Even if you’re not going to proofread for logic and coherence, it would be courteous at least to proofread for spelling, grammar, and readability, before asking people to attempt to read this stuff.

As it happens, I don’t support AV anyway – but even Labour MPs who do support AV have every right to oppose the hybrid bill that attempts to entrench the Tory myth that Labour has far more seats than it deserves.

If the Coalition don’t want to split the Bill, they don’t have to split the Bill. If you think it will pass anyway, I don’t see your problem with allowing Labour MPs to oppose it.

Your suggestion that a minor difference in voting systems represents “the single greatest barrier to general public participation” is frankly surreal.

“Under the rules of the playground that is partisan politics the reality is that now Labour are unable to criticise the Lib Dem’s, whom they have criticised so far for only a small number of detractions from their policy agenda, as they themselves have committed they cardinal sin and aligned themselves with the Tories through a “enemy of my enemy” style psuedo-pact.”

Can we pass an emergency bill to reform that sentence, please?

What surprised me was how what was effectively a year long election campaign transformed what had been a massive lead in the opinion polls for the Conservatives into a hung Parliament at the general election on 6 May this year.

Yawn…….

Unfortunately the electoral reform referendum looks doomed not because of the Labour Party (though I would agree that a referendum on the same day as the general election would have almost certainly been won but was probably politicly undeliverable) but because of the high handed attitude of Nick Clegg. The tories are happy to go along with this because they dont want it anyway, so anything that makes it less likely is fine by them. If Nick Clegg had tried to make this an inclusive policy and had held a wide ranging inclusive consultation before launching the bill then it would have been simply wrong for Labour (and in all probability the nationalist parties too) to simply oppose. As it is the referendum will become a referendum on the liberals / government which will be held just as the reality of the tory cuts agenda (which the liberals have signed up to) will be hitting home. No responsible opposition could do anything else but to try and derail the government over this.

Unfortunately a once in a generation (or two or three) chance for changing our antiquated political system will have been lost because of Nick Clegg’s arrogance.

Why is it hypocritical to support AV but not the proposed boundary changes/reduction in MPs?

Surely if you make an accusation you ought to attempt to prove it? Incoherent ranting about how much you hate the Labour Party is not an argument.

I’ve, er, simplified some of the sentences.

What a load of sanctimonious claptrap,i live in a very working class area and i can tell you nobody is in the least bit interested in this middle class navel gazing nonsense,get real for christ sake.

“i live in a very working class area”

I think we should all bow down and worship you. Your views on matters of great importance are enhanced considerably because there are terraced houses and graffiti near you. The only way I can possibly argue against you now is if I move to the shanty towns of Rio or Delhi, where the atmosphere will impart great wisdom of economics and sociology.

Major lols for a Lib Dem supporter using the terms ‘hypocrisy,’ ‘opportunism’ and ‘greed.’

The fact that the article rests on the assumption that how MPs vote in Parliament doesn’t matter (which is really not what I’d lead with if I was arguing about voting reform) is just the cherry on top this particularly desperate and flailing vomit-cake.

“If you support the chance to make a step towards a fairer voting system and a greater say in who runs our country, get involved with Take Back Parliament.”

That would be the same Take Back Parliament who have, erm, backed Labour’s “ridiculous” call for the government to split the bill, which the rest of your blog post is dedicated to attacking…?

Planeshift..I think we should all bow down and worship you.
Thank you very much,please form an orderly queue,i’ll be home at 5 so will be sure to put on my sunday best to greet you all,all hail the great republica.
I will be flying a red flag so you can’t miss me.

I’ve read it twice now and I still can’t identify any actual argument.

What should Labour be doing differently? Voting for a gerrymandering bill in order to get an AV referendum? Abstaining? Pretending that support for gerrymandering doesn’t show hypocrisy on the part of the Lib Dems?

I don’t get it.

@Planeshift..Apparently according to google you are actually a 3d fantasy game which through character creation the player will create an alter ego, choosing his background, his main traits and life events. The character creation is aimed at providing deep background on the alter ego, so it will be easier for the player to role play it.
Come back to reality me old cock eh s

@14 republica

As any fule kno, Planeshift gets his/her name from the title of an album by Russian folk metal band Rakoth…

How are Labour reacting to Newsnight’s “shocking findings” that the “gerrymandering” of the constituency boundaries affects lib-dems more than labour, anyway? I’ve not been keeping track…

Until the leadership in your party grow a pair and actually ask for the referendum to be sperated from the gerrymadering of seats from the Tories, you will be forever pissing in the wind.

