Lib Dems to vote to keep gerrymander
August 8th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarThe Telegraph reports:
The Liberal Democrats’ decision to oppose boundary changes is a major blow to David Cameron as this would have boosted his chances of re-election.
The Liberal Democrats have historically supported boundary changes. Mr Clegg has previously said it was important to fix the “broken scales of our democracy” by making the size of constituencies more equal.
However, the deputy Prime Minister said he took a “mature” decision to block a policy favoured by the Conservatives to make sure the Coalition is a fair and equal partnership.
That’s an appalling decision. Boundary reform should be supported because it is the right thing to do, not because the Conservatives want it and blocking it punishes them. How can the Lib Dems say they support a fairer electoral system, yet vote to maintain an electoral gerrymander?
At the moment, constituencies vary widely in size which gives Labour an electoral advantage.
Equalising the size of boundaries could have meant that the Conservatives would win between six and 20 more seats at the next election.
NZ has it right, where by law all boundaries must be of the same size within a 5% tolerance. It is wrong that those who live in one electorate have their vote count for more than in another. The average pop per electorate in the UK is:
- England 72,522
- Northern Ireland 67,387
- Scotland 66,807
- Wales 57,464
English voters are seriously disenfranchised - and worse they are the only ones totally governed by Westminster. MPs from Scotland and Wales vote on laws that affect England only.
On an individual electorate level the Isle of Wight electorate has 110,900 electors and Na h-Eileanan has just 21,985. So their votes are five times more powerful than the Ise of Wight – absolutely undemocratic – yet supported by Labour and now the Lib Dems as it keeps the left in power.
Even within England there are regional differences. The North East has an MP per 68,511 people and the South West has an MP per 75,644.
By party the average Conservative MP represents 73,010 voters and the average Labour MP 69,441. Lib Dems 70,021 – so no surprise they oppose principled reform.
August 8th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
The etymology (origin of words) for “gerry-mander” is interesting. Used for 1st time in Boston Gazette on March 26, 1812 re the redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under then-governor Elbridge Gerry and a cartoon of the districts that looked like a salamander.
Vote:August 8th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Cameron the faux conservative should call a snap election and waste the Liberals.
Promise an EU in /out referendum and expell illegal immigrants.
Guaranteed landslide.
Vote:August 8th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Dpf, you forgot to mention that the Tories decided to vote to keep the inherently gerrymandered Lords unreformed.
Vote:August 8th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
I guess it’s only the people you disagree with who have a moral obligation to do the right thing. Conservatives are allowed to back down on that sort of thing if it’s politically convenient for them.
Vote:August 8th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
This is tit for tat for the failure for Lords reform. But the Lords reform was evolving into an elected chamber with full legislative powers and selected by a system of proportional representation. It was a trojan horse to give the Lib-Dems a permanent veto over an elected Government. No wonder the Tories backed off. Well too bad about the gerrymander.
Vote:August 8th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
@simonway. Except for the fact that the deal, if there was one, was boundary reform in exchange for the AV referendum which was indeed a leftist gerrymander.
Vote:August 8th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
No, the deal was to “bring forward proposals for boundary reform”, exactly the same wording the “bring forward proposals for lords reform”;
If the tory rebels can claim that bring forward just means introduce the bill, which they can then vote down when talking about the lords, then it’s a simple quid pro quo for lib dems to do the same.
Vote:August 8th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
“Cameron the faux conservative should call a snap election and waste the Liberals.”
He doesn’t have the numbers to dissolve parliament; the new fixed term parliament act requires a 2/3rd majority to do so.
Also, remember that the lib dems could easily cut a deal with Labour to make Milliband PM tomorrow, with no need for a new election. The numbers are there, the celtic fringe nationalist parties will play along, short term at least.
At the end of the day, Dave is ham strung by the arithmetic
Vote:August 8th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Labour UK will be thrilled! They are terrified of electorate reform because they have a built in advantage with many city based seats having a lot lower population per seat than those outside of the cities.
If you look at an electorate map of England, you will see that Labour really only has support in the larger cities. The smaller population per seat in the cities gives them, from memory, a built in 40 seat advantage if they get the same amount of the vote as the Tories.
Vote:August 8th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
So terrorized of it that they mostly supported the PR referendum ?
It more to do with the fact that Labour tends to win seats with smaller majorities, it’s vote is efficiently distributed, the tory vote is less efficient.
On the same total vote, the tories will win a seat in wiltshire with a 15,000 majority, whilst labour will win 15 seats in the midlands each by 1,000 seats.
Of course, MMP like we have in forward thinking NZ would remove all these distortions and make each vote of equal value.
Vote:August 8th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
No, you’re absolutely wrong. The document is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/31665532/Coalition-programme (you want page 27)
“We will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform…blah blah…Alternative Vote, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies.”
Lords reform only commits to the establishment of a committee to bring forward proposals.
Wrong again, because the Nationalist parties by their own rules do not vote on English issues, that’s the exact arithmetic that made the “rainbow” coalition a non-starter in the first place.
Vote:August 8th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
“Wrong again, because the Nationalist parties by their own rules do not vote on English issues, that’s the exact arithmetic that made the “rainbow” coalition a non-starter in the first place.”
Actually, you’ll find I’m perfectly correct.
Labour 258 + Lib Dem 57 = 315. 315 > Tory 306.
All you’d need is nationalist parties to abstain on issues of confidence and supply and it’s perfectly do-able, for a short period of time.
Vote:August 8th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Also, you’ll notice it says they will whip on the subject of the AV referendum, it explicitly doesn’t say it about boundaries. It’s just bring forward. No binding commitment for the lib dems to vote for it. so, I think I’m right again. :> (Nick Clegg agrees with my interpretation of the document and he helped draft it so I’m fairly sure I’m on solid ground here)
However I was wrong when I stated the fixed term act required 66% to dissolve, the figure is 55%
Vote:August 8th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
“By party the average Conservative MP represents 73,010 voters and the average Labour MP 69,441. Lib Dems 70,021 – so no surprise they oppose principled reform”
Oh and one last thing.
The Lib Dems got one mp for each 119,934 votes cast. The tories got one for every 34,979 votes cast on there favour, labour one for every 33,358 votes cast.
Explain the commitment to principled reform from the Tory (and labour) party again ??
Vote:August 8th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Nonsense. The current situation has evolved over time, a long time, so to describe it as a gerrymander is absurd. Whereas, deliberately manipulating the boundaries, in order to alter the next election result in your favour, clearly is.
And in terms of ‘[keeping] the left in power’, it’s worth noting just how left wing the UK is. In modern times, the Tories have never received more than 45% of the vote, with the Labour and the Liberals usually getting a combined vote of around 53% and yet we repeatedly getting lumbered with right-wing conservative governments. Sadly, the country voted against changing the current undemocratic system to something more proportional, a decision, I would suggest, more than a little influenced by Tory and Labour campaigning to keep the older order and their inbuilt monopoly on power.
Vote: