Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Revised Boundary Commission Proposals merge Harringay with Hackney & South Tottenham to Create New Constituency
Following the first round of consultation on the Boundary Commission's 2013 Parliamentary Constituency Review, Harringay has been shoe-horned into a newly created Stamford Hill and South Tottenham parliamentary constituency.
Why this is happening
In February 2011, Parliament passed legislation stating that the Boundary Commission must conduct a review of parliamentary constituency boundaries, and make recommendations to the Government, by October 2013.
The Boundary Commission is currently conducting that review. The procedure requires a significant reduction in the number of constituencies in England (from 533 to 502). It demands that every constituency – apart from two specified exceptions – must have an electorate of between 72,810 and 80,473 – that is 5% either side of the electoral quota of 76,641.
The Local Situation
There are three wards which are either in part or wholly in Harringay:
- Harringay (whole)
- St Ann's (part)
- Seven Sisters (part)
About a year ago the initial proposals of the Commission were made. The initial recommendations would have meant little change for all three 'Harringay wards', with all remaining in the Tottenham constituency. However, the Commission also recommended that Stroud Green was transferred to the Tottenham Constituency. This created uproar from across the tracks and occasioned a post on HoL which started with the following:
IF YOU DO NOT WANT
STROUD GREEN TO BE IN TOTTENHAM
DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT NOW!!!!
(Use the tags at the foot of this post to see various discussions that ran on HoL about this issue at the time.)
With the publication today of the Commission's response to the initial recommendations, we have learned that the well organised campaign supported by Lynne Featherstone and all the Lib Dem councillors has kept Stroud Green out of 'Tottenham'.
This has meant that the Commission has had to go back to the drawing board and come up with new proposals for our area. The result is a completely new constituency called Stamford Hill & South Tottenham. It would have an electorate of 73,109 and contain mix both Hackney and Haringey wards (see table above). Here's what it looks like on the map:
What criteria have the Commission used?
Whilst it's impossible to know what specific issues have been taken into account for our particular constituency, I have attached an extract of the 2013 Parliamentary Constituency Review, which outlines the policy and considerations they took into account. The key issues appear to be:
- Population size. The target size is no smaller than 72,810 and no larger than 80,473.
- Special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency. The focus here is physical geography such as mountains, hills, lakes, rivers, estuaries and islands, rather than to human or social geography.
- Local government boundaries as they existed on 6 May 2010. While The Boundary Commission proposes to identify constituencies by reference to local authority external boundaries as far as practicable, they say that it is nevertheless often necessary to cross these boundaries in order to form constituencies that comply with the statutory electorate range.
- Boundaries of existing constituencies. The Boundary Commission intends to have regard generally to existing constituencies as far as possible, as it does not consider that it would be appropriate to start from a ‘blank sheet of paper’.
- Any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies. This refers to matters of culture, history, socio-economics and other possible aspects of non-physical geography.
That's the theory at any rate.
The first of the three attachments below is three-page extract expanding on the guidance above.
What about the name?
The official guidance says:
The Boundary Commission’s policy on the naming of constituencies is that, when constituencies remain largely unchanged, the existing constituency name should usually be retained. In such cases constituency names are likely to be altered only where there is good reason for change.
Generally, the Boundary Commission considers that the name should normally reflect the main population centre(s) contained in the constituency, though if a suitable alternative name is proposed which generally commands greater support locally than that proposed by the BCE, it will usually be prepared to recommend that alternative.
Does any of this matter?
I have to admit to being a bit stumped on what practical difference these changes will make for you and me. Across the county the changes will clearly have an impact on the electoral fortunes of MPs and political parties, but that's not my concern here. Will it make my life better or worse?
One issue which may figure for some people is one of identity. My suspicion is that the horror with which some of Stroud Green greeted the proposal to be transferred to Tottenham was just that; they saw bureaucrats messing with their notions of who they are and their place in the world and didn't like it.
