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 12 13 14 15
  1. Completely off topic, but maybe some light relief.

    I was having a cup of tea in a famous burger establishment in Bristol when a gentleman began talking politics to all that would listen.

    It was a highly entertaining hour, in which almost everybody in said establishment engaged with the gentleman until he left in disgust.

    He was recruiting for his revolutionary left wing group, the armed wing of momentum (I kid you not). He wanted to storm parliament and execute all politicians who disagreed, all people with money and errr immigrants. Sighting the French Revolution as the model.

    The irony was that he was claiming to be ex German special forces (I doubt) and only interested in people with the stomach for the coming war.

    It kept a few people fairly entertained. He was actually homeless and I did feel sorry for his perception of the world around him.

  2. Bill Patrick

    “Old Gnat” – about as often as Scots have pointed out our usage of cleg. :-)

  3. Two very interesting tv programmes about the Labour Party and its various manifestations.

    A Barrister was asked to comment on some things discovered.

    Extraordinary

  4. 2nd part of Survation Scottish poll (on indy) has been released – for the 2nd anniversary.

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/rrr_.pdf

    If the referendum was tomorrow etc etc (all likely to vote)

    Yes 42.5% : No 47.9% : Undecided 9.6%

    While that’s a drop in indy support since the initial Survation post Brexit poll in June, one might speculate that it may be linked to people not knowing whether Scotland will actually be out of the Single Market or not.

    The data for those who voted in 2014 are worth a look –

    September poll

    Yes in 2014 – Yes 83.6% : No 8.8% : Undecided 7.0%
    No in 2014 – Yes 10.2% : No 80.5%% : Undecided 9.3%

    June poll

    All – Yes 48.7% : No 42.1% : Undecided 9.3%
    Yes in 2014 – Yes 72.9% : No 20.6% : Undecided 6.4%
    No in 2014 – Yes 21% : No 67.8%% : Undecided 10.7%

    That would seem to suggest that –

    1. one of these polls is an outlier

    and/or

    2. Around 10% of each camp’s vote is very open to change – depending on how Brexit actually operates.

  5. TOH: “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.”

    I think turnout is the best measure of voter engagement. The referendum’s 72.2% doesn’t compare well with GEs before this century – for instance, 83.9% in 1950 and 77.7% even in 1992. Or, of course, the Scottish referendum’s 84.6%.

    Anyway, as I said before, it appears you think I’m not a democrat because I don’t think the electorate is always right. So do you really think the electorate is always right? Like when they kick out a Tory government in favour of Labour for example?

    I think what you’re confusing is disagreeing with the verdict of the electorate – which in the case of the referendum, I do – and wanting to overturn that verdict by non-democratic means – which of course I don’t.

    In fact, I’m very relaxed about the forthcoming Brexit because I think it’s in the best interests of the EU. I’m very sad about the huge damage it will do to the UK, but you get what you vote for. And we’re in for an interesting ride: it will be fascinating to see how far the UK government is willing to go in damaging the country’s interests, and what it will do if and when public opinion turns against Brexit.

    And that raises an interesting point. If Brexit starts to look very unappealing, and the government needs a device to get it off the hook, and settles on the spiffing wheeze of another referendum… will the electorate have the right to decide they were wrong first time round, or would that prove they just can’t be trusted with democracy?

  6. OldNat,

    “That would seem to suggest that –
    1. one of these polls is an outlier

    and/or

    2. Around 10% of each camp’s vote is very open to change – depending on how Brexit actually operates.”

    Surely the simplest explanation is that immediately post the referendum in June there was a sudden shift towards Independence in the wake of Scotland voting to remain and now a couple of months on with nothing happening it has slipped back to the norm, roughly 53% to 47% to remain.

    Well within the margin of error and little different from the referendum two years ago which is probably to be expected given how, even post Brexit, the EU matters relatively little to most voters.

    Peter.

  7. Peter

    “Surely the simplest explanation is that immediately post the referendum in June there was a sudden shift towards Independence in the wake of Scotland voting to remain and now a couple of months on with nothing happening it has slipped back to the norm, roughly 53% to 47% to remain.”

    OK – but you then need to explain WHY (if neither poll was an outlier) the immediate response to the Brexit result was for around 10% of 2014 voters from each camp changed their vote in their immediate response to that vote.

    I absolutely agree that, since no one has the faintest clue as to whether Scotland will be out of the Single Market, that most have reverted to their original stance.

    That slightly more Nos have moved to Yes and Undecided than Yes folk to No or Undecided probably predates the EUref.

