By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter
Derby County football players recently wore 'Save Our Rail Industry' T-shirts in solidarity with local Bombardier workers.
Survation, for the Daily Mirror/Progressive Polling, has new polling out today, showing the impact of the Government's decision not to award a contract to train manufacturer Bombardier. As we reported in early July:
"Last month the Canadian-owned train manufacturer Bombardier lost a tendering process to build 1,200 railway carriages for the Bedford to Brighton 'Thameslink' service. The winner of that bidding process was the German-based Siemens. Today it's been announced that 1,400 jobs will be lost at Bombardier's Derby factories - many of them hi-skilled engineering posts."
The constituencies of Derby North and South Derbyshire, the two constituencies local to Bombardier, were polled. South Derbyshire was a Conservative gain last year, with Heather Wheeler overturning a 4,000 Labour majority, and securing a Conservative majority of 7,000. Derby North, on the other hand, is a Labour seat - with a majority of 613 - and the kind of seat the Conservatives need to win if David Cameron is to lead a majority government in 2015.
The result of these questions should be of concern to Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, as well as Number 10 (The margins are big enough to be meaningful, despite the fact they are loaded questions):
The poll also included questions about party voting. Findings included:
Most disturbingly for the Government, Survation found that in Derby North, only 23% of people would vote Conservative in a general election tomorrow, compared to 51% for Labour. That represents nearly a 10% swing away from the Conservatives, and nearly a 20% swing to Labour. However, the swing to Labour will be greatly influenced by the swing away from the Liberal Democrats. Last year, the Lib Dem vote in Derby North was 28%, but this poll finds only 10.7% support for them in a general election tomorrow.
In South Derbyshire - a seat with a Conservative majority of 7,000 - Survation found only 31.9% of people would vote Conservative in a general election tomorrow, while 45.9% would vote Labour. That would mean a 13.6% swing away from the Conservatives, and a 14.6% swing to Labour. There is also a 6.8% swing away from the Lib Dems.
> How ConservativeHome reported the Bombardier decision at the time: Eurosceptic Hammond seeks way of giving UK manufacturers a better chance of winning UK government contracts
Rob Hayward is an elections analyst and the former Conservative MP for Kingswood. He has been kindly keeping ConHome readers up-to-date with the review. See his previous contributions here and here.
A lot is likely to be said in coming months about alternative plans for the required boundary reviews in relation to each county and country, however given the scale of the change that will arise from the forthcoming changes it is probably worth setting out the basic ground rules which will apply.
Reductions
Across the UK there will be 50 fewer MPs elected at the 2015 General Election than 2010. The reductions will be as follows:
There are four protected seats: Isle of Wight (2), Orkneys & Shetland & Western Isles.
There is also a complicated maximum land area rule. Regional and national boundaries will not be crossed.
Electorates
With the above exceptions all seats must have an electorate between 72,810 and 80,473. There is however no requirement/benefit in being closer to the mid point of 76,641. These totals relate to Parliamentary not local government electors which can be markedly different, particularly in parts of London.
‘Sub Requirements’
Recognition will be given to the likes of local ties, county boundaries, existing seats (England in particular) but these operate within the overall quota requirement.
Publication dates
It is now virtually certain that the English initial recommendations will be published on 13th Sept and Scotland’s on 13th October. For the first time all English recommendations will be published on the same date and all reviews will following the same timetable.
The publication dates for Wales and N Ireland are currently uncertain.
Public hearings will be held across the countries 5-10 weeks after the publication of the initial recommendations. In England the first hearing will begin in Manchester on 11th October and the last will be held in Exeter about a month later. A very compact timetable.
Responses
The hearings will be primarily to consider the Commissions’ initial recommendations but it is worth remembering that all responses whether written or oral are treated equally and there is no obligation to identify alternatives at the hearings.
Even where people/parties support a proposal from the Commissions it is necessary to say so otherwise those proposing an alternative plan will carry the day.
No revised recommendations will be published until well after the initial consultation period is completed. A further process will then operate concluding with final recommendations being put to Parliament for approval by October 2013 at the latest.
Unchanged seats
It is likely that upwards of 40 seats will be untouched, almost all in England, including every seat in N Yorkshire where all seats are within the required quota.
Further changes
These reviews will become more regular. They will now be held every 5 years but there will be further change to electoral law in this Parliament. Individual voter registration will probably be introduced in two years time. This will I hope reduce abuse in not only voter registration but also postal voting and campaign irregularities. All of these are now rife in many places and make our elections more ‘corrupt’ than in many developing countries.
This Autumn will witness an interesting and pressured period. It will be different from anything we have previously experienced. The precise political outcome is uncertain but we know that in future all votes will have equal constituency value.
> Rob Hayward took part in a Radio 4 discussion on boundary changes last night with Carolyn Quinn and Lewis Baston. Listen via here.
By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.
I linked earlier this morning to Sky News's summary of the result, but here it is in full for the record:
Iain McKenzie (Lab) 15,118 (53.8%, -2.2%)
Anne McLaughlin (SNP) 9.280 (33%, +15.5%)
David Wilson (Con) 2,784 (9.9%, -2.1%)
Sophie Bridger (LD) 627 (2.2%, -11.1%)
Mitch Sorbie (UKIP) 288 (1%, -0.2%)
Labour majority: 5,838 (20.8%, -17.6%)
Turnout: 28,097 (45.4%, -18%)
Three quick points:
By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter.
On the same day I write in The Sunday Telegraph praising the new generation of Conservative MPs, a nameless Tory MP - who has "spent many years in the Commons" - has written an article for today's Mail on Sunday which attacks the Class of 2010 on multiple fronts...
