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 2 3 4 5 15
  1. @ Alec
    Clearly the majority of the Labour complaints are that Conservatives will benefit from the changes to the size of constituencies, yet Labour have benefited from this disparity for many years.
    Changes in the number of MP’s is clearly possible with the advances in computer technology and the back up that MP’s have in their offices.
    How many electors vote for the equivalent representation in other countries?
    The one change that I as a Conservative would like to see is a reduction in the House of Lords to mirror the size of the commons.
    This would cut the cost of our legislature and remove much of the dead wood in the Lords.

  2. ALEC

    @” I suspect a new and softer EU will emerge from this”

    I disagree-I think the divisions will grow between the three factions-Club Med economic liberals , The Northern satellites of Germany-economic conservatives ; and the Eastern Bloc of Social Conservatives.

    The divisions between the first two are long standing & unresolved. The recent emergence of the third grouping will put more & more pressure on the central authority of Merkel in EU-and reports like this pour fuel on the flames of resentment.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37349040

    Tusk was quite right to say :-

    ““People in Europe want to know if the political elites are capable of restoring control over events and processes which overwhelm, disorientate, and sometimes terrify them. Today many people, not only in the UK, think that being part of the European Union stands in the way of stability and security.”

    They are all living on borrowed time .

    @”– which UK voters may well feel more inclined to be a part of.”

    There will be nothing which looks attractive to UK voters at all over there-we will be long gone whilst their never ending Summits preside over the widening cracks in the whole edifice.

  3. Alec

    “No I didn’t. I expressly acknowledged that, but pointed out that the terms were set by a political opponent.”

    Your still missing the point, I suspect a majority will think that reducing the number of seats to 600 is a good thing regardless of who introduced the idea. It would be interesting to see some polling on this. How can reducing the number of seats favour any one party unfairly.

    The point is that the work is truly independent, if the result appears to favour one party that just confirms that the previous structure favoured another and needed correction to ensure proper balance.

    OLDENGLISH

    “………..would like to see is a reduction in the House of Lords to mirror the size of the commons.”

    I suspect most would agree with that.

  4. Colin

    I’m with candy, nice one!

    :-)

  5. PETER CAIRNS (SNP)

    Your post last night to Alec at 11.25.

    You put it nicely.

  6. Colin

    There is an interesting piece by Dyson on the BBC’s news website about the UK leaving the EU.

  7. @ALEC

    “I’ve been saying for some time that the EU situation is far from clear. Yesterday we had the Polish government blaming the Commission for Brexit because of it’s arch federalist approach, and there does look to be a big battle going on between the member states and the commission. Brexit has certainly crystalized these conflicts, and I suspect a new and softer EU will emerge from this – which UK voters may well feel more inclined to be a part of.”

    I always thought that the EU should have split into a ‘hard core’ and a ‘soft core’, with the latter retaining many of the benefits of EU membership but without further moves at political union. This way it’s possible that UK departure could have been avoided, but not sure even then.

  8. TOH

    Thanks-will catch it after Petanque.

  9. @THE OTHER HOWARD

    “There is an interesting piece by Dyson on the BBC’s news website about the UK leaving the EU.”

    Dyson seems to be a hard line Brexiteer, with globalist tendencies. Being more of a scientist he is an oddball in the world of industry, so I doubt that most captains of industry share his view.

  10. @COLIN

    I agree that there will be an initial strong reaction against Brexit, but in the long term this would be damaging. My feeling is that once Merkel and Hollande and out of office the trend will be for a more loose EU, but we’ll see. Germans chancellors seem to go on for decades but even Merkel will have to retire at some point.

  11. Dyson is quite interesting. He is very bullish regarding non EU trade, but given that he moved all his manufacturing to Malaysia and has publicly stated that the reason for doing so is that his main markets are in the east, perhaps he isn’t such a good example to take.

    He doesn’t publicy state how many UK employees he has, prefering instead to give what is apparently a global number instead. We also don’t know his companies tax arrangements, so it’s difficult to judge how ‘British’ Dyson industries really are.

    We do know that he moved production because costs were 30% lower than in the UK. Dyson claimed it was because he couldn’t get planning permission to expand his production plant, but the local authority said no planning application was ever submitted. According to reports, the land on which Dyson wanted to build was under private ownership and the owner didn’t wish to sell to Dyson, but Dyson chose to blame the local planners, which seems odd.

    Dyson probably is a good example of what is likely to happen at an increasing rate after Brexit, with reduced import tariffs from non EU markets where labour is cheap further adding to the pull factors for producers to switch production and jobs overseas.

    While notionally UK companies may well remain successful, the question is going to be how much of that success is repatriated to the UK. With our current approach to corporate taxes, probably not that much, and by losing the production jobs, it’s easy to imagine that many of the social groups that backed Brexit will actually be the harder hit.

  12. I cannot see what the fuss is about regarding boundary changes.
    The reds were always going to loose a few more than the blues, but they have had the buttered side of the bread for years.

  13. Alec

    Interesting response from you ref Dyson and the scenario you paint is certainly possible. Certainly something to watch for as Brexit becomes a reality.

  14. The optimal electoral system would be something close to the Danish one. Open-list proportional representation based on multimember constituencies. Constituencies with around 15 MPs each, 75 % of seats are allocated proportionally in each constituency, the remaining 25 % to achieve national proportionality. You are eligible for the latter if you pass the threshold nationally (2%) or win seats with the 75% in any constituency.
    The party lists are open, and the constituencies are divided into wards. The candidate recommended by the party’s local ward division will be on top, the others listed according to the alphabet. This means it is still easy to “vote local” for those where that is the major preference. The candidates with the most votes win their party’s seats.

  15. I see the delusional Jean-Claude Juncker is now putting the formation of an EU Army back on the agenda in a speech today.

    I wonder how much the establishment of a new army, with all the equipment and facilities that entails, will cost, and what contributions will have to be made by the remaining 27 member states?

    Presumably the forces in this new army will be covered by the European Working Time Directive, so will only be available to fight any wars Monday to Friday 9am – 5pm.

    Anyone who thought we should have stayed in this bonkers institution must now surely realise that we did the right thing in voting to leave.

  16. @RC
    ‘None of this really matters, its only for one election. 2018 Clive Lewis will be labour leader with Lisa Nandy as Deputy. They with forge an electoral pact with the lib dems and greens and a non aggression pact with ukip. They will win the GE and form a minority govt with SNP supply and confidence and introduce proportional representation’

    I am afraid that is entirely fanciful. On the basis of the Boundary proposals the Greens would not have a single seat with Caroline Lucas coming third in Brighton North.There would not be a single constituency where the Greens outpolled Labour – so no basis for Labour to stand down in their favour.
    Do you seriously believe that Labour members would agree to an electoral pact with the LibDems having seen them destroyed in 2015?
    Incidentally , whilst I have serious doubts as to whether the Boundary changes will go ahead the Norwich South seat of Clive Lewis becomes much more marginal and a realistic Tory prospect in a very good year for them.On the other hand, Chloe Smith in Norwich North is also much more vulnerable if the transfer of a ward from the existing Norwich South goes ahead.

  17. David Carrod,

    We would have a veto on anything the EU does if we remain a member, and could block an EU army if we didn’t want it to happen. If our government refuses to use that veto on a particular issue, it is no good blaming the EU for our own decision (though some may do so in order to deflect blame).

    In any case, the UK government has already committed us to sharing our defence resources with foreign powers, partly because we no longer have enough money to sustain our own independent defences:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/09/usmc_will_fly_f35s_on_hms_queen_elizabeth_first_op_deployment/

    “Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has confirmed that the US Marine Corps will be flying F-35Bs from HMS Queen Elizabeth on the aircraft’s carrier’s maiden operational deployment.”

    “The cynical view of the USMC deploying aboard QE in 2021 is that the UK simply won’t have enough F-35s by that point to train new pilots and engineers and sustain an operational deployment to sea. Assuming Blighty owns about 20 F-35Bs by that point, one might expect the air wing of 12 to be split 50-50 between US and UK, with the remaining 14 British aircraft based ashore in the UK on training duties.”

    …goodness knows what happens if President Trump/Clinton orders them to do something that the UK electorate doesn’t approve of. Would our government really dare stand up to them and tell America they can’t use their own aircraft?

  18. Batley and Spen and Witney by-elections confirmed on 20th October.

  19. Graham

    It depends what your objective is. On present boundaries there are about 30 seats that the libdems could win with labour and green support and prehaps another 30 that are winable for labour with libdem and green support. A move to PR would benefit all the minor parties. It would disadvantage the conservatives who seem to be best at the FPTP game and possibly see them split. It would allow left wing voices to be heard as well as other minority voices.

    Or we could just stick with FPTP, continue having radical tory govts punctuated by Labour govts afraid of their own shadow unwilling to move away from the conservative defined centre ground and minimal representation for other viewpoints.

  20. @CR

    Labour in their time have also been very good at the FPTP game. The arithmetic moved against them recently, largely because of Scotland.

