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

    • Yes, but most posting on here against the festival have not said they hate all festivals, it is about location, scale and footprint, duration of the event, including build and dismantling, and the level of impact on wildlife and residents living close by.    Last year I said on here that I would, reluctantly, accept the three day event, provided it was no more than that and the footprint was not extended to include more of the park. Now it is reasonably clear there is an intention to scale up I think a new, more suitable location must be found. 
    • Have to admit, I did have to check myself - I've been to many festivals and it seems a bit contradictory to challenge one, but our local park is not the place for a festival of this size. It just needs to either scale down to the environment (smaller footprint, less damage) or find a better location. There is a VAST difference between festivals out in the countryside and the same in an urban park.      
    • Campfire on from about 7pm on Fridays - pop along and join me - I always have some Small Beer available. 
    • Thanks. I dropped off the books that I thought would be most helpful for them already this week.  Thanks for the advice. I have advertised the ones that may be of use for studies on this forum then dropped off some at Oxfam in Herne Hill and others at the Bell End House book exchange. Still a few more to drop which I will likely give to Mind on LL who I like.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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