Sunny Hundal and Nick Clegg are both quite wrong to claim that the Conservatives have broken part of the coalition agreement.

The Coalition Agreement talks about establishing a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or partially elected (under PR) upper house. It also mentions how appointments to the Lords will be made in the interim. The coalition have done all of that so Nick Clegg has nothing to to complain about unless there was some other, maybe verbal agreement we are not privy to.

Agreed. I just hope he doesn’t revert back to the invertebrate he has been since May 2010 before he actually does the deed and votes them down

No, I don’t agree Sunni – this is just another example of Nick Clegg showing that he really doesn’t know what he’s doing – of all the things that he could have put his foot down about (the economy, NHS, education, welfare reform), Lords Reform was just about the worst choice – the people don’t care about it and his party looks even more self-serving than before. I am afraid that the Lib-Dems are going to be trounced at the next general election.
In contrast – I have to say (and I’ve not always said nice things about the Labour Leadership), that Labour have played their hands extremely well over this whole issue – follow the link for a very good analysis of Labour’s tactics:
http://www.allthatsleft.co.uk/2012/08/house-of-lords-reform-and-the-boundary-review-labour-play-a-blinder/

Nick
Semantics aside (the coalition deal had no commitment to NHS reforms, but the lib dems were required to back it) the Tories broke the pact.

Sunny
All credit to labour too for getting to this point. Aligning with the Tory rebels on timetables but voting for lord reform was spot on. It nullifies the criticism that labour oppose reform and has seriously hurt the government to the extent that boundary changes will be blocked.

Of course Clegg has plenty of time to sell everyone down the river before the boundary vote next year. So let’s not give him any credit for being backed into a corner and having.no choice. If he finds a way out of the corner he’ll go back to lapdog status again in a heartbeat.

Tories have inevitably complained and fulminated, but they broke an agreement over this so they should be ignored.

Here’s one section of the programme for government, under the “political reform” heading:

We will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. We will whip both Parliamentary parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum.

And here’s another:

We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010.

Which bit of this agreement are you suggesting Tories broke?

“Gerrymandering” = reducing (but not eliminating) the Labour advantage.

Clegg is a fool and will end up damaging his party in the same way that Sir John Simon did in the 1930s.

Clegg and company have violated the coalition agreement, that’s clear and evidenced by said agreement.

The evidence for gerrymandering is equivocal, current statistics point to the current system strongly favouring Labour. They achieve a majority on a considerably lower proportion of the popular vote and larger majorities from lower levels of votes.

It’s perhaps best with that in mind to not listen too seriously to the opinions of someone who is Labour through and through on this matter. The idea of not having a 5% lead by default over the Tories probably doesn’t appeal even if it subverts democracy even more than the FPTP system does by default.

I find it odd when people say that the current system “favours Labour” when, for most of the 20th century, it seems to have served the Tories rather well. Someone isn’t being entirely straight.

So you see nothing democratically wrong with a system that gives one party an in built electoral advantage? Would you be as happy if it were biased towards the Tories? What’s wrong with a more balanced system?

“It’s perhaps best with that in mind to not listen too seriously to the opinions of someone who is Labour through and through on this matter. The idea of not having a 5% lead by default over the Tories probably doesn’t appeal even if it subverts democracy even more than the FPTP system does by default.”

Yep. I sure as hell will be shedding bucket loads of tears over the woeful lot the Conservatives get within the duopoly.~

For the record, I’m left-wing, but far from a Labour loyalist. I also have a strong contrarian streak and sense of fair play. All this considered, I find it incredibly difficult to feel anything for the poor Conservatives vis a vis the pro-Labour bias. The pro-duopoly bias is far, far more concerning, and of course neither duopoly party has show the slightest sign of giving PR (a reform that would result in a fair share of the seats for all parties) a chance. Until they do, any faffing about with boundaries is so much gerrymandering, on the part of both political parties.

The fact is (or at least appears to be) that Clegg played a blindingly weak hand during the coalition negotiations of 2010. The coalition agreements contain fairly weak commitments to a referendum (on AV, not STV) and the convening of a committee on Lords Reform. This gave Cameron far to much leeway to ‘betray’ the Liberal Democrats, and the Liberal Democrats little recourse other than to either take it like a Liberal Democrat (I’m hoping that this phrase makes it into common parlance) or break the coalition agreement. After being shafted over the AV referendum* and Lords Reform (in spirit, if not in the letter of the coalition agreement) and taking the lions share of the flack** for virtually every coalition policy (many of which are without mandate or popular support), I’m surprised that Clegg and company have remained so loyal, for so long. They have been outclassed, and a by a bunch of clowns with the political nous and guile of a rottweiler as well. :-.

* Horrendously fought by the Conservative dominated No2AV campaign ( who raised the cost of the referendum, as attributable to the No2AV campaign as to the Yes2AV campaign) IMHO.

** Rightfully so IMO. They stole many a lefty vote, mine included, by misrepresenting themselves and their values. Who (under 40) would have thought that they’d have proven so flexible in the art of bending over ‘for the country’.

@ 9 buddyhell

“I find it odd when people say that the current system “favours Labour” when, for most of the 20th century, it seems to have served the Tories rather well. Someone isn’t being entirely straight.”

By my understanding, Labour can get in with significantly fewer votes than the Tories. Which very clearly favours Labour. The fact that the Tories have generally been more *popular* than Labour for the last century does not mean that the system is not biased against them.

Of course, that’s just the boundaries within FPTP. You could argue that the Tories benefit from the Lib Dems splitting Labour’s vote, or that both major parties hugely benefit from FPTP (I’d agree with both). But it’s accurate to say that the boundary system itself is unfairly weighted in Labour’s favour, and reasonable of the Tories to want to fix it (in principle at least; I make no comment on specific changes and proposals).

“It’s perhaps best with that in mind to not listen too seriously to the opinions of someone who is Labour through and through on this matter. The idea of not having a 5% lead by default over the Tories probably doesn’t appeal even if it subverts democracy even more than the FPTP system does by default.”

Yep. I sure as hell will be shedding bucket loads of tears over the woeful lot the Conservatives get within the duopoly.~

For the record, I’m left-wing, but far from a Labour loyalist. I also have a strong contrarian streak and sense of fair play. All this considered, I find it incredibly difficult to feel anything for the poor Conservatives vis a vis the pro-Labour bias. The pro-duopoly bias is far, far more concerning, and of course neither duopoly party has show the slightest sign of giving PR (a reform that would result in a fair share of the seats for all parties) a chance. Until they do, any faffing about with boundaries is so much gerrymandering, on the part of both political parties IMHO.

The fact is (or at least appears to be) that Clegg played a blindingly weak hand during the coalition negotiations of 2010. The coalition agreements contain fairly weak commitments to a referendum (on AV, not STV) and the convening of a committee on Lords Reform. This gave Cameron far to much leeway to ‘betray’ the Liberal Democrats, and the Liberal Democrats little recourse other than to either take it like a Liberal Democrat (I’m hoping that this phrase makes it into common parlance) or break the coalition agreement. After being shafted over the AV referendum* and Lords Reform (in spirit, if not in the letter of the coalition agreement) and taking the lions share of the flack** for virtually every coalition policy (many of which are without mandate or popular support), I’m surprised that Clegg and company have remained so loyal, for so long. They have been outclassed, and a by a bunch of clowns with the political nous and guile of a rottweiler as well. :-.

* Horrendously fought by the Conservative dominated No2AV campaign ( who raised the cost of the referendum, as attributable to the No2AV campaign as to the Yes2AV campaign) IMHO.

** Rightfully so IMO. They stole many a lefty vote, mine included, by misrepresenting themselves and their values. Who (under 40) would have thought that they’d have proven so flexible in the art of bending over ‘for the country’.

Let’s be clear one point: Clegg had no choice but to kill the Boundary Review in retaliation. To not do so would mean he would have even less credibility than he has now.

If Clegg has killed the Review in ‘retaliation’ rather than principle – and I use this word as most people generally understand it, not the way it is used on LibCon – that’s not a tick in Clegg’s box.

‘Retaliation’ is not desirable motivation for someone in the playground let alone in government.

“By my understanding, Labour can get in with significantly fewer votes than the Tories”

What are the reasons for this?

Is it because turnout tends to be lower in labour areas?
Does the boundary comission create smaller constituencies in urban areas?
Is it because boundaries are drawn up on innacurate or outdated population estimates and the population in labour areas grows more quickly?

@12 Chaise

1. PR is the only real answer
2. The Tories have shown themselves to be fundamentally anti-democratic. The 1986 Local Government Act being a prime example. Tories who claim that they’re changing the boundaries because they want “fairness” in the system aren’t being particularly honest. Indeed, they won elections with a lower share of the vote. If they’re that committed to fairness, the least they could is accept the need for a change in the voting system. Few, if any Tories, seem able to accept this need.

Apologies for the double post.

Shatterface — “‘Retaliation’ is not desirable motivation for someone in the playground let alone in government.”

It’s perhaps not the best behaviour in polite society, but we’re not talking about polite society here are we. We’re talking about politics. The politics of coalition with the Conservatives to be more precise. What an abused* minor partner to do? They have to assert themselves, and they only means at their disposal are to either break the coalition (bad for the country, in their language) or throw a spanner in the works.

Incidentally, does anybody know what the precise wording of the coalition agreements commitments to boundary changes is? Is it as weak as the above quoted commitments to the Liberal Democrats sacred cows?

I don’t think any of this is worthy of high praise (for Clegg) though. He’s thrown his rider far too late, and for the wrong reason in my view. This is opportunism** plain and simple, but this is politics and a little tit-for-tat is to be expected.

* The Conservatives may well have stuck to the letter of the coalition agreement (naively signed by the Liberal Democrats, seeing the weak commitments to their favourite policy points), but they have been incredibly robust in opposing the Liberal Democrats, their coalition partners. Obviously the Liberal Democrat grass roots feel that this is a betrayal of the spirit of the coalition agreement. Do Clegg and company have any choice but to reflect this? Surely their primary loyalty is to their party (they’ve already abandoned many of the electors), not the coalition.

** The whole coalition agreement can be viewed as opportunism, on the part of both parties. The Liberal Democrats took their shot at power (‘for the good of the country’) and the Conservatives negotiated a coalition agreement that gave them a majority to work with whilst ensuring that any such power would be purely illusory. The liberal democrats were outflanked in the coalition negotiations. They’re pretty pathetic King makers really. More a sort of jester who placed the crown on the King’s whenever someone barks at them.

Sufficed to say, that shouldn’t ALL be in a block quote.

