|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 22, 2020 13:04:14 GMT
That would give an entitlement by country of
England 542+2 (+11)
Scotland 54+2 (-3)
Wales 32 (-8)
Northern Ireland 18
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on May 22, 2020 14:15:15 GMT
Seat changes over current totals by English region?
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 22, 2020 14:34:04 GMT
South East +6 (+1 for IOW)
Eastern +4
South West +3
East Midlands +2
London +2
North West -1
Yorkshire & Humber -1
West Midlands -2
North East -3
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2020 15:11:20 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. In this subforum, there is no such thing as a total waste of time. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 22, 2020 16:05:01 GMT
(Saw this while flicking through the early pages again.) Having said which I have no confidence in the competence of Tower Hamlets council, but it is more likely to be failure to remove people from the register than fraud. After all there isn't much point in fraud at General Elections in Tower Hamlets. There may have been some fraudulent entries on the register in 2018 when there were contested local elections. However this would only be a small percentage of the increase in electorate. It's worth noting that Tower Hamlets was an authority that delayed the annual rollover because of the general election so these figures will be for the 2018 register with all the monthly updates but without the removal effect of the 2019 annual canvass. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on May 22, 2020 17:12:46 GMT
South East +6 (+1 for IOW) Eastern +4 South West +3 East Midlands +2 London +2 North West -1 Yorkshire & Humber -1 West Midlands -2 North East -3 Not a good redistribution for Labour. London only gets two more seats, which is less than I had expected. |
|
|
|
Post by Yaffles on May 22, 2020 17:29:37 GMT
South East +6 (+1 for IOW) Eastern +4 South West +3 East Midlands +2 London +2 North West -1 Yorkshire & Humber -1 West Midlands -2 North East -3 Not a good redistribution for Labour. London only gets two more seats, which is less than I had expected. Population and registered voters are two different things for many fairly obvious reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on May 22, 2020 17:45:50 GMT
Interesting on the ONS page David Ashforth linked to: Electoral statistics, UK: 2019 I did not know they collected these at ward level every year. Will try and get hold of 2018 and see if/when 2019 will be available. Would be good to have more up to date ward boundaries and electorates. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 22, 2020 18:45:39 GMT
I wonder if that's a standard thing they put on there, because so far as I know the PBCE only ever published the Parliamentary Electors by ward stats at the start of redistributions in 2011 and 2016.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on May 22, 2020 19:29:22 GMT
I wonder if that's a standard thing they put on there, because so far as I know the PBCE only ever published the Parliamentary Electors by ward stats at the start of redistributions in 2011 and 2016. I have the 2011 parliamentary electorates for England by ward in the staging area of my database. I have logged the source as BCE but I am do not recall exactly how they got there. For authorities with boundary reviews in 2011 the electorates are given for the old wards at the start of the review, so it may be that we can get 2018 electorates but only for 2015 wards. Not ideal, but better than what we have now. This would be the same as Northern Ireland where parliamentary electorates for wards are published annually but only for the pre-2011 wards. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 22, 2020 19:41:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on May 23, 2020 9:20:02 GMT
Not a good redistribution for Labour. London only gets two more seats, which is less than I had expected. Population and registered voters are two different things for many fairly obvious reasons. I know, was hoping London might get three extra seats. Yorks/Humber and North East only narrowly missed out on keeping an additional seat each. There is a concentration of oversized seats in Somerset, Bucks, Oxon and Cambs so no surprises about the award of extra seats in those regions. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on May 23, 2020 11:06:46 GMT
Ideas for a 74-seat North West on these figures.
The entitlements by county work out as
Cheshire 11.41 (currently 11)
Cumbria 5.34 (currently 6)
Greater Manchester 27.74 (currently 27)
Lancashire 15.17 (currently 16)
Merseyside 14.48 (currently 15), of which Wirral 3.37 (currently 4) and the rest 11.12 (currently 11)
On those figures Cumbria will need to be combined with Lancashire for 20.51 (currently 21) and the Wirral will need to be combined with Cheshire for 14.78 (currently 15). That would give an allocation of 28 seats for Greater Manchester, 21 for Lancashire and Cumbria, 15 for Cheshire and the Wirral and 11 for Lancastrian Merseyside, which is one too many. To get the allocation down to 74 there would have to be a cross-border seat between Greater Manchester and the Lancashire/Cumbria group (48.25 quotas rounds down to 48), as Greater Manchester + Cheshire + Wirral is 42.52 quotas which would round up to 43.
Lancastrian Merseyside currently has the right seat allocation of 11, but only the three Sefton constituencies and St Helens North are within tolerance; West Derby, Wavertree and Walton are too small while Garston, Knowsley, Riverside and St Helens South are too large. St helens would probably go back to two seats of its own; major changes can be expected in Liverpool and Knowsley.
