|
|
Post by islington on Jul 18, 2016 12:05:24 GMT
Apropos Dalek's comments on my plan for SW London: Many thanks for kind remarks about the proposed Battersea & Clapham seat (although, to be fair, others have proposed something similar). I am very happy with this version; it is a marked improvement on the current map, which has Clapham Town and Clapham Common in separate seats. Regarding the inclusion of Roehampton ward in Wimbledon: I don't think this is an outrageously bad fit, but I do accept that the ward would be much better placed in a seat with Putney. But how to do this? There are several plans upthread that achieve it, but generally at the expense of including Wimbledon Park ward in with Putney rather than with Wimbledon, which strikes me as considerably worse. However, in playing around with Boundary Assistant I have come up with an approach that keeps both Roehampton in Putney and Wimbledon Park with Wimbledon and I offer it below for your delectation.  The other thing I've done with this plan is to treat Croydon / Sutton (5 seats) separately from Lambeth / Merton / Wandsworth (7 seats), which on the numbers is extremely tempting. My preferred plan, on which Dalek commented just upthread, treats these five boroughs together for 12 seats. And I'm staying with that plan because, on balance, I still think it works better across the area as a whole. But I'm posting this alternative in case anyone wants to run with it. In its favour, it involves fewer cross-boundary seats and it means two seats wholly in Lambeth compared with one in my preferred plan. But there are major drawbacks too: I can't see the Beddington area as a logical component in a Croydon-based seat; the Tooting seat is most inelegant as is the inclusion of Southfields in Wimbledon; and the separation of Streatham South from the rest of Streatham is highly undesirable. So I am sticking to my plan as posted on 14 Jun. But if you like this one instead, the numbers are: Wandsworth and Putney - 77570 Tooting - 72233 Battersea and Clapham - 75903 Brixton and Vauxhall - 72108 Streatham and West Norwood - 72140 Mitcham - 74561 Wimbledon - 74673 Sutton and Cheam - 75244 Carshalton and Coulsdon - 74882 Croydon West and Beddington - 75791 Croydon East - 71305 Croydon South - 72970 |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 18, 2016 13:06:32 GMT
It bloody well isn't. Look it up. I did.* You didn't.** *...look up the origin of "House of Commons". **...look up what "etymological fallacy" means. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 18, 2016 13:21:10 GMT
It bloody well isn't. Look it up. I did.* You didn't.** *...look up the origin of "House of Commons". **...look up what "etymological fallacy" means. You're very, very thick. You're alleging that the origin of the word 'Commons' in the phrase 'House of Commons' is not 'Communes' meaning communities. That's what "etymological fallacy" means. But this is precisely how the term came about. A.F. Pollard's "The Evolution of Parliament" p. 12 states it directly. As do all other reputable works on the subject. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 18, 2016 13:52:38 GMT
This isn't how to conduct an argument. Whether you are right or wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 18, 2016 13:55:40 GMT
This isn't how to conduct an argument. Whether you are right or wrong. If I tell you something as a fact, it is a fact. If you dispute it without giving any reason, I treat you as being very, very thick. That's the way it is. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 18, 2016 14:38:13 GMT
This isn't how to conduct an argument. Whether you are right or wrong. Yes it is - especially when it's David B., and when he's right about something (which he usually is), and when the reason for his being right is because he has the specific knowledge. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 18, 2016 15:55:30 GMT
I did.* You didn't.** *...look up the origin of "House of Commons". **...look up what "etymological fallacy" means. You're very, very thick. You're alleging that the origin of the word 'Commons' in the phrase 'House of Commons' is not 'Communes' meaning communities. That's what "etymological fallacy" means. But this is precisely how the term came about. A.F. Pollard's "The Evolution of Parliament" p. 12 states it directly. As do all other reputable works on the subject. Whoa. Slow down. (Bit late, but still.) 1. After I read what you first said about the origin of "House of Commons" I went to Wikipedia (ha) and thence to A. F. Pollard's "The Evolution of Parliament", the full text of which is available online, saw you're correct according to Pollard, and in my reply quoted some background to the origin of the Commons, from the same page in Pollard, which clarifies what the reality of those "communes" was, back in the day. 2. You do *not* know what "etymological fallacy" means, and either you've managed to misunderstand an explanation of it that you've read, or you didn't bother to read one. 3. When you get a bee in your bonnet, rather than jump to conclusions, Think. btdt |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 18, 2016 16:03:39 GMT
