Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2020 12:05:07 GMT
Thanks for the maps Pete
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 14, 2020 10:20:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 24, 2020 10:12:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on Oct 24, 2020 13:17:50 GMT
As a matter of interest, where do the ward boundary details in the maps come from? Two or three weeks ago, I was trying to make out whether certain ward boundaries in Barnet (specifically, those between Friern Barnet ward and Brunswick Park and East Barnet wards) had changed from the old Hertfordshire/Middlesex boundary to following the Kings Cross railway line in the 1966 ward boundary review or the 1977 one, and couldn't find any evidence one way or the other.
(In Barnet as a whole, the 1966 review completely redrew the entire ward map, while the 1977 review seems to have made only fairly minor changes to ward boundaries, otherwise keeping the "same" 20 wards as 1966 - but I have a nagging memory from what I think was the early 1980s of some just possibly still current or relatively recently obsolete documentation [canvass cards? old Labour Party ward membership lists?] for Brunswick Park ward which contained a very small number of households in side streets to the west of the railway. Of course, in the case of both ward reviews, the constituency boundaries only caught up in the next constituency reviews). I think that the details that you need are in the local government boundary commission for England website. The 1977 report for Barnet details the ward boundary changes over 1966 which seem relatively few and the boundaries of the 1977 wards as words (no maps) and it's a little difficult for someone with no local knowledge to work out the boundaries but I assume you could. It can be got via www.lgbce.org.uk/resources/the-lgbces-predecessors/the-lgbce-1973-1992/initial-electoral-reviewsIf you have already consulted this and I am telling you how to suck eggs apologies. Failing this I'd suggest the council, their elections dept (there may be something stuffed in a dusty draw), local history resources and other local political parties apart from your own and indeed any councillors etc dating that period. Good luck! |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 24, 2020 14:36:48 GMT
The official boundary maps for the initial ward boundaries in London are at the National Archives: OS 77/82 and OS 77/83, and individually OS 38/2301-2332.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Oct 24, 2020 18:09:32 GMT
As a matter of interest, where do the ward boundary details in the maps come from? Two or three weeks ago, I was trying to make out whether certain ward boundaries in Barnet (specifically, those between Friern Barnet ward and Brunswick Park and East Barnet wards) had changed from the old Hertfordshire/Middlesex boundary to following the Kings Cross railway line in the 1966 ward boundary review or the 1977 one, and couldn't find any evidence one way or the other. (In Barnet as a whole, the 1966 review completely redrew the entire ward map, while the 1977 review seems to have made only fairly minor changes to ward boundaries, otherwise keeping the "same" 20 wards as 1966 - but I have a nagging memory from what I think was the early 1980s of some just possibly still current or relatively recently obsolete documentation [canvass cards? old Labour Party ward membership lists?] for Brunswick Park ward which contained a very small number of households in side streets to the west of the railway. Of course, in the case of both ward reviews, the constituency boundaries only caught up in the next constituency reviews). I think that the details that you need are in the local government boundary commission for England website. The 1977 report for Barnet details the ward boundary changes over 1966 which seem relatively few and the boundaries of the 1977 wards as words (no maps) and it's a little difficult for someone with no local knowledge to work out the boundaries but I assume you could. It can be got via www.lgbce.org.uk/resources/the-lgbces-predecessors/the-lgbce-1973-1992/initial-electoral-reviewsIf you have already consulted this and I am telling you how to suck eggs apologies. Failing this I'd suggest the council, their elections dept (there may be something stuffed in a dusty draw), local history resources and other local political parties apart from your own and indeed any councillors etc dating that period. Good luck! Thanks for your reply. I had in fact consulted what I am almost certain is the document you suggest, though not via the URL you have given. It looks as if my difficulty starts with the following sentence in paragraph 6 of schedule 1 (with my clarification in square brackets): "Accordingly, their [Barnet Council's] initial draft scheme, submitted to the Commission in December 1975, provided for retaining the existing pattern of wards in its entirety, except for two very minor boundary adjustments which have at no stage evoked comment." If I am reading the rest of the document correctly, though, it never again mentions these boundary adjustments, but just treats the initial draft as the basis for the subsequent discussions (which it probably was) and then verbally describes the resulting new boundaries, without ever again referring back to the 1966 boundaries. The change I am trying to look at between the pre-1966 county boundary and the post-1977 railway boundary is certainly not described in the document (and I have a fairly clear idea of all the ones that are described), and it would probably be a bit of a stretch to describe it as "very minor" but not totally impossible (it affected about two miles of boundary but probably only transferred the equivalent of half a dozen football pitches each way). So it was probably changed in 1966 (but wouldn't have affected constituency boundaries until February 1974), but it would be nice to see a map or description that indicates either the 1966 boundaries or what the "very minor boundary adjustments" were. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 24, 2020 18:21:41 GMT
Reading the report for Barnet it's evident there were three sets of minor boundary changes - between Burnt Oak/Colindale, between Colindale/West Hendon and between East Barnet/Brunswick Park. A fourth change between Arkley/Hadley was reversed due to objections. The bit relevant to Peter Wilkinson 's question was I do wish they had adopted this proposal Edit: I see he has replied in the time while I have been studying the document and writing this post |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 28, 2020 8:38:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Oct 28, 2020 13:09:18 GMT