Cheshire + Wirral currently has the right seat allocation of 15. The four Wirral constituencies are undersized, while Congleton, Crewe, Macclesfield and Warrington North are oversized. With all the small seats at the west end and the big ones at the east end, there will have to be major changes to the seats in between.
In Greater Manchester, the borough groupings used for the 2010 redistribution come out as
Bolton and Wigan 6.04 (currently 6)
Bury 2.00 (currently 2)
Manchester, Salford and Trafford 9,79 (currently 9)
Oldham, Tameside and Stockport 7.70 (currently 8)
Rochdale 2.21 (currently 2)
Of the three Lancashire constituencies that border Greater Manchester, Rossendale and West Lancashire are within tolerance while Chorley is too large. Ideally you're looking for a bit of Lancashire (around 0.2-0.3 of a quota) to be donated to a Greater Manchester seat; Darwen would probably be too large for that but somewhere like Bacup might fit the bill.
In the Manchester etc group, all of the current seats are oversized with the exception of Altrincham, Stretford and Blackley. In the Oldham etc group Ashton, Denton, Stockport and Hazel Grove are too small. Both Rochdale seats are too large; both Bury seats are within tolerance (only just, but within tolerance); while in the Bolton group Leigh is too large and Bolton North East too small.
From this I suspect the outcome would be three seats entirely within Stockport, one ward of Leigh moving into Worsley, Bacup moving into a Rochdale-based seat, a major reconfiguration in the Manchester and Salford areas to create an extra seat (Blackley and Middleton, perhaps?), and Bolton North East being brought up to quota by transferring West Pennine ward from Rossendale and Darwen (most of which should really be part of Bolton borough anyway).
That leaves the Cumbria plus Lancashire minus nibbles group where two seats need to disappear. Of the six Cumbria seats, only Barrow is within tolerance with all the rest too small. Of the Lancashire seats, Chorley and Ribble Valley are too large, while Rossendale and Darwen (after the bits we've taken out of it), Burnley, Pendle, Preston, Fylde, the Blackpool seats, Lancaster and Morecambe are too small. There's only one place you can put a cross-border seat, which would be in the Morecambe Bay area; and the numbers suggest the other seat would disappear in either north or east Lancashire.
Have fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 23, 2020 11:20:45 GMT
Ideas for a 74-seat North West on these figures. The entitlements by county work out as Cheshire 11.41 (currently 11) Cumbria 5.34 (currently 6) Greater Manchester 27.74 (currently 27) Lancashire 15.17 (currently 16) Merseyside 14.48 (currently 15), of which Wirral 3.37 (currently 4) and the rest 11.12 (currently 11) On those figures Cumbria will need to be combined with Lancashire for 20.51 (currently 21) and the Wirral will need to be combined with Cheshire for 14.78 (currently 15). That would give an allocation of 28 seats for Greater Manchester, 21 for Lancashire and Cumbria, 15 for Cheshire and the Wirral and 11 for Lancastrian Merseyside, which is one too many. To get the allocation down to 74 there would have to be a cross-border seat between Greater Manchester and the Lancashire/Cumbria group (48.25 quotas rounds down to 48), as Greater Manchester + Cheshire + Wirral is 42.52 quotas which would round up to 43. Lancastrian Merseyside currently has the right seat allocation of 11, but only the three Sefton constituencies and St Helens North are within tolerance; West Derby, Wavertree and Walton are too small while Garston, Knowsley, Riverside and St Helens South are too large. St helens would probably go back to two seats of its own; major changes can be expected in Liverpool and Knowsley. Cheshire + Wirral currently has the right seat allocation of 15. The four Wirral constituencies are undersized, while Congleton, Crewe, Macclesfield and Warrington North are oversized. With all the small seats at the west end and the big ones at the east end, there will have to be major changes to the seats in between. In Greater Manchester, the borough groupings used for the 2010 redistribution come out as Bolton and Wigan 6.04 (currently 6) Bury 2.00 (currently 2) Manchester, Salford and Trafford 9,79 (currently 9) Oldham, Tameside and Stockport 7.70 (currently 8) Rochdale 2.21 (currently 2) Of the three Lancashire constituencies that border Greater Manchester, Rossendale and West Lancashire are within tolerance while Chorley is too large. Ideally you're looking for a bit of Lancashire (around 0.2-0.3 of a quota) to be donated to a Greater Manchester seat; Darwen would probably be too large for that but somewhere like Bacup might fit the bill. In the Manchester etc group, all of the current seats are oversized with the exception of Altrincham, Stretford and Blackley. In the Oldham etc group Ashton, Denton, Stockport and Hazel Grove are too small. Both Rochdale seats are too large; both Bury seats are within tolerance (only just, but within tolerance); while in the Bolton group Leigh is too large and Bolton North East too small. From this I suspect the outcome would be three seats entirely within Stockport, one ward of Leigh moving into