Talk Elections

I thought it would be interesting to discuss the changes, similar to London in the 'London Major' thread. Once again I'll have two maps. How Anthony Wells sees it and secondly, a hypothetical 5% to the Conservatives

() (http://imageshack.us)

And with a 5% Swing....

() (http://imageshack.us)

There are some major and lesser, superficial chages here. Cornwall, Devon and the old Avon counties each again an extra seat.

The most obvious addition is Chippenham, giving the Lib Dems a long wanted seat in Wiltshire with a majority of around 2.7%. There is a new Decon Central seat and in Avon, Filton adn Bradley stoke which according to Wells will be a three way marginal

CON 14742
LAB 13541
LIB 11243

Cornwall stays completely yellow with the addition of St Austell and Newquay, but with a Lib Dem majority of less than 2%

More comments soon, some quick ones now...


Is that the swing needed for a majority or something?


I'm still pissed off that they decided to carry on using the "Avon" joke... if they had given NE and N Somerset back to Somerset, some much saner boundaries would be seen (Wansdyke (or whatever they call it) wouldn't include the Bath exurbs and would include more rural Somerset villages instead. And would be a safer Labour seat ;) As it is, I think the notional result there is only a few votes either way; in practice Norris would have won on those boundaries (just) but probably not in notional terms).

And be very, very careful with Cornwall...

1.5% swing - Labour looses it's majority
4.4% swing - Tories largest party

So I chose 5% as a rough guide (thats if both Labour and Lib Dem seats swung towards the Tories) It's 'just a bit of fun' as Snow would say ;)

It would take a swing of 7.1% to gain a majority, sadly Wells has only listed the list of Tory target seats to 6.1%.

Good work Affleitch.

I take issue with a 5% swing to the Tories from Labour though.

What is it with a 3% swing from LD to Lab ?

Wouldn't, say, a 3% swing make more sense then? :P


That may be because the chances of the Tories getting a swing quite that large seem pretty remote ;)

I'd agree- in the uniform swing, which is worth nothing these days really :) But like the 6.5% swing in Putney last year you do get exceptions. Many of the ultramarginals may stay Labour, but I would expect seats further down the target list switching. A 3% swing to Lab from the Lib Dems would see Labour take Rochdale, Manchester Whitherington, Bristol West, Leeds North West, Hornsey and Chesterfield in that order.

The swing in other London seats wi'lots of Yuppies was even higher IIRC.


Rochdale and Chesterfield would be much easier than the others o/c. Withington might get changed by boundary changes (I don't think that Greater Manchester is finished yet).

Yes Manchester holding things up. Here's hoping the damn thing gets approved before 09/10 or we will be using constituencies based on data thats 18 or 19 years old :)

I am rather sceptical about this. Newquay yes does have plenty of Tory councillors, but St Austell voting Tory? That’s something I can't quite imagine. I was always under the impression that the Lib Dem's main block of support in Truro and St Austell came from the latter, which used to out-vote the former. This makes me believe that Truro and Falmouth will be a better prospect for the Tories than people imagine it will be - again I would hardly call Camborne a pillar of Tory strength, most of the Tory vote in Falmouth and Camborne must have come from the former (again!) however Newquay is growing so there probably is potential there.

Notional results in the South West are always more difficult to calculate anyway due to the large amount of ticket splitting between local and parliamentary elections, the large number of independent councillors and uncontested seats, personal votes, etc, etc. Not taking anything away from Wells, but as I mentioned on his website I know his result for Torridge and West Devon is wrong. There’s an impression that because the area that’s being taken out and put into Central Devon is currently the only part of the constituency that is represented by Conservative County Councillors that it will hurt the Tories – it won’t I was there at the count and I know for a fact that the majority was delivered more than anything in Torridge, but I digress.

As for a possible general election result, well the Liberals have historically performed poorly whenever the Tories win a general election from opposition al la 1970, 1979. I suspect that *if* the Tories do win the next election and win a majority, then Lib Dems could face a severe hammering.

And how it would bring tears of joy to my eyes :)

I think alot of local knowledge helps when calculating things like this. I had problems with everyone saying Dumfries and Galloway would go Tory last year for example. The Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweedale seat flipped in the end. At the end of the day, anyone with local knowledge knew it would as it contained the Tory voting areas carved out of the other seats and put together again straddling the M74.

