Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Lambeth council ward boundary review 2020-21

Gramsci said:
a Cllr sent out email with this boundary for a new LJ / Herne Hill ward. Maybe it was mistake. Im completely confused. Its different from your map.View attachment 230982
Click to expand...
No idea what that is.
The council's proposed boundary maps are in this report https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/do...endix A_Lambeth submission Ward proposals.pdf
Brixton Central = Coldharbour - Angell Town Estate + some side roads round Morval Road. I does appear our present polling station disappears into Myatts/Vassall.
I think we should campaign for the Poling to be done in the Domino Club. Edgy and vibrant. More likely it will end up in the LETRA tenants hall, which would be more central for most.
 
problem I see with the new boundaries is that LJ is split over two wards.

The Loughborough Estate is in Brixton Central.
 
Still its not so much the ward boundary changed as having Cllrs who side with residents and don't blindly follow the Cabinet and senior officers.

I can see reason for some boundary changes due to population changes.

New developments in Vauxhall area and Brixton.
 
Oh there are some big changes needed. Coldharbour, Ferndale and Larkhall all are quite big and Oval is going to have a massive spurt - Gasworks and such?

I think there is a lot to be said for multiple smaller wards around Brixton central, based around real communities rather than say a Ferndale which fronts onto Clapham High Street and also Slade Gardens on Brixton Road.
 
Gramsci said:
problem I see with the new boundaries is that LJ is split over two wards.

The Loughborough Estate is in Brixton Central.
Click to expand...
a while back when i researched the history of dalston i found that the ward boundaries had changed so much over the years pretty much the only area which has always been in the ward the stretch between dalston junction and dalston kingsland stations. all else has changed. if you look back at the ward boundaries in lambeth i suspect you'll find they've changed equally substantial over time
 
BusLanes said:
Latest update is out today - some interesting stuff! I see they've taken the decision to rename a few of the modified wards - specifically Tulse Hill as St Martins and Rush Common, Coldharbour as Brixton Windrush and Ferndale into Brixton Acre Lane. They're really leaning into the Brixton label, which I guess I am ok with?

Lambeth | LGBCE Site

www.lgbce.org.uk www.lgbce.org.uk

Click to expand...
Really can't see the point of changing Coldharbour to Brixton Windrush.
 
BusLanes said:
Latest update is out today - some interesting stuff! I see they've taken the decision to rename a few of the modified wards - specifically Tulse Hill as St Martins and Rush Common, Coldharbour as Brixton Windrush and Ferndale into Brixton Acre Lane. They're really leaning into the Brixton label, which I guess I am ok with?

Lambeth | LGBCE Site

www.lgbce.org.uk www.lgbce.org.uk

Click to expand...
Virtually none of the "modified" wards are the same as the ones put forward by Lambeth Council (and backed by Labour party) last year.
This is probably most radical change since the 1970s?

The Commission appear to have rejected the council's approach of starting with existing wards where possible, and gone with a much more radical rethink of boundaries - with many more small two-councillor wards - as put forward by Liberal Democrats with backing from Greens.

(Similar radicalism wasn't possible from LibDems at time of the last review in 1999 as there was a similar level of conservatism from their incumbent councillors who thought "their" ward boundaries should be sacrosanct.)

Ironically, the one ward that now survives almost unchanged is St Leonard's in Streatham - the ward with three Green councillors - that Labour had tried to gerrymander down to a two member ward in this review!

I suspect this will lead to more than a little unhappiness among sitting Labour councillors, as long established ward branch party structures are rent asunder, opening up multiple new fronts in the battle between Progress and Momentum for dominance in the Lambeth CLPs, and potentially a whole new round of candidate selections.
 
I quite like the potential this new map has to stir things up in the Labour borough party - since my ward is ultra safe Labour (and presumably will remain such) this is probably the best chance to see movement on who stands, as presumably some either won't like the new arrangements (whether they end up looking like the draft or not) and so won't stand, or they'll be unsucessful in being adopted in the new variant of their existing ward.
 
On a closer look - presumably the Greens will be happy with St Leonards remaining 3 with few tweaks - I had thought that this would go to 2. I don't know Gypsy Hill well enough to know if they'll be happy with the new version. Herne Hill & Loughborough Junction isn't a big change so I guess they won't be too upset?

The new Windrush Ward looks better for them than Coldharbour - if I remember correctly they did ok in the Railton Road end of the ward, in the by election in late 2018 but badly elsewhere in the ward. Still pretty safe Labour, but something to build on?
 
