|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 21, 2021 20:59:04 GMT
Since the 2023 review began, political commentators from across the spectrum have highlighted that it will give extra seats to the Conservatives overall, as every boundary review since 1950 has done (notionally).
Given the extent of the changes that will happen in this review, it goes much further than that.
Which marginal seats will become safe seats, and vice versa, as a direct consequence of boundary changes?
Which seats will notionally change hands in their successor incarnation?
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Mar 21, 2021 21:03:32 GMT
Very hard to tell. The Brexit realignment makes the boundary review feel like a thoroughly neutral exercise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 21, 2021 21:16:48 GMT
I don't agree that the changes are fundamentally greater than any that have gone before. The major change will be the reduction in the number of seats in Wales but even that may not favour the Conservatives that much given how many seats they won there in 2019 (some of which will disappear, some will maybe be rendered less winnable). The equalisation of electorates means that cross-county seats will be created in some (but not most) areas but even that does not makes these changes as sweeping as those that came in 1983 consequent upon the reorganisation of the counties a decade earlier. And both that review and others saw a bigger redistribution of seats from the cities (and especially London) to the 'shire counties' than will occur now (with London gaining seats for the first time since 1945).
Without knowing the details, it's difficult to say which seats will be affected in what way. We do know that the Conservatives will probably benefit from unmitigated gains of seats in a number of counties (Kent, Surrey, Lincolnshire & Rutland, Norfolk/Suffolk) - Even some of these are uncertain as for example seats like Norwich North could be rendered more marginal by knock-on boundary changes. The Conservatives will gain a new safe seat in Sussex but Hastings & Rye can only be made more marginal while a new safe seat in Buckinghamshire may come at the expense of making them more vulnerable both in Wycombe and in one of the Milton Keynes seats.
And of course they stand to lose seats through abolition in some areas where they made advances in 2019 such as the Black Country or parts of the North East.
So until we know what the proposed boundaries are we can't say but on balance its likely to benefit the Conservatives to about the extent that these things have always done - perhaps to the tune of about 10 seats
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Mar 22, 2021 10:13:51 GMT
By my estimates the further down Ceredigion goes into Preseli, Pembrokeshire, the more likely it is to start off as a Conservative seat (meaning that Labour and Liberal Democrat voters have to make a choice between Con and Plaid).
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,870
|
Post by Crimson King on Mar 22, 2021 10:22:10 GMT
Which seats will notionally change hands in their successor incarnation? Until we know what the successor incarnation is, we cannot possibly know the answer |
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Mar 22, 2021 10:30:33 GMT
Looking at the models in the South West
- in Devon most of the models have the extra seat around the East of Exeter and Exmouth. This would be a new safe Conservative seat without affecting any of the other seats
- In Somerset, the new seat likely in the middle of the county would be safe Conservative. Depending on which of the models is used, it would likely makes Wells safer for the Conservatives. The removal of rural wards from Taunton Deane either from the east or west of the seat will make it more marginal.
