Complete (Wells) notional figures are out

[Filuwaúrdjan]

GO HERE

These are the best set of notionals we well get until Rallings & Thrasher finish there's (who do the ones the media use).
In general there tends to be a slight bias to the Tories in Wells's figures (so thinketh I anyway) but this is only a major problem in a handful of constituencies.
Regardless, these numbers are far better than the Baxter figures.

I'll probably make a notional majorities map in a bit...

[afleitch]

I've been waiting for these

Have you got a map to work with? I've still got one based on Boothroyd's kicking about.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've been waiting for these

Have you got a map to work with? I've still got one based on Boothroyd's kicking about.

I'm using the regional ones you did a while ago, but if you've got a national one I'd prefer to use that

[Harry Hayfield]

As have I and it tells us something very interesting as well.

After Election 2005, the Conservatives needed 126 gains to get an overall majority of 1, this would have occured on a swing to Con of 6.3%, now they need 112 gains on a swing of 6.1% (0.2% may not sound like much, but at the last election it equals 26,430 (or less than half the electorate of the average seat).

Secondly, this is the first set of boundary changes that benefit the Lib Dems. Past boundary changes have been very poor on them. The 1983 changes saw them lose two seats, the 1997 changes lost them two seats as well, so to gain 1 this time around is very good news.

Thirdly, look at target number 112 for the Conservatives. Tooting in Central London. The last time Tooting voted Conservative in a three party situation like now? Never. That shows just how unlikely a Con win is at the next election.

[afleitch]

I've been waiting for these

Have you got a map to work with? I've still got one based on Boothroyd's kicking about.

I'm using the regional ones you did a while ago, but if you've got a national one I'd prefer to use that

I'll send it through to you. It's been tidied up a few times since I first made it and there may be a few mistakes here and there but it is as clean as I could make it

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And here's the map:



Note that, in radically altered constituencies, a majority of under 2% might as well be classed as too close to call (and that alone is why you should beware any over seat change numbers).
And as with any set of notional figures, some constituencies will just be plain wrong (this is most likely to have occured in some of the Welsh seats in this case; this is due to a combination of lot's of unopposed returns, independent councillers/candidates and parties sometimes not running candidates in wards where they have a good vote).

[Harry Hayfield]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, but the idea of constituencies inside constituencies is plain stupid, and I was beginning to think that the Boundary Commission were getting the general idea it was stupid as well.

In my opinion these are the worst offenders:

Elections 1983 - 1992:
Great Grimsby inside Brigg and Cleethropes
Carlisle inside Penrith and the Border
Cheltenham inside Circencester and Tewkesbury
Bath inside Wansdyke

Elections 1997 - 2005:
Colchester inside Essex North
Carlisle inside Penrith and the Border

Elections 2009 onwards:
York Central inside York Outer (and what sort of a name is York Outer anyway?)
Great Grimsby inside Brigg and Cleethropes (again)
Bath inside Somerset North (again)

[afleitch]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, but the idea of constituencies inside constituencies is plain stupid

I take the exact opposite view and in particular wish it could be applied to the Mets. I am sick and tired of the commission taking a town and its suburbs and halfing the lot down the middle to create two seats. I much prefer the core of the town having its own seat and the suburbs having a seat like this



It's nothing new, it was only after the 70's that seats of this nature began to dissapear in parts of the country. If it means a few 'do-nut' seats then I'm fine- better York Inner and Outer than York W/E or N/S unnaturally slicing down the middle of the city.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah yes; the old doughnut v sandwich debate... I tend to prefer doughnuts, as sandwiches tend to quite artificial in some respects. Historcially doughnuts were prefered, as the people drawing the boundaries believed (up to a point) in the idea that constituencies should be based on communities and groups of communities, rather than have them as arbitary units.

---
And from a partisan point of view...

Looking at that map and remembering recent electoral developments, Labour probably has a better chance of making gains in constituencies that didn't vote Labour in 1997, than in some seats lost just last year (admittedly the idea that we're more likely to see a Labour M.P for Beverley & Holderness in the near future than one for Welwyn-Hatfield isn't exactly controversial, but it's worth thinking about for a minute).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just spotted an error on me map; I got Braintree and Witham mixed up. Majority in Braintree is 20%+, in Witham 15%+.
Apologies.

[afleitch]

Just spotted an error on me map; I got Braintree and Witham mixed up. Majority in Braintree is 20%+, in Witham 15%+.
Apologies.

