This is the third in a series of posts on the boundary review. There is a general overview of what is happening and why it’s controversial here, a summary of what the effects are and some of MPs who are losing their seats here. This final post has the full, seat-by-seat, estimates of how the votes cast at the last general election would have fallen out on the new boundaries in England and Wales.

Full notional results for England and Wales.

The changes in England and Wales result in the Conservatives losing 10 seats, Labour losing 28 seats, the Liberal Democrats losing 4 and the Greens losing Brighton Pavilion (though notional calculations like these risk underestimating the performance of parties with isolated pockets of support like the Greens and Lib Dems, so it may not hit them as hard as these suggest). The Scottish boundary commission don’t report until next month, but for obvious reasons the Conservatives and Labour can only lose a maximum of one seat each there, meaning that on these boundaries the Conservatives would have had a majority of around 40 at the last election.

The usual caveats I give for notional results apply – this is an accounting exercise, estimating what the ward level vote within each constituency would have been in 2015 (basing the distribution on the distribution at local elections) then reallocating the wards to their new constituencies and adding them back up again. If there is a radically different pattern of support in an area at local and national elections the figures might be misleading, if there are loads of independent candidates in any area (as in rural Wales, North Yorkshire or Cornwall) then the figures won’t be that accurate. If you know an area really well and you think the projections are wrong, then you are probably correct… but hopefully any such errors cancel out.

And a final caveat – this is purely a prediction of how the votes would have fallen out if the votes at the last election were counted on the new boundaries. They are certainly NOT a prediction of what would happen at the next election.


743 Responses to “Notional results for provisional English and Welsh boundaries”

1 11 12 13 14 15
  1. @CAMBRIDGERACHEL

    “It’s a shame that Merkel is going to be punished at the polls for doing the right thing, but that’s the nature of democracy. Merkel knew she was risking her political career on this, I’m sure her advisers pointed out polling and focus groups etc. Its a brave politician that takes such a risk, although some would say arrogant.”

    I don’t think she did the right thing at all, though she may have meant well. Surely she should have known that an unchecked and unlimited open door policy on refugees would allow in some very unsavoury types – as has happened. To me, this is negligence of the highest order. She has certainly been arrogant and also incredibly foolish – she must go.

  2. Ken,

    Read back a bit, I think Somerjohn mentioned Hitler to posts or so before me, take it up with him.

    Also Godwins law states that as a conversation goes on the likelihood of a “Comparison with Hitler increases.

    I made no “Comparison”, I just agreed with Somerjohn that I thought he was wrong.

    I did point out that many who are challenging the like of Merkel are backed by people who like Hitler are Facists, but I didn’t compare these people to Hitler.

    The fact that Facist groups in Europe seem to be gaining in strength is a statement of fact not a comparison with Hitler either.

    Peter.

  3. Peter Cairns
    “If fewer people left or we could convince them to stay net migration could have been slashed, hell just not exporting our pensioners might have done that alone.”

    That’s the exact opposite of what would happen. If there was no emigration, net immigration would equal gross immigration which is running at about 600,000 per annum.

    Also, though about half of immigration is from outside the EU, the point is that at least we can elect a government that can attempt to control it. That is impossible with EU immigration until we leave.

  4. @PETE CAIRNS (SNP)

    “Half of all immigration was from out with the EU and we could stop that if we’d wanted any time but the UK government didn’t, that part can’t be blamed on the EU.
    We were also more than happy to let anyone who wanted go and live and work elsewhere in the EU, I don’t remember anyone from the Brexit side saying they should all be ordered home.”

    This is an excellent point that the Brexiteers simply have no answer to. To blame high immigration on the EU is naive in the extreme – high immigration has been an issue since the 1950s – well before we joined the EU. Even after Brexit I expect it will continue just as high as before. There is a commercially driven impetus to immigration; businesses need cheap labour and they need certain skills in limited supply.

  5. ROBERT NEWARK

    @” I will be sorry to see Merkel go but she only has herself to blame with her open door immigration policy and the internal problems that has caused”

    I agree.

    Just been listening to reports of her reaction to the Berlin City Election result.

    I’ve heard a few political mea culpas in my time-but this must be one of the most dramatic .

