|
|
Post by islington on Jun 12, 2022 16:04:53 GMT
(1) How would a single Borough merging Newcastle UL with all of the “Six Towns” have worked? (2) I get the impression that you think Westminster/Tower Hamlets was an exception to the general principle that the Boroughs and Counties were defined first, then seats allocated, and then the divisions defined where necessary. So maybe someone was trying to engineer the seventh seat Tower Hamlets was entitled to if considered as a unit, and dividing Westminster into three Boroughs was the way chosen to do this while maintaining the principles of the allocation. (3) Did any other London area Borough which was split into separate Boroughs lose seats compared with what it would have had if still been treated as a unit? (4) Speaking of the Westminster split, how unusual is the Borough of St George, Hanover Square in being named after a single building? Brighton Pavilion is a current example, I suppose. (1) It would have been good for 3 seats but I imagine NuL would have bitterly resisted such an amalgamation. Mind you, I'm sure it wasn't wild about not only losing one its 2 MPs but also being lumped in with far-off (and probably somewhat bigger) Tunstall. But at least it kept the name and some sort of distinct identity, and it could reflect (as proved to be the case) that the shotgun marriage with Tunstall was likely to last only until the next redistribution (whereas being subsumed under Stoke would likely be permanent). (2) Yes, that's exactly what I think. My theory is that the original plan was to hive off the eastern part of TH as a new borough of Poplar, whilst retaining Westminster intact. The commission duly mapped a borough of Poplar with 2 seats and the residual TH with 4, which are the correct numbers that would have been apportioned using the system I've put forward. The commission also mapped an intact Westminster with 4, also the correct number. My suspicion is that at this point someone in the Liberal government reflected that it was a shame that the two boroughs into which Liberal-minded TH was being divided were both quite near the top end for their apportionments of 2 and 4, while solidly-Tory Westminster was near the lower end for 4. But if TH were left intact, it would get 7, and to keep everything balanced and avoid upsetting the whole delicate arrangement Westminster could be neatly broken up so as to get 3. I think this must have happened quite late in the day because the commission didn't map it. But I've no direct proof of any of this so I'm perfectly receptive to being told that I'm misinterpreting the evidence. (3) Good question, but I don't think so. (4) SGHS was so called not after the church as such but because it was coterminous with the parish. The Parliamentary borough of Westminster until 1885 comprised the ancient borough proper (red) plus the Liberties of Westminster (green) and the Savoy (pink) as shown on the map below. This is a compact and totally logical area that had been recognized as a unit for centuries. The three boroughs into which it was divided in 1885 were: (i) Westminster (the parishes of St Margaret and St John the Evangelist plus the Close of Westminster Abbey); (ii) SGHS (the eponymous parish); (iii) Strand (everything else formerly in Westminster, plus the Liberty of the Rolls which was formerly in Finsbury). Note that this arrangement meant that the new Parliamentary borough of Westminster contained a huge detached part to the west of SGHS. Note also, and not by any coincidence in my view, that all three of these boroughs were below 90000.  |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 14, 2022 16:49:14 GMT
Hmm ...
Here's another potential crafty seat-saving dodge.
At the 1885 redistribution, the existing very large borough of Hackney, consisting of three parishes, was broken up. Each of its two southern parishes of Shoreditch and Bethnal Green became a Parliamentary borough in its own right, with two members apiece elected from separate divisions. The largest parish, Hackney, was joined to Stoke Newington parish, formerly part of Finsbury for Parliamentary purposes. This arrangement probably had the effect of saving a seat because Hackney by itself, I've just spotted, was 163681 and this might have been enough, narrowly, to earn it a 3rd seat. And if the breakup of Finsbury had left Stoke Newington to go in with Islington (and there was nowhere else it could have gone), then the latter would have had 305646 which would very definitely have earned it a 5th seat. Putting SN in with Hackney, however, put that borough more firmly in the '3' column while leaving Islington with 4.
However, I don't think the evidence is as clear here as it is with Battersea / Wandsworth or Stoke on Trent. This is because the definition of new boroughs in London was influenced by (but not wholly determined by) MBW district boundaries, and SN was already linked with Hackney in the same MBW district. So maybe they just went with that, and the resulting saving of a seat was merely a happy accident rather than a cunning scheme.
