Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Sept 18, 2016 11:31:19 GMT
Then I don't know where harry's figures come from The Boundary Commission is the answer. If you download their IP_constituencies_changes spreadsheet you will see that they have done the calculations to show how much of the new seat is made up of an old seat (for instance Harwich and Clacton is made up from the following: 78.62% of the seat comes from Clacton and 21.38% comes from Harwich and North Essex) so therefore I simply do the calculations based on the General Election result. |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Sept 18, 2016 11:42:14 GMT
Why should Queen Edith's be different?? Maybe because it is in a different constituency with completely different electoral dynamics. Your point about the local electiosn in the rest of Cambridge actually proves my point. You are simply taking the Lib Dem lead over Labour in the local elections in those two wards and assuming that translates exactly to how they would have been in the general election. But if you apply that logic then you can see that Labour were over 4000 ahead of the Lib Dems in the Cambridge constituency in local election votes. Does this mean that they have a notional lead in that area of 4000 in the general election? Obviously not No Pete , I am not , that is what you are doing . You are assuming lots of things about Lib Dem voters voting Conservative in a GE but Lib Dem in local elections where the facts show that in Cambridge the opposite was true . |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 18, 2016 11:50:31 GMT
Why should Queen Edith's be different?? Maybe because it is in a different constituency with completely different electoral dynamics. Your point about the local electiosn in the rest of Cambridge actually proves my point. You are simply taking the Lib Dem lead over Labour in the local elections in those two wards and assuming that translates exactly to how they would have been in the general election. But if you apply that logic then you can see that Labour were over 4000 ahead of the Lib Dems in the Cambridge constituency in local election votes. Does this mean that they have a notional lead in that area of 4000 in the general election? Obviously not No Pete , I am not , that is what you are doing . You are assuming lots of things about Lib Dem voters voting Conservative in a GE but Lib Dem in local elections where the facts show that in Cambridge the opposite was true . The facts show no such thing, or at least not in 2015. Outside of Castle and Trumpington, there was no significant difference between the local vote for the Conservatives and the general election vote for the Conservatives. It's the Green vote which shows the wide disparity between local and general votes. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,453
|
Post by iain on Sept 18, 2016 11:59:13 GMT
Why should Queen Edith's be different?? Maybe because it is in a different constituency with completely different electoral dynamics. Your point about the local electiosn in the rest of Cambridge actually proves my point. You are simply taking the Lib Dem lead over Labour in the local elections in those two wards and assuming that translates exactly to how they would have been in the general election. But if you apply that logic then you can see that Labour were over 4000 ahead of the Lib Dems in the Cambridge constituency in local election votes. Does this mean that they have a notional lead in that area of 4000 in the general election? Obviously not No Pete , I am not , that is what you are doing . You are assuming lots of things about Lib Dem voters voting Conservative in a GE but Lib Dem in local elections where the facts show that in Cambridge the opposite was true . That is Cambridge constituency, not district. For example in Sheffield we outperformed our local results in the five Hallam wards, but nowhere else. It is to do with where was worked on a GE basis. |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Sept 18, 2016 12:45:24 GMT
No Pete , I am not , that is what you are doing . You are assuming lots of things about Lib Dem voters voting Conservative in a GE but Lib Dem in local elections where the facts show that in Cambridge the opposite was true . The facts show no such thing, or at least not in 2015. Outside of Castle and Trumpington, there was no significant difference between the local vote for the Conservatives and the general election vote for the Conservatives. It's the Green vote which shows the wide disparity between local and general votes. The Conservatives polled 8,117 votes in the GE in Cambridge , in the wards excluding Q E they polled 9,173 votes , You may consider 1,056 votes ( 11% ) to be not significant but no statistician would agree with you . |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 18, 2016 12:47:10 GMT
Why should Queen Edith's be different?? Maybe because it is in a different constituency with completely different electoral dynamics. Your point about the local electiosn in the rest of Cambridge actually proves my point. You are simply taking the Lib Dem lead over Labour in the local elections in those two wards and assuming that translates exactly to how they would have been in the general election. But if you apply that logic then you can see that Labour were over 4000 ahead of the Lib Dems in the Cambridge constituency in local election votes. Does this mean that they have a notional lead in that area of 4000 in the general election? Obviously not No Pete , I am not , that is what you are doing . You are assuming lots of things about Lib Dem voters voting Conservative in a GE but Lib Dem in local elections where the facts show that in Cambridge the opposite was true . The facts show that in South Cambridgeshire and South East Cambridgeshire that is exactly what happened to the Lib Dem local vote and those are the constituencies in which Queen Edith and Milton were situated. That they would have behaved differently had they been included in the Cambridge seat in 2015 is a given, but that isn't the question. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 18, 2016 13:03:20 GMT
Mark - local election LD vote in South Cambridgeshire CC was 10967 despite not contesting all wards against 9368 in the General election. Can you see what happened there? Labour got 9002 in the local elctions (contesting every ward) and 10860 in the General. So a Lib Dem lead of 2000 in the locals over Labour became a Labour lead of 1500 in the general. And yet you want us to believe that the 400 vote lead in Queen Ediths was replicated (at worst) or increased?