Anna Soubry, the MP for Broxtowe recently profiled by Paul Goodman and a hot tip for rapid promotion, comes in for special criticism. She is called out for her "unpleasant personal verbal attack" on Mark Pritchard before last week's circus vote at a meeting of the 1922 Committee:
"From the day Anna arrived in Parliament, her zealous enthusiasm for every dot and comma of Cameron’s Tory modernisation programme has been painfully obvious. A female MP told me rather harshly it doesn’t help that Anna ‘looks as if she is sucking on a lemon’.Anna seemed to blame Mark for effectively putting Tory MPs on the spot in a Commons vote on banning animals in circuses. Mark is passionate about animal welfare. But Cameron couldn’t stomach the thought of a backbencher having influence over Government policy, even one as minor as circus animals – though a ban has 92 per cent public support. The word went out from No 10: ‘Kill Mark.’ Perhaps it is sheer coincidence that Anna is Parliamentary Private Secretary to Simon Burns MP, Minister of State for Health, who is a close personal friend of Chief Whip Patrick McLoughlin and was also a long-serving whip prior to becoming a Minister."
Read the full piece which also includes strong attacks on David Cameron's approach to party management.
As MPs, new and old, gather tomorrow in the tea room you can be sure that there'll be one top topic of conversation: Who wrote that Mail on Sunday article?
Rob Hayward is an elections analyst and the former Conservative MP for Kingswood.
I recently dashed off a very quick set of thoughts for ConHome concerning Lewis Baston’s ideas about the likely results of the current boundary review, as I understood them.
Despite my criticisms of the Democratic Audit (DA) plans (as reported in The Guardian), let no-one under-estimate the difficulties involved. Not only should the Democratic Audit proposals be read in this context, but the skill of the Boundary Commissions in dealing with what is both a very difficult and politically emotive subject should also be recognised.
Putting to one side the complaint that the DA ideas are party political, which I still believe (see Luton and North London for examples) there are three broad problems arising from the plans now published on their website.
Split wards
The Boundary Commission for England (BCE) has clearly stated (it is on their website if you are so inclined to look) that "in the absence of exceptional and compelling circumstances it would not be proportionate and appropriate to divide wards". These are very firm words from the Commission. I have been in the world of redistributions too long to believe that people will not see ‘their case’ as unique or compelling. It is however often too depressingly easy to identify other more meritorious ‘unique cases’. In recent discussions I have been given compelling reasons for crossing regional boundaries in Humberside, Teesside, Gloucestershire, Lancashire, the West Midlands and London - in several directions. Hardly unique nor exceptional.
Geography
No-one should under-estimate the likelihood of there being some odd looking and disruptive constituencies under the new proposals, but there are a number of seats put forward by Democratic Audit which are very odd geographically. Examples include North Lancashire, which has no centre of population, and a North Wales seat that crosses virtually every hill from Snowdonia to the Welsh/English border when the lines of communication follow the rivers northwards not east-west. Central Wales poses a real challenge, but I have yet to be convinced that a seat should stretch like an elongated finger almost from Wrexham to the South Wales valleys.
Disruption/Ties
While the Welsh Commission, because of the scale of change involved, has indicated that it will not necessarily have regard for existing ties, the BCE has made clear they do not start with a ‘blank sheet of paper’ (where have I heard that phrase before?). I do not therefore understand why Suffolk is wrought asunder when it seems to require very limited change.
When I was involved in drafting the legislation and considering the implications of the changes, I always expected a number of county boundaries to be crossed and some ties to be broken - but is it really necessary to link Lancashire and Cheshire with four different Greater Manchester seats and should any Gloucester seat not include the city centre and cathedral?
What is possibly most striking in the DA model is the number of occasions where seats cross county boundaries and include wards from several district councils. Currently there are only two seats in all England with voters from four district councils (award yourself a gold star if you can identify the two concerned). All of course within one county. The DA proposals have some two county/four district authority seats including Stortford and Stansted which would require an MP to deal with six local authorities (a record I believe) but currently a seat goes one better. The proposed Bolsover and Ollerton constituency links five district councils and two counties!! Good luck to the MP concerned. As an aside it is also worth noting that this part of Derbyshire is linked with Nottinghamshire while another part is twinned with Leicestershire. Surely not having regard for local ties, as the legislation requires.
The comments above are my less speedy reactions to an earlier set of options it's only 10-11 weeks until we know the Welsh and English provisional recommendations (Scotland will not publish until mid October) and it is then that the party battle really will begin.
By Jonathan Isaby
Follow Jonathan on Twitter
Nominations closed yesterday afternoon for the Inverclyde by-election, which will take place on June 30th.
Just five candidates are in the running to represent the seat, formerly held by David Cairns for Labour.
They are:
The result at the general election was:
By Jonathan Isaby
Follow Jonathan on Twitter
Following the very sad death of Labour MP David Cairns last month, a by-election is pending in the West of Scotland constituency of Inverclyde.
Sky News were reporting last night that the writ for the by-election will be moved this afternoon for a contest on June 30th.
I am reliably informed that the Conservative candidate is poised to be David Wilson (pictured), who contested the seat at last year's general election. A retired businessman, he is a member of Inverclyde Council and active in a variety of organisations in the local community.
He will be formally adopted as candidate at a meeting tomorrow.
The result at the general election was:
It is clearly one of Labour's safest seats and on paper would require a swing of more than 19% to the SNP for the Nationalists to take the seat. At last month's Scottish Parliament election, the nearest equivalent seat, Greenock and Inverclyde, was held by Labour with a majority of 511 over the SNP.
Rob Hayward is an elections analyst and the former Conservative MP for Kingswood. Here he casts considerable doubt on the accuracy of Lewis Baston's new research into the likely new parliamentary boundaries.
Lewis Baston has produced what I can best describe as an interesting set of boundary proposals published in today’s Guardian (and summarised earlier on ConHome here). It is firstly worth remembering that Lewis is active within the Labour Party, and his proposals are clearly influenced by his party loyalty. The plan is therefore overly optimistic for Labour, pessimistic for the Conservatives and very pessimistic for the Liberal Democrats.
The proposals are not helped by graphics that don’t match parts of the script (key onto a constituency in Edinburgh and you get comments concerning Dumfriesshire, whilst there are no details regarding London seats); the regional figures for the South East don’t complement the seat-by-seat analysis on other maps; and on the regional map Labour is down two but the map of specific seats suggests the Lib Dems are down two.
Of the specific proposals, for example, those for Eastern England do not seem to have any impartial coherence. They somehow retain two Labour seats in Luton, whcih is quite an achievement by any standards when both seats are 10,000 under-sized. Nearly every proposal for the area links Bedfordshire with Hertfordshire, while this plan keeps the two counties separate. Even following that process, however, it is nigh on impossible to create two Labour seats around Luton.
