This page shows the detail of the calculations performed to estimate the general election result for 2010 had the new boundaries for Wanstead and Woodford been in force at that time. The basic idea of the calculation is to look at the district council wards which make up the new seat, and estimate how they voted in 2010. This estimate is based on the recent local election results in those wards, with adjustments made to allow for different turnouts and different voting patterns for local and general elections.
Due to changes in ward boundaries, some new wards are divided among several old constituencies (and sometimes in Scotland between two new constituencies). Such wards are shown divided into several parts, called [1], [2], and so on.
Election results from a recent local election are given. This is usually the local election closest to 2010 from the period 2007-2011. For multiple-member wards, the votes shown are the sum of the votes cast for all candidates of each party. A negative number indicates candidate(s) elected unopposed. Where zero votes are shown, the ward results have not yet been acquired, and the implied result is still provisional and will be improved later.
There are two problems with using the raw (actual) local election results to imply general election results ward-by-ward. Firstly, turnout can be different between local and general elections, which means that the total number of local votes cast does not equal the number of votes cast in each old seat at the general election. To correct for this, we adjust the local votes to match the general election turnout. Each ward's result is scaled, whilst keeping constant the percentage support for each party, so that the total turnout adds up to the old seat's general election turnout. All wards in the old seat are assumed to have the same percentage turnout.
Secondly, even though we now have the correct number of votes in the old seat, the party totals will not match the general election result. Some parties do better at the local election than the general election, and others do vice versa. We call these strong and weak parties respectively. The next step is to transfer votes from strong parties to weak parties. This is done by taking votes proportionally away from strong parties and putting them in a transfer pool. For instance if a party got 12,500 local votes, but only 10,000 general election votes, it will lose 20% of its votes from each ward. These votes in each ward will be put in the ward's transfer pool and allocated to the weak parties. Weak parties will get votes transferred to them in proportion to the votes they need over the old seat. For instance, if two weak parties need 4,000 and 1,000 votes respectively, the first party will get 80% of each ward's transfer pool and the second party will get 20% of each ward's transfer pool. The transfer of votes between parties is done on a ward-by-ward basis using these common percentages.
More details of the calculation formulas are available.
The old seat(s) needed are:
The raw vote table shows the district council election results for all the wards in the old seat of Ilford South. The first block shows the actual results, the second block shows the turnout-adjusted results. Details of the transfer calculation are given below this table.
| Old seat: Ilford South | Actual Results | Turnout-adjusted Results | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Ward | Election Year | Electorate 2010 | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | Total Votes |
| Redbridge | Chadwell | 2010 | 9,683 | 4,122 | 5,477 | 4,687 | 2,348 | 1,422 | 1,889 | 1,617 | 810 | 5,738 |
| Redbridge | Clementswood | 2010 | 9,241 | 3,080 | 7,289 | 4,444 | 0 | 1,138 | 2,694 | 1,643 | 0 | 5,475 |
| Redbridge | Cranbrook | 2010 | 9,015 | 6,544 | 6,277 | 2,661 | 0 | 2,258 | 2,166 | 918 | 0 | 5,342 |
| Redbridge | Goodmayes | 2010 | 8,842 | 3,802 | 7,241 | 4,031 | 0 | 1,321 | 2,516 | 1,401 | 0 | 5,238 |
| Redbridge | Loxford | 2010 | 10,071 | 2,572 | 9,289 | 3,741 | 0 | 984 | 3,553 | 1,431 | 0 | 5,968 |
| Redbridge | Mayfield | 2010 | 9,537 | 5,058 | 8,807 | 2,216 | 1,282 | 1,646 | 2,866 | 721 | 417 | 5,650 |
| Redbridge | Newbury | 2010 | 10,927 | 6,370 | 9,813 | 3,210 | 0 | 2,127 | 3,276 | 1,072 | 0 | 6,475 |
| Redbridge | Seven Kings | 2010 | 9,882 | 4,548 | 8,922 | 3,023 | 0 | 1,615 | 3,167 | 1,073 | 0 | 5,855 |
| Redbridge | Valentines | 2010 | 9,203 | 3,244 | 5,945 | 6,104 | 0 | 1,157 | 2,120 | 2,176 | 0 | 5,453 |
| Total | 86,401 | 13,668 | 24,247 | 12,052 | 1,227 | 51,194 | ||||||
The transfer table below shows the votes cast in the old seat of Ilford South at the general election, as well as the total local turnout-adjusted votes. The number of votes to transfer, shown in the fourth and fifth columns, are the difference between the general and local votes. Strong parties will have votes transferred away, and weak parties will have votes transferred into them. The final column describes how votes will be transferred away from or into that party on a ward-by-ward basis. If a party is too strong, it will lose a percentage of its votes in each ward which go into that ward's transfer pool. If a party is too weak, it will gain votes from each ward's transfer pool in proportion to the number of transfer votes it needs over the whole old seat.
