|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 15, 2016 14:18:48 GMT
I thought I had found a counter-proposal which would have kept the 3 Bromley constituencies all in Bromley, kept the Croydon/Bromley boundary intact, and (incidentally) made Croydon Central more Conservative, but one of the resulting seats was 103 over the limit. Grrrr....
|
|
|
|
Post by luckyllama on Sept 17, 2016 7:21:25 GMT
Since Waltham Forest is very close to being two new constituencies in size, with the mid-line on the traditional north/south division of the Borough being very close to Forest Road, it seems to me that looking at two LBWF-only seats would not only be a more appropriate approach for Waltham Forest but also enable a more sensible arrangement for Redbridge than spreading its wards between five different constituencies as in the draft proposals?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 17, 2016 13:03:15 GMT
79984 is above quota no? This seat is one of those I dislike least in London though acknowledge the difficult in Ealing and Brent in particular due to ward sizes. I do wish at least they would call this Ealing Acton & Shepherds Bush as they did before. Even without Southfield, Acton is the largest element
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 17, 2016 13:27:21 GMT
79984 is above quota no? This seat is one of those I dislike least in London though acknowledge the difficult in Ealing and Brent in particular due to ward sizes. I do wish at least they would call this Ealing Acton & Shepherds Bush as they did before. Even without Southfield, Acton is the largest element Sorry my mistake, removed post. The new Brentford and Chiswick constituency is good though. The move of the LB of Ealing Southfield ward into the constituency to unite all four Chiswick wards is popular locally. Some have suggested Brentford, Chiswick and Isleworth is a more suitable name and will certainly include that in my response. At the same time Hounslow town is united in one constituency (Feltham and Hounslow) instead of being split between two, which is long overdue. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 17, 2016 13:39:02 GMT
Yes I agree that Brenford & Chicwick is one of my favourite new seats and while it might to some seem odd to have two quite disconnected wards from Ealing to a Hounslow seat it makes perfect sense as Northfield fits better with Brentford than with Ealing in many ways just as Southfield fits better with Chiswick than with Acton
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 17, 2016 15:42:26 GMT
No need to split Southall between constituencies (Southall and Heston) or split Hanwell and West Ealing between three constituencies (Southall and Heston, Ealing Central & Shepherds Bush and Ealing North).
CORRECTED FIGURES
Southall and Heston loses Elthorne and Walpole and gains Dormers Wells and Lady Margaret
77237 – 9276 – 8502 = 59459
+ 9059 + 9625 = 78143
Ealing North loses Dormers Wells and Lady Margaret and gains Elthorne and Walpole
73408 – 9059 – 9625 = 54724
+ 9276 + 8502 = 72502
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,433 
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Sept 18, 2016 8:29:23 GMT
No need to split Southall between constituencies (Southall and Heston) or split Hanwell and West Ealing between three constituencies (Southall and Heston, Ealing Central & Shepherds Bush and Ealing North). Southall and Heston loses Elthorne and Walpole and gains Dormers Wells and Lady Margaret 77237 – 9276 – 8502 = 59459 + 9059 + 8502 = 77020 Ealing North loses Dormers Wells and Lady Margaret and gains Elthorne and Walpole 73408 – 9059 – 9624 = 54725 + 9276 + 8502 = 72503 I like these changes to the Southall/Heston seat although I think you'll find it sums to 78143 (which is still perfectly fine). This actually allows you to keep the BCE's proposals (which I also like) for Feltham & Hounslow (72678) and Brentford & Chiswick (72875) and retain the current Ealing North unaltered (73703), which means the remaining wards of Ealing can form a nice-looking Ealing C & Acton seat coming in just above the minimum with 71087. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 18, 2016 9:16:07 GMT
Thanks, figures now corrected.
But not sure what you mean by retaining the current Ealing North unalterered? It is already losing Northolt wards.
