Landtag elections 2011

[Pete Whitehead]

There's too much sport in this forum..
So here is the result of the 2011 election to the regional assembly for Thames Chiltern (other regions to follow in due course)

			change	seats	change
Con	583984	45.9%	-0.3	107	+7
Lab	291512	22.9%	+6.4	31	+6
LD	256342	20.2%	-6.8	12	-12
Ind	58561	4.6%	+0.5
Grn	48409	3.8%	+0.6		-1
UKIP	28676	2.3%	+0.5
Oth	4272	0.3%	-0.9

(I do wish it was possible to right align in the tables on here)




Con Gain from LD

Abingdon
Aylesbury South
Chesham
Maidenhead North
Newport Pagnell
Sandy
St Albans North
St Albans South
Wantage
Woodley

Lab Gain from Con

Banbury West
Borehamwood
Welwyn Garden City South

Lab Gain from LD

Milton Keynes Bradwell
Watford Exchange

Lab Gain from Green

Oxford St Clements

A disaster for the LDs obviously especially in the Thames Valley being wiped out in Berkshire and losing long standing strongholds like Abingdon and Wantage. They were saved from oblivion by relatively strong showings in less traditional areas of support such as Watford and Bedford and did particularly well to hold Houghton Regis.
Labour's gains were modest, picking up only three seats from the Conservatives which are of the 'they should never have lost them in the first place' variety. All their gains were in Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire - although their biggest increase in vote share was in Bedfordshire, this yielded no extra seats. The Greens targeted poorly, increasing their share in the region overall, in Oxfordshire in particular and in five of the six Oxford seats, the excpetion being the seat which they previously held and thus lost to Labour. Besides that Labour's best result was in Watford Exchange which was gained on a huge swing and now joins the list of safe Labour seats as it was before 2003. As with Bedfordshire, good increases in vote share in Reading and Slough prodcued no gains in seats while progress was sluggish in many of the smaller towns where the party might hope to win seats in a half decent year, such as Hatfield, HItchin, Letwchworth, Didcot - especially disappointing in Hemel Hempstead and High Wycombe (the latter seeing an unusual LD improvement compared with 2007). The Conservatives obviously can be satisfied to increase their majority even compared with a strong result in 2007

[iainbhx]

Jul 4, 2012 17:37:47 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

There's too much sport in this forum..
So here is the result of the 2011 election to the regional assembly for Thames Chiltern (other regions to follow in due course)

But what about the Zweite Stimmung?

(I may calculate it for amusement later)

[Pete Whitehead]

[Pete Whitehead]

Labour targets (with swing required)

HItchin	0.3%
HIgh Wycombe South	1.8%
Houghton Regis (LD)	2.0%
Hatfield	2.4%
St Albans East (LD)(3rd)	2.6%
St Albans South (3rd)	2.7%
Didcot	2.7%
HIgh Wycombe East	2.8%
Bedford East (LD)	3.6%
MK Whaddon	3.9%
Luton Icknield	4.7%
Banbury East	4.9%
MK Loughton	4.9%
Bracknell North	5.0%
Hemel West	5.2%
HIgh Wycombe West	5.6%
Hemel East	6.4%
St Albans N (3rd)	6.7%
Letchworth	7.1%
Bicester	7.9%
Biggleswade	8.5%
Reading Tilehurst	9.3%
Bracknell South	9.5%

LD targets

Milton Keynes Bradwell (Lab)	0.1%
Abingdon	0.3%
St Albans South	0.4%
Woodley	1.2%
Wantage	2.4%
St Albans North	2.5%
Newbury	2.7%
High Wycombe East (3rd)	3.0%
Chesham	3.2%
Newport Pagnell	3.5%
Aylesbury South	3.5%
Thatcham	3.7%
Rickmansworth	4.0%
High Wycombe West	4.3%
Burghfield	5.8%
Drayton	5.9%
Tring	6.0%
Chorleywood	6.3%
Maidenhead N	6.9%
Bishops Stortford	7.2%
MK Whaddon	7.5%
MK Loughton	7.8%
MK Linford	8.1%
Kidlington	9.4%
HIgh Wycombe S	9.5%
Baldock	9.9%

Conservative targets

Welwyn GC South	0.1%
Watford Oxhey	0.5%
Borehamwood	0.7%
St Albans East	1.1%
Banbury West	1.7%
The Langleys	1.9%
Milton Keynes Wolverton	2.0%
Hinksey	3.1%
Watford Cassiobury	3.6%

[Pete Whitehead]

2007

			change	seats	change
Con	494236	46.3%	+5.8	100	+15
LD	288061	27.0%	-3.7	24	-11
Lab	176671	16.5%	-4.1	25	-2
Ind	43190	4.0%	-0.8		-2
Grn	34212	3.2%	+0.9	1
UKIP	19130	1.8%	+1.1
Oth	12463	1.2%	+0.7

[Pete Whitehead]

2003

			change	seats	change
Con	375878	40.5%	+0.7	85	+9
LD	284778	30.7%	+3.5	35	+7
Lab	191291	20.6%	-6.4	27	-18
Ind	44419	4.8%	+0.3	2	+1
Grn	20895	2.3%	+0.9	1	+1
UKIP	6585	0.7%	+0.7
Oth	4384	0.5%	+0.4

