York Outer

[warofdreams]

York Outer is a doughnut, completely surrounding the seat of York Central.  This unusual set-up had existed only since 2010, and while York receives a lot of tourists, most visitors won't set foot in this constituency.  Its name was not a popular choice, but it is hard to come up with a better name for a constituency with no centre.  The manner of the split makes York Outer a safe Conservative seat, held by Julian Sturdy since its creation.

The seat includes some suburbs of York, particularly in the north, where it includes half the Nestle chocolate factory and the model village of New Earswick, built by Joseph Rowntree to house its workers.  It also covers the modern housing estates of Rawcliffe and Clifton Without, and the pleasant suburbanised villages of Fulford (south), Huntington (northeast), and Osbaldwick (east).  Dringhouses, to the southwest, is more mixed, including some council housing.  Further out are the small town of Haxby and numerous villages.  Bishopthorpe, home of the Archbishop of York's palace, Copmanthorpe, and Poppleton, are essentially outer suburbs, while even the smaller and more remote villages are close enough to the city that many residents commute in to work.

The University of York lies in York Outer, in the split ward of Hull Road, which is the only reliably Labour-voting area of the constituency.  Off campus, almost all students live in York Central, so this is not a student constituency.  The Conservatives do well in the rural areas, and the Lib Dems tend to win the suburbs, some with large majorities.  However, in the 2019 locals, the Conservatives performed very poorly, taking only 2 seats on the City of York Council, both in this constituency, with the Lib Dems and some independents mopping up the remainder.

Voting patterns in general elections are different.  While the Lib Dems were only 6.9% behind the Conservatives in 2010, since then, they have only managed third, with the challenge, such as it is, coming from the Labour Party.  Given the demographics, it is unlikely that the Labour Party will win the seat in the foreseeable future, but they will continue to campaign in the seat, as to win a majority on the council, they would need to take some seats in the suburban wards.

[iang]

Was it not considered a Lib Dem seat on notional 2005 votes in 2010?

[greenhert]

It was, just.

[Robert Waller]

2011 Census

Owner-occupied 81.5% 10/650
Private rented 8.6% 624/650
Social rented 8.1% 631/650
White 96.0% 286/650
Black 0.4% 438/650
Asian 2.4% 339/650
Managerial & professional 36.1%
Routine & Semi-routine 21.4%
Degree level 32.1% 138/650
No qualifications 17.8% 545/650
Students 11.7% 102/650
Age 65+ 21.0% 94/650

2021 Census

Owner occupied 80.3% 7/573
Private rented 11.0% 565/573
Social rented 8.7% 547/573
White 94.8%
Black 0.5%
Asian 2.6%
Managerial & professional 37.8% 153/573
Routine & Semi-routine 19.1% 444/573
Degree level 37.5% 141/573
No qualifications 13.4% 502/573
Students 12.1% 59/573







General Election 2019: York Outer

Party Candidate Votes % ±%

Conservative Julian Sturdy 27,324 49.4 -1.7
Labour Anna Perrett 17,339 31.3 -5.4
Liberal Democrats Keith Aspden 9,992 18.1 +7.8
Independent Scott Marmion 692 1.3

C Majority 9,985 18.1 +3.7

Turnout 55,588 74.4 -1.7

Conservative hold

Swing 1.8 Lab to C

[European Lefty]

Is there a reason why York was the only city entitled to two seats to get this arrangement?

[YL]

Feb 18, 2021 21:32:40 GMT European Lefty said:

Is there a reason why York was the only city entitled to two seats to get this arrangement?

York has an unusually generously drawn boundary for a city of its size. If you split the council area east/west or north/south instead then you'd be disturbing the very natural York city seat which had existed on roughly that layout since forever, and you'd also essentially be splitting the urban core in two and putting both parts in seats which extend out into genuinely rural areas. Previously the different outer areas were in various different North Yorkshire constituencies, and it might actually have made most sense to maintain that arrangement, but the rules on treating unitaries as counties in their own right ruled that out.