This is, I think, the one election in the whole series of these maps when there were actual council elections in London on the same day as the general election. Have you tried comparing your notional ward-level results with the actual council election voting figures? Because, while they usually seem to be the same, that's not always the case. In Barnet, for instance, your notional results for all but one of the wards agree with what I would have expected from the actual results. The exception is Coppetts ward, where you show it as Conservative, but the actual result was two Labour councillors and one Conservative, with Labour being clearly, if narrowly, ahead - the order of the top six candidates was Labour/Conservative/Labour/Labour/Conservative/Conservative. Obviously, that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with your calculations - even when the same voters are voting in two elections at the same time, they can (and not infrequently do) split their votes between different parties. But it would still be interesting to know whether that was happening here, and to what extent. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 29, 2020 7:39:57 GMT
This is, I think, the one election in the whole series of these maps when there were actual council elections in London on the same day as the general election. Have you tried comparing your notional ward-level results with the actual council election voting figures? Because, while they usually seem to be the same, that's not always the case. In Barnet, for instance, your notional results for all but one of the wards agree with what I would have expected from the actual results. The exception is Coppetts ward, where you show it as Conservative, but the actual result was two Labour councillors and one Conservative, with Labour being clearly, if narrowly, ahead - the order of the top six candidates was Labour/Conservative/Labour/Labour/Conservative/Conservative. Obviously, that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with your calculations - even when the same voters are voting in two elections at the same time, they can (and not infrequently do) split their votes between different parties. But it would still be interesting to know whether that was happening here, and to what extent. Yes there will be many such examples of wards producing a different winner in the local elections on the same day (actually a map illustrating this might be interesting in itself). Obviously the 2010 local results formed a major basis of the data I used to create these notionals but not the only one (as GLA election data is often a more useful guide so I add that to the mix as well). Even if I had only used the local results as the basis of the results the outcome here would I think be the same. On aggregate in the wards making up Chipping Barnet (using top vote method), the Conservatives won 22,599 votes in the local elections against 24,700 in the general with the respective figures for Labour being 13,447 and 12,773. IN terms of majority that equates to a Conservative majority of 9,152 in the local elections as against 11,927 in the general - a fairly substantial difference which equates to a difference of about 400 votes per ward, easily enough to overturn the 83 vote lead Labour enjoyed in the local elections. Of course these notionals are by definition speculative and its possible that all the differential was made up by other wards, but I've no particular reason to believe the differential was other than fairly uniform across the constituency. Indeed if anything, it was more likely to have been greater in the wards which elected Labour councillors (only Coppetts and Underhill in this case) since the local results may have reflected some personal/incumbency vote for those councillors which would not have been available to their general election candidate |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2020 10:40:29 GMT
Conservatives did very well in Notting Hell in 2010. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Oct 29, 2020 17:30:00 GMT
This is, I think, the one election in the whole series of these maps when there were actual council elections in London on the same day as the general election. Have you tried comparing your notional ward-level results with the actual council election voting figures? Because, while they usually seem to be the same, that's not always the case. In Barnet, for instance, your notional results for all but one of the wards agree with what I would have expected from the actual results. The exception is Coppetts ward, where you show it as Conservative, but the actual result was two Labour councillors and one Conservative, with Labour being clearly, if narrowly, ahead - the order of the top six candidates was Labour/Conservative/Labour/Labour/Conservative/Conservative. Obviously, that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with your calculations - even when the same voters are voting in two elections at the same time, they can (and not infrequently do) split their votes between different parties. But it would still be interesting to know whether that was happening here, and to what extent. Yes there will be many such examples of wards producing a different winner in the local elections on the same day (actually a map illustrating this might be interesting in itself). Obviously the 2010 local results formed a major basis of the data I used to create these notionals but not the only one (as GLA election data is often a more useful guide so I add that to the mix as well). Even if I had only used the local results as the basis of the results the outcome here would I think be the same. On aggregate in the wards making up Chipping Barnet (using top vote method), the Conservatives won 22,599 votes in the local elections against 24,700 in the general with the respective figures for Labour being 13,447 and 12,773. IN terms of majority that equates to a Conservative majority of 9,152 in the local elections as against 11,927 in the general - a fairly substantial difference which equates to a difference of about 400 votes per ward, easily enough to overturn the 83 vote lead Labour enjoyed in the local elections. Of course these notionals are by definition speculative and its possible that all the differential was made up by other wards, but I've no particular reason to believe the differential was other than fairly uniform across the constituency. Indeed if anything, it was more likely to have been greater in the wards which elected Labour councillors (only Coppetts and Underhill in this case) since the local results may have reflected some personal/incumbency vote for those councillors which would not have been available to their general election candidate Thanks for your reply. I don't agree with every detail of your explanation, but - your explanation seems robust enough that, while I am fairly certain that one could come up with reasonable alternative models which allocated Coppetts to Labour rather than Conservative, most of those models would probably make it Conservative; and
- a number of factors which undoubtedly influence elections are sufficiently uncommon and/or complex in their effects to be reliably allowed for in a sensible model - probably including all the ones I am about to mention.