  8. @COLIN

    “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.”

    I never contradicted that. And I don’t believe the EU is there to impose a USSR style regime on member nations, no matter what Junker says. What I do believe is that people who migrate should do so for genuine reasons, i.e. to work, and that they should not have a criminal background.

  9. OldNat,

    I’d go for the minority who care about being in the EU and voted No because they were told it would guarantee us staying in reacting against Brexit.

    The other side is those who were Yes but wanted out of both Unions being happy to stay in the UK now we were out of the EU.

    Of the four groups

    Yes/Yes, No/No, Yes/No & No/Yes the mixed Yes/No groups are the smallest and an unexpected Brexit was probably enough for the effect of that to cause a temporary blip in a poll just a week or two later.

    Peter.

  10. @BILL PATRICK

    “On appeasement: 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 other times.”

    True. Britain had been rearming at a rapid rate since 1935 and there was absolutely no evidence that ‘appeasement’ was anything but a short term tactic to delay the seemingly inevitable war. As I said previously, had appeasement been properly practised there would have been no war in 1939 because the British government would not have issued that guarantee to Poland which was a red rag to a bull.

  11. Interesting map of AfD support in Germany, never over 10% anywhere and concentrated in the old East.

    https://afddueren.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/afd-btw2013-wahlkreise-mit-beschriftung-dc3bcren1.png

    Peter.

  12. @CHRISLANE1945

    “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.”

    And what are these? My own feeling is that the Holocaust of the Jews was initiated once the war reached the point of no return, i.e. a ‘total’ war. In Hitler’s mind this meant a genocidal war, and one in which the German people themselves would become the victims of genocide if they did not win. The point at which this happened was probably December 1941, when the USA entered the war. At this point, any last moral scruples were abandoned with the excuse of ‘total war’.

  13. Peter

    I agree with that analysis.

    Of course, the groups are generationally divided. Those under 55/65 (depending on the age range selected by each pollster) are majority pro-indy/pro-EU, while us wrinklies have a majority who are pro-UK/pro Brexit.

    I’ve seen a fair amount of nonsense about the elderly “disliking change”, but the Brexit vote seems to indicate that isn’t the case.

    I wonder if many older people just feel more comfortable with what they imagine to be the norms of their youth?

  14. @PETER CAIRNS (SNP)

    “Interesting map of AfD support in Germany, never over 10% anywhere and concentrated in the old East.
    https://afddueren.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/afd-btw2013-wahlkreise-mit-beschriftung-dc3bcren1.png
    Peter.”

    Funny lot, the Germans. They have steadily become institutionally centrist in politics ever since 1949. Germany is, in many ways, a ‘non-nation’ nowadays, submerged into an EU identity that seeks to downplay any notion of German ethnic identity. Indeed, some commentators have said that German sovereignty does not really exist – that Germany is under the thumb of the USA, and has been since 1949 when it (West Germany at the time) allegedly had to sign a secret treaty with the western allies to ensure that they could control any German laws until 2099.

    This video pretty much says it all:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRstBkr4IlU

  15. Tancred
    I watched about half that video. Whether the claim that the Weimar republic was the legal entity representing Germany after Hitler’s death is true or not would I presume have to be tested in a court of law. Whether anyone would be interested after 70 years is another matter. Germany had only existed as a unified nation for just over 70 years by then anyway.

    Of course a hardline Brexit conspiracy theorist might say that the EU is really greater Germany. While the EU dithers, Merkel makes decisions. No-one else seems to be able to – e.g. Cameron having to beg. Also, many EU policies have been said to be continuations of Hitler’s post-war plans (minus the racism).

  16. I don’t know what the Welsh is for “Oh, shit!” but 6% of Welsh voters seem to have had that thought over their EUref vote to Leave.

    http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2016-07-05/poll-shows-welsh-voters-now-support-eu-membership/

    “When we look at the details of the results, we find that while nearly all those (fully 97%) of those who indicate that they voted Remain in the referendum still hold to this position, only 86% of those who voted for Leave do so. There appears to be a small cohort of voters who voted to Leave, but who may now be experienced what some in the media have termed ‘Bregret’.” (Scully)

    On Welsh independence little has changed.

  17. I don’t know what the Welsh is for “Oh, sh!t!” but 6% of Welsh voters seem to have had that thought over their EUref vote to Leave.

    http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2016-07-05/poll-shows-welsh-voters-now-support-eu-membership/

    “When we look at the details of the results, we find that while nearly all those (fully 97%) of those who indicate that they voted Remain in the referendum still hold to this position, only 86% of those who voted for Leave do so. There appears to be a small cohort of voters who voted to Leave, but who may now be experienced what some in the media have termed ‘Bregret’.” (Scully)

    On Welsh independence little has changed.