In Cheshire there are some very striking oddities starting with the Wirral seats and working east towards Manchester. I agree that one Tory is likely to lose a seat in Cheshire but the inference of the study appears to be that the Tories will have a marginal seat in the Wirral (more likely a safe seat) whilst two Lib Dem seats in Stockport becomes one ‘Lib Dem marginal’ of Stockport South. Those that know the area of Wirral/Cheshire and Manchester better than I are bemused by the suggestions.
Nice try, Lewis, but more oddities will appear as the day goes on.
The two saving graces for this plan? Firstly, that it is so obviously party biased and secondly that it is somewhat less biased than the proposals that the same person and organisation produced in December 2010!
By Jonathan Isaby
Follow Jonathan on Twitter
A statement has just arrived in my inbox out of the blue from James Arbuthnot, the Conservative MP for North East Hampshire, to the effect that he will not stand as a candidate at the next general election:
"It has been a great privilege to have represented North East Hampshire for the last fourteen years, and before that Wanstead and Woodford for ten. My constituents have been generous and supportive and have taught me much. Their friendship has meant a great deal to Emma and me, and we shall always be grateful to them.
"After a fulfilling career, first as a barrister and then in Parliament, it is now right to move on at a time when I can still take on new challenges. My Chairmanship of the Defence Select Committee, an especially rewarding role, comes to an end at the end of this Parliament. That will be the right moment to step down."
Arbuthnot was MP for Wanstead and Woodfood between 1987 and 1997, but on its abolition ahead of the 1997 election, he was selected to contest North East Hampshire, which he has represented ever since. He served as Opposition Chief Whip throughout William Hague's time as Tory leader.
His announcement comes on the day that new research will be focusing MPs' minds on the effects of the reduction in parliamentary seats that will come with the boundary changes which come into force at the next election.
By Jonathan Isaby
Follow Jonathan on Twitter
"Lib Dems face crisis over new electoral map", screams the headline on the front of this morning's Guardian.
It is reporting on what it suggests is the "most detailed analysis yet" of the likely outcome of the review of constituency boundaries currently being undertaken by the various Boundary Commissions.
The research, conducted by a Democratic Audit - a research group based at Liverpool University - maps the results of last year's general election onto a set of boundaries based on a 600-seat House of Commons, which is the number of constituencies that will exist at the 2015 general election.
It suggests that each of the parties would have won fewer seats, as follows:
Psephologist Lewis Baston of Democratic Audit explains to the Guardian:
"The Liberal Democrats are likely to lose out more than the other main parties because their seats are yellow islands in a sea of red or blue; changing the boundaries is more likely to bring in hostile territories, their majorities tend to be smaller than Labour or Conservative MPs and their Lib Dems trade a lot on incumbency and constituency service. That is disrupted by a boundary review."
The Boundary Commissions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be announcing their initial proposals for the new boundaries this September, although the final electoral map will not be confirmed in Parliament until 2013.
This is all going to be very unsettling for current MPs from all parties, as the Guardian summarises:
The review will leave many MPs unusually insecure about their electoral fortunes. There will be intra-party wars for seats; margins will shift for and against incumbents; and some will be left treading water until their seats are abolished. The result could be a particularly volatile House of Commons.
The paper has published lists of MPs whose parliamentary careers are under threat if the boundaries fall as this research suggests, naming Conservatives George Osborne, Graham Brady, Priti Patel, Grant Shapps, Bernard Jenkin, Keith Simpson, Bill Wiggin, Hugh Robertson, Graham Stuart, Zac Goldsmith and Mark Prisk.
However, we will not know until September whether those suggestions are real or not. What's more, this analysis suggests that at the last election the Conservatives would have lost only one fewer MP than Labour, when the constituency equalisation ought to be redressing the considerable pro-Labour bias ingrained in the current boundaries. Senior Tory insiders reckon that there could be a net benefit of up to twenty seats to the Tories from the changes, which fails to materialise if this research were to be correct.
What we do know is that virtually every boundary is going to have to change because the legislation leaves so little leeway for variation from the set electorate quota of 76,000 voters per constituency. And, crucially, even those seats which currently fulfill that criterion are unlikely to be left untouched as a result of the knock-on effects of changes to other seats.
9am update: Baston has posted this piece on the Guardian website explaining his methodology and with a link to a spreadhseet of what he sees the Boundary Commission proposing.
> Last month Gareth Knight demonstrated the complicated consequences of the boundary changes in research for ConHome based on the possible outcome of the review for Lincolnshire.
By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.
Reading Dewi at Slugger O'Toole's analysis of the Scottish election results - and the fact the SNP were only a few thousand votes short of an even more stunning victory, such was the small size of the Lab/Con/Lib majority in a number of Holyrood seats - I was reminded of the fragility of a number of Conservative Westminster seats.
When examining our performance in last year's general election, an often over-looked fact is that many, almost certainly the majority, of Conservative MPs who won their seats last year from Labour, have smaller majorities than their Labour predecessors had in 1997.
This should be a cause for concern. If there was an election in a month's time, and even if the parties were level, at, say, 37%/37% and the Lib Dems on 10%, electoral calculators show Labour would win back tens of seats we gained last year.
As an example (critera: a seat created before 1997, which Labour gained from us in 1997, and we gained from them in 2010), examine the difference in majorities of these seats (there are countless examples, and these are just random ones):This isn't, of course, a universal situation. Some seats beat the Labour 1997 majority (for example, Battersea: 1997: 5,360, 2010: 5,977), some seats we won had been Labour since 1992. Some seats like Crewe and Nantwich, Carlisle and Dewsbury had been Labour for longer (1974, 1964 and 1987, respectively). But the fact remains that in many of the marginal seats we won last year, our majority is weaker than the Labour majority of 1997, which suggests we will need to be just as many points ahead of Labour as we were last year - 7% - just to hold on to them, let alone make gains towards a majority.
By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter.
