Writing in the Guardian, Martin Kettle isn’t wholly impressed with Labour’s approach to reform.
It tells you something about today’s Labour party that it is no longer willing to go into the parliamentary lobbies in September to advance the equality of representation for which the Chartists campaigned. Instead it will enter the lobbies with the opposite goals. It aims to block a reform that would equalise parliamentary constituencies. And it seeks to protect an unequal status quo of over-empowered smaller seats of which Labour is the main beneficiary. It will do this, moreover, in the largely deluded belief that it is engaged in the noble work of preventing the kind of electoral gerrymander that was used to exclude catholics in Northern Ireland, or black and poor people in the United States, from the exercise of their rights.
…”the worst kind of gerrymandering in the world” was the astonishing phrase that Jack Straw used on the radio today – which Labour is levelling against the coalition’s plan to equalise the size of constituencies before the next general election.
Perish the thought that Labour might be rather keen to cling onto a system that delivered it a comfortable majority on just 35 percent of the popular vote in 2005 and saw one Labour MP elected for every 33,000 Labour votes, compared to one Lib Dem MP for every 120,000 Lib Dem votes in 2010.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Have a goat day tomorrow!
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Richard Flowers
Mick Taylor
Tristan Ward
cim
35 Comments
With Labour resisting equal sized constituencies and refusing to pass a bill that contains them, and the Conservatives resisting AV and refusing to pass the bill unless it *does* contain legislation on equal sized constituencies, it’s really rather starting to look as though Labour and the Tories have united against the Lib Dems in favour of unfairness and the status quo.
There are a lot of words I’d like to use to describe my feelings towards those MPs, but my post would be moderated.
Straw’s comments are of course a grotesque and self-serving exaggeration, which comes badly from a party who have benefited from the unfairly unequal size of constituencies in the past. However, shouldn’t we be doing something to shoot Labour’s fox? They do have something of a point that low voter registration is a problem, and that something should be done about it, especially if we are going to ignore unregistered voters when equalising constituencies.
To propose compulsory voting would no doubt open up a hornet’s nest of argument, which would not be helpful at this stage. A voter registration drive, and/or a procedure to estimate and allow for nonregistered voters when doing the equalising, should be feasible.
So why don’t we press these points? They would be constructive improvements to the Bill, and they’d leave Labour without a leg to stand on if they wanted to carry on playing dirty politics.
@David Allen
Absolutely agree that we need to look at compulsory voting. Otherwise we are in danger of swapping one system that favours Labour in exchange for another that blatantly favours the Tories. I hope there are enough principled people in the Lib ranks to resist such a move.
I do not accept, as a Liberal, that it should be a criminal offence not to vote. Dave Allen is suggesting better voter registration which I can go along with.
I totally agree with the concept of equalising the size of our parliamentary constituencies – it is difficult to see how anyone could really argue against it.
It is not, however, by no mean self-evident that equalising constituencies on the basis of the number of registered voters is the fairest method of achieving this. MPs surely represent all their constituents – if someone turns up to an MP’s surgery I am sure they are not asked whether they are registered to vote or not. If constituencies are to be equalised surely it is right to do this in the fairest way possible and base it on population.
I have very little expectation that this will happen but let’s not delude ourselves – the the basis on which constituencies will be equalised has little to do with fairness and everything to do with party political advantage. I
Labour has every right to oppose a bill which lso arbitrarily reduces the number of MPs and removes the exiting right to an independent appeal procedure during the boundary review.
Olly is absolutely right. If the coalition were seeking to equalise constituencies based on the number of inhabitants rather than the number of registered voters, Labour would have no argument. It would also be more democratic – showing that everyone is valued not just those that fill in a form. It would also negate the problem that many students are, quite legally, registered to vote in more than one place.
Btw, fantastic article in the New Yorker on voting systems recently: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/07/26/100726crbo_books_gottlieb?currentPage=all
Lol. Love the way how Libdem Voice can have so many articles on the same subject. One might suspect that because the responses in the previous threads were not to the site’s liking, that they feel the need to produce another one. One that will produce responses that will glorify the coalition position.
Any chance of an article about how Clegg lied to Libdem voters, and the electorate at large, about his and his party’s position on when and how to tackle the deficit. But, I guess, when the prospect of the responses being positive is virtually nil, there is little if any chance.
