|
Post by johnloony on Jun 12, 2022 22:18:34 GMT
Dark Grey = Residents Light Grey = NOC Is this meant to be the local election results for 2022 on the pre-1964 boundaries? If so, it might have been useful if you had specified it.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 12, 2022 22:24:39 GMT
Dark Grey = Residents Light Grey = NOC Is this meant to be the local election results for 2022 on the pre-1964 boundaries? If so, it might have been useful if you had specified it. It would not have been useful because normal people understood immediately what it was from the context of the discussion which had taken place previously (and which you participated in.) Even without that context, it is obvious that this is what it is 'meant to be' (ie. what it is) because it is obvious that that is a map of those boundaries and one only needs to glance at a couple of boroughs (eg Barnet and Merton) to see immediately that the results can only be from 2022
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 13, 2022 9:53:44 GMT
I've never actually looked at the boundaries of the PLUs before, but from the maps on Vision of Britain and the parish lists from Wikipedia they do actually seem to make a lot of sense. It would have caused quite so disruption to the traditional county boundaries, but if the new PLU-based districts were allocated based on the traditional county of their namesake then it wouldn't have been too problematic in terms of administration. And with any luck they might have been able to survive and not require the 1974 cull provided the boundaries were updated every so often. The Census actually did that for several decades. The reports were organised by Registration Counties – i.e. the county in which the Registration District's workhouse was in. In practice these mostly look sane if you can find a map of them (although it really emphasises how unworkable several of the Welsh counties were). Edit: I see someone has done a map of these over on Wikipedia. Yes indeed. It's a complete pain in the fundament for anyone (like me) that is more interested in actual counties as opposed to fantasy counties as devised by the Registrar-General. Most of the Registration Counties are like 'uncanny valley' CGI - close enough to the real thing to be easily recognizable, but different enough to generate a strong sense that something is profoundly amiss. On the other hand, look at Derbyshire. Ye gods and little fishes.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jun 13, 2022 12:15:04 GMT
The Census actually did that for several decades. The reports were organised by Registration Counties – i.e. the county in which the Registration District's workhouse was in. In practice these mostly look sane if you can find a map of them (although it really emphasises how unworkable several of the Welsh counties were). Edit: I see someone has done a map of these over on Wikipedia. Yes indeed. It's a complete pain in the fundament for anyone (like me) that is more interested in actual counties as opposed to fantasy counties as devised by the Registrar-General. Most of the Registration Counties are like 'uncanny valley' CGI - close enough to the real thing to be easily recognizable, but different enough to generate a strong sense that something is profoundly amiss. On the other hand, look at Derbyshire. Ye gods and little fishes. It's interesting how there's a geographical structuring to how well the Historic Counties and Registration Counties correspond to one another. In general, they correspond very closely in the North and the South, but much less so in the Midlands and Wales. I also find it interesting how some of the little discrepancies were such obvious good ideas that they got reinstated in 1974 (e.g. uniting Teesdale in County Durham) or even taken to a whole new level (e.g. the RIver Thames being a rather poor county boundary in the vicinity of Oxford). All in all, I don't think the Registrar-General did a bad job. It's certainly better than trying to be interested in the utter madness of the "actual" boundaries of, say, Worcestershire, with all its little exclaves and enclaves and weird salients. In cases like that, I wish the Registrar-General had gone further and noticed that Alcester being in Warwickshire (but Redditch and Evesham in Worcestershire) makes very little sense. I'm not sure that map's right in Derbyshire. Chesterfield PLU/Registration District (which exists on this map) seems to have been annexed by Worksop, but I think that's just a mapping error! There's at least one other potential error I can see on there: Kington being in Radnorshire – fairly sure the Census has it in Herefordshire, even though that would look very silly indeed. But again, Derbyshire's a county that makes all too little sense on the ground. If only someone had invented a wholly new county, taking Chapel-en-le-Frith, Glossop, and Hadfield Registration Districts from Derbyshire; Altincham, Congleton, Macclesfield, and Stockport from Cheshire; Ashton-under-Lyne, Barton-on-Irwell, Bolton, Bury, Chorlton, Haslingden, Leigh, Manchester, Oldham, Prestwich, Rochdale, and Salford from Lancashire; and Saddleworth from the West Riding of Yorkshire. 19th-century pitchfork bait, I know...
