- Thanks for kind words about my second thoughts for East and West Ham. - I know ward-splitting is now available as an option, but I'm still keen to avoid it except where absolutely necessary. I wanted to see whether it was possible to produce a workable plan across the whole of London without any ward splits at all and on the whole, I feel I've achieved this (the final episode still to come, probably tomorrow). So, in terms of dealing with Wandsworth, I agree it's easier if you split Earlsfield (and, to be fair, it's a long, straggly ward that lends itself to being split); it all depends on your view of ward-splitting. - On Roehampton and Wimbledon specifically, the A219 runs directly between them so the comms aren't too bad at all. Admittedly the ward boundary runs down the middle of the road, so I suppose you could argue that although you could get from Wimbledon to Roehampton without leaving the seat (unless you had to overtake someone), you would have to cross the boundary to get back again. But isn't this a bit of a purist argument? What I mean is, if there's a road that gives good communications from one part of a constituency to the other, does it matter if it happens to clip the boundary?
Fair enough - I guess that I am much happier to consider ward splitting if it "makes sense" given the other constraints / the fact that ward boundaries are sometimes a bit artificial anyway. Certainly an interesting attempt to avoid splitting any wards - I look forward to seeing your Lewisham/Greenwich seats which appear to have particularly large wards in some places!
In terms of communications - I wasn't really making a purist communications argument - I agree that a boundary road is fine in terms of communications - it was more shorthand for saying that there is no natural 'linking' between the 2 parts - no-one in Roe and PH would naturally look to Wimbledon, but would do to Putney. Earlsfield on the other hand can easily look to either Wandsworth or Wimbledon - there is not the same natural topographical divide.
This is all subjective however, and different people will put different weight to different things (cf my willingness to cross the Thames at Woolwich...), hence the very interesting debate and discussion.
Pirate Party - Because GCHQ already know you're thinking of voting for us...
Woolwich Reach: (71,670) The previous 'Greenwich and Woolwich' seat with the addition of the 2 'North Woolwich' wards (Beckton and Royal Docks from Newham). Also loses Greenwich West (which is slightly isolated by the Park / Naval Museum anyway).
Lewisham Deptford: (~73,400) The existing Lewisham, Deptford seat with the addition of Greenwich West from Woolwich and the removal of half of Lewisham Central (suggest the A21 is a natural split). A better seat than previously with New Cross, Deptford and Greenwich being combined.
Lewisham South (aka Forest Hill and Bellingham): (72,983) The Lewisham wards of the previous West and Penge seat, plus Rushey Green, Catford South, Downham and Whitefoot.
Blackheath and Eltham: (~72,200) The previous Eltham seat, to which is added the remaining Lewisham wards of Blackheath, Grove Park, Lee Green and the remaining half of Lewisham Central. Shooters Hill is removed (disconnected from Eltham by the common anyway) as is Eltham South and half of Coldharbour and New Eltham. In reality I would like to split both of these wards along the natural boundary of green space so that Eltham and Mottingham remain in Eltham and Avery Hill and New Eltham are removed.
Sidcup and the Cray Valley: (~73,950) The previous Old Bexley and Sidcup seat, with the addition of Eltham South and the other half of Coldharbour and New Eltham from Eltham. Also include Crayford and the southern half (roughly) of the Barnehurst ward from Bexley and Crayford. It loses the 2 wards of East Wickham and Falconwood and Welling.
Welling and Bexley: (~74,300) Based on the previous Bexley and Crayford seat, but more closely aligned on the commuter railway line / A207. Loses Crayford and the southern half of the Barnehurst ward to the above seat. Gains the 2 'Welling' wards of East Wickham and Falconwood and Welling from the previous Sidcup seat. Gains 1/2 of the Northumberland Heath ward from Erith and Thamesmead
Erith and Thamesmead: (~71,800) Based on the existing seat of the same name, but takes Shooters Hill from Eltham, and loses 1/2 the Northumberland Heath ward to Welling and Bexley.
In reality I would actually split both the Shooters Hill and Glyndon wards to rationalise the Woolwich Reach / Thamesmead boundary - clearly 1/2 of the Shooters Hill ward looks to Woolwich, the other half to Plumstead, but the principle should hold reasonably well. There is also considerably more ward splitting than I would like - partly as the ward boundaries look 'wrong' in places, and also as the numbers are quite tight and the wards are quite large.