The first election in which there is compulsory voting is the first election in which I don’t vote. Liberals are bloody-minded that way 🙂
But yes, we need better voter representation and *of course* equalisation should be on number of inhabitants, not just registered voters. Is there any campaign on this? Have the Lib Dem MPs really not brought this up? This actually makes what seems like a totally unreasonable position by Labour seem reasonable, and for no justifiable reason.
Also, as a point of interest, are there any constituencies that have different age profiles. For example, a constituency which has a lot of retired people, who are unlikely to have young children living with them, would be over-represented on actual population in comparison to one with a lot of young families, even if everyone were registered to vote. And children are people too!
@jayu
Yes the LibDems are making the same mistakes that labour did.
Nick Clegg is outdoing Blair at the moment and if people don’t wake up and smell the coffee another political party will
be losing it’s soul.
Interesting that Lib Dems are obsessed with Labour’s position on this bill, yet have *virtually nothing to say* about the 40 or 50 coalition MPs who have threatened to vote against it. This is a bit odd when you think about it; it’s as if Lib Dems *expect* their partners to vote against them, but are shocked when the opposition does likewise.
There seems to be an effort to tie in Cameron’s boundaries plan with “fair votes”, but this is the biggest red herring since, well, AV. Equalisation based on registered voters would be massively unfair, and quite possibly discriminatory. I am frankly astonished that the civil liberties lobby is turning a blind eye to this, while at the same time fretting about the authoritarian implications of microchipped dustbins.
For equalisation to be defensible it would have to be based on population, not registered voters – and I agree with Laura that children and other non-voters should be included in this, since they should be entitled to the same degree of representation as anybody else.
But such equalisation will still not guarantee greater fairness, because in a FPTP system the *placing* of the boundaries is just as important as the number of people living within them. So to claim that this has got anything to do with fairer voting is at best a red herring, at worst a complete con.
And in my opinion, the exemption for Scottish Lib Dem constituencies totally invalidates Lib Dem carping about Labour selling out on their principles!!
@ jayu ..Did mean an article about charlatan Nick Clegg that looks something like this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/29/nick-clegg-changed-mind-cuts
I better post it before the lib dem politburo has it erased from the record 😉
“But yes, we need better voter representation and *of course* equalisation should be on number of inhabitants, not just registered voters.”
I’m afraid I don’t see that at all. Why should it be on the number of inhabitants rather than the number of voters?
“I’m afraid I don’t see that at all. Why should it be on the number of inhabitants rather than the number of voters?”
Because MPs are there to represent all their constituents, not all of whom are registered voters. Many of them (e.g. those aged under 18) are not *allowed* to register.
If we’re talking about representative democracy, then I’d say on the contrary that MPs are there to represent voters. They don’t represent children, peers and foreign nationals at all in that sense.
Well, most foreign nationals are voters too (at least locally and many for parliament too).. I’ve been on the register for 12 years 🙂
funny how labour complain NOW about boundaries being reviewed based on registered voters yet were perfectly happy about it before. They had 13 years to change the system.
I’m working on an article about this for Left Foot Forward, arguing for a return to redistribution based on resident population rather than electorate. As part of that I’ve got the statistics from 2001 for electorate as a percentage of population, and there are some interesting patterns. It is not entirely the case that all the areas with low electorate as proportion of population are Labour seats in inner London, for instance, and almost all of the areas with high electorate to population are Labour seats in Scottish cities.
Anthony: Most MPs would say that their job is to represent (in the sense of serving the interests of) all of their constituents, and I would guess that most people would define “constituent” as anybody who lives within a constituency. At least that’s how the Parliament web site defines it.
“Well, most foreign nationals are voters too (at least locally and many for parliament too)…”
Surely only Commonwealth and Irish nationals can vote in parliamentary elections?
Stuart
Of MPs represent the whole population in a looser, wider sense. But as I said, if you are talking about the narrower sense of representative democracy, they represent only voters. And surely when one is talking about electoral boundaries, it’s that narrower conception that is relevant.
Surely the ideal is for all voters to have equal electoral rights. People who aren’t eligible to vote obviously don’t have any electoral rights at all. And people who are eligible but can’t be bothered to vote are scarcely in a position to complain!
The argument about low registration in mostly Labour strongholds seems to be based on old statistics.
