|
|
Post by michaelarden on Mar 7, 2023 1:07:32 GMT
This is often a problem these days where very few constituencies could be described as genuinely rural but people still like to use the term. Better terms might be ‘non-metropolitan’, ‘regional’ or ‘peripheral’. Certainly, Wansbeck is an almost entirely urban constituency and even somewhere like North West Durham has only a small % of the population living in small villages, with about half living in towns and the remainder living in larger, (post) industrialised large villages. Bishop Auckland is more polarised, having a clear urban and town dwelling majority, but a non-insignificant minority of the population is reasonable to describe as rural thanks to the agricultural villages around Teesdale. Berwick-upon-Tweed is the only constituency in the North East that can really be described as rural. A Labour victory there is unlikely unless we're winning 430-450 seats; and I dread to think what Mr Ralph Northumberland would make of it. I don't know. It's an interesting seat electorally where the Tories have rarely got over 50% and Labour have often polled over 20%. The Libs/Lib Dems benefitted from the frequent by-elections in the immediate post war period following Beveridge's defeat in 1945 and then from the 70s onwards after Alan Beith's victory. But last time they polled under 20% and what's left of their vote could easily go over to a moderate Labour candidate. It's a seat that has often elected non-Tory MPs and I can't imagine it's on the Lib Dems target list any more being as far away from middle class, southern, pro EU suburbia as is possible to be without leaving England. A decent Labour campaign could see a shock result. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2023 2:15:04 GMT
How on earth did it calculated that St Helens North is 42% rural?
|
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Mar 7, 2023 6:15:43 GMT
I think Wansbeck being down as 'Rural 75' neatly demonstrates that there are some issues with the idea of 'rural' here. A constituency that consists of little besides Ashington, Bedlington, and Morpeth being rural, let alone 75% rural? North West Durham is maybe 50% rural, Bishop Auckland not even that, and I can assure you that North Durham is definitely not rural (or 'rural') in any way. This is often a problem these days where very few constituencies could be described as genuinely rural but people still like to use the term. Better terms might be ‘non-metropolitan’, ‘regional’ or ‘peripheral’. Certainly, Wansbeck is an almost entirely urban constituency and even somewhere like North West Durham has only a small % of the population living in small villages, with about half living in towns and the remainder living in larger, (post) industrialised large villages. Bishop Auckland is more polarised, having a clear urban and town dwelling majority, but a non-insignificant minority of the population is reasonable to describe as rural thanks to the agricultural villages around Teesdale. From the labels they have, Wansbeck should be ‘Other Urban’ like Hartlepool. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Mar 7, 2023 8:05:47 GMT
Michael's "rural map" was most interesting. Seats like Copeland, Workington and the outer Durham seats are all classified in the Rural 75 category, yet are also classified as "red wall" seats by some organisations. Just goes to show how fluid these terms can be. The definition of rural is from ONS and given in the quoted report. It basically amounts to census output areas representing settlements of less than 10,000 (a fairly normal urban definition), plus a rather vague addition of "larger market towns" where someone (presumably the researchers) have decided that they serve a rural area. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Mar 7, 2023 8:39:18 GMT
Michael's "rural map" was most interesting. Seats like Copeland, Workington and the outer Durham seats are all classified in the Rural 75 category, yet are also classified as "red wall" seats by some organisations. Just goes to show how fluid these terms can be. Workington is definitely Red Wall, as an ex-mining seat which had not been lost in any general election (as opposed to by-election) by Labour in living memory, not even in 1931. I presume that the rural more Tory element was not yet included in the seat at that time as there was a Penrith & Cockermouth constituency then which would have taken most of that territory in |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Mar 7, 2023 8:40:33 GMT
I think Wansbeck being down as 'Rural 75' neatly demonstrates that there are some issues with the idea of 'rural' here. A constituency that consists of little besides Ashington, Bedlington, and Morpeth being rural, let alone 75% rural? Michael's "rural map" was most interesting. Seats like Copeland, Workington and the outer Durham seats are all classified in the Rural 75 category, yet are also classified as "red wall" seats by some organisations. Just goes to show how fluid these terms can be. North West Durham is maybe 50% rural, Bishop Auckland not even that, and I can assure you that North Durham is definitely not rural (or 'rural') in any way. there are some very rural parts of Bishop Auckland mind you, even though of course most of the population lives in recognisable towns. And some ex-mining villages too |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 7, 2023 9:00:10 GMT
