|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 26, 2016 23:08:56 GMT
You want to recreate Mersey Banks!? That's even worse. In fairness, at least there's a genuine river crossing - both Ferry and DLR - where I'm suggesting (Woolwich), so they aren't totally discontinuous. And also which had a seat crossing the river there up until 1974. But I find it hard to believe a cross Thames seat here would be proposed, let alone survive the enquiry stage. Crossing the Lea isn't ideal but far more sellable. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 27, 2016 10:14:08 GMT
I'm sure that the carving up of McDonnell's seat is entirely coincidental  Definitely a complete coincidence that the existing seats of Islington North BC and Hackney North and Stoke Newington BC have been carved up and merged. Nothing whatsoever to do with the identity of their current representatives. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 27, 2016 14:06:41 GMT
Adam Gray is never going to win prizes for subtlety, but I don't think his carve-up of Hayes & Harlington would even succeed in its aim.
|
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961 
|
Post by mondialito on Feb 27, 2016 14:19:29 GMT
If those are the boundaries in West London, that will lead to an epic selection bunfight. I would imagine someone (Pound, Sharma?) would choose retirement instead to ease the bloodletting.
|
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961
|
Post by mondialito on Feb 27, 2016 14:23:07 GMT
I'm sure that the carving up of McDonnell's seat is entirely coincidental Definitely a complete coincidence that the existing seats of Islington North BC and Hackney North and Stoke Newington BC have been carved up and merged. Nothing whatsoever to do with the identity of their current representatives. If the current incumbents are still 'high-profile' come selection, surely they won't have any problems with selection? Although, if he isn't leader by then, maybe Corbyn won't seek selection. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 14:55:16 GMT
68 seats allocated Barking & Dagenham 1.49 Barnet 2.79 Brent 2.44 Camden 1.74 Ealing 2.79 Enfield 2.57 Hackney 1.98 Hammersmith & Fulham 1.41 Haringey 1.89 Harrow 2.15 Havering 2.37 Hillingdon 2.46 Hounslow 2.13 Islington 1.79 Kensington & Chelsea 1.02 Newham 2.27 Redbridge 2.38 Tower Hamlets 2.02 Waltham Forest 2.08 Westminster 1.49 City of London 0.08 Richmond (north of Thames) 1.05 NORTH LONDON 42.39 (42) Bexley 2.21 Bromley 3.02 Croydon 3.13 Greenwich 2.15 Kingston upon Thames 1.40 Lambeth 2.52 Lewisham 2.24 Merton 1.74 Richmond (south of Thames) 0.65 Southwark 2.50 Sutton 1.82 Wandsworth 2.69 SOUTH LONDON 26.08 (26) The North / South split seems to work out well, Twickenham just sneaks in under the quota and can remain unchanged with no need for a cross-Thames seat. South London Richmond South of Thames, Wandsworth, Merton = 5.08 (5) Lambeth, Southwark = 4.02 (4) Kingston, Sutton, Croydon, Bromley, Bexley, Greenwich, Lewisham = 16.98 (17) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 14:56:26 GMT
I hope to God they suggest "Putney Bridge" and "Woolwich Reach" Putney / Fulham is one of the best places to cross. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 27, 2016 14:58:32 GMT
I've now worked my way around the whole of London and have a plan I'm reasonably happy with overall, despite one or two blots on the landscape that I either couldn't avoid or decided were less horrible than the alternatives. Compered with Adam Gray's ingenious plan, I've stuck much more closely to existing seat patterns where this is possible. I'm afraid I've no idea how to draw pretty maps so it will have to be a verbal description. I'll divide it into chunks for ease of uploading and general manageability. I'll start with East London: the boroughs of B&D, Enfield, Havering, Newham, Redbridge, WF. This area gets a total of 13 seats, which I'll describe by reference to the existing seats.
1 - ENFIELD (75302): This is the same as the existing Enfield North with the addition of Grange, which avoids the current boundary running right through the town centre.