Later today or (more probably) tomorrow I'll do something about the various ways in which the borough of Tower Hamlets might have been broken up.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 15, 2022 11:04:29 GMT
The more I look at Tower Hamlets the more intriguing it gets. Here's a map of the whole area. Ignore Bethnal Green, which was transferred to the new borough of Hackney in 1868 and became a Parliamentary borough in its own right in 1885. The rest of the map comprised the borough of TH: the coloured areas together with Mile End Old Town and St George in the East (hereinafter MEOT and SGE respectively). The significance of the colours is that whereas MEOT and SGE had relatively lerge populations and were treated independently in the MBW structure, the other areas were grouped into the MBW districts of Limehouse, Poplar and Whitechapel. As you see, TH is a bit of a mess: leaving out Bethnal Green, I make it: 2 large parishes treated as independent units; 11 smaller parishes grouped into districts; and 7 extra-parochial areas, all attached to Whitechapel District. Note also that in its southeastern corner SGE has a short salient reaching the river, meaning that Wapping has no boundary with Shadwell and consequently Limehouse District is not contiguous.
 In breaking up large metropolitan boroughs a lot of weight was attached to MBW subdivisions so it would not be surprising if Poplar District were hived off as a separate borough (popn 156510). And indeed the commission produced a map on exactly these lines dividing it into a 'Poplar South' seat comprising Poplar and the southeastern part of Bromley (popn 74104), with most of Bromley joining with Bow to form 'Poplar North' (82406). ('Bromley' in this context means Bromley-by-Bow, not Bromley in Kent.) It also produced a map splitting the rest of TH, popn 282627, into four seats. However, intriguingly, it also produced a map contradicting the previous one by treating MEOT as a separate borough (popn 105613) and dividing it along its ward boundaries into East (47491) and West (58122).
 This would leave the rest of TH with 177014 and, presumably, 3 seats, but I can't find a map for this.
The eventual outcome was that TH was retained as a borough with unaltered external boundaries, but the internal divisions faithfully reflected the potential boroughs of MEOT and Poplar that had been proposed, even though this meant considerable variation in the population because MEOT was near the bottom of the range for 2 seats whereas Poplar was near the top. But the names were changed to remove references to the boroughs not proceeded with: Poplar South became 'Poplar' tout court; Poplar North 'Bow and Bromley'; MEOT East simply 'Mile End' and MEOT West 'Stepney' (the latter two names are debatable on the grounds of geographical accuracy but there it is).
As for the rest of TH, I can't find any suggestion that Whitechapel District might be made a borough but with 71314 inhabitants it was a reasonable size and name for a division and this is what was done. You can see it on the 4-seat TH map, where it is labelled 'West'.
The remaining areas totalled 105700 and formed two divisions, not quite along the MWB District boundary because Wapping was attached to SGE to form 'St George' (49382), thus avoiding the creation of a non-contiguous seat and slightly evening up the numbers (although much of Wapping's housing had been cleared to make room for docks so it contributed only 2225). The rest of Limehouse District formed Limehouse (56318).
For clarity, in general contexts where the TH element may not be obvious, I'd refer to these divisions in the style 'Tower Hamlets (St George)', &c.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of all this but it's interesting so I thought I'd share. Comments very welcome.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,755 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 15, 2022 13:45:01 GMT
The more I look at Tower Hamlets the more intriguing it gets. From this and previous discussions, I'm surprised how old the name Tower Hamlets is. I had just naturally assumed it was some 1970s right-on yoghurt-knitting pre-Woke Woke name that had been invented for the council. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 15, 2022 14:10:43 GMT
The more I look at Tower Hamlets the more intriguing it gets. From this and previous discussions, I'm surprised how old the name Tower Hamlets is. I had just naturally assumed it was some 1970s right-on yoghurt-knitting pre-Woke Woke name that had been invented for the council. It was a bleedin' liberty it was.
it wouldn't have been 1970s right on J G but swingin' 1964.
The elections for the constituency from 1832-1880 are worth a look in detail and never boring. Captain Marryat (he of "Children of the New Forest) stood in the initial contest in 1832 (and lost) and at its last contest in 1880 the noted chair carver and early Lib-Lab Benjamin Lucraft came bottom of the poll. In 1852 the seat was contested by no less than five different radical candidates, and brewing fans will note an appearance by Octavius Coope in 1868. A Tory free zone for decades with only three candidates in its first four decades, in 1874 it elected Charles Ritchie who went on to become Chancellor.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 15, 2022 15:35:00 GMT
The more I look at Tower Hamlets the more intriguing it gets. From this and previous discussions, I'm surprised how old the name Tower Hamlets is. I had just naturally assumed it was some 1970s right-on yoghurt-knitting pre-Woke Woke name that had been invented for the council.You're thinking of Newham. (And as finsobruce points out, it's 1960s nonsense, not 1970s (which, judging by 'Hertsmere', 'Castle Point', &c, would have been even worse).)