Michael's "rural map" was most interesting. Seats like Copeland, Workington and the outer Durham seats are all classified in the Rural 75 category, yet are also classified as "red wall" seats by some organisations. Just goes to show how fluid these terms can be. Workington is definitely Red Wall, as an ex-mining seat which had not been lost in any general election (as opposed to by-election) by Labour in living memory, not even in 1931. I presume that the rural more Tory element was not yet included in the seat at that time as there was a Penrith & Cockermouth constituency then which would have taken most of that territory in     |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Mar 7, 2023 9:13:22 GMT
thanks Pete, so there was a rural element, but heavily outvoted by Workington, Harrington & Maryport. Looks like Aspatria also not included
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 7, 2023 9:34:35 GMT
thanks Pete, so there was a rural element, but heavily outvoted by Workington, Harrington & Maryport. Looks like Aspatria also not included It would be a very undersized seat now. I'd have to check when I have access to my PC at home, but I suspect that on those boundaries it would have survived the 2019 election as well as the 1931 one (and the 1976 by-election for that matter, meaning it will have been continuously Labour since 1918) |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 7, 2023 10:21:34 GMT
thanks Pete, so there was a rural element, but heavily outvoted by Workington, Harrington & Maryport. Looks like Aspatria also not included No, Aspatria was included. The seat in this form existed from 1918 until Cumberland as a whole lost a seat in 1950, going down from 5 to 4. In the consequent reorganization Workington lost Aspatria but acquired a mass of territory as far inland as Keswick.  |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,907 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 7, 2023 10:52:38 GMT
I think Wansbeck being down as 'Rural 75' neatly demonstrates that there are some issues with the idea of 'rural' here. A constituency that consists of little besides Ashington, Bedlington, and Morpeth being rural, let alone 75% rural? North West Durham is maybe 50% rural, Bishop Auckland not even that, and I can assure you that North Durham is definitely not rural (or 'rural') in any way. This is often a problem these days where very few constituencies could be described as genuinely rural but people still like to use the term. Better terms might be ‘non-metropolitan’, ‘regional’ or ‘peripheral’. Certainly, Wansbeck is an almost entirely urban constituency and even somewhere like North West Durham has only a small % of the population living in small villages, with about half living in towns and the remainder living in larger, (post) industrialised large villages. Bishop Auckland is more polarised, having a clear urban and town dwelling majority, but a non-insignificant minority of the population is reasonable to describe as rural thanks to the agricultural villages around Teesdale. What is it that defines a 'Rural Constituency' for most of you? For me it is a fairly large to very large geographical area mainly consisting of farmland, woodland, moorland or similar. Obviously it must have the basic minimum number of electors. They will always tend to live in a very small proportion of that land. Sometimes they will be spread about in a carpet of villages and small towns, but in others they may be concentrated in only a very few locations. Is it the contention of most of you that where the electors cluster in only a few communities that are in themselves of an irban nature, that the constituency must be regarded as urban because most electors are urban? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 7, 2023 10:55:49 GMT
This is often a problem these days where very few constituencies could be described as genuinely rural but people still like to use the term. Better terms might be ‘non-metropolitan’, ‘regional’ or ‘peripheral’. Certainly, Wansbeck is an almost entirely urban constituency and even somewhere like North West Durham has only a small % of the population living in small villages, with about half living in towns and the remainder living in larger, (post) industrialised large villages. Bishop Auckland is more polarised, having a clear urban and town dwelling majority, but a non-insignificant minority of the population is reasonable to describe as rural thanks to the agricultural villages around Teesdale. What is it that defines a 'Rural Constituency' for most of you? For me it is a fairly large to very large geographical area mainly consisting of farmland, woodland, moorland or similar. Obviously it must have the basic minimum number of electors. They will always tend to live in a very small proportion of that land. Sometimes they will be spread about in a carpet of villages and small towns, but in others they may be concentrated in only a very few locations. Is it the contention of most of you that where the electors cluster in only a few communities that are in themselves of an irban nature, that the constituency must be regarded as urban because most electors are urban? Yes |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Mar 7, 2023 13:15:51 GMT
I am assuming a 10% swing from Con to Lab at the next election. As the new boundaries have not been confirmed yet, here is my list of "rural" Lab gains at the next election greater than that national swing:
Monmouth, Hexham, Macclesfield, Scarborough and Whitby
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 7, 2023 13:20:03 GMT