  18. @PETE B

    There is no doubt that West Germany (as it was) was one of the prime movers behind the EU, however there is no way that the EU is some kind of ‘Fourth Reich’ – utter nonsense. The EU was set up with American approval as a way to ‘lock in’ Germany into the western camp. Initially the French were not keen on including Germany in the Common Market (as it was then), but the Americans pressured them to do so.

  19. Tancred
    I didn’t say that I thought the EU was the Fourth Reich. Nevertheless it would be interesting to know how many German proposals have been turned into EU law compared to other countries.

  20. PeteB,

    Logic kind of dictates that a founder and advocate of a pan european political grouping would get proposals accepted by a group that had freely agreed to join, many afterwards, than one that came reluctantly and half heartedly latter.

    Equally if you joined or advocated that group because you believed it was best for all rather than to get what you could for yourself then you would be more likely to make proposals that had something for others, than mostly for yourself, which would make them more likely to succeed.

    Of course you could probably also expect those who joined late looking at their own benefit and putting forward proposals that mostly suited themselves to look on your proposals with suspicion wondering what you were really after!

    Peter.

  21. Peter Cairns

    Since the end of the second World War Germany has been consumed by war guilt, its deep in the German psyche. I think up until recently a lot of their foreign policy decisions were influenced by that. I wonder if it wasn’t war guilt that inspired merkel to open up Germany to Syrian refugees, of course there were other factors but I’m guessing that sense of shame played a part. I think it might be the last time that feeling will inform policy decisions.

  22. Somerjohn
    Thanks for your detailed reply.
    Clearly I was wrong about turn out for the referendum as you have pointed out but I think you could agree that there was a clear and very large vote for Brexit.
    You ask me do I think that the electorate is always right. Of course not, but perhaps the difference between us is that I accept the verdict of the people if it was a democratic vote. Thus to answer your question I have always accepted the verdict of general elections whether I liked the result or not. You give me the impression that you do not accept the verdict of the people in the referendum, if I’m wrong about that please say so. In doing so I believe I am a true democrat as I also believe it is in the best interest of the people.
    Your fifth paragraph is interesting, you are pleased for the EU because you think it is in the best interest of the EU. That does not appear to be the view amongst EU members as there is anger and increased disagreement amongst them, even Juncker accepts the EU is in crisis. You then go on to say your sad about the huge damage it will do to the UK. We profoundly disagree about that. I accept short term damage but in the longer term I think it will be of great benefit to the UK, while I think the EU will slowly disintegrate.
    Would I accept the idea of another referendum on EU membership as democratic. My answer is yes, after we have left the EU if parliament voted for one, but no it would not be democratic if it was before we have left the EU even if parliament had voted for it.

  23. CAMBRIDGERACHEL,

    I’ve never full bought into the war guilt theory ofGerman politics.

    It tends to overlook that behind the rise of National Socialism and the nationalism of the Kaiser Germany by the turn of the century was a highly educated country with a strong intellectual tradition.

    Although not in the ascendancy liberal ideals where certainly strong and with the end of the second world war and the clear abject failure and disaster of Fascism it came to the fore in no small part because Germans largely rejected the authoritarian Communism of the East as more of the same.

    May of post war Germanys leaders like Adenauer and Schmidt were true democrats who entranced the current model of German politics wholeheartedly as the way forward.

    No doubt guilt played a part but it is far from the whole story.

    I think in part that explains the map of the AfD support, it is far lower in the west where people grew up in a democracy that brought freedoms and prosperity than the east where people were born and lived with the Stasi.

    Peter.

  24. Old Nat,

    Insect names are a sore spot for me. ‘Earwig’ is slanderous and awful; ‘forky-taily’ is accurate and funny. ‘Wood louse’ suggests head-lice, when they’re totally different; ‘slater’ is again a very accurate physical description, because they look like tiny bits of slate.

  25. (I don’t mind ‘gorse’ so much. It’s a rather ‘gorsey’ plant. I still prefer say ‘whin’, because I like the ‘wh’ sound.)

  26. Tancred,

    I think that Chamberlain et al were serious about appeasement. They had a dual strategy: appeasement and deterrence. The two worked together rather well, in principle. What they didn’t realise was that Hitler did not have the kind of psychology that was amenable to EITHER strategy. You can argue either way about whether or not they should have realised that, but the image of Chamberlain as a craven moron is simply inaccurate. He was the Ronald Reagan* of the 1930s; it’s just that he had the problem of dealing with Hitler, rather than a bunch of senile or sickly communists and then Gorbachev.