SE Cambridgeshire - Lib Dem local votes 14707 against 12008 in the general in other words they lost a fifth of their vote. Labour again won more votes in the general (9013) than the locals (8622). Ergo the Lib Dem lead over Labour in MIlton will not have been as high in the general election as the locals. This stuff is not rocket science
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 18, 2016 13:04:03 GMT
Then I don't know where harry's figures come from The Boundary Commission is the answer. If you download their IP_constituencies_changes spreadsheet you will see that they have done the calculations to show how much of the new seat is made up of an old seat (for instance Harwich and Clacton is made up from the following: 78.62% of the seat comes from Clacton and 21.38% comes from Harwich and North Essex) so therefore I simply do the calculations based on the General Election result. I'm sorry I asked.. |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Sept 18, 2016 13:50:03 GMT
No Pete , I am not , that is what you are doing . You are assuming lots of things about Lib Dem voters voting Conservative in a GE but Lib Dem in local elections where the facts show that in Cambridge the opposite was true . The facts show that in South Cambridgeshire and South East Cambridgeshire that is exactly what happened to the Lib Dem local vote and those are the constituencies in which Queen Edith and Milton were situated. That they would have behaved differently had they been included in the Cambridge seat in 2015 is a given, but that isn't the question. Of course that is the question and the whole point of the exercise which is to deduce who would have won in 2015 in Cambridge with the addition of Q E and Milton wards . |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 18, 2016 13:58:03 GMT
Mark - Myself and others have agreed that in all probability if the Cambridge seat had been fought on these boundaries then the Lib Dems would have held it because voters in Queen Edith's and in Milton would have behaved differently than they in fact did in their respective seats (instead of local Lib Dem voters voting Tory nationally they would have stuck with the Lib Dems and been augmented with tactical Tory votes).
But calculations of notional results can't take account of these sort of speculations. They are intended to be a calculation of how votes were actually cast within the boundaries of a new seat. On this basis it seems almost certain that Cambridge is a notional Labour seat. I am happy to have disagreements about the answer to the question 'who won the most votes on these boundaries in 2015?', but at least we have to agree on what the question is. There seems to be agreement on this among just about everybody except you.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 18, 2016 16:56:40 GMT
The facts show no such thing, or at least not in 2015. Outside of Castle and Trumpington, there was no significant difference between the local vote for the Conservatives and the general election vote for the Conservatives. It's the Green vote which shows the wide disparity between local and general votes. The Conservatives polled 8,117 votes in the GE in Cambridge , in the wards excluding Q E they polled 9,173 votes , You may consider 1,056 votes ( 11% ) to be not significant but no statistician would agree with you . They got 15.7% of the vote in the general election and 16.9% in the local elections excluding QE. There's very little point talking about the difference in raw number of votes when Cambridge has a notably high number of people who are entitled to vote in local but not general elections and exercise that right. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 19, 2016 0:58:10 GMT
It's worth noting that the Tories finished second in Cambridge in 2010, so if there is an 'anti-Labour' vote to speak of in the two additional wards, it wouldn't necessarily have coalesced behind Huppert in 2015.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 19, 2016 15:29:26 GMT
It would have. It was fairly clear Labour weren't going to win in 2010, so there was little incentive to vote tactically (hence why their vote fell sharply from 2005.) A squeeze message was much more effective in 2015. Candidate quality is also relevant - Huppert was not particularly impressive in 2010 but had amassed a substantial personal vote by 2015, Nick Hillman was a very good candidate for the Tories and Chamali Fernando was rubbish.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 25, 2016 14:24:18 GMT