Cameron has decided to add the gerrrymandering to the referendum knowing full well that Labour would then not back the AV because of this add on. Your party, like on so many things since you joined the coalition has been shafted by the Tories.Your lapdog of a leader should have demanded a referendum only on AV. When the referendum fails you should be asking your Orange Tory leader why he accepted such slanted terms from Cameron instead of you bleating about Labout.

I wont even discuss you accusations of hypocracy….I will just say two words “VAT rise”.

http://redrag1.blogspot.com/

Mr S. Pill..Russian folk metal eh? ooooh,sounds a bit too sandals and satan too me that ,he/she must be a lib dem to have a coalition of folk and metal ;o)

@18

Sandals and satan – perfect description of the coalition! Ha!

@Red Rag..I wont even discuss you accusations of hypocracy….I will just say two words “VAT rise”.
Or you could just say Nick Clegg,Vince Cable or Liberal Democrat.

Will someone please provide evidence this is gerrymandering?

To save time, I don’t include “equalisation of the size of constituencies (size = number of registered voters)” in my definition of gerrymandering, nor do I think a poor man’s vote should be worth more than a rich man’s vote.

Ta

I’m just relieved to see an article which doesn’t appear to have been written by a lobbyist for one of the clones running for Labour leader.

@21

There’s some bits here IIRC.

@ ukliberty..the tories have form when it comes to gerrymandering.
The Dame Shirley Porter attempted to move the population within the existing boundaries. This occurred in Westminster, in the United Kingdom. The local government was controlled by the Conservative party, and the leader of the council, Dame Shirley Porter, conspired with others to implement the policy of council house sales in such a way as to shore up the Conservative vote in marginal wards by selling the houses there to people thought likely to vote Conservative. An inquiry by the district auditor found that these actions had resulted in financial loss to taxpayers, and Porter and three others were surcharged to cover the loss. Porter was accused of “disgraceful and improper gerrymandering” by district auditor John Magill. Those surcharged resisted this ruling with a legal challenge, but, in December 2001, the appeal court upheld the district auditor’s ruling. Despite further lengthy legal argument Porter eventually accepted a deal to end the long-running saga, and paid £12 million (out of an original claimed £27 million plus costs and interest) to Westminster Council in July, 2004.

@22

lol I think Sunny is proving a point that LibCon isn’t going to be a Labour mouthpiece since his confession…

@24 republica

The Westminster case, however disgraceful, is hardly evidence that the Tories have gerrymandering running through them like a the name in a stick of rock: it was one local council years ago. You might as well say Labour are hopelessly corrupt due to the balloting irregularities in Birmingham (might have been somewhere else?).

I have no particular axe to grind, but have heard this issue discussed a fair bit recently, including a discussion on Radio 4 in which there was plenty of non-partisan support from non-Tory sources that the current system favours Labour over the Tories, and that any re-drawing of boundaries to Labour’s detriment will only be “balancing” things out.

If the concern really WAS to be fair, the proposed referendum would contain a choice for a system like that used in the Scottish parliament.

Thanks Mr S Pill @ 23, I will read it.

Both bills split, or both bills together, will pass with or without wholesale Labour support.

Arf!

Somewhere beyond Liskeard (I’m guessing) there’s going to be one (even more) angry and confused yokel come next May.

Sorry but what you’ve written, Lee Griffen, is rubbish. Why can’t Labour choose to oppose the awful bill that your own supposed leader called ‘a miserable little compromise’ and that was without it being wrapped-up with the Torie’s summarily sacking opposition MPs.

Nick Clegg seems bemused that Labour need to agree with everything you do, however, for us ‘outside the Westminster village’ we would like your nihilistic policies opposed – we don’t want a dictatorship.

Thanks Mr S Pill @ 23, I will read it.

Potted version: changes to the electoral boundaries that will advantage the Conservatives are gerrymandering. Retaining electoral boundaries that advantage Labour is no more than democracy demands.

@Galen10..http://torylies.blogspot.com/2010/07/gerrymandering.html

,i live in a very working class area and i can tell you nobody is in the least bit interested in this middle class navel gazing nonsense,get real for christ sake.

Are they annoyed with the expenses scandal? Do they want more power to get rid of or elect MPs they actually like? Do they want a political system that is more responsive to them rather than just listening once every 5 years?

Then they care. Now stop trotting out crap please.

here’s some bits here IIRC.

I recall that thread. On scanning it again I don’t see evidence this will be gerrymandering. There appears to be some disagreement about what gerrymandering means (as there is here): some say it’s when constituencies are unfairly organised so as to benefit one’s party, others say it’s when constituencies are fairly organised but it disadvantages one’s favoured party.