Can I haz edit functionz plz Liberal Conspiracy? 😐

@16 BuddyHell

Spot on with your point #2.

Everything I’ve read about these boundary changes suggests that they are slightly advantageous (purely w.r.t. the status quo) to the Conservatives, but considerably disadvantageous to the lesser parties. These sorts of cynical maneuverings apply fairness only to the very limited sphere of the duopoly. Both Labour and the Conservatives have been very cavalier in their use of the word ‘fair’. The only fair and democratic solution is some form of PR, and yet both parties (the Conservatives in particular; but Labour as well) have shown precious little enthusiasm for PR and elector reform of any kind. Usually trotting out the sacred cow of ‘strong government’ and the potential ‘chaos’ of coalition and/or weak government. You can’t be committed to ‘strong government’ at all costs (even dictatorship?) and democracy. You could perhaps make a case for strong majoritarian governments being democratic (although personally, consensus driven and direct democracy are the only true democracies IMHO), but strong minoritarian governments (which is all we’ve had for 40+ years) are not democratic.

@ 18 anubeon

Exactly, Tories speak with forked tongue. Both Labour and the Tories need to grow and accept the fact that this is the 21st century and not the 20th. The voters want a real electoral choice and not be forced into a situation where they have to hold their nose and vote for the least worst option.

Yes and no, Sunny. Steve Bell’s cartoon yesterday summed it up well – Clegg has decided to put his foot down when his foot is too weak to do very much. He should have been putting his foot down from right after the election when there was still a buzz about him, when the number of votes the Lib-Dems had polled counted for something and when the issue of reforming the political system was still hot.

It isn’t true that there is no public interest in political reform. There is a strong interest in weakening the grip of the whips, weakening the grip of the two main parties, increasing transparency and accountability and reducing the amount of spin. Clegg has failed to sustain this line of thinking after joining the coalition and has failed to articulate how the various elements (AV, reform of House of Lords etc) fit into this agenda. His own weak performance has also reduced public trust in smaller parties and their ability to make a difference to the political system.

He is likely to now face a barrage of spin saying that he is petulant, that he is the one who broke the coalition agreement and that there is no public interest in political reform. Unfortunately he will now face this spin without much public support because he let it slip away.

Clegg is a complete joke.

He could have selected many reasons for falling out with the Conservatives in the Coalition – such as the top-down reform inflicted on the NHS, contrary to the Coalition Agreement, or George Osborne’s programme for fiscal austerity, which has brought upon us a seriously recessed economy, as some of us (keynesians) predicted it would several years ago.

Instead, Clegg has picked Lords Reform, a relatively minor matter in the Coalition Agreement, given the weak powers of the Lords to do anything really important except delay government legislation for a year.

“I find it odd when people say that the current system “favours Labour” when, for most of the 20th century, it seems to have served the Tories rather well. Someone isn’t being entirely straight.”

Perhaps you don’t have access to Google, but here is a reasonably (for the Guardian!) fair analysis.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/sep/13/reality-check-bourndary-reform

The boundary changes were lumped in to basically offset the amount of damage done to the Tories by AV if it had gone through. This is particularly apparent in showing how many seats, proportionally, each party would have lost from these changes. The Lib Dems had by far the most to gain from AV, and accordingly, they had the most to lose from the boundary changes.

The system is clearly unfair, but these boundary changes are wallpaper over a system which is inherently flawed.

From WW2 until the elections in May 1979, which brought us Mrs T as PM, the Conservatives and Labour spent almost equal times in government. In that period, the performance of the UK economy was at or near the bottom of the league table for our peer-group of relatively affluent, industrialised market economies.

Sam Brittan: “The relative decline of the British economy in the century up to the late 1970s has been reversed. Since then, the UK has caught up with and even overtaken its principal trading partners. The previous two sentences are neither a typing mistake nor a daydream. They are the sober conclusions of the country’s leading quantitative historian, Prof Nicholas Crafts”
http://www.samuelbrittan.co.uk/text399_p.html

It’s a myth that Mrs T cut public spending. We have this from the IFS: “During Margaret Thatcher’s premiership public spending grew in real terms by an average of 1.1% a year, while during John Major’s premiership it grew by an average of 2.4% a year.”

@ 16 buddyhell

“1. PR is the only real answer
2. The Tories have shown themselves to be fundamentally anti-democratic.”

Agreed and agreed. But the fact remains that the boundaries are currently bent in Labour’s favour, and responding with the above (while rightly pointing out a far bigger problem and exposing Tory hypocrisy) is changing the subject. As long as we’re *only* talking about boundaries, the boundaries are unfair. If we’re talking about the wider system, there are bigger fish to fry.

Of all the things to decide ‘this far and no further’ – electoral boundaries. What a party of principles they are…

“Instead, Clegg has picked Lords Reform, a relatively minor matter in the Coalition Agreement ……. ”

I believe that it is point number 2 in the Coalition Agreement. If the Coalition Agreement is important then Lords’ Reform is important.

Is it because turnout tends to be lower in labour areas?
Does the boundary comission create smaller constituencies in urban areas?
Is it because boundaries are drawn up on innacurate or outdated population estimates and the population in labour areas grows more quickly?

