South East European Region

2014 Election
2014 Results
1. Nigel Farage (UKIP) 751439 32.1% (+13.3%)
2. Dan Hannan (Conservative) 723571 30.9% (-3.8%)
3. Janice Atkinson (UKIP) (375720)
4. Nirj Deva (Conservative) (361786)
5. Anneliese Dodds (Labour) 342775 14.7% (+6.4%)
6. Diane James (UKIP) (250480)
7. Richard Ashworth (Conservative) (241190)
8. Keith Taylor (Green) 211706 9.1% (-2.6%)
9. Catherine Bearder (Liberal Democrat) 187876 8% (-6.1%)
10. Ray Finch (UKIP) (187860)
. (Independence from Europe) 45199 1.9% (n/a)
. (English Democrats) 17771 0.8% (-1.5%)
. (BNP) 16909 0.7% (-3.6%)
. (Christian Peoples Alliance) 14893 0.6% (-0.9%)
. (Peace) 10130 0.4% (0%)
. (Socialist Party of GB) 5454 0.2% (n/a)
. (Roman Party Ave!) 2997 0.1% (-0.1%)
. (YOURvoice) 2932 0.1% (n/a)
. (Liberty GB) 2494 0.1% (n/a)
. (Harmony) 1904 0.1% (n/a)
Current sitting MEPs
portrait
Nigel Farage (UKIP) born 1964, Farnborough. Educated at Dulwich College. Former commodity broker. A former Conservative he was a founder member of UKIP in 1993. Contested Itchen, Test and Avon in 1994 European election. Member of the European Parliament for South-East England since 1999. Contested Eastleigh by-election 1994, Salisbury 1997, Bexhill and Battle 2001, South Thanet 2005, Bromley and Chistlehurst 2006 by-election, Buckingham 2010. Leader of UKIP 2006-2009 and since 2010.
portrait
Dan Hannan (Conservative) Born 1971, Peru. Educated at Marlborough College and Oxford University. Journalist and former speechwriter. MEP for South East England since 1999. 
portrait
Janice Atkinson (UKIP) Press advisor. Contested Batley and Spen 2010 for the Conservatives (as Janice Small). MEP for South East since 2014
portrait
Nirj Deva (Conservative) Born 1948, Sri Lanka. Educated at Loughborough University. MP for Brentford and Isleworth 1992-1997. MEP for South East England since 1999. Appointed Deputy Lord Lieutenant for Greater London in 1985.
portrait
Anneliese Dodds (Labour) Born 1978, Scotland. Educated at Oxford University. University lecturer. Contested Billericay 2005, Reading East 2010. MEP for South East since 2014
portrait
Diane James (UKIP) Healthcare consultant. Waverley councillor since 2006, originally elected as an independent. Contested Eastleigh by-election 2012. MEP for South East since 2014
portrait
Richard Ashworth (Conservative) Born 1947, Folkestone. Educated at Kings School Canterbury and Searle-Hayne College. Dairy farmer. Contested North Devon 1997. MEP for South East England since 1999. Leader of the Conservative group in the European Parliament.
portrait
Keith Taylor (Green) Born 1953, Southend. Brighton and Hove councillor 1999-2010. Contested Brighton Pavilion 2001, 2005. MEP since 2010, succeeding upon Caroline Lucas`s election to Parliament.
portrait
Catherine Bearder (Liberal Democrat) Born 1949. Educated at St Christophers, Letchworth. Former Cherwell councillor. Former Oxfordshire county councillor. Contested Banbury 1997, Henley 2001. Contested South-East region 1999, 2004. MEP for South East England since 2009.
portrait
Ray Finch (UKIP) Engineer. Hampshire councillor. Contested Eastleigh 2010. MEP for South East since 2014

Full candidates for the 2014 European election are here.

