Parliamentary constituency - changes to boundary

[louisiana]

In this election year, some interesting changes to the Dulwich & Welst Norwood constituency boundary.

http://election.pressassociation.com/Constituencies/general.php

Major change in losing the South Camberwell area, and in general the constituency seems to have moved west (losing to east, gaining to west).

More info on Boundary Commission for England website:

http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/

The change index is quite high, and it looks like TJ's majority would have been much reduced in 2005 with the new boundaries.

[ratty]

So more important then ever that we get out and vote to try and keep the tories out eh???

Point noted - thx v much

[vinceayre]

You actually want reduced majority's if possible because if you win by say a 10,000 majority you are effectively wasting 9,000 votes that could be used to help win another seat nearby. This is why the marginal constituency is so important in this election.

The boundaries are set-up at the moment to favour Labour so i wouldn't worry too much ratty.

[sniffy]

Shame Labour haven't done themselves any favours....

So i should worry Ratty!

[the-e-dealer]

The Bondaries follow closely a Tory Suggestion submitted at the Last Review.

[Loz]

How bad are Labour after 13 years of hacking away at our rights and freedoms? Bad enough to make this voter cast his first ever Tory vote come May this year.

Cameron should go with the slogan "Conservatives - Really, Can We Be Any Worse Than This Lot?"

(That's not counting my secondary vote for Boris at the last Mayor election. The decision between him and Ken took me quite a while. Not sure Boris counts as an actual Tory vote - it was more like a vote for the Buffoon Party. But I decided Ken had been in too long and had run out of ideas. Pity, I voted for him both the previous times.)

The worrying things is that Brown will lose the election, get the heave-ho and in will slide Mad Hattie. That's Labour out for the next two elections.

[louisiana]

ratty Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So more important then ever that we get out and

> vote to try and keep the tories out eh???

>

> Point noted - thx v much

I thought the Tories were already in!

[sazzle]

Thanks for this - what affect does this have, if any, on people who look like they might be moving from one constituency to another?

Sazzle

[louisiana]

Well you'll be voting for a different set of candidates and will end up with a different MP, for starters, and the impact of your vote may be quite different (different majority?).

The main point of the rejigging was to equalise the number of voters in each constituency, as the figures were previously very unbalanced (Peckham was the smallest constituency in the country). So each vote will now count for roughly the same across Lambeth and Southwark. But the political impact is something else.

[Bic Basher]

It'll be interesting to see by how much Tessa's majority is reduced with the new boundary. You have a Labour stronghold on the Lambeth side, College and Village wards are Tory while East Dulwich ward is Lib Dem.

[puzzled]

the boundary commission do the rejigging and greatly resent any suggestion of party bias. I am sure that's true, but the changes do usually damage labour. our street has been shifted from tessa's constituency to hattie's. I don't mind that as I like her (but wouldn't let her park our car), but we are a bit bothered about having peckham in the new name as we are zealously east dulwich!!

[Penguin68]

but the changes do usually damage labour This is only true where (particularly in the inner cities) there are disproportionately small constituencies compared with suburban areas - labour has been graced with a large number of small contituencies - I can't remember the exact number, but it needed far fewer labour voters (i.e. the electorate in these seats is smaller and fewer votes are thus needed to achieve a majority) to elect an MP than conservative (or lib dem). Hence the dominant labour majorities (recently) compared with the share of the national popular vote.

Damage is thus very much a matter of perspective - the changing of electoral boundaries is intended to unwind damage to democracy so that each consituency has a similar sized electorate.

[puzzled]

thank you for your kind lesson in electoral boundaries. changes DO usually damage labour's prospects, so it is not a matter of perspective or even perception. it is a fact. you, I suspect, are a lib dem, so any change enhances your prospects.. altho not, I fear, in either of the constituencies under discussion.

[Marmora Man]

While the boundary changes are considered to have an impact in ?giving? the Conservatives more seats than they would otherwise win under the old boundaries ? it doesn?t go anywhere near far enough (and probably couldn?t) in addressing the current built in bias toward Labour.

This is not the result of some sinister plot or deal but down to the geographical distribution of seats, numbers of actual voters and reflects history, geography and a tendency for people to move out of inner city areas if they become more successful / well to do.

In 2005, Labour took 56% of the seats with 36% of votes cast, the Conservatives took 32% of seats with 33% of votes cast and the Liberal Democrats took 10% of seats with 23% of votes cast.

So broadly the ?old constituencies? appear fair to Conservatives, biased toward Labour and unfair to Lib Dems.

When Conservatives or Lib Dems win seats they tend to have large majorities ? which could be considered as wasted votes. Where Labour win they tend to have smaller majorities spread over a larger number of constituencies ? more efficient distribution of voters gives them the majority of seats.

In 2005 Labour won a seat for roughly every 28,000 votes cast in its favour, the ratio for the Conservatives was 42,000 and 110,000 for Lib Dems. It will be interesting to see what the ratios are after May 6.

For the Conservatives to win big at the 2010 General Election will require a very improved turnout of Tories in the tighter constituencies currently held by Labour (possible) and a collapse of the Labour vote (probable) but unless the overall swing in key marginals is over 10% a hung parliament is a real possibility; a 5% swing to Conservatives would only bring about a balanced outcome with roughly 45% Labour seats, 45% Conservative seats and 10% Lib Dems.

[Penguin68]

Puzzled wrote:-

changes DO usually damage labour's prospects, so it is not a matter of perspective or even perception. it is a fact. you, I suspect, are a lib dem, so any change enhances your prospects... in response I believe to my posting.

In which case I would like to mention (a) that I am not a lib dem and (b) that 'damaging labour's prospcts' and 'enhancing the democratic rights of individuals to have the same weight of vote in whichever constituency they live' are an issue of perspective. I might assume that those preturnaturally worried about 'damaging labour's prospects' are of that leaning, and that revelling in an unfair distribution of seats across the electorate sits well from a party led by someone who eschews elections like the plague, and who places some of the most powerful of his government inside the un-elected and unaccountable House of Lords. But I won't. (And no, I'm not conservative either)

[EDOldie]

PR?