|
|
Post by islington on Oct 26, 2017 20:07:27 GMT
n fact it's possible to avoid crossing the Barnet/Enfield border altogether (not that I see anything wrong with crossing it around Cockfosters). You could go with the Commissions initial plans for Hendon and which would mean Finchley & Muswell Hill would take Crouch End (which is sensible enough) and push changes all the way through the other seats so that Cockfosters ends up in Southgate.  This does look a bit better around the East of the sub-region but of course I'm bitterly opposed to that arrangement in Hendon. Another alternative is to swap Mill and Finchley church end back and then put Coppetts back in Chipping Barnet, leaving that seat unchanged. This could be the least worst option but IMO Coppetts really should be in this Finchley seat  Pete, looking at the second plan here, it looks really good in Barnet but you've cut Hornsey in half (also Wood Green, Tottenham, Enfield Town). I'd suggest: adding Hornsey ward (instead of Alexandra) to what would then be a seat of 'Finchley & Hornsey' (76687); restoring the Tottenham seat as in the BCE initial scheme, which they were unwise to alter in my view (74648); then putting the three Wood Green wards (which really ought to be kept together) and Alexandra ward in a seat with Bowes, Palmers Green, Winchmore Hill and the two Southgates to form a Wood Green & Southgate seat that would be a very close fit with the Wood Green seat that actually existed 1918-1950 (72663). This leaves 16 Enfield wards to form two seats: the only sensible way of doing it means putting Enfield Highway in the Edmonton seat (72762), which obviously isn't great but at least in keeps the whole Enfield Town area in the Enfield seat (75432). I don't then see any real need to make further changes across NW and W London, which is not too bad in the BCE's revised scheme. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Oct 27, 2017 17:26:22 GMT
If you want to create a suggestion that actually stands the slightest chance of being adopted at this late stage - and yes, the area needs redrawing. Badly - I suggest leaving the Tottenham and Edmonton seats well alone, because everybody incl. the BCE was very happy they could preserve those.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 3, 2017 11:53:56 GMT
Surprised that the Commission felt it appropriate to split a ward in North London. There are several splitless alternatives. e.g.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 3, 2017 12:39:41 GMT
Here's another - I think this is more or less what Islington suggests above.
|
|
|
|
Post by beastofbedfordshire on Nov 3, 2017 14:19:40 GMT
If I were Labour (God forbid) I'd be very happy with the boundaries in London from the review. With a further swing to them we could be down to single figures here which would be a complete disaster.
|
|
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 Nov 3, 2017 19:11:57 GMT
If I were Labour (God forbid) I'd be very happy with the boundaries in London from the review. With a further swing to them we could be down to single figures here which would be a complete disaster. Yes, there would be something symbolically devastating about it. We can get away with being almost wiped out in Manchester, Birmingham, Merseyside etc. in the same way that Labour can get away with a lack of representation in the Shires and home counties. But decimation in the capital would be something else. I'd like to see us start looking at creative solutions to this. Expanding the boundaries of Greater London would bring in a load of Tory seats, and there is a case for at least extending to the M25. Current boundaries are over 50 years old now after all, and the ring of seats immediately beyond the boundary is extremely Tory.. Another option would be allowing people to register where they work instead of where they live. London is a whole lot Toryer than election results suggest - it's just that many people who spend 50-60 hours a week in the capital happen to live outside it. If students can vote where they study then is it so strange for workers to vote where they work? This could result in rock solid Tory seats in the City and Canary Wharf that might better reflect the character of these areas. (I'd also like to move swathes of public sector offices and social housing away from London to more cost effective places, but these days you can't even suggest having an open debate about anything like this without being rolled up in a carpet and thrown off a bridge, obviously.) |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 3, 2017 19:31:16 GMT
Here's another - I think this is more or less what Islington suggests above. Yep - that's exactly what I had in mind. It's a sin to put Enfield Highway ward in Edmonton but otherwise it's not bad at all. But I won't be suggesting it because it involves too many changes from the revised scheme; I'll stick to the more limited option, with a Finchley/Southgate 'dumbbell' affecting only two constituencies. Can Adrian or Pete Whitehead or someone recommend me the best place to house my images now that Photobucket's not fit for purpose? |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,065
Member is Online
|
Post by jamie on Nov 3, 2017 19:44:20 GMT
Another option would be allowing people to register where they work instead of where they live. London is a whole lot Toryer than election results suggest - it's just that many people who spend 50-60 hours a week in the capital happen to live outside it . If students can vote where they study then is it so strange for workers to vote where they work? This could result in rock solid Tory seats in the City and Canary Wharf that might better reflect the character of these areas. That's not how the law works. The law allows for people to vote where they hold residency, which means students who have moved to university can vote in the constituency where their accommodation is, as we would not expect them to trek 100s of miles to where they largely no longer live to vote. It does not mean that they can vote in the constituency where they study, and in many cases the majority of students live in a separate constituency to the university itself eg; Newcastle. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,065
Member is Online
|
Post by jamie on Nov 3, 2017 19:46:56 GMT