This is often a problem these days where very few constituencies could be described as genuinely rural but people still like to use the term. Better terms might be ‘non-metropolitan’, ‘regional’ or ‘peripheral’. Certainly, Wansbeck is an almost entirely urban constituency and even somewhere like North West Durham has only a small % of the population living in small villages, with about half living in towns and the remainder living in larger, (post) industrialised large villages. Bishop Auckland is more polarised, having a clear urban and town dwelling majority, but a non-insignificant minority of the population is reasonable to describe as rural thanks to the agricultural villages around Teesdale. What is it that defines a 'Rural Constituency' for most of you? For me it is a fairly large to very large geographical area mainly consisting of farmland, woodland, moorland or similar. Obviously it must have the basic minimum number of electors. They will always tend to live in a very small proportion of that land. Sometimes they will be spread about in a carpet of villages and small towns, but in others they may be concentrated in only a very few locations. Is it the contention of most of you that where the electors cluster in only a few communities that are in themselves of an irban nature, that the constituency must be regarded as urban because most electors are urban? It's a descriptor I tend not to use because it's so difficult to define. Yes, in any seat most of the electors are going to reside in settlements so it depends on the character of these settlements. For instance, I don't think a constituency would be disqualified as 'rural' simply because it included a fairly large and active market town essentially serving the needs of the surrounding countryside. On the other hand, a constituency comprising chiefly small villages wouldn't be rural if those villages served mainly as dormitories for commuters working in a nearby city. Without knowing more about the pursuits of the inhabitants it's difficult to be sure how rural a constituency is except in cases where it is very extensive in terms of territory and a long way from any large urban centre; and in such a case its rural nature is so obvious it's hardly worth pointing out.
Edited to add: I've just seen the post by Harry Hayfield and his mention of Macclesfield illustrates my point. Settlements in this seat may be relatively small but a lot of them sit squarely in the Manchester commuter belt, while Macclesfield itself, although not an especially large place, has a significant industrial heritage and I don't think can really be described as a market town. Yes, the seat has a lot of green space and some genuinely rustic villages but overall I wouldn't regard it as rural. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 7, 2023 13:33:24 GMT
I am assuming a 10% swing from Con to Lab at the next election. As the new boundaries have not been confirmed yet, here is my list of "rural" Lab gains at the next election greater than that national swing: Monmouth, Hexham, Macclesfield, Scarborough and Whitby Macclesfield is not a rural constituency. The majority of the electorate live in Macclesfield itself and significant additional numbers in Bollington (suburb of Macclesfield) and Poynton (on the edge of Greater Manchester). Probably only about 10k rural votes in total. Scarborough likewise holds a majority of the electorate of its seat. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Mar 7, 2023 18:04:08 GMT
I am assuming a 10% swing from Con to Lab at the next election. As the new boundaries have not been confirmed yet, here is my list of "rural" Lab gains at the next election greater than that national swing: Monmouth, Hexham, Macclesfield, Scarborough and Whitby Macclesfield is not a rural constituency. The majority of the electorate live in Macclesfield itself and significant additional numbers in Bollington (suburb of Macclesfield) and Poynton (on the edge of Greater Manchester). Probably only about 10k rural votes in total. Scarborough likewise holds a majority of the electorate of its seat. And the much of the rest of the electorate is in Whitby - which is remote but not really rural either. It's probably one of the constituencies with the biggest difference between actual population density (very low because of the large tracts of moorland in the seat) and lived density (quite high - neither Whitby nor Scarborough particularly sprawl and many residents live in quite tightly packed terraced housing or flats). |
|
WJ
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,267
|
Post by WJ on Mar 7, 2023 20:27:03 GMT
What about Forest of Dean? That feels like a relatively rural constituency with a strong Labour past, which the party must fancy their chances in, in a good year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Mar 7, 2023 21:08:25 GMT
What about Forest of Dean? That feels like a relatively rural constituency with a strong Labour past, which the party must fancy their chances in, in a good year. Absolutely is rural, even the towns feel like the countryside, but another for the "not like anywhere else" file. I wouldn't rule out a Labour revival but they'd have to more or less re-start from scratch - they went to crap here after losing the seat. No signs of revival in council elections - just three district and one county councillor - we (Lib Dems) have two and one respectively, and I'm not for one second suggesting that we're strong in the Forest. A national Tory meltdown may be sufficient as I think Labour will still be the obvious beneficiary, short of something weird like a brilliant local Green campaign. Generally, I'd say that Labour are in a poor state in Gloucestershire, even in places you'd expect them to do well in when the national polls are good and where they've been strong in the past. Stroud is there for them to lose, and I think the PPC will perform well, but even here they are shooting themselves in the foot on the district council. In Gloucester they are well behind Lib Dems in City and County Council elections - I'd expect them to outperform us in a GE there but it won't help them get past the sitting Tory without that local council activist base. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by bsjmcr on Mar 7, 2023 21:31:14 GMT