Turnout is lower in Labour areas, and this accounts for most of the discrepancy. But not all of it. Electoral boundaries are based on out-of-date population data that inevitably fails to take into account recent population changes. Over the last 20 years that has meant that Northern, urban seats have become much smaller than Southern, rural and peri-urban seats. That’s obviously because people are moving out of the former and into the latter. It used to be even worse. Look at elections from the late 70s – Northern/Scottish seats often had electorates less than half the size of Tory shire seats.

The population is therefore growing quicker in Tory areas (because they’re lovely, obviously), and sometimes shrinking in Labour ones. There used to be an additional factor in that the Celtic fringe was over-represented, but this is less of an issue now.

Oh, and referring to this as gerrymandering is so fatuous as to be virtually braindead. For the Tories to win a majority, they need a double digit lead. Labour need a 3 point lead. Labour can be the largest party even if the Tories outpoll them by 4 points. Unbalanced systems need adjustment.

@26 Chaise,

But the fact remains that the boundaries are currently bent in Labour’s favour, and responding with the above (while rightly pointing out a far bigger problem and exposing Tory hypocrisy) is changing the subject.

Nope, it isn’t “changing the subject”, my points are entirely germane to any discussion on electoral changes.

@ CJCJ – that’s a good explanation. It seems to me to be the result, more than anything, of a system that gives Scotland and Wales a disproportionate amount of MPs relative to population.

So I’m wondering really whether equal sized constituencies might – from the tories perspective – be replacing one problem with another – namely that reducing scottish and welsh representation may give fuel to the pro-independance parties. The last thing the tories want is a succesful social democracy right on the border……

“The last thing the tories want is a succesful social democracy right on the border……”

Versus the prospect of permanent control of England?!

@ 20 buddyhell

“Nope, it isn’t “changing the subject”, my points are entirely germane to any discussion on electoral changes.”

Fine, but it’s still not “odd” for people to say that the current boundaries, a system that favours Labour, favours Labour.

“Versus the prospect of permanent control of England?!”

Wouldn’t happen – only a few occasions in the last century would there have been a different government. And with the threat of succesful social democratic policies on the border being used as examples by labour, the english elections would have a different context.

With devolution what we have seen is campaigners for policies first introduced in Scotland and Wales using their successes to lobby for the same in England. There is no way Cameron would be under pressure to introduce a 5p charge for plastic bags were it not to have been already a success in Wales.The succesful Irish version of the policy simply didn’t have the same impact as one closer to home does.

@ 31 Planeshift

“The last thing the tories want is a succesful social democracy right on the border……”

This in itself is a bit of an oxymoron, but you also ignore the sigificant possiblility of having a failed, bankrupt social deomcracy on the border.

@26 Chaise Guevara

The point being made by BuddyHell is that these boundary changes are fair, only when viewed entirely within the confines of the ruling duopoly. Yes, there is a slight bias favouring the Labour party, and yes that bias is tackled to a degree by these boundary reforms. However, this is at a far greater cost to the already down trodden smaller parties.

In effect, these boundary reforms are grossly unfair. They rectify a slight imbalance between the electoral arithmetic of the duopoly powers; a slight benefit to the Conservatives, a slight disadvantage (cf. the status quote) to the Labour party, but a significant disadvantage to the smaller parties who are already unfairly denied seats under FPTP.

To put it more colourful metaphorical language; with these boundary changes (especially without AV or PR having been enacted) the Conservatives are essentially punching an already disadvantaged amputee (the minor parties) square in the face, in response to Labour’s having flicked them in the ear for years. A disproportionate wound inflected on the minor parties, just for the Conservatives to level the playing field with Labour.

In light of this, I can’t see these boundary changes (and to a lesser extent any party-led boundary changes undertaken under FPTP) could be viewed as anything but gerrymandering. The intent being to improve one parties electoral performance in relation to their arch foes, with blatant disregard for the decreased proportionality and increased unfairness wrought on the lesser parties. This isn’t principled; this is pure convenience with only the merest and shallowest of rhetorical lip-service paid to notions of fairness and democracy.

29 Tim J

It’s far from fatuous to suggest that this is gerrymandering Tim J and if you had any sense of the world outside of the duopoly you’d recognise that. These boundary changes will greatly injure the electoral fortunes of the smaller parties, just to rectify a slight imbalance between the electoral arithmetic of Labour and Conservative constituencies. Now I don’t doubt that there is a pro-Labour bias, but this is as nothing compared to the pro-duopoly bias to wit these boundary changes only exacerbate the issue further still.

By way of an example. Under the current settlement (boundaries and FPTP) the Green party were awarded a single seat, achieving 0.9% of the national popular vote (they should have received at least 5 seats in a fair system). Under the proposed boundary changes, it’s very likely that they wouldn’t have won their Brighton and Hove constituency. And so an already disadvantaged political party (far from the only one; the Liberal Democrats are similarly disadvantaged by these changes) is disadvantaged even further.

If the Conservatives wanted fair, they’d by crying out for PR. As it is, they are not. They are content to deal a massive blow to the minor party with their boundary changes, to win a minor victory against Labour, at the cost of a massive blow to the already downtrodden small parties and political plurality in this country. If that isn’t gerrymandering, I don’t know what is!

29

If the tories were so concerned about total votes cast why are they not in favour of PR, actually, that’s a rhetorical question because most of us know the answer.

The tories are past masters of boundary changes which tend to favour them, Disraeli passed the 2nd Reform Act in 1867 as he believed that after extending the franchise, the Liberals would benefit more because of their level of support in the growing urban areas, whereas the tories did better in the country.

