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

    • Thank you for your explanation, which makes complete sense. Sadly I'm guessing that most of those who post on here, including me, are not familiar with the  holiday arrangements of the construction industry. Very sorry to have ventured an uninformed opinion 😀
    • I live right next to the Rye and literally never notice any negatives of Gala. Another week sounds lovely for the people that enjoy it.  Also I have a PhD in ecology and can confirm that the rye is providing virtually no environmental benefits. It's almost entirely grass. 
    • Regardless of what the majority think, (although they never get a voice in any council matters) the council will go ahead with this regardless. Wonga! 
    • How come you are always there when these things happen?! 🤣 More seriously, someone posted on here the other day that they are practices. Who knows? 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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