Like Galen10, I too have heard (perhaps from the same sources) that “the current system favours Labour over the Tories, and that any re-drawing of boundaries to Labour’s detriment will only be “balancing” things out”.

32 – Sunny – the remainder of my family literally don’t care about any of the points you mentioned.

The only person I know of when growing up in Doncaster who has any sort of political interests at all is a drug dealer who wants cannabis to be legalised. That’s it. Everyone. Literally nobody cares, or cared. They don’t vote, so don’t care about the voting system; and they expect all politicians to be absolutely corrupt anyway, so some minor expenses fiddling is really by the by.

Mind you, I was several rungs below working-class, so maybe the working classes are more with it in general.

If you want to read a good breakdown of how the current electoral boundaries favour Labour, have a look at this paper (pdf): http://www.ggy.bris.ac.uk/personal/RonJohnston/CurrentPapers/Electoral/electoral34.pdf

It was written before the GE so its calculations are based on notional 2005 results on the new boundaries rather than the actual results from 2010, but based on those figures it suggests that out of a ‘pro-Labour bias’ of +75 seats, only +4 comes from unequal electorates. The majority of the bias comes from more efficient geographical distribution of votes (ie smaller majorities) (+41) with +17 coming from differential turnout.

So Labour do have an advantage from unequal electorates but it’s a fairly minor one, and the vast majority of the ‘pro-Labour bias’ will not be corrected by a boundary review.

@21 – I think that the carefully-written exemptions that will ensure several Scottish Highland and island seats will be retained (not just the two specifically named in the bill, but also the other few that will likely be saved by the various detailed provisions on seats in certain size brackets) despite not being within the requisite size could certainly be described as a gerrymander.

These have been designed in such a way as to ensure that the average Lib Dem seat is smaller than the average seat of every other party, thus contradicting what the coalition says is the central point of the new rules, that the most important thing is constituencies of equal size.

@Sunny Hundal..Stop trotting out crap you say,blimey your a right one to talk,you have only just joined the labour party after being a lib dem supporter for how long? i have stuck with my party through the good times and the bad,tell me how you reconcile being an ex lib dem cheerleader with now being a supporter of trade unions or can you switch your conscience on and off like a tap.
I can tell you this i live in a block of six flats and 4 of them have oaps living in them and i’m pretty damned sure if i asked they what was more important to them reform or being able to meet energy costs ,tv licence and food costs they would go for the latter so you can slag me off from up on high all you want as all i’m interested in is fairness for the people who live around here who are struggling on the little they have that what being a socialist means mate,so as i said stop naval gazing and get real for christ sake.

Whether the forthcoming boundary review can be called a ‘gerrymander’ is a moot point which largely comes down to semantics. What is certainly the case is that all previous boundary reviews were carried out with cross-party agreement on the rules and timing. Where one or other party secured an advantage from the new boundaries, it was not specifically because the rules were written in a way to favour one or other party. (In actual fact, recent reviews have tended to correct imbalances which favoured Labour, and have thus advantaged the Conservatives by comparison with the previous boundaries)

The rules for the forthcoming review are written specifically on the presumption that there is an unfair Labour bias in the current system to do with unequal electorates. The premise of the review is therefore different to previous reviews and is being pushed through on an explicitly partisan basis. People might want to ponder whether the current bill is the best way to secure cross-party support for future electoral arrangements.

Sunny Hundal .. http://www.poblish.org/article.jsp?id=499195

Take a look at this and stop trying to insult people with you smutty language

@ Simon..thank you for your for putting your case so clearly calmly and reasonably,i think we could all learn a little about posting comments from you )

@1: the hybrid bill that attempts to entrench the Tory myth that Labour has far more seats than it deserves

It’s not a mythio, it’s the truth: both the Labour and Conservative parties have far more seats than they deserve on their shares of the votes.

For the Tories to complain that the system is biased against them when it fact it is biased in favour of them (just not as much as it is biased in favour of Labour) is the height of hypocrisy.

“The premise of the review is therefore different to previous reviews and is being pushed through on an explicitly partisan basis. People might want to ponder whether the current bill is the best way to secure cross-party support for future electoral arrangements.”

An excellent point, actually.

I think this covers all bases and explains it , whilst crudely, very well.

http://redrag1.blogspot.com/2010/08/red-rag-orange-toriesdoesnt-your-heart.html

PS I’m amongst the tens of thousands looking for revenge.

