|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Oct 1, 2016 18:59:43 GMT
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 1, 2016 19:10:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 1, 2016 20:03:02 GMT
I thought their counter proposal of Wimbledon & Roehampton was a sound idea mathematically, but there is a major flaw geographically: you cannot reach Roehampton from Wimbledon (and vice versa) by train or road directly; you would have to go through 'Putney & Wandsworth'.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 1, 2016 20:16:48 GMT
I thought their counter proposal of Wimbledon & Roehampton was a sound idea mathematically, but there is a major flaw geographically: you cannot reach Roehampton from Wimbledon (and vice versa) by train or road directly; you would have to go through 'Putney & Wandsworth'.
What's wrong with the A219? |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 1, 2016 20:25:24 GMT
Guesses at the Labour proposals. Darker shades are where confident (as the notional is either same as existing seat or Commission seat). I guess there are no divided wards so the first scenario is wrong at Wandsworth. E&OE.
 You haven't noticed that Scenario 2 has a seat in it called "Croydon North & Beddington". |
|
|
|
Post by martinwhelton on Oct 1, 2016 22:20:23 GMT
My understanding is that there is no split wards in either scenario
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 1, 2016 22:21:11 GMT
I thought their counter proposal of Wimbledon & Roehampton was a sound idea mathematically, but there is a major flaw geographically: you cannot reach Roehampton from Wimbledon (and vice versa) by train or road directly; you would have to go through 'Putney & Wandsworth'.
What's wrong with the A219? Even if that road weren't there, this is already often a pathetic complaint when discussing rural areas, but it is ridiculous to moan about a proposed seat in London (of all places!) on that basis. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 1, 2016 22:28:16 GMT
My understanding is that there is no split wards in either scenario Well then scenario 1 has me stumped. |
|
|
|
Post by martinwhelton on Oct 3, 2016 8:06:44 GMT
I thought their counter proposal of Wimbledon & Roehampton was a sound idea mathematically, but there is a major flaw geographically: you cannot reach Roehampton from Wimbledon (and vice versa) by train or road directly; you would have to go through 'Putney & Wandsworth'.
You can join Wimbledon and Roehampton if you include West Hill and Roehampton and Putney Heath. Both those wards are adjacent to Wimbledon wards. Seat could alternatively be called Wimbledon and Putney Heath. You don't have to enter Putney and Wandsworth to go from Wimbledon to Putney. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 7, 2016 10:43:22 GMT
I'm generally happy with my proposals for east London but in the light of Pete's comments about my suggestion for the Leyton area, I've been tinkering further with the areas either side of the lower Lea and I've come up with the following, which I think I'm now going to go with. All changes are compared with the big map I posted on 18 Sep. WALTHAMSTOW - Gains Lea Bridge; loses Grove Green, Leytonstone (and thus 'and Leytonstone' from its name). I'm happy with this, it's a much more solid-looking Walthamstow seat, albeit only just over the minimum. 71280 WEST HAM AND LEYTON - Gains Grove Green, Leytonstone; loses Lea Bridge, Plaistow North. Much better - it keeps Leyton and Leytonstone together and avoids the ugly division of Plaistow that was a feature of my earlier plan (and of the BCE scheme). 74379 POPLAR AND CANNING TOWN - Gains Plaistow North; loses Bromley South. Now contains the whole of Plaistow and none of Bromley-by-Bow. 78073 STEPNEY AND BOW - Gains Bromley South; loses Spitalfields. Contains the whole of Bromley-by-Bow and is generally a more compact shape. 77554 SHOREDITCH AND BETHNAL GREEN - Gains Spitalfields, Dalston; loses Victoria. The swap of Dalston and Victoria wards with the following seat is not strictly necessary but it gets the South Hackney area out of this seat, hence the change of name. 75449 HACKNEY - Gains Victoria, loses Dalston. Now includes South Hackney (the Well Street area), thus losing 'North' from its name. 75824 Moving west, I'm generally happy with the BCE proposals subject to the realignments suggested by Pete Whitehead affecting the Ealing/Southall seats and the Finchley/Barnet area; also, the changes Pete and I hammered out between us for the three seats in the Wembley/Harrow area. In Islington, I think I prefer the BCE proposal to Pete's alternative (sorry, Pete). All this is assuming that the BCE won't be shifted on crossing the Lea between TH and Newham. I think I'm resigned to this.I don't know why you are resigned to this - in the Zombie proposals they originally suggested an Edmonton-Chingford seat, and were persuaded to shift it to the lower Lea. I am not sure why they couldn't be persuaded to do the reverse if the logic was good enough (which I think that most of us on this board believe that it is). Presumably you could submit 2 plans - one with a crossing in each place - this then shows why A is better than B, but allows them to use the good aspects of your overall plan (in for eg West London) if that's your concern? I'm responding to Lennon's kind comments on the Edmonton-Chingford linking in my Plan A, which I uploaded way back on 14 Jun (page 8 if anyone cares to scroll back).
Although, for tactical reasons, I am accepting the BCE's crossing of the lower Lea, I agree with Lennon that, in principle, an Edmonton-Chingford crossing would produce a better map overall - especially in Newham, TH, Hackney, Islington, Westminster, Barnet. On the other hand, I am obliged to concede that farther west, especially in Hounslow and south Hillingdon, the BCE's scheme is definitely better than what I came up with in this area. So I've been having a go at merging the best of the two schemes. What this amounts to is sticking with Plan A (including Edmonton-Chingford) in central and east London, but looking for a different plan for the west and northwest London area (i.e. everything from Hounslow round to Barnet). This area gets 16 seats.