Yep - that's exactly what I had in mind. It's a sin to put Enfield Highway ward in Edmonton but otherwise it's not bad at all. But I won't be suggesting it because it involves too many changes from the revised scheme; I'll stick to the more limited option, with a Finchley/Southgate 'dumbbell' affecting only two constituencies. Can Adrian or Pete Whitehead or someone recommend me the best place to house my images now that Photobucket's not fit for purpose? What's the problem with the Enfield wards next to the Lea being in Edmonton constituency? Obviously the names not great, but the numbers are good and can help elsewhere. Imgur is good. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 3, 2017 22:06:39 GMT
Yep - that's exactly what I had in mind. It's a sin to put Enfield Highway ward in Edmonton but otherwise it's not bad at all. But I won't be suggesting it because it involves too many changes from the revised scheme; I'll stick to the more limited option, with a Finchley/Southgate 'dumbbell' affecting only two constituencies. What's the problem with the Enfield wards next to the Lea being in Edmonton constituency? Obviously the names not great, but the numbers are good and can help elsewhere. Although it looks okay on the map to put the Lock and Highway wards in Edmonton, when you look close up, the ward boundaries slice straight through Enfield's main housing areas (such as the beautifully named, but not beautiful, Freezy Water). Meanwhile Bush Hill Park is definitely part of Edmonton. But I'm not sure how much these things matter to people these days. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2017 22:55:21 GMT
Go on, explain that one...... I forgot a lot from my quick glance. Commonwealth: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Mauritius, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucie, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago Uruguay: Anyone living there for 15 years can vote. Chile: Anyone living there since 5 years can vote. Hong Kong, New Zealand: Anyone with the permanent resident status. Malawi: Anyone living there since 7 years can vote. What about Ireland? |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Nov 3, 2017 23:42:52 GMT
I forgot a lot from my quick glance. Commonwealth: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Mauritius, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucie, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago Uruguay: Anyone living there for 15 years can vote. Chile: Anyone living there since 5 years can vote. Hong Kong, New Zealand: Anyone with the permanent resident status. Malawi: Anyone living there since 7 years can vote. What about Ireland? Only for Dail elections (due the the reprocitity), European elections and local elections. So, everything but presidential and referendums. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Dec 11, 2017 8:20:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 11, 2017 12:14:49 GMT
Plan B is more favourable, and it is worth noting that Southgate and Wood Green were in the same constituency (simply called "Wood Green") from 1918-1950. It also results in less change (except in the case of Hornsey & Wood Green, which is effectively abolished) to existing constituencies. Finchley and Hornsey are not well linked, however. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 11, 2017 13:11:47 GMT
Yes, I like Adrian's Plan B as well. But I presume that the BCE will want to minimize further changes at this late stage so I went for a more limited approach that affects only the two seats in the Barnet/Finchley/Southgate area.
But purely on its merits, I think Adrian's plan B is a better solution across the area as a whole. Admittedly I still wince at the sight of Enfield Highway ward in the Edmonton seat, but I accept that it's the price that has to be paid for what is otherwise an excellent plan; and after all, worse things happen at sea.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Sept 10, 2018 12:02:27 GMT
Crofton Park ward moved from Dulwich and Sydenham to Lewisham and Catford
Bellingham ward moved to Lewisham and Catford to Dulwich and Sydenham
Chingford and Woodford renamed to Chingford and Woodford Green
Ealing and Acton renamed to Ealing Central and Acton
Eltham and Welling renamed to Eltham and East Wickham
Greenford and Sudbury renamed to Ealing North and Sudbury
Hackney Central renamed to Hackney
Hornsey and Wood Green renamed to Hornsey
Hillingdon and Uxbridge renamed to Uxbridge and Northolt
Islington renamed to Islington South and Finsbury
Kilburn renamed to Paddington and Queen's Park
Streatham and Brixton South renamed to Streatham and Brixton Hill
Tooting renamed to Tooting and Balham
Wandsworth and Putney renamed to Putney and Wandsworth Town
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 10, 2018 12:27:22 GMT
Islington renamed to Islington and South Finsbury Keeping with the misprint theme... Listed in the report first in that ridiculous form and then, one paragraph below, as Islington South & Finsbury (ie the current and appropriate name). The map in part 3 also has the latter (haven't looked at the lists in part 2 yet). |
|
|
|
Post by where2travel on Sept 10, 2018 15:52:51 GMT
"Eltham and Welling renamed to Eltham and East Wickham"
East Wickham? I didn't know that even existed as a place these days (or is it one of those constituency names that's based on something historic)? I live in south-east London and have only ever heard that name because it's apparently where Kate Bush grew up. Therefore, I can see it must exist or have existed in some form but, in the last 20 years I've been here, I've never heard anyone say they're from East Wickham if you ask them. Having said that, I don't know if they'd say Welling or Plumstead or something else.
West Wickham on the other hand I do know as it's next to Beckenham, and confusingly nowhere near East Wickham!
|
|
sdoerr
Conservative
Posts: 149
|
Post by sdoerr on Sept 10, 2018 21:32:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Sept 17, 2018 11:15:45 GMT
Brentford, Isleworth and Chiswick.... meh. What was wrong with keeping the existing name of Brentford and Isleworth? Yes, I know that Chiswick has "form" and was previously in a constituency title (when Hounslow had 3 seats) but it's already in the constituency and they've managed until now without the clunky "A, B and C" naming format, so no reason to add it now.
|
|