2009 Election
2009 Results
1. Dan Hannan (Conservative) 812288 34.8% (-0.4%)
2. Nigel Farage (UKIP) 440002 18.8% (-0.7%)
3. Richard Ashworth (Conservative) (406144)
4. Sharon Bowles (Liberal Democrat) 330340 14.1% (-1.2%)
5. Caroline Lucas (Green) 271506 11.6% (+3.8%)
6. Nirj Deva (Conservative) (270763)
7. Marta Andreasen (UKIP) (220001)
8. James Elles (Conservative) (203072)
9. Peter Skinner (Labour) 192592 8.2% (-5.4%)
10. Catherine Bearder (Liberal Democrat) (165170)
. (BNP) 101769 4.4% (+1.4%)
. (English Democrats) 52526 2.2% (+0.9%)
. (Christian) 35712 1.5% (n/a)
. (No2EU) 21455 0.9% (n/a)
. (Libertas) 16767 0.7% (n/a)
. (Socialist Labour) 15484 0.7% (n/a)
. (UK First) 15261 0.7% (n/a)
. (Jury Team) 14172 0.6% (n/a)
. (Peace) 9534 0.4% (-0.2%)
. (Roman Party Ave!) 5450 0.2% (n/a)
Current sitting MEPs
portrait
Dan Hannan (Conservative)Born 1971, Peru. Educated at Marlborough College and Oxford University. Journalist and former speechwriter. MEP for South East England since 1999. 
portrait
Nigel Farage (UKIP)born 1964, Farnborough. Educated at Dulwich College. Former commodity broker. A former Conservative he was a founder member of UKIP in 1993. Contested Itchen, Test and Avon in 1994 European election. Member of the European Parliament for South-East England since 1999. Contested Eastleigh by-election 1994, Salisbury 1997, Bexhill and Battle 2001, South Thanet 2005, Bromley and Chistlehurst 2006 by-election, Buckingham 2010. Leader of UKIP 2006-2009 and since 2010.
portrait
Richard Ashworth (Conservative) Born 1947, Folkestone. Educated at Kings School Canterbury and Searle-Hayne College. Dairy farmer. Contested North Devon 1997. MEP for South East England since 1999. Leader of the Conservative group in the European Parliament.
portrait
Sharon Bowles (Liberal Democrat) Born 1953, Oxford. Educated at Reading University. Patent attorney. Contested Aylesbury 1992, 1997. MEP for South East England since 2005.
portrait
Keith Taylor (Green) Born 1953, Rochford. Brighton and Hove councillor 1999-2010. Contested Brighton Pavilion 2001, 2005. Principal speaker for the Green party 2004-2006. MEP for South East England since 2010, replacing Caroline Lucas upon her election to Parliament.
portrait
Nirj Deva (Conservative) Born 1948, Sri Lanka. Educated at Loughborough University. MP for Brentford and Isleworth 1992-1997. MEP for South East England since 1999. Appointed Deputy Lord Lieutenant for Greater London in 1985.
portrait
Marta Andreasen (Conservative) Born 1954, Argentina. Former EU chief accountant, fired in 2005 for criticising the EU’s accounting policies. MEP for South East England since 2009. Defected to the Conservatives in February 2013 after falling out with Nigel Farage.
portrait
James Elles (Conservative)Born 1949, London. Educated at Edinburgh University. MEP for Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire 1984-1989, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire East 1994-1999, South East England since 1999.
portrait
Peter Skinner (Labour)Born 1959, Oxford. Educated at St Josephs Secondary Modern, Orpington, and Bradford University. Former business and economics lecturer. MEP for West Kent 1994-1999. MEP for the South East since 1999.
portrait
Catherine Bearder (Liberal Democrat)Born 1949. Educated at St Christophers, Letchworth. Former Cherwell councillor. Former Oxfordshire county councillor. Contested Banbury 1997, Henley 2001. Contested South-East region 1999, 2004. MEP for South East England since 2009.


.

Comments - 1,547 Responses on “Europe South East”
  1. MK=Ok I see what’s going on but truth be told in that situation (mess as it is I agree) I do think the best bet is to take in part of Aylesbury, it is after all part of the same authority and it prevents pairing random swathes of countryside with MK proper creating additional cross authority seats, If you look at present boundaries there are very few instances (if any come to think of it) of neighbouring seats containing territory from the same two authorities (example seat A and B both containing wards from authorities Y and Z) its all about limiting the number of cross authority seats. I suppose all we can hope is that the BC pull some magic with ward splitting and create something nicer but otherwise I’d say dip into Aylesbury.

    B and H= Ok but is splitting Hove in two really any better than pairing it with part of Brighton? There is a reason the authority is called Brighton and Hove and not just Brighton, Hove still has something of an independent streak and I cant see the BC being keen on creating two seats that crosses the unofficial boundary between the two areas. Not to mention it requires a complete re-jig of the area when much less disruptive options are available. Really putting Regency in Hove is the simplest bet, anything else looks a bit “gerrymandery” whether intentional or not. I just can’t see the BC going for that idea. A more practical note though is on the Kemptown seat, I think you pretty much have to add Newhaven Valley, it after all contains the only crossing point across the river Ouse, without it the constituency is dissected. This obviously means splitting Seaford instead and decisions would have to made as to how many of its wards to add etc.

    Will respond to the other areas in another post.

  2. Kent=Ok assuming there were genuine reasons for most of that I’ll focus on the final transfer, why add Ash as well when Hartley alone puts Gravesham within quota?

    Reading E=You must surely admit that looks highly dubious, Its that old issue that I’ve pointed out to you before of trading wards, it looks very suspicious when you move wards a, b and c from seat 1 into seat 2 and replace them with wards y and z from seat 2. Removing a ward that just happens to have significant Lab strength and two wards where the Tories are irritated by the Lib Dems to be replaced with four solid Tory wards…it looks highly suspect. I agree about adding Maiden Erlaigh so as to place Reading Uni in the seat but the rest of the transfers are totally unnecessary.

