UK parliamentary boundary review

[YL]

Which, if true, is rather less beneficial for the Tories than some previous boundary reviews.

Yes, this was widely predicted to be the case as the 2019 election lead to more Tory seats in non-traditionally Tory areas.

That, and also that the declining population trend in many urban cores has stopped or reversed.  E.g. London gains two seats, both of which are Labour, and I think Glasgow Central is the only abolished seat which could reasonably be described as "big city".

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Though there's also the issue that, as in the 1995 Review, the Conservatives did not do a very good job in their responses to the initial proposals, with the extra issue of a lot of MPs putting forward their own self-interested submissions, frequently conflicting with both official party submissions and those from other MPs...

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

How often does the government do a boundary review?

[EastAnglianLefty]

How often does the government do a boundary review?

It varies. The current process (where reviews are carried out by external Boundary Commissions) was established in 1949 and it was intended that it should operate every five years, so some seats were created by Act of Parliament in 1950 but abolished in 1955. This was unpopular and a new system was implemented where it would happen approximately every 10-15 years.

The Coalition went back to five year reviews, but the final proposals required parliamentary approval, which neither of the previous two attempts got. It's now been changed so that the changes take place automatically, with five year reviews going forward, but I wouldn't bet against that being changed to 10 or 15 years by a future government to minimise disruption.

[YL]

How often does the government do a boundary review?

It varies. The current process (where reviews are carried out by external Boundary Commissions) was established in 1949 and it was intended that it should operate every five years, so some seats were created by Act of Parliament in 1950 but abolished in 1955. This was unpopular and a new system was implemented where it would happen approximately every 10-15 years.

The Coalition went back to five year reviews, but the final proposals required parliamentary approval, which neither of the previous two attempts got. It's now been changed so that the changes take place automatically, with five year reviews going forward, but I wouldn't bet against that being changed to 10 or 15 years by a future government to minimise disruption.

It was already changed to eight years by the 2020 Act, so unless further legislation is passed on this the next review will report in 2031.

[CumbrianLefty]

Though there's also the issue that, as in the 1995 Review, the Conservatives did not do a very good job in their responses to the initial proposals, with the extra issue of a lot of MPs putting forward their own self-interested submissions, frequently conflicting with both official party submissions and those from other MPs...

And just as back then, this is symbolic of the breakdown in Tory discipline more generally.

[Harry Hayfield]

It is headlines like this that shows the media have no understanding of boundary changes. A 15% Labour lead is a swing of 13.5% from Con to Lab, which on the current boundaries would result in a Labour majority of 26, but we all know that in 1997 Labour went into the election with a 18% swing and came out with a national swing of 10%, therefore are the I running this story to scare Sunak or to show that they are on the verge of supporting Labour?

[CumbrianLefty]

Apropos of not much, but why have some right wing posters here started sporting dark red avatars?

[YL]

The Election Maps UK "nowcast" is going to be using the new boundaries from tomorrow.  Some constituency figures can be made out from this tweet:
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1696933112565940717

[YL]

As advertised:
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast

It provides a nice map of the new boundaries, even if you don't believe the projections.

Personally I think the projections are not too bad as these things go, and a landslide is always going to produce some odd looking results, but I certainly wouldn't take them as the gospel truth

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One issue is incorporating the dreadful Redfield & Wilton attempts at polling Wales into their model.

[Torrain]

Taking it all with a pinch of salt of course. But there are still some pretty wild results in there that are highly engaging if nothing else. Both Isle of Wight seats going Labour for one. Rees-Mogg and Coffey going down to a narrow defeats. Frome and East Somerset turning into a true three-way marginal that costs the Lib Dems victory over the Tories. Rosie Duffield somehow winning a 20k majority. I could go on.

Scottish results are wildly marginal in some seats - Lib Dems lose Mid Dumbartonshire (successor to the old Swinson seat) by 30 votes, Mhairi Black's seat stays SNP by 163 votes. East Kilbridge and Strathaven stays SNP by 12 votes, thanks to the Tory vote holding up, despite a huge swing to Labour. Starting to see why the exit poll has such a margin of error up here, compared to the country at large.

Lots of seats turn into three-way marginals under the model - with the Lib Dems boxed out of SNP-Tory-Labour races in seats they used to win, and where the SNP are most reliably placed to hold on. That's basically the story of the whole west coast, from Ayrshire, through Argyll, up to Ross and Cromerty.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Taking it all with a pinch of salt of course. But there are still some pretty wild results in there that are highly engaging if nothing else. Both Isle of Wight seats going Labour for one. Rees-Mogg and Coffey going down to a narrow defeats. Frome and East Somerset turning into a true three-way marginal that costs the Lib Dems victory over the Tories. Rosie Duffield somehow winning a 20k majority. I could go on.