- in Gloucestershire, the likely new Dursley/ Yate seat will be safe Conservative. I think most of the models might tip Cheltenham into being notionally Lib Dem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 22, 2021 10:38:13 GMT
Looking at the models in the South West - in Devon most of the models have the extra seat around the East of Exeter and Exmouth. This would be a new safe Conservative seat without affecting any of the other seats - In Somerset, the new seat likely in the middle of the county would be safe Conservative. Depending on which of the models is used, it would likely makes Wells safer for the Conservatives. The removal of rural wards from Taunton Deane either from the east or west of the seat will make it more marginal. - in Gloucestershire, the likely new Dursley/ Yate seat will be safe Conservative. I think most of the models might tip Cheltenham into being notionally Lib Dem. Isn't it the case though that this more or less replaces the Yate & Thornbury seat and that the additional seat in the area is more likely to be a new Labour seat in greater Bristol? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Mar 22, 2021 10:47:34 GMT
Looking at the models in the South West - in Devon most of the models have the extra seat around the East of Exeter and Exmouth. This would be a new safe Conservative seat without affecting any of the other seats - In Somerset, the new seat likely in the middle of the county would be safe Conservative. Depending on which of the models is used, it would likely makes Wells safer for the Conservatives. The removal of rural wards from Taunton Deane either from the east or west of the seat will make it more marginal. - in Gloucestershire, the likely new Dursley/ Yate seat will be safe Conservative. I think most of the models might tip Cheltenham into being notionally Lib Dem. Isn't it the case though that this more or less replaces the Yate & Thornbury seat and that the additional seat in the area is more likely to be a new Labour seat in greater Bristol? Yes, sorry, you are right. It’s likely that there will 5 Labour seats in the Bristol area on most of the models. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 22, 2021 10:50:18 GMT
At first glance I read the thread header as '2023 review - collateral pathological consequences'.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,463
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Mar 22, 2021 16:14:15 GMT
I don't agree that the changes are fundamentally greater than any that have gone before. The major change will be the reduction in the number of seats in Wales but even that may not favour the Conservatives that much given how many seats they won there in 2019 (some of which will disappear, some will maybe be rendered less winnable). The equalisation of electorates means that cross-county seats will be created in some (but not most) areas but even that does not makes these changes as sweeping as those that came in 1983 consequent upon the reorganisation of the counties a decade earlier. And both that review and others saw a bigger redistribution of seats from the cities (and especially London) to the 'shire counties' than will occur now (with London gaining seats for the first time since 1945). Without knowing the details, it's difficult to say which seats will be affected in what way. We do know that the Conservatives will probably benefit from unmitigated gains of seats in a number of counties (Kent, Surrey, Lincolnshire & Rutland, Norfolk/Suffolk) - Even some of these are uncertain as for example seats like Norwich North could be rendered more marginal by knock-on boundary changes. The Conservatives will gain a new safe seat in Sussex but Hastings & Rye can only be made more marginal while a new safe seat in Buckinghamshire may come at the expense of making them more vulnerable both in Wycombe and in one of the Milton Keynes seats. And of course they stand to lose seats through abolition in some areas where they made advances in 2019 such as the Black Country or parts of the North East. So until we know what the proposed boundaries are we can't say but on balance its likely to benefit the Conservatives to about the extent that these things have always done - perhaps to the tune of about 10 seats I dont have any figures but the Tory gains in traditional Lab seats in 2019(and to an extent 2017) would likely be in seats with smaller electorates so a reason why they may not gain as much as before from boundary changes as before, plus the pattern of migration from urban seats isn't what it was |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,463
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Mar 22, 2021 16:24:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 22, 2021 20:43:09 GMT
By my estimates the further down Ceredigion goes into Preseli, Pembrokeshire, the more likely it is to start off as a Conservative seat (meaning that Labour and Liberal Democrat voters have to make a choice between Con and Plaid). Since the new version of Ceredigion & North Pembrokeshire will be practically identical to the 1983-97 version, it will start off notionally Plaid, especially given the number of Welsh speakers in the Preseli hills. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 23, 2021 5:43:49 GMT
The Conservatives will gain a new safe seat in Sussex but Hastings & Rye can only be made more marginal while a new safe seat in Buckinghamshire may come at the expense of making them more vulnerable both in Wycombe and in one of the Milton Keynes seats. And of course they stand to lose seats through abolition in some areas where they made advances in 2019 such as the Black Country or parts of the North East. The area that springs to mind even more is North Wales. Of the 9 constituencies in that Senedd electoral region, the Conservatives currently hold all but 2 of the Westminster seats. By the time of the next UK general election, there will probably not even be 7 constituencies there for the incumbents to contest! |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 23, 2021 7:19:24 GMT
The Conservatives will gain a new safe seat in Sussex but Hastings & Rye can only be made more marginal while a new safe seat in Buckinghamshire may come at the expense of making them more vulnerable both in Wycombe and in one of the Milton Keynes seats. And of course they stand to lose seats through abolition in some areas where they made advances in 2019 such as the Black Country or parts of the North East. The area that springs to mind even more is North Wales. Of the 9 constituencies in that Senedd electoral region, the Conservatives currently hold all but 2 of the Westminster seats. By the time of the next UK general election, there will probably not even be 7 constituencies there for the incumbents to contest! Which I mentioned earlier in the post you are partially quoting.. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 23, 2021 7:25:44 GMT
The area that springs to mind even more is North Wales. Of the 9 constituencies in that Senedd electoral region, the Conservatives currently hold all but 2 of the Westminster seats. By the time of the next UK general election, there will probably not even be 7 constituencies there for the incumbents to contest! Which I mentioned earlier in the post you are partially quoting.. You briefly mentioned Wales near the start, but among the other 31 constituencies in Wales, the Tories only made one gain in 2019 so I thought it would be worthwhile to focus specifically on the north. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 23, 2021 11:29:55 GMT
I read this and strongly recommend it.
