Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 8:36:29 GMT
"Peckham and Lewisham West" (my new seat) doesn't include Peckham ward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 13, 2016 8:37:25 GMT
I reckon in notional 2015 terms, 30 Labour and 28 Conservatives. Enfield North turning into Enfield flips it to Conservative. But Finchley and Southgate is notionally Labour, as is the new Croydon Central. My basic provisional back-of-envelope calculation puts Croydon Central slightly more Conservative, not less. The 2014 local election results in the wards concerned are: Lab 11,868 Con 11,769 (for the new proposed version) Lab 11,988 Con 11,319 (for the current version) so a Labour plurality of 679 becomes one of 99. Extrapolating on this basis from the 2014 local elections to the 2015 general election makes a Conservative plurality of about 1,000 rather than 165. Doesn't take note of the difference between local and national voting. No point in local elections in concentrating on getting out the Labour vote in Broad Green ward as it will always be safe, but in a Parliamentary election it will be worth it. Adam Gray agrees broadly with my figures that the new Croydon Central (a very significant boundary change from the current one) has a Labour notional majority of about 1,000. |
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Sept 13, 2016 8:39:54 GMT
So I've just had a quick look - and my word there are some doozies...
Maybe it's just because it's my seat/wards that are being totally butchered - but Camberwell and Vauxhall Bridge is a particularly special seat (and contains neither Vauxhall, nor the bridge but hey)
I don't know if this is the case in the other regions, but they appear to massively prioritised not splitting wards (fair enough, although not my preference) - but they also appear to have absolutely no regard for borough boundaries. It's as if they said "well we're going to have to cross borough boundaries in some places, so let's basically ignore them".
One of the most obvious places to see this is Bromley, where unlike every solution suggested on this thread for a single borough 3 seats, they manage to create a Beckenham seat which nicks a Croydon ward, but then gives Crystal Palace ward back to one of the other Croydon seats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 9:14:54 GMT
So I've just had a quick look - and my word there are some doozies... Maybe it's just because it's my seat/wards that are being totally butchered - but Camberwell and Vauxhall Bridge is a particularly special seat (and contains neither Vauxhall, nor the bridge but hey) I don't know if this is the case in the other regions, but they appear to massively prioritised not splitting wards (fair enough, although not my preference) - but they also appear to have absolutely no regard for borough boundaries. It's as if they said "well we're going to have to cross borough boundaries in some places, so let's basically ignore them". One of the most obvious places to see this is Bromley, where unlike every solution suggested on this thread for a single borough 3 seats, they manage to create a Beckenham seat which nicks a Croydon ward, but then gives Crystal Palace ward back to one of the other Croydon seats. East London is pretty nasty - Chingford and Woodford Green is little changed, but everything else has been chopped into bloody chunks. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Sept 13, 2016 9:48:51 GMT
East London is pretty nasty - Chingford and Woodford Green is little changed, but everything else has been chopped into bloody chunks. I guess they read last time's review! |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Sept 13, 2016 13:07:18 GMT
Looks like the 4 unchanged seats in London are:
Hornchurch & Upminster
Kingston & Surbiton
Richmond Park
Twickenham
|
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,127
|
Post by ColinJ on Sept 13, 2016 13:25:03 GMT
You have to bear in mind that the last four words are pronounced Arranthe'ill. Wembley and Harrow on the Hill = Wembley and Harrow South Harrow and Stanmore = Harrow North Kenton can stay. Harrow on the Hill and Wembley would be a better name, even though the smaller portion is mentioned first, as it excludes the possible misunderstanding of (Wembley and Harrow) being "on the Hill". The Commission have given the impression that they think Harrow is available for carving up and topping-up other seats. It's rubbish really. |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961 
|
Post by mondialito on Sept 13, 2016 13:57:20 GMT
Wembley and Harrow on the Hill = Wembley and Harrow South Harrow and Stanmore = Harrow North Kenton can stay. Harrow on the Hill and Wembley would be a better name, even though the smaller portion is mentioned first, as it excludes the possible misunderstanding of (Wembley and Harrow) being "on the Hill". The Commission have given the impression that they think Harrow is available for carving up and topping-up other seats. It's rubbish really. How about 'Harrow South and Wembley'? I'm not a fan of using the term 'Hill' in parliamentary constituencies, it makes them sound too much like a council ward, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 13, 2016 16:49:20 GMT
"Peckham and Lewisham West" (my new seat) doesn't include Peckham ward. It does include most of Peckham though in Nunhead, The Lane and Peckham Rye. Peckham ward is a bit badly named IMO as its really just the North Peckham estates |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 13, 2016 16:52:30 GMT
