Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 20:16:05 GMT
I've now read the London report and very much to my surprise, I have to acknowledge that it's perfectly true that I get name-checked a lot. Nothing in the Commission's dealings had led me to expect this; when I made myself known and spoke to them at a couple of hearings, they were entirely pleasant and civil but did not appear to engage in any meaningful way. But as it turns out, they've adopted my suggestions across large swathes of London. Since I have no special political connexions or any sort of inside track to the Commission, I conclude that it is after all true that they pay attention to suggestions from members of the public. Who thought? So yes, in response to points raised on the general 2018 thread, I do accept a share of responsibility for the revised proposals in Harrow. I agree the Harrow South seat looks awkward on the map, but it keeps the modern town centre of Harrow in the same seat as the ancient village, it keeps Kenton and Queensbury together, and it's the only seat crossing the Harrow/Brent boundary. These advantages, I feel, outweigh its somewhat straggling appearance. I'm very pleased they adopted my suggested Paddington seat. For some strange reason they called it 'Kilburn' instead, which makes no sense at all, but (I remind myself) boundaries are more important than names. I'm also very happy with their changes in inner east London, where the original proposals were a terrible mess. I can't claim sole credit for this set of changes because some elements were also proposed by the Labour and Tory submissions - but the main thing is that we now have a much better map. The revised scheme south of the river is also a big improvement. All in all, a far better scheme across London as a whole. Even allowing for the fact that the Chipping Barnet and Finchley/Southgate seats are a complete mess - worse than the initial proposals and not what I suggested at all. Edited to add: And, of course, it's all vanity because it's going to get voted down anyway. Meaning there won't be boundary changes until 2027 at the earliest. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Oct 17, 2017 21:12:37 GMT
No question that London as a whole is much better than the original proposals, and better than my try (which I didn't in the end submit because I wasn't happy with it and had run out of time). Inevitably there are some infelicities, but that is inevitable.
Having said which, East London is probably more of a mess than before. The BCE had the right idea the first time in carving up Ilford South, and its restoration virtually unaltered has given the horrible Barking & Beckton and Ilford North & Wanstead seats.
But South London is much better. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 18, 2017 0:03:07 GMT
Meaning there won't be boundary changes until 2027 at the earliest. My reliable source says that there will be boundary changes in time for 2022. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 18, 2017 0:08:13 GMT
Meaning there won't be boundary changes until 2027 at the earliest. My reliable source says that there will be boundary changes in time for 2022. GB? |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 18, 2017 10:32:30 GMT
Yes, but will they be *these* boundary changes?
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Oct 18, 2017 19:11:15 GMT
I've now read the London report and very much to my surprise, I have to acknowledge that it's perfectly true that I get name-checked a lot. And not just in West London (I don't know how good it is on the ground, but it looks terrible I can tell you  ) but also in Southeast London, where I'm very happy with the outcome. East London is probably as good as it could get. I should probably reread the discussion in this thread, but Croydon/Sutton/Streatham/Mitcham looks to me as if it needs much work still. |
|
|
|
Post by londonseal80 on Oct 20, 2017 17:52:06 GMT
I've now read the London report and very much to my surprise, I have to acknowledge that it's perfectly true that I get name-checked a lot. And not just in West London (I don't know how good it is on the ground, but it looks terrible I can tell you ) but also in Southeast London, where I'm very happy with the outcome. East London is probably as good as it could get. I should probably reread the discussion in this thread, but Croydon/Sutton/Streatham/Mitcham looks to me as if it needs much work still. The putting Lower Morden and St Helier into Sutton and Cheam seat is total nonsense. It would make more sense keep Belmont in Sutton and Cheam and add Carshalton South and Clockhouse and rename the seat Sutton West and add Lower Morden to Wimbledon and add Ravensbury and St Helier to the Carshalton seat and rename it Sutton East and St Helier (with the whole estate in one seat) |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 20, 2017 18:35:19 GMT
There are many improvements in what I've seen so far. Like John C, I didn't make a London submission, for similar reasons. I will make a few suggestions now, now that others have done the main work :-)
I'm not surprised that the Commission have leant so heavily on Islington's contributions, here and elsewhere: it's a meeting of minds!
