Here’s a final post on the proposed boundary changes for the time being, I’ve had a chance to look at the marginality of seats. Now, as I said in an earlier post, on the levels of support at the 2010 election the proposed English boundaries would have given the Conservatives 5 fewer seats, Labour 18 fewer seats and the Liberal Democrats 7 fewer seats. That’s a gain of 13 seats for the Conservatives relative to Labour.

However, it doesn’t follow that there would be the same impact if levels of support had been different. What if, for example, Labour notionally lost lots of seats at 2010 levels of support, but the new boundaries produced lots of seats that could be won on a very small swing – it could be that the new boundaries were better for Labour than the current boundaries in a scenario where the Conservatives had slightly less support.

Hence the table below shows what the distribution of seats would be with various uniform swings between Labour and Conservative.

These suggest that while the proposed boundaries are beneficial to the Conservatives under 2010 levels of support, they would be much less beneficial to them compared to the current boundaries if there was a swing to the Conservatives (with a 2 point swing to the Tories – the equivalent of an 11 point GB lead – these boundaries would only see the Conservatives gain 3 seats relative to Labour). On the other hand, in a scenario where there was a swing towards Labour these proposed boundaries would be much better for the Tories. If there was a three point swing to Labour (putting the parties roughly neck and neck in GB support) then the Conservatives would win 2 more seats than on the current boundaries, Labour 26 less – a relative gain of 28 seats.

That particular level of support is most advantageous to the Tories, their gain declines again on bigger Labour swings. The point is, however, that in terms of marginality seats are not evenly distributed, so a particular set of boundaries that is good for a party when they are x% ahead in polls may not be good for them when they are y% behind.

The headline figures of gains and losses at 2010 levels of support can be somewhat misleading, given it ignores whether more seats become winnable marginals or safe seats. The best measure will probably be what percentage leads the two main parties need in order to get a majority on the new boundaries. Currently the Conservatives need about an 11 point lead, Labour about a 3 point lead.

We can’t tell exactly what leads they’ll need on the new boundaries until we see Scotland and Wales, but the Conservatives will need at most a lead of 9 points (since on these boundaries, that size swing would give over 300 seats in England alone) and I expect it will be a bit less unless the Welsh boundaries are truly horrific for them. On the old boundaries Labour could win an overall majority with a lead over the Tories of 3%, but given they win far more seats in Scotland and Wales than the Tories do, we really will need to wait for the other Commissions’ reports before we can make any estimates about how their target will change.

With all that done, below is a spreadsheet of the notional figures for all the proposed seats, carried out the same way – ready for people to crunch and experiment with in their own way.

Notional results for Provisional English Boundaries (excel) (csv)

I’ll add the caveat I provided last time I did this, these notionals are just the product of estimating how general election support is distributed throughout each seat, based up which are the stronger and weaker wards for each party in local elections, and then reallocating the wards to their new seats. There is little or no human judgement here – if just how the numbers stack up once they are all pumped into the spreadsheet, so if it is an area you know well you may very well have a better idea of how the party support in your area actually stacks up. It’s not a perfect system of projecting notional results, and sometimes later election results suggest individual seats were off, but one the whole it performs pretty well. That said, if you spot anything spectactularly odd do mention it – it may be an error.


273 Responses to “Full notional results for the provisional boundaries”

1 3 4 5 6
  1. @ CHOUENLAI

    “Do you wish to explain the Kinnock family’s financial position ”

    I can explain Stephen Kinnock’s.

    It appears to rest on the very sensible idea that it is best to pay tax in Switzerland, with the lowest taxes in Europe , than in Denmark , where taxes are the highest in Europe………… where his family home is……..and where his wife is Prime Minister.

    I wonder whether this very sensible arrangement was suggested by his Socialist parents, or his Social Democrat wife?

  2. I don’t think anyone should get a subsidy for doing bugger all. If you have to subsidise low carbon energy then I’d prefer the money went to solutions that can actually provide a useful base load ie nuclear.

  3. Mike N

    …LD posters here have repeatedly suggested that the voters would not support the LDs leaving the coalition (on some whim) and the LD vote would not recover from such action. It may well be that, based on the comments from my wife – who finds politics boring – this notion is mistaken and misinformed.