I would say that Rees-Mogg losing would not be a massive surprise. It's less Labour than the old Wansdyke, but that was comfortably Labour in 1997 and it's full of the sorts of voters the Tories have spent the past two years pissing off. Similarly, much as she's mad, I don't think a stonking majority in Canterbury is at all unlikely.

There are definitely issues with a lot of the random rural seats going Labour, however. To me the classic example is Central Devon - I just don't understand the theory of change for how a seat whose largest towns are Okehampton and Crediton and which has no historic or present industry is supposed to be a viable Labour target.

[robocop]

As advertised:
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast

It provides a nice map of the new boundaries, even if you don't believe the projections.

Personally I think the projections are not too bad as these things go, and a landslide is always going to produce some odd looking results, but I certainly wouldn't take them as the gospel truth

Still looks to me like another lazy forecast that did their calculations by applying the predicted national vote to all seats completely ignoring the likelihood of Lib Dem tactical voting in numerous areas and possible Lib Dem revivals in Conservative held areas where they were competitive in until the 2015 collapse.

[CumbrianLefty]

It is headlines like this that shows the media have no understanding of boundary changes. A 15% Labour lead is a swing of 13.5% from Con to Lab, which on the current boundaries would result in a Labour majority of 26, but we all know that in 1997 Labour went into the election with a 18% swing and came out with a national swing of 10%, therefore are the I running this story to scare Sunak or to show that they are on the verge of supporting Labour?

Even assuming the former figure is actually correct*, polling then was mostly rather different to now - and even if it wasn't, something happening once does not mean it inevitably will again.

(*which I'm pretty sure it isn't tbh - maybe the *best* polls for Labour were saying that at the time)

[JimJamUK]

There are definitely issues with a lot of the random rural seats going Labour, however. To me the classic example is Central Devon - I just don't understand the theory of change for how a seat whose largest towns are Okehampton and Crediton and which has no historic or present industry is supposed to be a viable Labour target.

I agree, but Labour have done relatively well there the past couple of elections so clearly there’s some Labour potential, even if UNS ignores there’s probably also a relatively low ceiling.

[Coldstream]

There are definitely issues with a lot of the random rural seats going Labour, however. To me the classic example is Central Devon - I just don't understand the theory of change for how a seat whose largest towns are Okehampton and Crediton and which has no historic or present industry is supposed to be a viable Labour target.

I agree, but Labour have done relatively well there the past couple of elections so clearly there’s some Labour potential, even if UNS ignores there’s probably also a relatively low ceiling.

It’s also a case of people being priced out of Exeter and moving out to the suburbs/rural dormitories. I don’t think we’ll win Central Devon, but if we get to ~430 seats it should be on the list.

[Oryxslayer]

I mean, at the end of the day, all constituency models like this are just best guess estimates.  Partially because of how swing behaves when the change is so large, Partially because the subsamples that would be required to determine relative concentrated change are small with high MOE,  and Partially cause it's now and the election is a year away.

However,  there is also one new reason we also have to take into consideration.  The limited evidence we have right now suggests a high level of tactical voting among the Lib-Dems, Labour, and Greens when relevant, in order to defeat the Conservatives. Who knows how long this will persist after Labour take power, but it is a thing right now. And obviously models can't really measure this phenomenon, except maybe the YouGov MRP. It's unlikely therefore that the Lib-Dems lose any seat where the Tories are the challenger. There also will probably be a lot more Lib-Dem gains than we expect.  The flip side of this though is that Labour’s seat count will probably be lower: not cause they are losing winnable seats, but because they aren't going to get the random out-of-nowhere marginal flips we see in the model. Because in those areas, the tactical voting may not go in the direction of Labour. 

[Torrain]

Oh, I'm definitely not punching down on Electionmapsuk - guy produces some great content, and it's nice to have a first look at how the new seats could play. Just always amused by some of the outliers that universal swing, on untested boundaries, will produce!

And definitely agree that tactical voting should positively impact a fair number of races for the Lib Dem races.

[Coldstream]

I mean, at the end of the day, all constituency models like this are just best guess estimates.  Partially because of how swing behaves when the change is so large, Partially because the subsamples that would be required to determine relative concentrated change are small with high MOE,  and Partially cause it's now and the election is a year away.

However,  there is also one new reason we also have to take into consideration.  The limited evidence we have right now suggests a high level of tactical voting among the Lib-Dems, Labour, and Greens when relevant, in order to defeat the Conservatives. Who knows how long this will persist after Labour take power, but it is a thing right now. And obviously models can't really measure this phenomenon, except maybe the YouGov MRP. It's unlikely therefore that the Lib-Dems lose any seat where the Tories are the challenger. There also will probably be a lot more Lib-Dem gains than we expect.  The flip side of this though is that Labour’s seat count will probably be lower: not cause they are losing winnable seats, but because they aren't going to get the random out-of-nowhere marginal flips we see in the model. Because in those areas, the tactical voting may not go in the direction of Labour. 

