You are here: Home » Comment »

Now let’s make the case for real equal constituencies

August 14, 2012 4:02 pm

Author:

Paul Blomfield

Share this Article

Nick Clegg’s decision to pull the plug on new Parliamentary boundaries appears to give us plenty to cheer. The Tories have been denied the extra seats that their outrageous gerrymandering would have delivered at the next General Election, the new frictions at the heart of the coalition create hope of their early demise, and we are spared the painful diversion of CLP reorganisation. But it would be a mistake simply to celebrate.

Cameron has said he will press ahead for ‘equalisation’ of constituencies, using the language of fairness to mask naked political partisanship. Most people are largely unconcerned about constitutional reform, but the equalisation of constituencies is an argument that has appeal. After all, what’s not to like about constituencies all being the same size? On face value it’s an argument that makes sense and sounds fair. Because of this, and because the Tories have a lot to gain, this argument won’t die a death along with the proposed boundaries.

But Clegg’s veto gives Labour an opportunity to get on the front foot on this issue. When I’ve discussed it with people, they’ve been surprised to find that so-called ‘equal’ constituencies are not based on population size, but on the number of registered voters. They are even more shocked when they discover what we know well – that there’s a huge disparity between the numbers registered in different constituencies. And that gives us a chance to make the case for real equalisation on the basis of population, which will serve the interests of progressive politics.

The Tories have a plan. They know that the five-yearly boundary reviews, which are now embedded in law, will give them the chance to reshape constituencies in their interests. On current registration patterns, wealthy areas with stable populations will have more MPs than urban areas with low electoral registration. And they know that Individual Voter Registration, which comes into effect in 2014, will exacerbate this impact. As the boundary review planned for each Parliament takes place, at the December low point in the registration cycle, more potential urban voters will drop off the register and more Tory seats will be created. Sheffield is a good example.

My constituency is at the heart of Sheffield. It is inner-city and multicultural, with large council estates and lots of houses in multiple occupation, nearly 32,000 students from our two universities, and a high electoral turnover. There are currently 76,000 registered voters, but around 17% of households already have nobody on the electoral register. Next door, Nick Clegg’s Sheffield Hallam is home to our leafiest suburbs; largely monocultural with high levels of owner-occupation and a stable population, has 71,000 registered voters and only 4% of households with nobody registered. There is therefore already a huge disparity between the number of people, as opposed to voters, in each constituency. On these figures, I represent at least 17,600 more adults and that will get more acute in each new Boundary Review.

Creating constituencies of equal electorates ignores the fact that the job of MPs is to represent everybody who lives in their constituency, and not just those who are on the register. Many of my constituents who contact me for assistance are not on the electoral register (and often it’s these people who need most help), but I can’t say to them that I won’t help with their problem or refuse to voice their concerns in Parliament. Democracy doesn’t work like that.

And punishing low levels of registration in inner cities won’t simply get rid of Labour-held seats. By disregarding people who aren’t on the electoral register, the Tories are denying a voice to those who arguably need to be heard the most. We will move towards a US-style democracy in which the urban poor and disengaged will lose their voice, as political parties are forced to focus on those who are registered, and politics shifts towards the Tory agenda.

But there is a progressive alternative, and it’s a simple one. We can turn the argument around by making the democratic case for equalisation of constituencies, on the basis of population. The 2011 census will be published soon and will give us an up-to-date picture of how many people live in each area. Let’s use the opportunity that this presents and pledge in our next manifesto that we would carry out a full boundary review based on the census and equalise constituencies on the basis of population. This isn’t rigging the system in Labour’s favour; it’s acknowledging the reality of the people and places we represent. Couple this pledge with a real commitment to voter registration campaigns and we can not only create fairer constituencies but strengthen our democracy at the same time.

Paul Blomfield is Labour MP for Sheffield Central and a Vice-Chair of the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform. He is on Twitter at @paulblomfieldmp

http://twitter.com/alexhilton Alex Hilton

Sorry Paul but the equal constituencies argument has always been pervese, on whatever basis. It’s a recognition that representation (and in some sense power) is not fairly divided, when the bleedin’ obvious solution is a fairer electoral system, not fiddling with boundaries.

And while Labour give the strong impression of being opposed to reform of the Lords or of electoral reform, it may as well adopt a rallying cry of, “Power to the Politicians!”