| Party | General Election 2010 Votes | Local Election Turnout-adjusted Votes | Votes to transfer away | Votes to transfer into | Ward Transfers needed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | 14,014 | 13,668 | 0 | 346 | Transfer in 10.3% (= 346 / 3370) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| LAB | 25,301 | 24,247 | 0 | 1,054 | Transfer in 31.3% (= 1054 / 3370) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| LIB | 8,679 | 12,052 | 3,373 | 0 | Transfer away 28.0% (= 3373 / 12052) of ward's LIB votes |
| OTH | 3,197 | 1,227 | 0 | 1,970 | Transfer in 58.5% (= 1970 / 3370) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| Total | 51,191 | 51,194 | 3,370 | 3,370 |
The main table shows the transfer-adjusted results for each ward in the old seat of Ilford South, as well as showing which new seat each ward is in.
| Old seat: Ilford South | Transfer-adjusted Results | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Ward | Electorate 2010 | New Seat | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | Total Votes |
| Redbridge | Chadwell | 9,683 | Ilford North | 1,468 | 2,031 | 1,164 | 1,075 | 5,738 |
| Redbridge | Clementswood | 9,241 | East Ham and Loxford | 1,185 | 2,838 | 1,183 | 269 | 5,475 |
| Redbridge | Cranbrook | 9,015 | Wanstead and Woodford | 2,284 | 2,246 | 661 | 150 | 5,342 |
| Redbridge | Goodmayes | 8,842 | Barking | 1,361 | 2,639 | 1,009 | 229 | 5,238 |
| Redbridge | Loxford | 10,071 | East Ham and Loxford | 1,025 | 3,678 | 1,031 | 234 | 5,968 |
| Redbridge | Mayfield | 9,537 | Barking | 1,667 | 2,929 | 519 | 535 | 5,650 |
| Redbridge | Newbury | 10,927 | Ilford North | 2,158 | 3,370 | 772 | 175 | 6,475 |
| Redbridge | Seven Kings | 9,882 | Ilford North | 1,646 | 3,261 | 773 | 176 | 5,855 |
| Redbridge | Valentines | 9,203 | Wanstead and Woodford | 1,220 | 2,310 | 1,567 | 356 | 5,453 |
| Total | 86,401 | 14,014 | 25,302 | 8,679 | 3,199 | 51,194 | ||
After transfer adjustment, the totals for each party over all the wards match the general election vote in the old seat.