2 - SOUTHGATE AND PALMERS GREEN (72338): This is Enfield Southgate minus Grange and plus Bush Hill Park and Haselbury.
3 - EDMONTON AND CHINGFORD (76201): I thought I'd better get this monster out of the way near the start; it's the five remaining wards of Enfield plus the WF wards of Chingford Green, Endlebury, Larkswood and Valley. The only defence of this seat is that it avoids worse problems elsewhere, and I'd point out that there are two road links (A110 and A406) between the two halves.
4 - WALTHAMSTOW (71586): The present seat minus Lea Bridge but plus Hale End and Hatch Lane.
5 - LEYTON AND WANSTEAD (76464): The present seat plus Lea Bridge and Church End - it'sd unfortunate to have to push this seat into the Woodford area but it's currently well short of quota and the extra numbers have to come from somewhere.
6 - ILFORD NORTH AND WOODFORD (75705): The present Ilford North seat plus Monkham (this addition means it now contains about three-quarters of the town of Woodford, hence the change of name).
7 - ILFORD SOUTH (78212): No change. It is a particularly compact and logical seat and within quota.
8 - HORNCHURCH AND UPMINSTER (78064): No change.
9 - ROMFORD (73566): The current seat minus Hylands and plus two B&D wards of Chadwell Heath and Whalebone.
10 - DAGENHAM AND RAINHAM (77626): The current seat minus Chadwell Heath and Whalebone but plus Hylands, Alibon and Valence.
11 - BARKING (76730): The current seat minus Alibon and Valence but plus the two Newham wards of East Ham North and Wall End. It's necessary to remove two wards from Newham and unfortunately the configuration of numbers and boundaries is extremely unhelpful; I can't see a better option than taking these two wards (I'm open to suggestions).
12 - EAST HAM (78300): The current seat minus East Ham North, Wall End, Beckton and Royal Docks. The unavoidable omission of the ward of East Ham North leaves this as a really ugly-looking seat (but still better than Mersey Banks of blessed memory).
13 - WEST HAM (74312): The current seat with Beckton and Royal Docks added but minus Green Street west and the two Forest Gate wards - the rest of Newham, in other words.
Comments welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 27, 2016 15:41:51 GMT
I'm on a roll, so let me press on with the next batch, covering central London: Camden, Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Tower Hamlets, Westminster (and the City). There are 12 seats for this area; for some of these, where there are far-reaching changes, I'll depart from the practice of using current seats as a point of reference.
14 - POPLAR AND LIMEHOUSE (74283): The current seat unchanged except for a minor realignment to fit new ward boundaries.
15 - BETHNAL GREEN AND BOW (76868): Ditto. It's really pleasing to have kept two whole seats for TH and to have left existing seats virtually undisturbed. This is where we get the benefit from the Edmonton - Chingford monstrosity.
16 - HACKNEY SOUTH (73026): Unchanged except for realignment to new wards.
17 - HACKNEY NORTH (75318): Ditto. Disturbing TH would have knock-on consequences in Hackney, so this borough also benefits from the Edmonton-Chingford arrangement.
18 - TOTTENHAM (74638): The existing seat plus Stroud Green.
19 - HORNSEY AND WOOD GREEN (74275): The existing seat is logical and compact and within quota, but it has to be disturbed to find some extra voters for Tottenham. It thus loses Stroud Green but gains the Highgate ward from Camden (this goes with the Highgate ward of Haringey, which is already in the seat, thus avoiding the current boundary through the middle of Highgate).
20 - ISLINGTON NORTH (77247): The current seat plus Canonbury. Corbyn fans can breathe again.
21 - ISLINGTON SOUTH AND HOLBORN (74997): The current Islington South and Finsbury seat minus Canonbury but plus the Bloomsbury, Holborn & CG and King's Cross wards from Camden.
22 - HAMPSTEAD (72659): This is more or less the successor to the current Hampstead and Kilburn seat but it's easier to describe it as the ten Camden wards that aren't required for Hornsey or Islington South (seats 19 and 21 above) or Marylebone (seat 23 below). Actually a fairly logical and compact seat, I'm quite pleased with it.