So the argument here seems to be

“Labour are not doing what the Lib Dems tell them to – and that makes Labour hypocrits”

I can’t help but think a Labour supporter might argue that the Lib Dems are not doing what Labour want them to – by, for example, pursuing a small state agenda with rigorous zeal and backing a budget that disproportionately hurt the poor.

But better still – lets test Lib Dem hypocricy properly. Lets see the Labour party propose an ammendment to the bill that changes AV to PR.

I wonder how Clegg will explain why he votes against that.

@43
only tens of thousands?

“Both bills split, or both bills together, will pass with or without wholesale Labour support.”

And why is that?

Because the bill will give the tories what they want, a reduction in seats, and a stitch up of boundary changes to benefit the tories. And it will give the lib Dems a referendum on voting system which the tories and their media alias will be able to veto.

Perhaps a Lib Dem could explain to me why only 650 people should decide if the number of seats should be reduced, yet the whole country needs to decide in a change of voting system? Can you not see that once again you are being stitched up by the tory party?

I hear Call me Dave has renamed Clegg “Steinway” because he plays him like a piano over and over again.

Perhaps a Lib Dem could explain to me why only 650 people should decide if the number of seats should be reduced, yet the whole country needs to decide in a change of voting system?

Hi Sally, I’m not a LibDem but I hope you’ll accept my answer.

It’s because a proposed change in voting system is seen to be the sort of thing that ought to be put directly to the people and the number of seats isn’t. Changing the number of seats is relatively not a big deal and there were three changes during Labour’s time in government (1997-2010).

Further to me @47, here is a list of referendums in the UK.

republica i have stuck with my party through the good times and the bad,tell me how you reconcile being an ex lib dem cheerleader with now being a supporter of trade unions or can you switch your conscience on and off like a tap.

Actually some of us have more of a conscience than others. I could equally slag you off and ask how you earlier cheerleaded for a party that spent years pissing on asylum seekers and the poor. Your smugness won’t get you anywhere.

if i asked they what was more important to them reform or being able to meet energy costs ,tv licence and food costs they would go for the latter

That’s no different than saying if I asked what was more important – building nukes via Trident and going into Iraq, or free bus passes – they’re more likely to go for the latter. Doesn’t mean there is an either/or option does it?

People who argue for voting reform aren’t saying that nothing else matters. Are they?

49. Sunny Hundal..Well sunny i am poor,i had and industrial accident in 1990 and get around £5000 a year incapacity so you swearing at me says more about your character than i does mine ,i don’t doubt when it comes to a putting an argument across i am not up to the standard you are used to what with you earning what is probably a nice wedge from the guardian ect.If you have seen the poll i put a link up for you would see that voting reform is more popular amongst the young than the old but it also shows that there is more chance of the old actually voting so i stick by what i have said before the older members of the population really don’t care,you really should calm down though sunny as what i write are just words,i think you should try to convince me not abuse me if i wanted abuse i would go to guidos shite site.I am just expessing an opinion sunny so theres no need to be vitriolic in your comments as you are just doing what you accuse me of doing i.e. your pissing on someone who is poor.
As for trident i am opposed to it and iraq i was opposed to it but i voted for labour because my mother is in her 60s and i didn’t want her to lose away her free bus pass and her fuel allowance and i wont appologise for that to anyone.
As i am actually civilised i will say have a good evening and take a good look in the mirror and stop projecting your fury and anger onto others please.

Whether the forthcoming boundary review can be called a ‘gerrymander’ is a moot point which largely comes down to semantics.

No it doesn’t. It comes down to whether or not the changes unfairly benefit the parties in charge.

Fucking hell, what an incoherent mess of an article; the best bit is when he urges us to become involved with Take Back Parliament, a group which actually support Labour’s stance of splitting the bill.

@ republica

I can tell you this i live in a block of six flats and 4 of them have oaps living in them and i’m pretty damned sure if i asked they what was more important to them reform or being able to meet energy costs ,tv licence and food costs they would go for the latter so you can slag me off from up on high all you want as all i’m interested in is fairness for the people who live around here who are struggling on the little they have that what being a socialist means mate,so as i said stop naval gazing and get real for christ sake.

So if we are to take the logic of your argument, then we should never ever discuss matters such as the voting system or constitutional reform, because there will always be more pressing matters.

I find this kind of argument which is trotted out by some Labour supporters to be frankly condescending to the intelligence of the working classes they claim to represent.

The electoral reform society states that the boundary redrawing will do little or nothing to address the issue of “unequal” votes.

