2023 Review

[The Bishop]

A few fairly obvious ones (in retrospect, as ever) for 1997 as well.

[Deleted]

Jun 15, 2021 22:59:23 GMT Andrew_S said:

What did they do to Hull East to push it into the Tory column?

They added one of the Holderness wards - SW I think? I'm slightly sceptical that it would actually have flipped the seat 

[greenhert]

Jun 16, 2021 13:13:29 GMT @europeanlefty said:

Jun 15, 2021 22:59:23 GMT Andrew_S said:

What did they do to Hull East to push it into the Tory column?

They added one of the Holderness wards - SW I think? I'm slightly sceptical that it would actually have flipped the seat 

It would have given how strongly Conservative "Holderness" is at local and parliamentary level.

[greenhert]

Jun 15, 2021 19:08:40 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

New notional calculations by Britain Elects (behind New Stateman's paywall, so tough luck if you have read four articles this month already)

I have asked whether the spreadsheet will be open data next week

Many of the notional Green Party vote shares are incorrect e.g. for Bristol North West which includes strongly Green-leaning Bishopston & Ashley Down.

[East Anglian Lefty]

I'm reasonably confident the figures for Colchester are wrong, given that the wards removed are the two Toriest in the entire town and the only area added votes Labour in local elections. It'd be much closer than that.

[hullenedge]

Colne Valley's figures are off so that means Huddersfield will also be off but thanks to BW for attempting the exercise.

[Merseymike]

Jun 16, 2021 14:07:28 GMT greenhert said:

Jun 16, 2021 13:13:29 GMT @europeanlefty said:

They added one of the Holderness wards - SW I think? I'm slightly sceptical that it would actually have flipped the seat 

It would have given how strongly Conservative "Holderness" is at local and parliamentary level.

The Withernsea area isn't, particularly, but there's little incentive for Labour voters to bother, and some obvious tactical voting.

[islington]

Jun 16, 2021 13:13:29 GMT @europeanlefty said:

Jun 15, 2021 22:59:23 GMT Andrew_S said:

What did they do to Hull East to push it into the Tory column?

They added one of the Holderness wards - SW I think? I'm slightly sceptical that it would actually have flipped the seat 

Labour majority only 1239 in 2019, and getting on for six thousand Brexit voters up for grabs - I think the Tories would fancy their chances even on current boundaries, before adding in Hedon, &c, as the BCE proposes.

I know it seems crazy to think of Tory seats in Hull; but a few years ago we'd all have said the same about Stoke, and now look at it.

[Deleted]

Jun 16, 2021 14:09:03 GMT greenhert said:

Jun 15, 2021 19:08:40 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

New notional calculations by Britain Elects (behind New Stateman's paywall, so tough luck if you have read four articles this month already)

I have asked whether the spreadsheet will be open data next week

Many of the notional Green Party vote shares are incorrect e.g. for Bristol North West which includes strongly Green-leaning Bishopston & Ashley Down.

"Strongly Green-leaning" in this case obviously meaning "Labour voting by a very long way but a few points closer than the rest of the seat"

[pepperminttea]

Jun 16, 2021 6:56:43 GMT hullenedge said:

Jun 16, 2021 0:00:50 GMT pepperminttea said:

Having a quick browse seems not. Looking at Bristol, I'm not sure quite how they managed to come to the conclusion swapping Lockleaze for Bishopston makes Bristol North West *more* Tory!!!  I mean Lockleaze is hardly good for the Tories but at least they can get a somewhat respectable vote share there (i.e. Labour may beat them by ~3:1), much better than the derisory near-to-deposit-loss number of votes that they typically get from Bishopston (where Labour will haven beaten them by closer to 10:1)... 

I hate to say it but these figures look to be utter garbage.

A bit harsh. It's a brave chap who publishes these figures. There are errors in the 1979 notionals!

Look I don't mean to be harsh and I'm normally not. But it's actually embarrassing how blatantly wrong these figures are. Honestly they'd be better off not publishing at all.

Another hilarious example of how totally incorrect this is, is Erith and Thamesmead. Somehow it becomes more Tory according to these figures despite losing generally fairly reliably Tory areas around West Heath and Northumberland Heath whilst gaining rock solid Labour wards of Shooters Hill and Glyndon...  There's errors and there's pulling figures out of you know where...

Mistakes in 1979 are much more forgivable as back them people didn't have a whole world of political information at their fingertips, a quick Google would have told you which direction Erith & Thamesmead moves due to this boundary changes even if you'd never heard of the place (which you should have done if you are publishing notional figures and claim to enjoy psephology). I can also understand even nowadays notional results being wrong when it involves third parties as local election results are often poor guides, but in direct Tory-Labour contests it's normally quite clear cut and there's really no excuse for being this far out.  

