The boundary review was never going to be that radical for Labour in the Southern counties of England, simply because the party holds so few seats, and has relatively few prospects. Equally, because the Conservatives have a hegemonic hold on so many counties, where seats are lost they will, nearly always, be Conservative ones. Here's a summary of the provisional recommendations for the South East - summaries for the South West and Eastern regions will follow.
Berkshire
Both Reading seats are entirely unaltered. Slough has grown too large and loses a
Buckinghamshire
There needed to be some realignment between the two Milton Keynes seats and they now look somewhat how they did before the last boundary change: an adjustment that makes the new MK South the stronger prospect for Labour. Good news for the recently selected candidate, Andrew Pakes. The rest of Buckinghamshire has been tidied up after some very strangely-shaped constituencies, but none of these are vaguely winnable by Labour.
East Sussex and Kent
The Commission needed to combine East Sussex with somewhere and they chose Kent. Between the two counties one seat needs to go - and while that is the Tory Faversham and Mid Kent, the political changes elsewhere look like they will cost the Greens their only parliamentary seat.
That's because Brighton is absolutely ripped apart: two halves of Hove are combined with the north and southern bits of Brighton Pavilion. In neither would the Greens have finished even second. The southern of those seats: Brighton Pavilion and Hove, would actually have gone Labour by about 600 in 2010 while the northern chunk (Brighton and Hove North) would have gone Tory by less than 100 - with the Greens in fourth.
East Sussex and Kent
The Commission needed to combine East Sussex with somewhere and they chose Kent. Between the two counties one seat needs to go - and while that is the Tory Faversham and Mid Kent, the political changes elsewhere look like they will cost the Greens their only parliamentary seat.
That's because Brighton is absolutely ripped apart: two halves of Hove are combined with the north and southern bits of Brighton Pavilion. In neither would the Greens have finished even second. The southern of those seats: Brighton Pavilion and Hove, would actually have gone Labour by about 600 in 2010 while the northern chunk (Brighton and Hove North) would have gone Tory by less than 100 - with the Greens in fourth.
Meanwhile a three-way marginal, leaning Conservative, has been created from a pairing of Brighton, Kemptown with Lewes town.
Hastings & Rye remains unchanged - so will continue to be a top Labour target.
The new Uckfield seat - a combination of heavily Tory Wealden and Lib Dem Lewes minus Lewes town - is forecast as marginally Conservative but I suspect it will be fairly comfortable for them. The cross-county seat is called "The Weald"- the Battle half of Bexhill & Battle and the Weald part of Maidstone & The Weald: possibly the safest Tory seat in these two counties.
In Kent, very little has changed for Labour. The new Margate & Ramsgate should be a slightly better seat than South Thanet though the inclusion of Sandwich ward looks unnatural and is politically unhelpful to Labour. Dartford loses a rural ward but gains another when adding Swanley would have made it a much better prospect. Gravesham Chatham/Aylesford and Dover become slightly worse;Chatham becomes slightly better.
Hampshire
When people talk about how the Lib Dems have been shafted by the boundary review, look to Hampshire. The county loses a seat - and that seat is Conservative-voting Meon Valley, most of which is split between Fareham and an expanded Winchester (much as it was pre 1997). But the knock-on consequences seriously impair Lib Dem chances in four existing seats: Winchester, Portsmouth South, Romsey & Southampton North and Eastleigh - none of which they are projected to hold.
Labour holds two seats in Hampshire, both in Southampton. Unfortunately, Test looks to have been flipped to the Conservatives by the shunting of one extra ward into Itchen, and a compensatory gain of a heavily Tory ward from Romsey.
Oxfordshire
These counties saw only minor changes (if any). In terms of Labour prospects they have been slightly enhanced here. Oxford East (now to be called just Oxford) was too large and has lost a principally Lib Dem area, bolstering Labour. That change would also have kept the Oxford West division Lib Dem - the one piece of good news for that party in the south-eastern review. Oxfordshire will almost certainly gain a seat at the next boundary review; possibly in a cross-county pairing with Berkshire.
Surrey
Very minor changes here as all seats are close to being the right size. Labour has no chance in any of the seats and the least hostile - Spelthorne -remains unaltered
gains a Tory ward from Runnymede and Weybridge making it less competitive. Surrey will probably gain a seat next time and that
could
make Guildford
very
more competitive again between the Tories and Lib Dems by shearing off some Tory voting rural areas.
West Sussex
This county is only marginally changed: Crawley gains one Tory-voting ward from Mid Sussex but is not beyond reach given how much Labour won this seat by in 1997 and 2001.
Hastings & Rye remains unchanged - so will continue to be a top Labour target.
The new Uckfield seat - a combination of heavily Tory Wealden and Lib Dem Lewes minus Lewes town - is forecast as marginally Conservative but I suspect it will be fairly comfortable for them. The cross-county seat is called "The Weald"- the Battle half of Bexhill & Battle and the Weald part of Maidstone & The Weald: possibly the safest Tory seat in these two counties.