There was a reported large and unprecedented surge in electoral registration after the election campaign had started this year. I think it was the first time that voters had been able to register during a campaign. So, what is the level of registration now?
If Labour really think there is still a problem, what is to stop them getting out right now and getting people registered?
David B
What do you mean by a “return” to redistribution on resident popultaion. Has such a system ever been used before?
To Anthony Aloysius St & Sandra F
Fair point that Labour could have looked at the basis for allocating seats but often it is not until one starts to look at these things afresh that one starts to ask questions. I confess that I started to consider it when the Coalition Bill came out linking these issues to the Referendum and i suspected the Tories were not doing it without possibly calculating some part-political advantage for themselves.
I have had a cursory look at what other countries do – US Congressional seats are based on population, Canadian Ridings are based on popilation and Australian constituencies are based on population. The more one considers it the more odd it seems that we base ours on registered voters.
The fact we have always done it and Labour didn’t change it are valid points but that is no reason to continue with it if it is wrong, Surely the Lib Dems would want to at least consider tjhis on its merits rather than rush into equalising seats on a basis that clearly benefits the Tories. .
“i suspected the Tories were not doing it without possibly calculating some part-political advantage for themselves”
Oh, I take it as read that the Tories are doing this because they think it will be to their advantage, and Labour politicians are opposing it because they think it will be to their disadvantage. After all, they’re politicians.
But to my mind if we’re talking about fair representation of voters, then the number of voters is what should be equalised between constituencies, not the number of anything else. I don’t think that “This is how they do it in X” is a good enough argument to the contrary.
“For equalisation to be defensible it would have to be based on population, not registered voters – and I agree with Laura that children and other non-voters should be included in this, since they should be entitled to the same degree of representation as anybody else”
Lets be honest now. The level of representation that an MP has to do, and the methods they use to carry out such representation means they have a great degree of flexibility over the number of actual people they can realistically and effectively represent.
On the contrary, the effect of widely varying numbers of voting constituents has a much more significant effect on the actual weight of each voters vote. Given this, and the act that equalising the constituencies is claimed to be being done to make each persons ‘vote’ more fair, it seems obvious that the number of voters is the key criteria that needs to be taken in to account.
I won’t argue that an MP should and must represent every person living in their constituency, but if the proportion of voters to actual population varies between constituencies this hardly affects the MP’s ability to do this. After all they can still ask the same questions, travel around the same areas, see the same problems, be at the same council meetings as any of their counterparts. It’s not as if an MP has to physically meet each person living in their constituency to be able to represent them.
What is more important to the ability of an MP to represent an area is geographical boundaries, because being aware of what is going on in area is much more dependant on the size of the area than it is on the number of people who live there; although with modern mass communication this is somewhat easier than it historically has been. This is the reason for the exceptions… and why geographical boundaries (and if I heard rightly social boundaries) are still going to be considered when determining new boundaries (and as an aside, it’s hardly the Lib Dem’s fault if the few areas where equalisation would create the worst cases of massive geographical boundaries happens to be held by them).
However if you work out boundaries on population, and end up with a variation in actual voters between different constituencies, then the whole point of doing it to create more equally weighted votes is undermined.
It is completely false to claim that constituency boundaries is based on registered voters because they somehow have more intrinsic value as human beings (and all of you suggesting that people who can’t be bothered to register are somehow not worth caring about should be ashamed of yourselves), but because the main issue is in vote strength, and to give each vote as close to equal strength as possible, then you need as close to equal numbers of ‘voters’ as you can get within each constituency.
It is significantly undemocratic to have one persons vote worth much more than another persons (in terms of how much influence they have at the ballot box) just because they live in an area where there are a high number of illegible or unregistered constituents; and an MP is perfectly capable of representing a large range of populations before their role is compromised (if you can consider any politician to be ‘un-compromised’ in the first place).
@ Nigel and Ollie
“Olly is absolutely right. If the coalition were seeking to equalise constituencies based on the number of inhabitants rather than the number of registered voters, Labour would have no argument. It would also be more democratic – showing that everyone is valued not just those that fill in a form. It would also negate the problem that many students are, quite legally, registered to vote in more than one place.”
As far as I knew there was no legal way for anyone to register to vote twice.
As for the idea that constituencies should be based on population – this does nothing to resolve the issue of making each vote carry equal weight, which is the very issue that equalising the constituencies is seeking to resolve. It would just mean replacing one set of boundaries where peoples votes have different weights, for another set.
