nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jul 20, 2023 20:40:44 GMT
The Boundary Review maps andthe Boundaryassistant site - as noted above- are really useful and I will probably have a playaround with them over the weekend,hopefully. However, does anyone know who (I presume the Boundary Commissions?) and when the official* 2019 notionals for the new constituencies will be calculated and published? I have spreadsheets that need prepping! * that is, the ones that will be used on Election night by all the usual media outlets Write to Prof Thrasher or Rallings, they are quite good to email |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jul 22, 2023 12:50:47 GMT
The Boundary Review maps andthe Boundaryassistant site - as noted above- are really useful and I will probably have a playaround with them over the weekend,hopefully. However, does anyone know who (I presume the Boundary Commissions?) and when the official* 2019 notionals for the new constituencies will be calculated and published? I have spreadsheets that need prepping! * that is, the ones that will be used on Election night by all the usual media outlets Write to Prof Thrasher or Rallings, they are quite good to email In terms of offical calculations, my theory is that we will have to wait until at least October for them to be published. However, we have multiple sources for unoffical calculations, namely the similarity index published by Electoral Calculus and new for this review, the House of Commons library., the only downside is that you have to do the calculations yourself (which at the rate I was going would be complete around the time that the offical ones are published, therefore not worth it) |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 22, 2023 13:29:46 GMT
Write to Prof Thrasher or Rallings, they are quite good to email In terms of offical calculations, my theory is that we will have to wait until at least October for them to be published. However, we have multiple sources for unoffical calculations, namely the similarity index published by Electoral Calculus and new for this review, the House of Commons library., the only downside is that you have to do the calculations yourself (which at the rate I was going would be complete around the time that the offical ones are published, therefore not worth it) What is this 'similarity' index and how does it help to construct notional results? |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jul 22, 2023 13:50:21 GMT
In terms of offical calculations, my theory is that we will have to wait until at least October for them to be published. However, we have multiple sources for unoffical calculations, namely the similarity index published by Electoral Calculus and new for this review, the House of Commons library., the only downside is that you have to do the calculations yourself (which at the rate I was going would be complete around the time that the offical ones are published, therefore not worth it) What is this 'similarity' index and how does it help to construct notional results? Ceredigion, Preseli is made up to 100% of Ceredigion and 30.1% of Preseli, Pembrokeshire, therefore, and this comes from Electoral Calculus, you multiply all the parties votes in Preseli, Pembrokeshire by 0.301 and then add it to the Ceredigion totals. www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/bdy2023_wales_summary.html |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 22, 2023 14:09:21 GMT
What is this 'similarity' index and how does it help to construct notional results? Ceredigion, Preseli is made up to 100% of Ceredigion and 30.1% of Preseli, Pembrokeshire, therefore, and this comes from Electoral Calculus, you multiply all the parties votes in Preseli, Pembrokeshire by 0.301 and then add it to the Ceredigion totals. www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/bdy2023_wales_summary.htmlSo you assume the parties strength are exactly the same in an area leaving a constituency as the areas remaining? OK - you're correct at least that it isn't worth any time or effort.. |
|
|
|
Post by borisminor on Jul 22, 2023 14:37:38 GMT
Ceredigion, Preseli is made up to 100% of Ceredigion and 30.1% of Preseli, Pembrokeshire, therefore, and this comes from Electoral Calculus, you multiply all the parties votes in Preseli, Pembrokeshire by 0.301 and then add it to the Ceredigion totals. www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/bdy2023_wales_summary.htmlSo you assume the parties strength are exactly the same in an area leaving a constituency as the areas remaining? OK - you're correct at least that it isn't worth any time or effort.. I managed to do this quite easily with a formula through Excel but because it assumes an entire constituency votes the same way you get odd results like the new Dewsbury and Batley seat having a 300 vote majority. It paints a rough enough picture to know roughly what the electoral lie of the country is though. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 22, 2023 14:45:02 GMT
So you assume the parties strength are exactly the same in an area leaving a constituency as the areas remaining? OK - you're correct at least that it isn't worth any time or effort.. I managed to do this quite easily with a formula through Excel but because it assumes an entire constituency votes the same way you get odd results like the new Dewsbury and Batley seat having a 300 vote majority. It paints a rough enough picture to know roughly what the electoral lie of the country is though. I didn't say it wouldn't be easy to do, just that there would be no point in doing it, precisely because of results like the example you give. The results will be utterly meaningless |
|
|
|
Post by borisminor on Jul 22, 2023 14:51:20 GMT
I managed to do this quite easily with a formula through Excel but because it assumes an entire constituency votes the same way you get odd results like the new Dewsbury and Batley seat having a 300 vote majority. It paints a rough enough picture to know roughly what the electoral lie of the country is though. I didn't say it wouldn't be easy to do, just that there would be no point in doing it, precisely because of results like the example you give. The results will be utterly meaningless The ease of it was more in reply to Harry Hayfield but I didn't quite realise how out of kilter the results would be |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Jul 28, 2023 13:05:25 GMT
FWIW Scotland's current seats are based on enumeration data from June 2001, making the basis for them 22 years 'old'. And they still have time to run before abolition.
The First Review had a March 1954 enumeration date, making them just shy of 20 years old before abolition.
So they are post war record breakers.