In Kent, very little has changed for Labour. The new Margate & Ramsgate should be a slightly better seat than South Thanet though the inclusion of Sandwich ward looks unnatural and is politically unhelpful to Labour. Dartford loses a rural ward but gains another when adding Swanley would have made it a much better prospect. Gravesham Chatham/Aylesford and Dover become slightly worse;
Hampshire
When people talk about how the Lib Dems have been shafted by the boundary review, look to Hampshire. The county loses a seat - and that seat is Conservative-voting Meon Valley, most of which is split between Fareham and an expanded Winchester (much as it was pre 1997). But the knock-on consequences seriously impair Lib Dem chances in four existing seats: Winchester, Portsmouth South, Romsey & Southampton North and Eastleigh - none of which they are projected to hold.
Labour holds two seats in Hampshire, both in Southampton. Unfortunately, Test looks to have been flipped to the Conservatives by the shunting of one extra ward into Itchen, and a compensatory gain of a heavily Tory ward from Romsey.
Portsmouth could not have been drawn better for the Conservatives: instead of North-South divisions, they are now East-West, both of which would be Tory with Labour and the Lib Dems competing for a fairly distant second in both.
Eastleigh has been split in two: Eastleigh town itself takes in the northern Southampton bits that were in the marginal Romsey seat and those are pretty Conservative, flipping Chris Huhne's seat to the Tories. The rest of the Eastleigh constituency is big enough for its own seat: Hedge End and Hamble. The Guardian has both as notionally Tory, but any seat with heavily-Lib Dem Eastleigh in it will be very competitive.
Isle of Wight
The Isle has been divided pretty much as I set out a few weeks ago: a more urban northern seat and then the rest of the island. Neither is winnable by Labour though the Lib Dems might aspire to doing well in one of these new divisions: the less affluent southern one looking slightly more favourable towards them.
Eastleigh has been split in two: Eastleigh town itself takes in the northern Southampton bits that were in the marginal Romsey seat and those are pretty Conservative, flipping Chris Huhne's seat to the Tories. The rest of the Eastleigh constituency is big enough for its own seat: Hedge End and Hamble. The Guardian has both as notionally Tory, but any seat with heavily-Lib Dem Eastleigh in it will be very competitive.
Isle of Wight
The Isle has been divided pretty much as I set out a few weeks ago: a more urban northern seat and then the rest of the island. Neither is winnable by Labour though the Lib Dems might aspire to doing well in one of these new divisions: the less affluent southern one looking slightly more favourable towards them.
Oxfordshire
These counties saw only minor changes (if any). In terms of Labour prospects they have been slightly enhanced here. Oxford East (now to be called just Oxford) was too large and has lost a principally Lib Dem area, bolstering Labour. That change would also have kept the Oxford West division Lib Dem - the one piece of good news for that party in the south-eastern review. Oxfordshire will almost certainly gain a seat at the next boundary review; possibly in a cross-county pairing with Berkshire.
Surrey
Very minor changes here as all seats are close to being the right size. Labour has no chance in any of the seats and the least hostile - Spelthorne -
West Sussex
This county is only marginally changed: Crawley gains one Tory-voting ward from Mid Sussex but is not beyond reach given how much Labour won this seat by in 1997 and 2001.
NB A lot of the notional figures used in this analysis are taken from the Guardian website which has had a first stab and acknowledges their figures are "crude" - we're aware of some incorrect forecasts for London so very closely fought seats may have come out differently.
Good work
ReplyWe also need Billy Bragg to stand in South Dorset as a "Progressive" candidate
But we need to be planning a stratergy for 2013 County Council elections
how do we maximise Labour and anti Coalition vote
To win in County towns and some villages is great
but in rural tory heartlamnd whats wrong with not standing and supporting no cuts independent
We have to brreak the tory Country Councils significantly this time
Mike
What makes you think we'll lose Southampton Test and fail to take any seats in Reading?
ReplySouthampton picked up 4 council seats in 2011, and Reading gained 3. We could be looking at majority control of at least one of these councils by 2015. Your predictions appear to assume we'll poll exactly the same at the next General Election as we did in 2010, which was our second worst poll since the Second World War (the worst being in 1983).
Andy, it's not a prediction: it's an estimate of how the seats would have voted had they been in existence at the LAST election.
ReplyWe can have a debate about whether or not Labour is going to do better or worse at the next election: I think it's heading for a far bigger defeat than 2010. But that's not factored into these projections.
Clearly, on a result like 1997 or 2001 (or even 2005) Test, even on these boundaries, would be very comfortably Labour. But, as I say, this is how the new seats would have voted last time and we'd have lost Test at that election because of the inclusion of a strongly Conservative outlying ward.