One very interesting point is that the greater spatial separation of the main parties' voting strengths means that at recent elections there have been fewer marginal constituencies than in, say, the 1950s. The effect is to make the result, in terms of seats, less sensitive to swings between the two main parties.
I was wondering (the Curtis article does not address this point) whether this may have been an unintended consequence of the 1974 local government reforms, which tended, on the whole, to draw a clearer administrative boundary between urban and rural areas than had been the case with the much messier local authority boundaries that had previously prevailed. Since constituencies would tend to be drawn with respect to local government boundaries, this might mean an increased tendency for seats to be mainly urban or mainly rural, and thus to favour Labour or the Tories respectively, and fewer seats of a mixed urban/rural character, which one might expect to be more marginal.
I don't know any of this. I'm just speculating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 23, 2021 11:41:39 GMT
I read this and strongly recommend it. One very interesting point is that the greater spatial separation of the main parties' voting strengths means that at recent elections there have been fewer marginal constituencies than in, say, the 1950s. The effect is to make the result, in terms of seats, less sensitive to swings between the two main parties. I was wondering (the Curtis article does not address this point) whether this may have been an unintended consequence of the 1974 local government reforms, which tended, on the whole, to draw a clearer administrative boundary between urban and rural areas than had been the case with the much messier local authority boundaries that had previously prevailed. Since constituencies would tend to be drawn with respect to local government boundaries, this might mean an increased tendency for seats to be mainly urban or mainly rural, and thus to favour Labour or the Tories respectively, and fewer seats of a mixed urban/rural character, which one might expect to be more marginal. I don't know any of this. I'm just speculating.
I think it is much closer to Danny Dorlings political geography analysis which simply says that we have gravitated towards others like us and that extends to where we choose to live. That doesn't mean that changes can't occur over time and indeed we have seen that as some places shift from one politics to the other. But it does mean that marginals are less common |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Mar 23, 2021 12:28:41 GMT
I read this and strongly recommend it. One very interesting point is that the greater spatial separation of the main parties' voting strengths means that at recent elections there have been fewer marginal constituencies than in, say, the 1950s. The effect is to make the result, in terms of seats, less sensitive to swings between the two main parties. I was wondering (the Curtis article does not address this point) whether this may have been an unintended consequence of the 1974 local government reforms, which tended, on the whole, to draw a clearer administrative boundary between urban and rural areas than had been the case with the much messier local authority boundaries that had previously prevailed. Since constituencies would tend to be drawn with respect to local government boundaries, this might mean an increased tendency for seats to be mainly urban or mainly rural, and thus to favour Labour or the Tories respectively, and fewer seats of a mixed urban/rural character, which one might expect to be more marginal. I don't know any of this. I'm just speculating.
I think it is much closer to Danny Dorlings political geography analysis which simply says that we have gravitated towards others like us and that extends to where we choose to live. That doesn't mean that changes can't occur over time and indeed we have seen that as some places shift from one politics to the other. But it does mean that marginals are less common The late great Ron Johnston queried some of Danny Dorling's work:- eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/98821/1/EPA%20DannyConservatives.pdf |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,463
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Mar 23, 2021 12:30:01 GMT
I think it is much closer to Danny Dorlings political geography analysis which simply says that we have gravitated towards others like us and that extends to where we choose to live. That doesn't mean that changes can't occur over time and indeed we have seen that as some places shift from one politics to the other. But it does mean that marginals are less common The late great Ron Johnston queried some of Danny Dorling's work:- eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/98821/1/EPA%20DannyConservatives.pdfAh that's a shame didn't know Johnston had died  |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Mar 23, 2021 12:32:08 GMT
|
|
