HoLords reform hits the skids

[french frank]

Were there plans to split the Isle of Wight and share a bit of it with the mainland or is that kind of treatment reserved for Cornwall, which like IoW is an historic entity?

Can't remember. I think IoW becomes a special case for reasons connected with residents' preferences (they made a fuss)

Anyway, two diagrams which illustrate that it's rather more difficult for the Tories to get an overall majority than for Labour:

2005 GE

With 35% of the popular vote Blair gets an overall majority, with 55% of the seats



2010

With 36% of the vote Cameron doesn't get a majority at all

[Flosshilde]

Well the argument goes that two tiny inner city constituencies of, say 50,000, would give Labour two MPs, whereas the Tories in the Isle of Wight only get one MP for 100,000 constituents.

But are you suggesting that it's easier to be elected in a small constituency than a large one? Or are you saying that in the large constituency the individual constituents only get half as much MP as those in the small? Or are you saying that the MP for the large constituency has to work twice as hard to represent his/her constituents? I really don't see where this supposed 'advantage' for the MP representing a smaller constituency lies.

[cloughie]

But are you suggesting that it's easier to be elected in a small constituency than a large one? Or are you saying that in the large constituency the individual constituents only get half as much MP as those in the small? Or are you saying that the MP for the large constituency has to work twice as hard to represent his/her constituents? I really don't see where this supposed 'advantage' for the MP representing a smaller constituency lies.

..and if you have a constituency straddling the Solent the taxpayer will pay for the ferries!

[french frank]

But are you suggesting that it's easier to be elected in a small constituency than a large one? Or are you saying that in the large constituency the individual constituents only get half as much MP as those in the small? Or are you saying that the MP for the large constituency has to work twice as hard to represent his/her constituents? I really don't see where this supposed 'advantage' for the MP representing a smaller constituency lies.

Well, I thought that was what the diagrams showed: Let's turn the example round for the purposes of illustrating the principle rather than be accused of making a partisan point

You have a prosperous middle class town of 100,000 electors which votes Tory. Divide it into two and lo! if you put the boundaries in the right place you have two constituencies and two Tory MPs. Meanwhile, a big industrial city which has an electorate of 100,000, returning a Labour MP, is kept as a single constituency. 100,000 electors but only one MP.

And in the real world, as the diagrams do, at least, suggest - the Tories have to have a bigger share of the popular vote in order to secure a parliamentary majority.

Which, I think, is behind the Tory desire for boundary reform.

The diagrams: As you can see, not only did the Tories get a bigger share of the vote in 2010, but Labour were much further behind in 2nd place than the Tories were in 2005. Result: a Blair government...Hurrah!

[Lateralthinking1]

On boundary changes, I was concerned about what was happening on the Isle of Wight. They got into an argument over whether it should be split North/South or West/East. One division was likely to create one Conservative stronghold and one Con/Lab marginal; the other almost certainly one seat for the Tories and one for the Lib Dems.

Whatever happened to the idea of an independent Commission working on this issue?

As it happens, if I were a senior Lib Dem, I would argue that I now opposed the boundary changes to enable the Conservatives to have a consistent policy. In every other area, they have worked against democracy and this does too. They should be pleased.

[french frank]

One division was likely to create one Conservative stronghold and one Con/Lab marginal; the other almost certainly one seat for the Tories and one for the Lib Dems.

Whatever happened to the idea of an independent Commission working on this issue?

If the Boundary Commission was left to make the decision, how should they do it - toss a coin?

[Lateralthinking1]

If the Boundary Commission was left to make the decision, how should they do it - toss a coin?

Well, there are two local authorities on the IOW. I think I saw a Lib Dem newsletter that thanked people for their comments and added something like "obviously we have been unable to process them all".

But broadly I would say that all political knowledge must be taken out of it. You need a formula for all these constituencies - it might require at least X number of pubs or churches, schools or hospitals and that you must have at least 0.5% of people with a surname beginning with Z in each constituency, etc. Anything that doesn't emphasise who would win or lose.

[french frank]

Anything that doesn't emphasise who would win or lose.

But however the decision is arrived at, it will end up 'favouring' some and 'disadvantaging' others, even if unintended.

[Lateralthinking1]

But however the decision is arrived at, it will end up 'favouring' some and 'disadvantaging' others, even if unintended.

But surely the word "unintended" is crucial?

[french frank]

But surely the word "unintended" is crucial?

Not in the long run, as far as the parties are concerned. The criteria are arbitrary because there is no 'scientific' way to settle it.

[Flosshilde]

Well, I thought that was what the diagrams showed: Let's turn the example round for the purposes of illustrating the principle rather than be accused of making a partisan point

You have a prosperous middle class town of 100,000 electors which votes Tory. Divide it into two and lo! if you put the boundaries in the right place you have two constituencies and two Tory MPs. Meanwhile, a big industrial city which has an electorate of 100,000, returning a Labour MP, is kept as a single constituency. 100,000 electors but only one MP.

I hadn't seen your diagrams when I made my last post. I can se your point, & perhaps there is a case for reform, but I think the 'majority government on a minority of votes' has worked both ways - the Tories have had those as well as Labour. Perhap, from a LibDem point of view, the problem isn't that it works for either Tory or Labour, but that LibDems never get the number of seats that reflects their over-all votes? Which is, of course, the reason why they are in favour of proportional representation. Perhapsm the reform should be that we vote by constituency, for a constituency MP, but the seats are allocated according to the proportion of votes nationally. No idea how that would work - it probably wouldn't

Which, I think, is behind the Tory desire for boundary reform.

The reason for the Tories desire for this particular reform is thet it gives them a guaranteed majority, & probably permanent Tory government (especially if Scotland goes independent). Nothing to do with 'fairness' or 'equality' (not concepts they believe in).


But to return to the original point, I think the LibDems are perfectly justified in pulling out of supporting the reforms, as Cameron has reneged on his promise. Even if it does smack of Clegg desperately trying to claw back some credibility.

[amateur51]

Lovely diagrams but they don't reflect on the turn-out and they don't address how well organised each party was in that constituency ( how could they? - I agree - but it's an important point).

There has to be something for the party activists to do

We need to start reflecting on turn-out by including a 'None of The Above' option and counting & reporting it; and we need to establish a Minimum Turnout Requirement below which a constituency election is null & void.

Otherwise the voice of protest is simply not heard, not analysed and is dismissed as voter laziness/apathy

It seems to me that equalisation of constituency size is only one of a range of problems that need solving and it is not the most important one.But it is perhaps the easiest one to solve and is the one over which professional politicians have most control and in which they can see the benefit to them. Nuff said.

[french frank]

Turnout tends to be higher in Tory-held seats and lower in Labour ones. I wonder what that means ...

[aeolium]

Turnout tends to be higher in Tory-held seats and lower in Labour ones. I wonder what that means ...

Labour constituencies more likely to be in areas where there is a higher incidence of economic deprivation and the economically deprived are less likely to vote - concluding (reasonably enough) that they will remain deprived whoever is in government.

[amateur51]

Turnout tends to be higher in Tory-held seats and lower in Labour ones. I wonder what that means ...

Is there any indication in the relative closeness of the result, I wonder?

And what about the LibDems, of fond memory?