Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Constituency Name
It does seem that the debate is really about the shame of being in a constituency with the name of Tottenham. Tottenham is in fact by far the largest part of this constituency; most of us live here so why shouldn't our constituency name reflect this? I really cannot bear it if once again our very old name is submerged in the name of Haringey. The name Haringey and Edmonton is meaningless - particularly as one covers the wider borough area and the other a small part of the borough of Enfield.
Tags for Forum Posts: boundary commission, boundary review, parliamentary constituency boundary rewview
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Maddy on
-
Couldn't they use single decker bendy buses instead?... oh no, they've been scrapped.
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
*cough* 'Withdrawn' not 'Scrapped' Maddy... please
The problem is that the 'Backstreet Routes' certainly need smaller vehicles and that's why I picked out the 153 as a possibility..
Wirewiping Julian Walker has some good shots of the W5 here: http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=29093311@N03&q=W5
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I just saw my first double decker 29 this evening...
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Don't, just don't. I'm having flashbacks to cold mornings at bus stops, watching buses with empty top decks sail past because the numptys on the lower deck won't move away from the doors and getting shoved to glory at Camden trying to get on the bus home.
Feeling sorry for mums with young kids already.
-
-
My point was more that it's all very well to say they're dreadful but improving them requires some MAJOR engineering work. It is very obvious to anyone who has lived here for even a short time that the railway line is a major feature of Haringey. Imagine it as a river and perhaps you'll see my point.
I understand that tacking Stroud Green onto us seems weird considering the railway line but the people objecting are doing so because they are out and out snobs. Perhaps we could have Wood Green back and get rid of the other side of the tracks once and for all?
I mean, you wouldn't see London Bridge attached to the Borough of the City of London, would you? It makes sense though.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
It is very obvious to anyone who has lived here for even a short time that the railway line is a major feature of Haringey. Imagine it as a river and perhaps you'll see my point.
I take your point completely John.
The separation has nothing to do with snobbery and that suggestion is merely insulting: a railway line in places ten tracks wide is a major geographic feature comparable to a river as you say: the same analogy had occured to me too. And yet the Boundary Commission has a mandate to take into account features of this nature.
We were mindful of seeking
to respect, where we could, the external
boundaries of local authorities and of the
natural boundaries in London, such as the
River Thames. Our approach in attempting
to group London boroughs together in subregions
was based on both trying to respect
natural boundaries, and achieving, where we
could, obvious practical groupings such as
those dictated in some part by the geography
of the area.
The railway from Kings Cross to Edinburgh isn't just a man-made feature: in places, its a deep cutting that amounts to a feature of geography.
How would you like it if you were to be yanked out of one constitutency and tacked onto another, "in order to accomodate changes elsewhere". It's insulting!
I did think that the formal reply from the Conservative Party to the Stroud Green Residents Association and read out at the recent meeting, made sense and not least because someone did some research and set out the historical background to the formation of the constituencies.
The Boundary Commission have got it wrong. "Accommodate changes elsewhere" indeed!
I cannot imagine the basis that anyone would write to the Commission supporting this change, but if they did, and given that no political party supports the change, they would be no more than mischievous!
Individuals might have other views, of course. For those wishing to understand more about what lies behind the proposals (rather than falling back on clichés), the Boundary Commission publishes two useful PDFs:
.
-
-
I was being mischievous of course. So we can have Wood Green back instead?
-
-
I respect and appreciate your full admission of mischievousness John; I know it can't have been easy for you to fess up!
I'm sure the suggestion about Wood Green wasn't motivated by mischief, but I think the boundary changes proposed for SG are about as much as we all can cope with at the moment!
I note that although Ofer's post only got 60-odd replies, it did attract more than 1,000 views, so its been remarkably popular topic.
It goes to show what a valuable site is HoL. Who 10 years ago would have predicted this level of interest in Proposed Changes by the Boundary Commission?!
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
Clive, I notice their mandate of respect for 'the external boundaries of local authorities and of the natural boundaries in London, such as the River Thames,' doesn't extend to Enfield's eastern boundary or the natural boundary of the River Lea when they choose to bung Edmonton and Chingford together as a constituency. Trying to respect and where we could is as precise as they're going to manage.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2025 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