  3. @rivers10

    re Gravesham, Sevenoaks is nearly at quota and Ash and New Ash Green is the spare ward which can go into Gravesham alongside Hartley.

    re Reading it largely had to do with what I had done further East which involved trying to move all of Wokingham back into the Wokingham seat and all of Bracknell back into the Bracknell seat. I have since undone it because it involved putting Sandhurst and Crowthorne in Windsor which demographically makes sense but the connections are extremely poor. Instead I have removed Loddon and added Maiden Erlegh and Hillside, is that better? Though this arrangement does require Windsor gaining Foxborough from Slough to top it up. You are limited with options in Berkshire the seats are required to be on the small side.

    re Brighton the Brighton East and Seahaven is exactly the seat the commission drew last time and will probably draw again. As for what I’ve done with Brighton and Hove yes you are probably right they will just move Regency into Hove but as I said I oppose moving part of the centre of Brighton into a non Brighton seat, I would have been happy to add Withdean to Hove but the numbers don’t work. this is why I prefer my option.

    re Bucks I’ll take another look but it is a complete mess, it would be easier if it were possible to keep all but one Milton Keynes ward in a Milton Keynes seat but it isn’t possible.

  4. I’ll have a bash at the South East this weekend albeit on my own idiosyncratic principles.

  5. Pepps
    Agree Buckingham is a mess, one of those areas where there are no good options.

    Re Brighton Kemptown it was what the BC proposed last time, I’m just throwing out my usual obsession with connectivity within seats, as far as I see it if your going to split a town anyway might as well add the crossing point.

    Re Reading its better in that you can longer really be accused of gerrymandering, the effects a that point are minimal beyond the initial Tory boost from gaining an additional safe ward. However I do think your making things difficult for yourself. Berkshire is a tricky area and unfortunately some kooky seats have to be drawn but as far as I see in this case the simplest action is the best. I’ll post my plan for Berkshire in another post explaining what I mean.

    As for the Kent area you’ll have to tell me exactly what you’ve done to Sevenoaks, the current Sevenoaks seat is slightly below quota so I don’t know why their are leftover wards?

  6. Right re Berkshire as I see it the simplest option is the best, some of these seats are a bit weird but you’re pretty much forced into them due to trying to avoid cross county seats, seats that cross three or more authorities and the general narrowness of the county. I did the following.

    Newbury=Lose Bucklebury and Aldermaston to Wokingham.

    Wokingham= As well as the above lose Burghfield to Reading West, Maiden Erlaigh to Reading East and Hurst to Maidenhead.

    Reading E/W and Maidenhead=Just explained above.

    Bracknell=Lose Crowthorne, Owlsmoore and College Town to Windsor, Probably rename as “Brackell and Sandhurst”

    Windsor=Explained above

    This is the minimal change approach, doesn’t require any cross county seats or three plus authority seats. The Windsor and Wokingham seats are a bit disjointed but the BC have proposed much worse before today.

  7. For Kent there has to be a cross county seat between it and East Sussex so I have chosen to cross at the High Weald meaning the East of the Tunbridge Wells council area including Paddock Wood is in this seat. Thus Tunbridge Wells shifts east to gain Edenbridge and surrounding areas from Sevenoaks so Sevenoaks gains 5 wards to its immediate east (Rotham, Borough Green, Downs, kings Hill, Wateringbury). Yes I know ths radical change (although this really isn’t radical) is not ideal but due to the necessity of a cross county seat more change than normal is required.

    Yeah its Brighton East and Seahaven is not my favourite seat (its a shame the electorate isn’t just a tad lower then you could add Newhaven Valley anyway) but its obvious that this is what the commission is going to do. It is obvious what they will do with Hove too but I just did something I prefer to provoke a discussion.

    re Berkshire I haven’t made a great deal of change really only a few wards are moving here or there. As far as I can see Windsor must gain Bray so Maidenhead must gain something thus Loddon.

  8. Well I’ve had a go at some proposals. The usual disclaimers apply: (1) I value community ties to a much greater extent than continuity/avoiding multi-borough seats so I do not accept the BCE’s criteria (2) I generally support the Conservatives.

    OXFORDSHIRE AND BERKSHIRE

    1. North Oxfordshire 75,528- Banbury, Chipping Norton, and their environs. Safe Con

    2. East Oxfordshire 76,784- Bicester, Kidlington, Thame and their environs and Marston and Barton from Oxford East. Safe Con

    3. Oxford 75,585- current Oxford East less Marton and Barton plus Jericho, North, St Margarets and Summertown (from Oxford W). A compact Oxford seat uniting the core areas of the city. Safe Lab.

    4. Witney 77,769- current seat less Chipping Norton area plus Yarnton and Wolvercote (from the old Oxford W) Thames and Faringdon from Wantage. Very safe Con.

    5. Abingdon- 77,965- Abingdon and environs plus Wantage, Uffington etc from the old Wantage seat. Safe Con

    6. Henley & Didcot- 77,963, Henley and its environs plus Wallingford and Didcot from the former Wantage seat. Very safe Con.

