|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 8, 2015 23:24:36 GMT
Meanwhile Shipley loses its best Tory wards and takes a chunk of Bradford West which moves it narrowly into the Labour column. Aaaaaaarrrrrrghhhhhh! Yeah I was a bit surprised tbh but i'd forgotten the extent of the Tory collapse in Bradford West (was this their biggest decline compared with 2010?). It does suggest there may have been a fair bit of tactical vote by Tory supporters in that area for the Labour candidate to stop Galloway but against that you've got 3,000 Respect voters who would presumably mostly back Labour in this new seat. Still if the Tories would get the kind of vote they *should* get in the likes of Clayton and Heaton this would still be an eminently winnable seat.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 9, 2015 18:15:36 GMT
To look now at some whole reions. The South West as a whole loses two seats - one in Devon/Cornwall and one in Dorset/Wiltshire - for a new total of 53. Both these losses come at the expense of the Tories as you would expect. The four currently Labour held seats in the region are unchanged or minimally changed while none of the boundary changes help the Lib Dems to regain a foothold. There are however boundary changes in Plymouth which are significant. The effect of redrawing Plymouth Moor View as Plymouth Devonport is to put the seat back in the Labour column though it is at the cost of making Plymouth Sutton relatively safe for the Tories. The net effect is that the Tories are down 3 seats in the region and Labour up 1 for a total of 48 Con 5 Lab.
In the South East there is only a net loss of one seat with one being lost in Kent/East Sussex and one in Hampshire but an additional seat being gained in the Isle of Wight. Again all the non-Tory seats in the region (4 Lab 1 Grn) are maintained in their respective column. Several of the marginal Tory seats in the region are left unchanged (Eastbourne, Hastings, Itchin) or made safer (Lewes, Kemptown) so there are no other changes besides the net loss of 1 Tory seat due to the overall reduction in numbers.
The East of England loses two seats (one in Essex and one in Herts/Beds) with again the Tories being the 'victims' of the cull (are you starting to see how this works maxque?). All the existing Labour seats remain in their hands while besides the two seats which are disappeared all the remaining Tory seats stay in their hands (in several marginal seats there are no boundary changes eg Thurrock,Colchester, Waveney, Ipswich, or minimal and favourable ones eg Bedford, Peterborough). The only two seats where the result in 2015 is in doubt are the Lib Dem seat in North Norfolk and the UKIP set in Clacton both of which see significant boundary changes. I reckon that North Norfolk would have been very close but just held by the Lib Dems. In rality had the seat been fought on those boundaries there's no doubt Norman Lamb would have been able to get more votes out of the Fakenham area than the Lib Dems did in fact when it was in Broadland. Clacton is if anything even harder to call but on the (not unreasonable) assumption that the Tories are somewhat weaker and UKIP somewhat stronger in the Harwich area than in the Harwich & Essex North constituency as a whole I'd call it just for UKIP (but will return to this thread when I've worked out proper notional results for Essex) So the total for the East - Con 50 (-2) Lab 4 LD 1 UKIP 1
Taking the three southern regions overall with a net loss of 5 seats overall the Tories are down 6 seats to 176 and Labour up 1 to 13 with Lib Dems, UKIP and Greens on 1 each as now
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Aug 9, 2015 19:37:09 GMT
Northern Ireland would have been interesting. The nominally abolished seats were Belfast South and Mid Ulster, but several seats may have changed hands.
The addition of 25000 voters from Belfast South, should enable Naomi Long to hold on in the new Belfast South East, although if Alasdair McDonnell stood here rather than Belfast South West, it would harm her ability to pick up tactical votes from SDLP supporters.
The new boundaries would be very bad for the UUP, the addition of Ballymena to South Antrim would let McCrea hang on, while the new Fermanagh & South Tyrone gets 10000 mostly nationalist voters from Mid Ulster to make it safe for Gildernew.
Finally Glenshane, while nominally the successor to East Londonderry, would be 57% Catholic and even a united Unionist candidate would struggle here.
Prediction - DUP 7 (-1), SF 5 (+1), SDLP 2 (-1), APNI 1 (+1), Hermon 1. UUP 0 (-2)
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 9, 2015 21:19:50 GMT
The East of England loses two seats (one in Essex and one in Herts/Beds) with again the Tories being the 'victims' of the cull (are you starting to see how this works maxque?). All the existing Labour seats remain in their hands while besides the two seats which are disappeared all the remaining Tory seats stay in their hands (in several marginal seats there are no boundary changes eg Thurrock,Colchester, Waveney, Ipswich, or minimal and favourable ones eg Bedford, Peterborough). The only two seats where the result in 2015 is in doubt are the Lib Dem seat in North Norfolk and the UKIP set in Clacton both of which see significant boundary changes. I reckon that North Norfolk would have been very close but just held by the Lib Dems. In rality had the seat been fought on those boundaries there's no doubt Norman Lamb would have been able to get more votes out of the Fakenham area than the Lib Dems did in fact when it was in Broadland. Clacton is if anything even harder to call but on the (not unreasonable) assumption that the Tories are somewhat weaker and UKIP somewhat stronger in the Harwich area than in the Harwich & Essex North constituency as a whole I'd call it just for UKIP (but will return to this thread when I've worked out proper notional results for Essex) So the total for the East - Con 50 (-2) Lab 4 LD 1 UKIP 1 Taking the three southern regions overall with a net loss of 5 seats overall the Tories are down 6 seats to 176 and Labour up 1 to 13 with Lib Dems, UKIP and Greens on 1 each as now Were the Peterborough boundary changes favourable? I'll await the notionals with interest, but my working assumption was that the Tories would have carried Fletton & Woodston in the parliamentary, but with a smaller percentage margin than they had over Labour in the Peterborough constituency. I'd be interested to see your figures. As for Harwich, I managed to get box samples for Harwich itself at the count (though not the wards outside the town). If you want them and I can dig them out, you're welcome to my figures. I wouldn't take them as gospel truth (particularly as some of the samples were on the small side), but my overall impression was that the Tories were narrowly ahead in Harwich, with Labour slightly ahead of UKIP. Something along the lines of Con 34 Labour 31 UKIP 30. Obviously that wouldn't hold true for Ramsey and areas further out.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,985
|
Post by maxque on Aug 9, 2015 22:26:33 GMT
Well, I'm sorry, Pete Whitehead, for my wrong statement and I want to thank you for those detailed outlooks.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 9, 2015 23:00:31 GMT
The East of England loses two seats (one in Essex and one in Herts/Beds) with again the Tories being the 'victims' of the cull (are you starting to see how this works maxque?). All the existing Labour seats remain in their hands while besides the two seats which are disappeared all the remaining Tory seats stay in their hands (in several marginal seats there are no boundary changes eg Thurrock,Colchester, Waveney, Ipswich, or minimal and favourable ones eg Bedford, Peterborough). The only two seats where the result in 2015 is in doubt are the Lib Dem seat in North Norfolk and the UKIP set in Clacton both of which see significant boundary changes. I reckon that North Norfolk would have been very close but just held by the Lib Dems. In rality had the seat been fought on those boundaries there's no doubt Norman Lamb would have been able to get more votes out of the Fakenham area than the Lib Dems did in fact when it was in Broadland. Clacton is if anything even harder to call but on the (not unreasonable) assumption that the Tories are somewhat weaker and UKIP somewhat stronger in the Harwich area than in the Harwich & Essex North constituency as a whole I'd call it just for UKIP (but will return to this thread when I've worked out proper notional results for Essex) So the total for the East - Con 50 (-2) Lab 4 LD 1 UKIP 1 Taking the three southern regions overall with a net loss of 5 seats overall the Tories are down 6 seats to 176 and Labour up 1 to 13 with Lib Dems, UKIP and Greens on 1 each as now Were the Peterborough boundary changes favourable? I'll await the notionals with interest, but my working assumption was that the Tories would have carried Fletton & Woodston in the parliamentary, but with a smaller percentage margin than they had over Labour in the Peterborough constituency. I'd be interested to see your figures. As for Harwich, I managed to get box samples for Harwich itself at the count (though not the wards outside the town). If you want them and I can dig them out, you're welcome to my figures. I wouldn't take them as gospel truth (particularly as some of the samples were on the small side), but my overall impression was that the Tories were narrowly ahead in Harwich, with Labour