    I agree that the introduction of PR would be a good thing, but I don’t think it will be as a result of pre-election pact. Much more likely to arise from a post-election deal to sustain a Labour minority government, with LD and SNP votes. The Greens are an irrelevance, or at least they are now. Of course post-PR they would be important.

    The big question for me (other than “How likely is it that Labour would be within striking distance of government in 2020 anyway?”) is whether Labour, on balance, actually want to spend the rest of their political life in a difficult marriage with parties to the left and/or right of them. The view has always been that FPTP reliably provides a “Buggins turn” moment for Labour and it is better to wait for the wheel of fortune to turn than to nail it in place with only around a third of the pie. Perhaps continuing SNP dominance, and Tory led governments, will start to erode this thinking over time.

  21. @David Carrod – I’m interested to know whether youhahve ever read the relevant treaty sections relating to the EU military force? During the referendum campaign I did, as I too was concerned about reports of an ‘EU army’, but I actually found them rather reassuring.

    Firstly, they are entirely voluntary, but also they don’t refer to an ‘army’. Instead, they seek to establish a coordination structure, with a primary role to assess members states military capabilities, identify gaps, and then seek to promote research and development and coordination to fill these. There is also talk of operational command to enable leadership on military operations, but these are described much more in terms of peacekeeping and aid missions rather than out and out warfighting. The role of NATO is expressly recognised in the treaty.

    It is possible that this morphs into a full EU army over time, but a new treaty would be needed, and has been pointed out, wouldn’t happen if the UK stayed, with plenty of other nations willing to veto this as well.

    You can join the Mail/Telegraph whipped up hysteria, or you can choose to be more intelligent about these things, but personally I am reasonably satisfied that the EU is seeking to get a little organised to make better use of member states military assets for the wider good. Despite representing the largest trading block in the world, the EU has been pretty woeful when it comes to the actual delivery of emergency relief, peacekeeping and statebuilding missions, relying largely on the US for manpower, equipment and logistics support.

    It would be rather good to see Europe actually delivering some of the good stuff around the world, and having some form of oversight and management capability would enable that, which is essentilly what the treaties, and I think Juncker, is talking about.

  22. I find it hard to understand how an EU military function could sit alongside the Neutral status of Ireland and Sweden.

    But then, I find it hard to understand how a country who’s central bank is in another country can be officially “Neutral” in the first place. If your central bank is invaded and controlled by an occupying power, do you continue to accept its policymaking?!

  23. @ALEC
    You can join the Mail/Telegraph whipped up hysteria, or you can choose to be more intelligent about these things, but personally I am reasonably satisfied that the EU is seeking to get a little organised to make better use of member states military assets for the wider good.
    —–
    I take little account of stuff written in the Mail/Telegraph, or the Guardian/Independent for that matter, all those papers have a particular agenda to promote.

    It may well be that this starts off, as you suggest, as a peacekeeping force complementary to NATO.

    But, looking at how the EEC/EU has developed over the years, starting off as a trading partnership and now trying to impose control over every aspect of its citizens lives, I don’t think it would be long before this EU Army developed into a full-blown military machine, with some form of conscription.

    To put it more simply, I wouldn’t trust Juncker et al as far as I could throw them.

  24. @Neil A – “I find it hard to understand how an EU military function could sit alongside the Neutral status of Ireland and Sweden.”

    That’s because, like @David Carrod, you are misunderstanding the nature of what is proposed. It isn’t an army, and isn’t designed for warfighting. Even if it did, participation in operations is up to member states.

    @David C – yes, it did change, because we agreed to new treaties.

  25. @Alec

    I do understand that, although like others I am suspicious that the intention, like with EMU, is to bring about political/constitutional union by front-loading cooperation in other areas.

    Without all EU members participating, what is being proposed isn’t really the business of the EU, but a broad military cooperation agreement between some European countries that also happen to be EU members. But of course that wouldn’t serve Juncker’s real purpose, which is to create a new country called “Europe”.

  26. TOH: “There is an interesting piece by Dyson on the BBC’s news website about the UK leaving the EU.”

    If he’s reported accurately, Dyson does seem to be a bit inconsistent in his views.

    For instance, he says “it would be suicidal for the EU to impose tariffs on UK goods” but “They [the EU] are not going to block British imports, and if they did put an import duty on, the import duty is a comparatively insignificant amount, compared with currency fluctuation”

    So for the UK, import duties on exports to the EU would be comparatively insignificant, but for the EU the same rates are suicidal? Hmmm…

    Then there’s “” we export to Europe and it is 16% of our [Dyson’s] global market. Europe is 15% of general trade throughout the world, so we are quite nicely balanced.” But of course Dyson should be doing far better than that in the EU, given that it benefits from free trade – so his company is under-performing there.