I certainly have sympathy with notions of identity, but that could most probably be solved by working on the name.
What about practical issues that'll affect my life? The principal concern that perhaps we all ought to be thinking through is how our interests will be best represented. Will the issues that our MP will choose to focus on and fight for be the ones that matter to us? If people in one part of a proposed constituency feel that their issues would have more in common with one or other constituency, then there may be value in their seeking to be joined with that side.
I think here about the local situation, for what its worth. In 1998, the current St Ann's Ward was created out of part of the old Tottenham Central ward and the old Green Lanes one. Over a decade later, the repercussions of that decision do make themselves felt. At local area forums it's not hard to discern a recurrent theme that the east of the ward has different interests to the west. Neither is it unusual for the east of the ward to feel overlooked in favour of the Harringay end. I have no comments on the extent to which this is fact or perception. However, it's interesting to note, that three years after the boundary changes were made a new body was set up which is arguably the real power broker in Harringay. The Green Lanes Strategy Group specifically covers an area which almost exactly matches the old ward arrangement. Sometimes there's just a natural coincidence of interests within a particular geographic area. Will the Stamford Hill and South Tottenham constituency serve our interests?
(Full local government boundary review here)
What can you do?
The Commission says the following:
The purpose of this (secondary) consultation is to people to see the extent to which our initial proposals for new constituency boundaries in England have been revised to take into account all views expressed in response to those earlier initial proposals. Crucially, this will be the last chance in the current Review for people to contribute, by telling us whether they agree or disagree with our revised proposals (and if they disagree, how they would want them changed). We will consider all the responses to this consultation to see whether any final amendments to the proposals are justified, before we finalise our recommendations and formally submit them to the Government in 2013.
You can comment on the revised proposals that have just been published for an eight week period ending on 10 December 2012. This consultation will be the last one of this review.
The full primary consultation report for London and the guide to the 2013 Review are provided below as the 2nd and 3rd attachments.
You can comment online here.
Tags for Forum Posts: boundary commission, boundary review, parliamentary constituency boundary rewview
- Attachments:
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Neville Collins on
-
I think the new boundary proposals are great....EXCEPT that Harringay ward should go to the 'Hornsey and Wood Green' constituency. I think Tottenham deserves to be 'broken up' and represented by two MPs, considering the high caseload that David Lammy receives. I also think that the new constituencies should be both called 'Stamford Hill and Seven Sisters', and 'Edmonton and Tottenham'.
-
Permalink Reply by Seema Chandwani on
-
Why should Harringay go into Hornsey and Wood Green???
If this does go ahead then the name 'Tottenham' should stay, even if it is 'South Tottenham' - It is the name of our area, all else "West Green" "St Anns" "Seven Sisters" "Harringay" are places within our area.
That said, I agree with Billy
Do boundary changes matter, except to political geeks? and it all sounds like a bit of a waste of time and money....!!
-
Permalink Reply by David on
-
I would guess the only reason or Harringay going into H&WG would be class-based arguments that we don't "belong" with Tottenham.
As I said above, first past the post is not fit for purpose (for exactly this reason).
-
-
@ David, historically, most of Harringay (west of Green Lanes) was never part of Tottenham. I bet also most people locally then, as now, never wanted it to be. The people of the ward have a chance to change that situation and hopefully have an MP that will actually represent them.
-
-
what, precisely, stops the voters of Harringay from being any different from those of Tottenham? under a FPTP system, you may as well make Harringay part of Kensington and Chelsea, or the Outer Isles, since the 'character' of an area means precisely f*** all.
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
As a demographic, all the markers of class - wealth, power, education - are skewed east/west. Obviously this does not apply to individuals. Clearly adding 196 private-sale flats to the eastern half will tip the scales overnight. The boroughs were drawn up to have a bit of everything - inner London all wedge-shaped going from rich centre to poorer outer, the outer London ones being drawn to fit round them with whatever mix they could engineer. Constituencies may have a different purpose? They can be more localised?