    Alternatively my wife, who upto now always votes LIb Dem has said that she would be annoyed if the LDs
    left the coalition (on some whim). So perhaps wives are split on this.

  4. Amber

    Frankly, any discussion of the role that the SNP will play in the UK Parliament of 2016 is pointless at the moment.

    Any such role will depend entirely on the result of the referendum.

    If Scots have voted that they just love the new status quo that will result from the Scotland Bill, then it is unlikely that there will be many SNP MPs.

    If the result is enthusiastic endorsement of independence (not currently likely) or a DevoMax settlement (currently very likely), then negotiations are likely to be ongoing, but no final settlement reached.

    The SNP have a self-denying ordinance not to vote on purely English matters – a matter of courtesy to our neighbours.

    If our neighbours are proving to be discourteous in return, then there is nothing to prevent SNP MPs casting their vote in the most effective way on any issue.

  5. BERIOUS

    “If you have to subsidise low carbon energy then I’d prefer the money went to solutions that can actually provide a useful base load ie nuclear.”

    Me too.

  6. @Colin, Berious & Neil A – the FiTs payments (payments to all generators of renewable electricity) have proved very effective in stimulating the renewables market as intended, but, like you, I have grave concerns about who is getting the money.

    Even for domestic installations, you needs to either have capital to invest or be able to borrow, and the returns are then generally good for the right system, but paid for in part by all those people in fuel poverty or who don’t have the capital or the appropriate property.

    I’ve been lobbying Chris Huhne to include this in the review of FiTs that is underway. What we really want is the scheme to favour poorer people and community owned ventures. In this way the subsidy could not only promote renewables but also help channel income to the parts of society where it is most needed.

  7. HENRY

    “. So perhaps wives are split on this.”

    :-) :-) :-)

  8. Colin

    Henry VIII’s wives were certainly split!

  9. Oldnat: “The SNP have a self-denying ordinance not to vote on purely English matters – a matter of courtesy to our neighbours.”

    And nothing at all to do with avoiding accusations of hypocrisy.

  10. IAN ANTONY JAMES
    “Why are you so aggressive and unpleasant? If you were my dad I would be so ashamed.”

    I am sick and tired of inverted snob comments about the Tory leadership for one thing. If the current opposition were still run by Ramsey MacDonald or Ernest Bevin, these cheap shots would be easier to accept. The reality is greed at the trough. It is extremely unlikely I would have sired you.

  11. Steve

    You do make the strangest comments..

    Probably why we all love you so much.

  12. Old Nat

    Lol

    I find it funny that whenever the issue of corruption or the misusing of public funds is mentioned, we always get this “well they are doing it too” response. I find it sickening can we not agree that it is wrong no matter who is doing it. And while we are at it have some decent laws and enforcement to put a stop to it and descent media to highlight abuses.

  13. Chouenlai

    ” It is extremely unlikely I would have sired you.”

    But don’t you remember that kitchen wench that was so good to you many years ago?:-)

  14. @ ALEC

    ” the FiTs payments (payments to all generators of renewable electricity) have proved very effective in stimulating the renewables market ”

    The ROC system has produced a Klondyke like Gold Rush, in which developers have showered the owners ( many absentee millionaires) of our western uplands with bribes to enable them to desecrate these wild places with access roads, cable ducts, concrete turbine bases etc which will never ever be removed.

    These bribes are possible because of the value of the subsidy.

    Currently the wholesale price of electricity is around £45 MWH. In ADDITION, the ROC pays £39 MWH in subsidy.

    ONE 3 MW turbine , producing 30% of plated capacity ( yes thats the sort of average they produce) will generate 8,000MWH pa-pulling in £312,000 pa in subsidy………..in addition to £360,000 pa in Wholesale Electricityu revenue.

    Plenty of scope there for pay off to rich landowners, bribes of village halls, & other trinkets to placate the natives.

    And all to produce electricityewhen the wind blows-but not too hard or too slow.

  15. Colin

    I note your affection for “our” wild places (often where people actually live).

