ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,042
|
Post by ilerda on Jun 9, 2021 21:12:19 GMT
I'd be surprised if Wakefield is notionally Labour. It's 3 wards each for Labour and Tories, but on balance I'd imagine the Tories edge it.
And yes, Rawmarsh and Conisbrough is definitely not a notional Lab gain from Con, unless they're somehow trying to suggest Conisbrough makes it a successor to Don Valley???
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Jun 9, 2021 21:13:11 GMT
Might be a stupid question so I apologise if its already been answered but have the actual figures for the NS notionals been published?
Seats flipping are all well and good but the effects on majorities is what I'm sure we really want to know
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jun 9, 2021 21:15:45 GMT
That's not for the actual proposals, that's for their (dreadful) algorithm designed ones. For the actual proposals they have Con +12 Lab -2 LD no change (in England only of course).
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 9, 2021 21:42:06 GMT
One thing's that pleased me about the initial proposals is that they've reined in the Amorphous Blobbism. Of course they have crossed quite a lot of county and borough boundaries, but you can see that they have at least considered the counties and cities as key parts of the pattern. I'd guess this is less because of feedback from members of the public like us and more because of the thrust of MPs' concerns at the committee meetings in the House of Commons. ps. unbelievably I've only just discovered the speech robert1 made at Stafford during the last zombie review, and as promised, he made mention of AB: ukelect.wordpress.com/2021/06/09/amorphous-blobbism/
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jun 10, 2021 0:27:19 GMT
One thing that is really annoying me is all these needlessly extended names such as Ludlow and Bridgnorth, Wantage and Didcot, Copeland and West Lakes, etc. "Ludlow & Bridgnorth" is one of the excellentisms of the proposals. My sister used to live in Bridgnorth. Bridgnorth and Ludlow are the two main towns of the constituency, and they both have populations of about 11,000. It is not logical for the name to focus on "Ludlow" on its own. The proposed name of "Ludlow & Bridgnorth" is a great improvement. However, I would have preferred it if the Commission had grasped the nettle by the horns and just called it "Shropshire South" instead.
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 10, 2021 9:56:32 GMT
|
|
WJ
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,134
|
Post by WJ on Jun 10, 2021 10:10:05 GMT
One thing that is really annoying me is all these needlessly extended names such as Ludlow and Bridgnorth, Wantage and Didcot, Copeland and West Lakes, etc. "Ludlow & Bridgnorth" is one of the excellentisms of the proposals. My sister used to live in Bridgnorth. Bridgnorth and Ludlow are the two main towns of the constituency, and they both have populations of about 11,000. It is not logical for the name to focus on "Ludlow" on its own. The proposed name of "Ludlow & Bridgnorth" is a great improvement. However, I would have preferred it if the Commission had grasped the nettle by the horns and just called it "Shropshire South" instead. I know I left my pitchfork somewhere around here...
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,077
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jun 10, 2021 10:10:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Jun 10, 2021 10:56:51 GMT
Added the BCE initial proposals to Plan Builder as an optional overlay
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 10, 2021 11:05:19 GMT
These are a few thoughts now I've had a couple of days to recover from the giddying excitement of seeing the BCE's initial proposals.
- Overall they are not that bad - definitely a big improvement on the equivalent stage in the 2013 and 2018 reviews. In general they invite responses along the lines of 'this bit here could be improved' as opposed to 'go away and start again from scratch'.
- I think at this stage it makes more sense to focus on how the proposals can be improved rather than on their electoral consequences. There's time enough to worry about the latter once the new boundaries are finalized.
- I am almost certain to make one or more submissions regarding London, where I think there are some important points to be made on both sides of the Thames.
- But at the moment, I'm not sure there's anything in the rest of England about which I feel sufficiently strongly to make a submission. I may change my mind as the deadline nears but at the moment the only possibility to which I'm giving serious thought is an alternative approach in the SW that reduces the currently very large number of cross-county seats in that region. (Specifically, both Wilts (sans Swindon) and Devon could and should have been treated separately.)
- The linkage of Suffolk with Essex rather than Norfolk is an example of what I mean: it's not what I'd have done but it doesn't bother me anything like enough to stir me into making a submission against it.
