|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Jan 23, 2020 11:49:50 GMT
It's basically: Crystal Palace, Penge & Cator, Clock House, Copers Cope, Kelsey & Eden Park, Shortlands and Bromley Town. Electoral Calculus has massive Labour leads in Crystal Palace and Penge & Cator which combined with a solid lead in Clockhouse and Tory leads of less than 2:1 in the others (besides Shortlands which is a significantly smaller ward than the rest) gives a Labour victory by 392 votes. It's quite possible that Electoral Calculus is wrong and the Tories did a bit better, particularly in the three wards currently in Lewisham West & Penge than they are predicting leading to a narrow Tory win as opposed to a narrow Labour one, but either way the seat would be a very tight marginal. Thanks for confirming - I don't know if it works with numbers, but it would work much better if you swapped Bromley Town out of the Beckenham seat and replaced it with West Wickham (I think the wards are vaguely similar sizes). West Wickham has always been linked with Beckenham rather than Bromley, and I don't know what you could call the other (effectively Bromley seat) if Bromley Town wasn't in it - maybe bring back Ravensbourne, but then that's confusing as the area known as Ravensbourne (around the station) is in Bromley Town ward and therefore in Beckenham constituency. The problem is that a cross borough seat between Bromley and Croydon is required, the best place to cross it would be in the north around Penge and South Norwood however the numbers unfortunately don't work (primarily due to Crystal Palace being a relatively small ward). So I was forced to draw the cross borough seat further south linking Addington and Shirley to West Wickham and Bromley Common. Moving West Wickham back into the Beckenham seat and shifting Darwin/Biggin Hill in would remove one of the two main arteries of connectivity between the two seats (Wickham Road/High Street) and force the constituency boundary to go through the other (Kent Gate Way). Doing this would actually be preferable numbers wise as it would drag Orpington to within the 5% quota (switching Darwin/Biggin Hill for Cray Valley West) but at the price of a near totally unconnected Croydon-Bromley constituency. Also the successor seat to Bromley and Chislehurst is called Chislehurst and Sidcup being now a cross borough seat with Bexley. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jan 23, 2020 12:15:23 GMT
A lot depends on whether a new review will use the wards in place in Dec 2019 as building blocks or the new, yet to be agreed, wards that will come into force in 2022.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 23, 2020 12:44:59 GMT
I don't like the look of the Golders Green and Kilburn seat, and I think both sides of it would react with pitchforks if that was proposed. And yeah that Barnet-Brent seat isn't ideal but it was the best I could come up with. I've chosen to call it Cricklewood (or Cricklewood & Brondesbury) seen as that area is both in Barnet and Brent. Crossing at Hendon for starters splits Hendon itself (as only 2 wards can be moved) but has the knock on effect of forcing what's left of the Hendon constituency to take Totteridge which will leave both itself and what's left of Chipping Barnet below the 5% quota but Finchley above it which I regarded as unacceptable. Crossing further north (Burnt Oak/Colindale) has the same effect but causes Finchley to be split in half as well as forcing a horrible 'Hendon South & Finchley South' which is over even the 7.5% quota anyway. I'm not sure what numbers your'e using and whether this would work with them, but on the basis that 2 Barnet wards is roughly equivalent to 3 Harrow or Brent wards I'd suggest rotating the boundaries along these lines: Childs Hill and Golders Green to Hendon. Your Cricklwood seat then gains Dudden Hill, Kensal Green and Willesden Green (name chanegd to Willesden) Brent Central moves west to take Alperton, Wembley Central and Northwick Park (name chanegd to Wembley) - maybe also move Welsh Harp out and replace with Preston Brent North takes three Harrrow wards - Kenton East, Kenton West and Queensbury (call it Kingsbury) Harrow East takes the Edgware and Hale wards from Hendon (rename as Stanmore & Edgware) |
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Jan 23, 2020 12:48:26 GMT
