UK Parliamentary boundary change mania

[RBH]

The list of pages of parliamentary lines with the recommended boundary changes is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_UK_Parliamentary_constituencies_in_England

London's likely to go from 74 to 73 seats. Which could create some havoc.

Other changes in the number of districts

Avon: 10 to 11
Cornwall: 5 to 6
Derbyshire: 10 to 11
Devon: 11 to 12
Essex: 17 to 18
Greater Manchester: 28 to 27
Hampshire: 17 to 18
Lancashire: 16 to 17
Merseyside: 16 to 15
Norfolk: 8 to 9
Northamptonshire: 6 to 7
Warwickshire: 5 to 6
West Midlands: 29 to 28
Wiltshire: 6 to 7
South Yorkshire: 15 to 14
West Yorkshire: 14 to 13

So from a quick count, that means 5 more seats.

Any thoughts on the possibilities of boundary changes?

[minionofmidas]

They've all been decided already.
As you'd have noticed if you followed the links.
Or did you mean, any thoughts on the changes' consequences?

[afleitch]

I made a map on this, which Al has hosted somewhere (and kindly coloured in) if you want to compare. I'll hunt down the link.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I made a map on this, which Al has hosted somewhere (and kindly coloured in) if you want to compare. I'll hunt down the link.

Based on the Wells notionals; a map based on the Rallings & Thrasher figures will be made when they're released.

Note that as ward level results are not released, estimates for boundary changes are made from local election results and the like; meaning that you have to be a bit careful. Getting good notional figures is more of an art than a science.

[afleitch]

Thanks Al

Though you have to scrutinise R&T carefully- they have been known to make a few mistakes (Gordon in 1997 rings a bell)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Though you have to scrutinise R&T carefully- they have been known to make a few mistakes (Gordon in 1997 rings a bell)

Oh very true (Forest of Dean in '97 is another o/c), but they have better data than anyone else for this sort of thing.

If only ward results were released

[afleitch]

If only ward results were released

'It's politically sensitive' would be the robotic matra by the powers that be. I've already had my moan about the census etc choosing not to divulge certain information in Scotland rather than letting people be the judge so I won't go on about this

But imagine a map of the 2005 results ward by ward. I'd pay good money (if I had any!) for that.

[minionofmidas]

If only ward results were released

'It's politically sensitive' would be the robotic matra by the powers that be.

If ward figures were released, parties probably would be putting much less work into canvassing.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

'It's politically sensitive' would be the robotic matra by the powers that be. I've already had my moan about the census etc choosing not to divulge certain information in Scotland rather than letting people be the judge so I won't go on about this

Oh, I know that's the reason for it. The fact that ward results for the 2004 elections in London were released makes that argument... less than great though... mind you, those results are very hard to get hold of.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

^^^

[minionofmidas]

'It's politically sensitive' would be the robotic matra by the powers that be. I've already had my moan about the census etc choosing not to divulge certain information in Scotland rather than letting people be the judge so I won't go on about this

Oh, I know that's the reason for it. The fact that ward results for the 2004 elections in London were released makes that argument... less than great though...

Which elections were that?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Which elections were that?

Mayoral, European, GLA-constituency and GLA-list. They were online for a while (and I made a map of the Mayoral election by ward from them) but got taken off at some point.

[freek]

Is there a reason why ward results are not released in the UK?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is there a reason why ward results are not released in the UK?

Bureaucratic stupidity. Not entirely sure what the official reason is though. Probably something about privacy or data protection; which is absurd not just because ward level results are, of course, released for local elections, but also because of the sheer amount of census data that is available at ward level... and at two levels smaller (far, far, far smaller in the one case) than wards.

[Serenity Now]

But imagine a map of the 2005 results ward by ward. I'd pay good money (if I had any!) for that.

Sadly, same here..[/quote]

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Rallings and Thrasher figures have been finished. I've not been able to find the complete set anywhere yet though. They'll turn up somewhere, eventually, though.

On their figures, the Tories are up 12 seats on 2001, Labour down 7 and Plaid Cymru down 1 as well.

The media's coverage of this has been predictably stupid and they've been spinning this as being "good news for Cameron" and so on and so forth. One newspaper (which shall not be named) foolishly claimed that the new boundaries will reduce Labour's inbuilt advantage, while another, even more foolishly, seems to have claimed that the new boundaries give the Tories "an advantage".

Just to be clear why that is so stupid... due to population movements, the Tories will gain seats and Labour lose seats at every boundary review. But due to these same population movements, more and more seats swing towards Labour during the decade or so between that review and the next one (this is partially obscured by national political trends and the like, obviously).
Another thing that should be pointed out here is that, a year or so ago, the media was claiming that the new boundaries would see the Tories notionally gain 20 to 30 odd seats.

...

[Rural Radical]

The Rallings and Thrasher figures have been finished. I've not been able to find the complete set anywhere yet though. They'll turn up somewhere, eventually, though.

On their figures, the Tories are up 12 seats on 2001, Labour down 7 and Plaid Cymru down 1 as well.

The media's coverage of this has been predictably stupid and they've been spinning this as being "good news for Cameron" and so on and so forth. One newspaper (which shall not be named) foolishly claimed that the new boundaries will reduce Labour's inbuilt advantage, while another, even more foolishly, seems to have claimed that the new boundaries give the Tories "an advantage".

Just to be clear why that is so stupid... due to population movements, the Tories will gain seats and Labour lose seats at every boundary review. But due to these same population movements, more and more seats swing towards Labour during the decade or so between that review and the next one (this is partially obscured by national political trends and the like, obviously).
Another thing that should be pointed out here is that, a year or so ago, the media was claiming that the new boundaries would see the Tories notionally gain 20 to 30 odd seats.

...

Its notional.i.e. best guess really. It doesnt mean a lot and the actual results will be very different (either way) when it comes down to raw votes.

As for Cameron (Is he pro or anti Thatcher at the moment?) he does well notionally, but when it comes down to raw votes (Bromley by election) he isnt that great.

[Harry Hayfield]

I've ordered the book (and it should arrive in a week or so) so was wondering would you like me to post comparsions between the three different calculations we have (Baxter's, Wells and Thrasher and Rallings) to see the range that can be produced and if so, which constituencies would members like posted?

[Rural Radical]

fleetwood & lancaster please

[minionofmidas]

All that underwent changes, of course. -_-

Well, I wouldn't mind if you left out those constituencies universally agreed to be safe, except where there's an unusually large range.