    7. Newbury 71,737- current seat less Bucklebury and Basildon

    8. South West Berkshire 72,820- a new creation stretching from Basildon in the north west to Shinfield in the south east and taking in villages like Theale and Burghfield as well as the suburbs west of core Reading.

    9. Reading 75,946- opted to unite core Reading into one seat. All of the ‘Reading’ wards of Reading East plus Southcote, Battle, Minster, and Whitley from Reading West. Con by only 1700 in 2015 and very winnable for Labour.

    10. North East Berkshire 74,726- reunites Woodley and Early plus the villages north, west, and south of Maidstone. Very safe Con.

    11. Wokingham 72,546- core Wokingham plus Sandhurst and Crowthorne from Bracknell. Safe Con.

    12. Bracknell 74,373- centre of gravity shifts east- loses Sandhurst etc to Wokingham but gains Ascot, Sunningdale etc from Windsor. Safe Con.

    13. Windsor & Maidenhead 76,986- reunites the two main towns in East Berkshire.

  9. Forgive me- have had to redo East Berkshire.

    SW Berkshire 72, 376
    Wokingham 74,199
    Bracknell 74,369
    NE Berks 71,784
    Maidenhead & Windsor (borrows Eton Dorney from South Bucks) 72,559.

  10. SURREY (and Spelthorne)

    I’ve only tinkered with Surrey as most seats are in quota and pretty logical.

    Spelthorne 73,703- current seat plus Colnbrook from Windsor- the best way of not crossing the Thames.

    Chertsey 76,790- current Runnymede & Weybridge plus Chobham and Windlesham from Surrey Heath

    North West Surrey 73,385- current Surrey Heath less wards that have gone into Chertsey plus Pirbrigght and Normandy from Woking.

    Woking 72,876- current seat less bits lost to Surrey Heath plus Lovelace and Send from Mole Valley.

    Guildford 71,051- a more compact version of the Guildford seat. Loses the Cranleigh area to a revived Dorking and loses Pilgrims to SW Surrey; gains Tilborn and Clandon from the former Mole Valley which are villages directly to the town’s east.

    South West Surrey 76,474- current seat plus Pilgrims

    Dorking 72,581- based on current Mole Valley but renamed out of a general aversion for using rivers in constituency names. Takes Oxshott from Esher and the Cranleigh area from Guildford but loses Tilborn and Clandon to Guildford.

    Epsom & Ewell 77,417- unchanged

    Reigate 71,778- unchanged

    East Surrey- unchanged.

  11. KENT AND EAST SUSSEX

    I found this area rather difficult and I’ve resorted to some maverick options here and there

    1. North West Kent 71,714- a new seat merging the largely rural stretch of Kent between Dartford/Gravesend proper and Sevenoaks. Very safely Con.

    2. Dartford 72,195- becomes more compact, losing rural southern wards to North West Kent and gains Northfleet from Gravesham. Becomes more marginal.

    3. Gravesham 72, 145- renamed- centre of gravity shifts eastwards. Loses Northfleet to Dartford and its rural hinterland to the south to North West Kent; gains Strood rural and Hoo Peninsula from Rochester & Strood.

    4. Tonbridge & Sevenoaks 77,383- the two towns plus the wards west bordering East Surrey around Edenbridge.

    5. Royal Tunbridge Wells 74,964- centre of gravity shifted eastwards- loses Edenbridge area to Tonbridge & Sevenoaks; gains Weald bits of Maidstone & the Weald.

    6. Aylesford 75,030- spent ages working on the Medway and still have my doubts. Have combined core Strood with Aylesford and Malling linking them via Snodworth. Not crazy about this seat but reasonably compact.

    7. Chatham 74,029- unites Rochester and Chatham in one seat- stretches south by taking on Boxley from Faversham but pretty compact.

    8. Gillingham 73,293- current seat plus Hartlip from Sittingbourne.

    9. Maidstone 76, 790- has an eastern tail rather than a southern one- losing Weald area to RTW but gaining Bearsted etc from Faversham

    10. Sittingbourne & Sheppey 71,235- current seat less Hartlip

    11. Canterbury 77,648- current seat less Whitstable plus Faversham proper and Little Stour and Sandwich from Thanet S

    12. Herne Bay 75,023- coastal seat stretching from Whitstable to Westgate-on-Sea

    13. Isle of Thanet 78,130- compact seat consisting of Margate, Ramsgate and Broadstairs. Semi-Safe Con

    14. Dover 72,940- unchanged!

    15. Folkestone- 72,940- loses Saxon Shore and North Downs West to Ashford

    16. Ashford- 76,352- gains Saxon Shore and North Downs West from Folkestone plus Harrietsham from Mid Kent. Loses its western edge to a new cross-county seat of High Weald

    17. High Weald 75,322- a part-Kent part-East Sussex seat- starts with a small part of the Ashford seat around Tenterden and runs due west to Crowborough via wards from RTW and Bexhill & Battle. Not a great seat by any means but there you go.