23 - MARYLEBONE AND ST PANCRAS (76149): This could be regarded as the successor of Westminster North. It consists of the five 'Marylebone' wards of Westminster (i.e. north of Oxford Street and east of the Edgware Road) plus the three wards (Hyde Park, Little Venice, Maida Vale) immediately west of the Edgware Road; the seat is completed by four Camden wards (Camden Town & PH, Cantelowes, St Pancras & ST, Regent's Park - basically, the Camden town area).
24 - CITIES OF LONDON AND WESTMINSTER (72917): The rest of Westminster and the City. It is acknowledged that this seat has a long 'tail' stretching up through Bayswater and along the Harrow Road, but I couldn't find a better configuration for these north Westminster wards.
25 - KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA (76454): The whole borough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 27, 2016 15:44:31 GMT
I admire your attempt to gerrymander Cities of London and Westminster into a marginal, but that arrangement isn't going to work.
FWIW my notionals for the 2015 election in that proposed Two Cities:
C 20,654 (44.5%)
Lab 18,322 (39.4%)
L Dem 2,668 (5.7%)
UKIP 2,252 (4.8%)
GP 2,187 (4.7%)
Oths 366 (0.8%)
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 27, 2016 15:46:22 GMT
13 - WEST HAM (74312): The current seat with Beckton and Royal Docks added but minus Green Street west and the two Forest Gate wards - the rest of Newham, in other words. Erm where do those three wards go? (I've lived in all of them.) |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 27, 2016 17:10:41 GMT
As things stand, they go into East Ham. But I'm open to other permutations for the two Newham seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 28, 2016 11:01:47 GMT
I've been looking further at the Newham problem and I have a modification to my earlier proposal. It's possible to produce a better fit in Newham itself, with less disruption to existing boundaries (although the numbers are very tight) by simply moving Green Street West from West Ham to East Ham. But it's still necessary to switch two wards from East Ham into the Barking seat, and on reflection I feel that my previous suggestion of Wall End and East Ham North is really ugly both on the map and on the ground. Both these wards really belong in an East Ham seat so instead the 'least worst' option is to take Beckton and Royal Docks. Communications with the rest of Barking are poor (there's the A13 and that's it) but it looks better on the map and the revised Newham seats are far better. So we have:
11 - BARKING AND BECKTON (73046): The current Barking seat minus Alibon and Valence but plus the two Newham wards of Beckton and Royal Docks.
12 - EAST HAM (78146): The current seat plus Green Street West but minus Beckton and Royal Docks.
13 - WEST HAM (78150): The current seat minus Green Street West.
|
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Feb 28, 2016 11:34:22 GMT
You could remove Beckton and Royal Docks to Woolwich... There is as much connection as there is to Barking.  (Will try and create a sensible East London plan in due course to include my Woolwich Reach seat to see if it genuinely helps as much everywhere as I think that it should do) |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 28, 2016 12:46:18 GMT
And now, the eagerly-awaited third instalment of my plan for London. This covers a large swathe of seven boroughs generally on the west side of London: Barnet, Brent, Ealing, H&F, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow. They get a total of 16 seats. I had to make some big changes in this area so it won't always be practical to define the new seat in terms of existing ones.
Incidentally, fans of Boris Johnson, or indeed of John McDonnell, should look away now.
26 - CHIPPING BARNET (72480): No change.
27 - FINCHLEY AND GOLDERS GREEN (78011): The current seat plus Mill Hill.
28 - HENDON (74408): The current seat minus Mill Hill but plus the Harrow wards of Canons and Edgware.
29 - HARROW EAST (78141): The current seat less Canons and Edgware but plus Greenhill and Marlborough and also plus the Brent ward of Queensbury. (The Harrow ward of the same name is already in the seat. This announcement is brought to you by the Popular Front for the Unification of Queensbury.)
30 - HARROW WEST (76393): The current seat minus Greenhill and Marlborough but plus the three Harrow wards currently in the Ruislip seat.