The following story has been represented to me as fact and I truly, deeply hope that it is:
When the London boroughs were set up, Fulham and Hammersmith were to be merged and a name was needed. Fulham Council suggested that the fairest solution, representing both boroughs, would be a composite consisting of the first three letters of their borough's name followed by the first three letters of Hammersmith.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,755
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 15, 2022 17:11:13 GMT
From this and previous discussions, I'm surprised how old the name Tower Hamlets is. I had just naturally assumed it was some 1970s right-on yoghurt-knitting pre-Woke Woke name that had been invented for the council.You're thinking of Newham. (And as finsobruce points out, it's 1960s nonsense, not 1970s (which, judging by 'Hertsmere', 'Castle Point', &c, would have been even worse).)
The following story has been represented to me as fact and I truly, deeply hope that it is:
When the London boroughs were set up, Fulham and Hammersmith were to be merged and a name was needed. Fulham Council suggested that the fairest solution, representing both boroughs, would be a composite consisting of the first three letters of their borough's name followed by the first three letters of Hammersmith.
And if anybody can find this clip online anywhere, I owe you a pint. All I can find is the visiting aliens clip. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,905
|
Post by YL on Jun 15, 2022 17:56:55 GMT
]However, intriguingly, it also produced a map contradicting the previous one by treating MEOT as a separate borough (popn 105613) and dividing it along its ward boundaries into East (47491) and West (58122). (map) This would leave the rest of TH with 177014 and, presumably, 3 seats, but I can't find a map for this. Perhaps the idea was to split it into separate Limehouse, St George in the East and Whitechapel boroughs, which would all have been single member so might not have been mapped anyway. That would actually be the approach to the area which would fit best with the principle of using the MBW lines. NB the split of Westminster also follows the MBW lines if you combine St Martin in the Fields and St James Piccadilly with Strand district. The most obvious borough which could have been split along those lines but wasn't is Finsbury. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 15, 2022 19:25:20 GMT
]However, intriguingly, it also produced a map contradicting the previous one by treating MEOT as a separate borough (popn 105613) and dividing it along its ward boundaries into East (47491) and West (58122). (map) This would leave the rest of TH with 177014 and, presumably, 3 seats, but I can't find a map for this. , which would all have been single member so might not have been mapped anyway. That would actually be the approach to the area which would fit best with the principle of using the MBW lines. NB the split of Westminster also follows the MBW lines if you combine St Martin in the Fields and St James Piccadilly with Strand district. The most obvious borough which could have been split along those lines but wasn't is Finsbury. You may be right but in that case they made a significant alteration by putting Wapping in St George instead of keeping it with the rest of Limehouse District. At any rate, I'm glad they did because the configuration of Wapping meant that any other arrangement would leave it sticking out like a sore thumb.
You're right about Westminster; and generally, MBW districts clearly had a lot of influence. I suspect the original plan for Penge was to include it in the new Lewisham borough because it was in Lewisham District, despite having no common boundary with the rest of that District. Possibly someone objected to a non-contiguous borough, because it ended up linked with the only parish within the MBW with which it shared a boundary, namely Camberwell. This was probably the least bad solution available, but it looks decidedly odd on the map.
You're also right about Finsbury, probably because the MBW districts (St Giles and Holborn) and independent parishes (Clerkenwell and Finsbury) were all on the small side so maybe it made sense to lump them all together so that the new borough of Finsbury comprised (more or less) all that was left of the old borough once Islington, Stoke Newington and the bits of Hornsey parish outside the MBW had been taken out. (I say 'more or less' because there were two further small territorial changes - the Rolls Liberty was transferred to Strand and Clerkenwell's detached part far to the north near Muswell Hill was included.) Finsbury on its post-1885 boundaries looks to me very much a case of 'what was left over' after other boroughs had been defined.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 15, 2022 22:23:57 GMT
You're thinking of Newham. (And as finsobruce points out, it's 1960s nonsense, not 1970s (which, judging by 'Hertsmere', 'Castle Point', &c, would have been even worse).)
The following story has been represented to me as fact and I truly, deeply hope that it is:
When the London boroughs were set up, Fulham and Hammersmith were to be merged and a name was needed. Fulham Council suggested that the fairest solution, representing both boroughs, would be a composite consisting of the first three letters of their borough's name followed by the first three letters of Hammersmith.
And if anybody can find this clip online anywhere, I owe you a pint. All I can find is the visiting aliens clip. Ok, a pint of Iron Pier please. 
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,755
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 15, 2022 22:32:24 GMT
David, we need to decide on a name for the new party. We should take part of each party's name. How about we take "Social Democrat" from my party and "Party" from yours.And if anybody can find this clip online anywhere, I owe you a pint. All I can find is the visiting aliens clip. Ok, a pint of Iron Pier please. 
This media could not be played. Close, but no banana. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 15, 2022 22:41:06 GMT
Ok, a pint of Iron Pier please.
This media could not be played. Close, but no banana. Works ok for me . It is on the Spitting Image (Original Series) Twitter feed posted at 1.45pm on the 16th October 2020.
Enjoy!
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,755
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 15, 2022 22:54:25 GMT
This media could not be played. Close, but no banana. Works ok for me . It is on the Spitting Image (Original Series) Twitter feed posted at 1.45pm on the 16th October 2020.
Enjoy!
I don't "do" Twitter, and whenever I do attempt to sample it, it doesn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 16, 2022 8:07:57 GMT
Works ok for me . It is on the Spitting Image (Original Series) Twitter feed posted at 1.45pm on the 16th October 2020.
Enjoy!
I don't "do" Twitter, and whenever I do attempt to sample it, it doesn't work. It works for me.
It's amusing but very much of its time, and watching it now I can't help thinking of two bald men arguing over a comb.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Jun 16, 2022 10:54:27 GMT
From this and previous discussions, I'm surprised how old the name Tower Hamlets is. I had just naturally assumed it was some 1970s right-on yoghurt-knitting pre-Woke Woke name that had been invented for the council.You're thinking of Newham. (And as finsobruce points out, it's 1960s nonsense, not 1970s (which, judging by 'Hertsmere', 'Castle Point', &c, would have been even worse).)
The following story has been represented to me as fact and I truly, deeply hope that it is:
When the London boroughs were set up, Fulham and Hammersmith were to be merged and a name was needed. Fulham Council suggested that the fairest solution, representing both boroughs, would be a composite consisting of the first three letters of their borough's name followed by the first three letters of Hammersmith.
London Borough of Ham was surely the obvious compromise? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 16, 2022 11:19:42 GMT
You're thinking of Newham. (And as finsobruce points out, it's 1960s nonsense, not 1970s (which, judging by 'Hertsmere', 'Castle Point', &c, would have been even worse).)
The following story has been represented to me as fact and I truly, deeply hope that it is:
When the London boroughs were set up, Fulham and Hammersmith were to be merged and a name was needed. Fulham Council suggested that the fairest solution, representing both boroughs, would be a composite consisting of the first three letters of their borough's name followed by the first three letters of Hammersmith.
London Borough of Ham was surely the obvious compromise? That would have worked even better for Newham (which comprised West Ham + East Ham).
Maybe if it had called itself simply 'London Borough of Ham' and the Fulham + Hammersmith combination had done likewise, we could have distinguished the two identically-named boroughs by informally calling them 'East Ham' and 'West Ham'. I'm sure that would have eliminated any possible confusion and given general satisfaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 16, 2022 11:22:03 GMT
You're thinking of Newham. (And as finsobruce points out, it's 1960s nonsense, not 1970s (which, judging by 'Hertsmere', 'Castle Point', &c, would have been even worse).)
The following story has been represented to me as fact and I truly, deeply hope that it is:
When the London boroughs were set up, Fulham and Hammersmith were to be merged and a name was needed. Fulham Council suggested that the fairest solution, representing both boroughs, would be a composite consisting of the first three letters of their borough's name followed by the first three letters of Hammersmith.
London Borough of Ham was surely the obvious compromise? Would it have laid claim to Ham as a detached part of the borough of Ham? |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Jun 16, 2022 12:14:01 GMT
London Borough of Ham was surely the obvious compromise? That would have worked even better for Newham (which comprised West Ham + East Ham).
Maybe if it had called itself simply 'London Borough of Ham' and the Fulham + Hammersmith combination had done likewise, we could have distinguished the two identically-named boroughs by informally calling them 'East Ham' and 'West Ham'. I'm sure that would have eliminated any possible confusion and given general satisfaction.
I think the East End developments are newer, so that can be LB Newham and the other one could be LB Oldham. Sorted. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 16, 2022 12:18:48 GMT
That would have worked even better for Newham (which comprised West Ham + East Ham).
Maybe if it had called itself simply 'London Borough of Ham' and the Fulham + Hammersmith combination had done likewise, we could have distinguished the two identically-named boroughs by informally calling them 'East Ham' and 'West Ham'. I'm sure that would have eliminated any possible confusion and given general satisfaction.
I think the East End developments are newer, so that can be LB Newham and the other one could be LB Oldham. Sorted. You are really hamming it up now. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Jun 16, 2022 12:27:53 GMT
I think the East End developments are newer, so that can be LB Newham and the other one could be LB Oldham. Sorted. You are really hamming it up now. Sorry. You're right, we should get back to discussing the serious questions on this forum. How Boris pigged out at parties, how the boundary commission butchered the existing map or certain politicians' shady pork barrel politics. |
|
