Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As you may previously are aware, the original proposal was for Dulwich to share a seat with our neighbours in Forest Hill and Sydenham.


This has been since revised and the proposal is now for a Southwark only seat called Dulwich and Peckham covering all of the wards in SE21 and SE22 alongside The Lane, South Camberwell, Nunhead, Brunswick Park and Peckham wards.


http://assets.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/proposals/115%20South%20Thames/Dulwich%20and%20Peckham%20BC.pdf

Interesting - would perhaps make the constituency more marginal than previously by mixing traditional labour held Camberwell & Peckham with the more mixed and perhaps aspirational southern portion. Would make for a less predictable result and probably see hard campaigning.

Change Camberwell and Peckham for the eastern half of Brixton and that's what you get with the current seat. With Peckham solid Labour, the real campaigning will have to be here where we have Lib Dem and Tory councillors.


The revision gives a better chance for Tessa Jowell to keep her job as it would previously have been a fight between her and current Lewisham West MP Jim Dowd for the seat.


If we do vote under a new Dulwich and Peckham seat I still think it'll be a Labour hold with a smaller majority for Jowell.

As I understand it, because the Tories failed to back the LibDems' Lords reform proposals, these boundary changes are toast too. They are part of the Tories plan to reduce the number of seats and equalise the number of voters per constituency.
  • 4 weeks later...

Bigwade12 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Tories will be wiped out in most of London in

> 2015 , with or without boundary gerrymandering

> attempts


Interesting prediction - based, I presume, upon a definitive survey of your own prejudices?

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bigwade's prejudices may indeed be anti-Tory, but

> it's not an outlandish prediction is it?


Perhaps not but, as you know, I prefer more rational debate and position taking to blanket statements with no evidence.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Naaah, it's rubbish - it would be a change of use so would need planning. https://www.planningdirect.co.uk/planningappeals/affordable-planning-applications/change-of-use/commercial-to-takeaway-change-of-use There's not enough footfall for a McDonalds, anyway, and they're quite picky about their sites 
    • So let's never do anything that might improve an area, because it will just be dragged down to the level of what's presently there? Is that what you are saying? I don't have the time or the inclination to do the research, but I'm pretty sure that I have read  that when people who had lived in a very run down area  were given  nice surroundings, they appreciated and looked after them.
    • Someone has tried to kneecap his political career.
    • No, it's the AA. https://www.nationalworld.com/arts-and-culture/these-are-the-uks-best-outdoor-pools-and-lidos-new-lido-league-reveals-top-swimming-spots-5218853  "Experts from The AA analysed 164 lidos and outdoor pools for the average monthly Google search volumes, average Google review scores, Instagram tags, entry and parking fees, as well as the average maximum temperature and hours of summer sunlight at each location, to determine the very best swimming spots across the UK."
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...