    As for sourcing workers, Brexit “opens the possibility to hire people from outside of Europe. We can employ Chinese engineers, Singaporean engineers, American engineers which we can’t do at the moment.”

    Well, the only thing stopping him doing that at the moment is UK immigration policy – nothing to do with the EU. And how many Brexit voters would share his enthusiasm for simply replacing EU immigrants with those from China etc?

  27. @Neil A “The Greens are an irrelevance,”
    At the moment voters can vote Green as a protest, with little fear that they will get anywhere near government. With PR, they might. Interesting to see whether the possibility of a party sharing power would lower its vote! Or perhaps the scare tactic of a Labour-SNP coalition at the last election has already shown that.

  28. @Neil A – don’t disagree with that. As with all things EU, it’s tomorrow, rather than today that troubles.

  29. Im not so sure that 1.1 million voters can be dismissed as an irrelevance, by comparison the SNP had 1.4 million voters. The problem for the greens ukip and libdems under our present system is that their votes are widely dispersed but none of those voters are irrelevant. In the context of the much talked about “progressive Alliance” the nearly 4% who vote Green could be instrumental to making the project successful. Such small numbers of voters can make all the difference.

  30. Somerjohn & Kendalian

    Thanks for your comments and of course I agree that he has been inconsistent in his views, and that he maybe has an axe to grind. It’s still interesting to see what a well known and respected industrialist thinks about our leaving the EU.

    No doubt both of you have followed Juncker’s speech today and the very mixed response to it by the European press.

    Donald Tusk has also had a very mixed response from Eastern EU leaders including those of Poland and Hungary. Interesting times both in the UK and the rest of the EU.

  31. Alec

    You are quite correct about the size of the current electoral roll (which the Commissions would have preferred to use).

    I should, of course, have said the “relevant” electoral roll.

  32. Test. (Moderation.)

  33. @CR

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean it in a disparaging way. I don’t think the Greens should be irrelevant, and I look forward to the day that they aren’t.

    But I think we’ve seen their electoral high water mark under FPTP. I don’t think they have enough clout to drive a bargain with Labour based on their vote share. It is seats in parliament that count, and I don’t think they’re going to have more than one and that’s not enough chips to buy into the game.

  34. What Junckers is actually pushing for wasn’t even in his speech.

    He, like Leonardo, and Airbus wants the single market rules extended to defence so that Individual nations can no longer protect their defence industries from competition across the EU, which will lead to a truly pan European defence industry with the efficiency and scale to match the US.

    If he gets it it would also make like easier for the likes of Airbus as the could consolidate production where it was most economical rather than spreading it across Europe to keep politicians happy.

    All of which would make it a lot harder for British defence companies to sell into Europe and probably European Companies more competitive internationally.

    But as always the UK press are up and arms about completely the wrong thing.

    Peter.

  35. Peter Cairns: “All of which would make it a lot harder for British defence companies to sell into Europe and probably European Companies more competitive internationally.’

    I don’t know much about this, but I think what you’re saying is that Juncker wants to give a leg-up to EU defence industries and that UK companies might be disadvantaged.

    Isn’t that the sort of thing he’s supposed to be doing? No doubt the UK defence industry will be happy being ‘liberated’ to pursue opportunities elsewhere, like Dyson.

  36. CR
    “It [PR] would allow left wing voices to be heard as well as other minority voices.”

    Yes indeed. UKIP are the something in the woodpile as we used to be allowed to say (if anyone can supply a more PC expression with the same meaning I’d be delighted to hear it). They could virtually disappear if Brexit is seen to be what they want. But even if their 2015 vote halved, they’d still have more votes than the SNP got last time.

  37. Pete B

    The phrase you mention refers to a technique used by the Underground Railroad in the USA in the 1840s to allow slaves to escape to freedom.

    I doubt that it was ever an appropriate analogy for UKIP (no matter how much you think of the EU as Southern plantation owners!)

  38. Pete B: “(if anyone can supply a more PC expression with the same meaning I’d be delighted to hear it”

    Maybe, “the fly in the ointment”?

    It doesn’t quite capture the implication of a nasty surprise which I take to be the (unpleasant) meaning of the original, but then UKIP are more of a snag than a nasty surprise in this context, so perhaps fly in the ointment is indeed apposite.

