Naked gerrymandering

By Chris Williamson MP

On Monday evening the ConDem coalition secured the second reading of its gerrymandering Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill, that will reduce the number of constituences and introduce AV. It passed its second reading even though most of the Tory MPs who spoke in the debate opposed it.

In his rather ham-fisted speech introducing the bill, the deputy prime minister tried to reassure the House of Commons that the bill was “not an attempt to gerrymander”. Who is he trying to kid? This is the most naked political stitch-up the UK has ever seen. Indeed, Clegg’s proposal is so blatantly designed to reduce the number of Labour MPs that the process might even acquire a new sobriquet. In future shady political practices intended to fix the outcome of elections might come to be known as ‘Cleggmandering’.

The minority of ConDem MPs who did speak in favour accused Labour of being opposed to the equalisation in the number of electors in each constituency. But that doesn’t stand examination. The fact is the Boundary Commission’s existing arrangements already strive to create constituencies of equal size, but it also has to have regard for communities as well. But if this bill is passed, natural boundaries like rivers, mountains and even the sea will be transgressed. For example, the Isle of Wight will be linked with Hampshire, parts of Cornwall with Devon and seats on one side of the Mersey with those on the other. This illustrates the ludicrous scenarios that will be forced on communities all over the country.

Claims that the UK is over represented by the number of MPs doesn’t stand examination either. The truth is the UK is broadly comparable with most European countries and well below some like Sweden, Ireland, Greece and Austria. Interestingly, even David Cameron said he opposed a reduction in the number of MPs when he was speaking at the Oxfordshire Boundary Inquiry in 2003.

Furthermore, there isn’t a huge discrepancy between the size of Labour seats compared to Tory and Lib Dem ones. On average, the number of registered constituents in Labour seats across the country is 68,423 compared to 72,444 in Tory seats and 69,725 in Lib Dem seats.

On top of that, the Electoral Commission estimated that in 2005 3.5 million eligible voters were missing from the electoral roll in England and Wales. And in a report published earlier this year, “under-registration is notably higher than average among 17-24 year olds (56% not registered), private sector tenants (49%) and black and minority ethnic British residents (31%)”. It also found that “the highest concentrations of under-registration are most likely to be found in metropolitan areas, smaller towns and cities with large student populations, and coastal areas with significant population turnover and high levels of social deprivation”. ConDem MPs assert that the Labour government should have done something about under registration, but it is local authorities that are responsible for electoral registration. And in the last five years it is the Tories and Liberal Democrats that have controlled most local authorities. Their criticisms of Labour are misplaced.

The ConDem coalition argue that it takes more people to elect Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs compared to Labour MPs, but reducing constituencies and introducing AV won’t change that. The fact is the political geography of parliamentary constituencies favoured the Tories in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. It was broadly neutral in the 1970s and 1980s and it has only marginally favoured Labour since the 1990s.

The Liberal Democrats say they are most disadvantaged by the present system. But the Liberal Democrats are not a national party, so dividing their national popular vote by the number of Lib Dem MPs elected in their regional enclaves is statistically invalid and extremely misleading.

This is a thoroughly anti-democratic bill that Labour will continue to vigorously oppose. To compound the political stitch-up, the coalition want to abolish the public inquiries into boundary changes. At a stroke they want to remove the ability of individual citizens and local communities to have a meaningful say over boundary changes in their area. The ConDem MPs who spoke so passionately against the bill would do well to heed the words of former Republican US president, Herbert Hoover, who said: “Words without actions are the assassins of idealism.” The question is; will they acquiesce in the assassination of British democracy.