A lot depends on whether a new review will use the wards in place in Dec 2019 as building blocks or the new, yet to be agreed, wards that will come into force in 2022. I imagine they'll definitely use the new boundaries that were brought in for the 2018 London locals and before (Kensington & Chelsea, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Redbridge, Croydon, Bexley, Southwark). I think they're redoing all the rest of the boroughs now for the 2022 locals so I suppose whether they use the new wards depends if the local government boundary commission has everything finalised before the government gives the green light for the parliamentary review to begin. Honestly I hope they do use the new ward boundaries as they seem to be varying ward size more (between 1 and 3 councillors per ward instead of the 3 in all but exceptional cases as they were doing before) as it will make it easier to draw coherent constituencies in metropolitan areas like London without doing loads of ward splits. |
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Jan 23, 2020 13:26:00 GMT
And yeah that Barnet-Brent seat isn't ideal but it was the best I could come up with. I've chosen to call it Cricklewood (or Cricklewood & Brondesbury) seen as that area is both in Barnet and Brent. Crossing at Hendon for starters splits Hendon itself (as only 2 wards can be moved) but has the knock on effect of forcing what's left of the Hendon constituency to take Totteridge which will leave both itself and what's left of Chipping Barnet below the 5% quota but Finchley above it which I regarded as unacceptable. Crossing further north (Burnt Oak/Colindale) has the same effect but causes Finchley to be split in half as well as forcing a horrible 'Hendon South & Finchley South' which is over even the 7.5% quota anyway. I'm not sure what numbers your'e using and whether this would work with them, but on the basis that 2 Barnet wards is roughly equivalent to 3 Harrow or Brent wards I'd suggest rotating the boundaries along these lines: Childs Hill and Golders Green to Hendon. Your Cricklwood seat then gains Dudden Hill, Kensal Green and Willesden Green (name chanegd to Willesden) Brent Central moves west to take Alperton, Wembley Central and Northwick Park (name chanegd to Wembley) - maybe also move Welsh Harp out and replace with Preston Brent North takes three Harrrow wards - Kenton East, Kenton West and Queensbury (call it Kingsbury) Harrow East takes the Edgware and Hale wards from Hendon (rename as Stanmore & Edgware) Doing some quick sums it does work. Except you have to keep Preston in Kingsbury or it falls below the 5% quota (I have allowed up to 7.5% but only where necessary) whilst Wembley would be above it. Maybe move Welsh Harp into Willesden and move Kensal Green to Wembley, that would work? This is a much nicer arrangement than mine but one of the aims when I was drawing constituencies was to minimise the number of cross borough constituencies. Seen as Harrow and Hillingdon is perfect for 5 their seats can be left alone whilst Barnet and Brent is perfect for 6 so in theory you'd only need one cross borough constituency. Admittedly the one I've drawn is hardly the most coherent though it was the best I could come up with just considering Barnet and Brent. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 23, 2020 13:38:36 GMT
I'm not sure what numbers your'e using and whether this would work with them, but on the basis that 2 Barnet wards is roughly equivalent to 3 Harrow or Brent wards I'd suggest rotating the boundaries along these lines: Childs Hill and Golders Green to Hendon. Your Cricklwood seat then gains Dudden Hill, Kensal Green and Willesden Green (name chanegd to Willesden) Brent Central moves west to take Alperton, Wembley Central and Northwick Park (name chanegd to Wembley) - maybe also move Welsh Harp out and replace with Preston Brent North takes three Harrrow wards - Kenton East, Kenton West and Queensbury (call it Kingsbury) Harrow East takes the Edgware and Hale wards from Hendon (rename as Stanmore & Edgware) Doing some quick sums it does work. Except you have to keep Preston in Kingsbury or it falls below the 5% quota (I have allowed up to 7.5% but only where necessary) whilst Wembley would be above it. Maybe move Welsh Harp into Willesden and move Kensal Green to Wembley, that would work? This is a much nicer arrangement than mine but one of the aims when I was drawing constituencies was to minimise the number of cross borough constituencies. Seen as Harrow and Hillingdon is perfect for 5 their seats can be left alone whilst Barnet and Brent is perfect for 6 so in theory you'd only need one cross borough constituency. Admittedly the one I've drawn is hardly the most coherent though it was the best I could come up with just considering Barnet and Brent. You have Hounslow linked with Hammerwmith, Ealing and Richmond and Richmond in turn linked with Kingston and Merton so I don't think it will be a deal breaker for you  Shame about Welsh Harp as that would have looked better in the Kingsbury seat but failing that your alternative suggestion probably works better (and would also make it a more winnable Tory seat) |
