the remainder would require travel through a different constituency." Although in practice they haven't stuck strictly to this - eg at least one of the Reviews proposed added Carpenders Park to Hertsmere, and waved away objections that there was no direct road link. And all of them have kept Milton separate from Cambridge, even though the detached bit of Milton ward cannot be accessed either on foot or by road except by passing through Cambridge. They seem to mean physically adjacent/travel on foot not necessarily road or even right-of-way (think Lancaster & Fleetwood, NE Essex etc). |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,834 
|
Post by john07 on Feb 7, 2021 20:13:01 GMT
Is it specifically outlawed to create constituencies with detached parts or just a convention not to do it? Pretty sure its the latter - the last seats with detatched bits went out of existence as recently as 1983 IIRC. Anyone else remember Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth? Or did I imagine this disconnected constituency? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 7, 2021 20:15:14 GMT
That was the last legacy of the old Scottish 'District of Burghs' constituency, and was abolished in 1983.
There were several other constituencies with detached parts but (apart from islands) they were all ended in the Third Periodical Review.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 7, 2021 20:51:31 GMT
Although in practice they haven't stuck strictly to this - eg at least one of the Reviews proposed added Carpenders Park to Hertsmere, and waved away objections that there was no direct road link. And all of them have kept Milton separate from Cambridge, even though the detached bit of Milton ward cannot be accessed either on foot or by road except by passing through Cambridge. They seem to mean physically adjacent/travel on foot not necessarily road or even right-of-way (think Lancaster & Fleetwood, NE Essex etc). Well, in the case of Lancaster & Fleetwood, I think they mean not so much 'walk' as 'swim' (unless the Knott End ferry is running).
Leaving aside such absurdities as Lancaster & Fleetwood, however, I think in practice you have to apply a bit of flexibility to the 'connectivity' rule. The Ellesmere Port & Bromborough seat now seems to feature without adverse comment in almost every plan; yet when it was first suggested, I think during the 'dry run' exercise using the electorates from Dec 2019, we expended some effort in poring over maps to discern whether it was possible to travel on minor roads between Ellesmere Port and Eastham whilst staying within the seat, purely because the major road that any reasonable person would use to make this short and easy journey strays outside the seat for about a hundred yards.
For my money this is an overly literal interpretation of 'connectivity' and I'd accept EP&B (if it comes to pass) as a properly connected seat even if the link along minor roads did not exist.
Another point is that close scrutiny of maps shows that it happens far more often than one might think that a ward contains parts that are not accessible from the rest of the ward without travelling outside it. Take an example from Sheffield. In the Neepsend area of the city, Bardwell Road leads to a few streets (Douglas Road, &c) that appear not to be accessible by any other route. But the railway under which Bardwell Road passes is the boundary between Burngreave and Hillsborough wards; therefore any constituency that includes Burngreave ward fails the strict connectivity test unless it also includes Hillsborough. Yet most Sheffield plans in the Y&H thread place these wards in different seats.
Please note this example is for illustrative purposes only. I know that the streets in question lie in an industrial part of the city and contain few if any voters. My point is that there must be scores of wards that exhibit this kind of internal non-connectivity, often affecting residential streets. Boundary-drawing would be impossible if we had to take account of every remote farmhouse reached only by a track that passes out of the ward, or newly-built cul-de-sac that straddles a ward boundary. So I don't dispute that connectivity is an important factor, but it has to be interpreted in a common-sense way.
Not sure why we're discussing this in the London thread, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 7, 2021 20:54:21 GMT
There is currently a detached part of Norwich North in the Thorpe St Andrew SE ward, an island in the river Yare with the Yare at that point forming part of Thorpe Hamlet ward in Norwich South. I'm pretty sure there are no residents/electors in that territory and it is technically connected to the other part of the ward via the railway which runs from Norwich to Great Yarmouth, but it is detached
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 7, 2021 21:17:59 GMT
There is currently a detached part of Norwich North in the Thorpe St Andrew SE ward, an island in the river Yare with the Yare at that point forming part of Thorpe Hamlet ward in Norwich South. I'm pretty sure there are no residents/electors in that territory and it is technically connected to the other part of the ward via the railway which runs from Norwich to Great Yarmouth, but it is detached This anomaly will easily be corrected in this review-Norwich North can simply add the said Thorpe Hamlet ward to meet the quota requirements. Norwich South in term gains Old Costessey to reunite Costessey. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelarden on Feb 7, 2021 21:18:15 GMT
You can't travel to the Green Lane area in Old Malden, Kingston without travelling into Sutton (under the railway bridge at Worcester Park).
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 7, 2021 21:25:47 GMT
There is currently a detached part of Norwich North in the Thorpe St Andrew SE ward, an island in the river Yare with the Yare at that point forming part of Thorpe Hamlet ward in Norwich South. I'm pretty sure there are no residents/electors in that territory and it is technically connected to the other part of the ward via the railway which runs from Norwich to Great Yarmouth, but it is detached This anomaly will easily be corrected in this review-Norwich North can simply add the said Thorpe Hamlet ward to meet the quota requirements. Norwich South in term gains Old Costessey to reunite Costessey. That is one option - not the only one (since Norwich South is in quota it can be left well alone). |
|