[hullenedge]

Jun 16, 2021 17:06:25 GMT pepperminttea said:

Jun 16, 2021 6:56:43 GMT hullenedge said:

A bit harsh. It's a brave chap who publishes these figures. There are errors in the 1979 notionals!

Look I don't mean to be harsh and I'm normally not. But it's actually embarrassing how blatantly wrong these figures are. Honestly they'd be better off not publishing at all.

Another hilarious example of how totally wrong this is, is Erith and Thamesmead. Somehow it becomes more Tory according to these figures despite losing generally fairly reliably Tory areas around West Heath and Northumberland Heath whilst gaining rock solid Labour wards of Shooters Hill and Glyndon...  There's errors and there's pulling figures out of you know where...

Mistakes in 1979 are much more forgivable as back them people didn't have a whole world of political information at their fingertips, a quick Google would have told you which direction Erith & Thamesmead moves due to this boundary changes even if you'd never heard of the place (which you should have done if you are publishing notional figures and claim to enjoy psephology). I can also understand even nowadays notional results being wrong when it involves third parties as local election results are often poor guides, but in direct Tory-Labour contests it's normally quite clear cut and there's really no excuse for being this far out.  

BW's explanation:-

Likely that incorrect wards are still being used for the calculations. Also the Lib Dems should be 9 (+2).

[pepperminttea]

Jun 16, 2021 17:10:01 GMT hullenedge said:

Jun 16, 2021 17:06:25 GMT pepperminttea said:

Look I don't mean to be harsh and I'm normally not. But it's actually embarrassing how blatantly wrong these figures are. Honestly they'd be better off not publishing at all.

Another hilarious example of how totally wrong this is, is Erith and Thamesmead. Somehow it becomes more Tory according to these figures despite losing generally fairly reliably Tory areas around West Heath and Northumberland Heath whilst gaining rock solid Labour wards of Shooters Hill and Glyndon...  There's errors and there's pulling figures out of you know where...

Mistakes in 1979 are much more forgivable as back them people didn't have a whole world of political information at their fingertips, a quick Google would have told you which direction Erith & Thamesmead moves due to this boundary changes even if you'd never heard of the place (which you should have done if you are publishing notional figures and claim to enjoy psephology). I can also understand even nowadays notional results being wrong when it involves third parties as local election results are often poor guides, but in direct Tory-Labour contests it's normally quite clear cut and there's really no excuse for being this far out.  

BW's explanation:-

Likely that incorrect wards are still being used for the calculations. Also the Lib Dems should be 9 (+2).

Fair enough, but it's something that he or his team should have checked before publishing. Even someone with a passing interest in psephology would have been able to spot that there was a problem in a matter of minutes. I don't mean to trash the guy, I'm sure he's very smart/capable, but these figures really shouldn't have gone live with such a glaring issues. 

[michael2019]

The seats according to the New Statesman calculations  where the Lib Dems are in second place and they need a 12.5% swing or less to win (i.e. the winner had a majority of 25% or less)

Rank	Seat	Winner	Maj	Con	Lab	LD	Brex	Grn
1	Sheffield Hallam	Lab	1.2%	25.8%	34.6%	33.4%	2.6%	2.9%
2	Carshalton and Wallington	Con	1.3%	42.4%	12.4%	41.1%	2.0%	1.5%
3	South Cambridgeshire	Con	2.1%	44.2%	13.5%	42.1%		0.1%
4	Cheltenham	Con	2.2%	48.3%	4.9%	46.1%
5	Cheadle	Con	4.2%	46.0%	12.3%	41.8%
6	Eastbourne	Con	6.4%	48.4%	6.6%	42.0%	2.7%	0.1%
7	Westminster and Chelsea	Con	8.5%	38.4%	29.5%	29.9%	0.1%	1.6%
8	Lewes	Con	9.6%	49.2%	7.9%	39.6%	0.2%	2.2%
9	Hazel Grove	Con	10.1%	46.3%	16.5%	36.2%	0.6%	0.3%
10	Winchester	Con	10.2%	51.8%	4.9%	41.6%		1.3%
11	Guildford	Con	10.5%	46.3%	8.6%	35.8%		0.6%
12	St Ives	Con	11.0%	50.1%	8.1%	39.1%		1.5%
13	Godalming and Ash	Con	14.2%	52.6%	6.3%	38.4%		1.2%
14	Harrogate & Knaresborough	Con	15.7%	52.0%	9.8%	36.3%
15	Sutton and Cheam	Con	16.6%	50.0%	14.3%	33.4%		2.3%
16	Cambridge	Lab	17.3%	15.4%	47.7%	30.4%	1.8%	4.0%
17	Woking	Con	17.5%	48.6%	16.5%	31.1%		2.7%
18	Taunton	Con	17.6%	53.5%	7.4%	35.9%
19	St Neots	Con	18.1%	49.6%	17.4%	31.5%		0.7%
20	Didcot and Wantage	Con	18.5%	49.8%	15.0%	31.3%		1.6%
21	Westmorland and Eden	Con	19.7%	50.6%	14.8%	30.9%	0.2%	3.4%
22	Wokingham	Con	21.1%	54.3%	10.7%	33.2%		1.8%
23	Wells and Mendip Hills	Con	21.3%	54.9%	10.1%	33.6%		0.6%
24	East Cambridgeshire	Con	21.7%	52.8%	14.0%	31.1%		1.0%
25	Dorking and Horley	Con	21.8%	55.5%	5.2%	33.7%		4.5%
26	Hitchin	Con	22.0%	49.1%	21.3%	27.1%		0.4%
27	Earley and Woodley	Con	22.6%	48.8%	21.4%	26.2%	0.4%	3.1%
28	West Dorset	Con	22.7%	54.5%	10.3%	31.8%		3.0%
29	Farnham and Bordon	Con	22.8%	56.9%	7.7%	34.1%		0.6%
30	Bermondsey and Borough	Lab	23.0%	16.7%	51.7%	28.7%	2.7%
31	Mid Sussex	Con	23.3%	50.8%	17.5%	27.5%		3.9%
32	Henley	Con	23.6%	55.0%	9.9%	31.4%		3.5%
33	Melksham and Devizes	Con	24.4%	55.3%	11.6%	30.9%		2.2%
34	Newbury	Con	24.6%	56.3%	7.3%	31.7%		4.0%

