Vote UK Almanac New Boundaries development

[The Bishop]

You can sort of argue Stockton West as an exception as well, but batman's basic point is still correct - the Red Wall is red again!

[Pete Whitehead]

Stockton South was never a 'red wall' seat

[batman]

Jul 9, 2024 9:26:46 GMT iain said:

Jul 8, 2024 22:17:34 GMT batman said:

Every single seat in the Red Wall was regained, without exception. The ones that required the largest swings were Great Grimsby & Cleethorpes, Dudley and Bassetlaw; all were won.

Ashfield wasn't

thanks, you are quite right 

[batman]

Jul 9, 2024 11:01:13 GMT The Bishop said:

You can sort of argue Stockton West as an exception as well, but batman 's basic point is still correct - the Red Wall is red again!

no the predecessor seat, Stockton South, was not part of the Red Wall. It was a marginal seat which had changed hands on several occasions, not a long-term Labour seat like the others. Hartlepool is generally regarded as a honorary member as it was lost to the Tories after 2019 in a by-election.

[Deleted]

That reminds me - I should got back to my red wall list and see if there's any pattern

[YL]

I have edited my Dewsbury & Batley profile to reflect what actually happened. Others will follow, assuming that's felt to be the right thing to do.

[nyx]

Jul 8, 2024 12:06:26 GMT andrewp said:

I think the electoral landscape now make these profiles more difficult! There are several I wrote in the South West that I declared as safe Conservative seats which they lost last week. Given the number of marginals now, the number of safe seats is quite small- I’m not saying it’s likely but it’s certainly possible that Labour lose 200 seats next time, which didn’t use to be the norm. In most seats it’s obvious which are the strongest areas for each party , which I guess is one of the key focuses of these profiles but I wonder if this looks like a safe Labour/ Conservative seat is much more difficult to use as a summary now.

It is noticeable that most of the ‘red wall seats’ were regained by Labour last week, but in almost all cases they look like marginals going forward not safe Lab seats. It’s certainly an interesting time- are we in the game where eg the Bournemouths are going to be better for Labour than Bolsover and Mansfield- I really wouldn’t like to say.

I think it's possible to avoid using the word "safe".

e.g. "Central Devon is a seat that has usually voted heavily for the Conservatives, but which was marginal in the landslide election of 2024"

[Robert Waller]

Sharp eyed readers may have spotted that I have started to update my own Almanac profiles to add the 2024 general election results, plus some editing of the text to update. I have so far done my East Midlands and Eastern England region seats and intend to move on through the other regions over the next months.
I have been in PM contact with some other thread originators who may do something similar, though I would stress this is very much up to them.
I would consider requesting an entirely new board as we approach the next general election in the late 2020s, but for the time being I think we can retain the existing 'New Boundaries' section of the forum.
Thanks as ever to all collaborators in this project!

[John Chanin]

I did about 90 profiles, second only to Robert himself. I am about a third of the way through adding 2024 data to them, although as updates they won't appear on recent posts/threads. At 1 or 2 a day I should have them all finished by Christmas.

[Robert Waller]

Jun 7, 2024 13:51:05 GMT Robert Waller said:

This board has attracted the attention of The Times. Now they have discovered I am still alive, they have asked me to write the brief constituency profiles (in a hurry) for the 2024 Times House of Commons book. (I last helped with this series in 1983 and 1987).
I am of course consulting the entries here, though as the seats will have only 100 words each I have to create very compressed descriptions and clearly cannot indulge in mass plagiarism! However contributors may just still spot their occasional lapidary phrase or overlap in information ... for which I offer my gratitude, and I shall try to get credit published, at the least for the site.

Apologies for the cross-post, but I have just entered the following on the Psephological Books thread within General Psephology, but feel it also need to be here, due to my continued gratitude to all here, even their insights have been very compressed. I should also say that the print in which we are all credited is fairly small ...


The 2024 Times House of Commons has been published today, 7 November.

I think it's the best for a few editions, though need to offer the disclaimer that I provided the raw material for the 650 short constituency profiles, cut to fit the space available once the candidate bios etc were included.