In principle however this arrangement could easily 'work' and shows the viability of a cross-Thames seat at Woolwich (which was the point). This means that Bromley can be a single borough with 3 seats, and Lambeth and Southwark can continue to be paired for 5 seats.
Pirate Party - Because GCHQ already know you're thinking of voting for us...
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 29, 2016 20:52:47 GMT
Here's my first stab at London. I haven't looked in too much detail at other proposals here as I like to try and start without too many preconceptions, so apologies if I'm repeating some proposals already made. I'm starting in the East and determined neither to cross the Thames at any point nor the Lea at the WalthamForest/Enfield border. I've therefore created a first group which comprises the five 'Essex' boroughs with the four boroughs of East and North Inner London which together are good for almost exactly 18 seats.
So I start in the far east
Romford: loses Hylands. Gans Chadwell Heath and Whalebobe. 73,566 (Squirrels Heath is wrong on the map~) Hornchurch & Upminster: unchanged 78,064 Dagenham & Rainham: Gains Hylands, Alibon, Valence. Loses Chadwell Heath and Whalebobe. 77626 Barking: Loses Alibon and Valence. Gains Beckton and Royal Docks from Newham. 73,046 East Ham: Loses Beckton and Royal Docks, gains Green Street West. 78,146 Ilford South: Unchanged 78,212 Ilford North: Loses Bridge, gains Snaresbrook and Wanstead. 76,374 Chingford & Woodford: Gains Bridge 71,105 Walthamstow: Gains Forest. 71,280 Leyton & Stratford: The Five remaining wards of Waltham Forest plus Forest Gate N & S, Stratford, West Ham from West Ham, 74,379
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 29, 2016 21:01:55 GMT
Ward boundary changes in various places here so map not entirely accurate
Poplar & Canning Town: Newham wards of Canning Town N & S, PLaistow N & S, Custome House, Tower Hamlets wards of Blackwall & Cubitt Town, Canary Wharf, Island Gardens, Lansbury, Limehouse, Poplar. 78,073 Stepney & Bow: Tower Hamlets wards of Bow East, Bow West, Bromley North, Bromley South, Mile End, St Dunstan's, St Katherine's & Wapping, Shadwell, Stepney Green, Whitechapel. 77,554 Bethnal Green & Shoreditch: Tower Hamlets wards of Bethnal Green, Spitalfields & Banglatown, St Peter's, Weavers. Hackney wards of Dalston, De Beauvoir, Haggerston, Hoxton East & Shoreditch, Hoxton West, London Fields. 75,449 Hackney: Hackney wards of Cazenove, Hackney Central, Hackney Downs, Hackney Wick, Homerton, King's Park, Lea Bridge, Shacklewell, Springfield, Victoria. 75,824 Stoke Newington & Highbury: Hackney wards of Brownswood, Clissold, Stamford Hill West, Stoke Newington, Woodberry Down. Islington wards of Canonbury, Finsbury Park, Highbury East, Highbury West, Mildmay. 77,561 Islington: Islington wards of Barnsbury, Caledonian, Hillrise, Holloway, Junction, St George's, St Mary's, St Peter's,Tollington. 73,995 St Pancras & Finsbury: Holborn & St Pancras plus Bunhill and Clerkenwell from Islington while losing Gospel Oak,, Haverstock and Highgate. 73,813 Hampstead & Highgate: Gains the three wards named above from Holborn & St Pancras and loses the Three Brent wards: 71,693
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 29, 2016 21:21:18 GMT
Moving West, The 'West Central' boroughs of Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea and Hammersmith & Fulham plus the city are good for four seats. I've disregarded the fact that Kensington & Chelsea is right for one seat as its better to treat this area as a whole and end up splitting the borough. I don't think community links between Ladbroke Grove and Chelsea are all that strong..
So Cities of London & Westminster gains the other three Marylebone wards frmo Westminster North for an electorate of 75,969 The remainder of Westminster North (the Paddington bit) is joined by the K&C wards of: Campden, Colville, Dalgarno, Golborne, Norland, Notting Dale, Pembridge, St Helen's. Electorate 74,514 - not sure about the name yet - Paddington & Notting Hill perhaps (and I know someone is going to point out that PAddington station is in Hyde Park ward but whatever, it includes most of the old borough of that name) Chelsea and Fulham gains the rest fo the Kensington wards not included above with the exception of Holland. 77,276 Hammersmith gains Holland 71,633
Its possible of course to put Holland in the Chelsea & Fulham seat which has the advantage of splitting K&C between only two seats instead of three and keeping Hammersmith all within one borough, but has the disadvantage of Chelsea & Fulham not including Fulham Broadway (which on reflection doesnt matter very much)
Meanwhile, here are some of my ideas for new London constituencies, going upwards from the City of London.