    * Who got rid of grain sanctions against the USSR in 1981!

  27. (Senile and/or sickly communists, really, since Brezhnev and Chernenko managed to be both. Andropov was a canny guy and people make a lot of comparisons to Putin, but was terminally ill through most of his leadership.)

  28. Bill Patrick & OldNat

    As a county recorder I only use Latin scientific names, this eliminates any antipathy for various English or indeed Scottish local names and of course they are understood and accepted worldwide.

  29. TOH

    I suspect you get a lot of blank looks when you use Latin names outside the scientific environment.

    Within the scientific community the use of Latin names is preferable as they are unambiguous, down the pub, call a cockroach a cockroach.

  30. Can the Kingdom stay together after Brexit?

    In this YouTube clip J Powell explains why he thinks we will not leave the EU and how people in NI were lied to about the border:.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP_Co57gTwA

  31. ALAN

    Of course. :-)

  32. In regard to a Labour party following Corbyns full fat Socialist politics, how many constituences around the country are likely to vote for this ?

    If we are looking at say 5 million people who share Corbyns politics, these are concentrated in mostly inner city seats in London, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Sunderland. In addition to this, they might still attract a following in former mining areas.

    When the seats are reduced to 600 and boundaries changed, i think Labour offering a hard left vision for Britain, would struggle to attract votes outside of their very safe seats, which have always voted Labour.

    In my opinion, Labour under Corbyn cannot attract the 12 million votes needed to win an election, because the type of politics would never become mainstream. There might be a lot of problems in the world at the moment with voters looking at other options, but surely most people would want to vote for a government that represents less risk in an uncertain world.

    Corbyn might win the current leaders contest, but i can see another leadership contest next year, with Labour progress group putting up a better candidate. Or Labour will split in the run up to the next election.

  33. PROFHOWARD
    Can the Kingdom stay together after Brexit?

    Many thanks for that link – an hour well worth watching and clearer than anything I’ve seen in explaining why the Belfast Agreement will make May’s task all the more difficult if she really does intend anything less than full EEA.

    [1] The Belfast Agreement bit comes very near the start, is only a few minutes long and well worth watching even if you don’t intend to watch the whole thing.

  34. R HUCKLE,

    if Corbyn focuses particularly policies on particular groups you might be surprised.

    A pledge to renationalise the railways and cut fair year on year over the life of the Parliament might even get Southern tories to vote with their wallets.

    Peter.

  35. BARBAZENZERO @ PROFHOWARD

    PS….

    The best bit [which comes nearer the end] was the discussion on whether rights under an international treaty trump an advisory referendum.

  36. R huckle

    Which “full fat socialist” policies are you thinking of? I would really like to know about these because as far as I was aware there were no socialist policies at all

  37. Profhoward,

    Thanks for the link, very interesting.

    Little bit confused by Jonathan Powell’s comments re A50. He seems to be saying that even after A50 is triggered, the UK can still choose to remain in the EU without having to reapply for membership. Is this really the case? Seems to defeat the point of the 2-year time limit if so.

  38. Edge of Seat

    It’s a point of view shared by several legal experts (not just ours, French ones seem to think this too)

    If it proves to be true, it stops the EU playing a game of “running out the clock” where they could meet with us to fulfill their obligations of treaty 50, agree nothing until the last minute, then throw a “take it or leave it” offer onto the table.

    Although it’s not a zero sum game, areas like passporting probably are close to one, the amount of financial services required across the Eurozone are likely to remain constant, the EU will get to choose whether they want to give us the rights or not. One presumes that no matter how charming Boris is, they will only concede this point for something of materially of greater value to them. It won’t be a freebie thrown in as an afterthought.

    If they can run out the clock, they can keep saying “non” to us for two years on the matter and restrict the talks to trade deals for goods only.

  39. Edge of Seat;

    “Seems to defeat the point of the 2-year time limit if so.”

    Not really, A50 allows a country to negotiate a withdrawal but leaves it’s Government the option of remaining if after the negotiations it finds that it would actually prefer to stay, a bit like the cooling off period when you buy something.

    What might have been interesting if possible and perhaps even a better idea would have been the UK triggering A50 and then putting the final deal to the public in a referendum.

    But then that would have suggested that cameron was actually serious about leaving as opposed to just placating his back benchers while trying to spike UKIPs guns.