I have already thanked the contributors to the 'Almanac' boards here, whose work I have used - and indeed the Vote UK website is included on the authors page, in the same size type as my own name!

May I again offer my appreciation.

[Pete Whitehead]

The last time I bought a Times Guide was in 2005. I was deeply unimpressed with the editorial quality of it. The pen portraits of the constituencies were so short as to be worthless (and yet still contrived to contain inaccuracies). To make room for these they had removed the biographies of the losing candidates which I had valued in previous editions. But the reason I have not bought one since is that the book physically disintegrated within a year. In contrast my 1983 edition (and 1992 one) is still in good condition. I may break a long habit and buy* this one though as I am dismally ignorant about so many MPs these days, having previously had the kind of anorakical knowledge that Barnaby still boasts of.

*rather I shall endeavor to have it bought for me as a Christmas present

[swanarcadian]

Nov 8, 2024 14:57:55 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

The last time I bought a Times Guide was in 2005. I was deeply unimpressed with the editorial quality of it. The pen portraits of the constituencies were so short as to be worthless (and yet still contrived to contain inaccuracies). To make room for these they had removed the biographies of the losing candidates which I had valued in previous editions. But the reason I have not bought one since is that the book physically disintegrated within a year. In contrast my 1983 edition (and 1992 one) is still in good condition. I may break a long habit and buy* this one though as I am dismally ignorant about so many MPs these days, having previously had the kind of anorakical knowledge that Barnaby still boasts of.

*rather I shall endeavor to have it bought for me as a Christmas present

I liked the 1983 version for obvious reasons although it was lacking the 1979 notionals. So I pencilled them all in myself. 1987 was probably the model format because it included all the changes from 1983 as well as all the information regarding candidates including unsuccessful ones. My 1992 version is intact except for the front and back cover but didn’t include notionals for the new Milton Keynes constituencies. My 1997 version disintegrated within a couple of years; I think there must have been a design flaw with it.
2005 was likewise the last copy I bought. Someone bought me the 2010 version as a gift but I’ve never bothered with it since then. The price went up to extortionate levels and the quality went down.

[andrewp]

Nov 8, 2024 15:10:10 GMT swanarcadian said:

Nov 8, 2024 14:57:55 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

The last time I bought a Times Guide was in 2005. I was deeply unimpressed with the editorial quality of it. The pen portraits of the constituencies were so short as to be worthless (and yet still contrived to contain inaccuracies). To make room for these they had removed the biographies of the losing candidates which I had valued in previous editions. But the reason I have not bought one since is that the book physically disintegrated within a year. In contrast my 1983 edition (and 1992 one) is still in good condition. I may break a long habit and buy* this one though as I am dismally ignorant about so many MPs these days, having previously had the kind of anorakical knowledge that Barnaby still boasts of.

*rather I shall endeavor to have it bought for me as a Christmas present

I liked the 1983 version for obvious reasons although it was lacking the 1979 notionals. So I pencilled them all in myself. 1987 was probably the model format because it included all the changes from 1983 as well as all the information regarding candidates including unsuccessful ones. My 1992 version is intact except for the front and back cover but didn’t include notionals for the new Milton Keynes constituencies. My 1997 version disintegrated within a couple of years; I think there must have been a design flaw with it.
2005 was likewise the last copy I bought. Someone bought me the 2010 version as a gift but I’ve never bothered with it since then. The price went up to extortionate levels and the quality went down.

My 1997 one disintegrated too. Must have been a design fault.

[islington]

Nov 8, 2024 15:12:00 GMT andrewp said:

Nov 8, 2024 15:10:10 GMT swanarcadian said:

I liked the 1983 version for obvious reasons although it was lacking the 1979 notionals. So I pencilled them all in myself. 1987 was probably the model format because it included all the changes from 1983 as well as all the information regarding candidates including unsuccessful ones. My 1992 version is intact except for the front and back cover but didn’t include notionals for the new Milton Keynes constituencies. My 1997 version disintegrated within a couple of years; I think there must have been a design flaw with it.
2005 was likewise the last copy I bought. Someone bought me the 2010 version as a gift but I’ve never bothered with it since then. The price went up to extortionate levels and the quality went down.

