|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 22, 2017 17:18:17 GMT
There would be a good solution if the correct county boundaries in this area were respected. Hendon would be as proposed (ie just gains Golders Green). Finchley would then gain Coppetts and Oakleigh from Chipping Barnet. The five remaining wards of Chipping Barnet could then be combined with the five Hertsmere wards covering Elstree-Borehamwood for an eletorate of 76,243 while the three Potters Bar wards could be added to Southgate (Cockfoster, Grange, Highlands, Southgate, Southgate Green and Winchmore Hill). The remainder of Hertfordshire would work perfectly well for 10 seats without any need to add wards from Bedfordshire or Cambridgeshire but of course the remainder of Middlesex would require some more work
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 22, 2017 17:19:48 GMT
Incidentally, this re-creation of the pre-1974 Barnet seat would probably have voted Labour in 1997 but in 2017, thoguh I haven't done the maths, I suspect it would be a safer Tory seat than Chipping Barnet
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 22, 2017 18:04:36 GMT
There would be a good solution if the correct county boundaries in this area were respected. Hendon would be as proposed (ie just gains Golders Green). Finchley would then gain Coppetts and Oakleigh from Chipping Barnet. The five remaining wards of Chipping Barnet could then be combined with the five Hertsmere wards covering Elstree-Borehamwood for an eletorate of 76,243 while the three Potters Bar wards could be added to Southgate (Cockfoster, Grange, Highlands, Southgate, Southgate Green and Winchmore Hill). The remainder of Hertfordshire would work perfectly well for 10 seats without any need to add wards from Bedfordshire or Cambridgeshire but of course the remainder of Middlesex would require some more work Sadly, the BCE has made it clear they are unwilling to cross regional boundaries at any point, as they noted when they rejected Adrian's ideas in the East Midlands for a Newport Pagnell & Towcester constituency, even though Milton Keynes does not geographically belong in the South East region and has much better links with Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 22, 2017 18:28:07 GMT
There would be a good solution if the correct county boundaries in this area were respected. Hendon would be as proposed (ie just gains Golders Green). Finchley would then gain Coppetts and Oakleigh from Chipping Barnet. The five remaining wards of Chipping Barnet could then be combined with the five Hertsmere wards covering Elstree-Borehamwood for an eletorate of 76,243 while the three Potters Bar wards could be added to Southgate (Cockfoster, Grange, Highlands, Southgate, Southgate Green and Winchmore Hill). The remainder of Hertfordshire would work perfectly well for 10 seats without any need to add wards from Bedfordshire or Cambridgeshire but of course the remainder of Middlesex would require some more work Pete - Are you Foggy in disguise? |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Oct 22, 2017 20:19:51 GMT
There would be a good solution if the correct county boundaries in this area were respected. Hendon would be as proposed (ie just gains Golders Green). Finchley would then gain Coppetts and Oakleigh from Chipping Barnet. The five remaining wards of Chipping Barnet could then be combined with the five Hertsmere wards covering Elstree-Borehamwood for an eletorate of 76,243 while the three Potters Bar wards could be added to Southgate (Cockfoster, Grange, Highlands, Southgate, Southgate Green and Winchmore Hill). The remainder of Hertfordshire would work perfectly well for 10 seats without any need to add wards from Bedfordshire or Cambridgeshire but of course the remainder of Middlesex would require some more work I am afraid that that might be more difficult than you are assuming. To start with one of the simpler problems to allow for, while most of Oakleigh was indeed in Middlesex, its two northernmost polling districts were in Hertfordshire - allowing for a few small alterations to allow for property boundaries along their southern edges. And while Totteridge itself was in Hertfordshire, about two and a half of the five polling districts in today's Totteridge ward seem to have been in Middlesex - unfortunately, I cannot be more exact than that, as four of the five seem to cross the traditional county boundary in smaller or greater measure (with the fifth being entirely in Middlesex). Going down to a smaller scale, even where a ward (or borough) boundary looks at first sight looks as if it follows the traditional county boundary, closer examination shows that much of it has been subject to small alterations so as to place surburban streets, houses and other properties that had been built across the boundary entirely one side or the other of the boundary - from Cockfosters south to New Southgate, most of the current Barnet/Enfield boundary is far more jagged than the smooth but somewhat meandering curves characteristic of the county boundary (except where it has been smoothed out, because the county boundary was meandering to and fro across the middle of a road - in which case the borough boundary now runs along the property frontages one side or the other of the road). To say nothing of the stretch of the county boundary between News Southgate and Oakleigh Park, where the ward boundaries between Brunswick Park and East Barnet on the Hertfordshire side and Coppetts and Oakleigh on the Middlesex side have been rigidly straightened to follow the Kings Cross railway line (apart from one stretch where it is in a tunnel), so that one no longer has the exquisite experience, as one did until about 1980, of finding a couple of houses at the end of a cul de sac or the middle of a crescent on the other side of the line from the rest of their ward, half a mile away from the nearest route across it. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,142 