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Jan 23, 2020 14:29:48 GMT
Doing some quick sums it does work. Except you have to keep Preston in Kingsbury or it falls below the 5% quota (I have allowed up to 7.5% but only where necessary) whilst Wembley would be above it. Maybe move Welsh Harp into Willesden and move Kensal Green to Wembley, that would work? This is a much nicer arrangement than mine but one of the aims when I was drawing constituencies was to minimise the number of cross borough constituencies. Seen as Harrow and Hillingdon is perfect for 5 their seats can be left alone whilst Barnet and Brent is perfect for 6 so in theory you'd only need one cross borough constituency. Admittedly the one I've drawn is hardly the most coherent though it was the best I could come up with just considering Barnet and Brent. You have Hounslow linked with Hammerwmith, Ealing and Richmond and Richmond in turn linked with Kingston and Merton so I don't think it will be a deal breaker for you Shame about Welsh Harp as that would have looked better in the Kingsbury seat but failing that your alternative suggestion probably works better (and would also make it a more winnable Tory seat) Yeah it's not ideal but Richmond and Kingston have about a third of seat left over which is about 4 wards. Sutton and Wandsworth are perfect for 2 and 3 seats respectively so should be left alone whilst Merton can absorb an absolute maximum of 2 wards which by transferring the Coombe wards to Wimbledon you can get a Richmond & Kingston North and a Surbiton & Kingston South without crossing the Thames. Twickenham still needs to lose two wards and the only borough it can lose them to is Hounslow. The one cross you could avoid is the Ealing-Hounslow cross by splitting Walpole ward but this would have the knock on effect of making it more difficult for Hounslow to absorb the Twickenham wards. And yes any cross borough Harrow-Brent seat should be a key Tory target as the party has shown they are able to make strong inroads into the Hindu vote (the current Brent North is probably a total non-starter due to the presence of Wembley). I wonder which wards the Tories should target at the next council elections, perhaps Queensbury, Northwick Park and Preston (there are new ward boundaries which I'm not sure of the effect of)? I imagine they'd current stand a much better shot at these than of taking back Brondesbury Park. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 23, 2020 15:16:15 GMT
Preston and Queensbury are both improved by the boundary changes (the latter possibly enough to make it notionally Conservative in 2018) - Barnhill would be a bit too but not by enough to make it close. The converse of that is that Kenton would also be a bit more vulnerable to Labour
|
|
|
|
Post by loderingo on Jan 24, 2020 9:19:05 GMT
![]()  Here's my 1st attempt at London using the December 2019 electorates with London gaining 3 seats for a total of 76. The wards used are the old ones as Electoral Calculus hasn't updated for the new ones yet. I have tried to keep within the 5% quota (69,515-76,831) where possible though I have allowed a maximum of 7.5% deviation (67,686-78,660) where sensible to do so, alternatively you can split wards. I tried to minimise crossing of borough boundaries so I organised the boroughs into groups that can hold a whole number of seats: -Islington, Wandsworth and Sutton can stand alone. -Group 1: Havering, Barking & Dagenham, Redbridge, Waltham Forest (9 seats) -Group 2: Newham, Tower Hamlets (5 seats) -Group 3: Hackney, Haringey, Enfield, Camden (9 seats) -Group 4: City of London, Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea (3 seats) -Group 5: Barnet, Brent (6 seats) -Group 6: Harrow, Hillingdon (5 seats) -Group 7: Hammersmith & Fulham, Hounslow, Ealing, Middlesex half of Richmond borough (8 seats) -Group 8: Surrey half of Richmond borough, Kingston, Merton (4 seats) -Group 9: Lambeth, Southwark (6 seats) -Group 10: Lewisham, Greenwich (5 seats) -Group 11: Croydon, Bromley, Bexley (9 seats)  Very close seats (using Electoral Calculus's figures): Wimbledon: Lib Dem by 167 Chingford & Woodford: Tory by 329 Beckenham: Labour by 392 Carshalton & Wallington: Tory by 629 (unchanged seat so exact) Fulham: Tory by 730 Feltham: Labour by 995 Nice effort! How did you do the map? |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jan 24, 2020 10:04:38 GMT