What about Forest of Dean? That feels like a relatively rural constituency with a strong Labour past, which the party must fancy their chances in, in a good year. Absolutely is rural, even the towns feel like the countryside, but another for the "not like anywhere else" file. I wouldn't rule out a Labour revival but they'd have to more or less re-start from scratch - they went to crap here after losing the seat. No signs of revival in council elections - just three district and one county councillor - we (Lib Dems) have two and one respectively, and I'm not for one second suggesting that we're strong in the Forest. A national Tory meltdown may be sufficient as I think Labour will still be the obvious beneficiary, short of something weird like a brilliant local Green campaign. Generally, I'd say that Labour are in a poor state in Gloucestershire, even in places you'd expect them to do well in when the national polls are good and where they've been strong in the past. Stroud is there for them to lose, and I think the PPC will perform well, but even here they are shooting themselves in the foot on the district council. In Gloucester they are well behind Lib Dems in City and County Council elections - I'd expect them to outperform us in a GE there but it won't help them get past the sitting Tory without that local council activist base. I was going to say that Tewkesbury seemed to be one of those more 'urban'/'small town' areas that Labour/Lib Dems seemed to really underperform in back in '97, not even coming that close, but I didn't realise how much hinterland there was and how much 'bigger' it is than Cheltenham/Gloucester, but it is around the same size as Stroud. More provincial and less 'bohemian' than Stroud?... To flip this coin, there are more compact urban/suburban areas that were opposition underperformances/Tory over-performances (I know there's a thread for that) like Poole (still striking how the more rural one fell to the LDs), Bournemouth, B'Regis &..., Worthing and the handful of remaining London seats (most of which other than Orpington, and Ruislip... are now in play!) and the handful in the West Midlands of Aldridge, S'Coldfield (no surprises there), Solihull (until '05) and I guess Meridian is quite an exceptional one in itself in terms of its makeup, and literally just Altrincham (not for much longer after today's announcement) and Cheadle (not for long of course after '97) in the north. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Mar 7, 2023 21:41:53 GMT
Absolutely is rural, even the towns feel like the countryside, but another for the "not like anywhere else" file. I wouldn't rule out a Labour revival but they'd have to more or less re-start from scratch - they went to crap here after losing the seat. No signs of revival in council elections - just three district and one county councillor - we (Lib Dems) have two and one respectively, and I'm not for one second suggesting that we're strong in the Forest. A national Tory meltdown may be sufficient as I think Labour will still be the obvious beneficiary, short of something weird like a brilliant local Green campaign. Generally, I'd say that Labour are in a poor state in Gloucestershire, even in places you'd expect them to do well in when the national polls are good and where they've been strong in the past. Stroud is there for them to lose, and I think the PPC will perform well, but even here they are shooting themselves in the foot on the district council. In Gloucester they are well behind Lib Dems in City and County Council elections - I'd expect them to outperform us in a GE there but it won't help them get past the sitting Tory without that local council activist base. I was going to say that Tewkesbury seemed to be one of those more 'urban'/'small town' areas that Labour/Lib Dems seemed to really underperform in back in '97, not even coming that close, but I didn't realise how much hinterland there was and how much 'bigger' it is than Cheltenham/Gloucester, but it is around the same size as Stroud. More provincial and less 'bohemian' than Stroud?... To flip this coin, there are more compact urban/suburban areas that were opposition underperformances/Tory over-performances (I know there's a thread for that) like Poole (still striking how the more rural one fell to the LDs), Bournemouth, B'Regis &..., Worthing and the handful of remaining London seats (most of which other than Orpington, and Ruislip... are now in play!) and the handful in the West Midlands of Aldridge, S'Coldfield (no surprises there), Solihull (until '05) and I guess Meridian is quite an exceptional one in itself in terms of its makeup, and literally just Altrincham (not for much longer after today's announcement) and Cheadle (not for long of course after '97) in the north. Tewkesbury is a weird seat because the name doesn't reflect its nature very well. The majority of its electorate live in the suburbs of Gloucester and Cheltenham - Tewkesbury is fairly small component and the genuinely rural bits like Winchombe are even smaller. I remember reading somewhere (possibly on here) than in 1997, the Gloucester facing suburbs were fairly close between the Conservatives and Labour, while the Cheltenham facing suburbs were closer between the Conservatives and Lib Dems - perhaps influenced by the contests in their respective centres. I don't know whether this is accurate but it seems plausible from the results - the Conservatives would almost certainly have won anyway but the opposition was almost perfectly split. |
|
