Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2022 20:17:08 GMT
Is it a leak if the information is on their public website? Link?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 7, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 7, 2022 20:25:30 GMT
Is it a leak if the information is on their public website? Link? The link in the Twitter post appears still to work (unless its seeing a cached page for me) If you can't get to it dm me your email address and I can send you the pdf as I downloaded it Edit: The first person who replied to that tweet should change their handle to Hampstead Village Idiot
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 7, 2022 20:28:43 GMT
Can someone please leak the report for Eastern England now?
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 7, 2022 20:31:21 GMT
Can someone please leak the report for Eastern England now? Patience Pete. It’s only 4 hours to wait.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 7, 2022 20:35:07 GMT
Can someone please leak the report for Eastern England now? Patience Pete. It’s only 4 hours to wait. I know but some of us have to get up for work early in the morning
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Nov 7, 2022 20:56:51 GMT
Can someone please leak the report for Eastern England now? You can always try experimenting with URLs.
|
|
|
Post by redvers on Nov 7, 2022 21:01:59 GMT
Can someone please leak the report for Eastern England now? You can always try experimenting with URLs. You best believe I've been trying...
|
|
|
Post by robert1 on Nov 7, 2022 21:16:47 GMT
I don't think the parties had it last week (I chatted with Robert Hayward last week, who helps look after the Tory response, and he didn't mention it). I think MPs got details of their own regions at noon today. Anthony is correct. The parties received it at midday today. We have no prior indication whatsoever, depsite what many MPs believe. The Labour Party were queuing with the Tories at midday.
|
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 596
|
Post by nyx on Nov 8, 2022 0:01:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by anthonyjwells on Nov 8, 2022 0:18:29 GMT
In Wales we got the Assistant Commissioners' Reports AND the Boundary Commissions reports (which in some cases took the ACs recommendations, and in some cases didn't). I don't think England have published the ACs reports have they, or am I looking in the wrong place?
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Nov 8, 2022 1:30:13 GMT
I've come up with some very rough (emphasis on the very!) results estimates, using a demographic model to map voting patterns to local areas. These suggest that the 2019 general election results on these boundaries might have been Con 373 (+8) Lab 200* (-3) SNP 48 (nc) LD 9 (-2) PC 1 (-3) Green 1 (nc) * 199 excluding the Speaker There are a few seats which are far too close to call: Ceredigion Preseli has a tiny Conservative majority of 17 - if Plaid did even 0.2% better in the Fishguard area than my model suggests they would flip the seat. It also has the new Cheltenham as a Lib Dem seat because of the loss of Springbank ward - but the Lib Dems overperform demographics there and so it being removed will not flip the seat and it should remain Conservative on the new boundaries. These examples are why these figures should be taken as a rough guide and not as a gospel (and I'm sure there will be better notionals along before long)!
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,042
|
Post by ilerda on Nov 8, 2022 11:06:09 GMT
I’m really pi**ed off and actually quite concerned by the implications of the Commission’s insistence that maintaining the status quo is something to be aimed for and applauded, even when it is clearly not the best formulation of seats in an area.
There are always times when imperfect solutions have to be employed to make an area work, but if we follow the Commission’s logic to its necessary next step, we will actually end up making these imperfect solutions permanent by saying what has come before should be preserved to avoid disruption. That in turn will lead to even more imperfect solutions in order to accommodate the preservation of pre-existing imperfect solutions that remain within range.
As a Conservative I’m not naturally prone to radical overhauls, but surely a full scale review like this is opportunity to take a step back and look at things in the whole. If a sub-region has three seats that fit within range and one that doesn’t, why are we forced to look for a minimum change imperfect solution in order to preserve two existing seats that themselves might be illogical? If we actually care about good representative constituencies then it should be back to the drawing board at each review.
