|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 6, 2016 21:14:17 GMT
The triborough seat in my plan is called Greenwich, New Cross & Rotherhithe (aka South London Docklands); I feel it is necessary if the boroughs of Bexley, Greenwich, Lewisham and Southwark are paired together in order to avoid a cross-Thames seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 12, 2016 11:52:32 GMT
Given that it's been shown several times upthread that it's possible to produce workable plans for London with no ward splits at all, then the justification for any ward split - even a single one - has to be that it allows a markedly better plan than can be achieved without it. And the place to demonstrate that, in London, would be Sutton & Croydon. The issues elsewhere (East, NW, SE) don't magically go away with a split ward. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 14, 2016 7:20:10 GMT
 Right, let's give this a try... |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 14, 2016 7:27:57 GMT
It's like everything else.... Easy when you know how.
The preceding post is my Group LN-A (B&D, Havering, Newham) with 458598 electors = 6.13 = 6 seats.
Barking and Beckton - 73046
Dagenham and Rainham - 77626
East Ham - 78146
Hornchurch and Upminster - 78064
Romford - 73566
West Ham - 78150
This is along the lines that I and many others have posted before, but at least I've now - not before time - worked out how to post an image, so I plan to post further maps of other areas where it's more challenging to draw decent boundaries than in the slice of east London featured above.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 14, 2016 7:40:50 GMT
 LN-B (Enfield, Redbridge, WF): 525808 = 7.03 = 7 Edmonton and Chingford - 76201 Enfield - 75302 Ilford North and Woodford - 74114. I've adjusted my original plan to get the whole of Woodford into this seat. In fact, since the whole Ilford town area is located in the following seat, you could call this 'Woodford and Barkingside' (or some such) or even simply 'Woodford'. Ilford South - 78212. Or simply 'Ilford'. Leyton and Wanstead - 78055. I've had to add Clayhall to this seat; it's not a natural fit, but it's worth it to avoid dividing Woodford town. Southgate and Palmers Green - 72338 Walthamstow - 71586 |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 14, 2016 7:46:20 GMT
Like a hideous unwanted Zombie, Chingford and Edmonton rises from that deserved grave to which it had been sent three years earlier.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 14, 2016 7:57:14 GMT
 Group LN-C (Hackney): 148344 = 1.98 = 2 HACKNEY NORTH - 75318. It's high time these Hackney seat names were shortened and simplified. Why are we still preserving the names of municipal boroughs that were abolished half a century ago? HACKNEY SOUTH - 73026. Group LN-D (Tower Hamlets): 151151 = 2.02 = 2 BETHNAL GREEN AND BOW - 76868 POPLAR AND LIMEHOUSE - 74283 Group LN-E (City, Camden, Haringey, Islington, Westminster): 522892 = 6.99 = 7 CITY OF LONDON AND WESTMINSTER SOUTH - 74881. I've altered my scheme to get rid of the awkward 'tail' I originally proposed for this seat. Instead I've adopted Greenhert's suggestion. HAMPSTEAD - 72659. This is a good compact seat and avoids the boundary through the middle of Hampstead that some other plans have suggested. HORNSEY AND WOOD GREEN - 74275 ISLINGTON NORTH - 77247 ISLINGTON SOUTH AND HOLBORN - 74997 ST PANCRAS AND WESTMINSTER NORTH - 74185 TOTTENHAM - 74648 Group LN-F (K&C): 76454 = 1.02 = 1 KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA - 76454 |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 14, 2016 8:34:55 GMT
Like a hideous unwanted Zombie, Chingford and Edmonton rises from that deserved grave to which it had been sent three years earlier. David Yes, but what's the alternative? You'd have to cross the lower Lea, which means it would be impossible to maintain the current very sensible boundaries in TH and Hackney. I know the Edmonton/Chingford link isn't pretty, but I really think it's the least worst option. Anyway, to continue -  I found this the most troublesome part of London. I was very happy with my initial plans in Barnet, Harrow and north Hillingdon; but I ran into problems as I went south, and my original Hounslow was horrible. Minion came up with a far better proposal for the latter borough, but further north, especially in the Ruislip area, he ended up with a complete mess. So I have tried to combine the best elements of both schemes. The result is still not ideal, and it involves a lot of change from the current map, but it's serviceable and a big improvement on what I originally posted. LN-G (Barnet, Brent, Ealing, H&F, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow): 1209639 = 16.18 = 16 BARNET - 72480 EALING NORTH AND WEMBLEY - 73197. Or 'Ealing Broadway and Wembley' if you prefer. I'm not wild about a boundary through Ealing town centre but it's a common feature of a lot of plans posted here and it's hard to avoid without creating worse problems elsewhere. At any rate, Ealing is a