Sixth Periodic Review (Redux)

[Deleted]

May 13, 2015 21:07:23 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Maybe this needs a seperate thread...

As above, and before, so below.

Discussions, proposals, counter proposals, and for connected purposes, related to the soon to be restarted Sixth Periodic Review

[Pete Whitehead]

I hope Kevin will update the figures on his site in due course, but current ward figures are not available for parliamentary electors AFAIK. Would it be December 2015 figures that will be used?

[Richard Allen]

Not much point doing any detailed work on this until we know what the Government plan to do in terms of amending the current legislation.

[Crimson King]

I guess we will get some hints in the Queen's speach

[Deleted]

David Cameron may renege on a Tory manifesto pledge to reduce the number of MPs to 600 following resistance from backbenchers, the Financial Times has reported.

The Conservatives said they would conduct a boundary review to reduce the number of MPs in the Commons by 50 and redress the size of constituencies if in power after the election.
However, a Tory MP told the paper: “The whips’ office said it wasn’t happening.”


- See more at: www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/cameron-under-pressure-scrap-boundary-review-plans#sthash.A526EfBR.dpuf

[middyman]

May 20, 2015 12:34:36 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

David Cameron may renege on a Tory manifesto pledge to reduce the number of MPs to 600 following resistance from backbenchers, the Financial Times has reported.

The Conservatives said they would conduct a boundary review to reduce the number of MPs in the Commons by 50 and redress the size of constituencies if in power after the election.
However, a Tory MP told the paper: “The whips’ office said it wasn’t happening.”


- See more at: www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/cameron-under-pressure-scrap-boundary-review-plans#sthash.A526EfBR.dpuf

One person's renege is another taking account and listening!

[carlton43]

Quite so Middyman. Why do we think there is a 600-strategy by the Conservatives even to the extent of it being in the manifesto at all? Who benefits from the policy and how? 60+ current MPs lose out including 25-35 of his own supporters in the HOC. Does he not see how toxic that could be not just for say 25-losers, but for another 100 fearful of losing and having to jocky position and stab colleagues in the front let alone the back. Where is the upside in all that? A grateful electorate being even more distanced from their MP in larger constituencies with ever sillier names? The drop in the ocean savings in costs? What is it all about?

[Harry Hayfield]

May 20, 2015 14:51:06 GMT carlton43 said:

Quite so Middyman. Why do we think there is a 600-strategy by the Conservatives even to the extent of it being in the manifesto at all? Who benefits from the policy and how? 60+ current MPs lose out including 25-35 of his own supporters in the HOC. Does he not see how toxic that could be not just for say 25-losers, but for another 100 fearful of losing and having to jocky position and stab colleagues in the front let alone the back. Where is the upside in all that? A grateful electorate being even more distanced from their MP in larger constituencies with ever sillier names? The drop in the ocean savings in costs? What is it all about?

According to my calculations (based on the similarities as published by Electoral Calculus) the 600 seat House would have been: Con 317, Lab 209, SNP 51, DUP 8, SF 5, Lib Dem 3, Plaid 3, SDLP 2, UUP 2, Green 1, Ind 1 compared to the 2010 calculations of: Con 296, Lab 234, Lib Dem 47, DUP 8, SNP 6, SF 5, SDLP 2, Plaid 1

[iain]

I don't see that we would have lost any of Ceredigion, North Norfolk or Westmorland?

[Deleted]

ElecCalc uses universal swing, doesn't it? Take the calculations with much salt

[Deleted]

May 20, 2015 17:21:32 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

ElecCalc uses universal swing, doesn't it? Take the calculations with much salt

In view of the 2015 general election results, nothing is more redundant in psephological usefulness than uniform national swing.

[Harry Hayfield]

May 20, 2015 15:46:47 GMT iain said:

I don't see that we would have lost any of Ceredigion, North Norfolk or Westmorland?

Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire North: Con 17%, Green 5%, Lab 14%, Lib Dem 27%, Plaid 24%, UKIP 10%, Others 2% (Lib Dem HOLD)
Norfolk North: Con 34%, Green 3%, Lab 12%, Lib Dem 34%, UKIP 17%, (Con GAIN)
Westmorland and Lonsdale: Con 36%, Green 4%, Lab 6%, Lib Dem 47%, UKIP 7% (Lib Dem HOLD)

[Deleted]

May 20, 2015 21:34:33 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

May 20, 2015 15:46:47 GMT iain said:

I don't see that we would have lost any of Ceredigion, North Norfolk or Westmorland?

Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire North: Con 17%, Green 5%, Lab 14%, Lib Dem 27%, Plaid 24%, UKIP 10%, Others 2% (Lib Dem HOLD)
Norfolk North: Con 34%, Green 3%, Lab 12%, Lib Dem 34%, UKIP 17%, (Con GAIN)
Westmorland and Lonsdale: Con 36%, Green 4%, Lab 6%, Lib Dem 47%, UKIP 7% (Lib Dem HOLD)

Yeah, Harry, don't trust universal swing too much

[greatkingrat]

Under the proposals, 6 wards from Broadland would have transferred to North Norfolk, while 3 wards moved out of the constituency. Due to the LD collapse in Broadland, it is likely there was a strong Conservative majority in the incoming wards, while the outgoing wards likely had a LD majority. So it seems plausible that the proposed constituency would have been nominally Conservative in 2015 (assuming everyone voted the same way of course).

[Deleted]

Working on a quota of minimum 64,278, maximum 78,562 (work in progress)

1. Blackpool South
2. Blackpool North and Fleetwood
3. Morecambe and Lunesdale
4. Lancaster and Wyre
5. Fylde
6. Ribble Valley and Preston North
7. Preston

[Harry Hayfield]

Those figures I quoted were the calculations of the 2015 general election results on the boundaries proposed (but scrapped) in 2013 (therefore there was no application of universal swing at all).

[greatkingrat]

You can create your own maps at www.boundaryassistant.org

[Deleted]

May 21, 2015 10:17:17 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

May 21, 2015 8:10:32 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Working on a quota of minimum 64,278, maximum 78,562 (work in progress)

1. Blackpool South
2. Blackpool North and Fleetwood
3. Morecambe and Lunesdale
4. Lancaster and Wyre
5. Fylde
6. Ribble Valley and Preston North
7. Preston

    What did you use to create those boundaries? I quite like them  Your suggested max/min quota seems a bit loose though. 

I got the figures from this thread... or the other one.... 10% either side, rather than five.

And thanks I've stalled south of the Ribble because had I find ahead with "Standish and Skelmersdale", various members of the forum would have me lynched

[Deleted]

.....I bloody love you

[afleitch]

A valiant effort Though I have to say the one seat that extends from Bellshill to Livingstone and juts out to Lanark should be fired from a cannon into the sun ...