And this also begs a further comparison, it was the tory/liberal coalition in 1914 which eventually signalled the end of the Liberal party because they had become too tory.

The terms ‘ignoring history’ and ‘supping with the devil’ springs to mind, and I think it’s too late for Clegg to benefit from the lessons of history.

It’s far from fatuous to suggest that this is gerrymandering Tim J and if you had any sense of the world outside of the duopoly you’d recognise that

Words have meaning folks. Gerrymandering means manipulating the borders of specific constituencies so that they cater directly to the interests of the party that does the tailoring. Look at constituency borders in the US (Texas and California being notably brazen about it). Weird cut-out constituencies designed to include pockets of support and exclude opposition strongholds. Evening out constituency sizes so that they all contain roughly the same number of voters just isn’t gerrymandering – not least because the actual districting is done by an independent non-partisan body.

the Green party were awarded a single seat, achieving 0.9% of the national popular vote (they should have received at least 5 seats in a fair system).

They wouldn’t have got any in Germany would they? Miles below the threshold.

Oh listen to the tory brownshits whine about democratic fairness. That’s why they supported an unelected House of Lords for 200 years with a massive tory majority.

Healthcare reform was not in the coalition agreement, but that did not stop them lining up frothing at the mouth to vote to privatise the NHS.

Whenever you hear a tory moan about principles, you must laugh in their face. They know nothing of principles, only power. They will do anything to get it and hold it. Hence Boris, political head of the Met crawling up to Murdoch while his corporation is under investigation. Tories have no principles.

” you also ignore the sigificant possiblility of having a failed, bankrupt social deomcracy on the border.”

If that happens it gives the tories a fantastic campaigning platform, and also gives them the opportunity to be more right wing than they can currently be on issues such as the NHS , education, welfare etc.

They’d also then be in a position to actually win elections in Scotland and Wales, and reverse the social democratic policies.

But as the tories don’t want to even let the smaller nations experiment, it doesn’t really show they have confidence in the superiority of their own ideas.

“Electoral boundaries are based on out-of-date population data that inevitably fails to take into account recent population changes”

It seems to me that equal sized constituencies and reduced number of MPs doesn’t solve this problem over the long run. The only thing that does is getting more reliable population data.

“But as the tories don’t want to even let the smaller nations experiment, it doesn’t really show they have confidence in the superiority of their own ideas.”

Except health and education are already devolved, and I believe (thanks to Labour’s market-oriented reforms) that health outcomes certainly have improved in England relative to Wales and Scotland. We have an experiment running already.

@35 Tyler

“This in itself is a bit of an oxymoron, but you also ignore the sigificant possiblility of having a failed, bankrupt social deomcracy on the border.”

No serious commentator believes the Unionist “too wee, too poor, too stupid” line anymore. Even the arch Unionists in Labour (fearful as they are of losing their places at the Westminster trough) don’t seriously believe that an independent Scotland is incapable of being a perfectly successful small state. Maintaining otherwise is one of the reasons for the abject failure of the Tory, LibDem and Labour parties North of the border in recent times.

Oh, and if you think successful social democracies are an oxymoron, you’ve obviously never been to Scandinavia.

@41 planetshift

“They’d also then be in a position to actually win elections in Scotland and Wales, and reverse the social democratic policies.”

Vanishingly unlikely in anything but the long term in a post independence scenario. The Tory brand is toxic in scotland, and will take a long time to cleanse itself of past associations. There are of course right of centre voters in Scotland, and they may even increase somewhat post independence, but they are likely to find it hard going making ANY political headway in Scotland for decades, even if they reinvent themselves as less in the nast party mould, and more in a cuddly “christian democrat” kind of mould.

Holyrood is of course a much more representative and therefore democratic instiution than the creaking, crypto-medieval system at Westminster. With luck after 2014 my countrymen will be well shot of it; we’ll wish you well of course, but more and more Scots are deciding that we don’t much fancy the direction of travel the Union is taking – we’ll be fine on our own!

@ 36

I get the point he’s making, I just think he’s misrepresenting the people who quite rightly point out that the current borders favour Labour.

“In effect, these boundary reforms are grossly unfair. They rectify a slight imbalance between the electoral arithmetic of the duopoly powers; a slight benefit to the Conservatives, a slight disadvantage (cf. the status quote) to the Labour party, but a significant disadvantage to the smaller parties who are already unfairly denied seats under FPTP. ”

This is the first time I’ve come across this. How would the boundary changes make things worse for smaller parties?

Clegg had no choice but to kill the Boundary Review in retaliation.

You’re right there.

The second point is also obvious: the Conservatives are now unlikely to be able to gerrymander constituencies to their advantage.

Equalising constiuencies isn’t a gerrymander. FPTP is. What Britain really needs is proportional representation.

It takes a special kind of talent to take an abomination like the House of Lords and manage to come up with proposals to make it worse. Well done Mr Clegg. I suspect the piously petulant look on his face is going to be a familiar sight now.

Constituency boundaries should be roughly equal size. However, they should be based on estimates of the population and not the electoral register. It can’t be too difficult to work out estimates based on tax and benefit data. Using the electoral register is fake fairness because poorer areas will have fewer people registering to vote.

@39 Tim J

Words have meaning folks. Gerrymandering means manipulating the borders of specific constituencies so that they cater directly to the interests of the party that does the tailoring.

Wikipedia defines gerrymandering as:

“A practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan or incumbent-protected districts.”

Using this definition, the proposed boundary changes establish a political advantage to the duopoly powers vs the smaller political parties. This IS very much gerrymandering. Whether you accept that the former is the desired or intended outcome, it is the projected outcome of these changed.

Look at constituency borders in the US (Texas and California being notably brazen about it). Weird cut-out constituencies designed to include pockets of support and exclude opposition strongholds. Evening out constituency sizes so that they all contain roughly the same number of voters just isn’t gerrymandering

It is perhaps not in the same league as the sort of gerrymandering that was (and perhaps still is) practised within the united states. That said, there are a few notable examples of ‘unnatural’ constituencies being brought into existence by these boundary changes. A consequence of the highly restrictive (and unprecedentedly so) terms of the boundary review as defined by the coalition government (not the boundary commission).

not least because the actual districting is done by an independent non-partisan body.

Whilst the boundary commission is nominally independent, it is not immune from political interference. The terms of boundary reviews are set by the government of the day, and whilst governments are limited in what terms they can set, they can influence the process significantly.

They wouldn’t have got any in Germany would they? Miles below the threshold.

Your point is? I haven’t mentioned Germany (with it’s hybrid FPTP/PR electoral system) at all in this thread. You might have a point if I had upheld their electoral system as some sort of ideal, but I’ve not.

The fact is that 0.9% of the population of the UK voted Green, under the status quo that afforded them one seat. Under a fair proportional system they would have been afforded up to 5 seats (incidentally, that remains the case even after the number of sitting MPs is reduced from 650 to 600). Under these boundary changes they could very well have been afforded zero seats.

The Greens were perhaps a poor example (they still polled >265,000 votes; are those people unworthy of representation?). They are NOT the only ones affected by these boundary changes (or FPTP in general). UKIP polled ~920,000 votes, 3.1% of the popular vote and under a fair system would have won 20 seats; they were awarded 0! The Liberal Democrats polled >6.8M votes, 23% of the popular vote, and by rights should have won ~150 seats; the were awarded 57 seats!. The SNP polled >490,000 votes, 1.7% of the popular vote, and by rights should have won 11 seats; they were awarded 6!. The Conservatives polled ~10.7M votes, 36.1% of the popular vote, and by rights should have received 235 seats; they were awarded 306 seats. Labour polled ~8.6M votes, 29.0% of the popular vote, and by rights should have received 189 seats; they were awarded 258 seats.. Finally, the BNP* received >560,000 votes, 1.9% of the popular vote, and by rights should have received 12 seats; they were awarded none.

Yes, the Conservatives are slight hard done by when compared to Labour, but the smaller parties are far more disadvantaged. Implementing boundary changes which serve to exacerbate the latter gross unfairness, in order to tackle the comparatively less egregious unfairness visited upon the Conservatives is absurd. Especially if couched in terms of ‘fairness’ and ‘democracy’.

Perhaps these arguments are subtle, wrestling as they do with both our electoral system and our electoral boundaries, but it cannot be beyond you to imagine that gerrymandering with respect to the small parties and reducing the pesky inconvenience of having to form a coalition government in the future may just be the order of the day.

* I mention the BNP not because I have any sympathies with them (quite the contrary), but because a) they won a significant share of the vote and b) to show that I’m not simply cherry picking data for the small parties which readers here are likely to sympathies with. For the record, I despise the BNP and am not particularly fond of UKIP and the Liberal Democrats either. The injurious wounds inflicted upon the latter two, first by FPTP and then again by these boundary changes, have far reaching repercussions. You may not relish the prospect of coalition government, but in the short-medium term, these two parties are the only hope of holding the two main parties of the duopoly to account.

“Equalising constituencies isn’t a gerrymander. FPTP is. What Britain really needs is proportional representation.”

The general election in Britain November 1935 was the last time that the winning party – the Conservatives, in that case – attracted more than 50 pc of the total votes cast. In all subsequent general elections, the winning party attracted less than half the votes cast. If that historic pattern since WW2 is repeated, with PR all governments in Britain would be coalition governments.

In June 1976, a commission of the Hansard Society on electoral reform, under the chairmanship of Lord Blake, a Conservative peer, recommended Britain adopt an electoral system similar to that for the Bundestag (the lower house) in the German Bundesrepublik (as then West Germany):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Germany

The outcome of Bundestag elections in Germany is that the final composition of the assembly is representative of the total votes cast for each party. Almost invariably, German governments are coalition governments.

@44 Chaise Guevara

This is the first time I’ve come across this. How would the boundary changes make things worse for smaller parties?

I’m largely basing this on the authoritative projections for post-boundary seat apportionment. Wherein the Liberal Democrats are hit the worst of all of the ‘two and a half’ main parties. The support base of smaller parties, and the Liberal Democrats certainly, tend to be more diffuse (i.e. less centred). One wonders whether this has any bearings on such woeful projections.

It’s been a while since I’ve read one of those projections/reports, so you’ll have to forgive me, I don’t have the link(s) to hand. I may seek them out latter, if I do, I’ll post here.