Rant over
- John
  
  You are wrong.
  - geedee0520
    
    Excellent, well argued response!
- Robertcp
  
  Alex, I assume that Paul agrees with you if he is in the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform.
Redshift

Well said!
AnotherOldBoy

What a daft idea! So voters whose neighbours either choose not to enrol or who are not allowed to (because they have no right to vote) will count more than those whose neighbours are on the register.

In the particualr case of Sheffield Central with 32,000 students, many will be registered at their homes by their parents. Should they count twice?

The principle of the number of registered voters being a factor has long been at the heart of how boundaries are drawn up. It seems that it is only when continuing changes on the same basis woudl work against Labour that Labour decides that it is the wrong approach. Pure (in a sense!) hypocrisy.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
  
  Students can be registered at two addresses but only vote at one of them
  - itdoesntaddup
    
    Perhaps we should all have the right to register in a second constituency, and choose which one to vote in? Presumably there is no such stricture on local elections anyway – at least in any practical sense.
  - jaime taurosangastre candelas
    
    That sounds like a nonsense. Should we count the 32,000 students in Paul Blomfield’s constituency (he seems to), or at 32,000 separate addresses elsewhere in the country? What happens if the vote is in the term-time? What if it is in the holidays? If all 32,000 were registered in Sheffield, and also in Leeds where their homes may be, do we get two grossly inflated constituencies?
    
    The real question is why it is legal to not be registered (note, that is not the same as it being illegal not to vote). It does not matter whether constituencies are decided by census which is sensible, or by registered voters, which is not if the authorities have no idea who is going to vote or not, and for that you need to tie people to constituencies and to pre-issue them with ballot cards.
    - http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
      
      That’s why they can be registered twice but opt to vote in only one of the seats. No plans to alter that. Students are likely to live half the year in one place and half in the other.
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        But that is wrong. I agree with you on your view of the right to vote not having to be earned, but equally and with that right, the individual citizen should look his State in the eye and declare who he or she is, and where they are legally resident and where they wish to vote. This does not seem complex, even for a student.
        
        It would also not stop a student in Liverpool from seeking the representation of a Liverpool MP, or one in Devon if that is their legal home, whether it be term or holiday time.
      - Redshift
        
        Not exactly the end of the world though is it?
      - itdoesntaddup
        
        Shall I vote in the safe seat my parents live in, or the key marginal where I go to Uni?
        
        You do the math.
    - Mr 0a
      
      This is exactly what happens at the moment though! I remember re-registering at university and getting a polling card at university and at home (I only used one of course!).
      
      These changes are being made exactly along the normal lines.
      
      Labour just don’t like them because in this instance ‘fair’ means less seats for them. It’s naked partisanship, and it will be fun to watch Clegg and Miliband defend unequal constituencies.
      - postageincluded
        
        The Tories aren’t in favour of equal constituencies, as they’re excluding eligible but unregistered residents from the count. Try to keep up.
        
        Oh, and if you think the Big Shiny Head can make any political capital out of this you’re as far removed from reality as he is.
      - John Ruddy
        
        Which is why this suggestion is really great. The argument for equal consitutuencies that the Tories have been putting round to justify their boundary review, also applies to this scheme.
        
        They and you cant argue against equal constituencies on the basis of population…
    - Robertcp
      
      Jaime, it is a legal requirement for every household to fill in the registration form. I think that the Coalition were thinking of getting rid of the legal requirement to register but they dropped that proposal.
- itdoesntaddup
  
  Of course about 17% of students would not be eligible to vote in Parliamentary elections anyway: those from most other EU countries and many from other countries that attract no voting rights in the UK.
- HelloJohn
  
  AnotherOldBoy.
  ‘The principle of the number of registered voters being a factor has long been at the heart of how boundaries are drawn up.’
  The earth was once the centre of the universe, or so they thought, times change things move on. Pure progress not hypocrisy.
  What next only the aristocracy can vote? Prince Charles for PM? Not so much talk to the animals but talk to the trees. Common sense organic really.
KonradBaxter

We should focus on the registered voters first as those are the ones who take the time to be involved in the whole thing. A benefit of being an involved citizen is being listened to.

If the urban poor don’t register then who do they have to blame for not being properly represented when they become invisible?
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
  
  If we prioritise those who are already comfortable, then our politics becomes skewed entirely towards their needs. Its already happened in the USA
  - KonradBaxter
    
    It should act as a spur to the unregistered to register so they can participate fully and benefit. The US shows how this should not be done so lessons to be learnt there.
    