City of London, Old Westminster, and St Marylebone: Gains the remainder of the old borough of Marylebone i.e. the wards of Abbey Road, Church Street, and Regent's Park. I was initially going to have it lose Hyde Park but that change would put it a few hundred voters below the allowable minimum. Electorate: 75,969.
Paddington & Kilburn Park: Formed from the northwestern wards of the City of Westminster (Paddington, basically) and the Brent wards of Kilburn, Queens Park, Brondesbury Park, and Kensal Green. Electorate: 75,224.
Willesden: Formed from the wards of Willesden Green, Queensbury, Fryent, Mapesbury, Welsh Harp, Dollis Hill, Dudden Hill, Harlesden, and Stonebridge. Electorate: 75,323.
Wembley: The rest of the borough of Brent. Electorate: 73,148.
Kensington & Chelsea: The entire borough of Kensington & Chelsea, basically. Electorate: 76,454.
Hampstead & Highgate: The Camden wards of Highgate, Frognal and Fitzjohns, Fortune Green, Belsize, Swiss Cottage, Hampstead Town, West Hampstead, Gospel Oak, and Kilburn. Electorate: 71,442.
This covers the final five boroughs: Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich, Lewisham, Southwark. They get a total of 12 seats.
57 – SOUTHWARK AND BERMONDSEY (72857): The existing seat is too big, but the most obviously removable ward, Newington, takes too many voters away and leaves the seat below quota. So I’ve removed the smaller East Walworth instead. This leaves Newington with only a short boundary with the rest of the seat and it looks very awkward on the map; but the point of contact is Elephant and Castle, a major transport hub, so it actually works quite well on the ground and it is the only way I can see of avoiding major disruption to what is currently (apart from being over size) an entirely sensible and satisfactory constituency.
58 – CAMBERWELL AND PECKHAM (78229): The current seat is already too big, even more so after gaining East Walworth, so it loses Peckham Rye. It’s unfortunate to separate the Rye from the bulk of Peckham, but the only alternative in terms of numbers, Nunhead, would create huge knock-on difficulties in Lewisham.
59 – DULWICH AND SYDENHAM (73744): Not really the successor of any current seat, this joins the four remaining wards of Southwark (basically, the Dulwich area plus Peckham Rye) with the four southwestern wards of Lewisham (Crofton Park, Forest Hill, Perry Vale, Sydenham) to form a nice, compact cross-border constituency.
60 – LEWISHAM (72781): Loosely, the successor of Lewisham East, compared with which it loses Blackheath and Lea Green and gains Bellingham, Ladywell and Lewisham Central. (Lee Green instead of Ladywell would give a straighter boundary, but Ladywell is an integral part of Lewisham town, whereas Lee Green has strong links with Blackheath – see the next seat.)
61 – GREENWICH AND DEPTFORD (76793): Even more loosely, the successor to Lewisham Deptford: it loses the Lewisham town area (Ladywell and Lewisham Central) and Crofton Park, and gains the Lewisham wards of Blackheath and Lee Green, plus the Greenwich wards of Blackheath Westcombe and Greenwich West. This means it takes in the whole of Deptford and brings the Blackheath and Lee wards all together in the same seat, although admittedly at the expense of something of a southward peninsula in the form of Lee Green. Speaking of peninsulas, my main regret is that it can’t include the Greenwich ward of that name. But even so, the historic heart of Greenwich is firmly in the seat and, on the whole, I’m very pleased with it. 62 – WOOLWICH (78107): Compared with the current seat of Greenwich and Woolwich, it loses Greewich West and Blackheath Westcombe at the western end, whilst gaining at the other end the three wards of Greenwich currently in the Erith and Thamesmead seat. This creates a logical Thames-side constituency.
63 – ELTHAM AND WELLING (77628): The existing Eltham seat is well under size so it takes in two wards from Bexley, East Wickham and Falconwood & Welling.