    Clearly, the situation needs to be reversed in the urbanised parts of “our” land.

    I recommend bulldozing the flood defences of London, and then getting rid of the access roads, buildings etc which so pollute what should be a delightful paradise for waterfowl.

  16. AW – A belated thanks from me too for these spreadsheets (having been away for a few days).

    All – Just to add to the analysis, using your notional calculations, here’s what the swing in Sunday Times YouGov poll would mean in terms of seats in England (i.e. applying uniform swings from the GE to get to Con 36%, Lab 42%, LD 9%):

    Con 240, Lab 257, LD 4

    Apologies if anyone’s already done this up thread.

  17. To change the subject momentarily. There’s been a lot of speculation about Greece dropping the Euro and (while I remain dubious) I am attracted by the logistics: how *fast* can you create a new currency?

    The Argentinian experience cannot help us here: Argentina already had an existing currency in place, it was just the peg that was dropped. Perhaps a more illuminating example would be the former Soviet Union countries on the collapse of the rouble zone, where new currencies did have to be magicked out of thin air, fast. So: how fast did Latvia drop the ruble and create the new Latvian rublis?

    Here are the dates:

    * 4 May 1990: Latvia declared independence (recognised by FSU on 25 December 1991)
    * 3 September 1991: Bank of Latvia was reappointed central bank for Latvia.
    * 4 May 1992: Resolution to establish the new Latvian Rublis adopted
    * 7 May 1992: new Latvian Rublis created
    * 1993: Rublis replaced by Lats

    So basically, it’s a two stage process involving a new temporary currency for 12-24 months and a new permanent one thereafter. The new temporary currency acts as a shock absorber for the new permanent one. The timeline looks like this:

    * Month 1: you announce a new temporary currency
    * Month 1 to Month 8: you freeze the bank accounts and allow the new currency to circulate thru the financial sector. This new currency crashes like a brick.
    * Month 9: you unfreeze the bank accounts and allow the new currency to circulate thru the private sector. The new currency keeps falling but at a slower rate.
    * Month 24: you convert to a new permanent currency

    So if you want to crash out of a currency: this is how you do it… :-)

    Regards, Martyn

  18. Statgeek,

    The SNP aren’t going to go into a coalition (or even have a formal deal) with the Tories/any successor parties until at least after independence, short of WW3.

  19. OLDNAT

    “Henry VIII’s wives were certainly split!”

    Were they Liberal Democrats ?

  20. And here’s some further analysis based on swings applied to AW’s notional seats, assuming that the Con vote % holds unchanged at GE levels and looking at the impact of a uniform swing from LD to Lab:

    No swing Con 292 Lab 173 LD 36
    1% Con 287 Lab 184 LD 30
    2% Con 283 Lab 188 LD 30
    3% Con 284 Lab 193 LD 24
    4% Con 280 Lab 199 LD 22
    5% Con 274 Lab 206 LD 21
    6% Con 274 Lab 207 LD 20
    7% Con 271 Lab 214 LD 16
    8% Con 265 Lab 222 LD 14
    9% Con 261 Lab 227 LD 13
    10% Con 257 Lab 234 LD 10
    11% Con 252 Lab 241 LD 8
    12% Con 247 Lab 248 LD 6
    13% Con 241 Lab 255 LD 5
    14% Con 235 Lab 262 LD 4

  21. Colin/Old Nat

    There is no need for anyone to lose their head over my comments.

  22. Phil

    4 seats those figures must be wrong(I have learnt on this site that if you don’t like a number its wrong) I think they haven’t taken into account all the dead people who will vote libdem next time

    Seriously its time to fire up that motorcycle with perhaps a sidecar

  23. @Colin – “ONE 3 MW turbine , producing 30% of plated capacity ( yes thats the sort of average they produce)…..”

    Worth remembering that in terms of the conversion of the energy content of coal and actual electricity utilisation of the end user, coal fired power stations are between 25 – 30% efficient, very similar to wind turbines.

    An analysis by the World Nuclear Association shows that in 2008 the UK nuclear industry had a total capacity of 10,745MW and produced total output of 55m MWh – a total efficiency of around 58%, but take off 10% for transmission system losses (most nuclear plants are well away from high demand areas, whereas most wind power is used relatively close to the production point) and you get a net efficiency of around 45 – 50%.

    The ‘30%’ efficiency rating for turbines is highly misleading. It actually refers to the energy production as a proportion of the total output possible if the turbine produced at maximum capacity constantly. Turbines are rated at 12m/s wind speed (around 25mph) but they actually produce output from around 2.5m/s. They are simply not designed to produce at the 100% rate anyway.

    No power system produces the theoretical peak output constantly, but only turbines are judged negatively on this figure. Perhaps a better way to judge these things is that the average well sited turbine will produce some level of output for around 80% of the time, and while this output cannot be guaranteed, it is reasonably predictable from around 48 hours out. (Did anyone predict the instantaneous shut down of Torness nuclear power plant in June this year when jellyfish in the cooling water meant it had to taken off line?).

    We’ve never been to war in a foreign country to secure supplies of wind turbines, nor have we underwritten the unknown costs of radioactive wastes from wind power.

    They do disrupt the landscape, and the power they produce is limited, in both scale and duration. They can be noisy, and I am unconvinced that the 1997 ETSU-R-97 regulations on turbine noise that still form the basis of planning decisions on noise are anywhere near rigorous enough to account for low frequency noise and combined effects from multiple turbines.

    We don’t have enough energy to power the lights in 7 – 10 years time. I’m happy to discuss whether turbines can be a part of the solution, but I won’t accept blind prejudice. If we are to apply criteria to one power source, we apply it to all. If we were to apply your views to all potential energy sources, we’d probably best get some candles and find a cave.

  24. RiN

    If from your perspective you want to cheer yourself up with some less apocalyptic figures for England based on any UK wide vote share you request, I’m happy to take requests.

    Definitely something needs tweaking on the extreme swings as on the current YouGov 36/42/9 the uniform swing model delivers a LD vote below 0% in 64 of the English seats (and would do the same in many more in Scotland and Wales no doubt).

  25. @PHILL
    I found your 7.15pm very interesting. Thanks.

  26. @HENRY
    I very much hope that the majority of Tories will accept and enjoy the drum banging and mild insults at your conference. All pre arranged with the basics run past Dave I dare say. The truly inspiring thing about today, was the total commitment to the governments economic policy. My fellow Tories should remember the reason this coalition was formed was to stop spending money we don’t have. Other bits and pieces which we and you disagree about, can wait.

  27. oldnat & John B Dick

    I was specifically referring to your

    ” their anger is directed towards their own leaders whose insouciant acceptance of highland casualties rivalled WW1 generals.”

    I was quite pleased with that image myself.

    So is Tavish Scott.

  28. Fascinating YouGov poll published in Sweden today. Reminder: Sweden has a minority Con/Lib government. (Note: the Greens have 2 leaders)

    Net leader approval (government parties *)

    *Fredrik Reinfeldt, Moderates (con, prime minister) +25
    Gustav Fridolin, new Green leader +13
    *Annie Loof, new Centre (lib) leader +8
    *Goran Hagglund, Christian Dem leader +2
    *Jan Bjorklund, Peoples’ Party (lib) leader +1
    Asa Romson, new Green leader -4
    Hakan Juholt, new Social Dem leader, leader of the opposition -8
    Lars Ohly, outgoing communist leader -22
    Jimmie Akesson, Sweden Democrats (BNP lite) -45

  29. Chouenlai

    Thanks; I agree.

    I was pleased with the support that Nick Clegg received at the Q/A session.

  30. Stuart

    Describing both the centre party and the peoples party as libs is a bit misleading, as I understand it the centre party is to the left of the moderates and the peoples party is to the right. It’s very difficult to translate PR politics to British FPTP politics.

  31. OldNat

    ‘The SNP have a self-denying ordinance not to vote on purely English matters – a matter of courtesy to our neighbours’

    There is an injustice in the system, that reflects the poor way devolution was implemented, little better than the way the house of lords was allegedly reformed.

    It would cost a significant sum to correct the anomily of Scottish MPs voting on English only matters. However, if the other Scottish MPs demonstrated the integrity of the SNP MPs, there would not be an issue and no need for an expensive reform.

  32. Phil

    Could we try

    Con 25

    Lab 25

    Lib 35

    Ukip 10

    Green 10

    You never

  33. Stuart

    Thanks for that Swedish data. UK/GB seems to have a particular difficulty with parties selecting leaders that the electorate really disapprove of.

    I wonder what would happen if, somewhere in the UK, had a party leader that the people approved of. Would they overwhelmingly win an election?

    :-) :-)

  34. Sorry that’s 105% it must be all those dead people voting dem

  35. Henry

    I am not going to defend anything about the UK’s structure of governance (other than we got our Parliament back, and can proceed from there).

    That those in England saw devolution being enacted in the other nations, but sat back and totally ignored the implications for themselves has always struck me as being quite incredible.

    I hesitate to suggest why that should be, and probably not for an outsider to analyse for you anyway. (I’m always happy to offer friendly advice though. :-) )

  36. Alec

    ” If we are to apply criteria to one power source, we apply it to all.”

    So try this one-output per unit land area occupied.

    There’s an absolute beauty right on my doorstep:-

    Dungeness B nuclear power station-output last year 3,600,000MWhrs ( 40% of max output )

    Little Cheyne Court Wind Farm-output last year 150,000 MWhrs ( 22% of plated capacity from 26 X 3MW turbines.

    The Wind Farm occupies an area approx the same as the nuclear plant..

    It is located a few miles away from the nuclear plant.

    The Wind Farm is built on Walland Marsh-an important wintering ground for thousands of wildfowl.
    It is built in the middle of a landscape whose essential characteristic is that it is flat marshland.

    The 26 turbines are 115mtrs from ground to upper blade tip.

  37. @ Old Nat

    The SNP have a self-denying ordinance not to vote on purely English matters – a matter of courtesy to our neighbours.

    If our neighbours are proving to be discourteous in return, then there is nothing to prevent SNP MPs casting their vote in the most effective way on any issue.
    ——————————————–
    Got it. IYO, the SNP ‘not voting on English matters’ is not on principle, it’s a political /courtesy stance.

    I still think that the unionist parties, in the event of a hung parliament, would not offer a coalition to the SNP. The SNP would be in a position to hawk their votes around the union parties but, if the others had agreed amongst themselves to politiely decline & let the vote (or not) on any issue as their conscience dictated, then the SNP would have no reason to vote on English matters.
    8-)

  38. ALEC

    “If we are to apply criteria to one power source, we apply it to all. If we were to apply your views to all potential energy sources, we’d probably best get some candles and find a cave.”

    No we wouldn’t.

    We would be building modern nuclear capacity.

  39. OldNat
    Until 1964, IMO people voted for the Party not personality of PM; fortunate for the post war parties given some of the personalities.

    However HW, MT, TB, GB and lastly DC have stamped their personality on the Party, and increasingly we are moving tp Presidential type elections.

    Labour was the first to pick up on this and turned their attack on Mrs T rather than the Tories, and this backfired in 1992, when the Tories changed leader and were given 5 more years. The Tories only started seriously attacking T Blair halfway through his time in office, but were all out attack on GB. It appears that DC and NC have to face continuous personal attacks, sometimes extended to others such as Etonian GO.

    Given these personality attacks which appear much more vicious than the attacks on the Parties and their policies, it is hardly surprising that no leader is popular.

  40. oldnat @ Amber

    “If Scots have voted that they just love the new status quo that will result from the Scotland Bill, then it is unlikely that there will be many SNP MPs.”

    While public reaction to the Scotland Bill or an SNP failure to win the referendum will affect SNP party morale I do not think it will make much difference to anti-cons need to use the SNP. If the SNP vanished tomorrow they would have to use the Greens or the Socialists Instead.

    They aren’t picky.

    The LibDems have disqualified themselves and NewLabour are Tory-lite and can’t deliver the goods.

    Don’t take it personally if you win a majority of the Scottish seats. It’s nothing much to do with the SNP. Just thank SLAB and NC for making it possible.

