|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Jan 2, 2021 17:05:10 GMT
I have been holding back for a few weeks on making suggestions and inviting comments on next steps for the Vote UK Almanac, as the last thing I wanted to be seen to be doing was 'electioneering' ...!
However as I have just mentioned on the East Midlands - Daventry thread,
insofar as I have any authority, or responsibility, for this online Almanac project, the above-mentioned entry (Daventry by John Chanin) is a model of the way I see this board developing.
It is to be noted that in addition to the historical and psephological analysis, John has
a/ discussed the possible impact of forthcoming boundary changes
b/ included a selection of relevant demographic variables
In addition to
c/ continuing to fill in the gaps of those constituencies with no thread or no profile ...
... I would suggest that these be added to all threads, not necessarily by the original contributors. I am guessing that some of us will again have available time over the next few months.
One thing about the demographic variables: I think those selected by John for Daventry are all suitable
(owner-occupied 74% (111/573 in England & Wales), private rented 12% (443rd), social rented 13% (361st).
:White 97%, Black 0.5%, South Asian 1%, Mixed 1%, Other 0.5%
: Managerial & professional 39% (173rd), Routine & Semi-routine 26% (394th)
: Degree level 29%(201st), No qualifications 34%(359th)
and I see no problem if people want to add a reasonable number of others.
But I am not sure where John got these particular figures, as they do not fit with the source I have been using, the Excel file of 2011 Census date for parliamentary constituencies.
We should certainly use the same source, which I hope can be freely and clearly made available to all.
In any case, this thread is open for general suggestions and discussion. Thank you to all for their continued support for this exercise.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 2, 2021 18:09:19 GMT
I have been holding back for a few weeks on making suggestions and inviting comments on next steps for the Vote UK Almanac, as the last thing I wanted to be seen to be doing was 'electioneering' ...! However as I have just mentioned on the East Midlands - Daventry thread, insofar as I have any authority, or responsibility, for this online Almanac project, the above-mentioned entry (Daventry by John Chanin) is a model of the way I see this board developing. It is to be noted that in addition to the historical and psephological analysis, John has a/ discussed the possible impact of forthcoming boundary changes b/ included a selection of relevant demographic variables In addition to c/ continuing to fill in the gaps of those constituencies with no thread or no profile ... ... I would suggest that these be added to all threads, not necessarily by the original contributors. I am guessing that some of us will again have available time over the next few months. One thing about the demographic variables: I think those selected by John for Daventry are all suitable (owner-occupied 74% (111/573 in England & Wales), private rented 12% (443rd), social rented 13% (361st).
:White 97%, Black 0.5%, South Asian 1%, Mixed 1%, Other 0.5%
: Managerial & professional 39% (173rd), Routine & Semi-routine 26% (394th)
: Degree level 29%(201st), No qualifications 34%(359th)and I see no problem if people want to add a reasonable number of others. But I am not sure where John got these particular figures, as they do not fit with the source I have been using, the Excel file of 2011 Census date for parliamentary constituencies. We should certainly use the same source, which I hope can be freely and clearly made available to all. In any case, this thread is open for general suggestions and discussion. Thank you to all for their continued support for this exercise. My data does all come from the 2011 census figures. I downloaded every table I was interested in at the time (more than these 4) for local authorities and constituencies, and then calculated the positions myself. The percentages of students and old people are also relevant figures, and some people have quoted index of multiple deprivation which is also useful, but I don’t have to hand, and have some reservations about. In writing profiles I have gone further and used NOMIS to download 2011 ward data. We will be able to say more about potential boundary changes once the data is published next week, but this is inevitably speculative. Constituencies may stay the same with minor additions or subtractions, or be shot to pieces in order to make a better pattern elsewhere, and as those of us who second guess the boundary commissions know there are often radically different solutions. The tight 5% constraints actually promote these radical differences. I can certainly add my data to profiles produced by others. There are only a limited number of further constituencies I can do. It is a matter of minor irritation that we have several prolific posters on this site who are quite uninterested in this process, but could fill in some of the gaps. (I do wonder why people who are only interested in political knockabout choose to do it here ). |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jan 2, 2021 18:24:31 GMT
I'm not sure about including details on potential boundary changes yet, not until at least draft boundaries are published. Looking at just my three constituencies (Oxford East, Banbury, and Wantage), each will see very different changes at the boundary review. The former will barely change at all, probably just aligning with new ward boundaries, taking a little more territory in the north of the city, and maybe a slight name change to simply Oxford. But the latter two are rather unpredictable - I think Banbury and Bicester will probably end up in different seats, but there are several possible arrangements which work and you can never be sure which option the boundary commission will choose. Wantage is even worse because there's added uncertainty about whether they will cross the county boundary and take parts of West Berkshire.
