|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 10, 2016 13:15:29 GMT
They said they intend to, though. (Form subregions, as they call it.)
Then again, that might conceivably take the form of "North London" vs "South London".
Can someone walk me through the rationale for considering triborough seats not just suboptimal (I get that) but to be avoided at almost all costs? I don't see the alternative alignments for East London that I've seen posted here as better than mine at all. (Unlike Brent and Harrow. I definitely should have spent more time finding a better arrangement once I'd found a legal one... I blame a sense of elation.)
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 10, 2016 14:45:17 GMT
My London proposals, part 6 (Croydon and Sutton)
1. Sutton & Cheam. As the current Sutton and Cheam constituency plus the ward of St. Helier. Electorate: 75,244.
2. Carshalton & Wallington. As the current Carshalton & Wallington constituency minus St. Helier ward but plus Broad Green ward from Croydon. Electorate: 71,619.
3. Croydon South. The Croydon wards of Coulsdon East/West, Kenley, Sanderstead, Selsdon & Ballards, Heathfield, Fieldway, and New Addington. Electorate: 71,401.
4. Croydon Central. The Croydon wards of Purley, Croham, Waddon, Farfield, Addiscombe, Selhurst (half), Ashburton, and Shirley. Electorate: 77,200 approx.
5. Croydon North. The Croydon wards of Upper Norwood, South Norwood, Woodside, Thornton Heath, Selhurst (half), Norbury, West Thornton, and Bensham Manor. Electorate: 76,600 approx.
Croydon and Sutton proposals map
Alternative proposals for the Sutton-Croydon pairing that do not involve any ward splitting at all:
1. Sutton & Cheam. As the current Sutton & Cheam constituency plus St. Helier ward. Electorate: 75,244. 2. Carshalton, Wallington & Coulsdon. The Sutton wards of Carshalton Central, Carshalton South & Clockhouse, The Wrythe, Wandle Valley, Wallington North, and Wallington South, plus the Croydon wards of Coulsdon East, Coulsdon West, and Kenley. Electorate: 74,882. 3. Beddington & Croydon North West. The Sutton wards of Beddington North and Beddington South, and the Croydon wards of Broad Green, West Thornton, Bensham Manor, Thornton Heath, Upper Norwood, and Norbury. Electorate: 75,332. 4. Croydon North East. The Croydon wards of South Norwood, Selhurst, Ashburton, Addiscombe, Fairfield, Shirley, and Woodside. Electorate: 71,925. 5. Croydon South. The Croydon wards of Sanderstead, Purley, Waddon, Croham, Selsdon & Ballards, Heathfield, Fieldway, and New Addington. Electorate: 72,809.
|
|
swix
Non-Aligned
Posts: 154 
|
Post by swix on Apr 10, 2016 19:30:56 GMT
West Central:
1. Hammersmith & Fulham. All Hammersmith & Fulham wards except for College Park & Old Oak, Wormholt & White City, Shepherd's Bush Green, and Askew. Electorate: 77,725. 2. Kensington & White City. The Hammersmith & Fulham wards of College Park & Old Oak, Wormholt & White City, Shepherd's Bush Green, and Askew, plus the Kensington & Chelsea wards of Golborne, Dalgarno, St Helen's, Notting Dale, Colville, Queen's Gate, Norland, Pembridge Holland, Campden, and Abingdon. Electorate: 72,441. 3. City of London, Westminster & Chelsea. The entire City of London, plus the Westminster wards of West End, St James's, Pimlico, Tachbrook, Vincent Square, Warwick, and Churchill, plus the Kensington & Chelsea wards of Royal Hospital, Brompton & Hans Town, Chelsea Riverside, Stanley, Earl's Court, Courtfield, and Redcliffe. Electorate: 74,332. 4. Paddington & St Marylebone. The Westminster wards of Queen's Park, Harrow Road, Maida Vale, Bayswater, Lancaster Gate, Little Venice, Westbourne, Hyde Park, Abbey Road, Regent's Park, Church Street, Bryanston & Dorset Square, and Marylebone High Street. Electorate: 74,894.