large enough place to form the 'lead component', so to speak, in both seats. EALING SOUTH AND CHISWICK - 74807. Or 'Ealing Acton and Chiswick'. See comments above for Ealing; but this seat does have the great merit of avoiding any division of either Acton or Chiswick. FELTHAM AND HESTON - 78138. Closely based on Minion's excellent suggestion, which I had to spoil (but only slightly) by including Heathrow. FINCHLEY - 78011 GREENFORD - 74119. Closely based on the existing Ealing N seat, but I think this is a better name. HAMMERSMITH - 77725 HARROW EAST - 78141 HARROW WEST - 76393 HENDON - 74408 HOUNSLOW AND BRENTFORD - 75213. Thanks to Minion for this one. RUISLIP AND NORTHWOOD - 72471 SOUTHALL AND HAYES - 74440. This is an unorthodox pairing and may be controversial, but it's legal and contiguous and contributes to a satisfactory map overall. UXBRIDGE - 76292 WILLESDEN NORTH AND KINGSBURY - 76525. I'm almost tempted to call it 'Metroland' because that's what it is. WILLESDEN SOUTH AND SHEPHERD'S BUSH - 77279 |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 14, 2016 8:59:49 GMT
I should have added that if you don't like Southall and Hayes, you can swap the three Hillingdon wards in this seat for the three Heston wards, plus Cranford, in the Feltham seat. This gives you Feltham and Hayes (74784) and Southall and Heston (77794). I don't like this arrangement because it involves a cross-Heathrow seat that lacks the Heston/Cranford area to tie it together; also because natural communications in this area tend to run radially from central London, rather than crossways. But the option is there if you prefer it.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 14, 2016 15:21:11 GMT
 Moving on to south London ... LN-H (Kingston, Richmond): 230982 = 3.09 = 3Kingston and Surbiton - 77995 Richmond Park - 74740 Twickenham - 78247 LN-I (Croydon, Lambeth, Merton, Sutton, Wandsworth): 889380 = 11.90 = 12This is a tricky area because normally I'd split it into two smaller groups: Croydon/Sutton with 5, and Lambeth/Merton/Wandsworth with 7. In terms of numbers, this split works beautifully but I haven't gone for it, basically because it leads to awkward seats. You end up linking Beddington with parts of west andor north Croydon, plus a clumsy seat in the southern half of Lambeth. I found there was a tension in this area between respecting LA boundaries (which I obviously want to do) and drawing coherent seats that respect the existing map. So in the end, I've gone for a plan that has more respect for the LA boundaries than my original proposal (e.g. I have two seats wholly in Croydon rather than one, and three seats crossing the Croydon boundary rather than five); but I've treated the five boroughs as a single group rather than dividing the area further. (And I acknowledge my debt to Pete Whitehead in Croydon.) BATTERSEA AND CLAPHAM - 77117 BRIXTON AND VAUXHALL - 72108 CARSHALTON AND COULSDON - 75159 CROYDON CENTRAL - 72726. My original plan kept the current seat unchanged, but I've reluctantly had to accept that it needs to be shuffled northwards to allow a better plan elsewhere. If preferred, this seat could swap Waddon and Shirley wards with Croydon S. CROYDON NORTH AND NORWOOD - 76074 CROYDON SOUTH - 72599 MITCHAM - 75027. No longer contains Lwr Morden, hence the name change. STREATHAM - 71756. I think this is the best treatment for the Streatham area; the Croydon ward of Norbury is a natural continuation of a Streatham seat. SUTTON AND CHEAM - 75139 TOOTING - 71051 WANDSWORTH AND PUTNEY - 72359 WIMBLEDON - 78265. I acknowledge the comments upthread about putting Roehampton in a Wimbledon seat, but plans that avoid this generally put Wimbledon Park ward into a Putney seat. I feel this is worse, because Wimbledon Park is a much more integral part of Wimbledon than Roehampton is of Putney.  LN-J (Bromley): 226093 = 3.02 = 3BECKENHAM - 72004 BROMLEY AND CHISLEHURST - 75812 ORPINGTON - 78277 LN-K (Bexley, Greenwich, Lewisham, Southwark): 679543 = 9.09 = 9CAMBERWELL AND PECKHAM - 73463 DULWICH AND SYDENHAM - 73744 ELTHAM AND WELLING - 77628 ERITH - 76277 GREENWICH AND DEPTFORD - 76793. The boundary looks more awkward than in some versions of this seat upthread, but this arrangement (i) keeps Ladywell in with Lewisham town centre, and (ii) avoids a boundary down Lee High Road, and keeps the whole of Lee in with Blackheath. LEWISHAM - 72781 SIDCUP AND CRAYFORD - 73127 SOUTHWARK AND BERMONDSEY - 77623. Again, thanks to Pete Whitehead for a better Southwark & Bermondsey seat. WOOLWICH - 78107 |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 16, 2016 17:00:48 GMT
I've added London to the blog ukelect.wordpress.com/tag/london/Seven split wards. I haven't calculated the electorates affected in Brent and Hounslow yet; I'll correct the figures in a bit. I've changed my mind about Wandsworth/Merton seats so I'll put a new version up. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 16, 2016 19:03:29 GMT
What's your justification for adding Church Street ward to Cities of London and Westminster?