[michaelarden]

Jun 17, 2021 10:13:20 GMT michael2019 said:

The seats according to the New Statesman calculations  where the Lib Dems are in second place and they need a 12.5% swing or less to win (i.e. the winner had a majority of 25% or less)

Rank	Seat	Winner	Maj	Con	Lab	LD	Brex	Grn
1	Sheffield Hallam	Lab	1.2%	25.8%	34.6%	33.4%	2.6%	2.9%
2	Carshalton and Wallington	Con	1.3%	42.4%	12.4%	41.1%	2.0%	1.5%
3	South Cambridgeshire	Con	2.1%	44.2%	13.5%	42.1%		0.1%
4	Cheltenham	Con	2.2%	48.3%	4.9%	46.1%
5	Cheadle	Con	4.2%	46.0%	12.3%	41.8%
6	Eastbourne	Con	6.4%	48.4%	6.6%	42.0%	2.7%	0.1%
7	Westminster and Chelsea	Con	8.5%	38.4%	29.5%	29.9%	0.1%	1.6%
8	Lewes	Con	9.6%	49.2%	7.9%	39.6%	0.2%	2.2%
9	Hazel Grove	Con	10.1%	46.3%	16.5%	36.2%	0.6%	0.3%
10	Winchester	Con	10.2%	51.8%	4.9%	41.6%		1.3%
11	Guildford	Con	10.5%	46.3%	8.6%	35.8%		0.6%
12	St Ives	Con	11.0%	50.1%	8.1%	39.1%		1.5%
13	Godalming and Ash	Con	14.2%	52.6%	6.3%	38.4%		1.2%
14	Harrogate & Knaresborough	Con	15.7%	52.0%	9.8%	36.3%
15	Sutton and Cheam	Con	16.6%	50.0%	14.3%	33.4%		2.3%
16	Cambridge	Lab	17.3%	15.4%	47.7%	30.4%	1.8%	4.0%
17	Woking	Con	17.5%	48.6%	16.5%	31.1%		2.7%
18	Taunton	Con	17.6%	53.5%	7.4%	35.9%
19	St Neots	Con	18.1%	49.6%	17.4%	31.5%		0.7%
20	Didcot and Wantage	Con	18.5%	49.8%	15.0%	31.3%		1.6%
21	Westmorland and Eden	Con	19.7%	50.6%	14.8%	30.9%	0.2%	3.4%
22	Wokingham	Con	21.1%	54.3%	10.7%	33.2%		1.8%
23	Wells and Mendip Hills	Con	21.3%	54.9%	10.1%	33.6%		0.6%
24	East Cambridgeshire	Con	21.7%	52.8%	14.0%	31.1%		1.0%
25	Dorking and Horley	Con	21.8%	55.5%	5.2%	33.7%		4.5%
26	Hitchin	Con	22.0%	49.1%	21.3%	27.1%		0.4%
27	Earley and Woodley	Con	22.6%	48.8%	21.4%	26.2%	0.4%	3.1%
28	West Dorset	Con	22.7%	54.5%	10.3%	31.8%		3.0%
29	Farnham and Bordon	Con	22.8%	56.9%	7.7%	34.1%		0.6%
30	Bermondsey and Borough	Lab	23.0%	16.7%	51.7%	28.7%	2.7%
31	Mid Sussex	Con	23.3%	50.8%	17.5%	27.5%		3.9%
32	Henley	Con	23.6%	55.0%	9.9%	31.4%		3.5%
33	Melksham and Devizes	Con	24.4%	55.3%	11.6%	30.9%		2.2%
34	Newbury	Con	24.6%	56.3%	7.3%	31.7%		4.0%

One seat in Cornwall, none in Devon, 2 in Somerset and 2 in Dorset and 18 in the traditional home counties. Just shows how their old voting coalition has completely collapsed on the cause of remain.

