by Greig Baker
Sometimes when my 4yr old gets told off, she misbehaves even more – thinking that if she’s in trouble already, she might as well go the whole hog. The government has taken the same approach in its boundary review for Parliamentary constituencies. The Cabinet Office’s newly published details show the government is not looking to compromise. Instead, it is upping the ante, in the hope that while many of its own backbenchers will be unhappy, the reforms are an even bigger problem for Labour – and one that, perversely, the Labour leadership might be quite happy to have.
The politics to the boundary changes is threefold…
First, the government is sticking with a maximum 5% variance in constituency size, above or below the average, which means a greater number of seats will change. This makes it more likely Cameron will stay on for as long as possible, so that he takes the flack for the reforms and leaves his successor to smooth ruffled Tory feathers. It’s also the reason Corbyn might welcome the review, as it lets his team get cracking with deselecting more of those pesky, voter-friendly, centrist Labour MPs.
Second, and vitally, the reforms will be based on the number of voters actually on the electoral register – not the local population. This is a major disadvantage for Labour and will be one of the government’s sweeteners for angry Conservative MPs.
And the third factor is probably the one the ‘essay crisis’ Prime Minister has paid least attention to – the government admits the boundary reforms will unbalance the cross-community representation in Westminster currently offered by Northern Irish MPs. Without knowing exactly what the new Northern Irish constituencies will look like, the government could be risking its relationship with unionists here, which is no small beer given the precarious nature of a Parliamentary majority that only just scrapes into double figures.
In the next 24 months we’ll find out whether these proposals are workable, or if the government has just consigned itself to the naughty step.
Greig Baker is Chief Executive at The GUIDE Consultancy
Tags: boundary review, cabinet office, deselection, Greig Baker, Jeremy Corbyn
“It’s also the reason Corbyn might welcome the review, as it lets his team get cracking with deselecting more of those pesky, voter-friendly, centrist Labour MPs.”
This appears to be a bit of self-parody mixed into a sensible enough article.
Second, and vitally, the reforms will be based on the number of voters actually on the electoral register – not the local population. This is a major disadvantage for Labour
Utter bollocks. If they aren’t on the register then they aren’t voting for anyone. It’s pure arrogance to assume that people who haven’t registered would vote Labour if they could be arsed to spend 10 minutes sorting it out.
This is just yet more whining by the now thoroughly trashed new Labour (which also seems intent on making itself a laughing stock). And the real reason they are whining is the Electoral Commission’s boundary changes (not Cameron’s) will effectively trigger a mass wave of selections within the PLPs. So the PLP will shift radically leftwards – not because of Corbyn, not because of the membership, but because of the Electoral Commission.
Maybe we will even end up with a PLP that actually opposes the tories instead of the garbage we currently have that just promotes a variance of tory policy.
As an Englishman I want a “level playing field”. I want equal boundaries. I want a fair election. I do not want postal votes. I do not want a repeat of Tower Hamlets to become normal. I want people to have the decency to register so they can take part in our country’s democracy.
And I also believe in the tooth fairy and in Father Christmas.
I’m in favour of all seats being marginal.
ok that’s not possible, so there are no safe seats, and MPs have to fight their way to winning a chance to represent the people. Its a privilage. So we don’t have say Skinner, or Abbott, coming back every time just because they’re cushioned in a safe seat. These people have a job for life, and that is not right.
So the many marginal, the better, and its a better representation of the views of the people which Party, or person, they want in Govt.
Secondly, the Govt have got it wrong in the numbers of people in the constituency, it should not be based on the electoral roll, which just means those intelligent enough to have registered, but on the actual population who are entitled to vote because some may register 6 months before the election with a bit of prodding; so the numbers of say illegals and EU foreigners, not entitled to vote should be deducted from the total population of the constituency.
The Govt is getting a bit arrogant and needs to watch its step, otherwise its heading for a downfall.
As for de-selection, every Labour MP should not have an automatic right to go through; they should face a challenge even if they are the high and mighty, like Skinner and Abbott.
If we’re worried about how much a boundary review is going to damage our chances then we’ve probably already lost.
To form a government, we’ve got to be racking up the votes everywhere and winning seats we’ve never heard of. Knowing the boundaries is important for last minute foot slogging but it can’t beat having the right product and broadcasting it from the rooftops beforehand, so can we stop the hand-wringing about this now and think instead about having something plausible to offer the electorate?
Swatsntra – I disagree, it should be on those registered. No system is perfect, especially when they will stay the same for 19 years. People move and this hit the Conservatives in the past because boundaries were based on the census and were 5+ years out of date.
@Christabel: you do realise that you’ve just outed yourself as some sort of Tory and the Comrades will shortly be circling like vultures, shrieking abuse at you and suggesting you leave the Party, right?
What’s electoral strength or the prospect of office when compared to ideological purity?
“those pesky, voter-friendly, centrist Labour MPs”
Indeed.
How we yearn for the return of “voter-friendly, centrist” Jim Murphy.