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37403542

  6. @PETE B

    “Also, though about half of immigration is from outside the EU, the point is that at least we can elect a government that can attempt to control it. That is impossible with EU immigration until we leave.”

    That is an illusion. What do you mean by ‘control’? Points system? That has been ruled out, and rightly so because it would encourage immigration, not reduce it. Numerical quotas? That would be hard to police, especially if we want to retain an open border with the Republic of Ireland. I don’t see how any controls would work.

  7. Good Afternoon from Bournemouth East; soon to be in 2018 Bournemouth South.
    I think when people are condemned for being populist they are being condemned for saying what people (demos) think and feel.

    The Nation State is on the way back as a respectable idea, it seems.

    De Gaulle used to say that ‘Europe’ should be built on the foundations of the nation states.

    On ‘the Left’ this has been hard to accept, but the Fabian Society has published a document on this issue today.

  8. @COLIN

    The issue is that if Merkel loses the next German GE then we’ll probably see an SPD chancellor who is even more leftist and pro-globalisation. Not a happy thought.

  9. @CHRISLANE1945

    “The Nation State is on the way back as a respectable idea, it seems.
    De Gaulle used to say that ‘Europe’ should be built on the foundations of the nation states.”

    I have never opposed this idea. But nation states sometimes have to be willing to give up sovereignty in certain areas in order for an organisation like the EU to function. It is naive to pretend otherwise.

  10. Tancred
    Teresa May has ruled out a points system, but she will not be PM for ever.

    There are many mechanisms by which immigration could be controlled, and they don’t all involve direct border controls. For instance, one obvious one would be similar to what Cameron had to beg the EU for (and was refused). i.e. immigrants shouldn’t get benefits until they’ve contributed for a number of years, and benefits shouldn’t be paid for dependents who live in foreign countries. That would be a start and would have some effect.

  11. TOH: “Trying the “superior line argument” again?”

    Maybe, but I don’t know what a “superior line argument” is, so there again, maybe not.

    My comment re some people not wanting to engage in thoughtful debate, but rather getting into a paddy and resorting to insults, was not aimed at any particular point of view, just at those who hold opinionated views but, when challenged, are unable or unwilling to justify them.

    Anyway, you’ve said I’m not a democrat because I don’t believe the electorate is always right. But take, as an example, Chamberlain’s Munich agreement in 1938. It was greeted with huge popular approval. If there had been a referendum, it would have been overwhelmingly supported. Only a few oddballs like Churchill and Bob Boothby stood out against it. Here’s what the Daily Express had to say on 30 September 1938:

    “Be glad in your hearts. Give thanks to your God. People of Britain, your children are safe. Your husbands and sons will not march into battle. If we must have a victor, let us choose Chamberlain.
    For the Prime Minister’s conquests are mighty and enduring – millions of happy homes and hearts relieved of their burden. To him the laurels. And now let us go back to our own affairs. We have had enough of those menaces, conjured up from the Continent to confuse us.”
    Daily Express, 30 September 1938

    Thank goodness there wasn’t a referendum. And let’s hope that if there had been, Churchill would have prevailed over the voice of those saying , “the people have spoken, you lost, get over it”

  12. PeteB,

    “That would be a start and would have some effect.’

    But how much effect and would it be enough for those who want immigration in the 10’s of thousands.

    Fact is we just don’t know how much our benefit system is a lure if at all.

    The tabloids are never done saying it, but then they are never done going on about benefit scroungers in big houses even though the numbers involved are tiny.

    There is a very good chance that the main drivers are better chances of work with better pay than at home and the fact that English is by far the most common second language in Europe.

    The vast bulk of EU immigration has been young working age people willing to do unpopular jobs that they are often over qualified for.

    When you can get more as a care assistant here than as a teacher at home and you speak good enough English it’s a bit of a no brainer really.

    Mind you I suspect there are more than a few Tories and Kippers who would be happy to extend the benefits entitlement restrictions to everyone. That would have suited them but would have meant staying in the EU.

    That might for them kill to birds with one stone, stop foreigners coming over here and get the scroungers out to work.

    Who knows they might even be looking forward to busing Geordie to Kent to pick all that fruit the Romanians used to.

    Peter.

  13. CL1945

    @”The Nation State is on the way back as a respectable idea, it seems.”

    Not for Mr Juncker.