Regardless, even if the state of play for the minor parties remained roughly the same (i.e. their block proportion of the vote remained proportionally the same as the block proportion of the duopoly parties), hearing the Conservatives whine and gripe about the unfairness of the current boundary settlement whilst they consistently stifle electoral reform that would yield genuine fairness for all, is too much hypocrisy for some of us to bare in silence. 😉

P.S.: I hope you enjoyed my ‘punch in the face’ analogy above Chaise, starting to think a ‘chopped of his last remaining limb’ analogy would have been more apt. 😉

@48 Bob B

If that historic pattern since WW2 is repeated, with PR all governments in Britain would be coalition governments.

Well that’s democracy for you. I do despise any arguments against PR which evoke the ‘need’ for ‘strong government’. It seems to me that the same argument could be used to justify a soviet style one-party system. After all, why run the risk of having a weak government with a marginal and unstable majority?

Okay, so coalition governments might well become the norm in British politics under PR. That is the democratic will of the people. What we have to do, instead of constructing elaborate minoritarian governments under the guise of convenience and pragmatism, is figure out how we can insure that such coalitions respect the will of the electorate. Some good examples would be a right for the general public to trigger a referendum by petition, a constitutional right to referendum which would force a referendum on certain key issues (e.g. constitutional reform, declarations of war, etc…), legally binding manifestos, the banning of back-room coalition deals and a requirement for any prospective coalition to return to the polls with their respective coalition agreements. If the latter policy had played out in 2010, the fear of losing all of those lovely left-wing votes might well have forced the Liberal Democrats to stick with it and write-up a coalition agreement with Labour or indeed both parties. Labour could have, of course, chosen to ‘skim home’ with little effort or compromise in such coalition negotiations, but then they’d run the risk of falling afoul of the apathy of both their own voters and those that naively flocked (myself included) to the Liberal Democrats (especially if they refused to adopt some of the Liberal Democrats more left-wing policy points). Apathy would be a significant concern for a ‘coalition referendum’ held so soon after a general election that elected a hung parliament, I would imagine.

Pragmatism is no reason to bow to minoritarian government. Those who do so for such pathetic reason have no right to use the term democracy. They clearly have no understanding of the word, and no respect for it either.

I do despise any arguments against PR which evoke the ‘need’ for ‘strong government’. It seems to me that the same argument could be used to justify a soviet style one-party system.

Or a return of powers to a monarch.

@50 Auberon

I agree with much of that but we have to recognise that aversion to coalition governments runs very deep in Britain – hence the sidelining by the New Labour governments of the recommendations of the Jenkins Commission on electoral reform for AV+ – which is similar to the German electoral system. Try this briefing paper by the HoC Library:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-112.pdf

A second observation is to report my clear impression that our current experience of coalition government has done little to promote any greater popular support for coalitions.

Apparently, we really like “strong government”, which is perhaps why Blair bounced around in the run-up to the 1997 election offering his “strong leadership”. I found that nauseating at the time but in the referendum on electoral reform last year, AV was very decisively rejected. Many in the electorate find multiple and nuanced choices in politics deeply upsetting.

They like a simple left v right choice, which is why I have kept pointing out that the connotations of “left” and “right” are certainly not transparently clear. Blair tried to fudge the difference with his Third Way but few claimed to understand just what that was supposed to mean and the notion had an unfortunate provenance going back to Mussolini – which seems to have escaped his advisers.

@48 Bob B:

The general election in Britain November 1935 was the last time that the winning party – the Conservatives, in that case – attracted more than 50 pc of the total votes cast. In all subsequent general elections, the winning party attracted less than half the votes cast. If that historic pattern since WW2 is repeated, with PR all governments in Britain would be coalition governments.

Sounds good to me.

Actually I wouldn’t particularly mind if a government won a majority in the Commons with 45% of the vote and while being well ahead of any other party on votes (as Alex Salmond recently did in Scotland). But to win 100% of the power on just over a third of the votes is fundamentally anti-democratic.

Talking about anti-democratic, in 1951, The Labour Party won more votes than the tories but it was the tories who formed the government. In February, 1974, the tories received more votes than Labour but it was Labour who formed the government.

@52 Bob B

I agree with much of that but we have to recognise that aversion to coalition governments runs very deep in Britain

Is there any evidence for this* though? From a cursory view there certainly an aversion to coalition government in the Westminster village. However one would expect this, dominated as it is by political parties and politicos whose fortunes are somewhat invested in ‘strong government’.

* If there is evidence to this effect within the briefing paper linked, please do accept my apologies. I’m just about to tuck into some home made turkey thigh burgers, and haven’t the time at the moment to read it.

A second observation is to report my clear impression that our current experience of coalition government has done little to promote any greater popular support for coalitions.

That certainly could be the case, in fact it most certainly is. However, I’d like to think that the electorate of the UK is savvy enough to realise that this coalition is the result of a bankrupt political settlement which doesn’t allow the population any recourse but to accept the back-room dealings of political parties.

In a climate wherein there is no strong right of recall, no public right to trigger referendums (or grand juries) by petition, no automatic right to referendums on key constitutional issues, no legally binding manifestos and no obligation to put coalition agreements to a public vote, the consequences of coalition government will be at least as disastrous as those of an artificially strong (minoritarian) government. That isn’t to concede that these reforms are needed before any form of proportional representation to happen, mind you. 😉

It’s worth noting that many of the embarrassing, grossly unrepresentative and anti-democratic maneuverings of this government have been Conservative lead initiative. Most of the u-turns, in response to public discontent (rather than internal friction within the coalition per se). Does anyone really imagine that a Conservative minority or majority government would have been any less of a disaster? The truth is, that the current creche of front-line Conservative politicians aren’t particularly talented. They pale in comparison to their forebears (as much as it pains me to concede that their forebears had any talent themselves).