Paul Goodman wrote about the review of the candidates' list on Friday. More dramatic accounts appear in two Sunday newspapers;
"It is entirely wrong to treat some of our staunchest supporters in this way. Our grassroots supporters, who deliver leaflets and fund the running of the party, must be given a choice of candidates who reflect their views. Failure to do so will risk repeating the mistakes of the “A-list”, which demoralised a large section of our membership and support network... We should be drawing up a candidates list to win an outright majority – not end up in another coalition."
Paul suggested that the candidates list was being cut to about 700. My understanding is that about 150 to 200 people have been 'culled'. Anecdotally a good number of these candidates do appear to be right-wingers but it is only that; anecdotal evidence.
Party members will be suspicious because of the A-list experience. Examination of the electoral performance of candidates included on the original A-list revealed that many candidates had badly under-performed candidates who had been excluded from the list.
Paul Goodman reported that there will be no new A-list. In reality that means that no new A-list will be published. Tory HQ will be operating an informal list of preferred candidates. Many candidates are kept on the big list because they are donors or friends of high ups. That doesn't mean they are recommended to Conservative Associations when selections are taking place.
by Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter
Spirits are being raised and dreams shattered as I write. The post-election assessment process for those on the old candidates' list is over. Letters have been sent from CCHQ to those who were on it, letting them know whether or not their names are still to remain on. The signature at the bottom of those letters is that of Carlyn Chisholm. Jonathan reported last year that she was to co-chair the Candidate Committee with Baroness Browning.
I saw Chisholm earlier this week at CCHQ, and write briefly about her background below. But facts first - those that are available, at any rate. CCHQ won't say how large a list it's aiming for - when I floated a figure of a thousand, Chisholm told me that "it won't be as high as that" - but I gather from other sources that it will most likely settle down at about 700. Unsurprisingly, CCHQ is keeping mum about how many people have been removed from the old list. There will be no "A-list".
Parliamentary Assessment Boards will start soon and carry on all the way through until 2015, assuming the Parliament lasts that long. However, the new constituency boundaries don't come into effect until late 2013. This raises a question: if a candidate passes a board this summer, what is he or she going to do for the next two and a half years? The answer is that each one will choose a region to be assigned to, and be expected to work there. I expect that attendance at by-elections will be compulsory.
But come 2013, they'll be able to apply to any seat, anywhere - assuming, of course, that they're not already subject to restrictions, such as being approved for the City Seats Initiative only. I'm told by other sources that those on the old list were assessed for: energy and commitment; campaign leadership and motivation; conviction; manner and attitude; depth and intellect; communication and ability to relate to people, commitment to inclusion and diversity.
Some of this sounds rather subjective. Then again, it would be hard to reach agreement on what an objective process would look like. Chisholm told me that "we certainly will" discuss with former list members who haven't made it back on what their assessments found. She will have nothing to do with the process whereby MPs apply for new seats, in those cases in which their constituencies are either abolished or sustantially altered by the boundary review. CCHQ is also keeping mum about the Euro-selection process.
My sense is that the enthusiasm within the Powers-That-Be for finding candidates with no real background in the Party has passed its high-water mark, though not to the degree that the interest in open primaries has cooled (which it clearly has, since the Coalition Agreement plan for 200 all-postal primaries has apparently been dropped). Both were spurred by the expenses scandal, and the eagerness of Team Cameron to hitch a lift on the anti-politics bandwagon.
I believe that the being a candidate is tougher than it was in my day - the costs are higher, CCHQ monitoring more active, the media more frenetic than ever. Jonathan and Tim have written previously on the site about money and opportunities respectively, the latter making the case for help for low-income candidates. Chisholm didn't go further than saying that CCHQ is "thinking about this issue", but I felt that I was far from being the first person to raise the matter with her.
She said that CCHQ aims to meet up with candidates "two or three times" a year. Were I a candidate in a marginal seat, I'd rather this happen (for all my accumulated layers of cynicism about CCHQ) than not: being a candidate can be a lonely business, and both solidarity and guidance can be welcome. By the way, the Equality Act-driven changes that experienced selection committee members noted during the last Parliament will continue: candidates won't be required to disclose if they're married (for example).
Chisholm has been a member of the party "for about twelve years", and is based in the Stroud constituency, from which she worked her up through the voluntary party network. For reasons that say more about me than her, I'd somehow expected her to be a businesswoman: in fact, she trained as a nurse, dropped out of work when she had children, and returned to nursing later. But during that in-between period, she volunteered as a Samaritan.
This listening experience is bound to come in useful. "My experience of politics really come from the grassroots up," she told me. "It's politics will a small "p", and I've got a particular interest in the people aspect." I'll say, since she assured me that all candidates "have my mobile number". I expect that the line will be busy. By the way, she told me that there are no plans to replace Baroness Browning, who was recently appointed to the Home Office team. So she's on her own.
By Jonathan Isaby
Follow Jonathan on Twitter
Following the resignation of Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams from the Belfast West seat (which he did of course never take up in the House of Commons), a by-election will take place in the constituency on June 9th.
Six candidates are standing:
Adams, who was elected to the Irish Parliament at its recent general election, held the seat at the 2010 general election with a majority of 17,579 after attracting more than 70% of the vote, making it Sinn Fein's safest seat.
By Tim Montgomerie
In America, if you want to stand for office you have to stand in a state in which you have deep roots. People born in California run in California. The same is largely true in Australia. I'd be interested in readers' observations about the tradition in other countries.
There are big exceptions to this rule. Hillary Clinton's successful bid to become a Senator for New York was the most recent and most high profile example of "carpet-bagging".
I was thinking about this as I reflected on the relentless decline of the Scottish Tories. For four general elections in a row Scotland has returned one or no Tory MP. The party received just 13.9% of the vote in last week's Holyrood elections.
How different would things have been if Liam Fox (now representing a seat in Somerset), Michael Gove (Surrey), Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington after losing twice in Edinburgh) and other Scottish Tories had had to find their seats north of the border? The Scottish Party would have been a completely different beast.
I don't propose regional restrictions on the candidates' list but if we are looking for explanations of why Scotland is in the grip of the SNP, northern England is increasingly Labour territory and southern England is so Conservative I think we should consider the huge, decades-long transfer of our best talents into our most winnable territories.
