Chris
Independent
Posts: 573
|
Post by Chris on Sept 13, 2016 15:10:34 GMT
Haven't calculated the exact numbers but looking at the wards, Itchen looks like it switches from conservative to labour, whereas Test becomes more marginal and possibly switches notionally from labour to conservative. Based on this year's local elections, both seats would be Labour... Itchen: Labour 10,926, Conservative 8,210 Test: Labour 10,368, Conservatives 7,366 Try not to read too much into local election results. The Conservatives would have had big majorities across both seats in 2010 based on the 2008 local results! I do agree with you though that it makes Itchen notionally more Labour, however I'd disagree of your assessment for Test - trading Bevois in return for Bassett and Swaythling is a boost for the Conservatives.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Sept 13, 2016 15:13:25 GMT
It will be interesting to see if either Royston Smith or Alan Whitehead or both try to swap seats. Whitehead might be retiring next time anyway.
|
|
|
Post by politicalmatrix on Sept 13, 2016 15:36:20 GMT
Thanet East could probably be considered a Conservative-UKIP ultra-marginal.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Sept 13, 2016 16:46:30 GMT
16 seats unchanged in the South East:
Basingstoke. Beaconsfield. Bracknell. Eastbourne. Eastleigh. East Surrey. East Worthing & Shoreham. Epsom & Ewell. Gosport. Guildford. Hastings & Rye. Maidenhead. Reigate. Sittingbourne & Sheppey. South West Surrey. Witney.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 18:48:12 GMT
It would be interesting to see which of the Brighton seats Caroline Lucas would go for. Most of Brighton Pavilion goes into Brighton North, which would notionally be a Conservative-leaning three-way marginal, and doesn't really look much like a natural Green seat. However, most of the most Green wards from Pavilion go into Brighton Central & Hove, and are joined by a cluster of Green-friendly Hove wards that will probably have been strongly Labour at the last general.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 20:26:53 GMT
16 seats unchanged in the South East: Basingstoke. Beaconsfield. Bracknell. Eastbourne. Eastleigh. East Surrey. East Worthing & Shoreham. Epsom & Ewell. Gosport. Guildford. Hastings & Rye. Maidenhead. Reigate. Sittingbourne & Sheppey. South West Surrey. Witney. and Worthing West
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Sept 13, 2016 20:36:04 GMT
UKIP would need an 8.39% swing to win Isle of Wight East.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Sept 13, 2016 20:38:21 GMT
16 seats unchanged in the South East: Basingstoke. Beaconsfield. Bracknell. Eastbourne. Eastleigh. East Surrey. East Worthing & Shoreham. Epsom & Ewell. Gosport. Guildford. Hastings & Rye. Maidenhead. Reigate. Sittingbourne & Sheppey. South West Surrey. Witney. and Worthing West Pretty much, except it's taking 758 voters from Arundel & South Downs in the East Preston ward. I assume this is a tidying up exercise involving the ward boundaries.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,918
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Sept 13, 2016 20:46:01 GMT
16 seats unchanged in the South East: Basingstoke. Beaconsfield. Bracknell. Eastbourne. Eastleigh. East Surrey. East Worthing & Shoreham. Epsom & Ewell. Gosport. Guildford. Hastings & Rye. Maidenhead. Reigate. Sittingbourne & Sheppey. South West Surrey. Witney. and Worthing West Some electors added to Worthing West due to the new ward boundaries in Arun. Would give you the exact number if I managed to make their website data function work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 22:56:47 GMT
Pretty much, except it's taking 758 voters from Arundel & South Downs in the East Preston ward. I assume this is a tidying up exercise involving the ward boundaries. Ah, thanks, I stand corrected. I was just looking at the map and seeing the ward boundaries were unchanged on there.