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 13, 2022 18:52:07 GMT
Yes indeed. It's a complete pain in the fundament for anyone (like me) that is more interested in actual counties as opposed to fantasy counties as devised by the Registrar-General. Most of the Registration Counties are like 'uncanny valley' CGI - close enough to the real thing to be easily recognizable, but different enough to generate a strong sense that something is profoundly amiss. On the other hand, look at Derbyshire. Ye gods and little fishes. It's interesting how there's a geographical structuring to how well the Historic Counties and Registration Counties correspond to one another. In general, they correspond very closely in the North and the South, but much less so in the Midlands and Wales. I also find it interesting how some of the little discrepancies were such obvious good ideas that they got reinstated in 1974 (e.g. uniting Teesdale in County Durham) or even taken to a whole new level (e.g. the RIver Thames being a rather poor county boundary in the vicinity of Oxford). All in all, I don't think the Registrar-General did a bad job. It's certainly better than trying to be interested in the utter madness of the "actual" boundaries of, say, Worcestershire, with all its little exclaves and enclaves and weird salients. In cases like that, I wish the Registrar-General had gone further and noticed that Alcester being in Warwickshire (but Redditch and Evesham in Worcestershire) makes very little sense. I'm not sure that map's right in Derbyshire. Chesterfield PLU/Registration District (which exists on this map) seems to have been annexed by Worksop, but I think that's just a mapping error! There's at least one other potential error I can see on there: Kington being in Radnorshire – fairly sure the Census has it in Herefordshire, even though that would look very silly indeed. But again, Derbyshire's a county that makes all too little sense on the ground. If only someone had invented a wholly new county, taking Chapel-en-le-Frith, Glossop, and Hadfield Registration Districts from Derbyshire; Altincham, Congleton, Macclesfield, and Stockport from Cheshire; Ashton-under-Lyne, Barton-on-Irwell, Bolton, Bury, Chorlton, Haslingden, Leigh, Manchester, Oldham, Prestwich, Rochdale, and Salford from Lancashire; and Saddleworth from the West Riding of Yorkshire. 19th-century pitchfork bait, I know... I'll see your Worcestershire and I'll raise you Cromartyshire. (It's the bits in purple.)
|
|
|
Post by jm on Jun 17, 2022 17:25:06 GMT
There are a handful of wards missing from these maps, and there may be a few errors, for obvious reasons! % Labour vote (top vote method) by ward, 2019 local elections in England.Grey - no candidate % Conservative vote (top vote method) by ward, 2019 local elections in England.
Grey - no candidate
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 24, 2022 18:26:25 GMT
Wakefield Tiverton & Honiton
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,272
|
Post by YL on Jun 25, 2022 21:53:26 GMT
The blue constituencies in the second map there show some interesting patterns, especially that little arc in the west Midlands and the greater Fenland.
|
|
shadsy
Non-Aligned
Smarkets' Head of Politics
Posts: 96
|
Post by shadsy on Jul 14, 2022 10:55:34 GMT
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,274
|
Post by ricmk on Jul 14, 2022 11:33:03 GMT
I've got 9 after a few tries. Scotland is my weakness. Really nice tool. Who needs Wordle?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 14, 2022 11:34:43 GMT
I got up to 109. Annoyingly didn't zoom in enough and misidentified Denton & Reddish as Stockport
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 14, 2022 11:36:35 GMT
I've got 9 after a few tries. Scotland is my weakness. Really nice tool. Who needs Wordle? Yes I expected to fall down somewhere in the Central belt
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 14, 2022 11:48:50 GMT
I got up to 109. Annoyingly didn't zoom in enough and misidentified Denton & Reddish as Stockport As well as being next to one another they are quite a similar shape with their Leicestershire style pairs of ears - I'd never observed this before (it was the easterly 'ear' of Dukinfield that tricked me because I thought it was Brinnington). I will have another go at this later when I'm not distracted by eating lunch as I fancy I should be able to get 650 with a bit more care
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Jul 14, 2022 11:51:43 GMT
I got up to 109. Annoyingly didn't zoom in enough and misidentified Denton & Reddish as Stockport As well as being next to one another they are quite a similar shape with their Leicestershire style pairs of ears - I'd never observed this before (it was the easterly 'ear' of Dukinfield that tricked me because I thought it was Brinnington). I will have another go at this later when I'm not distracted by eating lunch as I fancy I should be able to get 650 with a bit more care I didn’t realise it went on until you got one wrong, I got up to 50 and then gave up. I think I have looked at the maps often enough that I think I should be able to get 650 too.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 14, 2022 11:58:43 GMT
Yeah I was kind of hoping it was going to stop at 50 or 100 or something. I don't know if it does all 650
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 14, 2022 12:07:41 GMT
shadsy you should do a borderless one like they have on Sporcle (https://www.sporcle.com/games/mhershfield/us-states-no-outlines-minefield?t=state)
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Jul 14, 2022 12:09:51 GMT
I got to a miserly 6, before boming out with Motherwell. I was only 1 seat out.
|
|
shadsy
Non-Aligned
Smarkets' Head of Politics
Posts: 96
|
Post by shadsy on Jul 14, 2022 12:48:08 GMT
shadsy you should do a borderless one like they have on Sporcle (https://www.sporcle.com/games/mhershfield/us-states-no-outlines-minefield?t=state) Pete, could you either use the share button at the end of the game, or take a screenshot or something next time you do this to record a huge score? It'd be fun to share this.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 14, 2022 13:07:54 GMT
shadsy you should do a borderless one like they have on Sporcle (https://www.sporcle.com/games/mhershfield/us-states-no-outlines-minefield?t=state) Pete, could you either use the share button at the end of the game, or take a screenshot or something next time you do this to record a huge score? It'd be fun to share this. I did click share but none of the options then worked for me The copied link generated was just this maproom.net/c/smarkets/public.html
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jul 14, 2022 13:30:53 GMT
I got up to 109. Annoyingly didn't zoom in enough and misidentified Denton & Reddish as Stockport You beat me by four! In my case it was Essex that got me - mixed up Witham and Harwich.
|
|