[michael2019]

Jun 17, 2021 10:42:46 GMT michaelarden said:

One seat in Cornwall, none in Devon, 2 in Somerset and 2 in Dorset and 18 in the traditional home counties. Just shows how their old voting coalition has completely collapsed on the cause of remain.

Well sort of - they actually collapsed in 2015 on the coalition - I don't think you can really call 2015 much of a Remain/Leave election - a bit and Cameron did court the UKIP voters with the promise of a referendum! 

The Lib Dems rebuilt that in 2017 and 2019 with the Remain part of their seats but not obviously the Leave part- regaining their SW London seats in Twickenham and Richmond Park and growing tentacles (!) out from there into Wimbledon and out into Surrey - obviously it didn't completely work in 2019 to put it mildly. What is quite encouraging for them is that there is about half of this list and mostly in the top half which are seats they have held before, have a strong local councillor base and organisation and are Remain and quite strongly so (from memory Eastbourne for example was Leave and St Ives obv. but it was a valiant effort by Andrew George). In part because the Surrey stockbroker belt was fearful of being soaked for tax by Corbyn - a Starmer Labour party might be quite helpful for them therefore. 

Some have quite "fat" Labour votes for them to target as well. The first few Tory-facing seats they could pick up on a zero swing from the Conservatives and just getting more of the Labour vote. 

I think from memory some of the bottom part of Winchester district moves back into Winchester so it's closer to the 1997 boundaries and that part is quite used to voting Lib Dem and voting tactically so the Winchester seat may be closer than the nominal result suggests. And there might be other such considerations that don't show up in the nominal results elsewhere. 

SW London and Surrey is the new West Country!

[The Bishop]

Jun 16, 2021 15:48:53 GMT islington said:

Jun 16, 2021 13:13:29 GMT @europeanlefty said:

They added one of the Holderness wards - SW I think? I'm slightly sceptical that it would actually have flipped the seat 

Labour majority only 1239 in 2019, and getting on for six thousand Brexit voters up for grabs - I think the Tories would fancy their chances even on current boundaries, before adding in Hedon, &c, as the BCE proposes.

I know it seems crazy to think of Tory seats in Hull; but a few years ago we'd all have said the same about Stoke, and now look at it.

Having said that, it is surely notable that the Tories failed to win a single seat in Hull's recent local elections.

[grahammurray]

The number of multi-council constituencies to increase by 34%


www.lgcplus.com/politics/governance-and-structure/exclusive-number-of-multi-council-constituencies-to-increase-by-a-third-17-06-2021/?eea=*EEA*&deliveryName=DM1586

[jamie]

Jun 17, 2021 11:48:04 GMT The Bishop said:

Having said that, it is surely notable that the Tories failed to win a single seat in Hull's recent local elections.

Most of the Tory vote goes Lib Dem locally, and more generally i don't think the 2021 council election performance of either Labour or the Conservatives can be used to suggest growing or shrinking support in individual constituencies, just as it wasn't very predictive in previous cycles. 

[bsjmcr]

Jun 13, 2021 19:17:21 GMT John Chanin said:

The Commission seems to have gone generally for the several good seats plus one disastrous bits left over, rather than many suboptimal seats. Always an interesting choice. Disasters here include Stone & Great Wyrley, West Pennine Moors, Wetherby & Easingwold, “City of Durham”, Fallsworth & Droylsden, and of course the continuing Central Devon.

In London they have done the opposite, and avoided any dreadful seats at the cost of large numbers of suboptimal ones.

Wow, the retention of an age-old name I thought meant there wasn't much change there - yet it now incorporates a town which currently leads the name of another constituency (...and Sunderland South!). That is quite impressive. I think the 'City of' prefixes need to be abolished anyway, at least 'City of' Chester has, even if suboptimal, 'City of Durham' could simply be Durham Central or Durham (Central) and Houghton. 

I was hoping Barnard Castle would make it on to the constituency map... 'Bishop Auckland and Barnard Castle'?

[YL]

Some of the papers describing the preparation of the initial proposals are now on the BCE website, linked from the meetings page under 22 and 23 March 2021. Some of them contain vague descriptions of alternative options which were considered.