Worsley, Bacup moving into a Rochdale-based seat, a major reconfiguration in the Manchester and Salford areas to create an extra seat (Blackley and Middleton, perhaps?), and Bolton North East being brought up to quota by transferring West Pennine ward from Rossendale and Darwen (most of which should really be part of Bolton borough anyway). That leaves the Cumbria plus Lancashire minus nibbles group where two seats need to disappear. Of the six Cumbria seats, only Barrow is within tolerance with all the rest too small. Of the Lancashire seats, Chorley and Ribble Valley are too large, while Rossendale and Darwen (after the bits we've taken out of it), Burnley, Pendle, Preston, Fylde, the Blackpool seats, Lancaster and Morecambe are too small. There's only one place you can put a cross-border seat, which would be in the Morecambe Bay area; and the numbers suggest the other seat would disappear in either north or east Lancashire. Have fun. Indeed 74 is the same number as on the 'current' numbers (that is to say the figures built into the Boundary Assistant site so I have played around a bit with this and concluded exactly as you have in terms of the groupings (Wirral with Cheshire etc). I can confirm however that I did not have fun. IN fact the only experience in recent weeks which has been less fun is trying to work out constituencies in Yorkshire & Humberside. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on May 23, 2020 11:25:03 GMT
It's a shame that Greater Manchester + Cheshire isn't viable. I'd love to see my pitchfork bait of Wythenshawe and Wilmslow be proposed one of these days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2020 11:39:02 GMT
Ideas for a 74-seat North West on these figures. The entitlements by county work out as Cheshire 11.41 (currently 11) Cumbria 5.34 (currently 6) Greater Manchester 27.74 (currently 27) Lancashire 15.17 (currently 16) Merseyside 14.48 (currently 15), of which Wirral 3.37 (currently 4) and the rest 11.12 (currently 11) On those figures Cumbria will need to be combined with Lancashire for 20.51 (currently 21) and the Wirral will need to be combined with Cheshire for 14.78 (currently 15). That would give an allocation of 28 seats for Greater Manchester, 21 for Lancashire and Cumbria, 15 for Cheshire and the Wirral and 11 for Lancastrian Merseyside, which is one too many. To get the allocation down to 74 there would have to be a cross-border seat between Greater Manchester and the Lancashire/Cumbria group (48.25 quotas rounds down to 48), as Greater Manchester + Cheshire + Wirral is 42.52 quotas which would round up to 43. Lancastrian Merseyside currently has the right seat allocation of 11, but only the three Sefton constituencies and St Helens North are within tolerance; West Derby, Wavertree and Walton are too small while Garston, Knowsley, Riverside and St Helens South are too large. St helens would probably go back to two seats of its own; major changes can be expected in Liverpool and Knowsley. Cheshire + Wirral currently has the right seat allocation of 15. The four Wirral constituencies are undersized, while Congleton, Crewe, Macclesfield and Warrington North are oversized. With all the small seats at the west end and the big ones at the east end, there will have to be major changes to the seats in between. In Greater Manchester, the borough groupings used for the 2010 redistribution come out as Bolton and Wigan 6.04 (currently 6) Bury 2.00 (currently 2) Manchester, Salford and Trafford 9,79 (currently 9) Oldham, Tameside and Stockport 7.70 (currently 8) Rochdale 2.21 (currently 2) Of the three Lancashire constituencies that border Greater Manchester, Rossendale and West Lancashire are within tolerance while Chorley is too large. Ideally you're looking for a bit of Lancashire (around 0.2-0.3 of a quota) to be donated to a Greater Manchester seat; Darwen would probably be too large for that but somewhere like Bacup might fit the bill. In the Manchester etc group, all of the current seats are oversized with the exception of Altrincham, Stretford and Blackley. In the Oldham etc group Ashton, Denton, Stockport and Hazel Grove are too small. Both Rochdale seats are too large; both Bury seats are within tolerance (only just, but within tolerance); while in the Bolton group Leigh is too large and Bolton North East too small. From this I suspect the outcome would be three seats entirely within Stockport, one ward of Leigh moving into Worsley, Bacup moving into a Rochdale-based seat, a major reconfiguration in the Manchester and Salford areas to create an extra seat (Blackley and Middleton, perhaps?), and Bolton North East being brought up to quota by transferring West Pennine ward from Rossendale and Darwen (most of which should really be part of Bolton borough anyway). That leaves the Cumbria plus Lancashire minus nibbles group where two seats need to disappear. Of the six Cumbria seats, only Barrow is within tolerance with all the rest too small. Of the Lancashire seats, Chorley and Ribble Valley are too large, while Rossendale and Darwen (after the bits we've taken out of it), Burnley, Pendle, Preston, Fylde, the Blackpool seats, Lancaster and Morecambe are too small. There's only one place you can put a cross-border seat, which would be in the Morecambe Bay area; and the numbers suggest the other seat would disappear in either north or east Lancashire. Have fun. This used to be a fun hobby. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on May 23, 2020 14:16:25 GMT