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,433
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Sept 18, 2016 9:27:19 GMT
Right - Apologies for a large map, but this is a Plan B for the whole of north London (ignore the south London bits). My aim to to retain key features from the BCE scheme (which was my starting point), whilst better reflecting local ties and being more respectful of LA boundaries and existing seats. Comments and criticism will be extremely welcome. (The names are sketchy and provisional because I'm prioritizing getting the boundaries right.)  Numbers (working very roughly from west to east) - Feltham and Hounslow - 72678 Brentford and Chiswick - 72875 Southall and Heston - 78143 Ealing Central and Acton - 71087 Ealing North - 73703 Hayes and Harlington - 78097 Uxbridge and Ruislip - 74486 Northwood and Pinner - 78154 Kenton and Stanmore - 77987 Harrow - 72882 Brent Central - 78198 Willesden and Shepherd's Bush - 77279 Hammersmith - 77725 Kensington and Chelsea - 76454 Cities of London and Westminster - 74881 St Pancras and Finsbury - 73813 Maida Vale and West Hampstead - 77975 Hampstead and Golders Green - 74057 Hendon - 75854 Southgate and Finchley - 76842 Barnet - 72580 Enfield - 75302 Edmonton - 72514 Hornsey and Wood Green - 74418 Tottenham - 74648 Stoke Newington and Highbury - 77715 Islington - 73841 Hackney North - 73264 Hackney South and Bethnal Green - 71217 Stepney and Bow - 77814 Poplar and Canning Town - 76390 West Ham and Leyton - 75975 East Ham - 78146 Walthamstow and Leytonstone - 77899 Chingford and Woodford - 71105 Ilford North and Wanstead - 76374 Ilford South - 78212 Barking and Beckton - 73046 Dagenham and Rainham - 77626 Romford - 73566 Hornchurch and Upminster - 78064 |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 18, 2016 9:34:08 GMT
It strikes me that trying to avoid that ugly split in Ruislip - that was in my plan as well - (as well as a cross Heathrow constituency) drove much of the Commission's Far West London proposals, and it might be difficult to dissuade them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 18, 2016 9:39:13 GMT
Certainly a big improvement in Ealing but unfortunately Brent and HArrow is now an even bigger mess. I like the East London plans - only change i'd suggest there is to swap Grive Green and Lea Bridge wards around if the numbers allow it. You've split Hampstead quite badly too.
I think so many problems in London are caused by insisting on treating Kensington & Chelsea as a single seat, just because it happens to be in quota. It would make a modicum of sense if they gave a flying one about LA boundaries in the rest of London, but they clearly don't
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,433
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Sept 18, 2016 10:07:58 GMT
Just to respond to Minion and Pete Whitehead -
Thanks for comments, and I'd agree that the worst part of the plan is its treatment of Harrow / Brent / Ruislip area. If anyone has an improved map for this area, please don't be backward in coming forward. (And Pete - I'm not necessarily averse to splitting K&C, but I'm struggling to see how it helps.)
Elsewhere, I'm reasonably happy with it (I still think Plan A was better, though).
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,433
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Sept 18, 2016 13:59:45 GMT
All right, I've tried to get rid of the awkward treatment of Ruislip and I've come up with:
Uxbridge and Northolt: as the BCE has it - 73814
Ruislip and Pinner: likewise as per BCE - 74037
Kenton and Stamnore: as per my Plan B above, but gaining Harrow Weald and losing Marlborough - 78432
Harrow: the remaining wards of the borough plus Northwick Park from Brent - 77012
Ealing West (as we'd now need to call it): as suggested by Evergreenadam just upthread (he gave the numbers as 72503 but I make it...) - 72502
Ealing East and Acton: as per BCE but without the three wards from H&F and with Alperton and Stonebridge from Brent instead - 72196
Wembley and Neasden: The Brent wards of Sudbury, Wembley C, Preston, Tokyngton, Welsh Harp, Mapesbury and Hills of Barn, Dollis and Dudden; all of which comes in at a mammoth (but just legal) - 78504
Everything else as in my Plan B above.
A few observations if I may regarding this latest iteration:
- It's definitely better in Ruislip and I feel it's OK in Harrow and less horrible in Brent. On the other hand, Ealing is less satisfactory than before.