“I found that nauseating at the time but in the referendum on electoral reform last year, AV was very decisively rejected. Many in the electorate find multiple and nuanced choices in politics deeply upsetting.”

I’m not sure much can be made of the referendum results to be honest. It may sound like sour grapes (no doubt it will to the ‘victorious’ No2AV camp), but that was an horrendously fought campaign. If it wasn’t the No2AV camp impugning the value of AV on the basis of how much the referendum cost, it was the Yes2AV camp getting bogged down in explaining the technical ins and outs of how the votes are counted. All that really needed to be said was that AV ensured that an MP enjoyed at least 50% of the vote (as a share of votes in the final ’round’) and that preferential voting was purely optional (i.e. one could continue to simply cross off their favourite candidate). The later, if I recall correctly, was not well represented.

Of course, I have to concede, that it’s at least possible that the British people are steadfastly wed to FPTP. Something tells me however, that this isn’t the case. If it is, then I’m bloody emigrating sharpish! 😉

They like a simple left v right choice…

I’m not entirely sure that this is the case, especially with regard to floating voters. Maybe it’s true of party loyalists, but by definition they are loyal to their respective parties (rather than the left per se).

My experience of floating voters amongst my friends and family (none of whom are particularly politically savvy) is that they favour a ‘them what’s in’ vs ‘them what’s out’ approach. They’d never consider voting for a third party, rather preferring to ‘give the other party a chance’ or ‘have a change’ (those are direct quotes by the way).

Should we really shape our electoral system around such political ignoramuses (and I don’t that as an insult)? If such people want to vote out of such naive sentiments, so be it, that democracy. However, should you or I be denied the right to express our much more nuanced political opinions in full, by those whose political opinions are either binary or uninformed? They’re free to express themselves so; but we are forced to play tactical games and in many cases watch as our ballot papers are figuratively thrown in the bin. I for one live in a constituency wherein I may as well not vote under FPTP, or if I vote I’m forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. I can tell you now, that feels like absolute crap.

This is one of the reasons why I question the wisdom of holding referendums on certain issues. I’d favour a grand jury of 1000 citizens selected by lottery, at least then they have to sit through all of the arguments and form an informed opinion.

Anubeon: “Is there any evidence for [an aversion to coalition government] though?”

A clear personal impression gained from watching and scrabbling about the political landscapes ever since being taken to watch my parents vote in the 1945 election. Disraeli – who, whatever else, was a canny and perceptive operator – somewhere says something about England not loving coalitions. And that’s a sentiment, I’ve often come across.

It’s why New Labour kicked the recommendations of the Jenkins Commission into the long-grass. The grassroots of the two big parties really dislike coalitions. For starters, it makes campaigning much more difficult. It’s so much easier for Conservatives to paint Labour as Reds and for Labour to paint Conservatives as plutocratic and educated at private schools so they don’t understand the pressures “hard working ordinary people” have to live with. That avoids all the difficulties of having to explain and justify policies. The two big parties are wedded to the FRTP electoral system because it squeezes out smaller parties and (usually) gives us “strong government”.

Sorry for typo: FPTP, not FRTP

Best of all, per YouGov the British public thinks the Tories broke the coalition agreement.

For all the Tory whining and fussily running back to the minute detail of the agreement, the British public thinks the Tories reneged on their duty to push for Lords reform.

Which they did.

Tories – as untrustworthy as ever.

I’ve tried to read through this conversation – and it is hard because boundary reviews are fundementally very boring things and usually designed to boost the prospects of whoever over-sees them rather than to achieve a fairer set of boundaries.

But does anyone know why we don’t commission a boundary review after each ten year census?

Seems to me that that’s the time when population data is most accurate – and thus the time when we are best able to make the constituencies the same size. It would also be a roling ten year cycle, taking a lot of the controversy out – especially if it is just a functional process instead of being tied to the agenda of one party (as at present, when it is about boosting tory election prospects).

@33 Chaise

“Fine, but it’s still not “odd” for people to say that the current boundaries, a system that favours Labour, favours Labour”.

You’re not paying attention, dude. I said it’s “odd” because there is a clear contradiction between action and intent, not to mention the stinking hypocrisy that is manifested in the Tories claims to change that is based on “fairness”. If you change the boundaries for reasons of “fairness”, then you must also change the electoral system. The Tories pretent to want to change the boundaries because of this notion of fairness but it is obvious that they don’t a change that will affect their number of seats. Furthermore, history has demonstrated that the Tories are no democrats and they merely pay lip service to the idea of democracy.

@ 60 buddyhell

“You’re not paying attention, dude. I said it’s “odd” because there is a clear contradiction between action and intent, not to mention the stinking hypocrisy that is manifested in the Tories claims to change that is based on “fairness”. If you change the boundaries for reasons of “fairness”, then you must also change the electoral system. ”

Not if you can do one but not the other. Say that serious electoral change is not on the cards (which it ain’t). Accepting that, person X says that, regardless of the wider issue, moving the boundaries would make things fairer (albeit slightly) than they are now. Is that “odd”? Because it sounds as close as possible to factually correct as you can get when discussing subjective ideas like fairness.

Note that I’m talking about a random commenter, not Tory policy, which I agree is self-serving and monstrously hypocritical.