|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 19, 2016 13:56:09 GMT
Yeah thats a nice plan (plan A) for Middlesex but you've had to split wards. If I split South Ruislip (probably along the line of the Railway) I could incorporate your Uxbridge and your Hayes & Northolt into my plan, which I would dearly love to do, but I think splitting wards is going to be a non-starter especially as in this case the BC plans are not terrible (you can't argue there are not good links Hayes and West Drayton on the one hand and between Uxbridge and Northolt on the other
|
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Sept 19, 2016 14:31:00 GMT
As far as Pete's South London goes - it's a really nice starting point - I had gone a bit mad trying to amend the BCE's version to something coherent without success.
First initial modification would be to remove the 'St Michaels' peninsula in Erith and Crayford by putting Crayford, Barnehurst and Christchurch in the Bexley and Sidcup seat, in exchange for Danson Park and Brampton going the other way. Maybe it's just visually that it looks better, but seems to follow the commuting railway lines slightly better as well.
Second potential modification is in the Clapham area. I would be tempted to rotate the Vauxhall, Battersea and Norwood seats by putting Clapham Town in the Battersea seat, Thornton in the Norwood seat and Coldharbour in the Vauxhall seat. Whilst this no longer keeps Vauxhall unchanged, the Battersea and Clapham seat works really well, and the Vauxhall seat is improved by not splitting Clapham and by including more of Brixton. (Oh, and I am really unconvinced by the Norwood name - I would probably go with 'Tulse Hill' but that's a minor detail...)
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 19, 2016 15:11:47 GMT
You could probably get away with calling it Brixton my boundaries(but not with your suggested changes). I'd go with your boundary changes - originally I did put the two Clapham wards together in Battersea (& Clapham) but after various struggles with neighbouring seats they got moved around. I'd stick with the name Norwood though, purely out of sentimentality
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 19, 2016 15:46:39 GMT
I have realised that a serious problem with my 'Edmonton & Chingford' idea is that the William Girling reservoir forms a wide and substantial barrier between Edmonton and Chingford; only two wards in Enfield properly connect to Chingford and they are Ponders End and Upper Edmonton, and also only by a minor road. Even though there are no direct rail links from Chingford to Woodford there is at least a road link.
Is it possible to maintain the 'Chingford & Woodford (Green)' seat and also avoid redrawing any of the in-quota seats of the London Boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets without splitting wards?
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 19, 2016 15:57:04 GMT
I do not think that the North Circular counts as a minor road.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 19, 2016 15:59:38 GMT
Is it possible to maintain the 'Chingford & Woodford (Green)' seat and also avoid redrawing any of the in-quota seats of the London Boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets without splitting wards? The only option available to you there is to have a seat that combines parts of Walthamstow with parts of Tottenham. Sure it could be done - whether it would be desirable is another matter |
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Sept 19, 2016 16:06:58 GMT
I have realised that a serious problem with my 'Edmonton & Chingford' idea is that the William Girling reservoir forms a wide and substantial barrier between Edmonton and Chingford; only two wards in Enfield properly connect to Chingford and they are Ponders End and Upper Edmonton, and also only by a minor road. Even though there are no direct rail links from Chingford to Woodford there is at least a road link. Is it possible to maintain the 'Chingford & Woodford (Green)' seat and also avoid redrawing any of the in-quota seats of the London Boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets without splitting wards? Well I suppose that in theory at least you could have a cross-Lee seat of Walthamstow and Tottenham... If you take the current Chingford and Woodford Green, and add the Chapel End ward from Walthamstow, and the current Leyton and Wanstead seat and add the Wood Street and Lea Bridge wards from Walthamstow then both those seats are back in quota. You then have the remainder of Walthamstow to add to Northumberland Park, Tottenham Hale, Bruce Grove, Tottenham Green and Seven Sisters. I've not looked at what the implications further afield are as if have to do a Cross-Lea seat North of Hackney then I think that it makes sense to at least do it where the North Circular crosses but it might give you some nice minimum change options in places. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Sept 19, 2016 16:16:33 GMT
In the past I would've argued strongly for a cross-Lea seat at Stratford, and I'm sure the BCE have got one in their plan because they know from the zombie hearings that the crossing higher up is (more) unpopular. But now the numbers mean the argument is much more finely balanced. The disruption to Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham is really quite serious so it depends how strongly the parties argue against the BCE proposals. (I assume the Tories will support them because the effect on Labour is rather amusing...)