    Peter.

  40. Alan,

    If it is the case though, that a leaving member can change their minds about leaving after A50 is triggered, wouldn’t the 2 year figure be completely meaningless? Just seems odd for A50 to have such a specific limit if it doesn’t compel the leaving state to actually leave.

  41. @R Huckle

    In my opinion, Labour under Corbyn cannot attract the 12 million votes needed to win an election, because the type of politics would never become mainstream.

    The Tories won a majority in 2015 with 11.3m votes, Labour with 9.5m in 2005 and with 10.7m in 2001.

    I’m not sure Labour needs 12m votes to win.

  42. Peter Cairns,
    “Not really, A50 allows a country to negotiate a withdrawal but leaves it’s Government the option of remaining if after the negotiations it finds that it would actually prefer to stay, a bit like the cooling off period when you buy something.”

    Ah, interesting way of looking at it. I had assumed A50 was purely there to tilt the odds in favour of the EU negotiators, but you could look at it as a way to ensure the leaving state really means it.

  43. TOH: “You give me the impression that you do not accept the verdict of the people in the referendum, if I’m wrong about that please say so.”

    I sense that our debate is tedious for others, so I’d don’t think we should prolong it.

    However, you ask me a direct question and so, with apologies to others, here is what I wrote in my last post:

    “I think what you’re confusing is disagreeing with the verdict of the electorate – which in the case of the referendum, I do – and wanting to overturn that verdict by non-democratic means – which of course I don’t.”

    You, on the other hand, seem reluctant to concede the possibility of a second referendum before Brexit is a fait accompli. So: the people have spoken, now shut up!

    By early 2019, the shape of Brexit should be clear. It may look very unattractive to the electorate. It’s conceivable that opinion polls will be showing a substantial majority in favour of withdrawing A50 and remaining in the EU. In that situation, I think the true democrat checks again what people want.

    If, on the other hand, people seem happy with what’s on offer, then I see no justification for another referendum.

  44. Barbazenzero and Edge of Seat

    Thanks for your comments.

    I agree the most interesting part of the You Tube was J Powells bits (and I think Finan O’Toole, though interesting, could do well to be briefer).

    I agree that J Powells part in the first 5 minutes was very interesting (why we won’t leave the EU).

    I missed the bit at the end about how international treaties trump advisory referenda. I will go back and watch that bit again.

  45. Somerjohn

    Ultimately, it’s up to Theresa May, however if the polls started stowing an 80-20 against the terms as they appeared to be in 2019 I doubt she would ignore them.

    If it was only 51-49 against, she wouldn’t go to another referendum.

    Anywhere in between, it’ll be a judgment call for her. I can imagine certain values making it a very tough call.

  46. Somerjohn

    Yes, we should cease our dialogue, we could get into a discussion of what constitutes democracy but for once I agree with you the others must be bored to rears with us, so like you i am happy to move on. As Brexit happens it will be interesting to see which of us has been the most correct..

  47. Colin

    “Two very interesting tv programmes about the Labour Party and its various manifestations.

    A Barrister was asked to comment on some things discovered.

    Extraordinary”

    And what exactly did you learn from the barrister who is Alastair Campbell’s brother-in-law and therefore completely unbiased?

  48. Norbold

    Not to mention that both TV programs were made by the same company

  49. Profhoward,

    I thought they were both good speakers, it brought up lots of interesting stuff that one (unfortunately) wouldn’t necessarily see on more mainstream programmes. The calm long-form discussion is suited to these sorts of topics, better than the simplistic 5 – 10 min packages we normally see on news programmes.

    One of several issues they raised which ought to be discussed more is the lack of focus in English nationalism. The Brexit vote was against something rather than for anything, and the various departments in charge of Brexit seem to veer between incoherence and contradiction. As Powell pointed out this meant that contingency planning was difficult/impossible: in the event of a Leave victory, do you plan for EEA? Canada? WTO? Another referendum? All of these are possible outcomes because we never asked people what settlement they actually wanted, which could have been easily avoided by making the referendum question more specific.

  50. Loss of Passporting maybe not the huge problem originally envisaged, says Moody’s in the DT today.

    “The direct impact is likely to be modest,” the credit analysts said today. “The greater impact would be felt through higher costs and diversion of management attention, as the companies concerned restructure, reducing profitability for a time.

    “This is credit negative but manageable. And other critical factors such as capital and liquidity, which are largely determined by global standards, are unlikely to face material changes due to Brexit per se.”

1 12 13 14 15