Yes precisely - I hope that when Rallings and Thrasher release the notional results they do a damn better job than what they did in Scotland last time. So many of there calculations were completely off considering some of the 'strange' change in shares of the votes in certain seats. I wasn't at all surprised by DC+T because I remember posters from the area said it was a far better seat for the Tories than the notional result suggested.


Believe me I would be jumping for joy too. Its still a big if, but providing the right circumstances come into play in Devon I could quite easily see the Lib Dems reduced to one seat - most likely Newton Abbot - whilst in Cornwall if Breed retires South East Cornwall would probably go down, North Cornwall potentially too, and either St Austell and Newquay or Truro and Falmouth. If I can I'll try and post a map - but the right circumstances would have to exist – IE a majority national Conservative victory and good PPC's - neither of which as of 2006 we have no idea whether that will happen at all.

They didn't, technically speaking. They made up new NE Somerset, N Somerset, City of Bristol, and S Gloucestershire jokes.

;D

City of Bristol isn't really a joke, but the others ::)

What on earth does a place like Midsomer Norton have in common with the Bath exurbs? (other than being in Bath & NE Somerset UA...)

Good work Andrew :)

I'm not too familiar with the Southwest but the Electoral Calculus has the new Filton and Bradley Stoke seat as notionally Labour but a marginal nevertheless

Dave

I know. EC seems to use a system where the treat voting patterns as uniform across each seat and move 'percentages' into on seat from another. Wells looks at the makeup of the individual wards moved from one seat to another. Both are never 100% accurate and they give different results (including Chippenham I think) but Wells' methods seem more reasonable and will probably be adjusted a littleagain across England after the May elections

Up next, the West Midlands

() (http://imageshack.us)

Again, the second image shows a hypothetical 5% swing to the Tories.

Comments on the notional numbers...

1. Just ignore any notional figures you see for Nuneaton. The 2005 election there was as strange as it was unpleasant as there has been a lot of tension over Gypsies in the area and the Tory candidate ran on what might as well have been a "hang all Gypsies" platform. He was also very well funded while Olner, frankly, didn't bother with the election much. I think he ended up spending less than £5,000... and seeing as how the same atmosphere was very much there during the '04 borough elections (and to an even greater degree), I have to take issue with his notional numbers; on those boundaries Olner's majority would have been a bit over 10% IMO.
2. Hemming might have (just about) led on those new Yardley boundaries. Which is probably just academic as unless something changes, he's going to lose no matter what...
3. I would treat the Solihull figures with a lot of caution as well. Mind you if the Tories can't win that place back, they might as well curl up and die...
4. I can't recall many changes to "Dudley" South...
5. I don't know about Staffs. Moorlands actually... on those boundaries it would have been extremely tight IMO. County Council results aren't a great indicator as the area was badly gerrymandered.

Comments on the boundaries themselves...

1. Once again an absurd set of boundaries for Shropshire. I can't think of a single good reason why a couple of rural wards in the south of Shrewsbury & Atcham should be in that seat and not in Ludlow (which needs to have it's name changed urgently), the Wrekin seat remains a Godawful mess.
2. Nice to see Worcestershire purged from Herefordshire.
3. The new Redditch boundaries don't make any sense at all...
4. The new Potteries boundaries are a joke and must have been drawn by someone who has never actually visited the area in their entire life. A lot of other Staffs. boundaries are dodgy...
5. Aldridge-Brownhills should have been torn up years ago... and still hasn't been...
6. Brum is a joke, as per usual. They should started from stratch and drawn seats that actually fit in with the geography of the city... and when they rewarded it a few years ago, some sane sized wards would have been nice...
7. Meriden is a sick joke as always (and I mean that)... give Chelmsley Wood to Birmingham for God's sake... or the areas full of millionaires to Solihull...
8. I like the new Warwick & Leamington boundaries; a sane decision at last!
9. And I also like the death of Rugby & Kenilworth. Good to see Rugby return unto the constituency map so to speak... mind you, Kenilworth & Southam is f***ing ugly as well...
10. And why did they not recreate the old Nuneaton seat? Answers wanted...

I thought Well's gave Hemming a majority in Birmingham Yardley


Well I don't really know what Hemming's been up to regarding his local situation but what makes you so sure he'll lose? If the national trend against Labour continues at the next general election then its hard to see how Labour will regain the seats they lost to the Lib Dems in 2005, even if nationally the Lib Dems have a crap year. Are the boundary changes to Yardley particularly harmful to Hemming then?

Moorlands/Stoke area remapping was quite controversial IIRC, and the final map is very different from the preliminary recommendations.

And Ludlow does NOT need to be renamed. Nor did Hereford and Leominster need to be renamed. >:( at names as ugly as "Hereford & North Herefordshire".

His credibility hath been rather badly damaged by certain revalations about his private life (and the two digit number of affairs he's had; one of which resulted in his mistress getting pregnant). He's also become a bit of a joke at Westminster; did you hear about his abortive leadership campaign? He was actually being serious...


I'm not exactly certain (that were hyperbole) but I'd certainly be suprised if he's not a one term M.P. See below...


Oh yes, yes they are... Yardley has the best Labour ward (in General Election terms) of the abolished Sparkbrook & Small Heath added to it (the old Fox Hollies ward; I forget the new name) and rumour is that Godsiff will following this ward and decamp to Yardley at the next election. And unless something changes, it would be hard to see him lose; he's a lazy sod at the best of times, but he can press the right buttons if he needs to (he also ran in Yardley over twenty years ago).
Mind you, these changes, however grim for Hemming, aren't as bad as the orginal proposals, under which he wouldn't have had a hope in hell's chance of hanging on...

Yes it was; and always has been ever since the Tories discovered (in the early '80's) that the people drawing the boundaries had sod all knowledge of the area. Most people don't actually; the general view seems to be that Kidsgrove was only ever added in the '95 changes. It wasn't; it was an integral part of the seat (then called Leek) until 1983.


I think it may have been; I'll have to check that...


Problem is Ludlow isn't even the biggest town in the constituency anymore; Bridgnorth is.
Best name for it would probably be Ludlow & Bridgnorth; one half of the seat revolves around Ludlow, the other around Bridgnorth (sort of; it's part of the Wolverhampton commuterzone now, but Ludlow & Wolverhampton Far West just sounds bloody silly...).


One thing they should do though is to change the name of South Shropshire DC back (well, sort of...) to Ludlow DC. And by doing that, keeping the name of the Westminster constituency as "Ludlow" would become very easy to defend on geographic grounds.
O/c Shropshire will probably be going Unitary soon enough anyway...


Agree actually.


It's actually Hereford & South Herefordshire, but I agree again. Makes no sense as pretty much the entire constituency revolves around Hereford to some degree (even Ross does, although people in Ross would rather not admit to that). South Herefordshire was the name of a long abolished District Council, btw.

(likes constituency name "Leek", makes mental note to pester next boundary commission to bring it back)
I just don't see why a constituency name should be changed when the constituency itself has hardly changed, and the name's been in use for quite some time. In other regions (for example, blocking the renaming of "Hove" to "Hove & Portslade) the Boundary Commission is actually taking the same view.

They won't because they're a bunch of souless bastards who like everything to be "coterminous" or whatever bullsh*t phrase they use, with those f***ing stupid "local government" boundaries that ****ing Heath inflicted on us as a sort of sick joke...


I sort of see your point; problem is that the constituency has changed quite a bit (and not in a good way) even if the boundaries haven't.
I don't mind Ludlow being called Ludlow really; it's just that calling Ludlow Ludlow is yet more hypocritical nonsense from the boundaries ****ers...


That's because they are hypocrites.

That's what I meant...

Its interesting seeing the varying effects of different swings on a regional basis.

If the last election was anything to go by then it’s highly likely that we’ll see strong regional variations in the election results.

Something that is likely to be exacerbated by the nature of the Party’s, Brown led authoritarian Labour Party, Cameron led liberal Conservative Party and… er… the LibDems ;)

I could imagine Labour doing well in certain types of seats that it has traditionally held.

The Tories should make progress beyond the national trend in the London and the South East* against Labour and the LibDems, what will be critical will be how well they do against the LibDems in the West Country and Labour in the West Midlands.
 
In the end I think the key battleground will be Redditch, Dudley, Wolverhampton etc… in the west midlands and to a lesser extent similar seats in the east midlands and south Yorkshire. Cameron’s conservatives can certainly drive home a traditional “Tory” advantage against Labour and the LibDems in the London Suburbs, Kent and Hampshire (etc…) but Cameron has yet to make much of an impact beyond there IMHO while at the same time Labour and Brown seem to have done little to cement their grip either.