- This won't stop me from posting plans on this site (like the one covering west Cheshire) if I think improvements can be made in particular areas. However, the fact that I post a plan doesn't mean that I'm going to submit it: in fact, I'm probably not (unless it's in London or (possibly) the SW). But if I post a plan you like, and you want to use it as the basis of a submission, please be my guest.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 10, 2021 11:30:57 GMT
These are a few thoughts now I've had a couple of days to recover from the giddying excitement of seeing the BCE's initial proposals. - Overall they are not that bad - definitely a big improvement on the equivalent stage in the 2013 and 2018 reviews. In general they invite responses along the lines of 'this bit here could be improved' as opposed to 'go away and start again from scratch'.
- I think at this stage it makes more sense to focus on how the proposals can be improved rather than on their electoral consequences. There's time enough to worry about the latter once the new boundaries are finalized.
- I am almost certain to make one or more submissions regarding London, where I think there are some important points to be made on both sides of the Thames.
- But at the moment, I'm not sure there's anything in the rest of England about which I feel sufficiently strongly to make a submission. I may change my mind as the deadline nears but at the moment the only possibility to which I'm giving serious thought is an alternative approach in the SW that reduces the currently very large number of cross-county seats in that region. (Specifically, both Wilts (sans Swindon) and Devon could and should have been treated separately.)
- The linkage of Suffolk with Essex rather than Norfolk is an example of what I mean: it's not what I'd have done but it doesn't bother me anything like enough to stir me into making a submission against it.
- This won't stop me from posting plans on this site (like the one covering west Cheshire) if I think improvements can be made in particular areas. However, the fact that I post a plan doesn't mean that I'm going to submit it: in fact, I'm probably not (unless it's in London or (possibly) the SW). But if I post a plan you like, and you want to use it as the basis of a submission, please be my guest.
Yes I concur with most of this. The general point and the specific example is exactly how I feel. I had a different idea of how to deal with that area but that was imperfect just as much as the one proposed. I'm fortunate that in the area I am most closely interested (Hertfordshire) the Commission have proposed exactly what I would have done, only excepting a couple of names. I will make counter proposals regarding the three constituencies in Southern Bedfordshire and my main area of concern is North West London (again, South London is different to what I would have proposed but is perfectly fine - East London could be improved and I will probably make a counter proposal but am not going to lose sleep over it.) I agree also about the South West and specifically the arrangements in Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and the area formerly known as Avon and may put forward a counter-proposal there even though I have very little connection to the area.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jun 10, 2021 11:36:15 GMT
These are a few thoughts now I've had a couple of days to recover from the giddying excitement of seeing the BCE's initial proposals. - Overall they are not that bad - definitely a big improvement on the equivalent stage in the 2013 and 2018 reviews. In general they invite responses along the lines of 'this bit here could be improved' as opposed to 'go away and start again from scratch'.
- I think at this stage it makes more sense to focus on how the proposals can be improved rather than on their electoral consequences. There's time enough to worry about the latter once the new boundaries are finalized.
- I am almost certain to make one or more submissions regarding London, where I think there are some important points to be made on both sides of the Thames.
- But at the moment, I'm not sure there's anything in the rest of England about which I feel sufficiently strongly to make a submission. I may change my mind as the deadline nears but at the moment the only possibility to which I'm giving serious thought is an alternative approach in the SW that reduces the currently very large number of cross-county seats in that region. (Specifically, both Wilts (sans Swindon) and Devon could and should have been treated separately.)
- The linkage of Suffolk with Essex rather than Norfolk is an example of what I mean: it's not what I'd have done but it doesn't bother me anything like enough to stir me into making a submission against it.
- This won't stop me from posting plans on this site (like the one covering west Cheshire) if I think improvements can be made in particular areas. However, the fact that I post a plan doesn't mean that I'm going to submit it: in fact, I'm probably not (unless it's in London or (possibly) the SW). But if I post a plan you like, and you want to use it as the basis of a submission, please be my guest.
I agree with a lot of this. However I'd encourage you (and others on this site) to put forward counterproposals where you have them, subject to time and energy of course; I think it's good for various options to be available to the assistant commissioners.
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Jun 10, 2021 11:45:38 GMT
These are a few thoughts now I've had a couple of days to recover from the giddying excitement of seeing the BCE's initial proposals. - Overall they are not that bad - definitely a big improvement on the equivalent stage in the 2013 and 2018 reviews. In general they invite responses along the lines of 'this bit here could be improved' as opposed to 'go away and start again from scratch'.