As an example I take my former home seat of Rugby. The Bulkington ward of Nuneaton & Bedworth was included at the last review (ie from 2010) to make up for the loss of two wards in the south of Rugby borough to the new Kenilworth & Southam. Everyone from Bulkington and the wider area would tell you it doesn’t belong in the Rugby constituency (and even the local MP would agree), and yet because it’s already there the BCE now insists that keeping it there is the optimal outcome and any alternative solution would cause too much disruption. It’s completely absurd and illogical, and yet another example and bureaucracy being so blinkered that it cannot see what’s right in front of it.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,077
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Nov 8, 2022 12:03:09 GMT
I've come up with some very rough (emphasis on the very!) results estimates, using a demographic model to map voting patterns to local areas. These suggest that the 2019 general election results on these boundaries might have been Con 373 (+8) Lab 200* (-3) SNP 48 (nc) LD 9 (-2) PC 1 (-3) Green 1 (nc) * 199 excluding the Speaker There are a few seats which are far too close to call: Ceredigion Preseli has a tiny Conservative majority of 17 - if Plaid did even 0.2% better in the Fishguard area than my model suggests they would flip the seat. It also has the new Cheltenham as a Lib Dem seat because of the loss of Springbank ward - but the Lib Dems overperform demographics there and so it being removed will not flip the seat and it should remain Conservative on the new boundaries. These examples are why these figures should be taken as a rough guide and not as a gospel (and I'm sure there will be better notionals along before long)! I suppose this officially puts Labour below 200 seats for the first time since 1935
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,798
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 8, 2022 14:37:27 GMT
Though generally speaking, this is some way from the sort of boost the Tories have got from certain previous reviews.
A combination of population movements from more pro-Labour areas slowing compared to much of the C20, and more recent demographic changes within seats.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,117
|
Post by maxque on Nov 8, 2022 14:48:46 GMT
I’m really pi**ed off and actually quite concerned by the implications of the Commission’s insistence that maintaining the status quo is something to be aimed for and applauded, even when it is clearly not the best formulation of seats in an area. There are always times when imperfect solutions have to be employed to make an area work, but if we follow the Commission’s logic to its necessary next step, we will actually end up making these imperfect solutions permanent by saying what has come before should be preserved to avoid disruption. That in turn will lead to even more imperfect solutions in order to accommodate the preservation of pre-existing imperfect solutions that remain within range. As a Conservative I’m not naturally prone to radical overhauls, but surely a full scale review like this is opportunity to take a step back and look at things in the whole. If a sub-region has three seats that fit within range and one that doesn’t, why are we forced to look for a minimum change imperfect solution in order to preserve two existing seats that themselves might be illogical? If we actually care about good representative constituencies then it should be back to the drawing board at each review. As an example I take my former home seat of Rugby. The Bulkington ward of Nuneaton & Bedworth was included at the last review (ie from 2010) to make up for the loss of two wards in the south of Rugby borough to the new Kenilworth & Southam. Everyone from Bulkington and the wider area would tell you it doesn’t belong in the Rugby constituency (and even the local MP would agree), and yet because it’s already there the BCE now insists that keeping it there is the optimal outcome and any alternative solution would cause too much disruption. It’s completely absurd and illogical, and yet another example and bureaucracy being so blinkered that it cannot see what’s right in front of it. I'm pretty sure current boundaries is a thing they have to consider heavily due to the current law. Don't blame the commission for a law poorly written by the Government.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,077
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Nov 8, 2022 14:51:08 GMT
Though generally speaking, this is some way from the sort of boost the Tories have got from certain previous reviews. A combination of population movements from more pro-Labour areas slowing compared to much of the C20, and more recent demographic changes within seats. The last Nuffield study or something similar pointed this out about population movements in terms of discussing the electoral system bias though pointed out as a counterbalance due to the gain of so called 'red wall' seats the tories are concentrating their vote better in low turnout/low electorate sears
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 8, 2022 14:59:09 GMT
As an example I take my former home seat of Rugby. The Bulkington ward of Nuneaton & Bedworth was included at the last review (ie from 2010) to make up for the loss of two wards in the south of Rugby borough to the new Kenilworth & Southam. Everyone from Bulkington and the wider area would tell you it doesn’t belong in the Rugby constituency (and even the local MP would agree), and yet because it’s already there the BCE now insists that keeping it there is the optimal outcome and any alternative solution would cause too much disruption. It’s completely absurd and illogical, and yet another example and bureaucracy being so blinkered that it cannot see what’s right in front of it. In isolation you are entirely correct. But getting a more sensible Rugby seat leaves one seat in south Warwickshire below quota unless you're combining Warwickshire with somewhere else. Which obviously has quite significant knock-on effects elsewhere (though I'm fairly sure we came up with some decent Warwickshire-Solihull plans when the figures were first up on boundary assistant).
That said, i absolutely agree with your general point. I'm just not sure Rugby is the best illustration of it.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 8, 2022 14:59:20 GMT
Though generally speaking, this is some way from the sort of boost the Tories have got from certain previous reviews. A combination of population movements from more pro-Labour areas slowing compared to much of the C20, and more recent demographic changes within seats. Also, a change in the type of seats that Tories are hoping to hold or win.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,077
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Nov 8, 2022 15:02:01 GMT
|
|