    Why should politics not be skewed towards those who are engaged with and part of the system? Not at the total expense of everyone who isn’t for many complex reasons, but those who are a part of it should benefit.
    - John Ruddy
      
      Because our politicians should represent and work for everyone… if that isnt a statement of the bleedin obvious
      - KonradBaxter
        
        They will never represent everyone because the people have wildly different opinions demands and needs. They can’t work for everyone for similar reasons.
        
        The opinion that this is possible needs to be dropped as it is manifestly not true and can’t be in an electoral system based on competition between different parties.
        
        An MP cannot represent everyone because, for example, the nuclear waste storage complex that some residents want for jobs is opposed by others on the grounds of health and safety. Whichever option the MP chooses, some of the resisdents are losers.
        
        But I’m not talking about the individual constituency here, but the whole system – those who are involved have a greater stake than those who are not. If you are not registered, then there should be incentive to be so.
- Jim Dandy
  
  I think income ought also to be taken into account. People working part-time or for low wages who earn less than £20,000 per annum should be disenfranchised.
  - Mr 0a
    
    I give you some credit for posting that on a Labour website!
    - Jim Dandy
      
      Compliments are always welcome, no matter what the source.
  - Robertcp
    
    I am a democrat, so I think that even idiots like you should be allowed to vote (sorry if this goes too far for the moderator!).
  - postageincluded
    
    Ha ha. Let’s also exclude the biggest section of people who don’t work at all – pensioners. Overall a gain for Labour I’d think.
    - Jim Dandy
      
      Only poor pensioners and benefit claimant pensioners would be stopped from voting and who cares what they think about anything anyway?
      - Robertcp
        
        Some people might not care what you think about anything. Do you think that people will just accept losing their democratic rights? Your suggestion would probably lead to violence.
    - John Ruddy
      
      Yes, lets exclude those that dont work – especially those with independent means, trust funds and supported by daddy etc. We might be able to exclude most of the cabinet on that basis….
  - HelloJohn
    
    Maybe if your name is Jim you should be disenfranchised. Jim’ll fix it.
    What next stop them using the NHS?
    Offspring must leave school @ 11 years old.
    I’ve got it only able to vote if you have won a gold medal. Elections would be cheaper. No more lengthy recounts. My votes with AV but does that make me a Spurs supporter….. Oh do I mean PR. Does that mean prince rules?
    That’s it Charley Boy will fix it.
    Tell him to have a word with his Mum. (Lizzie the ancient one)
    Imaginary friend save the Queen, the who, status quo, madness, small faces, Coldplay, pet shop boys, Annie lennoxxxxxx
statechaos

It is the Local Governmnent Boundary Commission for England who have proposed these changes. Anyone would think it was the Tory party who had cooked them up. Boundaries need to be reviewed on a regular basis in the interests of democracy. They should not be based on population but on registered voters, otherwise constituencies with a high birth-rate and a disproportionate no. of young people would be unfairly represented. I take it that you are only interested in gaining power, and not the manner in which that power is gained?
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
  
  But that wouldn’t be ‘disproprtionate’ – because ask any MP, a lot of the issues and difficulties of a constituency are based on the problems experienced by families and children, particularly those less financially able
- postageincluded
  
  Disingenuous claptrap. The boundary commission has produced the new boundaries in line with new rules “cooked up” by the Tories, they don’t write their own rule book.
  - http://owsblog.blogspot.com Span Ows
    
    you mean the Conservatives have voluntarily opted to have several of their big wigs lose their seat under the new boundaries? hmmmm, thou doth protest too much, methinks
    - John Ruddy
      
      Big wigs? care to name some? You’re not seriously suggesting that Nadine Dorries is a big wig?
      
      And by the way, I dont think the tories realised the consequences of the re-drawing… like a lot of their policies they havnt really thought it through. Hence why I think a number of them will also vote against….
      - Span Ows
        
        George Osborne.
    - http://twitter.com/dadge Adrian
      
      They have indeed voluntary opted to do this. (Except any big names affected will obviously get themselves selected for a new seat.) Pickles briefed all Tory MPs on why they were going for such a radical shake-up, and that some of them would have to suffer for the benefit of the party.
- HelloJohn
  
  Why not then automatic registration?
  Can we have a move to being able to vote from age 16?
  I’m interested in democracy, the best we can get.
DevonChap

Reform shouldn’t be to serve the interests of any particular type of politics, progressive or not. That is gerrymandering and the author should be ashamed to have written that.