- I think at this stage it makes more sense to focus on how the proposals can be improved rather than on their electoral consequences. There's time enough to worry about the latter once the new boundaries are finalized.
- I am almost certain to make one or more submissions regarding London, where I think there are some important points to be made on both sides of the Thames.
- But at the moment, I'm not sure there's anything in the rest of England about which I feel sufficiently strongly to make a submission. I may change my mind as the deadline nears but at the moment the only possibility to which I'm giving serious thought is an alternative approach in the SW that reduces the currently very large number of cross-county seats in that region. (Specifically, both Wilts (sans Swindon) and Devon could and should have been treated separately.)
- The linkage of Suffolk with Essex rather than Norfolk is an example of what I mean: it's not what I'd have done but it doesn't bother me anything like enough to stir me into making a submission against it.
- This won't stop me from posting plans on this site (like the one covering west Cheshire) if I think improvements can be made in particular areas. However, the fact that I post a plan doesn't mean that I'm going to submit it: in fact, I'm probably not (unless it's in London or (possibly) the SW). But if I post a plan you like, and you want to use it as the basis of a submission, please be my guest.
I agree with a lot of this. However I'd encourage you (and others on this site) to put forward counterproposals where you have them, subject to time and energy of course; I think it's good for various options to be available to the assistant commissioners. I would also say that positive affirmations of what they have done are worth submitting as well - otherwise they only have objections and could be prone to responding to them at the expense of making things worse. (I believe that there were issues with this in the 2018 zombie review from recollection)
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 10, 2021 11:55:38 GMT
These are a few thoughts now I've had a couple of days to recover from the giddying excitement of seeing the BCE's initial proposals. - Overall they are not that bad - definitely a big improvement on the equivalent stage in the 2013 and 2018 reviews. In general they invite responses along the lines of 'this bit here could be improved' as opposed to 'go away and start again from scratch'.
- I think at this stage it makes more sense to focus on how the proposals can be improved rather than on their electoral consequences. There's time enough to worry about the latter once the new boundaries are finalized.
- I am almost certain to make one or more submissions regarding London, where I think there are some important points to be made on both sides of the Thames.
- But at the moment, I'm not sure there's anything in the rest of England about which I feel sufficiently strongly to make a submission. I may change my mind as the deadline nears but at the moment the only possibility to which I'm giving serious thought is an alternative approach in the SW that reduces the currently very large number of cross-county seats in that region. (Specifically, both Wilts (sans Swindon) and Devon could and should have been treated separately.)
- The linkage of Suffolk with Essex rather than Norfolk is an example of what I mean: it's not what I'd have done but it doesn't bother me anything like enough to stir me into making a submission against it.
- This won't stop me from posting plans on this site (like the one covering west Cheshire) if I think improvements can be made in particular areas. However, the fact that I post a plan doesn't mean that I'm going to submit it: in fact, I'm probably not (unless it's in London or (possibly) the SW). But if I post a plan you like, and you want to use it as the basis of a submission, please be my guest.
I agree with all this. I think I will put in a submission pairing Suffolk with Norfolk and treating separately, because I think it's a better fit to the statutory criteria, but I won't be too disappointed when they ignore it and a decent portion of my submission will be talking about what they've done right, because I think that positive reinforcement is useful too. I'm also going to make a submission for Cambridgeshire and possibly Northamptonshire, depending on if I can be bothered to muck about adding up polling districts.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Jun 10, 2021 12:58:26 GMT
Added the BCE initial proposals to Plan Builder as an optional overlay Bug report: With Plan Builder updated with the initial proposals overlay option, if I reload a previously-saved map, I find that constituency colours don't show up on the map, even though they are still included in the data. They can be recovered (a constituency at a time) by changing the colour or opacity for the active constituency, but this is a slightly inconvenient process for a whole map.