Last edited:
It's an odd thing this. Report says they've tried to organise the wards around how communities see themselves (mainly based on evidence from the LibDems whose evidence they found most convincing/comprehensive).

Around Brixton = Acre Lane, Rush Common, Brixton North and Brixton Windrush make sense both as ward names and the areas they cover (based on how they felt to me when I've lived in each of them)

Herne Hill & Loughborough junction feels a bit like the odd one out, although including Shakespeare Road probably makes sense as it has easier walking access to HH and LJ that to Brixton.

Park is odd though - I notice Clapham Common is split over two wards but Brockwell is entirely HH and excludes all the housing on the western boundary.

Elsewhere it makes a lot less sense to me. Having a small ward with a single councillor risks having very poor representation - having more than one councillor counters that if they have childcare/work/health/cabinet responsibilities for a time which have meant one or more my councillors was unavailable a few times through the years.

Clapham East definitely feels like the afterthought.

Anyone got ideas about how the vote share might get shuffled up?
 
sparkybird said:
How can a ward have 1 Cllr? Streatham common. That just doesn't seem right?
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem very sensible. I think the issue is that a small number of people who live in "Streatham Lodge" conservation area immediately south of the Common see themselves as "guardians" of Streatham Common and The Rookery.

There needs to be a write in from residents across Streatham to say that the open spaces belong to the whole community and there should be a single three member ward combining the proposed Streatham Wells and Streatham Common.

This combined ward would contain both historic well sites (Well Close off Valley Road and The Rookery). There have been fifty years of confusion because of the misnaming of Streatham Wells school a mile to the north in Palace Road (currently Streatham Hill, moves into St Martin's if this plan goes ahead) so I propose it should be called "Streatham Spa".
Streatham Spa 2.jpg
That ought to be genteel enough for the Streatham Lodge folk.
 
Last edited:
I have been asking around some loacl groups/friend about the new Tulse Hill names - and Rush Common seems to be liked, although some prefer "Brockwell". St Martins seems to be acceptable, if not necessarily loved. Although someone who doesn't love it did say that it wasn't obvious what you would call the new ward, if not that. Assuming Tulse Hill is out out.
 
lang rabbie said:
It doesn't seem very sensible. I think the issue is that a small number of people who live in "Streatham Lodge" conservation area immediately south of the Common see themselves as "guardians" of Streatham Common and The Rookery.

There needs to be a write in from residents across Streatham to say that the open spaces belong to the whole community and there should be a single three member ward combining the proposed Streatham Wells and Streatham Common.

This combined ward would contain both historic well sites (Well Close off Valley Road and The Rookery). There have been fifty years of confusion because of the misnaming of Streatham Wells school a mile to the north in Palace Road (currently Streatham Hill, moves into St Martin's if this plan goes ahead) so I propose it should be called "Streatham Spa".
View attachment 252655
That ought to be genteel enough for the Streatham Lodge folk.
Click to expand...
Having moved the Streatham Wells just over a year ago from Brixton, I'd welcome the name change to Streatham Spa. Much better than what my Spanish friends call it... Streatham de la Frontera....
 
There's a lot more to gerrymandering than just the number of voters in each ward. This article shows how redrawing the boundaries was tried in North Carolina, and how analysing alternative maps was used to show the district boundaries had very likely been manipulated for political gain.
Do we have the information required to do this sort of analysis in Lambeth?
 
BusLanes said:
I have been asking around some loacl groups/friend about the new Tulse Hill names - and Rush Common seems to be liked, although some prefer "Brockwell". St Martins seems to be acceptable, if not necessarily loved. Although someone who doesn't love it did say that it wasn't obvious what you would call the new ward, if not that. Assuming Tulse Hill is out out.
Click to expand...

'Brockwell' feels better I think (to me, at least). The park is on the boarder and not within the boundaries but it is more widely used. 'Rush Common' is nice but the name feels mainly linked to Brixton Hill (as in the A23). 'Rush Common and Brockwell' is also an option.

I'd say 'Brixton South' would actually be the best name. It matches all the other 'Brixton Something' names in the proposal and the are within this new ward mainly identifies with Brixton now that the upper part of Tulse Hill (towards Tulse Hill Station) is not included in the ward. 'Brixton Brockwell' has a ring to it, 'Brockwell West' or 'Brockwell Hill' or 'Brockwell Hillside' are geographically accurate.
 
amon said:
'Brockwell' feels better I think (to me, at least). The park is on the boarder and not within the boundaries but it is more widely used. 'Rush Common' is nice but the name feels mainly linked to Brixton Hill (as in the A23). 'Rush Common and Brockwell' is also an option.