So far as personal/incumbency factors go, there can be very little doubt that in Underhill, they almost entirely helped Labour. The one successful Labour candidate, Anita Campbell, had been a councillor for the ward (and its Arkley predecessor) for the previous 20 years and had a massive personal vote of about 500. Removing her from the equation suggests that the ward had swung significantly to the Conservatives since 2006. Ironically, the one incumbent Conservative councillor was the only losing Conservative candidate, with the ward councillors remaining two Conservative, one Labour. In Coppetts, though, one would have expected the incumbency factor to slightly help the Conservatives rather than Labour. The ward was already split two Conservative, one Labour, and the incumbent Labour councillor topped the poll with one of the two incumbent Conservatives coming second. However, the other Conservative incumbent ended up nearly 200 votes behind the other successful Labour candidate, resulting in the 2/1 split being reversed. And your mention of GLA election data makes me wonder, which election(s)? In Barnet, the differences between the 2008 and 2012 contests, as compared with the rest of London, were significant. The 2012 GLA constituency contest saw a large local drop in the Conservative vote specifically because of the incumbent's personal unpopularity - but this was not reflected in the regional list vote, and while the mayoral vote across London moved far less towards Labour than did either pf the GLA votes, the Barnet vote in the 2012 mayoral election actually moved against Labour (though probably not so much in Coppetts, as this seems to have been a reaction in the more strongly Jewish wards, against Livingstone's already-perceived anti-semitism). Where local factors are in fact personal, they won't necessarily transfer between different elections (although I realise that the scale of this was probably atypically large in Barnet during the 2010s). |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 29, 2020 18:09:51 GMT
Yes there will be many such examples of wards producing a different winner in the local elections on the same day (actually a map illustrating this might be interesting in itself). Obviously the 2010 local results formed a major basis of the data I used to create these notionals but not the only one (as GLA election data is often a more useful guide so I add that to the mix as well). Even if I had only used the local results as the basis of the results the outcome here would I think be the same. On aggregate in the wards making up Chipping Barnet (using top vote method), the Conservatives won 22,599 votes in the local elections against 24,700 in the general with the respective figures for Labour being 13,447 and 12,773. IN terms of majority that equates to a Conservative majority of 9,152 in the local elections as against 11,927 in the general - a fairly substantial difference which equates to a difference of about 400 votes per ward, easily enough to overturn the 83 vote lead Labour enjoyed in the local elections. Of course these notionals are by definition speculative and its possible that all the differential was made up by other wards, but I've no particular reason to believe the differential was other than fairly uniform across the constituency. Indeed if anything, it was more likely to have been greater in the wards which elected Labour councillors (only Coppetts and Underhill in this case) since the local results may have reflected some personal/incumbency vote for those councillors which would not have been available to their general election candidate Thanks for your reply. I don't agree with every detail of your explanation, but - your explanation seems robust enough that, while I am fairly certain that one could come up with reasonable alternative models which allocated Coppetts to Labour rather than Conservative, most of those models would probably make it Conservative; and
- a number of factors which undoubtedly influence elections are sufficiently uncommon and/or complex in their effects to be reliably allowed for in a sensible model - probably including all the ones I am about to mention.