- It's more borough boundaries crossed
- I've noticed that every revision moves me slightly nearer to the BCE scheme. At the present rate of progress, I estimate I should be 100% aligned with it by the middle of next week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 19, 2016 10:07:59 GMT
I've created some minor revisions to the commission proposals in Barnet and Ealing and some more major changes in Harrow/Brent. This is the area where I made proposals at the last review which were adopted - indeed I think my Wembley seat is exactly the same as then.  IN Ealing I've gone with evergreenadam 's proposal to reunite Southall in the Southall and Heston seat with one slight differene in terms of putting Walpole in what I would call Ealing Acton & Shepherds Bush and Ealing Broadway in Ealing West & Greenford. In Barnet I've just rotated three wards which has the effect of causing less disruption to existing boundaries and better respects community ties. Brunswick Park (which is part of East Barnet) remains with the Chipping Barnet seat rather than Finchley & Southgate and is replaced in that seat by Finchley Church End (because you know I just have this feeling that the centre of Finchley should be in the Finchley seat). Then Mill Hill goes back in with Hendon where it has always been. This seems like a no brainer to me. Then in HArrow and Brent I've gone for a more radical plan relative to the Commission but one that is much less radical in relation to the current boundaries and avoids crossing the borough boundary there twice. Harrow North is basically the current Harrow East less Kenton West and gains Hatch End and Headstone North (in fact the numbers work if it keeps Kenton East and doesn;t take Headstone North so even more minimal change could be achieved but I think this looks better). Harrow South is then the current Harrow West less Headstone North and Rayners Lane, gains Kenton West from Harrow East and the Brent wards of Northwick Park and Sudbury. Wembley is the current Brent NOrth less those two wards and gains Tokyngton (as I say this is actually the Wembley seat which was part of the Commission's excellent revised plan in this area last time) Naturally I wanted to put West Drayton and Yiewsley back in Uxbridge and Northolt with Hayes & Harlington but alas the numbers don't allow it. I think the Uxbridge & Northolt seat could become dicey for Boris in a couple of elections (if Labour ever sort themselves out) as Uxbridge and South Ruislip are becoming increasingly non-White and Northolt is of course well past praying for. I'm generally trying to avoid these kind of considerations and the seat does make a certain amount of sense |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 19, 2016 10:39:29 GMT
Another set of minor changes which is possible and possibly desirable. Move the two Tuffnel Park wards into the Islington South Seat and Holborn and Bloomsbury back into Holborn & St Pancras. Then add the two Finsbury wards to Cities of London & Westminster (which would also need to lose Lancaster Gate (back) to Westminster North or whatever its called). Certainly improves things in Camden reducing the number of borough boundary crossings from 3 to 1. Does look slightly odd with Holborn sitting in a different seat between Finsbury and the West End but Finsbury links well enough with the City
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,433
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Sept 19, 2016 12:05:07 GMT
Pete -
Nice plans.
Regarding the Wembley/Harrow area: your scheme puts the three Kenton wards in three different seats, which seems a shame after the BCE has gone to so much trouble to unite them. So how would you feel about the following adjustments to your plan above?