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Sept 14, 2016 11:56:36 GMT
I've just read the full report for the South-East - and was slightly astonished by the logic given for putting Nelson ward in Portsmouth South rather than the more obvious Baffins:
I wonder if I can use that same logic to suggest that Portsmouth North should include the 2 Portchester wards instead of the 2 Havant wards that they have proposed...
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,488
|
Post by Khunanup on Sept 14, 2016 13:27:45 GMT
I've just read the full report for the South-East - and was slightly astonished by the logic given for putting Nelson ward in Portsmouth South rather than the more obvious Baffins: I wonder if I can use that same logic to suggest that Portsmouth North should include the 2 Portchester wards instead of the 2 Havant wards that they have proposed... I know, their reasoning for doing it is for the benefit of a place no-one lives (a new one on me for boundaries I can tell you!). You can't use that reasoning for Portchester though as neither of its wards contain any of Portsmouth Harbour. The whole of the harbour is in Portsmouth up to the high water mark (thus any jetties etc. in Fareham and Gosport boroughs that extend beyond that line come under planning in Pompey!).
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 15, 2016 16:17:07 GMT
I'm not sure of the correct format for reporting this, but I've spotted a discrepancy between the data on Boundary Assistant and the numbers in the BCE report. This concerns wards in Tonbridge & Malling District in Kent.
On BA the wards of Wateringbury, W Malling and Wrotham are given with electorates of 4794, 3273 and 1540 respectively.
In the BCE report the respective numbers are 1540, 4794, 3273, i.e. the same numbers but attached to different wards.
I am pretty sure that the BCE is correct.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 15, 2016 18:45:42 GMT
Looking at the BCE proposals for Kent and E Sussex, I've come up with a fresh plan with which I'm actually very happy; I feel it improves not only on the BCE's scheme but also on earlier ideas submitted upthread by Pete Whitehead and myself among others. Fourteen of these seats, all around the edges or in East Kent, are exactly as proposed by the BCE (although I've taken a few liberties with the names). (* = unchanged from current boundaries) - Brighton West and Hove: 78387 - Brighton North: 75072 - Brighton East and Seaford: 71505 - Eastbourne: 74670* - Ashford: 71303 - Folkestone and Hythe: 77333 - Dover: 76650 - East Thanet: 78130 - West Thanet and Whitstable: 75023 - Canterbury and Faversham: 72011 - Sittingbourne and Sheppey: 75638* - Gillingham: 75283 - Maidstone: 71284 - Dartford: 72180 A further three are easy in that they are current seats unaltered (bar a minuscule 3-elector tweak for new wards in the case of Bexhill). - Bexhill and Battle: 77218* - Hastings and Rye: 71672* - Rochester and Strood: 75317* So that's seventeen down, only seven to go. Of these, three are straightforward. - Gravesend - The current Gravesham seat plus Hartley: 75208 - Sevenoaks - The current seat plus the Edenbridge wards: 75919 - Chatham and Malling - As proposed by BCE with the omission of Wateringbury: 73954 (but will add to 72433 on BA because of the discrepancies mentioned in my previous post) Four seats remain. - Lewes - The parts of Lewes LA not in Brighton East, plus the parts of Wealden LA not in Bexhill as far north as, and including, the Uckfield wards (but not Framfield ward): 77206 - Tunbridge Wells and Crowborough - The cross-border seat, consisting of the rest of Wealden LA plus the 8 wards of Tunbridge Wells, amounting to the town of Tunbridge Wells itself (but not Southborough): 74555 - Tonbridge - The remaining wards of Tonbridge & Malling LA and Sevenoaks LA plus, from Tunbridge Wells LA, the Southborough wards and Speldhurst, Capel and Pembury (and I'd like to point out how centrally Tonbridge is located within this seat): 71502 (but BA will give 73023) - Mid Kent - Everything else, i.e. the remaining parts of Maidstone LA, Ashford LA and Tunbridge Wells LA, giving us a remarkably rural seat with no substantial towns at all; and compared with the BCE's 'everything else' seat (High Weald) it is much more compact, it is all in one county, and it extends into only three LAs rather than four: 76332 That's it. I really feel I've finally cracked it (but, as always, am open to being told otherwise).