Our electoral system is demonstratively unfair. Labour had a majority of 60 on 36% of the vote in 2005, the Tories were short by 20 on 37% in 2010. The author would be very hot under the collar if those results were reversed. A fair system would ensure that for similar votes parties got similar results (and I personally don’t think any party should have a majority if they get less than 40% of the vote). A fair system treats those you don’t like equally to those you do.
- Robertcp
  
  Devonchap, it would be very easy to bring in a semi-proportional system that would ensure that only parties with about 40% or above get a majority. Examples would be a small number of AMS seats, STV with 2-3 member seats or PR with a bonus of seats for the party with the most votes.
  - DevonChap
    
    Easy to devise such a system, no so easy to brig one it. AV showed the public are resistant to major change
    - jaime taurosangastre candelas
      
      …and moreover, whatever the merits of some form of PR, the electorate comprehensively said “No” about a year ago, even if the electorate was offered a poor choice (I have sympathy for that argument). It is therefore not a political reality.
      
      I did vote Lib Dem in May 2010, but not because I am a supporter of PR, as many long term Lib Dems are. I believe it is therefore not incoherent for me to observe that as with many things that are precious to Lib Dem hearts for the last century of opposition, they had their chance, their brief moment in the sun, the hands on the levers of power to actually change something they believe is important, and they blew it. The country is not interested in what they proposed on AV, nor Lords reform, nor local income taxes (which I support).
      
      Oh well, maybe another 100 years on the opposition benches will teach them to get it correct – as in “acceptable to the electorate” – the next time around.
      - John Ruddy
        
        No the electorate said “No” to AV – which is not PR…..
    - Billsilver
      
      Hesitant to bring in non-democratic change actually.
      Is the candidate with which the electorate have the least objection the best candidate?
    - Robertcp
      
      Unfortunately, it is doubtful whether the voting system for the House of Commons will ever be changed but we should carry on arguing for change. It should be remembered that it was only AV that was rejected and not PR.
AnotherDaveB

There is nothing “gerrymandering” about equal-sized constituencies. It’s perfectly proper.

“England is under-represented at Westminster (by 2.4%), Scotland and Northern Ireland are slightly over-represented (by around 7% each) and Wales is significantly over-represented (by 20%)”

http://electoralcalculus.co.uk/PVSCBill_analysis.html
- postageincluded
  
  Why bother reading the artcle when you just cut and paste?
Redshift

It’s funny how none of the Tory trolls on here aren’t addressing the point about individual registration and why exactly that is a preferable system than household registration. Sounds like both an attempt to make sure some voters fall through the net (the most transient) and a hell of a lot more paper work to me.

Why are the Tories so hell bent on lower Britain’s generally pretty admirable electoral registration rates?
- jaime taurosangastre candelas
  
  If I want to vote, I’ll register. If my wife wants to vote, she’ll register.
  
  I am not liable for her taxes, she is not liable for mine. They are paid separately. The only tax we are jointly liable for is Council Tax, and the method of paying that is an anachronism as well – it should be a progressive tax on income, to avoid the nonsense that we pay the same amount as the couple that live in the mirror image of our semi house, despite jointly earning about six times the amount they do.
  
  Why do you want to prolong the most paternalistic registration scheme in Europe? Particularly when it is well known to be linked to electoral fraud and some very non-western ideas on democracy in some constituencies.
  
  The real issue is finding out who these unregistered voters are, and asking them why they cannot be bothered to register? Is there a proper reason, or is it simply laziness?
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
    
    As I think voting is a right of citizenship and not something that has to be ‘earned’, I think everything should be done to make it as easy as possible for people do vote
    
    The fact that people who are poor are less likely to be on the register would concern Labour-minded people, but neo-liberals would just see it as an extension of the ‘laziness’ of the poor. Shame you didn’t throw feckless in as well!
    - jaime taurosangastre candelas
      
      Voting is a right of citizenship, but registering to vote is hardly difficult. You wait until the form drops through the letterbox, you sign it and you put it in the post back to the council. Freepost, at least in Cambridgeshire.
      
      Does that qualify as “difficult” in your book? Perhaps it appears in Chapter 492 of the left whinger’s book of excuses.
      