I don't know why York's boundaries got extended so much when it became a unitary, when so many others (Reading for example) became unitaries at about the same time on their old tightly drawn boundaries.

One case of a unitary with a generously drawn boundary and a "sandwich" solution is Swindon, where both seats combine parts of the urban core and rural areas, but based on its ward electorates it looks like it's likely to get a more York-like arrangement (though not a full doughnut) in the coming review.

[bjornhattan]

Feb 18, 2021 22:05:46 GMT YL said:

Feb 18, 2021 21:32:40 GMT European Lefty said:

Is there a reason why York was the only city entitled to two seats to get this arrangement?

York has an unusually generously drawn boundary for a city of its size. If you split the council area east/west or north/south instead then you'd be disturbing the very natural York city seat which had existed on roughly that layout since forever, and you'd also essentially be splitting the urban core in two and putting both parts in seats which extend out into genuinely rural areas. Previously the different outer areas were in various different North Yorkshire constituencies, and it might actually have made most sense to maintain that arrangement, but the rules on treating unitaries as counties in their own right ruled that out.

I don't know why York's boundaries got extended so much when it became a unitary, when so many others (Reading for example) became unitaries at about the same time on their old tightly drawn boundaries.

One case of a unitary with a generously drawn boundary and a "sandwich" solution is Swindon, where both seats combine parts of the urban core and rural areas, but based on its ward electorates it looks like it's likely to get a more York-like arrangement (though not a full doughnut) in the coming review.

York gained quite a lot of territory in 1996, when it became a unitary authority - the area gained roughly corresponds to this seat. Ryedale suffered the greatest losses; near enough half of its population were moved across. I don't know exactly why this happened - perhaps to ensure the city was large enough in population for a unitary system to be efficient?

For your other example, don't forget that until 1997, Swindon town was almost entirely surrounded by another seat. Highworth, which is to the north east of Swindon, was in the Devizes constituency which was mostly south of Swindon. However, this wasn't a true doughnut because the Purton area bordered the Swindon constituency too, and that was in the Chippenham constituency (or later North Wiltshire).

[greenhert]

Feb 18, 2021 22:05:46 GMT YL said:

Feb 18, 2021 21:32:40 GMT European Lefty said:

Is there a reason why York was the only city entitled to two seats to get this arrangement?

York has an unusually generously drawn boundary for a city of its size. If you split the council area east/west or north/south instead then you'd be disturbing the very natural York city seat which had existed on roughly that layout since forever, and you'd also essentially be splitting the urban core in two and putting both parts in seats which extend out into genuinely rural areas. Previously the different outer areas were in various different North Yorkshire constituencies, and it might actually have made most sense to maintain that arrangement, but the rules on treating unitaries as counties in their own right ruled that out.

I don't know why York's boundaries got extended so much when it became a unitary, when so many others (Reading for example) became unitaries at about the same time on their old tightly drawn boundaries.

One case of a unitary with a generously drawn boundary and a "sandwich" solution is Swindon, where both seats combine parts of the urban core and rural areas, but based on its ward electorates it looks like it's likely to get a more York-like arrangement (though not a full doughnut) in the coming review.

A "Swindon East/Swindon West" arrangement will not quite be like "York Outer/York Central" by any means.

[J.G.Harston]

Feb 18, 2021 22:05:46 GMT YL said:

I don't know why York's boundaries got extended so much when it became a unitary, when so many others (Reading for example) became unitaries at about the same time on their old tightly drawn boundaries.

York didn't really extend it's boundaries when it became a unitary, rather it became a unitary when it extended its boundaries. It was long seen that the 1974 city was drawn too tightly*, and a long campaign to expand. Going unitary was a natural and required part of that process, plus a long-fought-for reversal of their centuries-long independence.

*The boundary actually sliced through York University, and came to almost within a kilometre of the railway station.