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 16, 2016 7:48:53 GMT
Sorry, let me quickly call myself out here.
Looking again at the plan I just posted, I had a feeling that some parts of it looked familiar so I checked way back upthread and found that among several plans posted by Pete Whitehead there was one that basically (maybe apart from the odd marginal ward) had the same pattern for seats in the crucial central area of western East Susses and the middle of Kent.
All I've done is basically recreate Pete's original scheme in that area, merge it with the best parts of the BCE's proposals (Brighton, Thanet, &c) and do a little tidying up around the edges.
So the scheme overall is much less original than I thought at first; but I still think it's the best arrangement for this difficult area.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Sept 16, 2016 9:35:05 GMT
I'm not sure of the correct format for reporting this, but I've spotted a discrepancy between the data on Boundary Assistant and the numbers in the BCE report. This concerns wards in Tonbridge & Malling District in Kent.
On BA the wards of Wateringbury, W Malling and Wrotham are given with electorates of 4794, 3273 and 1540 respectively.
In the BCE report the respective numbers are 1540, 4794, 3273, i.e. the same numbers but attached to different wards.
I am pretty sure that the BCE is correct. Wateringbury is by far the smaller place. It held a record in my youth for the most pubs per capita in Britain.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Sept 16, 2016 10:09:55 GMT
Sorry, let me quickly call myself out here. Looking again at the plan I just posted, I had a feeling that some parts of it looked familiar so I checked way back upthread and found that among several plans posted by Pete Whitehead there was one that basically (maybe apart from the odd marginal ward) had the same pattern for seats in the crucial central area of western East Susses and the middle of Kent. All I've done is basically recreate Pete's original scheme in that area, merge it with the best parts of the BCE's proposals (Brighton, Thanet, &c) and do a little tidying up around the edges. So the scheme overall is much less original than I thought at first; but I still think it's the best arrangement for this difficult area. My posted scheme was also similar, except for Hailsham and Medway. ukelect.wordpress.com/2016/07/03/kent-east-sussex/
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,209
|
Post by YL on Sept 18, 2016 11:44:09 GMT
So the Boundary Commission did what I advised everyone not to do in Oxfordshire.. they split "rural" Ambrosden and Chesterton from Bicester, despite it containing a chunk of the town itself. It's an acceptable oversight if you don't go the extremes of looking at a map! ... or possibly if you just look at an out of date map. But, yes, the Commission's proposed Henley & Thame and its border with Banbury & Bicester are not good.
|
|
Chris
Independent
Posts: 573
|
Post by Chris on Sept 18, 2016 12:05:49 GMT
So the Boundary Commission did what I advised everyone not to do in Oxfordshire.. they split "rural" Ambrosden and Chesterton from Bicester, despite it containing a chunk of the town itself. It's an acceptable oversight if you don't go the extremes of looking at a map! ... or possibly if you just look at an out of date map. But, yes, the Commission's proposed Henley & Thame and its border with Banbury & Bicester are not good. Simple truth is that the entirety of Banbury and Bicester can no longer fit within a single constituency using the ward boundaries for this review. It definitely can't be done with the new boundaries that came into affect this May, so the split will have to come at the next review anyway.
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Sept 18, 2016 13:54:22 GMT
So the Boundary Commission did what I advised everyone not to do in Oxfordshire.. they split "rural" Ambrosden and Chesterton from Bicester, despite it containing a chunk of the town itself. It's an acceptable oversight if you don't go the extremes of looking at a map! ... or possibly if you just look at an out of date map. But, yes, the Commission's proposed Henley & Thame and its border with Banbury & Bicester are not good. Maybe now Cameron has resigned the BC will be more amenable to splitting up Witney... (Which as others posted above, gives you a number of much better options by extending Banbury South)
|
|