I've been playing round with tweaking the Initial Recommendations for Cambridgeshire and Norfolk and I think I've now settled on my preferred option. My aims were to eliminate the link with Hertfordshire; to remove Milton from Cambridge; to maintain the basic orientations in Norwich and Peterborough and to eliminate some of the orphan wards. Here's what I came up with:  1. Norwich South (71310) - compared to the BCE, swaps Thorpe Hamlet for Wensum. This improves internal connectivity by eliminating the cut of the Dereham Road. 2. Norwich North (71686) - see above. 3. South Norfolk (77348) - no change from the Initial Recommendations. 4. Great Yarmouth (71907) - no change. 5. Broadland (77759) - compare to the Initial Recommendations, gains Aylsham (no change compared to today); loses all of its current bits of North Norfolk district (and the orphan ward from Breckland) and gains 8 wards from the east of North Norfolk. Now covers two districts instead of three. It's probably possible to do something like this whilst still going towards Fakenham rather than North Walsham, but I think this is neater anyway. 6. North Norfolk (78146) - no longer takes Aylsham, loses 8 wards in the east of the seat and gains 7 wards from North Norfolk and five wards from Breckland district. 7. Mid Norfolk (76410) - compared to the Initial Recommendations, loses four wards in the vicinity of Dereham and gains Thetford. 8. North West Norfolk (78391) - compared to the Initial Recommendations, gains Mershe Lande, St Lawrence and Wiggenhall. 9. Ely & Downham Market (76809) - replacement for the BCE's South West Norfolk, losing five wards from Breckland and three wards from King's Lynn & West Norfolk but gaining 7 wards in the west of East Cambridgeshire district.  10. North East Cambridgeshire (74144) - the entirety of Fenland district, plus Eye & Thorney from Peterborough (which of course was in this constituency until 2010). 11. Peterborough (72782) - as in the BCE's plans, less Eye & Thorney. 12. North West Cambridgeshire (75441) - compared to the Initial Recommendations, loses Sawtry and Ellington but keeps hold of Earith. 13. Huntingdon (74344) - loses Fenstanton and St. Ives but keeps Gransden & the Offords and gains Sawtry and Ellington. 14. South Cambridgeshire (77053) - as I normally draw it, with most of the boundary running along the A14 and the Fleam Dyke, and with the only excursion outside the eponymous district being an arm grabbing St. Ives and (importantly) the road that actually connects St. Ives to the rest of the seat. 15. Cambridge (72757) - the entire city, but not Milton. 16. South East Cambridgeshire (74361) - the north of South Cambridgeshire district and the old Newmarket rural district. I'm quite happy with how neat this is. Whilst it doesn't match what I've heard about Labour's proposed regional submission, it doesn't conflict with it in any important ways and I'm therefore considering submitting this. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 25, 2016 14:43:04 GMT
Why the Brecklandish Corridor?
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 25, 2016 15:28:34 GMT
Not entirely sure what you're referring to there. Can you elaborate?
I've also found a way to reshuffle Norfolk to remove one crossing of a local authority boundary: Mid Norfolk gains Easton from South Norfolk; South Norfolk holds on to Thurlton; Yarmouth gains Waterside from North Norfolk instead; North Norfolk covers the rest of the eponymous district and Broadland takes the Breckland wards I'd originally given to North Norfolk.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 25, 2016 16:14:09 GMT
Not entirely sure what you're referring to there. Can you elaborate? I've also found a way to reshuffle Norfolk to remove one crossing of a local authority boundary: Mid Norfolk gains Easton from South Norfolk; South Norfolk holds on to Thurlton; Yarmouth gains Waterside from North Norfolk instead; North Norfolk covers the rest of the eponymous district and Broadland takes the Breckland wards I'd originally given to North Norfolk. That is what I meant. I was wondering why you gave Breckland access to the sea instead of doing just that, and whether there was some good local reason unknown to me for preferring such an arrangement. And "Brecklandish Corridor" was referring to the "Polish Corridor", for which, of course, there were very good on-the-ground reasons ignored by all the post-Versailles propaganda that called it a "corridor". |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 25, 2016 16:27:27 GMT
Ah. I think I see the confusion - you mean Broadland, not Breckland.
The reason I had Broadland extending to the sea was that I'd been trying to leave Yarmouth unchanged. If you do that then whichever way you arrange the wards, you end up with one seat that's slightly too large with the minimum number of crossings - all the wards on the Broadland-North Norfolk border are just slightly too large. But if you swap Thurlton for Waterside then it's a piece of cake.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 25, 2016 16:31:41 GMT
Ah. I think I see the confusion - you mean Broadland, not Breckland. Oopsie. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 25, 2016 16:34:14 GMT
Ah. I think I see the confusion - you mean Broadland, not Breckland. The reason I had Broadland extending to the sea was that I'd been trying to leave Yarmouth unchanged. If you do that then whichever way you arrange the wards, you end up with one seat that's slightly too large with the minimum number of crossings - all the wards on the Broadland-North Norfolk border are just slightly too large. But if you swap Thurlton for Waterside then it's a piece of cake. And if you don't want an orphan ward, you can add Waxham and/or Stalham&Sutton as well. |
|