    18. Hastings- current Hatings & Rye seat plus Ewhurst and Rother Levels from Bexhill & Battle. Becomes a bit more safely Con

    19. Bexhill 76,640- current Bexhill & Battle less bits that have gone into High Weald but with Polegate added on from Lewes.

    20. Eastbourne 76,546 current seat plus East Dene from Lewes

    21. Lewes 78,195- radically reconfigured. Loses Polegate to Bexhill and Seaford/Newhaven to Brighton Kemptown. Gains Hailsham and Uckfield from Wealden and Woodingdean from Brighton Kemptown which is the least unsuitable ward from Brighton that can be tacked on. More safely Con as a result.

    22. Brighton Kemptown 71,305- current seat less Woodingdean and Moulscomb plus Seaford and Newhaven. More safely Con.

    23. Brighton Pavilion 71,527 current seat plus Moulscomb less Regency- ugly but it’s a question of numbers.

    24. Hove 74,716- current seat plus Regency- not ideal but the arithmetic is difficult in Brighton.

  12. MP-R- a perfect 10 in short.

  13. Nice work, Tory. I’d be reasonably happy with those boundaries if the commission proposes similar constituencies. I notice that you left out Slough. I presume that there would be no changes there? The outcome there would be in no doubt in any case.

  14. AKMD- no change at all in Slough.

  15. Thought not. Cheers for the clarification. Are you going to have another go at any other regions?

  16. I’ve already done the North West- see the corresponding regional page.

  17. West Sussex

    1. Crawley 74,325- current seat plus Copthorne

    2. East Grinstead 77,031- current Mid Sussex less Bolney which goes into Shoreham

    3. Horsham 77,819- current seat less Copthorne plus Cowfold from Arundel

    4. Shoreham 73,578- not dissimilar to 1974-1983 seat of that name- Shoreham, Lancing plus rural territory to their north which previously had been in Arundel (with one ward from Mid Sussex).

    5. Worthing 77,529- coterminous with the borough

    6. Arundel 75,059- centre of gravity shifts westwards and southwards and becomes more geographically compact. Loses north-western wards to Chichester and eastern wards to Shoreham. Gains Littlehampton from Bognor Regis.

    7. Bognor Regis- 71,639- loses Littlehampton to Arundel, gains coastal bits of Chichester.

    8. Chichester 71,569- loses coastal bits to Bognor Regis, gains wards around South Downs National Park from Arundel.

  18. HAMPSHIRE

    Another challenging area, especially around the coast.

    1. North East Hampshire 78,155- current seat less Crookham which joins Aldershot plus Blackwater from Aldershot and Tadley from NW Hants.

    2. Aldershot 74,175- largely unchanged but see NE Hants.

    3. Basingstoke 78,026- unchanged.

    4. North West Hampshire 73,797- current seat less area around Tadley plus Harewood and Broughton which in my view fit better in this seat (specifically Andover) than in Romsey & North Soton.

    5. Winchester 74,301- some tinkering- expands eastwards taking on some wards from E Hants and Meon Valley- loses Chandler’s Ford to a new ‘Eastleigh & Romsey’ division.

    6. East Hampshire- 77,571- largely based on current seat- loses a bit of territory to Winchester but stretches south to take on Horndean and its environs from Meon Valley.

    7. Havant 71,820- tried tying with Waterlooville but the numbers don’t work so simply added on Rowlands Castle from Meon Valley which has been dismembered.

    8. Fareham & Waterlooville 75,748. Not an ideal seat but I can think of worse options. Consists of the two towns (or at any rate the core of Fareham) plus the intervening semi-rural wards. A more compact seat that you might have feared.

    9. Portsmouth North 73,736- current seat less Baffins plus the two Porchester wards from Fareham

    10. Portsmouth South 75,389- current seat plus Baffins

    11. Gosport 72,357- unchanged

    12. Hedge End & Hamble 77,810- a seat tying together the communities either side of the Hamble estuary. Therefore includes Hedge End, Hamble and the seemingly endless newbuild communities west of Fareham around Swanwick. I’m not thrilled about this seat but again I can think of worse.

    13. Southampton Itchen 74,822- current seat less Bargate which goes to Test plus Portswood from Test and Swaythling from Romsey. Little partisan effect- narrowly Con in 2015.

    14. Southampton Test- current seat less Portswood plus Bargate and Bassett from Romsey. Still Lab in 2015 but more narrowly majority c 2000.

    15. Eastleigh & Romsey 78,093- surprised this tie-up hasn’t been tried before- conmbines the two towns plus Bishopstoke and Chandler’s Ford. Would have been Con in 2015 but LDs would have been a pretty competitive 2nd.

    16. New Forest East 72,520- expands a little northwards taking Dun Valley and Blackwater from Romsey- loses Boldre to New Forest West

    17. New Forest West 71,289- takes on Boldre from New Forest East.

  19. Pretty sure the locals here would prefer the Mid Sussex name to continue rather than renaming Tory’s almost unchanged seat “East Grinstead”. As an historic county enthusiast he will presumably be aware that East Grinstead was historically in East Sussex….as indeed was most of the pre-1974 East Grinstead seat, most of which is now part of Wealden. Mid Sussex was created in 1974 and describes the geography of the seat better (EG is in the far north of the seat which reaches down quite close to Brighton).