This isn't how to conduct an argument. Whether you are right or wrong. If I tell you something as a fact, it is a fact. If you dispute it without giving any reason, I treat you as being very, very thick. That's the way it is. All right, David, it's for each of us to judge how best to put a case. This issue arose because you said something to the effect that places don't share community ties merely because they're adjacent on the map. I agree. But in the specific case of residents of council estates in Church Street ward vis-a-vis millionaires living in Dorset Square, I thought you were making a somewhat different point in one of your posts above, namely that the extreme disparity of income meant that there could be no community ties between them. Did I understand you correctly? If that was your view, I disagree with it - for the reasons given in my post just upthread. |
|
Dalek
Conservative
Aldershot and Glasgow Kelvingrove
Posts: 110
|
Post by Dalek on Jul 18, 2016 21:14:18 GMT
Given Waltham Forest is also in quota at 2 seats now it adds complications if anything. I am tempted to cross the Thames at Woolwich to solve the conundrum, and believe that it should also help South of the river as well but I need to look in more detail. Clearly a cross Thames seat this far East is suboptimal so it comes back to a question of better n good seats and 1 really poor one, or n+1 mediocre seats? Not really. Until 1974 North Woolwich that is on the north bank and now in Newham LBC was in Woolwich East constituency. |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jul 22, 2016 9:57:46 GMT
London mainly based on pre-1974 boroughs As usual, no ward splits North London Romford 77046 Hornchurch & Upminster 76473 Dagenham & Rainham 76856 Barking & Ilford 76925 East Ham 76729 West Ham 75729 Chadwell 77229 Woodford 74192 Leyton & Wanstead 77404 Poplar 75087 Bethnal Green & Stepney 76064 South Hackney & Shoreditch 78258 North Hackney & Stoke Newington 78009 Walthamstow 71982 Chingford & Edmonton 74903 Enfield North 74422 Enfield Southgate 72127 Tottenham & Wood Green 73707 Hornsey 78168 Barnet 72023 Edgware 78187 Finchley 72997 Islington 78053 St Pancras 76522 Hampstead 72426 Cities of London & Westminster 76248 Paddington & Marylebone 74894 Kensington & Chelsea 76454 Hammersmith & Fulham 77725 Heston & Isleworth 76355 Acton 72275 Brentford, Chiswick & Ealing 74702 Greenford Southall 73552 Wembley 74149 Willesden 71861 Stanmore 78071 Harrow 76344 Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner 71848 Uxbridge & Northolt 76885 Hayes, Harlington & West Drayton 77876 Feltham & Hounslow 72129 Twickenham 78247   South London Richmond & Barnes 74740 Kingston, Malden & Surbiton 77995 Sutton & Cheam 75244 Carshalton, Coulsdon & Purley 74752 Croydon West & Beddington 75791 Croydon South 73100 Croydon East 71305 Putney 72489 Wimbledon & Morden 77193 Mitcham & Streatham 75511 Balham 72080 Battersea 76964 Hills of Brixton, Herne & Tulse 72679 Lambeth 72272 Bermondsey & Southwark 72553 Camberwell & Peckham 78393 Deptford & Dulwich 74001 Lewisham South 73490 Greenwich & Lewisham North 76917 Eltham 75327 Woolwich 75683 Erith 76277 Bexley, Crayford, Chislehurst & Sidcup 76794 Beckenham & Penge 72004 Bromley 75920 Orpington 78277  |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 22, 2016 14:02:52 GMT
Some good ideas, but I can see at least two seats that contain 3 orphan wards!
|
|
Dalek
Conservative
Aldershot and Glasgow Kelvingrove
Posts: 110
|
Post by Dalek on Jul 24, 2016 19:29:54 GMT
In addition to Kensington & Chelsea RBC forming a neat constituency I have also noticed -
Putney & Barnes: Existing Putney plus Barnes and Mortlake & Barnes Common wards.
Paddington & Marylebone: Westminster North extended to include all the Paddington and St Marylebone wards.
London Central: All pre-1965 Westminster wards, City of London, pre-1965 Holborn wards and pre-1965 Shoreditch wards. This constituency covers the West End, The City and Mid Town.