Not convinced by this argument. If you take Chesham, Tiverton as representative then yes - but they were battered with Lib Dem propaganda in a by-election.

Realistically, the Lib Dem’s will not be able to seriously context more than 40-60 seats (and that’s being generous) for financial & other resource reasons. And whilst they may well get some on top of that (and I’d say it’s quite likely if the Tory vote continues to disintegrate), I think Labour are more likely to get the random flips of 15-20k majorities where we are second than the Lib Dem’s are to come from third in seats they can’t batter.

[EastAnglianLefty]

There are definitely issues with a lot of the random rural seats going Labour, however. To me the classic example is Central Devon - I just don't understand the theory of change for how a seat whose largest towns are Okehampton and Crediton and which has no historic or present industry is supposed to be a viable Labour target.

I agree, but Labour have done relatively well there the past couple of elections so clearly there’s some Labour potential, even if UNS ignores there’s probably also a relatively low ceiling.

It’s also a case of people being priced out of Exeter and moving out to the suburbs/rural dormitories. I don’t think we’ll win Central Devon, but if we get to ~430 seats it should be on the list.

But this seat doesn't really have any of those (except for maybe Kenn Valley ward and at a real stretch Okehampton). People may move to Torquay or Exmouth or Honiton because they can't afford Exeter, they don't move to the middle of Dartmoor. I don't know how we overperformed the demographics so much in 2019, but it's not an edge of conurbation seat as I would understand it.

[YL]

But this seat doesn't really have any of those (except for maybe Kenn Valley ward and at a real stretch Okehampton). People may move to Torquay or Exmouth or Honiton because they can't afford Exeter, they don't move to the middle of Dartmoor. I don't know how we overperformed the demographics so much in 2019, but it's not an edge of conurbation seat as I would understand it.

I think some of them do move to Crediton, but I still don’t think I’ve seen a convincing explanation for Labour’s relative strength in that seat, and it’s clearly that over-performance which is causing the model to see it as a potential gain in a landslide scenario.

I do wonder whether there’s some parallel to the Peak District wards where Labour has started winning (e.g. Hathersage or Bradwell in Dales and Hayfield or Sett in High Peak) but I haven’t looked to see whether there are any real similarities in demographics, and Exeter is hardly Sheffield or Manchester.

[Coldstream]

There are definitely issues with a lot of the random rural seats going Labour, however. To me the classic example is Central Devon - I just don't understand the theory of change for how a seat whose largest towns are Okehampton and Crediton and which has no historic or present industry is supposed to be a viable Labour target.

I agree, but Labour have done relatively well there the past couple of elections so clearly there’s some Labour potential, even if UNS ignores there’s probably also a relatively low ceiling.

It’s also a case of people being priced out of Exeter and moving out to the suburbs/rural dormitories. I don’t think we’ll win Central Devon, but if we get to ~430 seats it should be on the list.

But this seat doesn't really have any of those (except for maybe Kenn Valley ward and at a real stretch Okehampton). People may move to Torquay or Exmouth or Honiton because they can't afford Exeter, they don't move to the middle of Dartmoor. I don't know how we overperformed the demographics so much in 2019, but it's not an edge of conurbation seat as I would understand it.

Central Devon isn’t just Dartmoor though, in fact that’s only about 1/3 of its landmass - Exminster functionally is a suburb of Exeter now and is part of the constituency. All those little villages to the west of Exeter have the overspill nowadays.

Also it’s not that different to how East Devon revolted against the Tories and nearly elected an independent in 17 & 19 (at the very least came closer to electing one than Central Devon did to electing a Labour Mp) - which makes sense cos there’s more Exeter overspill there.

And if you look at both seats, the Tory vote hasn’t really changed since 2005 (in fact it’s gone up a bit iirc) - it’s just the Lib Dem NOTA vote disintegrated, and in Central Devon after voting UKIP in 2015 went to Labour (and went independent in East Devon).

Perhaps what’s notable about Central Devon is that people abandoning the Lib Dem’s went to Labour - and in 2019 didn’t go back.

[CumbrianLefty]

Central Devon isn’t just Dartmoor though, in fact that’s only about 1/3 of its landmass

And to state the obvious, not that many people actually live there.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I suspect the issue is the same as Hereford and a lot of the oppositional vote that used to plump for the Liberals ended up defaulting to Labour in 2017 for want of any alternative and mostly stayed that way in 2019 for the same reason. Central Devon is a very rural constituency and must have one of the highest percentage of its workforce employed in agriculture in England. Crediton is one of those West Country towns that is a bit more industrial than you'd assume at first, of course. It also suggests that Mel Stride is not a very well-liked incumbent, as 55% in 2019 is a howlingly awful showing for a constituency with that sort of profile.