  20. ‘As an historic county enthusiast he will presumably be aware that East Grinstead was historically in East Sussex….as indeed was most of the pre-1974 East Grinstead seat, most of which is now part of Wealden. ‘

    Indeed – the old East Grinstead seat is effectively what is called today Wealden – and the only similarity between the new proposed seat and the old seat of that name is the town of East Grinstead itself

    Given the seat would still contain Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill – which aren’t that much smaller than East Grinstead, Mid Sussex would seem a far more obvious gain

    Don’t ;like the prposed new Shoreham seat either

    The old 1983-97 Shoreham seat was a geograpical oddity, taking in not only Shoreham, Southwick and the other grotty seaside towns to the West of Brighton & Hove, but also coastal settlements to the West of Worthing like the bleak industrial town of Durrington, and the more genteel Goring.

    Although geographically nonsenical (Worthing was a doughnut within it) it did actually work

    I’m not sure I like mixing such places with the more quaint and rural areas that currently make up the eastern part Arundel & South Downs seat, and I’m not sure the electorates would either as such places are very very different (dilapidated coast and scenic, leafy countryside) and wouldn’t sit together easily

  21. Tim- not every seat can be purely coastal so you are always going to have the kinds of seats you dislike!

  22. MPR- re not crossing E Sussex and Kent- good luck with that!

  23. Of course not – but to my mind the current Shoreham and East Worthing works quite well, because it’s a collection of similar, Tory-voting small urban coastal towns, whereas bringing wards from Arundel and Mid Sussex completely changes the nature of it – because away from Brighton & Hove the Sussex coast couldn’t be more different that most of the rest of the county – which is largely rural/suburban, middle class and affluent.

    The Sussex coast is nothing like that so it makes sense to keep them separate and I agree with MPR that merging East and West Sussex makes far more sense than merging East Sussex with Kent

  24. I don’t disagree with that Max but the numbers are difficult.

  25. Tory, your Berkshire in not complete. You have not included Slough. There is one ward of Slough Borough currently in Windsor Constituency and another will have to be added as Slough is too big. Windsor has to be matched with the villages of Eton, Datchet and Wraysbury north of the Thames. Thus the addition of Maidenhead would make the seat too large.

    Around Reading, the wards north of the Thames, make a safe Labour seat of urban Reading difficult to draw, as it would be too large, hence the current East/West split.

    From Labour’s perspective – one safe seat in Reading at the expense of never being able to gain a third Berkshire seat makes their prospects of a national majority harder. This will be dilemma for the parties at the boundary changes. The sitting MP’s want safe seats, but to gain power opposition parties need to create marginal. In 1997, the Conservatives plight was worsened by the concentration of votes in safe seats and the construction of marginal seats. The pressure on Labour backbenchers this time will be to create safe seats, and leave more Conservative leaning marginal.

    .

  26. @GT it is not possible to create a safe Labour seat in Reading. You could draw a seat consisting of the borough of Reading south of the Thames which would be Labour by ~1,500 (which isn’t exactly safe) however this would not be allowed as it isolates the 4 wards north of the Thames (Caversham, Mapledurham, Peppard, Thames) and forces them to be paired with parts of Oxfordshire when this is not at all necessary (Oxfordshire is a perfect fit for 6 seats, Berks is a perfect fit for 8). Therefore the most sensible ‘allowed’ urban Reading constituency would be the whole borough of Reading except the wards of Kentwood, Norcot and Tilehurst however this seat would still be notionally Tory by ~1,750.

  27. Reading is one of those (actually rather common places) where Labour does a lot better locally than they do nationally.

  28. “East Sussex and West Sussex are artificial constructs created by administrative jacobins in the 1970s”

    They are ancient divisions, and have had separate county councils since 1889. The only change in the 1970s was a realignment of the border.

  29. ‘They are ancient divisions, and have had separate county councils since 1889. The only change in the 1970s was a realignment of the border.’

    Really?

    In what way was the border realigned in the 70s?

  30. ‘East Grinstead, Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill were in East Sussex prior to 1974.’

    In which case what seat were Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill in, prior to the creation of Mid-Sussex

    ‘Living in Sussex I thought you’d know more about the administrative tinkering with the county(ies) than others on here’

    I didn’t move to Sussex until 1984, and have never been aware that the county was divided between East and West prior to the whole-scale changes in the 70s

  31. ‘The answer to your question is surely the East Grinstead seat’

    If you look at the election map for say 66 or 1970 when those boundaries existed, it doesn’t look as if the East Grinstead seats stretches that far southwards to include Burgess Hill but it might have. I know some of what is in Mid Sussex now used to be in Lewes

    I thought the metropolitan counties were those created in the 1970s and that consisted of built-up areas – like the West Midlands, Tyne & Wear, Greater Manchester, Merseyside

