Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 24, 2014, 07:19:10 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  International Elections (Moderator: PASOK Leader Hashemite)
| | |-+  2009/10 boundary changes. Part I: UPDATED
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: 2009/10 boundary changes. Part I: UPDATED  (Read 9727 times)
Rural Radical
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 401
United Kingdom


View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 02, 2006, 03:15:16 pm »
Ignore

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.
Certainly was. Labour s majority will creep back up.
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...
I think I will cry into my beer whebn he loses Cool
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...
A one term Mp if ever I saw one. Her husband was soley responsible for their being a Tory Mp for Shrewsbury.
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.

I thought it would be Knife edge without Kidsgrove ?
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.
Agree on both. Al knows my views on these two.
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...

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

"A week is a long time in Politics"
Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56201
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 02, 2006, 03:17:42 pm »
Ignore

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...

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...
Logged

afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21769


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: April 02, 2006, 03:28:39 pm »
Ignore

Up next Yorkshire



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

Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56201
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 02, 2006, 04:27:18 pm »
Ignore

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 Grin

...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? Smiley
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?
Logged

Harry Hayfield
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1784
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #29 on: April 03, 2006, 04:11:14 pm »
Ignore

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?
Logged

Voice from the South West
Rookie
*
Posts: 29


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: April 03, 2006, 04:19:52 pm »
Ignore

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...

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.
Logged
Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56201
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 03, 2006, 04:47:52 pm »
Ignore

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)?

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).

Quote
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?

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.
Logged

Dave from Michigan
9iron768
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3296
United States


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: April 03, 2006, 05:01:54 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Harry Hayfield
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1784
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: April 03, 2006, 05:15:42 pm »
Ignore

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)
Logged

Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56201
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2006, 05:20:36 pm »
Ignore

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.

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. 

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

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

Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56201
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 04, 2006, 07:55:21 am »
Ignore

I'm not sure Hemming had that much credibility in the first place.

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

Quote
Quite frankly I'm amazed the people for Yardley have fallen for him in the first place (or does John "get things done us"?)

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.

Quote
if Hemming stood anyware else I'm sure he would get hammered

That he would, especially now.

Quote
I'm fairly sure he would go down like a lead balloon in the South West, that's for sure.

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

Voice from the South West
Rookie
*
Posts: 29


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: April 04, 2006, 08:05:51 am »
Ignore

I'm not sure Hemming had that much credibility in the first place.

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

Quote
Quite frankly I'm amazed the people for Yardley have fallen for him in the first place (or does John "get things done us"?)

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.

Quote
if Hemming stood anyware else I'm sure he would get hammered

That he would, especially now.

Quote
I'm fairly sure he would go down like a lead balloon in the South West, that's for sure.


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...

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

Well far be it from me to think such things Smiley
Logged
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58783
India


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: April 04, 2006, 02:19:04 pm »
Ignore

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. Smiley ("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.)
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56201
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 04, 2006, 04:09:58 pm »
Ignore

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. Smiley

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...
Logged

afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21769


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: April 04, 2006, 04:42:59 pm »
Ignore

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. Smiley

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.
Logged

afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21769


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #40 on: April 05, 2006, 08:10:03 am »
Ignore

The North West (excuding Cumbria for reasons of space)



UPDATED: with Greater Manchester changes
« Last Edit: April 05, 2006, 11:02:27 am by Governor Afleitch »Logged

Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56201
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 on: April 05, 2006, 08:46:36 am »
Ignore

The North West (excuding Cumbria for reasons of space)

Note: The Greater Manchester boundaries are under review.

No longer!

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

afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21769


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #42 on: April 05, 2006, 10:43:00 am »
Ignore

The North West (excuding Cumbria for reasons of space)

Note: The Greater Manchester boundaries are under review.

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 Smiley
« Last Edit: April 05, 2006, 11:02:56 am by Governor Afleitch »Logged

Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56201
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #43 on: April 05, 2006, 11:20:19 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56201
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #44 on: April 05, 2006, 02:58:10 pm »
Ignore

...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...
Logged

afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21769


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: April 06, 2006, 06:51:19 pm »
Ignore

The East Midlands

Logged

Ben.
Ben
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4219


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: April 07, 2006, 02:23:18 am »
Ignore


The East Midlands




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 Iím ramblingÖ     
Logged

.Britainís Mayor.
Harry Hayfield
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1784
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #47 on: April 07, 2006, 02:54:13 am »
Ignore

The East Midlands



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?
Logged

Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56201
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #48 on: April 07, 2006, 03:59:17 am »
Ignore

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 Grin)... at least they killed off the existing Northampton South...
Logged

afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21769


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #49 on: April 07, 2006, 08:19:45 am »
Ignore

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?

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 Smiley

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 (!?)
« Last Edit: April 07, 2006, 08:21:35 am by Governor Afleitch »Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines