There are plenty of lists out of there of the seats that have been untouched by the boundary review, but I haven’t seen one of the seats that have been abolished. This is probably because it is not actually as much of a clear cut question as you might think, especially given the extent of the proposed changes. There are many seats where is it not entirely clear which seat should be regarded as the successor to which current seat and which seat has vanished (I expect if there is a list I’ve missed, it won’t necessarily tally with mine!)

What I’ve done in analysing them therefore, is to treat each new seat as the successor to the seat which makes up the biggest proportion of the electorate of the new seat. If an existing seat makes up the biggest chunk of more than one new seat, I regard it as the predecessor to the seat where most of its voters went, treating the other seat as the successor to the seat that gave it the next biggest chunk of voters. It’s not perfect, but it does allow me to being some sense to the new seats. On that basis, these are the seats that will be abolished –

Batley and Spen (Lab) Mike Wood
Bexleyheath and Crayford (Con) David Evennett
Birmingham Hodge Hill (Lab) Liam Byrne
Blaydon (Lab) David Anderson
Blyth Valley (Lab) Ronnie Campbell
Brigg and Goole (Con) Andrew Percy
Dulwich and West Norwood (Lab) Tessa Jowell
Ealing Southall (Lab) Virenda Sharma
Edmonton (Lab) Andy Love
Faversham and Mid Kent (Con) Hugh Robertson
Hyndburn (Lab) Graham Jones
Kensington (Con) Malcolm Rifkind
Knowsley (Lab) George Howarth
Leigh (Lab) Andy Burnham
Mid Bedfordshire (Con) Nadine Dorries
Mid Derbyshire (Con) Pauline Latham
North Dorset (Con) Robert Walter
North Herefordshire (Con) Bill Wiggin
North Tyneside (Lab) Mary Glindon
Penrith and The Border (Con) Rory Stewart
Romsey and Southampton North (Con) Caroline Nokes
Rushcliffe (Con) Ken Clarke
Sedgefield (Lab) Phil Wilson
Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Lab) David Blunkett
Shipley (Con) Philip Davies
South West Norfolk (Con) Elizabeth Truss
Stone (Con) Bill Cash
Truro and Falmouth (Con) Sarah Newton
Weaver Vale (Con) Graham Evans
West Bromwich East (Lab) Tom Watson
Wirral South (Lab) Alison McGovern
Witham (Con) Priti Patel
Wolverhampton South East (Lab) Pat McFadden
Wyre and Preston North (Con) Ben Wallace

Another four seats have a pretty tenuous connection to the seat I’ve technically got as their successor, and some people may regard them as having been effectively abolished too.

Ilford South (makes up only 21% of Wanstead & Woodford – most goes into Ilford North)
Leeds Central (makes up only 18% of Leeds South & Outwood – most goes into Leeds South West and Morley, the successor of Morley & Outwood)
Birmingham Selly Oak (makes up only 25% of Birmingham Edgbaston – most goes into Birmingham Hall Green)
Oldham West and Royton (makes up only 10% of Rochdale South – most goes into Ashton-under-Lyne)

Now, before we progress it’s worth noting that some of these MPs are in much better positions than others. In some cases, while their seat has been abolished, the transfer of some of their voters has tranformed a neighbouring opposition seat into a seat notionally held by their party. For example, David Evennett’s Bexleyheath & Crayford seat has been abolished, but the transfer of some of his voters into Labour held Erith & Thamesmead (which becomes the new Erith seat) means that it is transformed into a notionally Conservative seat. I don’t know what David Evernett’s plans are, perhaps he’ll challenge James Brokenshire for the safe Conservative Bexley & Sidcup seat instead, but he is not left without a Conservative voting home.

Some of these seats are also only regarded as being abolished by the slimmest of whiskers. For example, the new Wednesbury seat is made up of four wards from West Bromwich East and four wards from West Bromwich West. Because there are 384 more voters from West Brom West than there are from West Brom East, I’ve regarded West Brom East as the seat that faces the chop. In practice, I’m sure Tom Watson would have just as much of a claim on the Labour nomination for the new Wednesbury seat as Adrian Bailey.

Before anyone asks, I should also explain why Leigh and Mid-Derbyshire are there. Under the proposed boundaries there will indeed still be seats called Leigh and Mid Derbyshire, but the new Leigh seat is mostly made up Worsley & Eccles South, while the new Mid-Derbyshire is mostly made up of Amber Valley.

Finally, you may also have noticed that there are too many seats here. There are 34 seats in my list, yet England is only losing 31 seats. The difference is made up of three seats that should be regarded as “new seats”. One of these is obviously the extra seat in the Isle of Wight. A second is Newcastle upon Tyne South – made up of bits of the existing three Newcastle seats which all continue to exist in their own right, but with the addition of parts of Northumberland and/or North Tyneside. Finally there is Huntingdon – most of the current Huntingdon seat forms the basis of the new St Neots, but the remainder forms a continuing Huntingdon seat. It’s probably a lot more intuitive to regard St Neots as the new seat, but either way there’s a new seat in the area.

Next up I’ll be looking at marginality.

UPDATE: Tonight’s daily YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of CON 38%, LAB 41%, LDEM 9%


383 Responses to “Boundary Review – which seats face the chop?”

1 6 7 8
  1. Henry

    Further response to your earlier post about bailing out the banks to protect your savings. I’m not sure whether to start with the moral case or the practical case, mind you they are intertwined.

    First off I must point out that the reason the banks don’t want separation of retail and “investment” is because the govt would only be obliged to save the retail arms and because of that the investment banks would have to pay a higher price to borrow money in the markets.

    So I will start off with the moral argument or at least try. The problem with providing “liquidity” to save the banks is that this is printed money and printing money causes inflation, many here will not be aware of just how much money has already been provided to the banks, we assume that it’s just the £200 billion in QE from the BoE but most of the extra liquidity has been provided by the American central bank and our banks have received a large portion of it(I suspect that the BoE is buying American bonds as a quid pro quo) but QE is not the whole story because there have been numerous soft loan programs etc. All of this has fed into inflation, not so bad you might say but this inflation is asymmetrical, what do I mean by asymmetrical? Simply that the inflation rate is not the same for everyone, the rate for lowpaid workers is between 10 and 15%, you can easily work this out yourself by taking the amount spend by the low paid on for example food,transport and energy and the amount of inflation in these items. But not everything is going up in price, so we find that the inflation rate for someone who earns 50,000 might be as low as 1% you could in fact make a graph with income on the Y axis and inflation on the X axis and you would see a line progressing downwards until maybe the inflation rate is less than zero. I haven’t seen such a graph but I would very much like to see one(if anyone has seen such a graph then please post a link) so as you can see the low paid who have no savings are paying the price for preserving your savings. But these people have already paid a heavy price on the alter of the free market because the free market reforms has caused their living standards to fall by 25% over the last 30 years. And indeed you might be one of those that have benefited from that decline in the form of cheaper takeaway food for example, I’m sure if you think about it you can find many other examples. So your saving should not be sacrificed on the alter of the free market but the living standards of the working poor should? No one forced you to save, no one forced you to lend money to strangers not knowing if they were trustworthy or not. Because make no mistake depositing money in a bank is treated by the bank as a loan and they pay you interest on that loan. Does the interest paid provide a good return for the risk you are taking? Only you can be the judge of that. There are many other moral arguments but this is taking too long and I want to move on to the practical argument

    The practical case is quite simple, as Mr king stated at the beginning of this crisis “it is not a problem of liquidity but rather of solvency” here he is stating what many other know that the banks are insolvent, if not all of them then at least some of them. Even the banks know this which is why they are desperate to continue with the soft accounting rules which allow them to hold assets on their books at price paid instead of market price and this is why the default of Greece’s insignificant $450 billion of debt is such a huge problem, its being held on the books at full value and being used as capital backing other loans and investments. But can an insolvent bank ever be made solvent by bailouts and if it could would it have an incentive to be solvent. But we can see quite clearly that the banks can’t be made solvent, we have been trying for three years to make them solvent and still they need bailouts QE and soft loans and inflation and stagnant wages together mean lower demand leading to a reduction in peoples ability to pay what’s owed and a further decline in asset prices which if they are marked to market makes the banks more insolvent. Do you see where this is going. We can’t save your savings by bailing out the banks. The only way is either you take them out before the bank goes down or the govt that is the taxpayer pays you for your silliness in trusting them with your money in the first place. At least if we remove the support from the banks we can find out which ones are solvent if any.

  2. @ Chouenlai

    However, as a military father, I would have loved to see Euan Blair in the front line in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    ——————————————–
    Really? As an anti-war mother, I’d prefer to see nobody’s children on either side of any front-line…

    I am in favour of defence drones, which are being developed to de-activate mines & bombs, intercept missiles etc. I am not in favour of attack drones because I’ve seen the Terminator movie & can imagine what it could lead to. ;-)

  3. @ Chou Enlai

    “My initial point was, no Labour supporters (or fellow travellers) on this board appear to support British action in Libya. Discussions about anything and everything were in progress and as Colin pointed out, Libya vanished into the same black hole as “cuts mean riots”. My point was not partisan, as in “the Tories are best”, but here is a topic of some import which is being ignored, because it gives some credit to David Cameron. I do not see Cameron as Lawrence of Arabia, Cameron is not homosexual.”

    1. I think there were some Labour supporters of the Libyan intervention.

    2. Many of the Labour opponent of the intervention (on UKPR) were not opposing it simply because they opposed Cameron but because they had a valid moral and philosophical anti-war position. And a position against foreign interventions of this kind. I didn’t agree with it but I respect it.

    3. Was Lawrence of Arabia gay? I did not know that.

    4. David Cameron may not be gay but what if he enacts legalized same-sex marriage?

  4. @ Colin

    Below was the original timetable for democracy in Libya:

    A body tasked with drafting a constitution should be elected within eight months and a government within 20 months, NTC representative in Britain Guma al-Gamaty told the British media on Friday.

    For the first eight months the NTC would lead Libya, during which a council of about 200 people should have been directly elected, Gamaty said, referring to plans drawn up in March and refined last month.

    “This council… will take over and oversee the drafting of a democratic constitution, that should be debated and then brought to a referendum,” he said.

    Within a year of the council being installed, final parliamentary and presidential elections should be held.
    ———————————————————–
    My sources in Tripoli ;-) tell me that the NTC/ TNC are now saying that ‘stability’ is more important than elections. I am also being told that the military wing of the rebels are not happy with either the current acting premier nor the NTC’s election proposals.

    For how long will NATO stay tooled up, ready & able to interfere under the existing mandate? Personally, I am expecting a military coup soon after NATO withdraws.
    8-)

  5. @ Colin

    “Called for a NFZ when everyone else-including your lot said it wouldn’t work-called for it when there were no UK votes in it.
    Worked his socks off with Sarkozy to get UN resolutions through.
    Put British armed forces into the NATO force.

    Let me think-what was Obama’s attitude ?——rhetorical question actually”

    Well who’s my lot? I don’t think anyone over here thought a NFZ wouldn’t work. The major question was whether we should involve ourselves in a third major front in the Middle East when we already had massive spending committments elsewhere and involve ourselves in a conflict that did not directly concern us. This is why there were many in Obama’s administration who really did not want us to get involved. There were others though who realized the importance of the U.S. going to bat for Arab Muslims who were actually seeking democracy and the importance of at least trying to establish democracy in the Middle East (if done the right way).

    I doubt the intervention from France and Great Britain would have come without the UN Resolution 1973. And even if it had, it probably would have been too late to save the people of Benghazi. There would have been no UN Resolution 1973 without the United States getting involved. The U.S. would not have gotten involved if not for Obama deciding to do so.

    Therefore it not the right wing (except when it comes to the gays) English blueblood son of privilege who deserves credit for this but instead the left wing (except when it comes to taxes) American black man.

  6. @socalliberal
    So that’s all I was pointing out, not attacking the glory of the Brits or your ability to rule the waves (glory acknolwedged).

    Unfortunately due to recent over spending we cannot rule the village duck pond.

  7. @SOCALIBERAL
    David Cameron may not be gay but what if he enacts legalized same-sex marriage?

    He most probably will, but be careful, you may say something good about him.

  8. @amber star
    As I say up page, watching to many films is a mistake.
    What a pity you could not have passed on your socialist neo-pacifism to your previous two party leaders.

  9. Amber

    NI numbers-thanks -noted.
    Will remember your confidence should anyone decide to go the route you propose.

    Libya-thanks-noted -you have been consistent in your pessimism about outcomes in Libya after Gadaffi-we shall see won’t we?

  10. SOCAL

    I replied to you

    It got moderated.