Fly sweet angels.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jul 28, 2023 15:47:20 GMT
FWIW Scotland's current seats are based on enumeration data from June 2001, making the basis for them 22 years 'old'. And they still have time to run before abolition. The First Review had a March 1954 enumeration date, making them just shy of 20 years old before abolition.So they are post war record breakers. Fly sweet angels. Thank you Lord Callaghan(RIP)  |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 4, 2023 11:49:47 GMT
Unoffical notionals have been provided to me by a friend. They suggest that for a Labour majority of 1, Labour need a national swing of 14.44% (Halesowen being the seat that gives them an overall majority) that's 1.44% higher than the exit poll swing in 1997 which itself was 3% higher than than the actual national swing.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Aug 4, 2023 20:27:51 GMT
Unoffical notionals have been provided to me by a friend. They suggest that for a Labour majority of 1, Labour need a national swing of 14.44% (Halesowen being the seat that gives them an overall majority) that's 1.44% higher than the exit poll swing in 1997 which itself was 3% higher than than the actual national swing. 2.5% higher . 14.44% would imply a 17% lead.. calling Sibboleth ! |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 5, 2023 2:54:58 GMT
Unoffical notionals have been provided to me by a friend. They suggest that for a Labour majority of 1, Labour need a national swing of 14.44% (Halesowen being the seat that gives them an overall majority) that's 1.44% higher than the exit poll swing in 1997 which itself was 3% higher than than the actual national swing. 2.5% higher . 14.44% would imply a 17% lead.. calling Sibboleth ! This is my best estimate of what that kind of swing would look like on UNS  This equates to a Labour majority of 40. That's of course without allowing that a Labour lead of 17% would undoubtedly result in gains in several of those Midland seats they miss here (Sherwood, Nuneaton etc) and the likes of Harlow, a number of seats in North Kent aso. Also the model takes no account of SNP slippage so they'd be a lot more gains in Scotland. So probably double that at least. Of course Labour don't need a 17% lead to win a bare majority |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 5, 2023 5:15:48 GMT
Back in 1997, Labour got their 13% exit poll swing on a straight swap (Con -14%, Lab +12%, Lib Dem -1%, Others +3%), however this time I think the exit poll will show a similar Con drop of around 16% but everyone else gaining (Lab +7%, Lib Dem +3%, Green +2%, Reform +2%, Others +2%) which would produce a Con to Lab swing of 11.5%, Con to Lib Dem of 9.5%, Con to SNP of 8%, but SNP to Lab of 3.5%.
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on Aug 5, 2023 8:41:50 GMT
a swing of that much from SNP to Labour would net very few seats. In reality, unless the SNP recovers significantly between now and the election, Labour is likely to gain significantly more in Scotland than a swing of that size would result in. Unless you count those who have defected from the SNP, it is unlikely that Labour will gain Scottish seats from any other parties, although not completely impossible.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,916
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 5, 2023 10:05:00 GMT
Unoffical notionals have been provided to me by a friend. They suggest that for a Labour majority of 1, Labour need a national swing of 14.44% (Halesowen being the seat that gives them an overall majority) that's 1.44% higher than the exit poll swing in 1997 which itself was 3% higher than than the actual national swing. And all this really shows is how meaningless the concept of UNS is likely to be at the next GE. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 5, 2023 10:14:56 GMT
Unoffical notionals have been provided to me by a friend. They suggest that for a Labour majority of 1, Labour need a national swing of 14.44% (Halesowen being the seat that gives them an overall majority) that's 1.44% higher than the exit poll swing in 1997 which itself was 3% higher than than the actual national swing. And all this really shows is how meaningless the concept of UNS is likely to be at the next GE. That is true but that is not all Harry's post shows. My rough calculations suggest that the swing described would result in a quite comfortable Labour majority. I don't know exactly what the swing required for an overall majority of 1 would be as I don't have meaningful notional results for all seats but it is clearly much less than 14.44% (a risible level of precision for a number that turns out to be totally wrong). So even if one uncritically accepted UNS (which is not without some value as a concept actually), the post also shows that Harry's calculations are rubbish - which will be a surprise to precisely noone. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,916
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 5, 2023 10:18:39 GMT
So even if one uncritically accepted UNS ( which is not without some value as a concept actually), the post also shows that Harry's calculations are rubbish - which will be a surprise to precisely noone. Would actually agree with this tbf. What gets my goat is pundits etc solemnly intoning "Labour NEEDS a swing of X per cent to get a majority of one at the next GE" - a statement that wouldn't normally be true, but is going to be even less so than usual next time round. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 5, 2023 10:49:09 GMT
And all this really shows is how meaningless the concept of UNS is likely to be at the next GE. That is true but that is not all Harry's post shows. My rough calculations suggest that the swing described would result in a quite comfortable Labour majority. I don't know exactly what the swing required for an overall majority of 1 would be as I don't have meaningful notional results for all seats but it is clearly much less than 14.44% (a risible level of precision for a number that turns out to be totally wrong). So even if one uncritically accepted UNS (which is not without some value as a concept actually), the post also shows that Harry's calculations are rubbish - which will be a surprise to precisely noone. So far as England and Wales are concerned, the map you produced looks highly plausible. It's notable that in the southern shires Labour are more successful than the Lib Dems in picking up Tory seats, which definitely accords with my expectation.
But Scotland doesn't look right. Labour ought to do better than shown, and surely the Tories will hang on to at least a handful of Scottish seats rather than the total wipeout shown here.
This isn't a criticism - I appreciate this is a UNS projection, not a prediction.
But it would be worth hanging onto it because my guess is that (Scotland aside) it won't be that far off the mark.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 5, 2023 11:09:16 GMT
Each seat needs to be taken on its own merits, because more than ever before demographics have a significant effect on where the swing will go and the size of the swing that can realistically occur at the next general election; notional results will only be semi-reliable at best especially for new county constituencies.
|
|