      If you think that equates to having to “earn it” and is some dreadful ploy to deprive people of the vote, I despair.
      - Redshift
        
        Not as easy if you tend to rent and have a 6 month lease. In that case you have to go to a very particular effort of dealing with the local authority separately and if you don’t know what department you need to speak to that can be a real pain in the arse.
      - KonradBaxter
        
        But it is still not actually that difficult – we have this thing called ‘google’ for a start. If you are really that lazy and uninterested that you can’t be bothered to spend 30 minutes in 6 months to exercise your right to vote then why should it be made easier?
    - KonradBaxter
      
      Is it ‘earning’ a vote when you have to register? No, of course not.
      
      Making it easier and easier to vote is a way to see more fraud. The system needs to be robust and dependable and that means not having one person register the whole house or be a representative of that whole house.
      
      If you are not registered to vote when it is already easy what else can we call it other than laziness?
  - postageincluded
    
    Paternalistc? You’re just parroting Tory spin, there’s nothing paternalistic about it. Either of you can fill in the form the first time you do it at a new address. Next year it comes back in the name of whoever filled it in last year, him or her.
    
    The method you, and the Tories prefer uses more trees too.
    - Redshift
      
      Well said.
  - HelloJohn
    
    Is there a proper reason….. Long work hours, two jobs, poor pay, disability,brainwashed into thinking it makes no difference, confused, low self esteem, being called a failure at school, knowing their place, thinking their all the same,want to vote for a party that’s not standing where they live, ….or is it simply laziness?
    Many years ago I lodged with an old lady who didn’t vote. She said she didn’t feel she knew enough about it to make a correct decision. Who are we to disagree? To explain the system dispassionately is expensive and I feel is not done sufficiently. Look what job the newspaper barons have done. Money talks as they say.
    - jaime taurosangastre candelas
      
      It’s really not hard. Fill in the little form. Put it into the postbox. How many more excuses do you want in life if even that is too hard for you?
      - Redshift
        
        Not if you move house regularly because you rent.
        
        Have you got a total mental block when it comes to considering people who are in different circumstances to you?
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        I don’t believe I’ve got a mental block on this, but whether I do or not is not really important.
        
        The registration issue is not going to go away, even if constituencies are equalised on population, which they should be. You’ll still need to register to actually go off and vote. You can’t vote without a ballot card, for which the authorities need to know your name and address, and they are not going to know that by telepathy, are they?
        
        There’s no single database of adults and addresses in the country, because not everyone works or pays tax, we don’t have a national ID card scheme, your NI number is not linked to an address, and so on. And that would be at a national level – councils have even less information to go on. That’s why if you want to vote, you have to register, and it is hardly difficult, even for those moving house 10 times a year. You fill in the form the council sends you, or if you have just moved, you get hold of the council, tell them your name and address and that’s it.
        
        Or do you expect people to just be able to turn up to the polling station and vote on the day, no pre-registration needed? There are about a dozen reasons why that is a completely stupid idea, even to the level of the OSCE declaring our elections to be fundamentally flawed.
        
        If you seriously believe that people who cannot manage that should somehow be given some extra help, then you should seriously consider whether people in that position actually have the intellectual capacity to vote properly.
      - http://twitter.com/dadge Adrian
        
        Just to make a couple of corrections. Firstly, you can of course vote without your ballot card (or any other ID), as long as you’re on the register. Despite this the level of personation is very low. Secondly, most councils are now using other databases to add people to the register if they haven’t registered. They started doing this because parliament rightly complained that too many people were dropping off the register. (There is an out-and-out reluctance to prosecute anyone who fails in this duty.)
      - KonradBaxter
        
        It’s still not a massive problem if you move house on a regular basis.
      - John Ruddy
        
        yes he does. It doesnt matter what the topic is, if its easy for him to do, everyone else can do it too. NO thought that other people’s circumstances might be different, and that it is the job of the state to equalise that.
      - HelloJohn
        
        At what point did I say filling the form in was hard? However for a few it will be. Why should they be disenfranchised? We are meant to be living in a democracy. All I’m suggesting is a level playing field. But with our present system money talks and ‘buys’ an advantage.
  - Redshift
    
    In many cases it is linked to credit rating and debt. In some cases a lack of education. Some people have language barriers. In others it is laziness.
    