64 – ERITH (76277): Compared with Erith and Thamesmead, this loses the three Greenwich wards and takes in four Bexley wards north of the railway line: Brampton, Colyers, North End, St Michael’s. But even these aren’t enough to get it up to the minimum so it has to take a ward south of the line. Crayford would restore an historic link but the shape of the ward is awkward, and taking Barnehurst or Christchurch would divide Bexleyheath town centre and result in a jagged boundary so on balance I prefer Danson Park (although I accept it’s something of a peninsula).
65 – SIDCUP AND CRAYFORD (73127): The successor to Old Bexley and Sidcup, compared with which it loses East Wickham and Falconwood & Welling and gains Barnehurst, Christchurch and Crayford.
The remaining three seats fit neatly into Bromley: so neatly, in fact, that I’m going to stick my neck out and predict that the Boundary Commission will come up with an identical proposal. The three wards currently paired with Lewisham West clearly have to go into Beckenham; which in turn gives up Hayes & Coney Hall and Bromley Common & Keston to the Bromley seat; which loses Cray Valley West to Orpington, where it is united with the equally snappily-titled Cray Valley East to public rejoicings. As follows:
66 – BECKENHAM (72004)
67 – BROMLEY AND CHISLEHURST (75812)
68 – ORPINGTON (78277)
And that’s it. 68 seats awarded and not a single ward split.
Post by David Boothroyd on Mar 11, 2016 10:10:28 GMT
Don't think you can call that seat Paddington when the station isn't in it.
Although it does have some east-west links with Church Street ward, Little Venice ward lacks any north-south links with Hyde Park. It's a far more natural fit with north Paddington than is Lancaster Gate ward, which is an area with good connections to Paddington station. Don't know if the numbers make that switch possible.
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 11, 2016 10:29:08 GMT
I've had to redo what I posted a little while ago as I'd missed out a ward somewhere. With some rejigging I think I've fixed it but I'm going to have to split a ward which I was trying to avoid. The ward I'm splitting though is Welsh Harp and i'm dividing it along the River Brent so it's entirely logical
I'll be along with further details later. Happy to call the Westway seat something other than Paddington, there's plenty names to choose from round there
Saves alot of typing as well having the new Boundary Assisstant
(as advertised I swapped Harrow Weald and Rayner's Lane) Wembley loses voters to Willesden in the form of Welsh Harp ward south of the Brent. Need to see if I can find some PD electorate numbers to make sure this works
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 12, 2016 11:01:28 GMT
Looking at the partisan changes effected by my proposals. Firstly abolished seats: In East London, Labour lose one seat through abolition. It isn't entirely clear which seat as though West Ham is the most obviously dismembered seat, it actually donates the largest number of voters to both Leyton & Stratford and to Poplar & Canning Town. In any event Labour are down 1 there. In North London, Enfield Southgate is abolised and split between Chipping Barnet (Barnet & Southgate) and Enfield North (Enfield West) In West London Kensington is abolished and divided between Hammersmith, Chelsea & Fulham and Westmisnter North (Maida Vale & Ladbroke Grove) In South London two seats disappear. Erith & Thamesmead is clearly abolished with the greater part joining with wards from Bexleyheath & Crayford where it is in the minority (though it will translate this into a marginal seat) while the two seats of Dulwich & west Norwood and Lewisham West & Penge are effectively merged though with the latter contributing slightly more voters.
So abolished seats result in a loss of 3 Labour seats and 2 Conservative seats.
There are then a further six seats which are moved from one party to another
1. Hampstead & Kilburn on becoming Hampstead & Highgate would likely have returned a small Conservative majority in 2015 (about 300) but the fundamental balance of the seat is not altered 2. Enfield North in being transformed into Enfield West moves from marginal Labour to reasonably safe Conservative 3. Brentford & Isleworth in being transformed into Brentford & Chiswick moves from marginal Labour to comfortably Conservative 4. Tooting in being transformed into Wandsworth Central moves from marginal Labour to safely Conservative 5. Croydon Central moves from marginal Conservative to safe Labour 6. Carshalton & Wallington in being transformed into Carshalton & Coulsdon moves from marginal Lib Dem to safe Conservative (Sutton & St Helier however is much more marginally Conservative)
The result in 2015 would therefore have been Lab 39 (-6) Con 29 (+2) LD 0 (-1)
Edit: Forgot to check Eltham & Welling and having done so that comes out on my figures as Tory with a majority of 95 - too close to call really and I guess had those two wards (where Labour will have done no work) been in the seat they may have been able to make up the deficit. Clearly much more vulnerable though