I actually really like this. The long riverside seat could just be called London Central.
Kensington would end up with a Labour MP in this scenario as well, which would be quite amusing.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 10, 2016 19:40:02 GMT
Kensington & White City would indeed end up a notional Labour seat, swix , but only marginally (estimated majority: 5%). Also, Paddington & St Marylebone will be a Conservative seat notionally, but it will also be marginal (estimated majority: 3.1%). |
|
swix
Non-Aligned
Posts: 154
|
Post by swix on Apr 10, 2016 20:07:37 GMT
They would both be fun contests. I suspect that Labour will find it easier to turn out White City than the Tories to turn out Kensington. They would definitely be favourites in such a seat. Especially if it ended up as Slaughter v Borwick.
Demographics are trending heavily Labour in west London as Shepherds Bush and North Ken become increasingly BME and the Tory vote is rapidly being hollowed out by EU voters moving in.
The H&F seat would probably be Tory in all but landslide years but Labour would have a go as they would be desperate to defeat Greg Hands. Likely that an AWS would be in place in that seat. Sharon Holder, who is a Fulham Councillor and a Union organiser would have to be favourite to win that selection in those circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 10, 2016 20:48:36 GMT
There is no Westminster ward of Pimlico. You must mean Knightsbridge and Belgravia.
My notionals for those four:
Hammersmith and Fulham: C 51.0%, Lab 34.9%, L Dem 5.3%, UKIP 4.6%, GP 4.1%.
Kensington and White City: Lab 45.9%, C 39.4%, GP 4.7%, L Dem 4.5%, UKIP 4.5%.
City of London, Westminster and Chelsea: C 59.0%, Lab 23.4%, L Dem 6.5%, UKIP 5.4%, GP 4.9%.
Paddington and St Marylebone: C 45.4%, Lab 42.1%, L Dem 4.3%, UKIP 3.8%, GP 3.8%.
|
|
swix
Non-Aligned
Posts: 154
|
Post by swix on Apr 10, 2016 21:26:46 GMT
Those notionals sound right.
The interesting thing about H&F as a borough is that Shepherds Bush is so Labour it can outvote whatever is paired with it. The opposite goes for Fulham being so Tory. Only marginal central Hammersmith remains a contest.
As a result, no way to draw Fulham into a Labour seat or SB into a Tory seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 11, 2016 15:19:46 GMT
The London thread springs to life after a long period of quiescence... Regarding swix's plan, I'm not sure what problem he's trying to solve here. The boundary review process is supposed to have regard to LA boundaries, and all else being equal it must be very likely that an authority with an electorate within quota would be made a stand-alone seat, provided it doesn't get in the way of a satisfactory fit elsewhere. Why should K&C be any different? As for minionofmidas, I'd take a more positive view of his scheme than Pete Whitehead did. There's some really good stuff here: treating Ealing and Hounslow together is an excellent idea, and the seats in this area are a lot better than in most other plans (certainly than mine). Even the rather awkward Feltham & Heston seat can be justified by the way it allows all of Hounslow town to be united in a seat - this is better than any other proposal I've seen for this area, and for that matter, better than the boundaries currently in use - and because it avoids a seat taking in territories on both sides of Heathrow Airport. And I agree that preserving the existing seats in Hackney and Tower Hamlets means biting the bullet of a cross-Lea seat joining Edmonton and Chingford. On the other hand, there are a couple of three-borough seats in the plan (e.g. Romford (but this could be remedied quite easily) and Leyton (although this might be justified as a special case because of the elegant way it deals with the oversize Newham seats). But I agree with Pete about the Central London seat, which covers four authorities if we count the C of L as distinct from Westminster, as of course it legally is. And of course I agree that Harrow and Brent is a mess. But everyone has struggled in this area; my own plan (posted upthread in instalments between 27 Feb and 1 Mar) completely jettisoned existing boundaries here, while Pete Whitehead had to split a ward. And minionofmidas has acknowledged that he is (with good reason!) unhappy about north Hillingdon, so let me suggest an alternative. WILLESDEN SOUTH AND SHEPHERD'S BUSH: As per minion's (and my) plan. 77279 WILLESDEN NORTH AND KINGSBURY: Compared with minion's plan, gains Preston and Kenton (Brent); loses Alperton and Tokyngton. 