[Pete Whitehead]

1999

			change	seats	change
Con	361695	39.8%	+9.2	76	+39
LD	247072	27.2%	-0.9	28	-14
Lab	245098	27.0%	-8.3	45	-24
Ind	40416	4.5%	-0.2	1	-1
Grn	12549	1.4%	+0.4
Oth	1154	0.1%	-0.4

[Pete Whitehead]

1995

			change	seats	change
Lab	374214	35.3%	+9.3	69	+27
Con	324052	30.6%	-11.0	37	-47
LD	295710	27.9%	+2.4	42	+20
Ind	49340	4.7%	+0.2	2
Grn	10171	1.0%	-1.0
Oth	6303	0.6%	+0.2

[Pete Whitehead]

1991

			seats
Con	478883	41.6%	84
Lab	298838	26.0%	42
LD	293038	25.5%	22
Ind	51948	4.5%	2
Grn	22516	2.0%
Oth	4975	0.4%

[kevinlarkin]

This is very impressive, if somewhat pointless. Deserves an exalt in any case.

You appear to have a couple of split wards in Reading. What were your criteria for electorate size and maximum variation?

[Philip Davies]

What is the capital of this weissen kopf Landtag? Aylesbury is the most central location.

[Pete Whitehead]

Shouldn't be any split wards, but obviously on elections before about 2003 in most areas there are different ward boundaries so many end up not fitting perfectly with my boundaries. My criteria was to aim for very roughly electorates of about 20,000. This is because (since I do this kind of thing for the whole country) this is the minimum it could be given the size of the largest wards, in Birmingham. I also find that in this region and many others it allows for a large number of towns to form single urban seats (I wanted Bushey for example to form a single seat with no wards from outside). There is a reasonably wide variation of up to around 20% +/-
I have a preference for natural communities so Letchworth is quite oversized with about 25,000 voters but HItchin would have had about 28,000 if I had included all 5 wards which I deemed too much so I excluded one

[Pete Whitehead]

Jul 4, 2012 20:26:56 GMT Philip Davies said:

What is the capital of this weissen kopf Landtag? Aylesbury is the most central location.

It would have to be Oxford, especially as Cambridge is the capital of Essex-East Anglia. If it is going to be thrown open to other candidates, then Aylesbury would indeed have a decent claim, but I should then be putting the case for St Albans

[Philip Davies]

If the county councils go then the Oxfordshire Chamber will be available! Is Winchester the capital of its Lander?

[cibwr]

Someone has too much time on their hands, but its certainly worth an Exalt!

[iainbhx]

If we have a very British 33% top-up with no Fünf-Prozent-Hurde, then the Landtag of Themse-Chiltern would be 106 Con, 51 Lab, 46 LDm, 10 FW, 8 Grn, 5 UKIP.

[Pete Whitehead]

Jul 4, 2012 20:40:51 GMT Philip Davies said:

If the county councils go then the Oxfordshire Chamber will be available! Is Winchester the capital of its Lander?

I like to have generally larger cities as the capital - I'm not a fan of the American system which very often has small more or less irrelevant towns as State capitals (not that Winchester is irrelevant in any way). I tended to favour Southampton as the capital for that region (which includes Hampshire, Dorset and IoW). Oxford is of course not the largest city in this region (I think that would be Luton and we're not going there) but it is one of the largest and clearly a regional centre of sorts. This would mean that the regional capitals of the southern regions would be Plymouth, Bristol, Southampton, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge. Winchester seems a bit small to be in this group, especially when you consider that the remaining regions will be centred on Birmingham, Nottingham, Manchester, Newcastle and Leeds (though it is admittedly difficult to argue against York's claim in the last case)

[Pete Whitehead]

Jul 4, 2012 20:45:15 GMT cibwr said:

Someone has too much time on their hands, but its certainly worth an Exalt!

Haha - not too much time, just time well managed. I could have spent this evening sat in a draughty school hall in Hemel listening to would be Conservative police commisioners. I decided that would likely be a total of three hours out of an evening that could deffo be better (more enjoyably) spent. Most of the fundamentals of this Lander stuff, I had done years ago (when I did have way too mcuh time on my hands)

[The Bishop]

So are you going to do the whole of the UK in due course, Pete??

You deserve an exalt for this alone

[Pete Whitehead]

It is somehting I have done before back int he day when I had to use a pocket calculator and write everything down by hand. With Excel everything is of course much quicker and easier (and Kevins excellent plan builder site, which I do hope is never going to be taken down, has helped as well). On the pointlessness of such an exercise, it is of course pointless on many levels but the same could be said of many hobbies and passtimes. I think having played around with combinations of wards in this way has been a good way to familiarise myself with the voting habits of various localities over the last couple of decades or so, in a way that just looking at the ward results on their own wouldn't quite do. Its why I can for example look at a boundary proposal and be able to pretty well assess what the partisan impact would be before I've made any actual calculations. How vital that ability is is another question I suppose