slightly ahead of UKIP. Something along the lines of Con 34 Labour 31 UKIP 30. Obviously that wouldn't hold true for Ramsey and areas further out. Yes I'd love to see the figures thanks. That would tend to confirm my view that the Tories wouln't have had enough of a lead there (even with Ramsey etc) to outvote the UKIP lead in Clacton. Re: Peterborough yes I think the changes there were neutral rather than favourable. Historically Fletton was quite strongly Labour but I had a look at the locals and the Tories won there handily enough in May. I haven't yet worked out full notional results for the area (only areas I have are those I've posted the maps on the notional results thread plus Plymouth) but I' able to guestimate. Just on the basis that the Tories won it in the locals I guess it increases the numerical majority, but of course in a larger seat it is possible to do that and reduce the percentage lead
|
|
obsie
Non-Aligned
Posts: 840
|
Post by obsie on Aug 10, 2015 0:55:39 GMT
Northern Ireland would have been interesting. The nominally abolished seats were Belfast South and Mid Ulster, but several seats may have changed hands. The addition of 25000 voters from Belfast South, should enable Naomi Long to hold on in the new Belfast South East, although if Alasdair McDonnell stood here rather than Belfast South West, it would harm her ability to pick up tactical votes from SDLP supporters. The new boundaries would be very bad for the UUP, the addition of Ballymena to South Antrim would let McCrea hang on, while the new Fermanagh & South Tyrone gets 10000 mostly nationalist voters from Mid Ulster to make it safe for Gildernew. Finally Glenshane, while nominally the successor to East Londonderry, would be 57% Catholic and even a united Unionist candidate would struggle here. Prediction - DUP 7 (-1), SF 5 (+1), SDLP 2 (-1), APNI 1 (+1), Hermon 1. UUP 0 (-2) Gregory Campbell would probably have moved with Coleraine into Coleraine and North Antrim, Baby Doc would have followed the family base of Ballymena into Mid (South?) Antrim, and Boxcar Willie would have been forced to take his accordion back to the Magherafelt retirement that awaited him under 650 seats.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 18, 2015 21:32:55 GMT
.... In summary the West Midlands county loses three seats, all Labour held while one Labour seat is turned into a Tory seat. So the current 21 Lab 7 Con would have become 17 Lab 8 Con. However Walsall South is only narrowly gained while all the existing Conservative seats with the exception of Sutton Coldfield become more marginal while some potential target seats such as Birmingham Edgbaston (Harborne) and Wolverhampton SW (West) become more difficult for them. I've taken a while to come back to this thread as a number of seats were difficult to call without a bit of number crunching (Telford, Nottingham South, Rossendale) To complete the West Midlands, a further two seats are lost in the non-Met counties - one in Shropshire/Herefordshire and one in Staffordshire. The abolished seat is in effect Stone as Stoke South forms the largest part of West Staffordshire, but as that would be a Tory seat then Labour end up losing out. The boundary changes would have made Telford closer but I have it still Tory so the net result in the West Midlands is that the entire loss of 5 seats in the region comes at the expense of Labour with the Tories finishing on 34 seats (unchanged) and Labour on 20 In the East Midlands only two seats are lost overall and the seats which disappear are both Tory - Mid Derbyshire and Rushcliffe. Knock on changes do improve the Conservative position in Derby North (West) and Nottingham South but no other seats change hands so here the position would have been Con 30 (-2) Lab 14 (nc)
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 18, 2015 22:15:46 GMT
For the remaining (non Met) parts of the North West there are another four seats lost in addition to the three lost in Greater Manchester and Merseyside - one each in Cheshire and Cumbria and two in Lancashire (I am simplifying things as of course there are several seats crossing these 'county' boundaries)
In Cheshire the abolished seat is Weaver Vale and if we take Mersey Banks to be the effective successor to Ellesmere Port then the situation is otherwise unchanged. In Lancashire the two abolished seats are Labour Hyndburn and Tory Wyre & Preston North. However one of the effects of the latter is to push the redrawn Lancaster seat into the Tory column. Part of Hyndburn almost push Rossendale in the other direction but not quite so with the remaining seats as they are it is Labour who end up down two seats here. The situation in Cumbria is even worse for Labour as two Labour seats in West Cumbria become one while the more Tory elements of Copeland join Barrow to move that over to the Tories. Meanwhile Carlisle also becomes safer for the Tories, The Lib Dem seat in Westmorland is secure of course but the overall position changes from 3/2/1 in Labour's to 3/1/1 in the Tories favour.