Gareth Knight is a former Conservative Party agent who is now an independent political consultant specialising in party conference activity and is a Director of Conservatives for International Travel.
Last summer I wrote this article on ConHome regarding the inevitable boundary review that would come about as a result of equalising constituency sizes and reducing the number of MPs. I used Lincolnshire as the example of how such changes may impact existing constituencies.
The Boundary Commission for England has now confirmed its methodology for the review and, surprisingly, there were no specific objections to grouping northern Lincolnshire with Yorkshire for the purposes of parliamentary constituencies (though one member of the public did lobby for the historic counties to be used as the basis of the review).
The Conservative Party itself supported the European Parliament regions as the basis for the review areas, meaning the people of North and North East Lincolnshire, who spent the best part of 25 years campaigning against the artificial tie to Yorkshire in favour of the link with the rest of Lincolnshire, are now considered part of Yorkshire once again.
Not all MPs remained quiet on the EU regions. Harriett Baldwin MP, Peter Luff MP and Robin Walker MP, all lobbied for their county, Worcestershire, to be linked to the South West EU region for the purposes of the review but this proposal was rejected. It is therefore certain that none of the new constituency boundaries will cross EU regional boundaries and that Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Wight will be treated completely separately.
The Commission has also confirmed that council boundaries will be taken into account and that wards will be the building block of the new constituencies. Critically for MPs, no constituency will be 'protected', even if it is currently within the 5% of the electoral quota, so every constituency will be vulnerable to change as a result of the knock-on effect of changes elsewhere.So bringing this back into the real world and applying it to Lincolnshire once again (which I do purely because I used it last time and because I’m originally from that area - the analysis can be applied to anywhere else), we now need to look at two EU regions, not just one.
The East Midlands part of Lincolnshire is the easy bit. The region as a whole has 46 existing seats and 44 on the new boundaries. We know that the average electorate for a seat in the East Midlands will be 76,388. Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire (with Nottingham) are causing mathematical headaches that will impact on Leicestershire but conveniently for my purposes, Lincolnshire has a nice round seven new constituencies with an average electorate of 76,418 with the English minimum being 72,810 and the maximum 80,473.
Although there are seven existing constituencies in the Lincolnshire County Council area, they vary in size to such a degree that equalising them will have a ripple effect leading to fairly significant boundary changes in some areas. No single district council has a population within the 5% margin so all will have to be paired up with another. It will be a big relief for all the current MPs to know that the best mathematical divide is to make fairly simple changes to existing boundaries, and here is an example of how this could work:
Lincoln would swap the North Kesteven ward of Bracebride Heath and Waggington East for the five North Hykeham wards (from the current Sleaford and North Hykeham constituency) creating a "Lincoln and North Hykeham" constituency of 76,734 electors (and giving a small boost to Karl McCartney MP's chances of keeping Lincoln Conservative in 2015).
Sleaford and North Hykeham would lose the five North Hykeham wards to Lincoln but gain Bracebride Heath and Waddington East. It would also lose the South Kesteven wards of Barrowby, Peascliffe and Witham Valley. This would create a "Sleaford" constituency with an electorate of 76,150 and Stephen Phillips MP's seat would remain firmly Conservative.
Edward Leigh MP's Gainsborough seat would need to expand to take the East Lindsey wards of Binbrook and Ludford, creating a "Gainsborough and Binbrook" constituency of 76,984 electors, with little likely electoral impact.
Sir Peter Tapsell's Louth and Horncastle, having lost the East Lindsey wards of Binbrook and Ludford needs to gain the East Lindsey wards of Frithville and Stickney, giving it an electorate of 76,382 with little likely electoral impact.
Mark Simmonds MP's Boston and Skegness loses the East Lindsey wards of Frithville and Stickney and gains the South Holland ward of Donington, Quadring and Gosberton and the South Kestevan ward of Toller, giving it an electorate of 75,009, again with little likely electoral impact.
John Hayes MP's South Holland and the Deepings loses the one ward to Boston and Skegness and swaps the South Kesteven wards of Aveland, Ringstone, Bourne East and Bourne West for Deeping St James and Market West Deeping (necessitated by geography), giving it an electorate of 75,797 with little likely electoral impact but a likely name change to "Bourne and South Holland".
That leaves us with Nick Boles MP's Grantham and Stamford which has lost the four wards to "Bourne and South Holland" but gained two others and has three wards from Sleaford and North Hykeham. The new "Grantham, Stamford and the Deepings" has an electorate of 79,918 with little likely electoral impact.
The part of Lincolnshire in the ‘Yorkshire and the Humber’ region is more complicated. The region as a whole currently has 54 parliamentary constituencies but the review will reduce this to 50. The target electoral quota is therefore 76,979, but the minimum of 72,810 and maximum of 80,473 remain.
As we know that local authority boundaries will be respected wherever possible, we can quickly work out that North Yorkshire will have six parliamentary constituencies, York will have 2, the unitary authorities which make up the old Humberside will have nine, South Yorkshire will have 12 and West Yorkshire will have 20. There will be a single constituency that crosses the West and South Yorkshire areas.
In effect this means North Yorkshire and York will see virtually no change as all existing constituencies are within the minimum and maximum. South Yorkshire currently has 14 constituencies, so this area will effectively lose one and a half. West Yorkshire has 22 seats now so this area will also lose one and a half. The remaining seat will come from the old Humberside - currently boasting 10 constituencies but losing one.
All the local authorities which make up the old Humberside will have to be paired with another council as the East Riding is entitled to 3.47 seats, Hull 2.39, NE Lincs 1.51 and North Lincs 1.63.
This brings us back to the Lincolnshire seats discussed last time and the geography of the area. You cannot have a constituency crossing the Humber Estuary so the only place where Lincolnshire and Yorkshire can be paired is around Goole.
If you combine North and North East Lincolnshire into one sub-area for the review, you will have three constituencies with an average 80,139 electors - dangerously close to the top end of the range. Linking the North Lincolnshire ward of Axholme North (pop 6,448) with the East Riding (the only ward where this is realistic), the average for three constituencies in the remainder of North Lincs and the whole of NE Lincs is now 77,989 (and for the six in the East Riding, Hull and Axholme North is 75,792).