Wembley: Loses Kenton, gains Sudbury (73417)
Harrow South (or, Harrow South and Kenton): Loses Sudbury and Marlborough, gains Kenton and Kenton East (77622)
Harrow North: Loses Kenton East, gains Marlborough (77822)
Compared with your scheme above, this doesn't involve any additional boundary crossings and it keeps Kenton together, a feature I suspect BCE will be keen to retain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 19, 2016 12:08:51 GMT
I wouldn't be too unhappy with that. I mean Kenton is a bit of a non-area tbh despite having three wards named after it but I take your point. At the very least you could keep the two Harrow Kenton wards together in the way I described and as that maintains the status quo both for Kenton West and Headstone North that might be prefeable
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 19, 2016 12:39:16 GMT
Trying to tinker with the BC plans for South London but it's frankly too much of a mess so I'm for tearing it up and starting again. I can't remember the original plan I posted here way back but guess this is similar. It involves less change from the status quo than their plan and doesn't involve having seats containing wards from three different boroughs  The Richmond/Kingston seats are unchanged Putney gains Fairfield ward from Battersea and Village from Wimbledon Wimbledon then takes the Lower Morden and ST Helier wards from M&M Tooting is unchanged Battersea loses Fairfield and gains the Lambeth wards of Clapham Common and Thornton Vauxhall is unchanged Norwood is the successor to the Dulwich & West Norwood seat but loses all the Southwark wards and gains Streatham hill, Town Hall and Tulse Hill wards from Streatham (which is one of the two abolished seats) Mictham & Streatham then combines the the three southern Streatham wards with six wards of Mitcham (all except Pollards Hill) - This is my least favourite seat in this plan but it is superior to the BC plan because their equivalent takes wards from three boroughs and manages to split Mitcham three ways Sutton & Cheam gains the St Helier ward from C&W Carshalton & Coulsdon (relative to Carshalton & Wallington) loses St Helier and the two Beddington wards and gains Coulsdon and Kenley from Croydon South Croydon West is loosely the succesor to Croydon South, losing the wards mentioned above plus Selsdon and gains Fairfield, Broad Green and the two Beddington wards Croydon East is a little changed Croydon Central, losing Fairfield ward (hence the necessary name change) and gaining Selsdon (there might be a little less disagreement about the partisan effect of these changes!) Croydon North loses Broad Green and gains Pollards Hill Southwark & Bermondset swaps Newington for Faraday with Camberwell & Peckham which also loses Peckham Rye Dulwich & Sydenham is very loosely the Successor to Lewisham West & Penge, losing Penge and Bellingham, gaining Crofton Park, Peckham Rye and the three Dulwich wards Lewisham is Lewisham East less Blackheath plus Lewisham Central and Bellingham Greenwich & Deptford is the successor to Lewisham Deptford, losing Crofton PArk and Lewisham Central, gaining both Blackheath wards and Greenwich West Woolwich is Greenwich & Woolwich less the two Greenwich wards mentioned above (but not Peninsula) and gaining the three wards which are currently in Erith & Thamesmead (which is abolished) Eltham & Welling is the whole of the current Eltham seat plus East Wickham and Falconwood Erith & Crayford is effectively a merger of the greater part of Erith & Thamesmead (the five Bexley wards therein) and Bexleyheath & Crayford though it is the latter which contributes slightly more electors (and this will be a Tory seat, albeit marginal) Bexley & Sidcup loses the two Welling wards to Eltham and gains the Bexleyhwath wards of Brampton, Christchurch and Danson Orpington gains Cray Valley West from Bromley which gains Bromley Common and Hayes from Beckenham which regains the Penge wards for the usual, obvious three whole seat solution in Bromley |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 19, 2016 13:37:00 GMT
Pete - Nice plans. Regarding the Wembley/Harrow area: your scheme puts the three Kenton wards in three different seats, which seems a shame after the BCE has gone to so much trouble to unite them. So how would you feel about the following adjustments to your plan above? Wembley: Loses Kenton, gains Sudbury (73417) Harrow South (or, Harrow South and Kenton): Loses Sudbury and Marlborough, gains Kenton and Kenton East (77622) Harrow North: Loses Kenton East, gains Marlborough (77822) Compared with your scheme above, this doesn't involve any additional boundary crossings and it keeps Kenton together, a feature I suspect BCE will be keen to retain. Having done that on the map now I increasingly like that suggestion. I had thought of renaming the Harrow North seat as I didn't like that name for some reason and I liked the idea of Stanmore being included in a name but didn't think it would work on it's own with all those other areas. Now these changes justify the name Stanmore & Wealdstone and the Harrow South seat can indeed be Harrow & Kenton (I also think this may be a more winnable seat for the Tories than either my original suggestion or the current Harrow West (not sure about that) but as I say I'm trying not to be influenced by such considerations) |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Sept 19, 2016 13:41:19 GMT
Good plans from Pete. I would say it's a certain as it can be that the BCE will be persuaded to keep Bromley as one 3-seat unit. I don't think my ideas are much different although I prefer my Hayes & Northolt, and I've allowed myself to split a few wards, for example to allow Willesden to avoid reaching into Hammersmith. ukelect.wordpress.com/tag/london/ |
|