The raw vote table shows the district council election results for all the wards in the old seat of Ilford North. The first block shows the actual results, the second block shows the turnout-adjusted results. Details of the transfer calculation are given below this table.
| Old seat: Ilford North | Actual Results | Turnout-adjusted Results | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Ward | Election Year | Electorate 2010 | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | Total Votes |
| Redbridge | Aldborough | 2010 | 9,944 | 8,009 | 7,697 | 2,605 | 0 | 2,813 | 2,703 | 915 | 0 | 6,431 |
| Redbridge | Barkingside | 2010 | 9,205 | 8,403 | 6,480 | 2,271 | 383 | 2,852 | 2,200 | 771 | 130 | 5,953 |
| Redbridge | Bridge | 2010 | 8,377 | 7,183 | 4,117 | 3,059 | 751 | 2,575 | 1,476 | 1,097 | 269 | 5,417 |
| Redbridge | Clayhall | 2010 | 9,883 | 8,205 | 8,009 | 2,739 | 0 | 2,767 | 2,701 | 924 | 0 | 6,392 |
| Redbridge | Fairlop | 2010 | 9,013 | 8,259 | 4,752 | 2,258 | 601 | 3,033 | 1,745 | 829 | 221 | 5,828 |
| Redbridge | Fullwell | 2010 | 9,175 | 8,656 | 5,000 | 2,575 | 422 | 3,084 | 1,782 | 918 | 150 | 5,934 |
| Redbridge | Hainault | 2010 | 8,844 | 5,588 | 4,661 | 1,622 | 3,159 | 2,126 | 1,774 | 617 | 1,202 | 5,719 |
| Redbridge | Roding | 2010 | 8,261 | 5,376 | 3,486 | 6,395 | 326 | 1,843 | 1,195 | 2,193 | 112 | 5,343 |
| Total | 72,702 | 21,093 | 15,576 | 8,264 | 2,084 | 47,017 | ||||||
The transfer table below shows the votes cast in the old seat of Ilford North at the general election, as well as the total local turnout-adjusted votes. The number of votes to transfer, shown in the fourth and fifth columns, are the difference between the general and local votes. Strong parties will have votes transferred away, and weak parties will have votes transferred into them. The final column describes how votes will be transferred away from or into that party on a ward-by-ward basis. If a party is too strong, it will lose a percentage of its votes in each ward which go into that ward's transfer pool. If a party is too weak, it will gain votes from each ward's transfer pool in proportion to the number of transfer votes it needs over the whole old seat.
| Party | General Election 2010 Votes | Local Election Turnout-adjusted Votes | Votes to transfer away | Votes to transfer into | Ward Transfers needed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | 21,506 | 21,093 | 0 | 413 | Transfer in 18.0% (= 413 / 2299) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| LAB | 16,102 | 15,576 | 0 | 526 | Transfer in 22.9% (= 526 / 2299) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| LIB | 5,966 | 8,264 | 2,298 | 0 | Transfer away 27.8% (= 2298 / 8264) of ward's LIB votes |
| OTH | 3,444 | 2,084 | 0 | 1,360 | Transfer in 59.2% (= 1360 / 2299) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| Total | 47,018 | 47,017 | 2,299 | 2,299 |
The main table shows the transfer-adjusted results for each ward in the old seat of Ilford North, as well as showing which new seat each ward is in.
| Old seat: Ilford North | Transfer-adjusted Results | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Ward | Electorate 2010 | New Seat | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | Total Votes |
| Redbridge | Aldborough | 9,944 | Ilford North | 2,859 | 2,761 | 661 | 151 | 6,431 |
| Redbridge | Barkingside | 9,205 | Ilford North | 2,891 | 2,249 | 557 | 257 | 5,953 |
| Redbridge | Bridge | 8,377 | Wanstead and Woodford | 2,630 | 1,546 | 792 | 449 | 5,417 |
| Redbridge | Clayhall | 9,883 | Wanstead and Woodford | 2,813 | 2,760 | 667 | 152 | 6,392 |
| Redbridge | Fairlop | 9,013 | Ilford North | 3,074 | 1,798 | 598 | 357 | 5,828 |
| Redbridge | Fullwell | 9,175 | Ilford North | 3,130 | 1,840 | 663 | 301 | 5,934 |
| Redbridge | Hainault | 8,844 | Ilford North | 2,157 | 1,813 | 445 | 1,303 | 5,719 |
| Redbridge | Roding | 8,261 | Wanstead and Woodford | 1,953 | 1,335 | 1,583 | 473 | 5,343 |
| Total | 72,702 | 21,507 | 16,102 | 5,966 | 3,443 | 47,017 | ||
After transfer adjustment, the totals for each party over all the wards match the general election vote in the old seat.