Now we have our review area, geography pretty much dictates everything else.
Few would be able to argue in favour of splitting the two large towns of Scunthorpe and Grimsby but they are nowhere near large enough to exist in their own right as constituencies. As we know that the Commission will be valuing local authority boundaries above towns, the starting point for the three northern Lincolnshire constituencies has to be the wards that will make up the constituency that will straddle the two local authority areas.
In North Lincolnshire geography dictates that the wards to be separated have to be Barton, Ferry, Brigg and Wolds, Broughton and Appleby and Burton upon Stather and Winterton leaving the rest of North Lincs with an electorate of 77,852. For the sake of argument, we'll call this "Scunthorpe and Axholme".
Even at this point we're still stuck for what to do with what we've just taken away from North Lincs and the whole of NE Lincs because of the location of Grimsby.
Grimsby itself has a population of 61,929 - way below the electoral quota and the town is very well defined locally, so splitting the town into two would not be a preferred option and would likely face significant local opposition. Combining Cleethorpes and Grimsby is the only option left as the combined North and NE Lincs constituency necessitate the NE Lincs wards of Immingham, Wolds, Waltham and Humberston and New Waltham being in the combined constituency. It is extremely unlikely that the Commission would opt to split both Grimsby and Cleethorpes, therefore the result is inevitably the division of Cleethorpes with the ward of Haverstoe being in the combined constituency (let's call this "Brigg and Waltham") and Sidney Sussex and Croft Baker being in the expanded Grimsby (let's call this "Grimsby and Cleethorpes").
It is hard to see any fair argument that could defy these boundaries but this would not stop a major political row brewing.
The new "Scunthorpe and Axholme" seat would be extremely marginal but would be notionally Conservative - just. The new "Brigg and Waltham" seat would be as blue as they come - a very safe Conservative constituency. The new "Grimsby and Cleethorpes" seat would be marginal in favour of Labour (though not as marginal as Great Grimsby is at present) as the parts of Cleethorpes entering Grimsby would be more Labour supporting.
This is a good result for the Conservatives, but for the politicians in this area it presents a major problem. Andrew Percy MP (Brigg and Goole) has a very strong claim to three new constituencies - the one which includes Goole and Axholme North and would be likely to include a substantial part of David Davis's Haltemprice and Howden (where Percy currently represents 29,079 electors), "Scunthorpe and Axholme" (where he currently represents 14,363 electors) and "Brigg and Waltham" (where he represents 23,292 electors). Martin Vickers MP (Cleethorpes) has a strong claim to "Brigg and Waltham" (where he currently represents 53,904 electors) and to "Grimsby and Cleethorpes" (where he currently represents 16,991 electors). Unless David Davis retires, one of Percy or Vickers will have to fight a marginal constituency in 2015, and the other will get the safe seat. Assuming both targeted "Brigg and Waltham" - the plush Tory seat which would have stayed Tory even through the Blair years, it makes matters very interesting, even without open primaries.
Labour’s Nic Dakin MP (Scunthorpe) is extremely vulnerable, though Austin Mitchell MP (Great Grimsby) will be quite happy.
(As an aside, this will all be spookily familiar to Michael Brown, now of The Independent. In 1983 he faced an extremely similar boundary change when his Brigg and Scunthorpe seat was carved up along with Michael Brotherton's Louth. Despite representing a far smaller proportion of the population, in the head-to-head selection Brown beat Brotherton to the new Brigg and Cleethorpes constituency and remained an MP until 1997.)
Overall the criteria set by the Commission are very much to the Conservative Party's advantage in Lincolnshire. The current six safe Tory seats, three Tory held marginals and two Labour held marginals are replaced by seven safe Tory seats, two Tory held marginals and one Labour held marginal. Due to the way Lincolnshire is laid out, this is about as good as it gets for Labour as their vote is highly concentrated in the three large towns. The Conservatives are also likely to be pleased on a national scale even if not locally, and the only way things could improve for them would be if they had the nerve to propose the division of Scunthorpe, Grimsby and Lincoln, cracking Labour's vote - a proposal that would get the local papers up in arms but would lead to the entire ceremonial county being Conservative territory.
As I said last time, this is just one area that I chose at random, but the analysis applies to everywhere in the UK as everywhere will be affected and while Lincolnshire looks good for the Conservatives, other areas will contrast starkly.
Once again the boundary changes raise the question of how the party should select candidates when almost every constituency boundary will change, especially where two sitting MPs are contesting the same seat (as is inevitable). Should sitting MPs be guaranteed a place in the final round of any constituency partially represented by them? Should there always be at least one place in a final round for someone who is not an MP? Should all sitting MPs with any boundary change face the same form of selection process as a constituency with no sitting MP? No doubt questions that will be debated frequently over the coming months and years...
By Tim Montgomerie
This morning's Independent lists the 23 Tory MPs who may not have won their seats if AV had been operational at the General Election:
The list was compiled by researchers at Essex University.
Meanwhile The Sun reports that 137 candidates who came THIRD in last year's election might have become MPs. One candidate who came EIGHTH might even have won. George Eustice MP commented:
"This research tells us everything we need to know about why AV would be wrong. It's a losers' charter which allows the second, third or even eighth-placed candidate to come first in an election."
By Jonathan Isaby
Nominations have formally closed for the Leicester South parliamentary by-election which is taking place on May 5th and there will be just five names on the ballot paper:
The last time there were as few as five candidates contesting a by-election was in Cheadle in 2005, so Lib Dem blogger Jonathan Calder can sleep soundly in the knowledge that his prediction that "this is no Barnsley Central: we are not going to finish sixth" will come to fruition.
The result in the seat at last year's general election was:
Labour - Sir Peter Soulsby 21,479 45.6% (+6.2)
Liberal Democrat - Parmjit Singh Gill 12,671 26.9% (-3.7)
Conservative - Ross Grant 10,066 21.4% (+3.6)
BNP - Adrian Waudby 1,418 3.0% (+3.0)
Green - Dave Dixey 770 1.6% (-1.6)
UKIP - Christopher Lucas 720 1.5% (+1.5)
> On Monday, Conservative candidate Jane Hunt invited ConHome readers to lend her a hand on the campaign trail
Jane Hunt is candidate for the forthcoming Leicester South by-election, taking place on May 5th.