77502 HARROW SOUTH AND WEMBLEY: Compared with minion, gains Tokyngton (and thus the stadium) and Alperton; loses Preston and Rayners Lane. 75393 HARROW EAST: Loses Kenton, Headstone South; gains Harrow Weald, Stanmore Park. 78141 HARROW WEST AND NORTHWOOD: Loses Harrow Weald, Stanmore Park; gains Rayners Lane, Headstone South. 76262 All right, this last is still hardly a thing of beauty, and the inclusion of W Ruislip ward is particularly unfortunate, but at least its Harrow component is much more compact. That has Queensbury as an orphan ward in Harrow East though, which can be avoided.  Willesden North & Kingsbury (or just Brent Central) 77962 Harrow South & Wembley 77515 Harrow East 76651 Harrow West & Northwood 75170 |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 11, 2016 16:04:29 GMT
South London. The Central London map up there is a joke (though legal!)  1 Twickenham 78247 2 Richmond Park 74740 3 Kingston & Surbiton 77995, all unchanged Wandsworth/Merton/Lambeth required an extra borough split, hidden away by circular splits. More ugly is that there's an orphan ward. 4 Putney 76842, gains Fairfield and Wimbledon Park. Which is that orphan ward. It could gain two Merton wards instead, but that doesn't work well down the line. (And Wimbledon couldn't be called that anymore!) 5 Wimbledon & Morden 76415. Loses Wimbledon Park, gains three Morden wards 6 Mitcham & Streatham 72231. Loses Morden, gains Streatham from Lambeth. These two have been proposed before in this thread I believe. 7 Battersea & Clapham 77421. Loses Fairfield, gains Clapham Town and Clapham Common from Lambeth. Which were previously in two different constituencies. 8 Brixton Hill & West Norwood 72679. Or whatever you want to put in for Streatham-without-Streatham as the first naming element. Also loses Clapham Common and Coldharbour 9 Vauxhall 72272. Switches out Clapham Town for Coldharbour. This could be avoided by the way, moving Thornton to Battersea instead, but I went for uniting the Clapham wards. Battersea looks nicer in this version... though No.8 looks nicer in the other version. Not sure what to prefer. (Alternate electorates 76312, 74702, 71358) 10 Tooting 71428. Emerges unscathed. Amazingly. Croydon/Sutton map shamelessly lifted from greenhert (I changed two names). If you want to neither cross other borough lines nor split wards, ugly as this is it's probably still the best option. Croydon NW & Bedlington 75332 Croydon East 71925 Croydon South 72809 Carshalton & Couldon 74882 Sutton & Cheam 75244, only gaining Saint Helier Southwark and points west Bermondsey & Southwark (getting into that naming discussion again... in the plan builder I actually called it "Bermondsey & Borough") 77623. Loses Newington, gains Faraday Camberwell & Peckham 73463. Switches wards with Bermondsey and also loses Peckham Rye Dulwich & Lewisham West Sydenham 73744 (because since drawing it I've noticed islington had drawn the exact same seat before and had a more elegant name for it. Especially as we were both calling the next one) Lewisham 73275. Here his map is slightly different, and probably with very good reason as he clearly thought about it. Just posting what I drew. Greenwich & Deptford 76299. Same Ladywell-for-Lee Green swap. I must say that his version hadn't occurred to me at all, it looks so weird. Woolwich 78107. Same as his plan, again. Great minds, and all that Eltham & Welling 77605. Falconwood & Welling and Blackfen & Lamorbey wards, actually, because that enabled me to use the railway line as Erith's southern boundary Erith 76300 Bexleyheath & Sidcup 73127 And in Bromley just recreating the 1997-2010 map, apart from the new ward map Beckenham 72004 (or Beckenham & Penge, now that Penge has been elevated to constituency naming particle status?) Bromley & Chislehurst 75812 Orpington 78277 |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 11, 2016 17:39:47 GMT
I think you could improve the Croydon-Sutton group by putting Waddon in with Beddington, shifting Thornton Heath to Croydon East and Shirley into South.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 12, 2016 21:00:42 GMT
Some alternative London proposals with minionofmidas ' alternative borough pairings.