In the end Birmingham Edgbaston should give us a very good idea of how the next election is going, what is more its usually one of the first “marginals” to declare.             


*I strongly doubt that Cameron will junk the standard Tory fair of some variation on a tough line on immigration, though no doubt it will be articulated on a fairly limited basis (heavily target on specific seats no doubt). Consequently I see no reason for the Tories to continue their progress in Kent.

Also Ludlow should be renamed Bridgnorth & Ludlow or Shropshire South.

Ah; I see.

I've looked up Staffs. Moorlands and they switched from basically keeping the '95 boundaries, to basically bringing back the '83 boundaries. The justification was more-or-less entirely based on the parochial whining of a ward just outside Stoke (and with a population of about 3,000) which had been in Stoke North but doesn't like being associated with Stoke, despite basically being a dormitary village for the city... at least they rejected the blatent gerrymander of a counter-proposal that the Tories proposed...

Up next Yorkshire

() (http://imageshack.us)

York Outer looks very,very strange....
Note Keighley being Keighley even after a 5% swing ;)

Yorkshire comments...

...on the notional numbers...

1. I can't see York Outer being LibDem in 2005; the LibDems did very badly in Ryedale and Selby and might actually have been third on those boundaries.
2. The Keighley of '79 (which didn't include Ilkley...) would be a safe seat these days ;D

...on the boundaries themselves...

1. First off; I want the Ridings back. NOW.
2. I think that York Outer actually includes parts of all three Ridings...
3. The Wakefield MDC boundaries are a strange joke; they really, really make no sense at all. Bring back the old Hemsworth! C'mon, majorities in excess of 60% is something we all miss isn't it? :)
4. Lindley should have been removed from Colne Valley. No excuse for it being there now... even people who aren't exactly Labour supporters think that apparently...
5. Obviously none of the Wharfedale should be in either Shipley or Keighley...
6. Calder Valley remains a joke. As do the boundaries in the old textile areas generally...
7. I have some complains about the S.Yorks. coalfield seats, but I'll admit that that is all entirely academic...
8. Nice to see that they saw sense about Sheffield Central...
9. In general, why can't these people admit that the basic thrust of the '83 changes was wrong and should be reversed?

Two questions on these maps

1) Are these boundaries (and their notional 2005 results) fixed in stone and if so where can I download the calculations (so I know which councils to track on May 4th)?

2) On the 1992 boundaries it was Darlington (inside Sedgefield), Bath (inside Wansdyke) and Cheltenham (inside Cirencester), on the 1997 boundaries it was Colchester (inside Essex North) and Carlisle (inside Penrith and the Border) and now on the 2009 boundaries we're going to have the City of York (inside York Outer)!. What is the point of constituencies within constituencies?

I'm not sure Hemming had that much credibility in the first place. Quite frankly I'm amazed the people for Yardley have fallen for him in the first place (or does John "get things done us"?) - if Hemming stood anyware else I'm sure he would get hammered - I'm fairly sure he would go down like a lead balloon in the South West, that's for sure.

The boundaries are pretty much fixed for everywhere but Greater Manchester. I don't think that Wells has put up the complete data online. Rallings & Thrasher (who do the notionals that the media use) won't do their notionals until this years London elections (as they think that 2002 was too long ago and the various 2004 elections not a reliable enough indicator).


Depends on the geography of the area; in some areas (Carlisle is a good example) it actually makes or made a great deal of sense. I'm not sure about the City of York/York Outer combination (but mainly because the latter includes parts of all three Ridings).
It often makes a lot more sense to draw constituencies like that, than to draw "sandwich" constituencies.

question (sorry if it has been asked before)

will these new boundary changes help or hurt any of the parties, like if the 2005 election was held under the new seats what would the seat totals look like. 

also will Hornsey and Wood Green seat be changed a lot.  This is the district my cousin lives in.

Lab majority of 66 becomes a Lab majority of 46 (or thereabouts)

IMO it's impossible to work that out with any degree of accuracy; as always a lot of seats are too close to work out properly, and new seats are always very hard to figure out.
Personally I think that the result would have been a few more Tory seats, but with some other Labour marginals becoming safer. 


No; I'm not sure if it's going to change at all actually.

He did and (up to a point) still does in parts of Birmingham...