My 1997 one disintegrated too. Must have been a design fault.

I too speak as a once-regular purchaser, but no more.

I agree with criticisms elsewhere, especially about the loss of short biogs of losing candidates. Too many errors, and too expensive for what it is. Although, to be fair, none of my copies has fallen apart, so I must have got lucky.

I stuck it out until 2015. The final straw for me was the maps in  that edition, which receive only two pages so that to cover the whole UK the scale has to be so small that in relatively urban areas the individual seats are hard to make out. This is supposed to be mitigated by having larger-scale maps of the Met Counties, Gtr London and Glasgow dotted around the edges of the main map; but hang on a minute, where's the W Mids? It's left out entirely - astonishing carelessness somewhere. And of course at that scale there's no room to label the seats with names or numbers - that's OK for me because I'm such an anorak that I can recognize seats by shape alone but a lot of people must have found an unlabelled map puzzling and next to useless. 

Sorry. I'm a cartophile. This matters to me. Devote a reasonable number of pages to the maps, use a scale that allows you to label the seats, and don't leave out the W Mids. 

Is that too much to ask?

Can someone tell me whether the maps in the 2024 edition are any good?

[Pete Whitehead]

Nov 8, 2024 15:46:24 GMT islington said:

Nov 8, 2024 15:12:00 GMT andrewp said:

My 1997 one disintegrated too. Must have been a design fault.

I too speak as a once-regular purchaser, but no more.

I agree with criticisms elsewhere, especially about the loss of short biogs of losing candidates. Too many errors, and too expensive for what it is. Although, to be fair, none of my copies has fallen apart, so I must have got lucky.

I stuck it out until 2015. The final straw for me was the maps in  that edition, which receive only two pages so that to cover the whole UK the scale has to be so small that in relatively urban areas the individual seats are hard to make out. This is supposed to be mitigated by having larger-scale maps of the Met Counties, Gtr London and Glasgow dotted around the edges of the main map; but hang on a minute, where's the W Mids? It's left out entirely - astonishing carelessness somewhere. And of course at that scale there's no room to label the seats with names or numbers - that's OK for me because I'm such an anorak that I can recognize seats by shape alone but a lot of people must have found an unlabelled map puzzling and next to useless. 

Sorry. I'm a cartophile. This matters to me. Devote a reasonable number of pages to the maps, use a scale that allows you to label the seats, and don't leave out the W Mids. 

Is that too much to ask?

Can someone tell me whether the maps in the 2024 edition are any good?

There's an image on the Amazon page here
www.amazon.co.uk/Times-Guide-House-Commons-2024/dp/0008726752

No names or key. Preesumably there are insets of the other main urban areas on another page, but no indication whether the West Midlands is included. The colours are horrible as well - pink and sky blue
It's not a deal breaker for me because the map would be incidental (and like you I know which seat is which without any need for a key) but it is poor

[hullenedge]

Nov 8, 2024 15:46:24 GMT islington said:

Nov 8, 2024 15:12:00 GMT andrewp said:

My 1997 one disintegrated too. Must have been a design fault.

I too speak as a once-regular purchaser, but no more.

I agree with criticisms elsewhere, especially about the loss of short biogs of losing candidates. Too many errors, and too expensive for what it is. Although, to be fair, none of my copies has fallen apart, so I must have got lucky.

I stuck it out until 2015. The final straw for me was the maps in  that edition, which receive only two pages so that to cover the whole UK the scale has to be so small that in relatively urban areas the individual seats are hard to make out. This is supposed to be mitigated by having larger-scale maps of the Met Counties, Gtr London and Glasgow dotted around the edges of the main map; but hang on a minute, where's the W Mids? It's left out entirely - astonishing carelessness somewhere. And of course at that scale there's no room to label the seats with names or numbers - that's OK for me because I'm such an anorak that I can recognize seats by shape alone but a lot of people must have found an unlabelled map puzzling and next to useless. 

