This post isn't about cuts to services in West Hampstead - distressing those these may be - but about a really bizarre and even perverse proposed cut which divides the West Hampstead community in half!
Can you imagine how odd it would feel if one side of your street had one MP and the other side had a different one? That’s what could happen to Mill Lane and Broomsleigh Street and part of West End Lane if a new plan proposed by the Boundary Commission goes ahead. In order to make all MPs constituencies roughly the same size, they have decided that in future one half of West Hampstead (Fortune Green ward) should belong to Finchley & Golders Green.
As one objector has said :
"As a resident of Fortune Green ward, my links are with Camden borough, with West Hampstead and with Hampstead – not with Barnet and Finchley. The inclusion of Fortune Green ward in this Barnet constituency makes no sense at all."
and
"an MP representing such a constituency would overwhelmingly listen to the views of Barnet residents over the tiny minority living in Camden. "
If this seems like a bad idea to you – PLEASE write in to object
http://consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/have-your-say/
The map of the proposed new constituency is here: http://rr-bce-static.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Finchley-and-Golders-Green-BC.pdf?9d7bd4
The deadline for comments is 5 December.
There is a public hearing for North West London at Brent Town Hall on 20 & 21 October
Details here: http://consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/public-hearings/london-brent/
Flick- odd that your party isn't actually supporting reuniting Fortune Green and West Hampstead and would rather have Camden Town instead, don't you think?!
ReplyDeleteDear Disgruntled,
ReplyDeleteGood news - no need for you to be Disgruntled!
The Lib Dems are supporting reuniting Fortune Green and West Hampstead.
Here's why...
The law says that constituencies must have the same number of people in them - plus or minus 5%. This helps make sure that people's votes are worth about the same whereever you case it. Barnet happens to have the right size of population to divide into three constituencies and fit that legal criteria without any need for Fortune Green to be added.
The Boundary Commission have invented their own rule that no wards should be split between constituencies. As Barnet's wards are so big (Child's Hill for instance has over 17,000 people in it) you can't divide Barnet's wards along ward boundaries and still fit the legal criteria.
However, if you split a ward in the same authority between different constituencies, you can.
The Lib Dems are arguing that the Boundary Commission should consider this - thus allowing Fortune Green to stay with its natural partner, West Hamsptead. They have put forward two solutions to the problem - one which follows the Boundary Commission's self imposed rule - and one which shows how better results can be achieved if it relaxes this rule in particular cases.
The important thing to remember is you don't need to go into this level of technical detail in order to argue that Fortune Green naturally fits with West Hampstead much more than it does with wards in Barnet.
The most sensible thing the boundary commission could do is to accept that in Barnet there are enough people for 3 constituencies without all the distortion of drawing rather arbitrary lines on maps and the administrative hassle that doing so will create.