I never heard any LibDem member mention this once until it entered the coalition agreement. And, boy, do we like to talk about voting systems.
Re: Scottish cities – I wonder if this is the legacy of the anti-poll tax campaign. About 500,000 people came off the registers when the poll tax was introduced and may not have rejoined to keep the single person council tax discount.
Anthony
-The point of my post was that if one believes that constituency sizes should be based on population rather than registered voters that is a perfectly legitimate point (even if you disagree with it) and that is therefore rational to oppose the Bill even if one supports AV (As I have for years – or preferably STV). I am not a “conservative” so the idea that we continue doing something in a particular way simply because we always have done so, is not an argument that appeals to me.
I looked at the US, Canada and Australia simply to see what they did – I didn’t know what I would discover but the fact they all base electoral units on population at the very least raises the possibility that there are some strong arguments in favour of it. I lived in Canada for a while and I know that they did not even register voters until a General Election was called
Alex –
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that there are circumatances that allow second home owners to register in more than one place.
You can harp on all you like about how the nasty Labour party should back the changes. The fact is they never promised a referendum on anything but AV so why should they now go along with it. If Clegg and the Lib dems had stuck by their guns and insisted on a referendum on AV and AV alone , there wouldn’t be a problem. If your looking for someone to blame , look at your own party , they’re the ones that agreed to put the whole lot as a package noone else. Still , Clegg might change his mind yet just like he did over cuts , whether he tells the rest of his party though remains to be seen.
“For equalisation to be defensible it would have to be based on population, not registered voters – and I agree with Laura that children and other non-voters should be included in this, since they should be entitled to the same degree of representation as anybody else”
Well, that looks like being a first – can you name a single country that uses that system instead of electoral registers. These instant experts are such twits.
The population figures are not accurate, they are estimates, and when put into Parliamentary seats – they will be out of date estimates. The figures for under-registration are estimates – and what about over registration of non-existant postal voters ?
Let’s be clear, I’ve no greta desire to see either a reduction in the number of MPs or an equlaisation of constituency size, unless it is to multi-member STV constituencies, that would remove all of the less spurious objections. The worst gerrymandering in history – surely even Labour supporters aren’t so idiotic as to beleive that? and so why say it ?
Apparently Labour will “lose out” because of the Government proposals, oh my heart breaks! If only they had been worried about Liberals and Liberal Democrats losing out over the last 40 years. We’re not even talking about 10 or so seats !
Peter Hain says Welsh seats are all in valleys which aren’t linked up – well has he not noticed that Cardiff has 4 seats, where as he is objecting to the geographical exception for remote rural araes that have more than one valley separating them.
der the LD screwed the best deal they could with the Tories, is it any wonder the right wing tories are looking to get there own back.
also with Labour LD used them as negotiating toys putting words in there mouth is it any wonder?
now un boatstrap the two things and then you can judge Labours response properly I would think but you dare not becouse the other part would maybe fall foul of other issues might it not?
Of course it is gerrymandering, as people have said in the comments. MPs represent all of their constituents, registered voters or not. Due to the fact that the poorest are the least likely to register equalising constituencies by the number of electors will lead to the poorest areas having less representation for population than the richest areas. The rich get more seats and the poor get less, but that’s okay to you isn’t it because the Lib Dems aren’t the friends of the poor, and vice versa.
Students can register in multiple places too I think?
“one Lib Dem MP for every 120,000 Lib Dem votes in 2010.”
How many of those “Lib Dem votes” were actually Lib Dem votes? You sent your activists out right up to the 6th of May telling people that to cut early would be disasterous for our recovering economy. Clegg said on the telly on Thursday that he’d changed his mind as early as March.
If 120,000 vote for a Lib Dem based on a policy that you secretly scrapped months before they went to vote- yet carried on pushing it right up to the day- and then get an MP that wants the opposite, is that democratic? I don’t think so. You conned people out of votes and have the cheek to repimand Labour for representing poorer constituencies with people so alienated that they don’t even register. The way to engage with those people is not to deny them fair representation.
Mike wrote:
“How many of those “Lib Dem votes” were actually Lib Dem votes”
You are coming perilously close to denying people the right to vote as they choose.
If you had your way, we would be required to place our crosses by a single candidate and get a carnation for the privilege.