|
|
Dalek
Conservative
Aldershot and Glasgow Kelvingrove
Posts: 110
|
Post by Dalek on Jul 17, 2016 14:37:19 GMT
Moving on to south London ... LN-H (Kingston, Richmond): 230982 = 3.09 = 3Kingston and Surbiton - 77995 Richmond Park - 74740 Twickenham - 78247 LN-I (Croydon, Lambeth, Merton, Sutton, Wandsworth): 889380 = 11.90 = 12This is a tricky area because normally I'd split it into two smaller groups: Croydon/Sutton with 5, and Lambeth/Merton/Wandsworth with 7. In terms of numbers, this split works beautifully but I haven't gone for it, basically because it leads to awkward seats. You end up linking Beddington with parts of west andor north Croydon, plus a clumsy seat in the southern half of Lambeth. I found there was a tension in this area between respecting LA boundaries (which I obviously want to do) and drawing coherent seats that respect the existing map. So in the end, I've gone for a plan that has more respect for the LA boundaries than my original proposal (e.g. I have two seats wholly in Croydon rather than one, and three seats crossing the Croydon boundary rather than five); but I've treated the five boroughs as a single group rather than dividing the area further. (And I acknowledge my debt to Pete Whitehead in Croydon.) BATTERSEA AND CLAPHAM - 77117 BRIXTON AND VAUXHALL - 72108 CARSHALTON AND COULSDON - 75159 CROYDON CENTRAL - 72726. My original plan kept the current seat unchanged, but I've reluctantly had to accept that it needs to be shuffled northwards to allow a better plan elsewhere. If preferred, this seat could swap Waddon and Shirley wards with Croydon S. CROYDON NORTH AND NORWOOD - 76074 CROYDON SOUTH - 72599 MITCHAM - 75027. No longer contains Lwr Morden, hence the name change. STREATHAM - 71756. I think this is the best treatment for the Streatham area; the Croydon ward of Norbury is a natural continuation of a Streatham seat. SUTTON AND CHEAM - 75139 TOOTING - 71051 WANDSWORTH AND PUTNEY - 72359 WIMBLEDON - 78265. I acknowledge the comments upthread about putting Roehampton in a Wimbledon seat, but plans that avoid this generally put Wimbledon Park ward into a Putney seat. I feel this is worse, because Wimbledon Park is a much more integral part of Wimbledon than Roehampton is of Putney. LN-J (Bromley): 226093 = 3.02 = 3BECKENHAM - 72004 BROMLEY AND CHISLEHURST - 75812 ORPINGTON - 78277 LN-K (Bexley, Greenwich, Lewisham, Southwark): 679543 = 9.09 = 9CAMBERWELL AND PECKHAM - 73463 DULWICH AND SYDENHAM - 73744 ELTHAM AND WELLING - 77628 ERITH - 76277 GREENWICH AND DEPTFORD - 76793. The boundary looks more awkward than in some versions of this seat upthread, but this arrangement (i) keeps Ladywell in with Lewisham town centre, and (ii) avoids a boundary down Lee High Road, and keeps the whole of Lee in with Blackheath. LEWISHAM - 72781 SIDCUP AND CRAYFORD - 73127 SOUTHWARK AND BERMONDSEY - 77623. Again, thanks to Pete Whitehead for a better Southwark & Bermondsey seat. WOOLWICH - 78107 I think that the Battersea & Clapham Constituency works very well (re-uniting Clapham Town in Vauxhall and Clapham Common with Streatham with the parts of Clapham that remained in Wandsworth). I don't see Roehampton as being entirely separate from Putney. While much of Roehampton is a self contained community the East of the ward is more similar and linked to the adjacent West Putney Ward. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 18, 2016 8:05:22 GMT
What's your justification for adding Church Street ward to Cities of London and Westminster? Well, there is continuous development with the Dorset Square ward. Adding a different ward seems like a worse option. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 18, 2016 8:16:02 GMT
What's your justification for adding Church Street ward to Cities of London and Westminster? Well, there is continuous development with the Dorset Square ward. Adding a different ward seems like a worse option. Because the multimillionaires living in grand houses of Dorset Square have a lot in common with the large Bangladeshi families living in seven storey council blocks on the Lisson Green estate. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 18, 2016 9:39:21 GMT
Neighbours are neighbours. I'm happy to have this argument ad infinitum if we must, but an MP is perfectly capable of representing all their constituents; constituencies are not ghettos.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 18, 2016 9:52:43 GMT