Note that there is no viable way of pairing Islington, Camden, Barnet, and Haringey together without significant ward (and also community) splitting. Another combination of pairings is realistically needed for that part of London.
West Central:
1. Hammersmith & Fulham. All Hammersmith & Fulham wards except for College Park & Old Oak, Wormholt & White City, Shepherd's Bush Green, and Askew. Electorate: 77,725. 2. Kensington & White City. The Hammersmith & Fulham wards of College Park & Old Oak, Wormholt & White City, Shepherd's Bush Green, and Askew, plus the Kensington & Chelsea wards of Golborne, Dalgarno, St Helen's, Notting Dale, Colville, Queen's Gate, Norland, Pembridge Holland, Campden, and Abingdon. Electorate: 72,441. 3. City of London, Westminster & Chelsea. The entire City of London, plus the Westminster wards of West End, St James's, Pimlico, Tachbrook, Vincent Square, Warwick, and Churchill, plus the Kensington & Chelsea wards of Royal Hospital, Brompton & Hans Town, Chelsea Riverside, Stanley, Earl's Court, Courtfield, and Redcliffe. Electorate: 74,332. 4. Paddington & St Marylebone. The Westminster wards of Queen's Park, Harrow Road, Maida Vale, Bayswater, Lancaster Gate, Little Venice, Westbourne, Hyde Park, Abbey Road, Regent's Park, Church Street, Bryanston & Dorset Square, and Marylebone High Street. Electorate: 74,894.
Ealing & Hounslow:
1. Acton & Chiswick. The Ealing wards of Acton Central, East Acton, South Acton, Hanger Hill, and Southfield, plus the Hounslow wards of Chiswick Homefield, Chiswick Riverside, Turnham Green, and Brentford. Electorate: 75,258. 2. Ealing. The Ealing wards of Ealing Common, Ealing Broadway, Walpole, Northfield, Elthorne, Cleveland, Hobbayne, and Norwood Green. Electorate: 71,121. 3. Greenford & Northolt. The Ealing wards of Lady Margaret, Dormers Wells, Perivale, North Greenford, Greenford Green, Northolt Mandeville, Northolt West End, and Greenford Broadway. Electorate: 74,320. 4. Southall, Heston & Isleworth. The Ealing wards of Southall Green and Southall Broadway, plus the Hounslow wards of Heston (all), Cranford, Osterley & Spring Grove, Isleworth, and Syon. Electorate: 75,109. 5. Feltham & Hounslow. The Hounslow wards of Hounslow (all), Feltham North, Feltham West, Bedfont, Hanworth, and Hanworth Park. Electorate: 72,678.
Brent, Harrow & Hillingdon.
1. Willesden. The Brent wards of Queen's Park, Kilburn, Brondesbury Park, Kensal Green, Welsh Harp, Willesden Green, Dudden Hill, Mapesbury, and Dollis Hill. Electorate: 72,936. 2. Wembley. The Brent wards of Stonebridge, Tokyngton, Alperton, Wembley Central, Sudbury, Preston, Northwick Park, and Harlesden. Electorate: 72,991. 3. Kenton & Queensbury. The Brent wards of Kenton, Queensbury, Fryent, and Barnhill, plus the Harrow wards of Canons, Edgware, Queensbury, Kenton East, and Kenton West. Electorate: 75,299. 4. Harrow & Wealdstone. The Harrow wards of Rayners Lane, Harrow on the Hill, West Harrow, Roxbourne, Roxeth, Marlborough, Wealdstone, Headstone North, and Headstone South. Electorate: 74,234. 5. Hayes & Harlington. As the current Hayes & Harlington constituency plus Yiewsley ward. Electorate: 78,097. 6. Uxbridge & Ruislip. As the current Uxbridge & South Ruislip constituency minus Yiewsley ward but plus Eastcote & East Ruislip and West Ruislip wards. Electorate: 76,242. 7. Northwood & Harrow North. The Hillingdon wards of Ickenham, Harefield, Northwood, and Northwood Hills, plus the Harrow wards of Pinner, Pinner South, Hatch End, Harrow Weald, Stanmore Park, and Belmont. Electorate: 77,310.