I am reminded of a passage in the late Spike Milligan's Puckoon describing how the north/south Irish border was drawn. Two gangs of politicians seated round a map holding a fat red crayon, which they dragged across the map in a tug-of-war. Thus was history created.
-
Permalink Reply by Abi on
-
What confuses me is that the new constituency is not being called 'Tottenham' - it's 'Stamford Hill & South Tottenham' (or vice-versa), so if those objecting could get over the whole 'we don't want to be part of Tottenham' bit, they might realise that's not strictly speaking what is being planned. 'Tottenham', marked on the map, is not within the boundary.
Am I really the only person here who sees Tottenham and South Tottenham as being two different places? This map actually seems like a reasonable representation of a few areas that share a few things in common, to me. But what do I know, I only live here.
All that said, I agree that it should perhaps simply be given a new name (New River-related seems a good suggestion) and we may be surprised at how little it affects our lives. The two boroughs thing is interesting, but many of us do live on a boundary so why not recognise that?
-
-
@Seema, Harringay ward was once part of the old Hornsey constituency. It was 'moved' to Tottenham in the 1983 boundary review which saw the old Wood Green seat merge with Hornsey. Moving it back 'there' would, in my opinion, restore a natural order of things.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Neville, you're not usually this conservative in your view of London and Haringey. Are we really engaged in finding and restoring the "natural order" of things? Should we be putting bits of London back into the administrative units where they historically belonged?
Or perhaps areas should be governed by who they once belonged to?
Then maybe Denmark has a claim to Walthamstow? The pastries, excellent youth provision, and free university places might appeal to residents on the Viking side of the River Lee.
Or do we go back just to the "natural order" before those Norman pirates arrived in Hastings? Or further back to when the Romans invited in Anglo Saxons?
What about the more recent claims by the Bruce family to land holdings in Tottenham? Would some of us have a vote on Scottish independence? I've asked our old friends near Edinburgh not to leave out the McStantons from the great ingathering of the clans. They've so far told me that Berwick on Tweed would be welcome as would Carlisle if it wishes. But Bruce Castle restored to its natural order?
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I think a practical approach is needed. I imagine that a lot of an MP's constituency work is about taking up issues with the local authority. Having two of these to deal with isn't going to make her/his work any easier and might mean a worse service to us, the constituents.
-
-
It's only in the very short term that cities and neighbourhoods stay in the same place. Over centuries they are rapidly expanding and contracting; being rebuilt, infilled, sometimes torn down, and even bombed.
It also seems there's a tendency for poorer areas to "shrink" and for richer neighbourhoods to expand. This may happen literally - with people and their homes in the poorer parts bulldozed out of the way. People may also claim residence in enlarged versions of fashionable area. Has West Hampstead reached East Highbury yet? Anyone fancy Far East Crouch End Surburbs? And of course developers and estate agents invent new pretend places - like the fabulous "Hale Village".
Gentrified parts of Manhattan have been redesignated with whizzy new names. For example, they now have their own Soho - for SOuth of HOuston Street. So I look forward to interesting new coinages in Tottenham as poor people are removed to who-knows-where and replaced by gentrified areas in the Spurs/Koberplan.
Bad jokes aside - and the Plan for Tottenham is a very poor joke - there is a very important job for a local MP to speak up for and represent Tottenham as a whole. And not simply as a "development opportunity" for large landowners; and "Sir this" and "Lord that" swanning-in.
This is especially the case in Haringey after the riots because of the almost total leadership vacuum in the Council. David Lammy was the only elected local politician who made any substantial contribution in ideas and understanding. People may disagree with what he said and wrote. But in Parliament and with all three national party leaders he had the stature to speak on behalf of Tottenham.
Currently, slicing-up Tottenham constituency may make sense adminstratively. But not politically.
(Elected Labour councillor Tottenham Hale)
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