    Of all the things which this EuroFanatic has said, I think the most significant was reported recently:-

    “National borders are “the worst invention ever”, European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker has claimed.”
    Indy-22. 08.2016

    Without National borders there is no definable Nation. And without your Nation what is your Cultural Heritage? . Even your Language, , which Daniel Everett (1) defines as Cognition + Culture + Communication , becomes pointless.

    And so there will be no annoying local opinions about or resistance to Ever Closer Union , and a Country called Europe.

    I wish I believed you Chris, and certainly if the Culture and National identity of the three Baltic States can survive over fifty decades of subsuming into the Na*i & Soviet Empires, then there must be hope.

    But this is where the fault line lies in this fractious & broken European Union Project.

    (1) “Language-The Cultural Tool” by Daniel Everett.

  14. Somerjohn
    “We have had enough of those menaces, conjured up from the Continent to confuse us”

    Well at least they got that bit right! :-)

  15. @PETE B

    “Tancred
    Teresa May has ruled out a points system, but she will not be PM for ever.”

    True, and the PM after her could be even less keen on the idea. Don’t assume that Leadsom and friends will be taking over.

    The Cameron idea on benefits was a good one but was not accepted by the leave side. Are the pro-Brexit ministers suddenly going to be persuaded by this line now? I doubt it.

  16. Oh for goodness sake people!

    “Of all the things which this EuroFanatic has said”

    Junckers is not a fanatic; yes he supports ever closer Union as he thinks that it will be good for Europe but that doesn’t make him a fanatic.

    You may disagree with him, I am not as pro integration as e is but that doesn’t make him fanatic.

    Mind you I’ve been called “superior” because I don’t think the EU is a disaster and have had the temerity to say so.

    Peter.

  17. Peter Cairns
    I notice that you ignored my post of 2:14 which showed that you had got the effect of emigration from this country 100% wrong. I am sceptical of all your other unsupported claims.

  18. CHRISLANE

    Thanks for the tip on the Fabian Soc. publication.

    Looks like a very good read.

    http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/FABJ4808_Europe_Report_130916_WEB_2.pdf

    I like this from the section :- “We must respect people’s
    desire for control” by James Morris :-

    “Immigration has been a defining issue for more than a decade, but the Labour party didn’t want to notice. For the liberal right
    of the party, anger about immigration was Luddite. For the old left, concern was racist. On this one issue, Labour’s dominant tribes were in harmony: the best response to concerns about immigration was to change the subject .
    Dismissing concern as an effect of the referendum rather than as a cause of the result is also dangerous for the future of anti-racism. “

  19. @SOMERJOHN

    Interesting analogy, but the simple reason why appeasement failed is simply because it was not continued to its logical conclusion. Hitler wanted a full revision of Versailles and Chamberlain was never willing to offer that, so war became inevitable. Had Versailles been scrapped and replaced by a treaty allowing a ‘greater’ Germany with Danzig and other German speaking areas incorporated into Germany then there would have been no ‘causus belli’.

    War broke out because the UK government became panicky and backtracked very quickly on appeasement after Czechia was occupied by the Germans. Of course Czechia was totally unimportant, but it showed that Hitler’s claims were nowhere near finished. The ultimate fear was that Hitler was going to demand former colonies again, and that would have been unacceptable. It’s odd that war started over Danzig when this was a claim that was actually perfectly legitimate from the German perspective.

  20. @COLIN

    Having no borders does not mean that nations simply disappear – this is nonsense! Many now independent countries in central Europe were once united in the Austro-Hungarian Empire – did they disappear? No, of course not. The languages, customs, culture and traditions of these nations did not disappear either. They were member countries of an empire – just like the British Empire having several nations like India, Australia and South Africa under its wing.

  21. Junker said that having national borders was a mistake, not that nations themselves were a mistake.

    Scotland remains a very distinct nation despite three hundred years without a border, as several posters on here will testify.

    Juncker has said some things that IMHO are idiotic, but this is not obviously one of them…

  22. THE OTHER HOWARD……I’m fine, thanks, and I note that you are continuing to counter the propagandists on the despair side, not a happy group. But don’t we all dislike losing, I tend to use a bit of emotional intelligence when faced with a remoaners frustration, I learned from bringing up 4 kids, that we sometimes have to share their pain. ;-)
    We have just returned from a holiday in Sardinia, lovely friendly people, great weather, delicious food and wine, on a purely anecdotal note, the local people we met are not happy Europeans.