I have found a way to make the Barnet-Camden-Haringey-Islington pairing work within the Sixth Review's legal parameters, but it is pretty terrible and I will write to the Boundary Commission and ask them not to accept this particular London borough pairing thus:
1. Chipping Barnet. As the current Chipping Barnet minus Totteridge ward, but plus the Haringey wards of Alexandra and Fortis Green. Electorate: 78,386. 2. Hendon. As the current Hendon constituency plus Golders Green ward. Electorate: 78,403. 3. Finchley. As the current Finchley constituency minus Golders Green ward, but plus the Totteridge ward and Camden's Fortune Green ward. Electorate: 74,148. 4. Tottenham & Wood Green. The Haringey wards of Noel Park, Woodside, Bounds Green, Northumberland Park, White Hart Lane, Tottenham Hale, Tottenham Green, Bruce Grove, St Ann's, and West Green. Electorate: 72,574. 5. Hornsey & Islington North. The Haringey wards of Highgate, Seven Sisters, Harringay, Stroud Green, Muswell Hill, Crouch End, and Hornsey, plus the Islington wards of Junction, Hillrise, and Tollington. Electorate: 78,110. 6. Islington Central. The Islington wards of Highbury East/West, Finsbury Park, St George's, Holloway, Mildmay, Canonbury, St Mary's, and St Peter's. Electorate: 77,981. 7. Islington South & Camden East. The Islington wards of Clerkenwell, Caldonian, Barnsbury, and Bunhill, plus the Camden wards of Holborn & Covent Garden, King's Cross, St Pancras & Somers Town, Cantelowes, Kentish Town, and Highgate. Electorate: 76,397. 8. Hampstead & Camden West. The Camden wards of Bloomsbury, Regent's Park, Camden Town with Primrose Hill, Haverstock, Gospel Oak, Belsize, Swiss Cottage, Kilburn, West Hampstead, Frognal & Fitzjohns, and Hampstead Town. Electorate: 77,459.
The main problems are that the southern Camden wards (i.e. the Holborn part of Holborn & St Pancras) are much smaller than the other Camden wards and that the Barnet wards are very large compared to the wards in Camden, Haringey and Islington.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 13, 2016 13:43:16 GMT
Yowza. (Though Seven Sisters could be exchanged for somewhere marginally more reasonable.)
|
|
|
|
Post by longmonty on May 22, 2016 14:16:16 GMT
I wanted to do a London scheme with no split wards.
Some of what's here has been proposed by others, some is new I think.
I did not arbitrarily link boroughs in advance, my only constraint was not to cross the river.
I have one tri-borough seat (2 if you count the City) and a couple of orphan wards - all justified in my view though it seems some in here take a more fundamentalist view.
Sorry couldn't get the pics to show, will try when I have more time
|
|
|
|
Post by longmonty on May 29, 2016 18:56:39 GMT
I wanted to do a London scheme with no split wards.
Some of what's here has been proposed by others, some is new I think.
I did not arbitrarily link boroughs in advance, my only constraint was not to cross the river.
I have one tri-borough seat (2 if you count the City) and a couple of orphan wards - all justified in my view though it seems some in here take a more fundamentalist view.
Sorry couldn't get the pics to show, will try when I have more time
Trying again: 
 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2016 1:36:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 1, 2016 7:16:05 GMT
Welcome, Longmonty. Congrats on your plan. I expect you'd like some feedback.
Overall, it's an impressive plan and there are some very nice seats in here (I particularly like your Willesden) and only one real car-crash (the Harold Wood & Hainault thing). And I agree entirely that Edmonton-Chingford is the least bad place to cross the Lea - it's not a pretty arrangement, but all the alternatives are worse.