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 20, 2017 21:01:42 GMT
I'm not surprised that the Commission have leant so heavily on Islington's contributions, here and elsewhere: it's a meeting of minds! Er ... Thanks. (I think.) It may seem greedy, after having had so much of my own way, but I'm also planning to write to the Commission but only on a couple of specifics: (a) The seat the Commission has called 'Kilburn' is one of my proposals, although the report does not say so and it's possible the same boundaries were independently suggested by someone else. I'm very pleased with it in terms of boundaries, but the name is totally unsuitable. I proposed calling it 'Paddington' and I still think this is by far the best name; or, at a pinch, if it's felt that the Brent element absolutely must be represented, 'Paddington and Queens Park'. But definitely not 'Kilburn'. (b) The BCE's revised scheme in the Barnet / Finchley / Southgate area is a terrible mess, if anything slightly worse than the initial proposals in this area (which were bad enough). There's no good solution that I can find, but the 'least worst' is to keep both Finchley and Southgate together and join them in a dumbbell-shaped seat, with Barnet and Cockfosters making up the other seat. So I'll suggest that. I am obliged to disagree respectfully with John Chanin. East London is hugely improved. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 20, 2017 22:04:47 GMT
I'm not surprised that the Commission have leant so heavily on Islington's contributions, here and elsewhere: it's a meeting of minds! Er ... Thanks. (I think.) It may seem greedy, after having had so much of my own way, but I'm also planning to write to the Commission but only on a couple of specifics: (a) The seat the Commission has called 'Kilburn' is one of my proposals, although the report does not say so and it's possible the same boundaries were independently suggested by someone else. I'm very pleased with it in terms of boundaries, but the name is totally unsuitable. I proposed calling it 'Paddington' and I still think this is by far the best name; or, at a pinch, if it's felt that the Brent element absolutely must be represented, 'Paddington and Queens Park'. But definitely not 'Kilburn'. (b) The BCE's revised scheme in the Barnet / Finchley / Southgate area is a terrible mess, if anything slightly worse than the initial proposals in this area (which were bad enough). There's no good solution that I can find, but the 'least worst' is to keep both Finchley and Southgate together and join them in a dumbbell-shaped seat, with Barnet and Cockfosters making up the other seat. So I'll suggest that. I am obliged to disagree respectfully with John Chanin. East London is hugely improved. I devised a way to avoid a Finchley & Southgate mash-up seven months ago: greensocialistalan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/on-second-2018-boundary-review.html
No ward splits in Barnet needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Oct 21, 2017 6:25:52 GMT
I'm not surprised that the Commission have leant so heavily on Islington's contributions, here and elsewhere: it's a meeting of minds! Er ... Thanks. (I think.) It may seem greedy, after having had so much of my own way, but I'm also planning to write to the Commission but only on a couple of specifics: (a) The seat the Commission has called 'Kilburn' is one of my proposals, although the report does not say so and it's possible the same boundaries were independently suggested by someone else. I'm very pleased with it in terms of boundaries, but the name is totally unsuitable. I proposed calling it 'Paddington' and I still think this is by far the best name; or, at a pinch, if it's felt that the Brent element absolutely must be represented, 'Paddington and Queens Park'. But definitely not 'Kilburn'. (b) The BCE's revised scheme in the Barnet / Finchley / Southgate area is a terrible mess, if anything slightly worse than the initial proposals in this area (which were bad enough). There's no good solution that I can find, but the 'least worst' is to keep both Finchley and Southgate together and join them in a dumbbell-shaped seat, with Barnet and Cockfosters making up the other seat. So I'll suggest that. I am obliged to disagree respectfully with John Chanin. East London is hugely improved. Well we disagreed a lot of the time when constructing original proposals! I second Adrian 's comment, which is not entirely flattering.