So the net changes here also result in the entire loss of 7 seats in the region coming from Labour with the Tories ending up one seat up and the Lib Dems down one - Lab 44 (-7) Con 23 (+1) LD 1 (-1)
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 25, 2015 20:47:03 GMT
This is my suggestion for Ceredigion and Western Powys. The similarity to the current constituencies is: 100% of Ceredigion 20.68% of Montgomeryshire 7.83% of Brecon and Radnorshire 7.82% of Dwyfor And the notional calculations would be as follows: Ceredigion: Con 4123 Lab 3615 Lib Dem 13414 Plaid 10347 UKIP 3829 Green 2088 Electorate: 54226 Montgomeryshire: Con 3144 Lab 393 Lib Dem 2043 Plaid 361 UKIP 785 Green 261 Electorate: 10030 Brecon and Radnorshire: Con 1288 Lab 462 Lib Dem 889 Plaid 138 UKIP 261 Green 99 Electorate: 4252 Dwyfor: Con 512 Lab 305 Lib Dem 90 Plaid 924 UKIP 244 Green 77 Ind 109 Electorate: 3473 Totals: Con 9067 Lab 4775 Lib Dem 16436 Plaid 11770 UKIP 5119 Green 2525 Ind 109 Electorate: 71981
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Aug 26, 2015 12:22:43 GMT
You'd have a very tall thin Powys which would need to be added onto either Monmouthshire/Gwent and/or Wrexham. Not sure I can see that idea working.
Although I approve of anything that helps make us a winnable seat!
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Aug 26, 2015 20:01:23 GMT
Surely you can just extend North Herefordshire / Ludlow etc. to include the remaining bits of Powys? I mean, if the Boundary Commission can cross the Tamar, then Offa's Dyke shouldn't be an issue...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 21:36:20 GMT
Surely you can just extend North Herefordshire / Ludlow etc. to include the remaining bits of Powys? I mean, if the Boundary Commission can cross the Tamar, then Offa's Dyke shouldn't be an issue... The legislation expressly forbids crossing national borders
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 21:48:28 GMT
Surely you can just extend North Herefordshire / Ludlow etc. to include the remaining bits of Powys? I mean, if the Boundary Commission can cross the Tamar, then Offa's Dyke shouldn't be an issue... The legislation expressly forbids crossing national borders That's a relief. It means Calais doesn't get to elect an MP to the House of Commons again.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 27, 2015 7:17:33 GMT
Here's a possible suggestion then Orange is Ceredigion and Western Powys Blue is Powys Green is Carmarthenshire North and the Preselis Red is Carmarthenshire South West and Pembroke Purple is Carmarthenshire South East and Llanelli the and off yellow wards are those wards that will have to be added to the South Wales valleys seats
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 27, 2015 9:11:16 GMT
That's not a possible solution - on the current electorates, it's fairly certain you're going to have to have a seat crossing from North into Mid-Wales.
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,558
|
Post by cibwr on Aug 29, 2015 11:02:38 GMT
Surely you can just extend North Herefordshire / Ludlow etc. to include the remaining bits of Powys? I mean, if the Boundary Commission can cross the Tamar, then Offa's Dyke shouldn't be an issue... Unfortunately Cornwall does not have a boundary commission that recognises the separate nationality of Cornwall in respect to England.... otherwise they would respect the boundary that has existed longer than any other national boundary on this Island.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 29, 2015 11:11:33 GMT
I think one needs to be created, then-the Tamar boundary was created more than a thousand years ago, long before the Norman Conquest and when Wales was still recognised as separate from all the English kingdoms. I believe that Cornwall is a Celtic nation in its own right, having its own language and culture.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,579
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 29, 2015 11:27:00 GMT
The cross Cornwall/Devon seat was highly unpopular last time, by all accounts. Will an amendment to rule such a thing out be moved on this occasion?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 11:34:48 GMT
The proposed "Devonwall" seat would have been (could still be?) called 'Bideford, Bude and Launceston'
|
|