    If voting SNP looks like the best way to prevent a Conservative led government or remind a Labour government that Scotland is different, the AntiCons will still vote for them, and probably against independence too even if it were on the same day.

    Split voting, to a consistent principle, is a well established practice in Scotland.

    Much depends on the record of an incumbent Labour MP and the ranking of parties in the constituency though the SNP can come from third place, or even fourth place if they are close behind Labour in third.

  41. @RiN
    You need a bigger sidecar.

    Con 151
    Lab 165
    LD 184
    Green 1 (whether 5% or 10%)

  42. @ Phil

    14% LD swing to Labour in England = Con 235 Lab 262 LD 4
    ——————————————————
    Awesome; may I ask, what % of the LD’s 2010 vote needs to move to Labour for a 14% swing like this?

    Thanks 8-)

  43. Chouenlai

    Note that those swings @phil produced at 19:15 are LD to LAB *not* CON to LAB (which I think you think those seat out turns are).

    They assume Tories stay at 36% and all the movement is between LD and LAB i.e. last nights LD to LAB swing was 13.5% and that means on Phils caculations that LAB have 20 seats more than the Tories in England.

  44. “caculations” LOL

  45. @OldNat

    “Chouenlai
    ” It is extremely unlikely I would have sired you.”
    But don’t you remember that kitchen wench that was so good to you many years ago?:-)”

    I have to say, once again, that you are the one poster on here who occasionally gets me to roar out loud with laughter.

    Another classic here and I think you may well be a wasted talent. I sense a very keen wit and a wicked sense of humour.

  46. Henry

    “Given these personality attacks which appear much more vicious than the attacks on the Parties and their policies, it is hardly surprising that no leader is popular.”

    You won’t see much of the Scottish press, I imagine, but the attacks on Alex Salmond are very personal – yet he had strong approval rates.

    I don’t think your thesis stands up.

  47. @Amberstar

    Thanks.

    GB vote shares in 2010 were C 37.0%, Lab 29.7%, LD 23.6%.

    So a 14% LD to Lab swing gives new GB shares:
    Con 37.0%, Lab 43.7%, LD 9.6%.
    Not that dissimilar to some recent YouGovs (if you believe them).

    And to answer your point: 14/23.6 = 59% of 2010 LD vote share would have to switch to Lab all else being equal. Seems a bit implausible, but remember these are net figures. Some of the 59% of 2010 switching LDs could instead switch to Con, balanced by some Con switching to Lab and you get the same effect.

  48. Amber

    “I still think that the unionist parties, in the event of a hung parliament, would not offer a coalition to the SNP.”

    I tend to agree, but in politics nothing is certain.

    I’d be amazed if the SNP wanted to be in a coalition to govern England – a rainbow coalition for the UK was another matter, that had the possibility of squeezing something for Scottish autonomy out of it.

    “Got it. IYO, the SNP ‘not voting on English matters’ is not on principle, it’s a political /courtesy stance.”

    Yes. You have it. On principle, the SNP has no wish to vote on English matters, and if the English don’t obstruct what the Scots decide they want, I’d expect that to continue.

    However, if the courtesies are not reciprocated, then its a different ball game. I think you rather misunderstood my original comment about the SNP then using their votes most effectively. You should be able to envisage how (depending on the parliamentary arithmetic) they might be used to disrupt the governance of England.

    That’s not how the SNP would want to operate, but most parliamentary tactics are perfectly reasonable in the face of opposition to what Scots vote for – which was the point I was making.

  49. Would it be broadly correct to say the provisional boundary recommendations have produced more marginal seats?

  50. John B Dick

    “Don’t take it personally if you win a majority of the Scottish seats. It’s nothing much to do with the SNP.”

    I think you may be confusing me with someone who is a party loyalist.

    I have oft described my dislike of all parties (including the one i am currently a member of).

    The SNP are the vehicle most likely to deliver the autonomy for Scotland that I want.

    Personally, I couldn’t give a toss about the political career of one politician as opposed to another. (There are good and bad in all parties).

1 3 4 5 6