IN fact the only experience in recent weeks which has been less fun is trying to work out constituencies in Yorkshire & Humberside. I still feel I can't really be bothered without electorate figures for the new wards in Sheffield. (Leeds and Rotherham, too.) |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 23, 2020 17:11:43 GMT
Ideas for a 74-seat North West on these figures. The entitlements by county work out as Cheshire 11.41 (currently 11) Cumbria 5.34 (currently 6) Greater Manchester 27.74 (currently 27) Lancashire 15.17 (currently 16) Merseyside 14.48 (currently 15), of which Wirral 3.37 (currently 4) and the rest 11.12 (currently 11) On those figures Cumbria will need to be combined with Lancashire for 20.51 (currently 21) and the Wirral will need to be combined with Cheshire for 14.78 (currently 15). That would give an allocation of 28 seats for Greater Manchester, 21 for Lancashire and Cumbria, 15 for Cheshire and the Wirral and 11 for Lancastrian Merseyside, which is one too many. To get the allocation down to 74 there would have to be a cross-border seat between Greater Manchester and the Lancashire/Cumbria group (48.25 quotas rounds down to 48), as Greater Manchester + Cheshire + Wirral is 42.52 quotas which would round up to 43. Lancastrian Merseyside currently has the right seat allocation of 11, but only the three Sefton constituencies and St Helens North are within tolerance; West Derby, Wavertree and Walton are too small while Garston, Knowsley, Riverside and St Helens South are too large. St helens would probably go back to two seats of its own; major changes can be expected in Liverpool and Knowsley. Cheshire + Wirral currently has the right seat allocation of 15. The four Wirral constituencies are undersized, while Congleton, Crewe, Macclesfield and Warrington North are oversized. With all the small seats at the west end and the big ones at the east end, there will have to be major changes to the seats in between. In Greater Manchester, the borough groupings used for the 2010 redistribution come out as Bolton and Wigan 6.04 (currently 6) Bury 2.00 (currently 2) Manchester, Salford and Trafford 9,79 (currently 9) Oldham, Tameside and Stockport 7.70 (currently 8) Rochdale 2.21 (currently 2) Of the three Lancashire constituencies that border Greater Manchester, Rossendale and West Lancashire are within tolerance while Chorley is too large. Ideally you're looking for a bit of Lancashire (around 0.2-0.3 of a quota) to be donated to a Greater Manchester seat; Darwen would probably be too large for that but somewhere like Bacup might fit the bill. In the Manchester etc group, all of the current seats are oversized with the exception of Altrincham, Stretford and Blackley. In the Oldham etc group Ashton, Denton, Stockport and Hazel Grove are too small. Both Rochdale seats are too large; both Bury seats are within tolerance (only just, but within tolerance); while in the Bolton group Leigh is too large and Bolton North East too small. From this I suspect the outcome would be three seats entirely within Stockport, one ward of Leigh moving into Worsley, Bacup moving into a Rochdale-based seat, a major reconfiguration in the Manchester and Salford areas to create an extra seat (Blackley and Middleton, perhaps?), and Bolton North East being brought up to quota by transferring West Pennine ward from Rossendale and Darwen (most of which should really be part of Bolton borough anyway). That leaves the Cumbria plus Lancashire minus nibbles group where two seats need to disappear. Of the six Cumbria seats, only Barrow is within tolerance with all the rest too small. Of the Lancashire seats, Chorley and Ribble Valley are too large, while Rossendale and Darwen (after the bits we've taken out of it), Burnley, Pendle, Preston, Fylde, the Blackpool seats, Lancaster and Morecambe are too small. There's only one place you can put a cross-border seat, which would be in the Morecambe Bay area; and the numbers suggest the other seat would disappear in either north or east Lancashire. Have fun. The sizes of the wards in the Wirral and Cheshire West & Chester pose additional problems in creating in-quota seats. Ward-splitting will be almost inevitable. Lancaster & Fleetwood is the Lancashire seat most likely to disappear, since for a start both Blackpool seats will need to expand northwards. A resurrection of the pre-1983 Morecambe & Lonsdale seat is likely. |
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on May 28, 2020 11:40:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by simonc30 on May 28, 2020 12:53:00 GMT
Do you have any plans to put this data into Boundary Assistant? I know that if all goes as the Government want it to with the bill going through Parliament, the new boundaries will be based on the electorates for the end of this year, but I would have thought those figures would be closer to the latest set on this than 2015, so would be better for people to play around with between now and then?
|
|