    I’m not surprised.

  11. SoCalliberal

    ” David Cameron may not be gay but what if he enacts legalized same-sex marriage?”

    The Scottish Government already has a consultation paper out on legalising same sex marriage in Scotland. With the Scottish Social Attitudes survey 2010. showing 61% of Scots support equal marriage, it seems likely to be enacted.

    Interestingly the English consultation won’t even start until the Scottish one has been completed.

    So Cameron is probably making a commercial decision in favour of wedding firms in England. Just think of the benefits to the Scottish economy of all the English gays coming north to get married! :-)

  12. @ Chouenlai

    What a pity you could not have passed on your socialist neo-pacifism to your previous two party leaders.
    —————————————
    Indeed. Were it not for Iraq, I think Labour would still be in government.
    8-)

  13. @OLD NAT
    Gretna Green could change its name to Gretna Pink.
    …………………..so sorry.

  14. CHOUENLAI

    :-)

  15. Gretna pink!!

    Very good

  16. @ Colin

    Libya-thanks-noted -you have been consistent in your pessimism about outcomes in Libya after Gadaffi-we shall see won’t we?
    ————————————–
    Yes, I have been consistently pessimistic. The outcomes from previous ‘interventions’ have not given me reason to be otherwise. We arrive in a hail of bombs; we leave with a photo-op & the expectation of commercial advantage. Everything we do carries a price tag. We are not nice people.
    8-)

  17. @ Amber Star

    “Really? As an anti-war mother, I’d prefer to see nobody’s children on either side of any front-line…

    I am in favour of defence drones, which are being developed to de-activate mines & bombs, intercept missiles etc. I am not in favour of attack drones because I’ve seen the Terminator movie & can imagine what it could lead to.”

    I’m a bit weery of attack drones too. I’m forgetting his name but there’s a famous Washington Post columnist and MSNBC commentator who is opposed to their increasing use. He points out that with all new war tactics, we need to be aware that what we unleash on others could come back and attack us. And I’d prefer that we not use them except in the most neccessary of circumstances.

    As for being an anti-war attitude, that’s generally my attitude. I mean, I’ll point out the chickenhawks of the world and call them out on their hypocrisy. But generally, I don’t want to see others go die in a foreign war just to prove a political point.

    Defense drones, as you describe them, I’m fine with.

  18. @ Old Nat

    “The Scottish Government already has a consultation paper out on legalising same sex marriage in Scotland. With the Scottish Social Attitudes survey 2010. showing 61% of Scots support equal marriage, it seems likely to be enacted.

    Interestingly the English consultation won’t even start until the Scottish one has been completed.

    So Cameron is probably making a commercial decision in favour of wedding firms in England. Just think of the benefits to the Scottish economy of all the English gays coming north to get married! :)”

    So once again, the Scots lead and the rest of the UK follows. :)

    I knew about the consultation in Scotland. Now here’s what I wonder about, what is u with all these consultations? You’re not the only ones doing this, they seem to be all the rage in European countries. Long, drawn out consultations about whether to legalize same-sex marriage. I have to admit that I don’t see the point except to sort of run the clock for political purposes.

    Cameron surprises me on this issue. I have a feeling though that the Nadine Dorries wing of his party may find this a bridge too far for them.

  19. @ Chou Enlai

    “Unfortunately due to recent over spending we cannot rule the village duck pond.”

    This too shall pass.

    “He most probably will, but be careful, you may say something good about him.”

    My brother saw him on tv and asked me if he was gay. It was kinda funny. I like Cameron (at a personal level), I wouldn’t mind saying anything positive about him.

  20. @ Colin

    “I replied to you

    It got moderated.

    I’m not surprised.”

    Well there’s no need to get snippy about it. I think we’ve been in agreement all along on Libya.

  21. Please give the NTC a chance. It took almost two years after the fall of Saddam before elections could take place in Iraq, and it would have been suicide to attempt them any earlier. The elections for a new president of Egypt aren’t due until 11 months after the fall of the old government, and they don’t have the excuse of a war. So far, the NTC have managed to avoid the widespread looting that sowed the seeds of much of the unrest in Iraq. Why a slippage of an election timetable is supposed to be proof of a new dictatorship is beyond me.

