2009/10 boundary changes. Part I: UPDATED

[afleitch]

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



And with a 5% Swing....



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%

[Sibboleth]

More comments soon, some quick ones now...

secondly, a hypothetical 5% to the Conservatives

Is that the swing needed for a majority or something?

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

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...

[afleitch]

secondly, a hypothetical 5% to the Conservatives

Is that the swing needed for a majority or something?

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%.

[Rural Radical]

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 ?

[Sibboleth]

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

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

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%.

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

[afleitch]

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.

[Sibboleth]

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.

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

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.

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).

[afleitch]

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

[Voice from the South West]

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

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.

[afleitch]

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.

[Voice from the South West]

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.

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.

And how it would bring tears of joy to my eyes

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.

[Vasall des Midas]

More comments soon, some quick ones now...

secondly, a hypothetical 5% to the Conservatives

Is that the swing needed for a majority or something?

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

I'm still pissed off that they decided to carry on using the "Avon" joke...

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

[Sibboleth]

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

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...)

[Democratic Hawk]

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

[afleitch]

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

[afleitch]

Up next, the West Midlands



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

[Sibboleth]

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...

[Voice from the South West]

Up next, the West Midlands



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

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

Comments on the notional numbers...

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...

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?

[Vasall des Midas]

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".

[Sibboleth]

Well I don't really know what Hemming's been up to regarding his local situation

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...

but what makes you so sure he'll lose?

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...

Are the boundary changes to Yardley particularly harmful to Hemming then?

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...

[Sibboleth]

Moorlands/Stoke area remapping was quite controversial IIRC,

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.

and the final map is very different from the preliminary recommendations.

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

And Ludlow does NOT need to be renamed.

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...

Nor did Hereford and Leominster need to be renamed.

Agree actually.

at names as ugly as "Hereford & North Herefordshire".

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.

[Vasall des Midas]

Moorlands/Stoke area remapping was quite controversial IIRC,

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.

and the final map is very different from the preliminary recommendations.

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

And Ludlow does NOT need to be renamed.

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...

Nor did Hereford and Leominster need to be renamed.

Agree actually.

at names as ugly as "Hereford & North Herefordshire".

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.

[Sibboleth]

(likes constituency name "Leek", makes mental note to pester next boundary commission to bring it back)

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 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.

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...

In other regions (for example, blocking the renaming of "Hove" to "Hove & Portslade) the Boundary Commission is actually taking the same view.

That's because they are hypocrites.

[Vasall des Midas]

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.

That's what I meant...

[Ben.]

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.