Preston and Queensbury are both improved by the boundary changes (the latter possibly enough to make it notionally Conservative in 2018) - Barnhill would be a bit too but not by enough to make it close. The converse of that is that Kenton would also be a bit more vulnerable to Labour The three by election results in Brent last night proved to be interesting, especially given upcoming ward boundary changes. Tories almost won Barnhill on a low turnout and made significant progress in Wembley Central. Lib Dems gained Alperton. The proposed ward boundary changes may have been enough to flip Barnhill, which will lose the area to the west of the Jubilee line. Alperton shrinks and loses an area to Wembley Central, not sure whether that would have made a difference to the result. Wembley Central will lose the area to the east of the West Coast Main Line and gain large elements from Sudbury and Alperton, again am not sure if there would be any partisan impact. |
|
|
|
Post by David Ashforth on May 22, 2020 9:39:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on May 22, 2020 9:51:49 GMT
This is the now normal registration of students when there’s a national election they want to vote in. Probably Cardiff Central or one of the others in this list will have the largest drop in registrations at December 2020.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 22, 2020 9:52:46 GMT
I make the quota based on that 72,754
It's a bit unhelpful that they don't publish the Parliamentary electorate by LA - perhaps they meant to do that in Table 3 (which otherwise seems to be identical to table 1)
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on May 22, 2020 11:28:33 GMT
I make the quota based on that 72,754 It's a bit unhelpful that they don't publish the Parliamentary electorate by LA - perhaps they meant to do that in Table 3 (which otherwise seems to be identical to table 1) The only difference between Tables 1 and 3 is that the Buckinghamshire districts have gone. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on May 22, 2020 12:03:22 GMT
I make the quota based on that 72,754 It's a bit unhelpful that they don't publish the Parliamentary electorate by LA - perhaps they meant to do that in Table 3 (which otherwise seems to be identical to table 1) That's normal. You get the local government electorate by local authority. This is quite logical, if not helpful for anoraks like us. Anyway it will be the lower December 2020 electorate that will be used, so it's a total waste of time playing with these figures anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 22, 2020 12:05:18 GMT
It's never a waste of time playing with figures. Pointless maybe, but that's not the same thing
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on May 22, 2020 12:11:55 GMT
It's never a waste of time playing with figures. Pointless maybe, but that's not the same thing Having wasted my time playing with them in the past, I stick by my comment...... |
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on May 22, 2020 12:49:18 GMT
I make the quota based on that 72,754 It's a bit unhelpful that they don't publish the Parliamentary electorate by LA - perhaps they meant to do that in Table 3 (which otherwise seems to be identical to table 1) I make the quota 72,613 Total 2019 Electorate 47,074,846 Minus the 3 preserved areas: Isle of Wight 111,440 Na h-Eileanan an Iar 21,202 Orkney and Shetland 34,419 Total 167,061 Net electorate 46,907,785 / 646 |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 22, 2020 12:57:38 GMT
I somehow managed to substract the local government electorate of the preserved areas from the Parliamentary electorate total  |
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on May 22, 2020 13:03:51 GMT
So that would give us: | Electorate | Quotas | Sainte-Lague | | Total | 46907785 | 646 | 646 | | North East | 1921999 | 26.47 | 26 | | North West | 5383886 | 74.14 | 74 | | Yorkshire and The Humber | 3882496 | 53.47 | 53 | | East Midlands | 3478897 | 47.91 | 48 | | West Midlands | 4157363 | 57.25 | 57 | | Eastern | 4469748 | 61.56 | 62 | | London | 5422192 | 74.67 | 75 | | South East | 6454655 | 88.89 | 89 | | South West | 4193464 | 57.75 | 58 | | Northern Ireland | 1296305 | 17.85 | 18 | | Scotland | 3932929 | 54.16 | 54 | | Wales | 2313851 | 31.87 | 32 |
|
|