But as a general observation, I'd be concerned on two counts: (a) respect for LA boundaries; (b) minimum change.
On (a), it's interesting that I should be the one to make this point because I've been criticized on other threads (W Mids, Y&H) on exactly this issue. But I do think that where an authority is of a size that allows a whole number of seats to be allocated within its boundary, without ward splits and without creating problems elsewhere, then that's what we should do. So on that basis (and also with regard to minimum change), I'd seriously question your decision to add a ward into Hackney when it already has two whole seats within the permitted range, which require only trifling adjustments to fit the new wards. Likewise, K&C is within range for a single seat and I feel that that's what it should get, provided it can be done as part of a satisfactory map elsewhere (and a number of proposals upthread show that it can).
On (b), I agree that the 'miminum change' requirement can't be a straitjacket because so many of the current seats are too big or (much more often) too small; moreover, London as a whole has to be reduced from 73 seats to 68. But I don't think the fact that large-scale changes are necessary merans that we can disregard the current map completely, and in some areas (E London especially) I feel there are solutions available that have more regard to existing boundaries.
The triborough seats aren't the end of the world, and the pairing of Forest Gate and Leyton is actually quite elegant; the only real objection is that there are workable solutions that avoid them.
Incidentally, I can see why you split K&C: it's because your seats in the K&C / Westminster / Camden area are all banging their heads against the ceiling (so to speak) and this severely limits your possible options. Isn't there some way, with a bit of judicious ward-swapping perhaps, that you can get some electors out of this area and thus give yourself a bit of headroom? Just a suggestion.
|
|
swix
Non-Aligned
Posts: 154
|
Post by swix on Jun 1, 2016 9:15:02 GMT
Incidentally, I can see why you split K&C: it's because your seats in the K&C / Westminster / Camden area are all banging their heads against the ceiling (so to speak) and this severely limits your possible options. Isn't there some way, with a bit of judicious ward-swapping perhaps, that you can get some electors out of this area and thus give yourself a bit of headroom? Just a suggestion.
I think the problem with K&C as one seat is that a) North Ken and Chelsea are worlds apart in in both connectivity and character (travelling North-South in this part of the world is extremely difficult) and b) the knock on impact of having that single K&C seat leads to some pretty odd arrangements elsewhere that don't really work.
Longmonty's proposal is similar to greenhert's suggestion (which I think is the best I've seen for the West Central area of London) pairing Chelsea with Westminster and the City, recreating the old H&F seat, linking Shepherds Bush & Kensington and a Paddington & Marleybone seat. The latter two seats would also likely be quite entertaining marginals (not that that should have any weight - but still worth noting).
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 1, 2016 10:07:58 GMT
Swix, isn't your point really an argument that K&C doesn't work well as a local authority? This may or may not be true, but surely it's a matter for the LGBCE. The present exercise is about Parliamentary boundaries and nothing else, and the rules tell us - or, at least, give us a very strong hint - that we should have regard to local government boundaries. They don't say anything about taking a view of which boundaries we think are good, and which we think aren't, and having regard only to the former. So I think we should (for the present exercise) take local government boundaries as we find them, and not worry about whether we like them.
Frankly, I have some sympathy with the proposition that K&C doesn't work well as a borough, if only because it's being left behind the rest of London in terms of population. And I'd also be critical, for a variety of reasons, of a lot of other LA boundaries elsewhere in the country; but I've still tried to respect them. (For instance, the boundary between Sandwell and Dudley is an absurdity; but I still changed my plans to achieve a solution crossing it only twice, rather than four times as I originally suggested. And an authority like NE Derbyshire, wrapped almost completely round Chesterfield and with no logical centre of its own, also makes very little sense in my opinion; nevertheless, it's within range for a single seat and I've recommended accordingly.)