Sorry. I'm a cartophile. This matters to me. Devote a reasonable number of pages to the maps, use a scale that allows you to label the seats, and don't leave out the W Mids. 

Is that too much to ask?

Can someone tell me whether the maps in the 2024 edition are any good?

The map is a disappointment. You'll see better on this site.

The bios are hit and miss. Better than past editions but there's room for improvement.

This edition cost just short of £60 from Amazon.

[Pete Whitehead]

Here's the map from the 1992 edition for comparison. Large scale fold out map - proper key and everything



1983 one is similar but in grey scale

Edit: of course there's always an error or two on the map. Derby North in this case (probably not discernable from my image)

[hullenedge]

Nov 8, 2024 17:14:25 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Nov 8, 2024 15:46:24 GMT islington said:

I too speak as a once-regular purchaser, but no more.

I agree with criticisms elsewhere, especially about the loss of short biogs of losing candidates. Too many errors, and too expensive for what it is. Although, to be fair, none of my copies has fallen apart, so I must have got lucky.

I stuck it out until 2015. The final straw for me was the maps in  that edition, which receive only two pages so that to cover the whole UK the scale has to be so small that in relatively urban areas the individual seats are hard to make out. This is supposed to be mitigated by having larger-scale maps of the Met Counties, Gtr London and Glasgow dotted around the edges of the main map; but hang on a minute, where's the W Mids? It's left out entirely - astonishing carelessness somewhere. And of course at that scale there's no room to label the seats with names or numbers - that's OK for me because I'm such an anorak that I can recognize seats by shape alone but a lot of people must have found an unlabelled map puzzling and next to useless. 

Sorry. I'm a cartophile. This matters to me. Devote a reasonable number of pages to the maps, use a scale that allows you to label the seats, and don't leave out the W Mids. 

Is that too much to ask?

Can someone tell me whether the maps in the 2024 edition are any good?

There's an image on the Amazon page here
www.amazon.co.uk/Times-Guide-House-Commons-2024/dp/0008726752

No names or key. Preesumably there are insets of the other main urban areas on another page, but no indication whether the West Midlands is included. The colours are horrible as well - pink and sky blue
It's not a deal breaker for me because the map would be incidental (and like you I know which seat is which without any need for a key) but it is poor

That's it for maps and the colours are worse than that image especially for Labour (limp pink).

[Robert Waller]

I possess all editions going back to 1950, plus the 1929 through 1935 reprint (all in one volume) that I believe was done by Politico's when Iain Dale was in charge. I also have a full facsimile of 1906 in PDF form (the very first was in 1880).

As for 2024 which I have been going through, yes, the map is not like the old fold out days.
It seems to be fairly solidly produced, can't say if it will fall apart if you use it enough!
I have found one mistake only in the 16 page Rallings/Thrasher article on the results - they say Labour regained all the so-called Red Wall losses but I would very much include Ashfield in that, and have said it was thus unique in my chapter in the Dale byelection book (forthcoming), while discussing Ashfield's remarkable long-term history.
I have found a couple of places so far where my brief profiles were mangled beyond comprehension.
There are a pair of short but sprightly additional pieces by Michael Crick, one on the new MPs and one on the history of the Guide, including the beginning of David Butler's career.
I am not recommending it at the price, necessarily, but I do think / hope it's somewhat better than the last few editions. Some of the apercus in the Almanac here, by various contributors, may be recognised. But of course we have an evolving full coverage of seats here, free of charge ...


By the way, I would have thought this discussion would be better placed after the parallel post I made within the psephological books thread on the General Psephology sub-board. It is not about future Almanac development.

[batman]

I have the much-prized one of 1945, and also have 1955 & 1959. My friend Ted was a candidate in the 1955 general election, and gave me the other two - as far as I know he is still with us, I'd have heard if otherwise. A friend of my dad's stood in 1945 for Common Wealth, which in later life he described as "youthful left-wing folly". My dad however remained left-wing to the end. It is strange seeing 1950s pictures of Roy Jenkins, he looks so thin & so different from how most of us would remember him.