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 22, 2017 20:20:12 GMT
There would be a good solution if the correct county boundaries in this area were respected. Hendon would be as proposed (ie just gains Golders Green). Finchley would then gain Coppetts and Oakleigh from Chipping Barnet. The five remaining wards of Chipping Barnet could then be combined with the five Hertsmere wards covering Elstree-Borehamwood for an eletorate of 76,243 while the three Potters Bar wards could be added to Southgate (Cockfoster, Grange, Highlands, Southgate, Southgate Green and Winchmore Hill). The remainder of Hertfordshire would work perfectly well for 10 seats without any need to add wards from Bedfordshire or Cambridgeshire but of course the remainder of Middlesex would require some more work Pete - Are you Foggy in disguise? I don't think that question is fair on either myself or Pete.  If anyone cares enough to put all the pieces together, it should be fairly obvious who I am from reading the BCE's regional reports. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 22, 2017 21:17:16 GMT
There would be a good solution if the correct county boundaries in this area were respected. Hendon would be as proposed (ie just gains Golders Green). Finchley would then gain Coppetts and Oakleigh from Chipping Barnet. The five remaining wards of Chipping Barnet could then be combined with the five Hertsmere wards covering Elstree-Borehamwood for an eletorate of 76,243 while the three Potters Bar wards could be added to Southgate (Cockfoster, Grange, Highlands, Southgate, Southgate Green and Winchmore Hill). The remainder of Hertfordshire would work perfectly well for 10 seats without any need to add wards from Bedfordshire or Cambridgeshire but of course the remainder of Middlesex would require some more work I am afraid that that might be more difficult than you are assuming. To start with one of the simpler problems to allow for, while most of Oakleigh was indeed in Middlesex, its two northernmost polling districts were in Hertfordshire - allowing for a few small alterations to allow for property boundaries along their southern edges. And while Totteridge itself was in Hertfordshire, about two and a half of the five polling districts in today's Totteridge ward seem to have been in Middlesex - unfortunately, I cannot be more exact than that, as four of the five seem to cross the traditional county boundary in smaller or greater measure (with the fifth being entirely in Middlesex). Going down to a smaller scale, even where a ward (or borough) boundary looks at first sight looks as if it follows the traditional county boundary, closer examination shows that much of it has been subject to small alterations so as to place surburban streets, houses and other properties that had been built across the boundary entirely one side or the other of the boundary - from Cockfosters south to New Southgate, most of the current Barnet/Enfield boundary is far more jagged than the smooth but somewhat meandering curves characteristic of the county boundary (except where it has been smoothed out, because the county boundary was meandering to and fro across the middle of a road - in which case the borough boundary now runs along the property frontages one side or the other of the road). To say nothing of the stretch of the county boundary between News Southgate and Oakleigh Park, where the ward boundaries between Brunswick Park and East Barnet on the Hertfordshire side and Coppetts and Oakleigh on the Middlesex side have been rigidly straightened to follow the Kings Cross railway line (apart from one stretch where it is in a tunnel), so that one no longer has the exquisite experience, as one did until about 1980, of finding a couple of houses at the end of a cul de sac or the middle of a crescent on the other side of the line from the rest of their ward, half a mile away from the nearest route across it. I appreciate you taking my suggestion seriously, which it wasn't entirely, but I did say " if the correct county boundaries in this area were respected". If they were respected then this would presumably apply at the ward level as well so the problems you describe wouldn't arise. IN addition to those you mention on the Greater London side, there are numerous such issues in 'Hertfordshire' Parts of the old Middlesex urban district of Potters Bar (roughly, but not exactly, the South Mimms parish) are in the Shenley ward with Shenley and Ridge from Hertfordshire. Parts of Elstree and HIllside ward south of Barnet Lane were in Harrow and Barnet boroughs until the 1990s as was a small part of Bushey Heath. And there is a part of Northaw ward which belongs to Enfield historically (though hardly anyone lives there). But yes clearly the Barnet LB wards come nowehre near to following the historic county boundary and haven't done for a very long time now and to be perfectly honest, while I'd have quite liked to have Barnet and East Barnet back in Hertfordshire 20 or 30 years ago, when we've got to the stage that the area is closer to electing a Labour MP than Stevenage is, I'd say Greater London can keep it. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Oct 22, 2017 22:26:34 GMT