And I'm not sure I'd characterize the consequences elsewhere as 'odd'. There are a number plans upthread that give K&C its own seat alongside perfectly workable seats both in Westminster and in H&F.
|
|
swix
Non-Aligned
Posts: 154
|
Post by swix on Jun 1, 2016 11:06:27 GMT
You make a fair point about K&C as a borough. Frankly, given its depopulation and the small size of H&F next door and the links being stronger west-east than north-south, I wouldn't be against looking at the two boroughs being joined together. But that's never going to happen. The people of Chelsea would be in uproar.
I think just because you don't automatically accept a K&C seat matching borough boundaries doesn't mean a proposal doesn't respect local authority boundaries and it is not the only consideration the BCE takes into account. The BCE might also want to consider the Tri-Borough shared service agreements amongst the 3 West Central boroughs, in many departments the 3 authorities are effectively merged anyway which makes cross border seats less problematic than elsewhere. But we've gone round in circles on this one a few times.
In my view, as someone who lives in this neck of the woods, this is the best solution but accept that the BCE is probably likely to take K&C as a single seat as their starting point for London.
|
|
|
|
Post by longmonty on Jun 2, 2016 19:17:37 GMT
Welcome, Longmonty. Congrats on your plan. I expect you'd like some feedback. Overall, it's an impressive plan and there are some very nice seats in here (I particularly like your Willesden) and only one real car-crash (the Harold Wood & Hainault thing). And I agree entirely that Edmonton-Chingford is the least bad place to cross the Lea - it's not a pretty arrangement, but all the alternatives are worse. But as a general observation, I'd be concerned on two counts: (a) respect for LA boundaries; (b) minimum change. On (a), it's interesting that I should be the one to make this point because I've been criticized on other threads (W Mids, Y&H) on exactly this issue. But I do think that where an authority is of a size that allows a whole number of seats to be allocated within its boundary, without ward splits and without creating problems elsewhere, then that's what we should do. So on that basis (and also with regard to minimum change), I'd seriously question your decision to add a ward into Hackney when it already has two whole seats within the permitted range, which require only trifling adjustments to fit the new wards. Likewise, K&C is within range for a single seat and I feel that that's what it should get, provided it can be done as part of a satisfactory map elsewhere (and a number of proposals upthread show that it can). On (b), I agree that the 'miminum change' requirement can't be a straitjacket because so many of the current seats are too big or (much more often) too small; moreover, London as a whole has to be reduced from 73 seats to 68. But I don't think the fact that large-scale changes are necessary merans that we can disregard the current map completely, and in some areas (E London especially) I feel there are solutions available that have more regard to existing boundaries. The triborough seats aren't the end of the world, and the pairing of Forest Gate and Leyton is actually quite elegant; the only real objection is that there are workable solutions that avoid them. Incidentally, I can see why you split K&C: it's because your seats in the K&C / Westminster / Camden area are all banging their heads against the ceiling (so to speak) and this severely limits your possible options. Isn't there some way, with a bit of judicious ward-swapping perhaps, that you can get some electors out of this area and thus give yourself a bit of headroom? Just a suggestion. Many thanks for this!
Glad you liked my Willesden - in fact I was quite pleased with the whole Brent/Harrow/Hillingdon/Ealing area.
East London - actually I didn't think my Harrold Wood seat was all that bad (there are other seats in my scheme I was more anxious about than that one!). Although in retrospect you are probably right so I have had a go at re-configuring more in line with current seats. My problem is I am determined to get all of Woodford into one seat, so my only other option is to disrupt the Ilford seat - it also requires more cross-borough seats and an extra orphan ward ... I don't like it as much as what I posted before, but no doubt you are right it fits better with the statutory criteria: (map also shows removal of the tri-borough seat, though personally I think this configuration is not as good - the two issues can be addressed independently of each other.) 
Hackney N - you are 100% right, it would be better not to add a ward - believe me I tried! - but without being able to absorb that extra ward there, I always ended up with either the need to split a ward or a seat somewhere that was unacceptable (to me at least). In the end I decided it was worth it.
Kensington et al - Yes I can unite the whole borough, relatively easily in fact (thanks for the hint, doctorb!) - but again, personally I like this less than my previous attempt: 
|
|