    Probably the biggest reason however, is the increasing transience of the population. The canvass is annual, if you move house after it, that’s a whole year before you’ll be unregistered unless you make a very specific effort to ensure it happens, with varying degrees of responsiveness from different local authorities. After a year, you could well have missed an election anyway and on top of that you could often have moved again (6 month leases increasingly common). The point is that the Tories continue to maintain that registering is a legal requirement but are intentionally ensuring that less people do so by making multiple people in the same household duplicate exactly the same process.
    - KonradBaxter
      
      The information is different for each person so of course it should be separate for each person. People do not vote in blocks like a union block vote. They are all individual and vote individually so all need to be registered individually.
      - http://twitter.com/dadge Adrian
        
        Household registration saves a lot of time and money. Individual registration makes sense in theory, but it’ll be a disaster if it causes tens of thousands of people to drop off the register.
- AnotherOldBoy
  
  Individual registration helps avoid electoral fraud when false names are given at an address by the householder.
itdoesntaddup

The Census supposedly records everyone who was in the country – even on
a single night stay. Not sure that that is appropriate at all.

The job of MPs is to represent constituents, not those not entitled to
vote. Those people are represented by their embassies and consulates.
- postageincluded
  
  The census records residency/nationality too, so it would be easy to exclude non-residents or non- nationals. Most people who are not registered are UK citizens so your quibble makes no difference to the argument.
- HelloJohn
  
  Children are not entitled to vote. They do however pay tax. VAT.
  Maybe only the titled should vote. Peer into the future and see a better world.
  - Gurly Boy
    
    Yes. Let’s lower the voting age to… ten?… no… children buy sweets younger than ten… five?… two?… oh let’s let zero year old children have the vote before they can talk, read or write. Yea. That makes sense.
    - Redshift
      
      Before you completely ridicule lowering the voting age totally – it is worth noting 16 year olds can not only be in full-time work but can join the armed forces. Why shouldn’t we lower the voting age?
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        Or raise the age people can join the army to 18 – we should not be sending children to war, or indeed allowing them to marry while children, as can be done at age 16 as well.
    - HelloJohn
      
      I’m suggesting the whole population should be taken into account when drawing up a constituency. MP’s will have to address everyone’s concerns. Sure starts for the little ones. Health and safety for migrant workers. Remember we are all in it together. I’m sure you can think of some more. MP’s should not just be concerned with the voter aged/enabled ones. Hopefully the nippers will as time passes grow up and become part of a mature voting citizenship. Does that make sense?
postageincluded

And while we’re at it we should do something about non-resident UK citizens voting rights too. They shouldn’t have any.
HelloJohn

Could you make a case for more MPs and less Peers? Greater population seen in census. Use the money saved on Peers to fund a greater number of MPs.
Billsilver

Some voters more equal than others then?
Now that’s what I call democracy.
- Casio
  
  It’s the best democracy that money can buy.
https://mikestallard.virtualgallery.com/ Mike Stallard

I am profoundly shocked by this excellent article. I had no idea that voters were counted by their registration. Thanks to the break down of State Education in quite a lot of places and thanks to the dreadful effects of the Welfare State going berserk, lots of people simply throw their documentation away and wait and see. They are therefore, no doubt, disenfranchised.
I hadn’t seen this. Now that the schools have sold off their playing fields, it is time to use the cliche:
Please may we have a level playing field?

PS And then stop the scandal of postal voting too.
Mark

If medical services in constituencies were determined by the number of people who are registered with doctors rather than by size of population the nation would be in trouble. Obviously whenever anything is divided and/or distributed by area, including constituency boundaries, it should be done by size of population rather than by the size of some subgroup distinguished by voter registration. I really can’t believe we’re actually having this argument in the 21st century. Once upon a time only male landowners could vote in elections while today after achieving universal suffrage, thank God, pretty much every citizen over eighteen years of age has the right to vote if they choose to including women and the penniless. It seems extraordinary that in a mature democracy in this day and age anybody could defend deliberately “disappearing” millions of souls from constituency boundary calculations on the basis that they happen not to be registered to vote, for whatever reason, when the calculation takes place.
http://owsblog.blogspot.com Span Ows

You seem to have missed the point: the boundary changes aren’t gerrymandering, quite the opposite! Your general point is a good one (‘real’ equal constituencies) but by making silly statements in the first paragraph you detract from the point!
- Redshift
  
  Why did they pick the number of seats that would lead to the greatest disadvantage to the Labour Party then?
LaurenceB

An MP, once elected, is expected to serve every one of his constituents equally, including the ones who voted for someone else of didn’t bother to vote for anybody at all. Therefore constituency boundaries have to be determined by the overall number of people within them not the number of registered voters within them in order to ensure that every MP has a similar number of constituents he/she is expected to serve.
Tom