Hampstead & Golders Green manages to not include the ward of Golders Green. As with my post above - Golders Green ward doesn't include all that much of Golders Green, most of which is in the Childs Hill and Garden Suburb wards. Brent Cross might be a better name for the Golders Green ward. (It may not be much of a recommendation, but my London lander thingie has a Golders Green seat which comprises Childs Hill and Garden suburb while Golders Green ward is in Hendon South) |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961
|
Post by mondialito on Sept 13, 2016 18:40:43 GMT
Wembley and Harrow on the Hill = Wembley and Harrow South Harrow and Stanmore = Harrow North
Kenton can stay.I should hope so, Jolene won't be able to run "The Bull" without him.  Although looking at the map, which makes things clearer, there can be an argument for calling it 'Kingsbury' instead. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 13, 2016 20:06:31 GMT
So I've just had a quick look - and my word there are some doozies... Maybe it's just because it's my seat/wards that are being totally butchered - but Camberwell and Vauxhall Bridge is a particularly special seat (and contains neither Vauxhall, nor the bridge but hey) I don't know if this is the case in the other regions, but they appear to massively prioritised not splitting wards (fair enough, although not my preference) - but they also appear to have absolutely no regard for borough boundaries. It's as if they said "well we're going to have to cross borough boundaries in some places, so let's basically ignore them". One of the most obvious places to see this is Bromley, where unlike every solution suggested on this thread for a single borough 3 seats, they manage to create a Beckenham seat which nicks a Croydon ward, but then gives Crystal Palace ward back to one of the other Croydon seats. From looking at a couple of regions, it seems like they've prioritised keeping constituencies already within the quota unchanged, then they've gone for minimum movement of electors and they've paid absolutely no attention to borough and district boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 14, 2016 10:29:46 GMT
So I've just had a quick look - and my word there are some doozies... Maybe it's just because it's my seat/wards that are being totally butchered - but Camberwell and Vauxhall Bridge is a particularly special seat (and contains neither Vauxhall, nor the bridge but hey) I don't know if this is the case in the other regions, but they appear to massively prioritised not splitting wards (fair enough, although not my preference) - but they also appear to have absolutely no regard for borough boundaries. It's as if they said "well we're going to have to cross borough boundaries in some places, so let's basically ignore them". One of the most obvious places to see this is Bromley, where unlike every solution suggested on this thread for a single borough 3 seats, they manage to create a Beckenham seat which nicks a Croydon ward, but then gives Crystal Palace ward back to one of the other Croydon seats. From looking at a couple of regions, it seems like they've prioritised keeping constituencies already within the quota unchanged, then they've gone for minimum movement of electors and they've paid absolutely no attention to borough and district boundaries. If that were their approach, they could have done better because I should have thought that with a little ingenuity within-quota seats like Hornsey and Ilford South could have been preserved unchanged.
I much prefer my proposals as posted back on 14 Jun (see p8), with the Lea crossing between Edmonton and Chingford. But reluctantly, I'm trying to work up a Plan B based on crossing the Lea between TH and Newham. The actual Lea-crossing seat is fine, but I'm struggling with the knock-on consequences. I've come up with something I can live with in east London (although not so good as Plan A), but I'm much less happy west of the Lea where I feel I've made a mess of Enfield and (especially) Barnet.
I'll continue shuffling wards about and shall post something soon, but the exercise has confirmed my view that an Edmonton-Chingford seat, although unappealing in itself, results in much the best plan overall.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 14, 2016 14:13:47 GMT
Further to this, I've been checking a few numbers from the BCE proposals compared with mine.
Seats wholly with a single borough: BCE - 30; me - 41 Seats extending into two boroughs: BCE - 36; me - 27 Seats extending into three boroughs: BCE - 2; me - 0
Orphan wards: BCE - 10; me - 6
Unchanged seats: BCE - 4; me - 10
(For these stats, I am counting the City of London as a borough, and a seat that is altered only to realign with new wards is treated as unchanged.) |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 14, 2016 15:54:31 GMT
I have crunched a few more numbers for Croydon Central, so apologies if anybody else has already done this. The party in the lead, and the margin of its lead, is:
Election: Current boundaries : Proposed boundaries
2014 Croydon local election: Labour 669 : Labour 99
2016 London Mayoral election*: Conservative 29 : Labour 688
2016 GLA constituency*: Labour 248 : Labour 456
2016 GLA list section*: Labour 898 : Labour 1,242
* excluding postal votes
The 2014 local election suggests that the proposed version is more Conservative than the current one;
The 2016 GLA elections suggest that the proposed version is more Labour than the current one.
In other words, it is confirmation that (a) people vote differently in different elections (b) it is all too close to be certain who would have won in 2015 under the proposed boundaries. We just know that it would have been within a few hundred either way, and the GOTV operation would be crucial.