    PETER CAIRNS ( SNP )……..Slippery as ever, eh ! ;-)

  23. PeteB,

    Sorry, skipped over it.

    You are of course 100% correct. I, not for the first time got to issues mixed up.

    The population would have indeed increased by twice as much, but then that kind of suggests that my other points about the UK being a good place to live and work is also true.

    I seriously doubt many people decided not to emigrate because of the level of benefits and a Council house.

    Peter.

  24. Ken,

    You accused me of breaking Goodwins Law which I didn’t.

    If you can prove I made a comparison to Hitler rather than simply said he was wrong then prove it.

    Try this for help;

    “Corollaries and usage”

    “For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

    This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin’s law.”

    But it isn’t, you have used it in this way which is not how it was intended.

    “Godwin’s law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent’s argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.”

    I compared no one to Hitler and pointing out that parties who openly state that they are Facists are probably Facists is a statement of fact not Hyperbole

    Peter.

  25. C. Rachel

    ““It’s a shame that Merkel is going to be punished at the polls for doing the right thing, but that’s the nature of democracy. Merkel knew she was risking her political career on this, I’m sure her advisers pointed out polling and focus groups etc. Its a brave politician that takes such a risk, although some would say arrogant.”

    Fully agree (we probably don’t agree that often on politics, so that’s nice :) )

  26. Tancred:

    I share you enthusiasm for the EU but fear that your more unorthodox views undermine the credibility of your arguments.

    So I’m afraid I can’t accept your suggestion that the German dictator could have been bought off if he’d achieved all he wanted through appeasement. The fact was that the more he got, the more he wanted. The more we appeased him, the more he thought we were a pushover.

    Two aims definitely outside Versailles were exterminating Jews and conquering the Soviet Union. And if he’d achieved those, surely the USA would have been next?

    In a Europe of unfettered nation states, there will always be a few with nasty regimes led by nasty people. At the moment, that includes Hungary, Poland and maybe Slovakia. There has to be a mechanism for containing them, otherwise contagion can-oh-so easily spread. Appeasement doesn’t work. That’s why I want a strong EU.

  27. I am Eurosceptic (though a Remainer, if you will) and can completely understand the rise of eurosceptic parties on the continent as well as here, and also realise that some of them are mixed up with fascism.

    Sympathising with the frustration of the people who vote for them does not equate to sympathising with fascism.

    I can also categorically confirm that being Eurosceptic and fed up with unelected elites and others, I do NOT also admire either Putin or Trump, both extremely dangerous men that the world would be better off without. I can just about bear Farage, but he’s not in their league.

  28. Somerjohn

    “So I’m afraid I can’t accept your suggestion that the German dictator could have been bought off if he’d achieved all he wanted through appeasement. The fact was that the more he got, the more he wanted. The more we appeased him, the more he thought we were a pushover.”

    Fully agree. Appeasement doesn’t work.

  29. Tancred

    “This is an excellent point that the Brexiteers simply have no answer to. ”

    Pete B answered it in the next post.

  30. @SOMERJOHN

    “So I’m afraid I can’t accept your suggestion that the German dictator could have been bought off if he’d achieved all he wanted through appeasement. The fact was that the more he got, the more he wanted. The more we appeased him, the more he thought we were a pushover.”

    This is a historical discussion, nothing to do with Brexit. Many historians would not necessarily agree with your orthodox view – have you read AJP Taylor? Hitler was basically a gambler – he never had a plan, he just seized opportunities as they came along. I agree that appeasement needed to have a limit, but Danzig should not have been that limit as it was a justified claim. Chamberlain should have issued guaranteed to France, Belgium and the Netherlands, but not to any eastern nations that we could not defend.

    “Two aims definitely outside Versailles were exterminating Jews and conquering the Soviet Union. And if he’d achieved those, surely the USA would have been next?”