Neighbours are neighbours. I'm happy to have this argument ad infinitum if we must, but an MP is perfectly capable of representing all their constituents; constituencies are not ghettos. It is called the 'House of Commons' because its members represent 'Communes' - areas which form a local community. Merely 'being next to it on the map' isn't the same thing. That's why we have the 'local ties' rule in redistribution of seats. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 18, 2016 10:20:39 GMT
Well, there is continuous development with the Dorset Square ward. Adding a different ward seems like a worse option. Because the multimillionaires living in grand houses of Dorset Square have a lot in common with the large Bangladeshi families living in seven storey council blocks on the Lisson Green estate. Although my own plans for this area don't put Church Street ward in the Westminster South seat (by whatever name you call it), I don't see why there would be anything inherently wrong with doing so. I suggest that "the multimillionaires living in grand houses of Dorset Square" do indeed have a lot more in common than one might think with "the large Bangladeshi families living in seven storey council blocks on the Lisson Green estate" - they are all part and parcel of the distinctive fabric of central London. And like most other communities - probably more than most -, it has its richer and poorer components; but the extreme social stratification doesn't mean that they aren't linked. After all, if a rule were pressed that we should try to put wealthy areas in different seats from poorer ones, the effect would be a more segregated political culture, since each MP would tend to come into contact with only better-off or worse-off elements of the population, rather than a mixture of incomes. And this is important - even if you're a Tory MP in a safe seat comprising a largely well-off area, you are still likely to have significant numbers of poorer constituents with whom you come into contact through your casework and when canvassing for votes; and it is salutary for Labour MPs, too, to be brought into contact with issues that matter to better-off voters. And since social stratification is by far the strongest determinant of voting behaviour, another harmful consequence of keeping different income levels apart would be far fewer marginal seats. I'm not saying that we should go out of our way to create seats that associate areas of differing levels of prosperity. On the contrary, I'd be against this because it would entail long, ribbon-like US-style constituencies meandering all over the map (although the US draws this kind of seat for entirely different reasons, of course). So I think we should (so far as possible having regard to the other rules) seek to represent natural communities; but we should recognize that a 'natural community' will often contain a wide range of income levels. If I were going to criticize Adrian's plans for central London, it wouldn't be for including Church Street in a south Westminster seat - it would be for driving a boundary right through the middle of Hampstead when there's no need to do so (see, e.g. Greenhert's plan upthread (stolen by me)). |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 18, 2016 10:29:11 GMT
Neighbours are neighbours. I'm happy to have this argument ad infinitum if we must, but an MP is perfectly capable of representing all their constituents; constituencies are not ghettos. It is called the 'House of Commons' because its members represent 'Communes' - areas which form a local community. Merely 'being next to it on the map' isn't the same thing. That's why we have the 'local ties' rule in redistribution of seats. 1. Etymological fallacy. 2. "But the "communes"or"communitates,"which gave their name to the house of commons ... were simply the shires or counties of England, and ...did not include the "common" people." (Pollard) 3. If we had a system of representative democracy unsullied by party politics I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but we don't. 4. "Local ties" is open to interpretation. 5. Electoral equality makes ghetto-style parliamentary constituencies almost impossible to effect. It's hardly even possible at the ward level, even in Westminster. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 18, 2016 10:33:28 GMT
It is called the 'House of Commons' because its members represent 'Communes' - areas which form a local community. Merely 'being next to it on the map' isn't the same thing. That's why we have the 'local ties' rule in redistribution of seats. 1. Etymological fallacy. It bloody well isn't. Look it up. |
|