  32. You described it as a metropolitan seat in your aforementioned post max

    I presume you meant ceremonial instead

  33. Pepperminttea
    “Reading is one of those (actually rather common places) where Labour does a lot better locally than they do nationally”

    I’ve discussed this with you before on another thread (though for the likes of me I couldn’t find the old post cos I wanted to just paste it here) but this isn’t the case at all. Lab generally do WORSE locally than nationally cos of differential turnout. To prove this I gave the examples of 5 marginal seats in the East of England that held locals on the same day as the GE (Norwich N, Waveney, Ipswich, Stevenage and Harlow) and in all bar Harlow Labs vote in the 2015 locals matched their vote in the GE (less than 500 more or less votes)

    In the one exception Harlow there wasn’t a big difference (Lab over performed locally by about 1,000 votes) and this is a seat were the incumbent Robert Halfon is supposedly locally popular and has a big personal vote thus one would expect Lab to underperform at Westminster.

    Here in Reading its the same tale. Labs vote in both Reading seats matches the votes they received locally. There is no evidence they outperform in the locals and quite a bit to suggest they under perform.

  34. @Rivers10 you are wrong both nationally and on Reading. Of course there are some exceptions e.g Wirral, Birmingham, Brighton (Green local vote) but broadly it is true that Labour does better locally than nationally to a greater or lesser extent virtually everywhere else (or at least in marginals). Here is the lead by constituency on the local votes from the 10 most marginal Conservative held seats in 2015 and Reading East/West (seats with ward boundary changes, no local elections in 2015 or either Con or Lab not running in more than one ward have been omitted), the actual majority is in brackets:

    Derby North: Lab by 1,868 (Con by 41)
    Bury North: Lab by 471 (Con by 378)
    Morley and Outwood: Lab by 3,261 (Con by 422)
    Plymouth Sutton and Devonport: Lab by 1,092 (Con by 523)
    Brighton Kemptown: Con by 1,012 (Con by 690)
    Bolton West: Lab by 1,143 (Con by 801)
    Telford: Lab by 1,856 (Con by 730)
    Plymouth Moor View: Con by 460 (Con by 1,026)
    Lincoln: Lab by 535 (Con by 1,443)
    Waveney: Con by 2,277 (Con by 2,408)
    Southampton Itchen: Con by 1,160 (Con by 2,316)
    Reading West: Con by 3,626 (Con by 6,650)
    Reading East*: Con by 4,239 (Con by 6,520)
    Stevenage**: Con by 2,080 (Con by 4,955)
    Harlow: Con by 5,204 (Con by 8,350)
    Norwich North: 2,502 (Con by 4,463)

    *Mapledurham had no election in 2015 so I used the 2012 result however it is by far the smallest Reading ward so would make little difference.

    **Used the 2010 results for Knebworth and Codicote as they would have been broadly similar had there been a general election in 2015. I don’t know where you got your figures from, Stevenage is a place Labour blatantly obviously over perform locally. I’m not sure where you got the Norwich North ones from either…

    As you can see an over performance by Labour in local elections compared to the general election in all but one of these seats, several including the Reading by pretty huge margins.

    Also in non general election years local elections underestimate the government’s support (of whatever political hue it may be) because the oppositions vote is fired up while the governments ‘reluctant supporters’ feel free to either stay home or have a free protest vote as they can make a statement against the government without letting the opposition in.

  35. @rivers10 one more which I wrote an in depth contribution about today:

    Kingswood: Con by 5,161 (Con by 9,006)

  36. Rossendale and Darwen*: Con by 1,274 (Con by 5,654)

    *Used the results from the 2010 locals for two wards that didn’t vote in 2015 as these two elections weren’t that dissimilar. Labour obviously do miles better here locally than they do nationally (like most places).

    Even South Ribble is not an example of the converse:

    South Ribble**: Con by 5,511 (Con by 5,949)

    **Ward boundary changes make the result approximate. For the two wards that didn’t vote (Hesketh and Rufford) I used 2010 data for Hesketh which will broadly similar to how it would have voted had the ward been up in 2015. Rufford didn’t vote in 2010 either so I used the 2016 result, the Tory numerical lead would have been a tad larger had it voted in 2015 but nowhere near enough to make South Ribble an example of the Tories doing any better locally than nationally.

  37. Pepps
    Long post alert, just wanted to address every issue raised.

    What you’ve done there is provided a comparison between who carried the seat locally and nationally, that’s not what’s being discussed.

    You claimed Lab outperform locally, I said that’s incorrect, that in reality Labs vote in GE’s matches its vote in locals (for the most part) Comparing who carried the seat locally (and by what majority) to who won the seat in a GE (and again by what majority) is a totally different issue, I didn’t make any comment on the Tory vote maybe the Tories underperform in certain areas locally due to a preference for Lib Dem or independent local councillors? Something I’ll provide evidence for in a moment.