31 - KINGSBURY (76525): To some extent this is the successor of Brent North but I've changed the name because of the radical alteration and because (if this matters) quite a lot of the seat is now south of the River Brent. It consists of the nine Brent wards of Barnhill, Dollis Hill, Dudden Hill, Fryent, Kenton, Mapesbury, Northwick Park, Preston, Welsh Harp. The name is a problem: although the seat works well on the map and on the ground, it has no obvious centre. 'Willesden North and Kingsbury' might be an alternative name. Or fans of 'Private Eye' might prefer 'Neasden'.
32 - WILLESDEN AND SHEPHERD'S BUSH (77279): This is not the successor of any seat: it takes in parts of Brent Central, Hammersmith and Hampstead and Kilburn. Specifically, it consists of the three Brent wards currently in Hampstead and Kilburn, plus the further three Brent wards of Harlesden, Kensal Green and Willesden Green, plus the four northernmost wards of Hammersmith and Fulham (Askew, College Park & Old Oak, Shepherd's Bush Green, Wormholt & White City). If the previous seat is called Willesden North then this would become 'Willesden South and Shepherd's Bush'.
33 - WEMBLEY AND PERIVALE (73160): Again, not the successor of any current seat: it takes the five remaining wards of Brent (Alperton, Stonebridge, Sudbury, Tokyngton, Wembley Central) plus three from Ealing (Cleveland, Hanger Hill, Perivale). I'm happy to defend this creation: it has a very clear focus in Wembley, and I don't think it's possible to get a satisfactory fit without a seat straddling the Brent-Ealing border. Admittedly the seat protrudes further into Ealing that I'd ideally like, especially Cleveland ward, but this allows the creation of more coherent seats in the rest of Ealing (for instance, this seat would look better if it took North Greenford ward instead of Cleveland, but this would mean dividing the Greenford area).
34 - HAMMERSMITH (77725): All the remaining wards of H&F after removing the four in seat 32 above.
35 - EALING AND ACTON (77716): The current seat minus Hanger Hill but plus Northfield (which fits much better in this seat that in its current position as a peninsula of Southall) and alsp plus the Turnham Green ward from Hounslow.
36 - SOUTHALL AND HESTON (77965): Not really the successor of any current seat: four Ealing wards (Dormers Wells, Norwood Green, Southall Broadway, Southall Green) plus the three Heston wards from Hounslow as well as (unfortunately, but there's nowhere else to put it) Hounslow West. This seat reflects the very awkward size and configuration of Hounslow wards, meaning that they need to be linked with wards from elsewhere. But at least it keeps Heston together, and the split in Hounslow town centre is no worse than on the existing boundaries.
37 - GREENFORD (73417): This is the successor of Ealing North, compared with which it loses Cleveland and Perivale and gains Lady Margaret and (from Hillingdon) Yeading. I think the name change is justified; the loss of Cleveland and Hanger Hill moves the seat well away from the town of Ealing, and Greenford is very much at its centre. The inclusion of Yeading is not ideal, but overall I'm pleased with this seat.
38 - RUISLIP AND NORTHWOOD (72471): Compared with the current seat, it loses the three Harrow wards (and thus the 'Pinner' element in the name) and gains Cavendish, Manor and South Ruislip. These three wards fit much better here than in their current location in the Uxbridge seat; in fact, my proposal is all-round a marked improvement in what we have now.
39 - UXBRIDGE AND HAYES (77455): Compared with the current Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat, it loses three wards to the previous seat and gains four: Barnhill, Botwell, Charville, Townfield. This means it includes most of the town of Hayes, hence the name change. Unfortunately Yeading cannot be accommodated and has to go in the Greenford seat (no. 37 above). Even so, I am very happy with this as a compact and well-defined constituency. I also relish the prospect of a Celebrity Deathmatch between BoJo and John McDonnell, although in practice I imagine they'd both take the chicken run to safer territory.