    This is nonsense. The tragic Jewish Holocaust was not an ‘aim’ – the plan was always expulsion and resettlement of the Jews in Madagascar, subject to French approval and assistance (which never came). Nobody really knows how and why the physical extermination of the Jews came about, but it’s ridiculous to say that it was an objective of the regime. If it had been it would have started already in the mid 1930s.
    Destroying the USSR was certainly an aim, but only a ‘desirable’ one rather than a realistic one. It became realistic only once Germany had a physical border with the USSR and there was no Polish state in the way. Your comment about the USA is completely groundless as Hitler never made any even high level plans for attacking the USA – on the contrary, Roosevelt started imposing high import tariffs and other unfriendly measures against Germany right from the beginning of Hitler’s rule, and was quick to break the USA’s neutrality once the European war started.

    “In a Europe of unfettered nation states, there will always be a few with nasty regimes led by nasty people. At the moment, that includes Hungary, Poland and maybe Slovakia. There has to be a mechanism for containing them, otherwise contagion can-oh-so easily spread. Appeasement doesn’t work. That’s why I want a strong EU.”

    I also want a strong EU, but I want a different sort of EU from the current one. I don’t agree with your view on ‘nasty’ states – at present the only relatively nasty state in Europe is Russia.

    I like Hungary and their approach to the flood of refugees – they are defending their own country and I applaud them for it. If Europe is to become the middle east then it will be a disaster – Europe must be Europe if it is to work. Unlike the Brexiteers I want a strong Britain in Europe to stop the nonsense before it starts to affect us. With Britain outside the EU we will powerless to prevent an immigration crisis from the Third World that will submerge us all.

  31. @BT SAYS…

    “Fully agree. Appeasement doesn’t work.”

    Nixon made it work with China in the early 1970s. It could have worked with Hitler if we had let him know very clearly what the limits were, but we didn’t. Danzig had always been 100% German and there is no way that we should have gone to war on this pretext.

  32. TANCRED

    @”Having no borders does not mean that nations simply disappear – this is nonsense! Many now independent countries in central Europe were once united in the Austro-Hungarian Empire – did they disappear? ”

    As I posted above-the evidence from Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania is that cultural identity lies deep, like seeds which germinate after years of dormancy.

    My point was that removal of borders enables the imposition of pan-national rule by Imperialist Regimes/ Invaders/Dictators etc.

    BFR

    @”Junker said that having national borders was a mistake, not that nations themselves were a mistake.”

    My case was that removing the former emasculates & weakens the latter. I have little doubt that he thinks this would be a good thing to achieve-thus he supports the means of achieving something which he cannot get through the ballot box.

  33. PETER CAIRNS (SNP)

    Genuingly pleased to hear that you accept that we are going to leave the EU even though you don’t agree that it’s the best thing for the UK. You have every right to feel as you do, ,just as I have every right to hold a very different view to you about whats best for the UK.

    Also glad to see you have seen through Tim Fallon’s mock challenge for short term electoral gain. Typical of the LibDems IMO.

    Finally I am delighted that you accept that you act “superior” sometimes even if i don’t fully accept your justification for doing so.
    I hope we can all get back to sensible discussion from now on.

  34. “we can all get back to sensible discussion from now on.”

    That would be great, because even just reading the exchanges was bad enough …

  35. Peter Cairns

    If in your post at 2.03, if you are stating that Junker and his cohorts are appointed and not voted in because they are civil servants, then perhaps it would be a good idea if they behaved like civil servants, kept their traps shut and worked quietly in the background.

    If they don’t want to do that, then they are acting as politicians and as such should be elected or better still disbanded.

  36. @Colin
    But your example of the Baltic states and mine of Scotland suggest that removing border does very little to diminish national identity means that, even if this is Junckers’ goal (itself a speculation) it is a very ineffective way to achieve it.

    But my main point is that you are taking something that he said (which is fairly sensible) and extrapolating that he means something different (which is not)

  37. SOMERJOHN

    Thank you for you post and I really don’t need a lesson on modern history thank you. Hypotheticals like if there had been a referendum after Munich are meaningless, there wasn’t one, and yes thank God for Churchill.

    In the case of the referendum on the EU it had the highest vote for anything I think in UK history and still you won’t accept it, implying in the way you post that your views are superior to those who don’t share them. They are not.

    Peter at least accepts that we will be leaving the EU but continues to feel it will be bad for the UK which is fair enough. In doing that he is showing that he is a democrat and I applaud him for that. I am not convinced you are democratic at all.