The raw vote table shows the district council election results for all the wards in the old seat of Chingford and Woodford Green. The first block shows the actual results, the second block shows the turnout-adjusted results. Details of the transfer calculation are given below this table.
| Old seat: Chingford and Woodford Green | Actual Results | Turnout-adjusted Results | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Ward | Election Year | Electorate 2010 | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | Total Votes |
| Redbridge | Church End | 2010 | 8,260 | 4,827 | 2,700 | 8,628 | 453 | 1,598 | 894 | 2,856 | 150 | 5,498 |
| Redbridge | Monkhams | 2010 | 8,215 | 8,971 | 2,029 | 5,172 | 359 | 2,967 | 671 | 1,711 | 119 | 5,468 |
| Waltham Forest | Chingford Green | 2010 | 7,848 | 9,347 | 2,641 | 2,881 | 0 | 3,283 | 928 | 1,012 | 0 | 5,223 |
| Waltham Forest | Endlebury | 2010 | 8,139 | 8,429 | 2,696 | 1,988 | 1,564 | 3,111 | 995 | 734 | 577 | 5,417 |
| Waltham Forest | Hale End and Highams Park | 2010 | 7,883 | 5,994 | 3,913 | 5,435 | 0 | 2,050 | 1,338 | 1,859 | 0 | 5,247 |
| Waltham Forest | Hatch Lane | 2010 | 8,131 | 7,724 | 3,223 | 2,989 | 569 | 2,882 | 1,202 | 1,115 | 212 | 5,411 |
| Waltham Forest | Larkswood | 2010 | 8,200 | 7,995 | 3,799 | 2,376 | 0 | 3,079 | 1,463 | 915 | 0 | 5,457 |
| Waltham Forest | Valley | 2010 | 8,094 | 6,047 | 3,908 | 2,034 | 0 | 2,717 | 1,756 | 914 | 0 | 5,387 |
| Total | 64,770 | 21,687 | 9,247 | 11,116 | 1,058 | 43,108 | ||||||
The transfer table below shows the votes cast in the old seat of Chingford and Woodford Green at the general election, as well as the total local turnout-adjusted votes. The number of votes to transfer, shown in the fourth and fifth columns, are the difference between the general and local votes. Strong parties will have votes transferred away, and weak parties will have votes transferred into them. The final column describes how votes will be transferred away from or into that party on a ward-by-ward basis. If a party is too strong, it will lose a percentage of its votes in each ward which go into that ward's transfer pool. If a party is too weak, it will gain votes from each ward's transfer pool in proportion to the number of transfer votes it needs over the whole old seat.
| Party | General Election 2010 Votes | Local Election Turnout-adjusted Votes | Votes to transfer away | Votes to transfer into | Ward Transfers needed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | 22,743 | 21,687 | 0 | 1,056 | Transfer in 27.3% (= 1056 / 3872) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| LAB | 9,780 | 9,247 | 0 | 533 | Transfer in 13.8% (= 533 / 3872) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| LIB | 7,242 | 11,116 | 3,874 | 0 | Transfer away 34.9% (= 3874 / 11116) of ward's LIB votes |
| OTH | 3,341 | 1,058 | 0 | 2,283 | Transfer in 59.0% (= 2283 / 3872) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| Total | 43,106 | 43,108 | 3,872 | 3,872 |
The main table shows the transfer-adjusted results for each ward in the old seat of Chingford and Woodford Green, as well as showing which new seat each ward is in.