Battersea & Clapham: Battersea minus Balham but gains Clapham Town and Clapham Common.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 24, 2016 21:21:01 GMT
Surely Finsbury rather than Shoreditch~?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2016 21:46:49 GMT
In addition to Kensington & Chelsea RBC forming a neat constituency I have also noticed - Putney & Barnes: Existing Putney plus Barnes and Mortlake & Barnes Common wards. Paddington & Marylebone: Westminster North extended to include all the Paddington and St Marylebone wards. London Central: All pre-1965 Westminster wards, City of London, pre-1965 Holborn wards and pre-1965 Shoreditch wards. This constituency covers the West End, The City and Mid Town. Battersea & Clapham: Battersea minus Balham but gains Clapham Town and Clapham Common. Id just call the SW London seats Putney and Battersea. In Putney, Southfields (West Hill, Southfields and part of East Putney wards) is larger than Barnes. In Battersea the amount of Wandsworth (Fairfield, bits of Latchmere and Saint Mary Park) is fairly comparable to the amount of Clapham. |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jul 24, 2016 21:57:14 GMT
In addition to Kensington & Chelsea RBC forming a neat constituency I have also noticed - Putney & Barnes: Existing Putney plus Barnes and Mortlake & Barnes Common wards. Paddington & Marylebone: Westminster North extended to include all the Paddington and St Marylebone wards. London Central: All pre-1965 Westminster wards, City of London, pre-1965 Holborn wards and pre-1965 Shoreditch wards. This constituency covers the West End, The City and Mid Town. Battersea & Clapham: Battersea minus Balham but gains Clapham Town and Clapham Common. I used the old boroughs as a starting point |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jul 25, 2016 11:52:30 GMT
London mainly based on pre-1974 boroughs As usual, no ward splits North London Romford 77046 Hornchurch & Upminster 76473 Dagenham & Rainham 76856 Barking & Ilford 76925 East Ham 76729 West Ham 75729 Chadwell 77229 Woodford 74192 Leyton & Wanstead 77404 Poplar 75087 Bethnal Green & Stepney 76064 South Hackney & Shoreditch 78258 North Hackney & Stoke Newington 78009 Walthamstow 71982 Chingford & Edmonton 74903 Enfield North 74422 Enfield Southgate 72127 Tottenham & Wood Green 73707 Hornsey 78168 Barnet 72023 Edgware 78187 Finchley 72997 Islington 78053 St Pancras 76522 Hampstead 72426 Cities of London & Westminster 76248 Paddington & Marylebone 74894 Kensington & Chelsea 76454 Hammersmith & Fulham 77725 Heston & Isleworth 76355 Acton 72275 Brentford, Chiswick & Ealing 74702 Greenford Southall 73552 Wembley 74149 Willesden 71861 Stanmore 78071 Harrow 76344 Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner 71848 Uxbridge & Northolt 76885 Hayes, Harlington & West Drayton 77876 Feltham & Hounslow 72129 Twickenham 78247 South London Richmond & Barnes 74740 Kingston, Malden & Surbiton 77995 Sutton & Cheam 75244 Carshalton, Coulsdon & Purley 74752 Croydon West & Beddington 75791 Croydon South 73100 Croydon East 71305 Putney 72489 Wimbledon & Morden 77193 Mitcham & Streatham 75511 Balham 72080 Battersea 76964 Hills of Brixton, Herne & Tulse 72679 Lambeth 72272 Bermondsey & Southwark 72553 Camberwell & Peckham 78393 Deptford & Dulwich 74001 Lewisham South 73490 Greenwich & Lewisham North 76917 Eltham 75327 Woolwich 75683 Erith 76277 Bexley, Crayford, Chislehurst & Sidcup 76794 Beckenham & Penge 72004 Bromley 75920 Orpington 78277 Some minor to Moderate changes to improve seats based on former boroughs |
|
Dalek
Conservative
Aldershot and Glasgow Kelvingrove
Posts: 110
|
Post by Dalek on Jul 25, 2016 12:26:36 GMT
Surely Finsbury rather than Shoreditch~? Sorry....meant Clerkenwell / Finsbury. Linking The City of London, the original Westminster, Holborn and Finsbury / Clerkenwell works quite well. |
|
Dalek
Conservative
Aldershot and Glasgow Kelvingrove
Posts: 110
|
Post by Dalek on Jul 25, 2016 12:36:34 GMT
I think that Richmond & Chiswick would work quite well as a cross Thames constituency (Richmond Park minus the 4 RBK wards but gaining the three Chiswick wards from Hounslow).
Equally, I also think that a Hammersmith & Chiswick constituency would work quite well but this would not accommodate a constituency coterminous with Kensington & Chelsea RBC unless Fulham was linked with Wandsworth's Thameside, East Putney and West Putney wards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 25, 2016 12:37:04 GMT
It does but it will run up against objections that it takes in parts of three different boroughs plus the City - there were enough last time when it just involved two plus the city, hence those initial plans being scrapped
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 25, 2016 12:41:52 GMT
Surely Finsbury rather than Shoreditch~? Sorry....meant Clerkenwell / Finsbury. Linking The City of London, the original Westminster, Holborn and Finsbury / Clerkenwell works quite well. Linking across Covent Garden works very well; the Finsbury and Clerkenwell area is better linked with Islington to the north. |
|
