Chris Rennard backs move to kill off, not just delay, boundary changes

PoliticsHome reports:

Chris RennardLabour peer Lord Hart has just tabled an amendment to the Electoral Registration Bill which would have another major impact on the timetable of the Coalition’s plans to cut seat numbers.

The amendment, which seeks to amend a clause in Section 10 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, declares that the Boundary Commissions reviews will not take place until….2018. Yes, you read that right, 2018.

The move is Labour’s attempt to get certainty for the whole PPC selection process and crucially means that a whole cycle of boundary reviews is killed off (as opposed to getting it in place after 2015)…

The amendment (which will appear tomorrow on the Order Paper) has not just Labour signatories. It has also been signed by Plaid peer Lord Wigley…and Liberal Democrat heavyweight Lord Rennard.

* Mark Pack has written 101 Ways To Win An Election and produces a monthly newsletter about the Liberal Democrats.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Election law and News.
Advert

12 Comments

  • jedibeeftrix writes:

    one of the clear requirments of the FPTP system is that regular boundary reviews occur in order to equalise constituency sizes

    No, this would be true for proportionate systems and for AV, but FPTP removes correlation between votes cast and the member elected. % votes required can be anything from 50% to as low as 20% and often as low as 30%.

    FPTP improves as a voting system as constituencies get smaller and more members are elected. If the UK is to keep FPTP it would be better to split larger constituencies and create equalisation by increasing the number.

    In short it is right that how the equalisation process is put into effect should be reconsidered.

  • jedibeeftrix

    2018 does seem a long way but it is another example of why the Coalition has mishandled this situation!

    There is not time before 2015 to do another review so the work done on the reduced number of constituencies is the only option and will be until another review is launched, when they will come back again with their options. Parliament(Government has to give the framework for the BC to work in and at the moment the framework is apparently no longer supported

    In effect this amendment (as I see it but I am no expert so happy to be corrected) is just saying that in the normal timeframe expected there will be a review – in place before the 2020 election

    The fault lies with the Coalition and is not a Labour trick (although clearly they are the main beneficiaries)

  • David White 31st Oct '12 - 9:58am

    A BIG well done to Lord Rennard. The Tories shafted us over both AV and Lords reform, so Our Brave Boys and Girls should stuff them every time they attempt electoral reform.

  • Well done. The fact is FPTP results should be based on the number of votes cast not the size of a constituency. And neither the Tories or labour have had legitimate majorities since the 1970s,

    The boundary changes are designed to reduce the visible impact of changing voting patterns. It does not boost the number of people voting for particular parties. It mere shuffles them about until one party can claim a majority based on numbers that don’t add up.

  • “As the party of high-minded and non-tribal constitutional reform, isn’t your attitude both low and rabidly partisan in its attempt to block a necessary electoral function?”

    The party has blocked a measure which it previously claimed to support as a matter of principle, in retaliation for the failure of the plan for a proportionally elected House of Lords.

    The cynicism of the response surprised me at the time (even though I thought I was beyond being surprised by the cynicism of politicians). It’s difficult to resist the conclusion that there never was anything “high-minded” about the party’s advocacy of constitutional reform.

  • Malcolm Brown 31st Oct '12 - 1:59pm

    Coming from Cornwall, I believe any action that results in this appalling review being stopped completely until the next Parliament is fully justified. People here remain appalled that the rules were so ill conceived that they allowed the famous “Devonwall” constituency combining part of our duchy with part of neighbouring Devon. This must be killed off once and for all,

  • Stephen W

    Reduction in constituencies was in the manifesto but clearly linked to STV. I oppose strongly a reduction in seats without a constitutional review to improve overall representation.

    Secondly, I support equalisation but on population rather than electoral roll. An MP should represent all constituents in a FPTP system and so to me just basing it on those who have registered to vote is wrong.

    That is why I oppose the unilateral decision by the Government to change the rules without full cross-party consultation

    Also, rotten boroughs does not really describe what we have. There is an imbalance in FPTP where the distribution is as important as the constituency size. Labour tends to win seats on smaller majorities with smaller turnouts than the Tories do thus the imbalance. LD tend to have more even spread and so gain less seats.

    FPTP is inherently unfair and should be done away with!

  • Stephen W. equalisation and reduction of the number of constituencies makes no sense under FPTP. FPTP might be the worst electoral system, but reducing the number of seats make it worse. Reducing the number of seats would have the result that involvement of Liberal Democrats in government had left the country with a less democratically representative electoral system than before Lib Dems were involved. No one who calls themselves a Liberal and a Democrat can find that acceptable.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarJane Ann Liston 23rd Jul - 10:01am
    David, I'm a bit worried if education is considered only a 'middle-class concern' (whatever you mean by 'middle-class', it is clearly not complimentary). It reinforces...
  • User AvatarMick Taylor 23rd Jul - 9:39am
    I fully agree with the need for action against racism in all its forms. Please support the resolution on 'fighting racism' that Calderdale have put...
  • User Avatarbob sayer 23rd Jul - 9:33am
    Congratulations to all including those whilst the result was disappointing, at least gave Lib Dems in the area someone to vote for. But surely if...
  • User AvatarMatthew Huntbach 23rd Jul - 9:02am
    Lorenzo Cherin Also, how can bringing in tax revenue from the poorest , ie the lowest in the income ladder , be a good progressive...
  • User AvatarMatthew Huntbach 23rd Jul - 8:54am
    Lorenzo Cherin How on earth you can be so dismissive or critical of Jack Haines , a young man still in his teens with an...
  • User AvatarRoger Roberts 23rd Jul - 8:22am
    When we were in Coalition with the Tories I was always able to rejoice in the fact that Lib Dems had, as part of the...
Sat 23rd Jul 2016
Sun 24th Jul 2016
Tue 26th Jul 2016
Thu 28th Jul 2016
Sat 30th Jul 2016
Mon 1st Aug 2016
Sat 6th Aug 2016
Wed 10th Aug 2016
Fri 12th Aug 2016
19:00
Thu 18th Aug 2016