The morning after

Well, the results are now in and the tories have the most seats. Nick Clegg is sticking to what he said during the campaign about giving the party with the most votes and seats the first chance to form a Government.  Thats a very noble position to take for a politician.

However, theres one big problem with that position. The Liberal Democrats want proprtional represenations, and David Cameron’s version of electoral reform involves redrawing the boundaries of seats to remove the so-called “Labour bias”. All this will do is reinforce the conservative majority which currently exists, and will result in no action being taken on the other, more progressive elements of the Liberal Democrat’s manifesto.

But let’s look at that “Labour bias” for one minute. We have independant bodies, the boundary commisions (one for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) whose role it is to set the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies based on certain rules – one of which is the aim to equalise the sizes of contituencies where possible. Its that “where possible” part that causes problems.  They tend to use local government boundaries (wards, parishes etc) and give special consideration to island communities. For instance the Ise of Wight has one MP, but 108,000 electors, whilst the Western isles have a fifth of that number.

Other issues relate to the validity of the population data, as the recent boundary changes were based on the 2001 census, whilst the electoral roll is based on the population of 2009. There has been, in recent years, a gradual move out of the concentrated urban areas into the more affluent, rural areas. In other words, people have moved from constituencies which elect Labour MPs into ones which elect Conservatives. This means that places like Houghton and Sunderland South are smaller that places like Richmond.

But a bigger problem is the different levels of turnout. In those urban areas, people are disengaged from politics. There are many reasons for this, but the result is that there are smaller turnouts in those seats, and therefore fewer voters are needed to elect a Labour MP than a Tory.

Does this mean that its unfair? No, of course not. Do the tories know this? Of course they do. The insinuation from their proposal is that the Boundary Commissions are corrupt or inept – and both of these are disgraceful allegations, so the real puprose of their version of electoral reform is to simply gerrymander the boundaries to suit their political ends.

The best way to make everyones vote count is to introduce a form or Proportional Representation. And Nick Clegg, if you’re reading this – theres only one party that will help you do that.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Conservatives, Electoral Reform, Liberal Democrats and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The morning after

  1. Womble Jones says:

    I never remember you coming up with these pro-Labour views when you were at our(private) school. What bought about this change? Do you agree with the opinion that massive cuts in public spending were inevitable whoever won the election due to Labour’s economic incompetence.

  2. Womble Jones says:

    So John when did you go all lefty then? At our (private) school you were fairly right wing in the Debating Society as I recall. Do you think Labour has been reckless with the public finances in the last 13 years?

    • jruddy says:

      As it happens, I started my journey leftward whilst at university, over 20 years ago – although I was never THAT right wing – positions held in debates were often to allow debates to happen! Otherwise there wouldn’t have been enough people to debate capital punishment, etc. As a conservative, I was always on the “wet” side, both economically and socially.

      As it happens, I dont think Labour has been reckless with the public finances over the last 13 years – most of the current problems with the nations finances are due to the credit crunch, and the expenditure needed to prevent the recession becoming a depression. For instance, in 2005/06, the UK’s public sector debt was 40% of GDP, compared to 43% in 1985/86.

      I have always said that large cuts in public spending were going to happen whoever won the election – the question is over when and where they will occur. There is already £15bn of public sector cuts programmed for this year, and I agreed with Labour and with Vince Cable (until he reached Government) that an additional £6bn cut this year would risk a double-dip recession. So reckless? I don’t think Labour were, but George Osbourne might be.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s