(The Inside Croydon website, meanwhile, is pretending that it has been gerrymandered to make it safe for Gavin Barwell with a majority of 5,800; I think they got confused between opinion polls and notional projections.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Sept 14, 2016 16:10:10 GMT
I have crunched a few more numbers for Croydon Central, so apologies if anybody else has already done this. The party in the lead, and the margin of its lead, is: Election: Current boundaries : Proposed boundaries 2014 Croydon local election: Labour 669 : Labour 99 2016 London Mayoral election*: Conservative 29 : Labour 688 2016 GLA constituency*: Labour 248 : Labour 456 2016 GLA list section*: Labour 898 : Labour 1,242 * excluding postal votes The 2014 local election suggests that the proposed version is more Conservative than the current one; The 2016 GLA elections suggest that the proposed version is more Labour than the current one. In other words, it is confirmation that (a) people vote differently in different elections (b) it is all too close to be certain who would have won in 2015 under the proposed boundaries. We just know that it would have been within a few hundred either way, and the GOTV operation would be crucial. (The Inside Croydon website, meanwhile, is pretending that it has been gerrymandered to make it safe for Gavin Barwell with a majority of 5,800; I think they got confused between opinion polls and notional projections.) Is Walter Cronxite his real name? |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 14, 2016 16:42:30 GMT
Yeah, "based on recent opinion polls" = not the notional results.
But I'm interested in his assertion that commissioners had "briefed publicly that they were minded to follow the London Assembly constituencies". They certainly threw that to the wind, if true at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 14, 2016 16:46:03 GMT
Is Walter Cronxite his real name? Er... no. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 15, 2016 7:21:40 GMT
Well, quite candidly I don't like it at all; but for what it's worth, this is my London Plan B on the assumption that an Edmonton-Chingford Lea crossing is ruled out.  I've posted only the area affected by the altered Lea-crossing: the rest of London stays as per Plan A, which is set out on p8 upthread. Chingford and Woodford - 71105 (About three-quarters of Woodford, actually) City of London and Westminster South - 74881 (The same as Plan A but included for completeness) Edmonton - 71156 Enfield - 75302 Hackney North - 72613 Hackney South and Bethnal Green - 75380 Hampstead and Golders Green - 74563 (This seat and the following one drive a terrible boundary through the middle of Finchley) High Barnet and Mill Hill - 71549 Holborn and St Pancras - 73689 Hornsey and Wood Green - 74641 (The current seat unchanged, thus a slight improvement on Plan A - one of very few) Ilford North and Wanstead - 76374 Islington North - 77247 (The same as in Plan A) Islington South and Shoreditch - 75714 Leyton and Stratford - 75975 Poplar and Canning Town - 76390 (The cross-Lea seat, and perfectly satisfactory in itself if we ignore the knock-on effects) Southgate and East Barnet - 77294 Stepney and Bow - 77814 Tottenham - 77240 Walthamstow and Leytonstone - 77899 Westminster North and Kilburn - 71798 I haven't given too much thought to the names, so they're a bit rough and ready - it's a second-choice plan, so it can have second-rate names. I'm not going into detail of why I dislike this scheme. It's OK-ish east of the Lea, I feel (although much less good than Plan A); the worst problems lie in the western part, and the seats in Barnet are particularly grim. But I'm putting it up anyway, partly to get it out there for criticism and comment (which will be welcome) and in the hope that someone can suggest improvements (which will be even more welcome); and partly because I think it reinforces the case for an Edmonton-Chingford seat. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2016 13:14:58 GMT
Well, quite candidly I don't like it at all; but for what it's worth, this is my London Plan B on the assumption that an Edmonton-Chingford Lea crossing is ruled out. I've posted only the area affected by the altered Lea-crossing: the rest of London stays as per Plan A, which is set out on p8 upthread. Chingford and Woodford - 71105 (About three-quarters of Woodford, actually) City of London and Westminster South - 74881 (The same as Plan A but included for completeness) Edmonton - 71156 Enfield - 75302 Hackney North - 72613 Hackney South and Bethnal Green - 75380 Hampstead and Golders Green - 74563 (This seat and the following one drive a terrible boundary through the middle of Finchley) High Barnet and Mill Hill - 71549 Holborn and St Pancras - 73689 Hornsey and Wood Green - 74641 (The current seat unchanged, thus a slight improvement on Plan A - one of very few) Ilford North and Wanstead - 76374 Islington North - 77247 (The same as in Plan A) Islington South and Shoreditch - 75714 Leyton and Stratford - 75975 Poplar and Canning Town - 76390 (The cross-Lea seat, and perfectly satisfactory in itself if we ignore the knock-on effects) Southgate and East Barnet - 77294 Stepney and Bow - 77814 Tottenham - 77240 Walthamstow and Leytonstone - 77899 Westminster North and Kilburn - 71798 I haven't given too much thought to the names, so they're a bit rough and ready - it's a second-choice plan, so it can have second-rate names. I'm not going into detail of why I dislike this scheme. It's OK-ish east of the Lea, I feel (although much less good than Plan A); the worst problems lie in the western part, and the seats in Barnet are particularly grim. But I'm putting it up anyway, partly to get it out there for criticism and comment (which will be welcome) and in the hope that someone can suggest improvements (which will be even more welcome); and partly because I think it reinforces the case for an Edmonton-Chingford seat. I like this better as it relates to the area east of the Lea. Of Barnet I shall say nothing on the Wittgenstein principle "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". |
|