As far as Edmonton & Chingford is concerned, it's really not that bad. It's only a few hundred yards of separation, there's two very good roads, and the two communities are kept more or less intact.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 19, 2016 17:00:24 GMT
Yes. Chingford and Edmonton are in no way an ideal pairing, and a seat taking in part of Chingford and part of Edmonton would be pretty horrid. But a seat containing more or less all of both areas does at least have two cohesive parts and that's no worse than plenty of seats that currently exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Sept 19, 2016 18:00:04 GMT
Not sure I'd recommend it but here is a variation on islington 's plan which has a Walthamstow & Tottenham seat.  |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 20, 2016 15:43:52 GMT
Is it possible to maintain the 'Chingford & Woodford (Green)' seat and also avoid redrawing any of the in-quota seats of the London Boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets without splitting wards? The only option available to you there is to have a seat that combines parts of Walthamstow with parts of Tottenham. Sure it could be done - whether it would be desirable is another matter If we're going to purely theoretical options, surely it's also possible to avoid crossing the Lea at all by crossing the Thames twice.  |
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Sept 20, 2016 15:56:42 GMT
The only option available to you there is to have a seat that combines parts of Walthamstow with parts of Tottenham. Sure it could be done - whether it would be desirable is another matter If we're going to purely theoretical options, surely it's also possible to avoid crossing the Lea at all by crossing the Thames twice. See my previous suggestions for a 'Woolwich Reach' seat...  |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Sept 21, 2016 18:14:38 GMT
I knew I'd proposed a Stratford-and-Bow seat at the zombie review, but I hadn't looked back at the whole plan till now. ukelect.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/north-east-london/ There's certainly a lot in common with the Commission's latest proposals in Newham, Ilford, Tower Hamlets and Hackney. Interesting couple of comments too. |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Sept 25, 2016 10:33:46 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 Looking at Pete's south London plan above, I'm with him (almost) all the way regarding SE London: the only changes I'd make to his proposal are (i) I'd definitely swap Ladywell and Lee Green wards so as to keep Ladywell in a seat with Lewisham Central, whilst also avoiding a boundary down the middle of Lee High Road (and BCE too has proposed this); and (ii) I'd probably get rid of the 'St Michael's salient' in the Sidcup seat by putting St Michael's and Danson Park into Erith in exchange for Barnehurst and Crayford (thus admittedly creating something of a 'Danson Park salient' instead, but on balance, I feel this is preferable). In SW London, however, while I completely agree about getting rid of the three-borough seat the BCE has proposed, I'm not comfortable with Pete's division of Clapham, nor with his separating the Village ward of Wimbledon and Streatham Hill from the seats to which they rightly belong, and I don't think Beddington will be happy with its placement in a Croydon seat. I'm still actually pretty happy with my Plan A for SW London, posted back on 14 Jun (see p8 upthread). But I recognise that no one liked my suggestion of including Roehampton with Wimbledon rather than Putney. So I played around on BA to try to find a scheme that - keeps Roehampton with Putney and Village with Wimbledon
- avoids dividing Clapham, Streatham and Mitcham as proposed by Pete andor the BCE
- maintains the great advantage of Pete's scheme of having no triborough seat and of avoiding any crossing of the Lambeth/Southwark boundary and the Croydon/Bromley boundary
- keeps Beddington in a Carshalton seat.