  39. Re Scottish Boundary Commission

    I hadn’t been paying attention!

    The Scottish Local Boundary Commission’s proposals to change ward boundaries for 2017 had reached Final Proposal stage, and have now been approved by the Scottish Government.

    While the two Commissions are separate bodies – reporting to different Parliaments – it would make sense for the SBC to delay Initial Proposal until they knew what the ward boundaries were!

  40. @Pete B

    I have had a number of conversations with left-leaning colleagues, and I am a little saddened that when discussing campaigning with other parties for electoral reform, they mostly forget UKIP.

    Personally, I think a campaign for reform would be boosted by UKIP being on board. After all, it’s UKIP who have lost most with FPTP.

    I think trying to campaign cross-party on almost any other issue is doomed to failure, as agreement would be impossible. I would a broad campaign for electoral reform alone.

  41. Somerjohn

    My understanding is that (as used in 19th century USA) the phrase didn’t imply a “nasty surprise” – just something totally unexpected in that context.

    While the implications and emotional loading of some words changes with time, I still can’t see that the presence of an anti-EU/anti-immigrant party in the political spectrum is at all unexpected!

  42. @PETER CAIRNS (SNP)

    “He, like Leonardo, and Airbus wants the single market rules extended to defence so that Individual nations can no longer protect their defence industries from competition across the EU, which will lead to a truly pan European defence industry with the efficiency and scale to match the US.”

    Interesting. Europe needs to stand on its own two feet instead of being America’s poodle – this will help it to do that.

    “All of which would make it a lot harder for British defence companies to sell into Europe and probably European Companies more competitive internationally.”

    The UK defence industry will have a tough time, no doubt about it. We’ll be locked out of a very important market and struggle to win any new markets. It will hurt.

    “But as always the UK press are up and arms about completely the wrong thing.”

    Oh yes, the Brexit tabloids are still preaching the land of milk and honey to come after article 50 is invoked, like demented evangelists looking forward to the ‘end times’ and the new age to come thereafter.

  43. @KENTDALIAN

    “Another take on Dyson and the EU”

    I’m not a fan of Dyson – his products are good but way overpriced. They are popular with the wealthy elderly who can afford to spend £400 on a fan, but most people have more important things to spend money on.

  44. @DAVID CARROD

    “But, looking at how the EEC/EU has developed over the years, starting off as a trading partnership and now trying to impose control over every aspect of its citizens lives, I don’t think it would be long before this EU Army developed into a full-blown military machine, with some form of conscription.”

    Possibly. If that did happen, it would weaken Britain’s position and bring about the ultimate historical British nightmare: a united European superpower on our doorstep. Philip of Spain, Napoleon and Hitler would be laughing at us from the hereafter. Then what?

  45. @Somerjohn
    Thanks. I’ll try to use ‘fly in the ointment’ – at least until anti-fly discrimination becomes the next big thing.

    @CMJ
    “Personally, I think a campaign for reform would be boosted by UKIP being on board.”

    Agreed.

    @Tancred
    “The UK defence industry will have a tough time, no doubt about it. We’ll be locked out of a very important market and struggle to win any new markets. It will hurt.”

    A lot of our stuff is exported to Saudi and others outside the EU.

  46. Tancred: “I’m not a fan of Dyson – his products are good but way overpriced. They are popular with the wealthy elderly who can afford to spend £400 on a fan,”

    I’m struggling and failing to parse this. Surely you can find an old dear to splash out £400 on your charms?

  47. “No doubt the UK defence industry will be happy being ‘liberated’ to pursue opportunities elsewhere, like Dyson.”

    So we can look forward to multiple vortex, bagless tanks that can move over any surface automatically with no moving parts then?

  48. Somerjohn

    Took me a moment, but LOL!

  49. PETER CAIRNS

    @”What Junckers is actually pushing for wasn’t even in his speech.”

    Not in this speech-but in some of its predecessors :-

    “In the very long run, we will need a European army. Because we have to be credible when it comes to foreign policy”
    Jean-Claude Juncker (@JunckerEU) May 20, 2014

    “A joint EU army would show the world that there would never again be a war between EU countries,” Juncker told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper. “Such an army would also help us to form common foreign and security policies and allow Europe to take on responsibility in the world.”
    “With its own army, Europe could react more credibly to the threat to peace in a member state or in a neighbouring state,” he said.

    “One wouldn’t have a European army to deploy it immediately. But a common European army would convey a clear message to Russia that we are serious about defending our European values.”

    Euractiv.com March 2015

1 2 3 4 5 15