I'd say 'Brixton South' would actually be the best name. It matches all the other 'Brixton Something' names in the proposal and the are within this new ward mainly identifies with Brixton now that the upper part of Tulse Hill (towards Tulse Hill Station) is not included in the ward. 'Brixton Brockwell' has a ring to it, 'Brockwell West' or 'Brockwell Hill' or 'Brockwell Hillside' are geographically accurate.
Click to expand...

Good points. I quite like Brockwell Hill for some reason!
 
andy457 said:
There's a lot more to gerrymandering than just the number of voters in each ward. This article shows how redrawing the boundaries was tried in North Carolina, and how analysing alternative maps was used to show the district boundaries had very likely been manipulated for political gain.
Do we have the information required to do this sort of analysis in Lambeth?
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see if someone's written a thesis of something on London/UK council ward boundaries. Or at least, I would find it interesting!

I think in Lambeth's case, with Labour getting just over half the vote last time and Labour doing well in London in 2019 and presumably still till today, it can be assumed that Labour could, on a good day, win every single council seat on the current boundaries, the council proposal they strongly supported, or the new proposal from the the Boundary Commission.

They also have the advantage that their opponents are fragmented and that it should be obvious which wards they are targetting at some point before the next election day. It is quite possible the Cons, Greens and LDs only really try and win in 10 or fewer wards in 2022, leaving 12 or more wards uncontested, so the Labour borough party can really focus resources on the ones they think are competitive.
 
Last edited:
amon said:
'Brockwell' feels better I think (to me, at least). The park is on the boarder and not within the boundaries but it is more widely used. 'Rush Common' is nice but the name feels mainly linked to Brixton Hill (as in the A23). 'Rush Common and Brockwell' is also an option.
Click to expand...

Feels unhelpful to include the name Brockwell if the park itself is wholly in another ward. Repeats the mistake of Tulse Hill name (which excludes the area that nearly everyone thinks of as Tulse Hill.

That area has always been "Brixton Hill" to me - far more than the ward that currently bears that name on the other side of the A23
 
BusLanes said:
They also have the advantage that their opponents are fragmented and that it should be obvious which wards they are targetting at some point before the next election day. It is quite possible the Cons, Greens and LDs only really try and win in 10 or fewer wards in 2022, leaving 12 or more wards uncontested, so the Labour borough party can really focus resources on the ones they think are competitive.
Click to expand...

I'm still at a loss as to why the Greens put up 3 candidates in wards where they don't currently hold a single seat. Anecdotally I spoken to quite a few people who 'give one of their votes to the greens' but since most councillor candidates are not well known that just means a pretty even split between 3 candidates. Pretty sure there were a number of wards where a single green councillor would almost certainly have taken one of the seats (ie combined green vote well above lowest successful candidate)
 
thebackrow said:
Feels unhelpful to include the name Brockwell if the park itself is wholly in another ward. Repeats the mistake of Tulse Hill name (which excludes the area that nearly everyone thinks of as Tulse Hill.

That area has always been "Brixton Hill" to me - far more than the ward that currently bears that name on the other side of the A23
Click to expand...

Fair point on the possible confusion with the name 'Brockwell'. I suppose it's also why I believe 'Brixton South' is a no brainer really - I would think everyone feels the area is Brixton, and the ward is south of the town centre. On paper 'Brixton Hill' makes sense but I think recycling a name for a new ward that has very little overlap with the current one is not ideal and would lead to more confusion. People will say they live in Brixton, Brixton Hill, "South of Brixton", or Brockwell Park based on their actual location and regardless of the name of the ward, but I think the ward should have a brand new name.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Lambeth council magnolia paint
Replies
9
Views
612
WouldBe
WouldBe
friendofdorothy
Age Friendly Lambeth
Replies
14
Views
847
Shippou-Sensei
Shippou-Sensei
editor
Lambeth increases the rent of council tenancies by £60-£75 PER WEEK
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
191
Views
11K
edcraw
E
M
Vision Homes Council Housing Takeover - please sign the petition
Replies
7
Views
510
madshadow
M
Rushy
Action on ASB! Public meeting on 30 November at Lambeth Town Hall
Replies
2
Views
401
Rushy
Rushy
Back
Top Bottom