“Leading academics have conclusively disproved the idea that the current bias against the Conservatives in the electoral system stems mostly from differences in the sizes of constituencies. It is only a minor contributory factor (Michael Thrasher and co-authors demonstrate this in an article in Parliamentary Affairs, December 2009).
The real reasons the Conservatives do badly out of the electoral system are more to do with the geography of vote distribution (Labour’s vote is efficiently distributed from the point of view of winning seats), tactical voting (that may be less of a factor in 2010) and differential turnout (fewer people turn out in safe Labour seats than safe Tory seats).
The Boundary Commission already tries to equalise seats, with a margin of tolerance of 10 per cent either side. The procedure should be speeded up so that the numbers are more up to date, and in this we agree that some change is needed, but it is not clear why a 10 per cent standard is deemed unacceptable and a 5 per cent standard is much better.
A lot of discussion about different constituency sizes centres on some ‘hard cases’, mostly islands. Cases like the Isle of Wight and Orkney and Shetland involve either having huge constituencies spanning natural geographical barriers, or putting up with a few anomalies.
Electoral registration is much more complete in rural and suburban areas than the inner cities (as proved by Electoral Commission research in 2005). An instant change to constituency boundaries based on current inadequate registration data risks the accusation of discriminating against urban Labour-voting areas.
Part of the reason the current system takes so long is that there is a lot of public consultation about boundary changes, so that bad ideas for constituencies (such as one that linked two areas either side of the Mersey Tunnel proposed in the last set of changes) can be thrown out. The Conservatives, by attempting to get changes through in one parliament, would have to abandon much of the scrutiny that proposals should receive.
Conservative proposals mean that most constituencies will pay less regard to what most voters think of as community and natural boundaries, and change more frequently, destabilising the link between MPs and constituents.
The United States has rigorous requirements for arithmetical equality of population in congressional districts, but the worst gerrymandering in the developed world. Equal sized constituencies cannot produce fair votes by themselves”.

Link here
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/news.php?ex=0&nid=452
If the only objective is to equalise constituency sizes, is it not the case that this could also be achieved by an increase in the number of constituencies to make them smaller, rather than by reducing the number? I would suggest that if you specify before any review how many seats there should be, change the rules so as to ignore geographical, social and existing historical boundaries but specify which seats should be left out of the review, and then remove or weaken the right of review and appeal by the public then you lay yourself wide open to accusations of gerrymandering.
There has already been a successful vote in the commons on the bill to hold a referendum on a vote on AV – it was thrown out in the wash up by the Lords.
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/news.php?ex=0&nid=455
Just as a note of interest – this on coalitions
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/news.php?ex=0&nid=467

Well sunny i am poor,i had and industrial accident in 1990 and get around £5000 a year incapacity so you swearing at me says more about your character than i does mine

Huh? Am I supposed to guess your background when discussing issues? Are you just trolling here? What does your industrial accident (which I’m sorry for) have anything to do with anything online in a discussion?

As for trident i am opposed to it and iraq i was opposed to it but i voted for labour because my mother is in her 60s and i didn’t want her to lose away her free bus pass and her fuel allowance and i wont appologise for that to anyone.

Erm – we wrote about protecting fuel allowance this goddamn morning! Are you now trying to say that we don’t cover issues like that and are only obsessed with “middle-class issues” like vote reform? WTF? You’re just posting this to annoy me aren’t you?

Thanks caroline.

I agree with your following comment and the rest of the paragraph:

“If the only objective is to equalise constituency sizes, is it not the case that this could also be achieved by an increase in the number of constituencies to make them smaller, rather than by reducing the number?”

@Graham..So if we are to take the logic of your argument, then we should never ever discuss matters such as the voting system or constitutional reform, because there will always be more pressing matters.
Not all all what i’m saying is there are alot of 60+ age group who show no interest in this so if you want to change that you will have to be pro active as its not going to happen by preaching to the converted on sites like this.
Current voting intentions neck-and-neck: 38% in favour of FPTP vs 37% in favour of AV.Looking deeper into the numbers, though, it’s looking bad for the Yes campaign, even at this early stage: the 18-29 group is heavily in favour of switching to AV (37 to 26) but most of them, of course, won’t vote when it comes to it, whilst the 60+ age group, the vast majority of of which will vote, are heavily against (52 to 33).
Interesting to note that London is the only region in favour of AV – London-based journalists might like to bear that in mind when “taking the temperature” on the issue. People might bear polls such as this in mind, also, when advancing arguments such as “the case for FPTP is already lost” and so “since change is inevitable, we should accept AV as a less bad alternative than PR”. It’s not over yet, though, and some form of “time for a change” argument might yet carry the day.

Sunny Hundal..Does Ahankar mean anything to you?