    This leads to another big issue though, the seats I chose in the Eastern region were for very careful reasons, they didn’t have any glaring examples of a strong Lib Dem local councillor base or a selection of independents who performed incredibly well etc etc all of which would make side by side comparisons pointless. In Bolton for example both Lab and the Tories massively underperformed locally to the tune of about 3,000 votes each. The seats I chose though were precisely to avoid such anomalous results. Morley and Outwood for example is frankly a daft comparison cos of the very locally strong Morley Independents and a probable Ed Balls effect in the GE.

    But lets have an example to demonstrate my initial point. Southampton Itchen stands out as one of the better examples to support your theory with Lab seemingly over performing to the tune of 1,000 votes. Also minimal pesky independent activity or odd local strength for certain smaller parties to worry about and muddle the results. But lets look in detail. GE vote share is the first number LE vote share is the second bracketed number.

    Southampton Itchen
    Lab=16,340 (16,021)
    Basically the same, Lab actually UNDER performed in the locals by 300 odd votes.
    Tories on the other hand…
    Tory=18,656 (17,181) So the Tories did much worse locally thus resulting in the anomaly you point out. Lab isn’t doing better its the fact that the Tories are doing worse, I don’t claim to know why this is the case but that’s what’s going on here.

    Lets also look at Norwich N which you mentioned. First figure is the GE vote, second bracketed figure LE vote.

    Tories=19,052 (16,990)
    Lab= 14,589 (14,500)

    So again Lab the same Tories doing worse.

    How about Stevenage since you highlighted it as an example of where “Labour blatantly obviously over perform locally”

    Lab=16,336 (16,394)
    Tories=21,291 (16,941)

    So once again Lab basically the same while the Tories do worse.

    Its the same across most of the seats you list, you have simply made the wrong comparisons. Now this obviously opens up the question I alluded to earlier as to why the Tories underperform locally in marginal seats. Based on my experiences in three seats I know very well (Warrington South, Sefton Central and Wirral South) I attribute it to what I deem “soft Tories” people who are not hugely enthused by the Cons but hate Lab more, vote Lib Dem locally (explains the Libs current or former strength locally in all three seats) but then vote Tories in the GE where it really matters.

    Alas that’s a totally different discussion. Fact is though that in most cases Lab do no better in locals compared to the GE.

  38. Ok rivers fair enough but I would contend you are making the wrong comparison as the margin between Con and Lab is a metric that is far more important than how many raw votes each individually manages to get (I probably worded what I was talking about wrong though). Thus when someone in Labour says ‘gee we did well we were narrowly ahead of the Tories in the local vote in seat X’ it is highly likely they would be behind be a significant margin in a general election in the exact same seat X if it was held on the same day (and that is not even considering the fact that oppositions typically over perform in midterm local elections while governments under perform)

    These things are indisputably true:
    1)Labour’s position relative to the Tories is almost always better in local elections compared to general elections.
    2)Local elections almost always underestimate the level of support for the government compared to the opposition.

    I feel like we might actually agree now lol :-).

  39. Have been away from UKPR for a few days. I remain reasonably happy with my proposals and didn’t really find many of the objections terribly persuasive. One of the weakest arguments was that I was wrong to cross Kent and East Sussex. As a traditional counties enthusiast, I absolutely accept that in an ideal world we should be merging the two halves of Sussex. However, the Commission is imposing a tight quota under which Kent is theoretically entitled to 16.41 seats. If you think you are going to achieve 16 sensible seats all within quota with an average electorate of 76,693 then good luck is all I can say…

  40. Perhaps the government will agree to go back to the existing more flexible rules on seat size, to help get the review through the commons and to reduce the necessity to cross counties, split wards and draw up awful seats.

    Labour are such a shambles it’s not as if the Tories need a tight quota to stay in power now.

  41. H Hemmelig- I agree- I’ve long thought a 5% quota too tight.

  42. It would tie in with May’s image of being, erm, less opportunistic than Cameron or Osborne (no bad thing IMO). Certainly, had Cameron found himself in May’s highly fortuitous position he’d have rushed to call an early election faster than a rat up a drainpipe.

  43. I don’t see any problem with ward splitting.

  44. ‘Certainly, had Cameron found himself in May’s highly fortuitous position he’d have rushed to call an early election faster than a rat up a drainpipe.’

    The real opportunist would wait for the implementation of the boundary review

    Why settle fir a majority of 50 when you could have one that exceeds 100

    I think May is very opportunistic anyhow – I don’t think she has any real intention of doing many of the things she said she would when she was first outside number 10 – look at the way she has bowed over to the soft drinks industry with her plans to tackle childhood obesity and her outright refusal to condemn the greedy Sir Philip Green – but by saying she managed to hoodwink many journalists and voters into thinking she would

    Like her cabinet, May is very much to the Right of Cameron and his cabinet

  45. Is that going to be your seat when you start uni?

  46. Why the fascination with Oxford West then? Have the BC done something weird there as well?

  47. Don’t take offence I was just curious 🙂

  48. Jeez man what’s got into you?

  49. Jesus Christ why are we resorting to masturbating metaphors

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)