I've just noticed Guildford is Labour

[Serenity Now]

Just spotted an error on me map; I got Braintree and Witham mixed up. Majority in Braintree is 20%+, in Witham 15%+.
Apologies.

I've just noticed Guildford is Labour

Just what I was about to say.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I knew I'd rushed the Southeast a bit. Wait a sec...

Edit: changes made.

[Harry Hayfield]

Now that we have the bases worked out, here's a little challenge for everyone:

Average September Opinion Polls

Conservatives 37.0% (+3.8% on 2005)
Labour 33.5% (-2.7% on 2005)
Liberal Democrats 19.5% (-3.1% on 2005)
Others 10.0% (+2.0% on 2005)

Labour to Conservative swing of 3.25%
Liberal Democrat to Conservative swing of 3.45%
Liberal Democrat to Labour swing of 0.2%

New maps and House of Commons composition if you please?

[Ben.]

New maps and House of Commons composition if you please?

Steady on... I'm sure Al has a life beyond making very impressive forcast maps for the next election

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

OK, here's what I've got using the following shifts:

20% of the Big 3 to Other (split evenly)

then

Tory = Tory + 10% Labour +20% LibDem
LibDem = 80% LibDem +1% Labour
Labour = 89% Labour

(Let me know if you want those %'s changed, that's easy to do)

For the A's the Tories gain Aberconwy from Labour and Airdrie and Shotts and Argyll and Bute from the Lib Dems, while Plaid Cymru gains Arfon from Labour.

(If anyone has already done a spreadsheet with the Wells notionals so I don't have to type them in myself, I'd really appreciate it.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think there might actually be a spreadsheet of them on his site. Not sure though.

Btw, I just noticed the South Staffs figures. The Tories better hope that Cormack (who has a very large personal vote) doesn't retire.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Took a bit, but I found *.csv file (linked to from the FAQ).

Since I don't feel like looking through all of those, let me just point out the seats the nationalist parties (SNP and PC) gain from my figuring and the Totals

PC gains 3 seats: Arfon, Ceredigion, and Ynys Mons from Labour.

SNP gains 2 seats: Dundee West and Ochil and South Perthshire from Labour.

Tories   345
Labour   252
LibDem   18
SNP   8
PC   5
Other   4
NI   18

[Serenity Now]

Brighton Pavilion now looks safe enough for Labour, but I'd be interested to know whos likely to make more gains, Green or Conservative..

Do any national opinion polls show how the Greens are doing?

[afleitch]

Brighton Pavilion now looks safe enough for Labour, but I'd be interested to know whos likely to make more gains, Green or Conservative..

Do any national opinion polls show how the Greens are doing?

Expect Green gains in Holyrood next May They are currently registering around 6% but I expect them to gain up to 10% of the regional vote.

[Rural Radical]

Ah yes; the old doughnut v sandwich debate... I tend to prefer doughnuts, as sandwiches tend to quite artificial in some respects. Historcially doughnuts were prefered, as the people drawing the boundaries believed (up to a point) in the idea that constituencies should be based on communities and groups of communities, rather than have them as arbitary units.

---
And from a partisan point of view...

Looking at that map and remembering recent electoral developments, Labour probably has a better chance of making gains in constituencies that didn't vote Labour in 1997, than in some seats lost just last year (admittedly the idea that we're more likely to see a Labour M.P for Beverley & Holderness in the near future than one for Welwyn-Hatfield isn't exactly controversial, but it's worth thinking about for a minute).

What seats do you think are realistic gains for Labour.

The village I was born in has moved seats (St Helens South & Whiston)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What seats do you think are realistic gains for Labour.

Hard to say that this stage; up to a point it depends on candidates. The boundary changes are just about radical enough to force some major strategic changes as far as Labour goes. What worked in 2001 will never work again and I don't think that what worked in 2005 will either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which means it will now be stuck with Woodward as it's M.P; unless he's deselected or retires.

[Harry Hayfield]

Top 20 Labour Targets (National swing of 1% to Lab needed to gain)
1   Portsmouth North
2   Sittingbourne and Sheppey
3   Ealing Central and Acton
4   Kettering
5   Clwyd West
6   Shipley
7   Rugby
8   Hemel Hempstead
9   Oxford East
10   Somerset North East
11   Wirral West
12   Rochdale
13   Dundee East
14   Gillingham and Rainham
15   Manchester Withington
16   Bristol West
17   Gravesham
18   Thanet South
19   Preseli Pembrokeshire
20   Reading East