Yes; "John gets things done for us" is the best way of looking at it; the Yardley LibDems are basically your typical suburban (and anti-inner City machines) political machine. They clean up at local elections to a huge degree; turnouts are very low, but there is still a fair bit of ticket splitting.


That he would, especially now.


The arrogant-Brummie-with-lots-of-money thing doesn't appeal to you lot then? ;)

Hmmm, if the national tide continues, or does swing away from Labour I think it will be difficult for your lot to oust him at the next general election. After that however...


Well far be it from me to think such things :)

Re York Outer...
It's better than the alternative the Commission had under the rules ... ie York E and W (or N and S) constituencies, splitting the city proper along some wholly unnatural line, both extending far into, indeed past, the suburbs... the fault lies with the rules. :) ("City of York", much larger than the historical city, and a good bit larger than the City of York District within North Yorkshire of 74 to whenever, is a UA now - and as it's entitlement under the quota is very close to 2 seats, they couldn't keep it grouped with N Yorkshire anyways - as they did wherever they could make a case for that, basically.)

Oh yes, that's certainly true. York Outer was the best they could have done in the circumstances.
And I would have been very angry if they had got rid of the City of York constituency...

Same here. As an historic city and old 'county town' it would have been a travesty to demolish it.

The North West (excuding Cumbria for reasons of space)

() (http://imageshack.us)

UPDATED: with Greater Manchester changes

No longer!

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/review_areas/Greater_Manchester_Boroughs/

Thank Christ!

I'll double check them and see what changes, if any, there are top the borders above.

EDIT- Some significant changes in Oldham, Rochdale and Tameside. I'll update in a minute or so.

EDIT...AGAIN - Done :)

Looking at the changes from the original proposals (and, just as significantly, the areas that didn't change) it seems as though Labour won this hands down (in fact they were very close to accepting Labour's counter-proposals in their entirity). The LibDems lost badly in Oldham/Rochdale, while the Tories did as badly in Bolton/Salford/Trafford.

...comments on the notional figures...

1. What Rochdale notionally is now is uncertain; the LibDems sure as hell weren't happy with the boundary changes there... what makes that especially bitter for them is that the intial proposals in Oldham/Rochdale were very good for them...

...comments on the boundaries...

1. I like the look of the new Liverpool boundaries. Very retro.
2. The Cheshire boundaries are horrible, but they always are, so...
3. I don't like the new Greater Manchester boundaries much (but again, I didn't like the old ones either) but they are a lot better than the alternatives. My main complaint is some of the names; the word "Manchester" should be in front of every seat containing part of Manchester. And I intent to refer to them as such.
4. Again I don't like the new "Lancs" boundaries (but didn't like the old ones either). Lancaster & Fleetwood looks ugly, but is a lot better than Lancaster & Wyre. The new Ribble Valley makes more sense than the old one (and, amusingly, has some potential as a Labour (!) target...). I do think that those areas currently in "Lancashire" that were once in Yorkshire should be returned (and I would say this even if that didn't mean a larger Labour majority in Pendle and a shakier Tory one in Ribble Valley...)
5. I am very, very glad to see the boundary commision see sense over Ashton-under-Lyne.
6. I bet Ruth Kelly is pleased with the Bolton West changes...

The East Midlands

() (http://imageshack.us)

The changes in Northants actually help Labour a little, but not enough to over turn the new Tory majorities in Kettering, Wellingborough etc...

What will be interesting is Leicestershire Northwest, while Loughborough and Broxtowe will no doubt attract more attention, the result in Leicestershire Northwest will provide some interesting indicators for how the election is playing out across the rest of the region.

Corby is also an interesting seat, a sizable rural vote but also a large Labour inclined blue collar vote in the town of Corby itself, if the Tories win the seat they are probably making inroad amongst voters from lower income groups, the same could also be said to be the case of Leicestershire Northwest.

But I’m rambling…     

Now, I've got to the East Midlands yet (I'm working on the constituencies by area in increasing order of size and am currently on Yorkshire), but if you are suggesting a 5% swing from Lab to Con (Lab -5% Con +5% Lib Dem Unchanged Others Unchanged), that indicates a swing of 2.5% from Lab to Lib Dem which would (by 2005 standards) send Derby South and Leicester South into the Lib Dem column, correct?

Comments on notional figures...

I'm not sure about Kettering or Wellingborough; the wards removed from Kettering are extremely Tory and tend to have high turnouts. IIRC the Tories narrowly won the most County Council votes in the new Kettering seat (and that's probably what the notional figures are based on) but Labour tend to poll a bit worse in County Council elections and Sawford is popular in Kettering itself.
The wards leaving Wellingborough are more mixed, but the seat was also closer in '05. Either way both would have majorities under 1,000.

Comments on the boundaries...

1. I prefer the new Derbyshire boundaries to the old ones, although the absurdly named "Mid Derbyshire" looks a little ugly (it's better than the original proposals for the Derby area though). I especially like the changes to High Peak. The new Derby South is much better as well.
2. I still dislike the Notts boundaries, but they aren't *that* bad...
3. I can't say that I like the Lincs boundaries much either... some of the lines are really very artificial...
4. Again, I don't like the Leicestershire boundaries. I prefered the general layout as was before 1983 (especially as regards Bosworth).
5. I don't especially like the Northants changes, but they're better than the previous set of boundaries. They should have brought back the old Kettering seat (they would have had to rename it Kettering & Corby o/c) or combined the towns of Kettering and Wellingborough... and I still dislike the fact that Daventry is in the seat that it is, but there's not a lot that can be done about that (unless a Northants Boroughs seat is created ;D)... at least they killed off the existing Northampton South...

It could. That is presuming that there will be a national 'uniform' swing to the Lid Dems at all. I chose (with the limited info that Wells released) a basic old fashioned unrealistic 5% swing towards the Conservatives and away from Labour in Lab/Con marginals and away from the Lib Dems in Lib/Con marginals, simply for comparison and really nothing more :)

A 2.5% swing to the Lib Dems in Lab/Lib marginals would see them pick up

Oxford East
Edinburgh South
Islington South and Finsbury
Oldham East and Saddleworth (pre final boundaries)
Watford (though as a tight 3 way marginal it would probably got Tory)
Hampstead and Kilburn
Aberdeen South

Wells has stated that Oldham East becomes much safter for Labour, a 400 maj compared to a 500 maj under the old boundaries.

Leicester South would fall on a 4.39 swing and Derby North would fall on a 4.43 swing (!?)

Boundary changes around Derby were quite radical; Derby South is now a constituency that fits the name (and it becomes bomb-proof Labour by my reckoning, don't know what Wells thinks), while Derby North would better be called Derby North West; it'll now stretch from Labour voting wards north of the city centre to the LibDem strongholds (in local politics at least) in the western side of the city. The Tories three best wards in the city are all removed to Mid Derbyshire.
I think it was a Labour plan.

They removed Hathersage IIRC?

Yep. They finally realised that Hathersage et al have (almost literally) nothing to do with the communities on the western side of the Peak. I'm also happy about the electoral implications o/c (although even if those were tiny, I'd still be pleased).

The South East and London

() (http://imageshack.us)

And another 5% swing

() (http://imageshack.us)

May I ask that the moderator merges this discussion with the discussion I launched about my calculations (as they appear to be the same thing). I have e-mailed Martin Baxter and he says that my calculations are indeed correct. So at the first stage (based on % similarity with the old constituencies), the notional results for 2005 are:

Labour 347 + Speaker = 348
Conservatives 213
Liberal Democrats 60
Northern Ireland Parties 18
Scottish Nationalists 6
Plaid Cymru 2
Independent (Peter Law) 1
Independent (Richard Taylor) 1
Respect (George Galloway) 1
Labour majority of 46

The Labour majority is based on it's 23 most marginal seats which are:

Clwyd West
Crawley
Battersea
Warwick and Leamington
Stroud
Gillingham and Rainham
Rochester and Strood
Hove
Dartford
Finchley and Golders Green
Somerset North East
High Peak
Portsmouth North
Stourbridge
City of Chester
Hastings and Rye
Cardiff North
Calder Valley
Wirral West
Burton
Swindon South
Corby

I would prefer it if this thread stayed seperate. I'm offering a series of maps for a region by region analysis to show a visual impact of the boundary changes. I'm also using Anthony Well's methodology, not Baxters. While both have their flaws, (as does Rawlings and Thrasher when they get round to it) and Baxters results are more freely avaliable I've decided to go with Wells due to his consideration of voting differences 'within' constituencies.