|
|
Post by manchesterman on Dec 21, 2023 16:45:02 GMT
I was really hoping the notional results under the new boundaries would be published before the holiday period, so that I (and many others on here) could spend the time-off pawing over them!  |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Dec 27, 2023 8:42:18 GMT
There is still no indications of any formal publication date yet, suggesting that the arguement between the Press Association and broadcasters is still ongoing, but I do know this. The 2010 boundary changes were published in 2007 and the 1997 boundary changes were published in 1995 (so therefore at least 18 months before the next election when those changes came into effect). We know that the next election has to be held before this time next year, therefore perhaps a gentle reminder letter to the broadcasters that until that data is formally published, they have no idea what the comparsions are going to be, therefore stop arguing and let the data be published (or failing that force them to stop arguing by issuing an FOI request)
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Dec 27, 2023 10:55:10 GMT
Neither Professor Thrasher nor the broadcasters are, of course, a public authority within the meaning of the FOI Act...
Thrasher wrote to me last month indicating that he was considering self-publishing as an option for a possible book on the boundary changes. I gave him some feedback on my experiences with the Previews books which I hope was helpful to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by robert1 on Dec 27, 2023 11:01:04 GMT
A journalist told me that the official publication date of R&T's figures is 16th January.
I have texted them to ask if that is correct. When I receive a reply I will confirm or deny.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,916
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 28, 2023 13:58:31 GMT
There were publications issued for notional results on "new" boundaries before the 1983 and 1997 GEs, but was a book produced pre-2010?
|
|
|
|
Post by robert1 on Dec 28, 2023 15:18:45 GMT
Further to my previous comment, I am told that the publication date is now in the hands of the broadcasters who apparently are currently intending to publish on 16th Jan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 28, 2023 15:57:13 GMT
There were publications issued for notional results on "new" boundaries before the 1983 and 1997 GEs, but was a book produced pre-2010? Yes, in two editions (with the same ISBN: 0 948858 45 1). The first, published in early 2007, did not have any estimates for Northern Ireland as the BCNI had not yet reported and looked unlikely to meet its statutory deadline. A new edition was published in 2009 adding in the Northern Ireland estimates. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jan 9, 2024 11:30:25 GMT
Are we still on for the notionals being published this time next week?
|
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Mar 5, 2024 10:01:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Mar 5, 2024 10:54:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Mar 14, 2024 11:25:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 14, 2024 12:07:09 GMT
The whole premise of that article is complete nonsense. Essentially, all it says is that some constituencies have bigger populations than others because the boundaries were drawn to equalise electorates rather than populations. But that fact has always been true, and has not - as the article implies - suddenly sprung into existence this time as a result of the new boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Mar 14, 2024 12:20:17 GMT
A correction has been made to the Parliamentary Constituencies Order 2023. The description of the part of the split ward of Castlecaulfield that lies in Mid Ulster was wrong. (The southern half was included in two constituencies, and the northern half in neither). www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/375/pdfs/uksi_20240375_en.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 14, 2024 14:12:02 GMT
The whole premise of that article is complete nonsense. Essentially, all it says is that some constituencies have bigger populations than others because the boundaries were drawn to equalise electorates rather than populations. But that fact has always been true, and has not - as the article implies - suddenly sprung into existence this time as a result of the new boundaries. Absolutely. There's an arguable case, albeit not one that I support, for basing constituencies on population rather than electorate. But it is misleading in the extreme to imply, as this article does, that the use of electorates is an innovation at this review (and therefore probably a cunning scheme by the wicked Tories). All reviews have been based on electorate since (and including) the Interim Review that took effect at the 1945 GE. I remember I theorized on this site that the use of electorates on this occasion was because of the lapse of time since the most recent census in 1931. But I've since learned that there was some serious discussion in the mid-1930s about a potential review of boundaries. This did not come to anything, but it's interesting that that discussion also assumed that electorates would be used, even though at that time the 1931 census was quite recent. So the evidence suggests that the switch to using electorate, rather than population as had been used in 1885 and 1918, was a considered policy choice, not something imposed by circumstances. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,771
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Mar 14, 2024 14:47:24 GMT
The whole premise of that article is complete nonsense. Essentially, all it says is that some constituencies have bigger populations than others because the boundaries were drawn to equalise electorates rather than populations. But that fact has always been true, and has not - as the article implies - suddenly sprung into existence this time as a result of the new boundaries. And some of the numbers just don't make any sense. If New Forest West really has 85,006 population, that means the electorate will be around 60,000-65,000, which is too small. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Mar 14, 2024 14:58:37 GMT
The whole premise of that article is complete nonsense. Essentially, all it says is that some constituencies have bigger populations than others because the boundaries were drawn to equalise electorates rather than populations. But that fact has always been true, and has not - as the article implies - suddenly sprung into existence this time as a result of the new boundaries. And some of the numbers just don't make any sense. If New Forest West really has 85,006 population, that means the electorate will be around 60,000-65,000, which is too small. Not necessarily. It's a combination of several factors. New Forest West was towards the lower end of the valid electorate range in the review anyway, it has one of the lowest percentages of 0-17 year olds, and I assume not very many foreigners who are not eligible to vote. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Mar 15, 2024 7:21:33 GMT
The whole premise of that article is complete nonsense. Essentially, all it says is that some constituencies have bigger populations than others because the boundaries were drawn to equalise electorates rather than populations. But that fact has always been true, and has not - as the article implies - suddenly sprung into existence this time as a result of the new boundaries. Absolutely. There's an arguable case, albeit not one that I support, for basing constituencies on population rather than electorate. But it is misleading in the extreme to imply, as this article does, that the use of electorates is an innovation at this review (and therefore probably a cunning scheme by the wicked Tories). All reviews have been based on electorate since (and including) the Interim Review that took effect at the 1945 GE. I remember I theorized on this site that the use of electorates on this occasion was because of the lapse of time since the most recent census in 1931. But I've since learned that there was some serious discussion in the mid-1930s about a potential review of boundaries. This did not come to anything, but it's interesting that that discussion also assumed that electorates would be used, even though at that time the 1931 census was quite recent. So the evidence suggests that the switch to using electorate, rather than population as had been used in 1885 and 1918, was a considered policy choice, not something imposed by circumstances. Of course with few noncitizens in the country, and the recent introduction of universal voting rights, it would have been felt as amounting to much the same thing anyways - and the electoral register updated more often than the census (though there was still a business vote in the 30s) |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Mar 15, 2024 12:44:13 GMT
By my calculation, based on the 2021 census, population-based allocation would give
+10 London
+1 West Midlands
-1 North West, Yorkshire, North East
-2 Wales
-3 Scotland, South West
I'd guess on present voting patterns that would give a slight boost to Labour, but that wouldn't always have been the case?
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on May 25, 2024 16:03:25 GMT
With Labour’s announcement that they propose to lower the voting age to 16, the chances of another boundary review have increased as that would swell the size of some seats disproportionately. The real clincher will be if they also propose to extend the franchise to all EU citizens, in which case the electorate in urban areas especially Greater London will rocket, we shall have to wait and see.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 25, 2024 16:17:00 GMT
With Labour’s announcement that they propose to lower the voting age to 16, the chances of another boundary review have increased as that would swell the size of some seats disproportionately. The real clincher will be if they also propose to extend the franchise to all EU citizens, in which case the electorate in urban areas especially Greater London will rocket, we shall have to wait and see. Great news for anyone that was dreading the tedious wait until the 2031 Review gets going. |
|