  38. BFR

    @”But your example of the Baltic states and mine of Scotland suggest that removing border does very little to diminish national identity means that, even if this is Junckers’ goal (itself a speculation) it is a very ineffective way to achieve it.”

    But it is the only way he can achieve it. Getting it through the ballot boxes of Europe might be difficult.

    I agree that I speculate when ascribing this objective to him. But I do so on the basis of what he says about his particular “vision” of the EU.

  39. Robert

    Your 4.30 post. Well put, totally agree with you.

  40. TOH

    Yes-seconded on Robert’s post.

  41. BFR

    ……….for example, after the UK Referendum vote Juncker was reported as saying :-

    ” “In former times, all those implied in the project were full-time Europeans. Now we have too many part-time Europeans. That is a problem because some of our colleagues in the European Council are listening exclusively to their national opinion. And if you listen to your national opinion, you are not developing what should be common European sense, a feeling for the need we have to put together our efforts.”

    ( Indy)

    Of course there are no specifics here-but his attitude to “national opinion”-which derives from the Nations-is clear.

    By way of contrast , & to highlight Juncker’s preference; here is Wolfgang Schauble in the same Indy report :-

    ” “We couldn’t simply demand more integration as a result of a Brexit. This would be crude; many would be right in asking whether we politicians have still not understood”,
    “We should understand it as a warning and a wake-up call that we simply can’t go on as before.”

    This is why I suggested, in my remarks to ChrisLane , that this aspect-the role & place of the Nation State within EU-is at the current fault line through it.

  42. In th meantime, there will be a referendum in Hungary against the refugee quota.

    The opposition asks people to boycott it (there is a minimum participation rate for the referendum to be valid – it is a different matter that it cannot be valid, but it’s too long …). So, the Hungarian Election Commission issued a handbook what counts a yes and no vote. For example, if someone crosses the entire ballot paper in a way that the X goes through the box above No, it is a No, but if it crosses yes, it is invalid.

    Here are all the examples. The words you need to know
    Igen – yes
    Nem – no
    Érvényes- valid vote
    Érvénytelen – not valid vote.

    This is happening in an EU country.

    http://444.hu/2016/09/18/figyelnie-kell-annak-aki-ervenytelenul-akar-szavazni-az-oktoberi-nepszavazason

  43. Oh, the government of Hungary wants “no” to win.

  44. Sorry, the linked pictures were NOT for the citizens, but the counting people – only that it was leaked.

  45. Who is this Tim Fallon???

  46. On appeasment: it failed to stop Hitler in the 1930s, but so did deterrence. We had the biggest peacetime buildup in our history. No-one says “Deterrence doesn’t work, because it didn’t stop Hitler”. The complex truth is that both strategies work sometimes and not othertimes.

  47. Prof Howard

    David Torrance has been called many things, but “Prominent Scottish author and journalist” might imply that he takes a balanced view.

    Any such implication would be wholly in error. he is a partisan Unionist commentator, and anything he says with regard to Scotland should be read with that in mind.

    As Salmond pointed out, Torrance was his “self-appointed biographer” and that “first, I hardly know David Torrance. And secondly – and much more problematically for a biographer – he doesn’t know me at all. “

  48. Bill Patrick

    “The complex truth is that both strategies work sometimes and not othertimes.”

    What on earth are you doing? Bringing sensible observations onto UKPR!

    Fortunately, I don’t think it is a trend that will catch on. ;-)

  49. TANCRED.
    Hello to you.
    I agree that the ‘nations’ without borders were part of Empires. The ‘liberal nationalist’ movements of the 1848 era were about dismantling multi national empires in order to make Governments accountable. I think you know all this.

    As far as A J P Taylor is concerned; he was a hero of mine, and it was a great thrill in my young life in October 1975 when I heard him in ‘Schools’ for the Lecture about what History is.

    Kershaw and Overy have, I think, demolished the theories propounded by Taylor and others about Hitler’s anti Jewish visions which inspired so many NSDAP members and fellow-travellers.

  50. Old Nat,

    I’ve been doing that for years! Maybe you’ve only just noticed? ; )

    (Incidentally, have you every considered that your name is a homophone with ‘Old Gnat’?)

1 11 12 13 14 15