There would be a good solution if the correct county boundaries in this area were respected. Hendon would be as proposed (ie just gains Golders Green). Finchley would then gain Coppetts and Oakleigh from Chipping Barnet. The five remaining wards of Chipping Barnet could then be combined with the five Hertsmere wards covering Elstree-Borehamwood for an eletorate of 76,243 while the three Potters Bar wards could be added to Southgate (Cockfoster, Grange, Highlands, Southgate, Southgate Green and Winchmore Hill). The remainder of Hertfordshire would work perfectly well for 10 seats without any need to add wards from Bedfordshire or Cambridgeshire but of course the remainder of Middlesex would require some more work Sadly, the BCE has made it clear they are unwilling to cross regional boundaries at any point, as they noted when they rejected Adrian's ideas in the East Midlands for a Newport Pagnell & Towcester constituency, even though Milton Keynes does not geographically belong in the South East region and has much better links with Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire. They didn't say they would never cross a regional boundary, just that they would require a compelling reason to do so. I would agree with them that no such reasons have been demonstrated in this particular review. If in a future review, Lincolnshire could not be given a whole number of seats, I can see the boundary commission pairing it with N + NE Lincs if that made the numbers better. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 22, 2017 23:10:17 GMT
Sadly, the BCE has made it clear they are unwilling to cross regional boundaries at any point, as they noted when they rejected Adrian's ideas in the East Midlands for a Newport Pagnell & Towcester constituency, even though Milton Keynes does not geographically belong in the South East region and has much better links with Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire. They didn't say they would never cross a regional boundary, just that they would require a compelling reason to do so. I would agree with them that no such reasons have been demonstrated in this particular review. With respect, I think the fact that pairing MK and Northants would mean Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire could be dealt with without cross-border seats is a very good reason. And a different Commission, i.e. one not set on amorphous blobbism, would have considered it more carefully. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 22, 2017 23:54:03 GMT
With respect, I think the fact that pairing MK and Northants would mean Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire could be dealt with without cross-border seats is a very good reason. And a different Commission, i.e. one not set on amorphous blobbism, would have considered it more carefully. I think any commission that wishes to cross any country boundaries is by default engaging in amorphous blobbism. A MK/ Northamptonshire split is still a split. Northants really does need to be paired with somewhere. Previous Reviews had brought politics into disrepute by not allowing many boundaries to be crossed at all, and thereby resulting in constituencies with electorates of 55,000 in London, the Wirral, etc. The problem is that the Commission has needlessly gone from one extreme view to the other, as though nuance is verboten. |
|
Andrew_S
Top Poster
Posts: 28,240
Member is Online
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 23, 2017 0:27:23 GMT
The UKPR notionals has Cities of London and Westminster as a Labour seat with a notional majority of 257.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 23, 2017 7:49:55 GMT
With respect, I think the fact that pairing MK and Northants would mean Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire could be dealt with without cross-border seats is a very good reason. And a different Commission, i.e. one not set on amorphous blobbism, would have considered it more carefully. I think any commission that wishes to cross any country boundaries is by default engaging in amorphous blobbism. A MK/ Northamptonshire split is still a split. "Amorphous blobbism"is an excellent term. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 23, 2017 8:36:27 GMT
I think any commission that wishes to cross any country boundaries is by default engaging in amorphous blobbism. A MK/ Northamptonshire split is still a split. "Amorphous blobbism"is an excellent term. if there is ever a trendy, edgy spin off series from this Forum "Amorphous Blobbism" is what it will be called. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 23, 2017 9:29:10 GMT
The UKPR notionals has Cities of London and Westminster as a Labour seat with a notional majority of 257. I'd hope so to, given it takes in half of a constituency with a 10,000 labour majority. If Westminster is to become one of the tightest margionals then it will make for a good line on election night, 'the future of who controls Westminster will be decided in... Westminster, ... What are you talking about? It doesn't take 'half' of any seat. It takes two wards from Westminster North if that's what you mean but these are pretty strong Conservative wards, even in 2017 so don;t seem relevant to your point. The reason this seat is tipped into the Labour column is the inclusion of Holborn and Bloomsbury (from a seat with a 30,000 Labour majority) |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 23, 2017 9:39:00 GMT
Actually the revised proposals (thanks to Islington) are ever so slightly better for the Conservatives. Lancaster Gate would hardly have boosted the existing Conservative majority at all whereas Regents Park and (especially) Abbey Road add about 1,000 to it. This is partly offset by the loss of Hyde Park so overall the changes within Westminster boost the Tory majority by 500 or so. But the two Holborn wards would have had a Labour majority of about 4,000
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 23, 2017 10:36:56 GMT
Anyway it's a grim prospect. The psychological blow of losing Cities of London & Westminster to Labour would be far greater than losing Kensington (which for all the crap talked about it was, even on current boundaries, a seat that Labour could win in the right circumstances (albeit we didn't expect those circumstances to arise in June)) or even Canterbury.