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Jun 10, 2021 13:58:02 GMT
Bug report: With Plan Builder updated with the initial proposals overlay option, if I reload a previously-saved map, I find that constituency colours don't show up on the map, even though they are still included in the data. They can be recovered (a constituency at a time) by changing the colour or opacity for the active constituency, but this is a slightly inconvenient process for a whole map. This seems to be a problem with processing split wards. I have made a temporary change while I try and find the root cause, so that it will pop up a message when this happens and then proceed to colour the constituencies. It may be necessary to redo the split of one or more wards.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Jun 10, 2021 18:51:57 GMT
OK this is fun Con | 19242 | 33.2% | LD | 19117 | 33.0% | Lab | 18775 | 32.4% | Grn | 592 | 1.0% | BxP | 210 | 0.4% | Oth | 76 | 0.1% |
|
|
| Majority | 125 | 0.2% |
I do like this - but the whole idea of trying to predict Finchley and Muswell Hill on the basis of December 2019 GE results, aided by ward estimates considerably derived from the 2018 borough elections (even if, as I think likely, other past election data has also been taken into account), seems to be simply insane. I have started several attempts to explain why I think so, but each one seems to have tried expanding itself into a doctoral thesis. So I'll try going for a few largely random points instead: - I note that Electoral Calculus and the New Statesman are both predicting this as a Lib Dem gain. Even though you don't, this scarcely contradicts your figures - with anything this close, even a very small modelling tweak has a very high chance of changing the headline result.
- Having said that, achieving a predicted Conservative win in this constituency is very much like tossing a coin onto its edge - the absolute achievable upper limit of the Conservative vote here seems to be no higher than 35%. But that, of course, is possible when two other parties split their votes sufficiently evenly. Nevertheless, congratulations on doing it plausibly!
- The Muswell Hill wards are some of the politically most volatile in Haringey, and the 2018 Haringey borough elections were distinctly good for the Liberal Democrats and bad for Labour, while the 2019 GE was somewhat the reverse. However, both were within normal parameters for Haringey and, within those parameters, the Muswell Hill wards are reasonably predictable.
- By contrast, before 2019, the Finchley wards included in the new constituency had been, for several decades, some of the most predictable in Barnet - three safe Labour and two safe Conservative. This still seemed to be the case in the 2018 Barnet borough elections, even though there were some disastrous results for Labour (and one unexpectedly good one) elsewhere in Barnet. However, in the 2019 GE, while the Conservatives held Finchley and Golders Green on a vote not vastly different from the previous two general elections, the Liberal Democrats came from a distant third to a definite second, capturing about 40% of the previous Labour vote. This was definitely not within normal parameters for Finchley and Golders Green, where the only significant Lib Dem achievements had been in one Golders Green ward, where they had held council seats for 30 years until 2018 - the unexpectedly good result just mentioned had been Labour winning the last Lib Dem seat there. Clearly, while some of the Liberal increase could have happened there, most of it had to have happened in other wards, most of which are the Finchley ones indicated for inclusion in the new constituency.
- Under these circumstances, there is little if any practical evidence of which wards contributed how much to the Lib Dem surge - all one can do is make theoretically reasonable assumptions, which may or may not reflect what actually happened.
- To cap this whole matter, in the GLA elections last month, Labour came first in each of the ballots in each of the Finchley and Muswell Hill wards, and the Lib Dems came fourth in the mayoral and list ballots (and the constituency ballot in the Finchley wards), also behind the Conservatives and the Greens, though second in the constituency ballot in the Muswell Hill wards. The last three years might as well not have happened. We can make informed guesses as to which party might have won in 2019 - we can't be certain.
- There is a firm difference between calculating a notional result for a new constituency for the last election and predicting the result at the next election - and, of course, you have done the first of these. Under sufficiently normal circumstances, doing the first can claim to be a reasonable way of guessing the second. But these weren't in any way normal circumstances. On present evidence, unless (as is indeed possible) something happens to cause a repeat of 2019, this would look likely to be a Labour win in 2024.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,666
Member is Online
|
Post by European Lefty on Jun 10, 2021 19:01:32 GMT
OK this is fun Con | 19242 | 33.2% | LD | 19117 | 33.0% | Lab | 18775 | 32.4% | Grn | 592 | 1.0% | BxP | 210 | 0.4% | Oth | 76 | 0.1% |
|
|
| Majority | 125 | 0.2% |
I do like this - but the whole idea of trying to predict Finchley and Muswell Hill on the basis of December 2019 GE results, aided by ward estimates considerably derived from the 2018 borough elections (even if, as I think likely, other past election data has also been taken into account), seems to be simply insane. I have started several attempts to explain why I think so, but each one seems to have tried expanding itself into a doctoral thesis. So I'll try going for a few largely random points instead: - I note that Electoral Calculus and the New Statesman are both predicting this as a Lib Dem gain. Even though you don't, this scarcely contradicts your figures - with anything this close, even a very small modelling tweak has a very high chance of changing the headline result.