And I came up with this. I admit one or two of the seats look weird, but it ticks all the boxes.  Putney - 76842 Tooting (unchanged, as in Pete's scheme) - 71428 Battersea - 78155 Streatham and Clapham - 71395 Brixton and Vauxhall - 72108 Wimbledon - 78228 Mitcham - 72812 Croydon North and Norwood - 76208 Croydon Central - 72750 Croydon South - 72663 Carshalton and Coulsdon - 72053 Sutton and Cheam - 74738 Comments welcome. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 25, 2016 11:43:29 GMT
Yes thats a pretty good plan and would work without making any changes to my SE London*. The Battersea one is a bit weird with the inclusion of two non-contiguous Lambeth wards. Presumably the numbers didn't allow a neater arrangement around here?
*I'd be happy enough to go with the changes suggested for Lewisham but would sooner not with Bexley
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 25, 2016 12:07:20 GMT
I'd put the two Clapham wards with Battersea, Larkhall and Herne Hill to VAuxhall, Ferndale and Thornton to Streatham
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,434
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Sept 25, 2016 12:24:08 GMT
I'd put the two Clapham wards with Battersea, Larkhall and Herne Hill to VAuxhall, Ferndale and Thornton to Streatham Yes, that's probably better. But what about putting Herne Hill in Streatham instead of Ferndale? I agree it's not a very natural fit but it avoids putting a boundary right down the middle of Brixton Road. (All these options are fine on numbers.) |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 25, 2016 13:15:41 GMT
I'd put the two Clapham wards with Battersea, Larkhall and Herne Hill to VAuxhall, Ferndale and Thornton to Streatham Yes, that's probably better. But what about putting Herne Hill in Streatham instead of Ferndale? I agree it's not a very natural fit but it avoids putting a boundary right down the middle of Brixton Road. (All these options are fine on numbers.) I did go for that initially but then noticed the bit where people actually live is almost completely separated from the rest of the seat by Brockwell Park. I guess Brixton has gotten used to being split every which way by now (even when there was a Brixton constituency it excluded large parts of Brixton ) |
|
|
|
Post by luckyllama on Sept 25, 2016 16:43:06 GMT
I have realised that a serious problem with my 'Edmonton & Chingford' idea is that the William Girling reservoir forms a wide and substantial barrier between Edmonton and Chingford; only two wards in Enfield properly connect to Chingford and they are Ponders End and Upper Edmonton, and also only by a minor road. Even though there are no direct rail links from Chingford to Woodford there is at least a road link. Is it possible to maintain the 'Chingford & Woodford (Green)' seat and also avoid redrawing any of the in-quota seats of the London Boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets without splitting wards? No need to do this, or combine Chingford with Edmonton, or with Tottenham. Or with Redbridge. Just divide LBWF in two with Chingford in the North and Leyton & Walthamstow in the South. There may be one ward left over that would still go into the Forest Gate seat. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 25, 2016 17:28:37 GMT
I have realised that a serious problem with my 'Edmonton & Chingford' idea is that the William Girling reservoir forms a wide and substantial barrier between Edmonton and Chingford; only two wards in Enfield properly connect to Chingford and they are Ponders End and Upper Edmonton, and also only by a minor road. Even though there are no direct rail links from Chingford to Woodford there is at least a road link. Is it possible to maintain the 'Chingford & Woodford (Green)' seat and also avoid redrawing any of the in-quota seats of the London Boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets without splitting wards? No need to do this, or combine Chingford with Edmonton, or with Tottenham. Or with Redbridge. Just divide LBWF in two with Chingford in the North and Leyton & Walthamstow in the South. There may be one ward left over that would still go into the Forest Gate seat. Sorry to appear ruder than I actually am, but what part about "avoid redrawing any of the in-quota seats of the London Boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets" did you not understand? (Apart from the fact that your "Chingford", like the zombie review's, includes almost half of Walthamstow?) |
|