| Old seat: Chingford and Woodford Green | Transfer-adjusted Results | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Ward | Electorate 2010 | New Seat | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | Total Votes |
| Redbridge | Church End | 8,260 | Wanstead and Woodford | 1,869 | 1,031 | 1,861 | 737 | 5,498 |
| Redbridge | Monkhams | 8,215 | Wanstead and Woodford | 3,130 | 753 | 1,115 | 471 | 5,468 |
| Waltham Forest | Chingford Green | 7,848 | Chingford | 3,379 | 977 | 659 | 208 | 5,223 |
| Waltham Forest | Endlebury | 8,139 | Chingford | 3,181 | 1,030 | 478 | 728 | 5,417 |
| Waltham Forest | Hale End and Highams Park | 7,883 | Chingford | 2,227 | 1,427 | 1,211 | 382 | 5,247 |
| Waltham Forest | Hatch Lane | 8,131 | Chingford | 2,988 | 1,255 | 726 | 441 | 5,411 |
| Waltham Forest | Larkswood | 8,200 | Chingford | 3,166 | 1,507 | 596 | 188 | 5,457 |
| Waltham Forest | Valley | 8,094 | Chingford | 2,804 | 1,800 | 595 | 188 | 5,387 |
| Total | 64,770 | 22,744 | 9,780 | 7,241 | 3,343 | 43,108 | ||
After transfer adjustment, the totals for each party over all the wards match the general election vote in the old seat.
The raw vote table shows the district council election results for all the wards in the old seat of Leyton and Wanstead. The first block shows the actual results, the second block shows the turnout-adjusted results. Details of the transfer calculation are given below this table.
| Old seat: Leyton and Wanstead | Actual Results | Turnout-adjusted Results | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Ward | Election Year | Electorate 2010 | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | Total Votes |
| Redbridge | Snaresbrook | 2010 | 8,771 | 7,830 | 5,716 | 3,311 | 749 | 2,486 | 1,815 | 1,051 | 238 | 5,590 |
| Redbridge | Wanstead | 2010 | 8,577 | 6,948 | 5,379 | 3,758 | 1,383 | 2,174 | 1,683 | 1,176 | 433 | 5,466 |
| Waltham Forest | Cann Hall | 2010 | 7,347 | 1,448 | 5,873 | 5,234 | 420 | 522 | 2,119 | 1,889 | 152 | 4,682 |
| Waltham Forest | Cathall | 2010 | 7,046 | 1,247 | 5,820 | 4,190 | 320 | 484 | 2,257 | 1,625 | 124 | 4,490 |
| Waltham Forest | Forest | 2010 | 7,650 | 2,024 | 5,655 | 4,847 | 1,233 | 717 | 2,004 | 1,717 | 437 | 4,875 |
| Waltham Forest | Grove Green | 2010 | 7,678 | 1,801 | 6,791 | 4,883 | 812 | 617 | 2,326 | 1,672 | 278 | 4,893 |
| Waltham Forest | Leyton | 2010 | 8,068 | 1,005 | 5,917 | 6,389 | 618 | 371 | 2,184 | 2,358 | 228 | 5,141 |
| Waltham Forest | Leytonstone | 2010 | 7,884 | 2,415 | 6,882 | 4,420 | 708 | 841 | 2,397 | 1,539 | 247 | 5,024 |
| Total | 63,021 | 8,212 | 16,785 | 13,027 | 2,137 | 40,161 | ||||||
The transfer table below shows the votes cast in the old seat of Leyton and Wanstead at the general election, as well as the total local turnout-adjusted votes. The number of votes to transfer, shown in the fourth and fifth columns, are the difference between the general and local votes. Strong parties will have votes transferred away, and weak parties will have votes transferred into them. The final column describes how votes will be transferred away from or into that party on a ward-by-ward basis. If a party is too strong, it will lose a percentage of its votes in each ward which go into that ward's transfer pool. If a party is too weak, it will gain votes from each ward's transfer pool in proportion to the number of transfer votes it needs over the whole old seat.