We need Conservatives across the country to come and help in the Leicester South parliamentary by-election.
There's a great opportunity here. The Lib Dem vote is all but wiped out in much of the constituency. Meanwhile, Labour have selected Ed Miliband's mate as their candidate, above local candidates who were keen to stand.
Labour have neglected Leicester for too long at a local and national level and this has to stop.
We have a team of candidates in Leicester, all working hard together to get the result we need. Time is the issue and we need as many people in the constituency as we can possibly get to help deliver leaflets and knock on doors in these next few weeks.
I realise that many have their own campaigns to run, but if you could spare even half a day, that would be very welcome.
Please contact me on jane.hunt@leicesterconservatives.com if you are able to lend a hand!
By Jonathan Isaby
Nominations closed last week for the Welsh Assembly election. Here is the full list of nominated Conservative candidates for the election on May 5th.
Constituency candidates
Regional Lists
Mid and West Wales
North Wales
South Wales Central
South Wales East
South Wales West
By Jonathan Isaby
Nominations closed last week for the Scottish Parliament election and later this week I will be writing about the Conservaitve Party's campaign and prospects.
For now though, here is the full list of nominated Conservative candidates for the election on May 5th, which will be fought on new boundaries after some substantial changes - hence a number of unfamiliar constituency names:
Constituency candidatesRegional Lists
Glasgow
Highlands and Islands
Lothian
Scotland Central
Scotland Mid and Fife
Scotland North East
Scotland South
Scotland West
By Jonathan Isaby
Last December we explained that all those who were on the approved Candidates' List after the General Election - both those who contested seats unsuccessfully and those who did not get to fight a seat - would have to go through a reassessment interview if they wanted to remain on the List for this Parliament.
The last few interviews are now taking place, but it will not be until after the referendum and other elections in May that decisions will be made and members of the List informed of their fate.
The process has seen them interviewed by various senior members of the voluntary party and the party's professional staff, and their assessments will be put to a panel of staff and volunteers who were not involved in the interviews. They, in turn, will make a recommendation to the Candidates' Committee of who should and should not remain on the List (without a right of appeal, as we reported in December).
So how many of the List are seeking to remain on it?
My information is that around 700 people are going through the process, meaning that only about 150 or so have opted to resign from the Candidates' List altogether.
As to how many of the 700 will be culled from the List, my sources have insisted to me that it is absolutely untrue that the party has a target number in mind; rather, they are judging individuals on their contribution during the general election, either as a candidate or as a campaigner in other seats.I gather that those who did not contest a seat themselves who had not been applying for many seats and/or were not greatly in evidence during the campaign are having to work especially hard to justify why they should remain on the List.
And whilst there will still be no right of appeal, senior CCHQ sources have indicated to me that those not put straight back onto the List will be allowed to re-apply when the List re-opens later in the year.
Not that anyone will actually be able to apply for seats for a long time.
With probably the most sweeping boundary changes in history on the cards due to the reduction in seats from 650 to 600, the Boundary Commission is not expected to finalise its recommendations until 2013. This will leave a far narrower window for selections than usual in advance of the 2015 election, giving candidates of all parties a far shorter run-up to polling day.
And as to the rules for the way selections will be handled when they do come, it is too early for us to have any indication of how they will be run.
There are many big questions that have yet to be answered. What happens where a seat is similar to that already represented by a sitting MP? Will MPs ensure that they can get automatically selected or will it be a more open process, perhaps with a bye to the final round for a sitting MP? Will there be any place for primaries in the process? The party has privately indicated to existing MPs whose seats are effectively abolished that they will be "looked after" - but how?
And for those that do remain on the List, the party probably needs to do a bit more expectation management than usual. With the reduction in the number of seats coupled with a far larger number of retirements than usual at the last election, I suspect the new intake of Tory MPs in 2015 could be one of the smallest in recent history.
By Jonathan Isaby
Five weeks before referendum day, tonight's Evening Standard has picked up on some academic research which seeks to demonstrate how the political map would have looked different if the last election had been fought under AV.
It finds that the following constituencies across London and the South East would have been won by different parties:
Conservative seats which Labour would have won
Conservative seats which the Lib Dems would have won
Labour seats which the Lib Dems would have won
This would have resulted in the parties holding the following number of seats in the Commons:
Crucailly, that would have enabled the Lib Dems to deliver an overall majority in the Commons for either of the two bigger parties.
The research was undertaken immediately after the general election by academics from the University of Essex and the University of Texas at Dallas for the journal Parliamentary Affairs. Whether people would assign their preferences today as they would have done last May, though, is certainly highly questionable...
> Earlier today William Hague launched the NO to AV Group
By Jonathan Isaby
At the end of last week I expained that there will be four ballot papers issued to voters in Leicester South on May 5th, one of which will be for the parliamentary by-election.
And on Saturday Jane Hunt was selected as Conservative candidate for the contest.
Jane contested neighbouring Leicester East at last year's general election, where she attained a 4.8% swing in her favour from Labour's sitting MP, Keith Vaz.
She has lived in Leicestershire since 1995 and is a member of Charnwood Borough Council, where she has previously served as Cabinet Member for Change Management and Youth Sport as well as Champion for Children and Young People and Champion for Play.
She is also a Governor of a High School and sits on several charities as a Trustee. Married with two children, she has worked as a civil servant, a senior manager in commercial business, for a national charity and is currently caseworker for an MP.
By Jonathan Isaby
In the last few days, Jackie Whiteley has been announced as Conservative Parliamentary Spokesman for Rotherham in South Yorkshire.
She contested the seat at the 2010 general election, increasing the Conservative vote to 16.7% and leap-frogging the Lib Dems to take second place.
There is no by-election immediately in the offing, but the man who retained the seat for Labour at the general election, Denis MacShane, has been without his party's whip since last October after the parliamentary Standards watchdog referred him to the police over his use of parliamentary alowances.