I had a similar Paddington & Queen's Park to you, and regret now not submitting my much better proposals for NE London. I gave up on NW London, which I know much less well, and couldn't get anything sensible out of Barnet/Harrow/Ealing/Hounslow. I assume from your pseudonym you are an Islington resident, and are perhaps less familiar with East London.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 21, 2017 8:30:09 GMT
Er ... Thanks. (I think.) It may seem greedy, after having had so much of my own way, but I'm also planning to write to the Commission but only on a couple of specifics: (a) The seat the Commission has called 'Kilburn' is one of my proposals, although the report does not say so and it's possible the same boundaries were independently suggested by someone else. I'm very pleased with it in terms of boundaries, but the name is totally unsuitable. I proposed calling it 'Paddington' and I still think this is by far the best name; or, at a pinch, if it's felt that the Brent element absolutely must be represented, 'Paddington and Queens Park'. But definitely not 'Kilburn'. (b) The BCE's revised scheme in the Barnet / Finchley / Southgate area is a terrible mess, if anything slightly worse than the initial proposals in this area (which were bad enough). There's no good solution that I can find, but the 'least worst' is to keep both Finchley and Southgate together and join them in a dumbbell-shaped seat, with Barnet and Cockfosters making up the other seat. So I'll suggest that. I am obliged to disagree respectfully with John Chanin. East London is hugely improved. I devised a way to avoid a Finchley & Southgate mash-up seven months ago: greensocialistalan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/on-second-2018-boundary-review.html
No ward splits in Barnet needed.
Your proposals for North London are fine in their own right (though it looks like you're going to have to split a ward in Hackney and I don't like Hendon & Neasden much (even if it has the amusing side effect of putting my parents' childhood homes in the same seat)). But the problem is they aren't self contained and it's going to have knock on effects all the way through West London (and here too you've rather cheated by going for several split wards). At this stage in the game there's no point trying to sell wholesale changes - the trick is to propose small changes to what is already being proposed. So here we are really just looking to modify the three proposed seats covering Hendon/Finchley/Chipping Barnet and Rump Southgate (and in fact Hendon is fine now that they've put Mill Hill back and taken out Finchley Church End. The main problem again is with the way they've split Finchley and it's totally unnecessary. My proposal for this area was a self contained one covering just those three seats and involved moving just three wards in total and the objective of this was to have the centre of Finchley (ie Finchley Church End in the seat bearing the Finchley name. There new proposal now not only excludes that ward but also West Finchley so it contains hardly any of Finchley proper. The obvious solution is to move these two wards into the Fionchley & Southgate seat and put Brunswick Park and Cockfosters into Chipping Barnet. I think this is what Islington is suggesting here and this is exactly the submission I made. There isn't much point in me making the same submission again though |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 21, 2017 12:45:57 GMT
Your proposals for North London are fine in their own right (though it looks like you're going to have to split a ward in Hackney and I don't like Hendon & Neasden much (even if it has the amusing side effect of putting my parents' childhood homes in the same seat)). But the problem is they aren't self contained and it's going to have knock on effects all the way through West London (and here too you've rather cheated by going for several split wards). At this stage in the game there's no point trying to sell wholesale changes - the trick is to propose small changes to what is already being proposed. So here we are really just looking to modify the three proposed seats covering Hendon/Finchley/Chipping Barnet and Rump Southgate (and in fact Hendon is fine now that they've put Mill Hill back and taken out Finchley Church End. The main problem again is with the way they've split Finchley and it's totally unnecessary. My proposal for this area was a self contained one covering just those three seats and involved moving just three wards in total and the objective of this was to have the centre of Finchley (ie Finchley Church End in the seat bearing the Finchley name. There new proposal now not only excludes that ward but also West Finchley so it contains hardly any of Finchley proper. The obvious solution is to move these two wards into the Fionchley & Southgate seat and put Brunswick Park and Cockfosters into Chipping Barnet. I think this is what Islington is suggesting here and this is exactly the submission I made. There isn't much point in me making the same submission again though [ If there are relatively simple ward swaps or renamings that can be suggested to the Commission and enough people make the point then it will add weight. Would be good to keep a list and add to it, so far: Barnet ward swap above x 4 Paddington and Queens's Park vice Kilburn |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 21, 2017 17:14:01 GMT
There isn't much point in me making the same submission again though I think there is, when it comes to specific important details that the Commission may not have paid much attention to the first time, among the thousands of submissions. Also when focussing on individual issues you can give more explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 22, 2017 9:52:54 GMT
Er ... Thanks. (I think.) It may seem greedy, after having had so much of my own way, but I'm also planning to write to the Commission but only on a couple of specifics: (a) The seat the Commission has called 'Kilburn' is one of my proposals, although the report does not say so and it's possible the same boundaries were independently suggested by someone else. I'm very pleased with it in terms of boundaries, but the name is totally unsuitable. I proposed calling it 'Paddington' and I still think this is by far the best name; or, at a pinch, if it's felt that the Brent element absolutely must be represented, 'Paddington and Queens Park'. But definitely not 'Kilburn'. (b) The BCE's revised scheme in the Barnet / Finchley / Southgate area is a terrible mess, if anything slightly worse than the initial proposals in this area (which were bad enough). There's no good solution that I can find, but the 'least worst' is to keep both Finchley and Southgate together and join them in a dumbbell-shaped seat, with Barnet and Cockfosters making up the other seat. So I'll suggest that. I am obliged to disagree respectfully with John Chanin. East London is hugely improved. Well we disagreed a lot of the time when constructing original proposals! I second Adrian 's comment, which is not entirely flattering.
I had a similar Paddington & Queen's Park to you, and regret now not submitting my much better proposals for NE London. I gave up on NW London, which I know much less well, and couldn't get anything sensible out of Barnet/Harrow/Ealing/Hounslow. I assume from your pseudonym you are an Islington resident, and are perhaps less familiar with East London.....
Well, to be honest, i wasn't sure whether Adrian's comment was meant as a compliment but I thought I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. It's true I live in Islington but I feel I know East London fairly well - and I'll gladly defend the revised proposals in this area until the cows come home. But I agree with Pete Whitehead's comments that this isn't the time to recommend wholesale changes. So I'll be limiting my further submission to switching a few wards in Barnet/Enfield and recommending a better name for the so-called (and in other respects very sensible) 'Kilburn' constituency. I'm not wild about the BCE's revised scheme in the Croydon/Merton/Sutton area but it comes into the 'can live with' category so I don't intend to make any representations about it. Like Adrian, I urge everyone to make further representations if they think the revised scheme can be usefully tweaked. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 22, 2017 11:49:24 GMT
Some further thoughts on constituency names:
Brentford, Chiswick and Isleworth instead of Isleworth, Brentford and Chiswick; it reads better and was the name of the local paper.
Hornsey and Bounds Green instead of Hornsey and Wood Green; since Wood Green station is not included as Woodside ward is removed and replaced with Bowes ward which has more of the Bounds Green community.
Ealing Central and Acton instead of Ealing and Acton; as Cleveland and Northfields wards are not included.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 22, 2017 12:23:38 GMT
Putney and Wandsworth areas are a mess.
Roehampton and Putney Heath should not be isolated from the rest of Putney and put in a Wimbledon seat with such poor connections between the two.