While there are many good points here I think Labour’s line on this needs to be much more careful, and acknowledge scope for reasonable disagreement and debate, rather than just hurling accusations of gerrymandering at the other side. First of all, it’s patently obvious that having drawn up boundaries at some point using some criteria, those will then be periodically reviewed and updated for population movements. This should be a matter of slightly boring practicality rather than political bickering, and Labour will look bad if we give the impression that we oppose review at any stage. There are two points for us to be making:
Most importantly I would have thought, should be highlighting the seat reduction as part of this review. There’s no obvious reason for it and the Tories only mutter a few words about saving some money. Labour’s response should be to argue that such a reduction is reducing people’s democratic representation (more voters demanding the time of the same MP) for paltry savings, and makes the government less accountable to Parliament since they aren’t planning on reducing the government payroll.
Secondly, as argued here, we should make the case for population rather than registered voters as an index, but again with caution. It isn’t obvious that such a system is always better, but I would suggest it makes more sense in the context of a FPTP system, where the role of Parliament is primarily to serve local constituents and be held accountable to them, rather than be a statistical representation of the views of the entire country, which is a secondary consideration. Put this way, Labour’s response can be to try to start a discussion about which principles we actually are trying to achieve with our political system and so try and argue through hypocrisy from either side.
As a practical immediate point of view, it might not hurt for Labour to announce that given the period of time since the last boundary review, we’d be happy to vote one through, but not with an unnecessary and even detrimental seat reduction, and not with such a strict deviation limit brought in with no precedent, such that traditional local boundaries are ignored.
- KonradBaxter
  
  ” Labour’s response should be to argue that such a reduction is reducing people’s democratic representation”
  
  In that case if we tripled the amount of MP’s the nation would be three times as democratic.
  
  Seriously, do we need the number we have? What of all the EU produced legislation? Do we get value for money in relation to the work the MP’s do nationally and locally? What is the magic number for constituents to representatives? When does it shift from democracy to non democracy? Can one person represent the views of a million people? 500,000? 10?
  
  Reducing the total number does not inherently reduce democracy.
  
  “Put this way, Labour’s response can be to try to start a discussion about which principles we actually are trying to achieve with our political system”
  
  Yes. Totally agree.
  - Tom
    
    It was probably misleading of me to put “democratic” in there; obviously reducing the number of MPs does not inherently reduce democracy. Without that though the point stands as almost tautologically true: reducing the number of MPs reduces the share of a representative’s time each person has. Tripling the number of MPs has several obvious reasons why it isn’t worth increasing representation that much: the impracticality of that many people being expected to debate in a single chamber, the obvious fact that the current building literally wouldn’t hold that many etc.
    
    There’s just no obvious reasons for reducing the number. Yes we have lots of EU legislation now but that hasn’t reduced the amount the UK parliament produces; if anything more parliamentary time has often been needed to make our legislation compatible. Many people don’t get a chance to speak with their MP at constituency surgeries, lots of legislation gets passed without being read by many MPs, more and more MPs are on the payroll so the backbenches are smaller. How does any of this suggest an inefficiently large parliament?
    - KonradBaxter
      
      “reducing the number of MPs reduces the share of a representative’s time each person”
      
      Maybe so, but then my point still stands – we chould triple the number of MPs so that everyone has an even greater share of an MP each.
      
      Parliament could move or there could be Skype debates or MPs could use block votes within their own party – none of the number-to-space-or-time arguments are killer rebuttals in their own right.
      
      India has 790 MPs. The UK has 650. Which has the largest electorate?
      
      Why do we need so many? What is the reason? Is it because life is complex, becasue of history, because of population? Is it about parilamentary time or about the number of MP’s? If legislation is being passed without being read by many MP’s then what are they doing there? The fact there are so many payroll MP’s means the government can buy votes and support which is another problem which could be addressed.
      
      Is the fact we may have too many just a weird taboo because we believe we will be worse off without quite as many?
    - HelloJohn
      
      Use the house of lords as a second chamber full of elected MP’s . And not by the people who use it now. Use the money saved by abolishing the house of lords to fund the extra MP’s. If they need the views of experts call them in to select committees. More MP’s, smaller constituencies based on census populations, I feel would be more democratic
John Ruddy

And people who have to move every 6 months are really liable to have a landline with a 12/18/24 month broadband contract, arnt they.
- http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David
  
  I assume this comment is “orphaned” from somewhere below, however:
  
  The Post Office (amongst others) offer month-by-month contracts on their “homephone”.
  