I do like the idea of including more numerical data though, which will also have the benefit of making these entries more uniform.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Jan 2, 2021 18:56:02 GMT
Thank you, John. The problem is, I think, that only you can add the figures that you yourself have calculated. To do all 650 seats would be an awful lot of work, for a start. I have the 'official' 2011 Census figures and rankings, downloaded from, I think, a link provided by Pete Whitehead ... I am not skilful in these matters, so I can't work out how pass this on, and wonder if Pete could add the link again here, so we can all have a common source at least to argue about or work from. Bjorn, yes I realise we cannot identify the final boundary changes yet, but one of the advantages of this online approach is that the threads develop andcan include initial speculation as well, which I think would be of interest. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 2, 2021 19:12:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 2, 2021 19:26:27 GMT
Which is of course what I did |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Jan 2, 2021 19:50:58 GMT
Thanks very much, Pete. Those are indeed the figures I have. (Though my file is not arranged by region) But can anyone work out, please, why the percentages and rankings are different from John’s - say for Daventry housing? |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 2, 2021 20:05:54 GMT
Thanks very much, Pete. Those are indeed the figures I have. (Though my file is not arranged by region) But can anyone work out, please, why the percentages and rankings are different from John’s - say for Daventry housing? A quick look is that for housing the only difference is that I have included shared ownership in owner occupation. For economic classification I have excluded economically inactive and recalculated. The educational and ethnic figures are the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Jan 5, 2021 16:40:18 GMT
Right, essentially I agree with John on the demographic variables to be included for each seat, though of course open to any further comment and suggestions:
Owner-occupied
Private rented
Social rented
White
Black
South Asian
Professional & Managerial
Routine & Semi-routine
Degree level
No qualifications
Students
Age 65+
The majority of these I (and others) can access directly from the source liked by Pete above.
I myself would be inclined to leave out the shared ownership from the housing tenure figures.
No problem with extra categories like race: mixed, it's just more information
The main problem concerns the Professional & Managerial (I put them that way round to be consistent with the Almanac books) and Routine and semi-routine categories, as these are separate in Pete's source and also John's own figures are a re-calculation omitting those not economically active, if I have understood correctly.
I don't know whether John would be prepared to add his figures for all seats on these (or share the results of his calculations), maybe someone can think of another way consistency could be achieved by a number of posters.
Personally I didn't mind if posters add these statistics to the original profiles or whether some kind soul simply adds them in a separate post.
(Similarly for information and speculation about boundary changes).
Anyway, all open for debate, and I would not want absolute uniformity to be enforced!
|
|
Clark
Forum Regular
Posts: 744
|
Post by Clark on Jan 7, 2021 15:45:56 GMT
Is there census data for the Scottish seats too?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 7, 2021 16:27:04 GMT
Is there census data for the Scottish seats too? Yes but it’s a separate website (Scotland being quasi-independent). |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Jan 7, 2021 17:26:10 GMT
The file I have has the same information as Pete's but does include the Scottish seats (and Northern Irish), and in the rankings too ( /650)
As I said, unfortunately I can't remember how I got it in the first place ...
It is an Excel file - is there a way I can share it here?
(I'd need idiot-proof instructions!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Jan 15, 2021 22:11:27 GMT
No suggestions so far as to how I can share the Excel file, but if anyone would like to have it (and maybe help enter the selected stats for each seat), by all means send me a PM with an e mail address and I can attach the file.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 15, 2021 22:18:53 GMT
Simple way: Paste it into Google Sheets and post a link.
More complicated but user-friendly way: Paste into a text document and use a combination of find-and-replace and text editing to put it into Proboards' native table format, then you can post it on here directly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Jan 16, 2021 0:29:28 GMT
Sorry, David, my fault, but I find both of those suggestions utterly incomprehensible!
If anyone does understand them and is willing to send me an e mail in a PM, they could then post as you suggest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2021 9:04:22 GMT
Just as a passing thought, the percentage of the population working in certain industries is also useful in some cases. A high proportion of people employed in manufacturing, education or human health and social work (the latter two being largely public sector) can help explain otherwise inexplicably good Labour results (see Northampton, South Swindon, Stroud to some extent, Corby)
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Jan 19, 2021 16:52:26 GMT
I'd just like to trial an idea that follows from the discussion of statistics and the seat profiles.
In the original Almanacs and in the Politico's Guides to the 2015 and 2017 general elections I included lists of the '20 most' seats for this 'n' that, such as high owner occupation, religions and so on.
I'll give an example in my next post, and if it works and there is a demand I can put some more up (probably in a separate dedicated thread), and there's no reason why others shouldn't add their own, with variables and stats of their own choice.
Others will undoubtedly be better at layout than me, too!
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Jan 19, 2021 16:54:59 GMT
20 CONSTITUENCIES WITH HIGHEST PROPORTION OF MUSLIMS 2011 Census % Birmingham Hodge Hill 52.1
Bradford West 51.3
Birmingham Hall Green 46.6
East Ham 37.4
Bradford East 36.9
Blackburn 36.3
Bethnal Green and Bow 35.4
Birmingham Ladywood 35.2
Ilford South 34.9
Poplar and Limehouse 33.6
Manchester Gorton 28.8
Leicester South 27.8
West Ham 26.8
Walthamstow 25.4
Luton South 25.3
Oldham West and Royton 24.6
Edmonton 24.5
Slough 23.8
Rochdale 23.6
Birmingham Perry Barr 22.7 Note: I tried to justify both sides to make this look better but it hasn't worked! Is there a way I can do this without creating a table and entering it all again? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 19, 2021 16:59:19 GMT
I was surprised to see Edmonton on that list. I'm sure it wasn't that high and I had to check. There's a relatively small South Asian population there though a significant Turkish one. I assume this is mainly down to Muslims of a black African background, principally Somalians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 19, 2021 17:00:24 GMT
Even when I lived there in the mid-90s, the south and east bit of Edmonton was more like a continuation of Tottenham.
|
|