Unfortunately I can't post maps at this computer but I think I can describe the seats clearly. I'll try to post a map later.
We start with an arc of five seats where I accept the BCE's proposals (subject to a few name tweaks).
HAMMERSMITH - 77725 BRENTFORD AND CHISWICK - 72875 HOUNSLOW AND FELTHAM - 72678 HAYES AND HARLINGTON - 78097 UXBRIDGE AND NORTHOLT - 73814. I really like the previous four seats; I'm much less wild about this one, but I'm going along with it because I can't see an alternative that doesn't involve making a complete mess of Ruislip. SOUTHALL AND HESTON - 78143. Compared with the BCE proposal, gains Lady Margaret and Dormers Wells; loses Elthorne and Walpole. This keeps the whole of Southall town together and separates it from the rest of Ealing along the clear dividing-line of the river Brent - a marked improvement on the BCE plan. EALING AND ACTON - 71087. Compared with the BCE's Ealing C & SB, gains Elthorne and Walpole, loses the H&F wards. Only just above the minimum, but I'm very happy with this seat; unlike most other schemes, it keeps the whole of Ealing town centre together (in that respect, a definite improvement on my earlier plans). WILLESDEN SOUTH AND SHEPHERD'S BUSH - 77279. This is borrowed from my Plan A: the four northern wards of H&F and the six wards of SE Brent south of the railway line and as far west as (and including) Harlesden. WILLESDEN NORTH AND WEMBLEY - 78324. The remaining five wards of the BCE's Willesden seat, plus Fryent, Barnhill, Tokyngton, Wembley C. I'm particularly pleased to get Tokyngton, an integral part of Wembley, in the same seat with Wembley C. GREENFORD - 72589. The remaining wards of Ealing plus Alperton and Sudbury from Brent. A bit of a 'what was left over' seat, to be honest, but reasonably compact and serviceable as such seats go. RUISLIP - 74705. As per the BCE's Ruislip &c seat, plus Hatch End and minus Rayners Lane (this ward swap is not strictly necessary - the BCE seat could be taken as is - but in my view it makes the following seat look better). HARROW - 78058. Harrow on the Hill, Greenhill, both Headstone wards, W Harrow, Rayners Lane, and the two Roxes (Bourne and Eth); plus Northwick Park and Preston from Brent. I'm particularly pleased with this one. KENTON AND WEALDSTONE - 78031. Kenton and Queensbury wards from Brent, plus all remaining Harrow wards except Stanmore Park and Canons. This is much less pretty than the previous seat, but it's OK. (And yes, I know I've crossed the Harrow-Brent boundary twice. Sorry.) HENDON AND STANMORE - 75743. The current Hendon seat minus Mill Hill and plus Canons and Stanmore Park. FINCHLEY - 78011. The current Finchley & GG seat plus Mill Hill (i.e. as per my Plan A). BARNET - 72480. The current Chipping Barnet seat (also as per Plan A).
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Oct 9, 2016 18:03:20 GMT
HARROW - 78058. Harrow on the Hill, Greenhill, both Headstone wards, W Harrow, Rayners Lane, and the two Roxes (Bourne and Eth); plus Northwick Park and Preston from Brent. I'm particularly pleased with this one.
I wouldn't be. You've called the seat 'Harrow', despite it containing less than half of the London Borough of Harrow (which appears to go into least two other seats) and managed to include two Brent wards. Annoys me in the same that the BCA proposed 'Ipswich' seat does. It would be reasonable for someone to conclude that a 'Harrow' seat is more or less coterminous with Harrow borough, or that it is broadly a merger of the previous Harrow East and Harrow West seats, neither of which is remotely true. Just silly to use established LA names to describe something that bears little resemblance and I hope that the BCA finally bring themselves to stop doing it so wildly and inconsistently. I look forward to seeing your version of 'England' which cuts off everything North of the Mersey/Humber and west of the Exe, but which includes Newport and Cardiff... |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Oct 9, 2016 18:21:43 GMT
The difference is that Harrow is a place in its own right, separate from the London Borough of Harrow which covers a much larger area.
Should Sutton and Cheam change its name in case people think it contains the whole London Borough of Sutton?
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 10, 2016 10:37:47 GMT
GKR has hit the nail on the head; names of this kind relate to the town, not the LA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 11, 2016 17:28:35 GMT
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,318
|
Post by maxque on Oct 12, 2016 3:07:12 GMT
Is a meeting every 3 months normal? Seems a lot on the low side to me. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 14, 2016 18:19:00 GMT
My understanding is that there is no split wards in either scenario There would have to be split ward(s) in their scenario 1, because otherwise Croydon North would be over the limit. |
|
|
|
Post by David Ashforth on Oct 17, 2016 17:08:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 17, 2016 22:14:55 GMT
I've got copies of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat counter-proposals. Will upload when I have time.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Oct 17, 2016 23:06:18 GMT
I've got copies of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat counter-proposals. Will upload when I have time. I can't wait to see! |
|
swix
Non-Aligned
Posts: 154
|
Post by swix on Oct 18, 2016 15:15:40 GMT
I've got copies of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat counter-proposals. Will upload when I have time. I can't wait to see! I've seen the Labour proposals. They've made a complete mess of West London. There is a Kensington, Chelsea & Fulham seat. Except Fulham Broadway which has been lumped in with Hammersmith. Just weird. |
|