40 - FELTHAM (73036): As mentioned earlier (see seat 36), Hounslow wards are awkward and it's necessary to cross the borough boundary. The five wards west of the River Crane are a particular problem: they cannot be accommodated in a seat wholly within Hounslow, so the choices are to disrupt Twickenham, which I'm anxious to avoid, or to find additional voters in Hillingdon on the other side of Heasthrow Airport. I've gone for the latter option. Compared with the existing Feltham and Heston seat, the three Heston wards and Hounslow West are replaced by three wards from Hillingdon: Heathrow Villages, Pinkwell and West Drayton. It's not ideal, but I'd point out that the retention of Cranford ward within this seat means that internal communications are possible.
41 - BRENTFORD AND ISLEWORTH (73459): This is the current seat minus Turnham Green, which has the effect of making what is already a long, spindly constituency even longer and spindlier, but it brings it within quota.
Just a quick note on the Hounslow/Ealing area: I feel there may be a solution that invloves keeping Hounslow town together and adding Heston, while uniting Acton, Brentford and Chiswick to the west. These look good on the map and are within quota; but the consequence is a seat uniting Southall and Ealing town centre, and I can't get this to fit. Moreover, this pattern of seats, although satisfactory on its own merits, is much more disruptive of existing seats than my proposal above, which at least respects (more or less) the existing seats of Ealing & Acton and Brentford & Isleworth.
Apologies for a long post.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 28, 2016 15:25:09 GMT
Sorry, my error above. Seat 36 should read:
36 - SOUTHALL AND HESTON (77965): Not really the successor of any current seat: five Ealing wards (Dormers Wells, Elthorne, Norwood Green, Southall Broadway, Southall Green) plus the three Heston wards from Hounslow as well as (unfortunately, but there's nowhere else to put it) Hounslow West. This seat reflects the very awkward size and configuration of Hounslow wards, meaning that they need to be linked with wards from elsewhere. But at least it keeps Heston together, and the split in Hounslow town centre is no worse than on the existing boundaries.
(Note that the electorate was correct so this doesn't have any knock-on effects elsewhere.)
|
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Feb 29, 2016 13:06:12 GMT
OK - So I think that I have a reasonable plan for Metropolitan Essex (those seats East of the Lea and North of the Thames) to accommodate my desired 'Woolwich Reach': West Ham / East Ham: As indicated by islington above - both minimal change, very clean seats. Woolwich Reach: Beckton & Royal Docks wards of Newham combines with part of Greenwich for a cross-Thames seat. Argueably there are better community and transport links across the Thames, than with the alternative of combining them with Barking, and there are historic connections as well. (pre 1974 there was a cross Thames seat here). Also enables you to avoid a cross-Lea seat, with no material disadvantage to these 2 wards. Chingford and Walthomstow North / Leyton and Walthomstow South: With no need for a cross Lea seat, Waltham Forest has a clean split to 2 seats. Adjust names and exact split to taste. Ilford South: (78,212) Unchanged. This is is very clean seat, and still in quota. Wanstead and Woodford: (~78,326) This takes the rest of Redbridge Borough with the exception of 2 and a half rural / Hainault wards (Hainault, Fairlop, half of Aldborough). This is a quite altered successor to Ilford North if anything, but is a clean single-Borough seat centered on the Roding Valley. Aldborough ward split is unfortunate, but required for the numbers, and I would think could be done fairly cleanly (down the Horns road?). Barking and Dagenham: (78,333) With no Newham wards added to Barking, it instead takes River and Village wards from Dagenham as a reasonably natural extension, and potential adds them to the name as well. It loses Valence. Hornchurch and Rainham: (77,874) Whilst it is very tempting to keep the existing Hornchurch and Upminster seat, it causes too many problems elsewhere. Instead you take the existing seat and add the 3 'Rainham' wards (that portion of Havering Borough currently in the Dagenham and Rainham seat) and remove the 3 'Harolds' wards (Gooshays, Heaton and Harold Wood). This shifts the seat South, but maintains both Hornchurch and Upminster together. If anything this is a better seat than previously as you now combine Hornchurch with South Hornchurch