[YL]

Feb 18, 2021 23:09:47 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Feb 18, 2021 22:05:46 GMT YL said:

I don't know why York's boundaries got extended so much when it became a unitary, when so many others (Reading for example) became unitaries at about the same time on their old tightly drawn boundaries.

York didn't really extend it's boundaries when it became a unitary, rather it became a unitary when it extended its boundaries. It was long seen that the 1974 city was drawn too tightly*, and a long campaign to expand. Going unitary was a natural and required part of that process, plus a long-fought-for reversal of their centuries-long independence.

*The boundary actually sliced through York University, and came to almost within a kilometre of the railway station.

Yes, my question is more why so many other unitaries created at the same time retained their old tightly drawn boundaries. Presumably there was less of a local campaign for expansion.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Feb 19, 2021 9:19:16 GMT YL said:

Feb 18, 2021 23:09:47 GMT J.G.Harston said:

York didn't really extend it's boundaries when it became a unitary, rather it became a unitary when it extended its boundaries. It was long seen that the 1974 city was drawn too tightly*, and a long campaign to expand. Going unitary was a natural and required part of that process, plus a long-fought-for reversal of their centuries-long independence.

*The boundary actually sliced through York University, and came to almost within a kilometre of the railway station.

Yes, my question is more why so many other unitaries created at the same time retained their old tightly drawn boundaries. Presumably there was less of a local campaign for expansion.

Need to go back to the Banham Commission reports to work that out but I suspect there was an unwillingness to open the question of boundaries between districts because it would inevitably lead to the sort of oneupmanship and inter-district feuds - Gloucester and Cheltenham feuding over which got to incorporate Tewkesbury, that sort of thing.

The local unpopularity and legal challenges to Banham's early reports may also have dissuaded him from messing too much with boundaries.

EDIT: Fortunately the North Yorkshire report is one of the few Banham Commission reports which is available: Here.

[bsjmcr]

Apr 10, 2020 15:18:29 GMT warofdreams said:

Voting patterns in general elections are different.  While the Lib Dems were only 6.9% behind the Conservatives in 2010, since then, they have only managed third, with the challenge, such as it is, coming from the Labour Party.  Given the demographics, it is unlikely that the Labour Party will win the seat in the foreseeable future, but they will continue to campaign in the seat, as to win a majority on the council, they would need to take some seats in the suburban wards.

I know that times have changed since this was written but many of the polling prediction maps have this down as a Labour gain. I know they’re not perfect (are Labour approaching a ceiling?) but couldn’t Labour swamp this seat with activists from Central seeing that it isn’t marginal.

[batman]

Aug 13, 2022 10:04:09 GMT bsjmcr said:

Apr 10, 2020 15:18:29 GMT warofdreams said:

Voting patterns in general elections are different.  While the Lib Dems were only 6.9% behind the Conservatives in 2010, since then, they have only managed third, with the challenge, such as it is, coming from the Labour Party.  Given the demographics, it is unlikely that the Labour Party will win the seat in the foreseeable future, but they will continue to campaign in the seat, as to win a majority on the council, they would need to take some seats in the suburban wards.
.

I know that times have changed since this was written but many of the polling prediction maps have this down as a Labour gain. I know they’re not perfect (are Labour approaching a ceiling?) but couldn’t Labour swamp this seat with activists from Central seeing that it isn’t marginal.

it's Labour's no.1 target in North Yorkshire, unless there's a by-election in Selby & Ainsty next door. The latest Redfield & Wilton poll as you say suggests a nationwide swing of 9.25%, sufficient for Labour to take the seat on current boundaries. With York Central pretty clearly safe yes you're right, there would undoubtedly be Labour Party workers here trying to win the seat.

[YL]

The Boundary Commission's proposals make only minor changes to the two York constituencies, realigning with new ward boundaries. However, one change may be significant: the main campus of York University moves from Outer to Central; this may make this seat a little harder for Labour to win.