Good reminder, Sara.This has been occupying the minds of we amateur politicos locally, and as it happens our local Labour party submission for change includes moving Acton Central into the new Ealing seat for many of the reasons of geographical integrity of which you speak. Acton Central has no border with H&F (unlike East Acton or Southfield) and together with South Acton represents the heart of Acton.The problem we face is the new rules imposed on the Commissioners by the coalition government: - that there should be a reduction in the number of seats, and- that all seats must have the same number of registered electors, plus or minus no more than 5% (currently 10%).The local London Commissioners have added guidelines of their own, in not splitting wards, and in minimising Thames crossings (just one of those so far).My own view is that the Tory element of the government thought this a cunning and subtle way to improve their representation at the expense of Labour, without brazen gerrymandering. The reality is upset and resentment right across the country; we in London have it lucky compared with, say, the denizens of Salford, who have been told they will be in a Manchester seat.To put the 5% margin in context, it represents a number of voters smaller than those found in any ward in our part of London. Which means that to move any ward has a domino effect - sometimes a prolonged one. As an example, the single oddest local proposal puts the relatively tiny College Park & Old Oak ward (CPOO), on the south side of the Scrubs, in the new Willesden seat. Its obvious home is Hammersmith but, despite its size, it can't be put there without exceeding the 5% limit.Our local proposal, which you may want to consider supporting, topples the dominoes thus:CPOO from Willesden to HammersmithActon Central from Hammersmith to EalingHanger Hill from Ealing to Wembley.There are then further fun and games before the chain ends somewhere around Camden. Did I mention it's complicated?Unless the 5% limit is removed, it will not be possible to create seats without amomalies and we'll be trying to make the best of a difficult job.One final thought: the electoral numbers used for these proposals come from 2010; by our calculations, if current numbers were to be used, the Commissioners current proposals would already break the rules - that's how quickly populations move in London. Which means, dear friends, that we're now doomed, as it stands, to go through all this every five years, with the probablity, in London at least, of major changes on every occasion, always based on statistics rather than communities. Fun, eh?Apologies for the length; you should see us when we really get going on this!
Steve Donnelly ● 5305d