into which it naturally flows. Hainault Forest and Haroldswood: (or if you are being very doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ then 'Forests of Hainault and Harold' but that's possibly a bit far...) (~76,460) This is a potentially controversial new cross-Borough seat across Redbridge and Havering. It takes the 2.5 'Hainault' wards previously in Ilford North, the 3 'Haroldswood' wards previously in Hornchurch and Upminster, and Havering Park, Mawneys and 3/4 of Pettits ward from Romford. (I suggest the portion of Pettits ward south of the A12 and west of the stream stays behind, but am not sure exactly where the elector numbers lie in the ward. Reasonable communication across the seat (A12 forms a boundary to most of it) and similar interests (Rural London Fringe) means that this is hopefully less controversial than it might at first appear, but thoughts appreciated. Romford: (~ 77,700) Another cross-Borough seat; this takes the previous Romford seat, less those northern wards moved to Hainault and Haroldswood above, and then adds those wards of Barking and Dagenham which appear to more naturally look to Romford anyway. (Chadwell Heath, Whalebone, Valence, Heath, Eastbrook) |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 29, 2016 13:50:24 GMT
The London plan: episode 4 (of 5) – Southwest London
This covers seven boroughs: Croydon, Kingston, Lambeth, Merton, Richmond, Sutton, Wandsworth. They get a total of 15 seats.
42 – TWICKENHAM (78247): No change.
43 – RICHMOND PARK (74740): No change.
44 – KINGSTON AND SURBITON (77995): No change.
45 – WANDSWORTH AND PUTNEY (72359): The existing Putney seat is much too small, so much so that adding a single additional ward (Fairfield) is insufficient, but adding Earlsfield as well takes it above quota so the seat has to lose the relatively small Roehampton and Putney Heath ward from the western end to get the numbers to work. The resulting seat now contains Wandsworth town centre and so much territory east of the Wandle that I feel it’s impossible to keep Wandsworth out of the name.
46 – TOOTING (71051): The current Tooting seat is within quota but has lost Earlsfield so it needs to be compensated with the slightly smaller Balham ward to keep it (just) above the minimum of 71031. This is an improvement on the ground because it unites Balham ward with Bedford and Nightingale wards, which both contain large parts of Balham.
47 – BATTERSEA AND CLAPHAM (77177): This is the successor of the Battersea seat, which is already below quota and has lost the Balham and Fairfield wards. It is compensated by the Clapham Common and Clapham Town wards from Lambeth (thus uniting the whole of Clapham in a single seat) plus Larkhall ward of Lambeth to make up the numbers. I’m very happy with this as a solid and logical cross-border constituency.
48 – VAUXHALL AND BRIXTON (72108): The current Vauxhall seat is actually within quota, but having lost Clapham Town and Larkhall to the previous seat, it needs to be compensated and this is done by adding Coldharbour and Herne Hill wards. This means Brixton town centre (well, most of it) is now within the seat, hence the change of name.
49 – CROYDON NORTH AND NORWOOD (76208): This is more or less the successor to the current Croydon North seat, and it is the first of several seats that will link Croydon wards with parts of adjacent boroughs. This is necessary because Croydon ward electorates are such that no combination of seven wards can reach the lower limit, while any contiguous eight will exceed the upper limit (unless they contain the two smaller wards on New Addington). As an example, the current Croydon North seat (eight wards) is over size so it loses its three eastern wards of Broad Green, Norbury and West Thornton and gains the three slightly smaller Lambeth wards of Gipsy Hill, Knight’s Hill, and Thurlow Park. The resulting seat makes sense both on the map and on the ground; it has the merit of uniting the various parts of Norwood (South, Upper, West) in a single seat.
50 – STREATHAM (71756): The existing Streatham seat has lost Clapham Common (see seat no. 47 above) and is slightly below quota in any case. The addition of the Norbury ward from Croydon gets it back up to size as well as helping to address the Croydon problem. I’m particularly pleased with this effort; Norbury is a much more natural addition to Streatham than Clapham Common, and the proposed seat reflects the fact that lines of communication in this part of London run north-south (rather than the east-west seat the Commission proposed for this area in the zombie review).
