2009/10 boundary changes. Part I: UPDATED

[Filuwaúrdjan]

More comments soon, some quick ones now...

secondly, a hypothetical 5% to the Conservatives

Is that the swing needed for a majority or something?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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...)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agree actually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

(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...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's because they are hypocrites.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

...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?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That he would, especially now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

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...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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/

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...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...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I especially like the changes to High Peak.

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).