Jackie Whiteley said:
“It is a real privilege to be the Parliamentary Spokesman for Rotherham. Having previously campaigned in the seat at the general election and as the owner of a small business, I have got a real understanding of the issues and concerns of Rotherham’s residents and local businesses. I will continue to campaign passionately for jobs, investment and a brighter future for the community.”
By Jonathan Isaby
Voters in Leicester South are going to be deluged with ballot papers as they go to the polls on May 5th. They will be taking part in:
The by-election has been caused by the decision of Labour MP Sir Peter Soulsby to resign and concentrate on his campaign to become the aforementoned elected Mayor.
Leicester Conservatives will select a candidate this Saturday from the following shortlist:
Nick Bryars, the chairman of City of Leicester Conservative Association, tells ConHome:
"In Leicester we are currently fighting four election campaigns. These are the by-election in Leicester South, the Mayoral election, elections to Leicester City Council and the AV referendum. We are fighting against the Alternative Vote hard; we have excellent candidates in the local elections, a superb mayoral candidate in popular local councillor Ross Grant, and a brilliant parliamentary candidate shortlist.
"Come and help us in our fight against the domination of our city by Labour. We are organising extensive canvassing and leafleting right up until polling day on 5th May. Email me at nicholasbryars@ntlworld.com for details."
Leicester South was the scene of a by-election in 2004 when the Lib Dems temporarily snatched the seat from Labour, only for Sir Peter Soulsby to take it back in 2005. He held it last May with a majority of 8,808 over the Lib Dems. The full result was:
Labour - Sir Peter Soulsby 21,479 45.6% (+6.2)
Liberal Democrat - Parmjit Singh Gill 12,671 26.9% (-3.7)
Conservative - Ross Grant 10,066 21.4% (+3.6)
BNP - Adrian Waudby 1,418 3.0% (+3.0)
Green - Dave Dixey 770 1.6% (-1.6)
UKIP - Christopher Lucas 720 1.5% (+1.5)
Labour have already selected Jonathan Ashworth as their candidate, whilst the ex-Lib Dem MP Parmjit Singh Gill yesterday curiously stood down as their candidate five days after being reselected, according to Lib Dem Voice, and the yellow rosette will instead be donned by one Zuffar Haq.
Tim Montgomerie
Two weeks ago I wrote that the Conservative Party had, at an optimistic estimate, gained 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, TWENTY new MPs because of the passage of the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill.
The number of seats being lost in each part of the UK has now been confirmed:
That's a total reduction of 51.
It's clear why Labour peers fought so hard against this Bill. It means fewer Labour strongholds in the likes of Barnsley. It goes a long way to addressing the pro-Labour bias within the existing electoral geography.
By Jonathan Isaby
In the early hours of this morning the result of yesterday's Barnsley Central by-election came through, with Labour, as widely anticipated, holding the seat with a comfortable majority.
Howvere, the headline on which the media are seizing ("humiliated" is the popular adjecitve of choice) is the fact that the Lib Dems dropped from second place at the general election to sixth place yesterday, behind the BNP, and losing their deposit in the process.
The Conservatives retained the third place attained last year, albeit with UKIP leapfrogging to take second place.
The full result was:
Dan Jarvis (Lab) 14,724 (60.80%, +13.53%)
Jane Collins (UKIP) 2,953 (12.19%, +7.53%)
James Hockney (C) 1,999 (8.25%, -9.01%)
Enis Dalton (BNP) 1,463 (6.04%, -2.90%)
Tony Devoy (Ind) 1,266 (5.23%, +3.58%)
Dominic Carman (LD) 1,012 (4.18%, -13.10%)
Kevin Riddiough (Eng Dem) 544 (2.25%)
Howling Laud Hope (Loony) 198 (0.82%)
Michael Val Davies (Ind) 60 (0.25%)
Lab majority 11,771 (48.60%)
Turnout 24,219 (37.00%, -19.46%)
Nigel Adams MP is campaign manager for the Conservative candidate, James Hockney, in Barnsley Central.
As we enter the last 48 hours of the by-election campaign in Barnsley Central, it’s no surprise with so little to offer the people of Barnsley that Labour are resorting to the past to hold on to the seat, as the picture on the right shows.
We know that Labour have let Barnsley down. Despite the Labour Council doubling council tax since 1997, it has wasted money on a number of things, including £1.9 million spent on publicity and £30,000 on the arty timepiece on the Civic Centre. And it paid the council’s chief executive £161,000 last year, more than even the Prime Minister.
Labour campaign literature claims the “Labour Party offers a credible alternative to David Cameron” but Ed Miliband has shown since becoming leader that he has no credible polices to deal with the mess his party has left the country in and has admitted himself his policies are a “blank sheet of paper”. We have all heard his claims of “New Politics. Fresh Ideas” but when it comes down to it, all he can fill his “blank sheet of paper” with is the past whilst offering nothing for the future.
You would have hoped that Ed Miliband’s promise of a ‘new generation’ would have something credible to offer the people of Barnsley that they have so badly let down. Clearly, that is too much to hope for.
So, please help us hold Labour to account. Come up to Barnsley Central and help out James Hockney’s campaign in the final push to the close of polls at 10pm tomorrow, and make Labour pay for their negative, disingenuous campaign.
Anyone wishing to assist James's campaign today or on polling day tomorrow should email campaignsupport@conservativesnorth.com. The campaign centre is situated at The Coach House, Berneslai Close (Off Churchfield), Barnsley, S70 2BQ, which is ten minutes from Barnsley railway station and easily accessible from the M1.
By Jonathan Isaby
I'm only just catching up with an opinion poll published north of the border on Sunday in advance of the Scottish Parliament election taking place on May 5th.
According to the Sunday Herald, the Scottish Green Party commissioned YouGov to carry out the survey of 1,258 Scottish adults on February 21st and 22nd, which came up with the following findings among those who are certain to vote:
Constituency vote
Regional list vote
The Scotlandvotes.com translates these numbers into a Scottish Parliament comprising:
This would leave Labour six seats short of an overall majority at Holyrood, giving them the option of trying to govern alone as the SNP have done these last four years, or considering forming a coalition with one of more of the smaller parties.