So far as personal/incumbency factors go, there can be very little doubt that in Underhill, they almost entirely helped Labour. The one successful Labour candidate, Anita Campbell, had been a councillor for the ward (and its Arkley predecessor) for the previous 20 years and had a massive personal vote of about 500. Removing her from the equation suggests that the ward had swung significantly to the Conservatives since 2006. Ironically, the one incumbent Conservative councillor was the only losing Conservative candidate, with the ward councillors remaining two Conservative, one Labour. In Coppetts, though, one would have expected the incumbency factor to slightly help the Conservatives rather than Labour. The ward was already split two Conservative, one Labour, and the incumbent Labour councillor topped the poll with one of the two incumbent Conservatives coming second. However, the other Conservative incumbent ended up nearly 200 votes behind the other successful Labour candidate, resulting in the 2/1 split being reversed. And your mention of GLA election data makes me wonder, which election(s)? In Barnet, the differences between the 2008 and 2012 contests, as compared with the rest of London, were significant. The 2012 GLA constituency contest saw a large local drop in the Conservative vote specifically because of the incumbent's personal unpopularity - but this was not reflected in the regional list vote, and while the mayoral vote across London moved far less towards Labour than did either pf the GLA votes, the Barnet vote in the 2012 mayoral election actually moved against Labour (though probably not so much in Coppetts, as this seems to have been a reaction in the more strongly Jewish wards, against Livingstone's already-perceived anti-semitism). Where local factors are in fact personal, they won't necessarily transfer between different elections (although I realise that the scale of this was probably atypically large in Barnet during the 2010s). Like KFC I don't like to reveal all my ingredients, but as far as GLA results go I give greater weight to the list vote because that is (largely or relatively) unencumbered by personal votes. The constituency vote does reflect more typical local voting patterns and I don't use the Mayoral vote at all as that seems to bear relatively little relation to 'normal' voting patterns (local or general) and levels down too much the support for minor parties (in particular the Lib Dems). I use the preceding GLA election so the relevant one to these results are those of 2008 so not affected by the Brian Coleman debacle.* As far as Underhill goes, this was a rare (though not unique) case where I adjusted the Labour vote down closer to the average than the top vote as I do in cases where it is very clear that a single candidate enjoys a substantially larger vote than their running mates, so it would not be the case as you might imagine that my model overstates the level of Labour support in Underhill (and therefore correspondingly understates it in the other wards including Coppetts). * The 2012 results obviously feed into the 2015 general election but this is not problematic as the 'Coleman effect' is seen across the borough and in as much as there is a differential this is mostly between the Hendon wards and the rest (due to the additional 'Dismore effect') rather than between different wards within the same constituency |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2020 10:09:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 30, 2020 10:33:19 GMT
It would be difficult for a number of reasons. Firstly (though this is not an insurmountable problem) there are a number of seats which would have crossed what is now the Greater London boundary (Barnet, Epping, Carshalton etc). More significant problems are that I would be unsure of ward boundaries in many places and also lack complete local election results for that period (I have complete figures for the LCC area but would not have ward boundaries in some areas and there are significant gaps in the figures for outer London boroughs). I suppose I could use 1964 data but even that would be lacking for some of the non-GLC areas like Banstead, Elstree etc |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 30, 2020 14:36:35 GMT
.. but having said all that, now you've got me thinking about it I'm going to have to do it. I did want to go back to 1970 at least because that would then cover every general election in my lifetime, but decided against for the reasons given above and felt that at least going back to 1974 covers everything from the last 50 years. But if I can figure out a good model for 1970 then why not take it back all the way to 1959 (or indeed 1955)
|
|
|
|
Post by where2travel on Oct 30, 2020 15:47:06 GMT
Looking at these maps, one thing that always stands out to me is just how big Darwin ward (Bromley) actually is, especially given that it's a single-member ward. The next largest seem to be Heathrow Villages (which is largely taken up by the airport) and Upminster (which looks to include a large semi-rural element near and outside the M25).
It's consistently the darkest blue colour on each map too (but that's less of a surprise).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2020 9:49:36 GMT
.. but having said all that, now you've got me thinking about it I'm going to have to do it. I did want to go back to 1970 at least because that would then cover every general election in my lifetime, but decided against for the reasons given above and felt that at least going back to 1974 covers everything from the last 50 years. But if I can figure out a good model for 1970 then why not take it back all the way to 1959 (or indeed 1955) All before my time but comparing 1959 to 1987 would be interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 31, 2020 9:58:57 GMT
If you go back to 1987 you will find a lot of articles comparing 1959 to 1987.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 21, 2020 17:36:26 GMT
|
|