| Party | General Election 2010 Votes | Local Election Turnout-adjusted Votes | Votes to transfer away | Votes to transfer into | Ward Transfers needed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | 8,928 | 8,212 | 0 | 716 | Transfer in 37.1% (= 716 / 1930) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| LAB | 17,511 | 16,785 | 0 | 726 | Transfer in 37.6% (= 726 / 1930) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| LIB | 11,095 | 13,027 | 1,932 | 0 | Transfer away 14.8% (= 1932 / 13027) of ward's LIB votes |
| OTH | 2,625 | 2,137 | 0 | 488 | Transfer in 25.3% (= 488 / 1930) of ward's transfer pool votes |
| Total | 40,159 | 40,161 | 1,930 | 1,930 |
The main table shows the transfer-adjusted results for each ward in the old seat of Leyton and Wanstead, as well as showing which new seat each ward is in.
| Old seat: Leyton and Wanstead | Transfer-adjusted Results | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Ward | Electorate 2010 | New Seat | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | Total Votes |
| Redbridge | Snaresbrook | 8,771 | Wanstead and Woodford | 2,544 | 1,874 | 895 | 277 | 5,590 |
| Redbridge | Wanstead | 8,577 | Wanstead and Woodford | 2,239 | 1,749 | 1,002 | 477 | 5,466 |
| Waltham Forest | Cann Hall | 7,347 | Leyton | 626 | 2,224 | 1,609 | 223 | 4,682 |
| Waltham Forest | Cathall | 7,046 | Leyton | 573 | 2,348 | 1,384 | 185 | 4,490 |
| Waltham Forest | Forest | 7,650 | Leyton | 811 | 2,100 | 1,462 | 501 | 4,875 |
| Waltham Forest | Grove Green | 7,678 | Leyton | 709 | 2,419 | 1,424 | 341 | 4,893 |
| Waltham Forest | Leyton | 8,068 | Leyton | 501 | 2,316 | 2,008 | 316 | 5,141 |
| Waltham Forest | Leytonstone | 7,884 | Leyton | 926 | 2,483 | 1,311 | 305 | 5,024 |
| Total | 63,021 | 8,929 | 17,513 | 11,095 | 2,625 | 40,161 | ||
After transfer adjustment, the totals for each party over all the wards match the general election vote in the old seat.
| New seat: Wanstead and Woodford | ||||||||
| District | Ward | Electorate 2010 | Old Seat | CON Votes | LAB Votes | LIB Votes | OTH Votes | Total Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redbridge | Cranbrook | 9,015 | Ilford South | 2,284 | 2,246 | 661 | 150 | 5,342 |
| Redbridge | Valentines | 9,203 | Ilford South | 1,220 | 2,310 | 1,567 | 356 | 5,453 |
| Redbridge | Bridge | 8,377 | Ilford North | 2,630 | 1,546 | 792 | 449 | 5,417 |
| Redbridge | Clayhall | 9,883 | Ilford North | 2,813 | 2,760 | 667 | 152 | 6,392 |
| Redbridge | Roding | 8,261 | Ilford North | 1,953 | 1,335 | 1,583 | 473 | 5,343 |
| Redbridge | Church End | 8,260 | Chingford and Woodford Green | 1,869 | 1,031 | 1,861 | 737 | 5,498 |
| Redbridge | Monkhams | 8,215 | Chingford and Woodford Green | 3,130 | 753 | 1,115 | 471 | 5,468 |
| Redbridge | Snaresbrook | 8,771 | Leyton and Wanstead | 2,544 | 1,874 | 895 | 277 | 5,590 |
| Redbridge | Wanstead | 8,577 | Leyton and Wanstead | 2,239 | 1,749 | 1,002 | 477 | 5,466 |
| Total | 78,562 | 20,682 | 15,604 | 10,143 | 3,542 | 49,971 | ||
And these are the implied results for 2010 for the new seat of Wanstead and Woodford.