- Having said that, achieving a predicted Conservative win in this constituency is very much like tossing a coin onto its edge - the absolute achievable upper limit of the Conservative vote here seems to be no higher than 35%. But that, of course, is possible when two other parties split their votes sufficiently evenly. Nevertheless, congratulations on doing it plausibly!
- The Muswell Hill wards are some of the politically most volatile in Haringey, and the 2018 Haringey borough elections were distinctly good for the Liberal Democrats and bad for Labour, while the 2019 GE was somewhat the reverse. However, both were within normal parameters for Haringey and, within those parameters, the Muswell Hill wards are reasonably predictable.
- By contrast, before 2019, the Finchley wards included in the new constituency had been, for several decades, some of the most predictable in Barnet - three safe Labour and two safe Conservative. This still seemed to be the case in the 2018 Barnet borough elections, even though there were some disastrous results for Labour (and one unexpectedly good one) elsewhere in Barnet. However, in the 2019 GE, while the Conservatives held Finchley and Golders Green on a vote not vastly different from the previous two general elections, the Liberal Democrats came from a distant third to a definite second, capturing about 40% of the previous Labour vote. This was definitely not within normal parameters for Finchley and Golders Green, where the only significant Lib Dem achievements had been in one Golders Green ward, where they had held council seats for 30 years until 2018 - the unexpectedly good result just mentioned had been Labour winning the last Lib Dem seat there. Clearly, while some of the Liberal increase could have happened there, most of it had to have happened in other wards, most of which are the Finchley ones indicated for inclusion in the new constituency.
- Under these circumstances, there is little if any practical evidence of which wards contributed how much to the Lib Dem surge - all one can do is make theoretically reasonable assumptions, which may or may not reflect what actually happened.
- To cap this whole matter, in the GLA elections last month, Labour came first in each of the ballots in each of the Finchley and Muswell Hill wards, and the Lib Dems came fourth in the mayoral and list ballots, also behind the Conservatives and the Greens, though second in the constituency ballot. The last three years might as well not have happened. We can make informed guesses as to which party might have won in 2019 - we can't be certain.
- There is a firm difference between calculating a notional result for a new constituency for the last election and predicting the result at the next election - and, of course, you have done the first of these. Under sufficiently normal circumstances, doing the first can claim to be a reasonable way of guessing the second. But these weren't in any way normal circumstances. On present evidence, unless (as is indeed possible) something happens to cause a repeat of 2019, this would look likely to be a Labour win in 2024.
The factors which aligned to put the LDs second in Finchley at the GE were very much one-offs. With no brexit, no Corbyn, no Luciana Berger and the anti-Semitism issue have substantially subsided though not gone away completely I would be really surprised if the LDs held that level of support and finished in the top 2 again
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 10, 2021 19:04:03 GMT
OK this is fun Con | 19242 | 33.2% | LD | 19117 | 33.0% | Lab | 18775 | 32.4% | Grn | 592 | 1.0% | BxP | 210 | 0.4% | Oth | 76 | 0.1% |
|
|
| Majority | 125 | 0.2% |
I do like this - but the whole idea of trying to predict Finchley and Muswell Hill on the basis of December 2019 GE results [/li] [/ul] [/quote] I have removed the rest of your post as it is an entirely superfluous stating of the obvious. I have made no attempt to 'predict' the result of the next election in this constituency (which very likely (and I hope)) will not even exist in this form. If I were to bother to offer a prediction it would be that it will likely be a comfortable Labour win, but that is not the purpose of notional results - they are simply to show how a constituency likely and roughly voted at the previous election. The fact that other predictions indicate an extremely close three way result suggests these aren't wide of the mark. Constantly needing to explain that notional results are not a prediction of a future election result really shouldn't happen on a forum like this.
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Jun 10, 2021 19:25:46 GMT
So once the whole country is done, the Tories perhaps won't get a massive benefit afterall, just a bunch of ugly seats after pissing away a decade.
|
|