The Wandsworth and Putney seat manages to exclude Wandsworth Common and split it from Earlsfield. Earlsfield could be split quite easily along the railway line if need be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Oct 22, 2017 15:01:57 GMT
(b) The BCE's revised scheme in the Barnet / Finchley / Southgate area is a terrible mess, if anything slightly worse than the initial proposals in this area (which were bad enough). There's no good solution that I can find, but the 'least worst' is to keep both Finchley and Southgate together and join them in a dumbbell-shaped seat, with Barnet and Cockfosters making up the other seat. So I'll suggest that. The revised scheme's proposals for the Barnet / Finchley / Southgate area are indeed a terrible mess, having very slightly repaired the initial scheme's butchering of Southgate at the cost of substantially worsening its butchering of Finchley. However, while your solution is both reasonably minimal and obvious in relation to both the initial and the revised schemes, your Finchley and Southgate constituency is still something of a geographical monstrosity, the real problem being the way in which the Kings Cross railway line almost totally blocks direct communication between the Finchley and Southgate halves (and this has been only slightly less of a problem with both the BCE schemes for the area). I am currently thinking about two variants of an alternative proposal which I dislike rather less than anything I have seen so far - even though both variants require a ward split and have some other problems of their own. The proposal amounts to creating separate Finchley-centred and Southgate-centred constituencies. In both variants, the proposal only affects the revised scheme's proposed Finchley and Enfield Southgate, Chipping Barnet and Hornsey and Wood Green constituencies, with Hornsey and Wood Green only being affected to the extent of what is added to the current constituency to bring it within the permissible range. Both variants keep the current Enfield Southgate wards of Southgate, Southgate Green, Winchmore Hill, Cockfosters (as with the revised proposals for Finchley and Enfield Southgate) and Bowes Park (unlike either BCE proposal) in one constituency, and the current Finchley and Golders Green wards of Finchley Church End, East Finchley, West Finchley and Woodhouse together in another. The current Chipping Barnet wards of Brunswick Park and East Barnet would go to the Southgate-centred constituency, and Oakleigh, Underhill and Totteridge to the Finchley-centred constituency. The variants differ by what happens to Coppetts and High Barnet wards. Note that, without these two ward, all three constituencies (including Hornsey and Wood Green, due to it not gaining Bowes) would be below range, but that one of the two wards has to be split as either of them unsplit would bring the Finchley constituency above range. In one variant, then, Coppetts ward south of the North Circular Road (polling districts - omitting the E09000003 prefix - CDC and CDE) goes into Hornsey and Wood Green (to give an electorate of 71,290), and the rest into the Finchley constituency (electorate 75,627 - suggested name, Finchley and Dollis Valley). High Barnet ward goes unsplit into the Southgate constituency (electorate 76,455 - suggested name, Southgate and Chipping Barnet). The Coppetts ward split is along a very clear barrier, with the southern part already being surrounded on three sides (with good connections) by Hornsey and Wood Green. In the north, the incorporation of the whole of High Barnet ward into the Southgate constituency does create a rather bad community split at a number of points from Chipping Barnet town centre through to Sterling Corner (though not quite so bad, I think, as the split in the BCE revised proposals through North Finchley). In the other variant, the whole of Coppetts ward goes into Hornsey and Wood Green (electorate 77,775), but in High Barnet ward, only the eastern two polling districts (CAA and CAB) go into the Southgate constituency (giving an electorate of 71,131 - suggested name, Southgate and East Barnet) with the remainder to the west in the Finchley constituency (electorate 74,466 - suggested name, Finchley and Chipping Barnet). The northern part of Coppetts ward fits rather less well with Hornsey and Wood Green than does the southern part of the ward, but conversely the split in High Barnet ward, while less neat than the Coppetts ward one suggested above (or indeed the Brunswick Park ward split suggested by the BCE), cuts mostly through physical divides just to the east of Chipping Barnet town centre that may not be noticeable on a map. Indeed, there is even some historical excuse for it - it mostly runs close to the pre-1965 boundary between East Barnet and Barnet Urban Districts. By the way - I have lived in Chipping Barnet constituency almost all my life and been an intermittently active member of the Labour Party here for about forty years. I grew up in Brunswick Park ward, and now live in High Barnet ward. I don't want to see Chipping Barnet split, but I know both Finchley and Southgate as well, and every proposal that I have seen in this review does more damage to one, other or both of them than either of my variants above does to Chipping Barnet. Comments? |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 22, 2017 15:52:06 GMT
Certainly agree that in principle Coppetts ward split along the North Circular Road would be a very obvious and clear boundary.
But split of High Barnet from Underhill and the lack of connections between Underhill and Oakleigh Park make me prefer Islington's solution which involves no split wards and follows the 125 and 221 bus routes on an east-west axis from Finchley to Southgate via Friern Barnet.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Oct 22, 2017 16:04:32 GMT
My scheme which I didn't submit had the same Southgate seat that you are suggesting, but I didn't want to split wards, and couldn't get a satisfactory arrangement for the rest of Barnet.
|
|
) but also in Southeast London, where I'm very happy with the outcome. East London is probably as good as it could get.