    What I object to is the double standards that a lot of armchair diplomats apply to the developing world. Democracy isn’t just putting papers in a ballot box – it’s about a culture of free speech, peaceful transitions between government, an acceptance of majority rule by the minority, toleration of peaceful dissent, and many other things. Outside forces can topple a dictator and help create and administer an electoral system, but building a true democracy in its place takes a long time, and it’s ultimately in the hands of the people of that country. I’m happy to listen to arguments about why establishing democracy in Libya or anywhere else is taking too long, but these arguments tend to be accompanied by excuses for the totally undemocratic regimes they replaced – or worse, the argument that democracy isn’t the Arab/African way.

  22. SOCAL

    “Well there’s no need to get snippy about it.”

    Every reason after that post of yours actually.

  23. @ CHRIS NEVILLE SMITH

    ” I’m happy to listen to arguments about why establishing democracy in Libya or anywhere else is taking too long, but these arguments tend to be accompanied by excuses for the totally undemocratic regimes they replaced – or worse, the argument that democracy isn’t the Arab/African way.”

    I agree

  24. @ SoCaL

    Well there’s no need to get snippy about it. I think we’ve been in agreement all along on Libya.
    ————————————-
    You & Colin did seem to have been in agreement about Libya all along.

    But now your question about what David Cameron actually did to contribute followed by Colin’s ‘snippy’ reply makes me wonder: How much of Colin’s approval for the Libyan intervention was – subconciously – defined by local UK politics…
    8-)

  25. If democracy isn’t the Arab/African way, perhaps they should have a vote to see what is?

  26. Does enthusiam for the NTC, (the rebels and/or their jihadist fellow travellers) extend to the imposition of sharia law in Libya?

    (Turkey’s constitutional court declared: “Democracy is the antithesis of sharia”.)

  27. If they vote for Sharia law, let them have Sharia law. At least those elements that don’t directly contravene the basic tenets (free and fair elections, reasonable free speech etc) of democratic rule of law.

    If they want to cut off hands, stone adulterers, ban interest payments etc I won’t agree with them, but I won’t feel like I should intervene to stop them either.

    As it happens I don’t think any of that will happen, unless there is a coup by Islamist elements of the rebel military. That’s possible, and there have been some troubling developments in terms of the NTC’s grip not being absolute, but on the whole I am still optimistic.

  28. SoCalLiberal

    ” Long, drawn out consultations about whether to legalize same-sex marriage.”

    I don’t know about other countries, but in Scotland it is normal practice to put suggested legislation on most topics out to consultation before the Bill is drafted, to allow the people to have their say in advance.

    We call it democracy.

  29. Some remarks by the former saviour of the world which some folk here might be interested in

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-16/european-banks-grossly-under-capitalized-amid-debt-crisis-brown-says.html?cmpid=bit

  30. @Neil A – “If they vote for Sharia law… ”

    Mustafa Abdel Jalil, making his first public speech in Tripoli:

    “We seek a state of law, prosperity and one where sharia is the main source for legislation, and this requires many things and conditions.”

  31. Sharia law is one of the most misunderstood terms in Western Europe. The principle is living life according to the customs of Islam, as shaped by the courts and consensus. That is, in itself, no different to how Western European governments operated for centuries within a Christian framework.

    The question, of course, is how Sharia law gets interpreted. Like any other religion, Islam can be interpreted as anything from a general rule of being nice to each other to the barbaric practices that used to be carried out in Taleban Afghanistan and still happen in Iran and the wrong bits of Saudi Arabia. That is what a lot of people see as Sharia law, but they are simply repressive interpretations that gives it a bad name.

    I personally would rather have religion totally dissociated from government in every country in the world, but as long as the religious framework a government wants to follow is reasonably grounded in common sense, there are more important things to worry about.

  32. AMBER

    @ But now your question about what David Cameron actually did to contribute followed by Colin’s ‘snippy’ reply makes me wonder: How much of Colin’s approval for the Libyan intervention was – subconciously – defined by local UK politics…
    Amber”

    None of it -my belief in freedom & democracy runs a little deeper than that-but nice try-in the opportunistic stakes you are up there :-)

    Pity you couldn’t have read my post-think you would have enjoyed it -I certainly did. :-)

  33. UK governments since 1997 have pursued a fairly interventionist foreign policy. Are there any polls that indicate how supportive or otherwise the general public is of their approach to foreign affairs?

1 6 7 8