51 – MITCHAM AND MORDEN (76479): The existing undersize seat is brought within quota by the addition of a Croydon ward, West Thornton. This allows a familiar and long-established seat to continue in being otherwise unchanged.
52 – WIMBLEDON (71744): Likewise, the only thing wrong with the existing Wimbledon seat is that it is under size and this is remedied by adding the Roehampton & PH ward that was left over from the adjustments to Wandsworth (seat no. 45 above).
53 – SUTTON AND CHEAM (75244): Again, this is a familiar seat that is under size. This is rectified by adding St Helier ward (the Sutton version, not the ward of the same name in Merton).
54 – CARSHALTON AND WALLINGTON (74412): The existing seat, already too small, is further reduced by the loss of St Helier. It also loses Beddington South ward (see seat no. 55 below). For the loss of these two small Sutton wards it is compensated by the addition of two much bigger Croydon wards, Broad Green and Waddon, which bring it back within quota. I acknowledge that this is not especially pretty, and these changes (especially the inclusion of Broad Green) push the seat a long way into Croydon (indeed there’s a case for renaming it ‘Croydon West and Carshalton’) but they avoid more fundamental changes elsewhere. (I have an alternative arrangement that I set out at the end.)
55 – CROYDON SOUTH (76301): The existing seat is too big but it can be brought within quota by simply exchanging Waddon for the much smaller Sutton ward of Beddington South (this is definitely the best Sutton ward to take: it consists of some villages south of Beddington but the town proper lies wholly in the Beddington North ward, so it is not divided by this proposal as the ward names might imply).
56 – CROYDON CENTRAL (74571): Unchanged. (Note that its eight wards include the two small ones in New Addington, hence it is within quota).
Finally, I promised an alternative arrangement for the Croydon/Carshalton area. I recognise that the inclusion of Broad Green and Waddon in a Carshalton seat will be highly controversial. But avoiding it means significant changes to the existing pattern of seats. The best option I can see is:
54 – CARSHALTON AND COULSDON (74882): Compared with the existing seat, Carshalton loses St Helier (to Sutton, as above) and both Beddington wards, and gains the three Croydon wards of Coulsdon East, Coulsdon West and Kenley.
55 – CROYDON SOUTH (72559): The current seat undergoes major surgery, losing the Coulsdons and Kenley and also Waddon, whilst gaining Fieldway, Heathfield, New Addington and Shirley.
56 – CROYDON CENTRAL (77803): Again, major changes to a seat than could have been left unaltered – having lost four wards as above to Croydon South, it gains Broad Green and Waddon plus the Beddington wards from Sutton.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 29, 2016 14:03:05 GMT
56 – CROYDON CENTRAL (74571): Unchanged. (Note that its eight wards include the two small ones in New Addington, hence it is within quota). It is bizarre that New Addington is in a constituency called "Croydon Central". A trip there proves Sherlock Holmes wrong - you can find trams running through the countryside. Maybe a name modification is in order? |
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Feb 29, 2016 14:37:10 GMT
The London plan: episode 4 (of 5) – Southwest London 52 – WIMBLEDON (71744): Likewise, the only thing wrong with the existing Wimbledon seat is that it is under size and this is remedied by adding the Roehampton & PH ward that was left over from the adjustments to Wandsworth (seat no. 45 above). Hmm... I can see why you've done it, but that Roehampton and PH ward really doesn't fit with the remainder of Wimbledon in my view - there is a total disconnect caused by being separate sides of the common, and no real lines of communication within the seat. Could you not just split the Earlsfield ward in half instead? (so R & PH stays in Putney, Earlsfield N of the railway moves to Putney, and Earlsfield S of the railway moves to Wimbledon). (Not sure of exact elector numbers on the ground, but it's not going to be that far off) |
|