The problems here (which are present regardless of the addition of the Camden wards) are well rehearsed but the main one is that so many of the expensive residential properties are occupied by those who are not eligible to vote due to them being foreign nationals (eg Russian, EU etc). At the same time poorer areas are filling up with other foreign nationals who often (by virtue of historical anachronism) are eligible to vote. And in addition there is a significant student population which also includes significant numbers of foreign nationals who find themselves able to help determine the future direction of a nation they might be leaving within a few months. If the Conservative party are really serious about sorting out the voting system to remove inbuilt biases against them, they really need to look at whether citizens of countries we de-colonised over half a century ago (or nearly a century in the case of the Irish Republic) ago are deserving of a general election vote in this country.
As for the more permanent poor residential population, Westminster council knows what it needs to do there, but one would hope they'd have the good sense and decency not to dump the problem on Peterborough or Milton Keynes or Hastings
|
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Oct 23, 2017 16:17:26 GMT
If the Conservative party are really serious about sorting out the voting system to remove inbuilt biases against them, they really need to look at whether citizens of countries we de-colonised over half a century ago (or nearly a century in the case of the Irish Republic) ago are deserving of a general election vote in this country. Is there an anti-Tory bias in the voting system? I thought that since 2015 there has been an anti-Labour bias in that, on UNS, if the two main parties are tied on votes the Tories still get more MPs than Labour. Or have I misunderstood what you were talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 23, 2017 21:23:20 GMT
I think you misunderstand Pete. He defines an anti-Tory bias as any of us being allowed to vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 23, 2017 21:41:58 GMT
If the Conservative party are really serious about sorting out the voting system to remove inbuilt biases against them, they really need to look at whether citizens of countries we de-colonised over half a century ago (or nearly a century in the case of the Irish Republic) ago are deserving of a general election vote in this country. Is there an anti-Tory bias in the voting system? I thought that since 2015 there has been an anti-Labour bias in that, on UNS, if the two main parties are tied on votes the Tories still get more MPs than Labour. Or have I misunderstood what you were talking about? Indeed there isn't a bias in the constituency boundaries but the perception that there was was the rationale for them passing the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act ( and the 2005 and 2010 results, juxtaposed, did justify that perception at that time). But my point was not whether or not the boundaries are rigged against them but that if they want to address structural issues which may count against them at elections the rules on eligibility to vote (along with other issues like dual registration) are things they ought to look at. My own angle is not based on trying to assist the Conservative party per se but is my principled objection to foreign nationals voting in general elections (and especially in referendums which determine essential issues of sovereignty) but I'm surprised that they seem so unconcerned about the issue |
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Oct 23, 2017 22:04:48 GMT
Adrian I hope you don't endorse this: "As for the more permanent poor residential population, Westminster council knows what it needs to do there, but one would hope they'd have the good sense and decency not to dump the problem on Peterborough or Milton Keynes or Hastings" Absolutely disgusting. Well, it is currently unlawful (as it is an improper consideration/purpose) for a Council or Her Majesty's Ministers to decide how to fulfil their statutory obligations on the basis of party political considerations. But both Labour and Conservative governments and Councils have been suspected of so doing from time to time. |
|