  Many 12 month contracts these days allow you to move so long as you take the contract with you.
  
  Broadband is also routinely available in local libraries.
  - HelloJohn
    
    David local libraries are you having a laugh. It has very probably closed.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

The two arguments appearing below seem to revolve around the question of whether:

a) MPs should represent a given number of people so that they are (in theory at least) able to offer equal % of their time to any constituent (whether they can/did vote for that MP); or

b) MPs should be fairly chosen by an equivalent number of electors, meaning that each voting constituent’s vote is “worth” an equivalent % of the total.

Both arguments have merits, but to choose one or the other on the basis of the expected results (pro- or anti- a party) is profoundly undemocratic: there will be changes, and it is unreasonable to stand in the way of that to achieve short-term partisan gain.

The separate argument is whether/that Labour have a “built-in” majority, and if so whether/how that can/should be eliminated (which the argument above is believed to address to a greater or lesser extent). Comments regarding PR are, I suggest, a red herring: as pointed out below a change to the voting system was rejected, and there is no current polling that I am aware of that suggests that PR would be more popular than AV was thought to be.
jaystar

This whole discussion of constituency boundaries ignores the elephant of our unfair electoral system.
There is no point of fiddling about with constituency boundaries when it takes
35,000 votes to elect one Tory MP
33,000 votes to elect one Labour MP
120,000 votes to elect one Lib Dem MP

Reducing the number of MPs just makes it worse.

It is time to recognise that FPTP has to be replaced.
- Stephen
  
  After the next election it won’t matter so much because the Lib Dems will be extinct.
ThePurpleBooker

Not often that I always end up agreeing with Paul Blomfield, but he makes an interesting case something that Sadiq Khan should look at. I think it is fair to say that we are safe from the Tories’ gerrymandering, which is why all marginal and winnable seats we should take in 2015 as well as seats were our MPs have already confirmed their resignations, must start selecting their candidates before Christmas, i.e. right now.
Pingback: The Electoral Reform Society blog

Latest

Comment
The culture of high risk credit is being exploited by betting shops

By Matthew Zarb-Cousin

Since the financial crisis, the perfect storm of recession and banks restricting access to credit has led to the rise of payday lenders. Our high streets are slowly deteriorating from the vibrant, diverse places they once were into an abyss of pawnbrokers, payday loan shops and bookies. The three feed off of each other, targeting some of our most deprived areas and perpetuating a cycle of despair driven by the need for extra income. Research carried out by Geofutures found [...]
Read more →
Comment
Should people be asked if they are party supporters when they register to vote?

Chris Clark and Rav Seeruthun on a small change that if adopted, would free activists to spend more time on community work Every year at party conferences we hear professional politicians eulogise hard-working party volunteers. And there’s no activity more often evoked than that of ‘knocking on doors’. It’s a common delusion that the purpose of doorstep canvassing is to ‘persuade’ voters. Having taken part in our fair share of Labour canvassing sessions, we’ve both had the dispiriting experience of [...]
Read more →
Europe Featured
You can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe

By Douglas Alexander

Europe is not often the issue which comes top of people’s concerns on the doorstep. Nor do opinion polls suggest that Europe is a priority for voters when compared to issues like the economy or jobs. But you can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe. This week saw over a hundred Conservative MPs rebel and vote against their own Queens Speech. They were angry that it hadn’t included a bill which would [...]
Read more →
News Seats and Selections
Vicky Foxcroft selected as Labour’s PPC for Lewisham Deptford

Vicky Foxcroft has been selected by Lewisham Deptford CLP as the party’s candidate for 2015 at a selection meeting this afternoon. Here’s a brief biography: Vicky grew up in the North West in a single parent household, and was the first person in her family to go to university. She has held many positions in the party including Chair of Labour Students, has sat on the National Policy Forum and is currently a local councillor and is Chair of Lewisham [...]
Read more →
Comment
Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

By Mike Ion

Stephen Twigg, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary is one of the more thoughtful and pragmatic individuals to hold this vitally important brief for some time. To his credit Stephen has been out and about these past two years listening to pupils, teachers, parents and governors and finding out more about the challenges they face on a day-to-day basis. In addition Stephen has been looking closely at some local, regional, national and international programmes that have had a demonstrable impact in raising [...]
Read more →