You are here: Home » News »

The Tories appear to have given up on boundary changes

September 14, 2012 4:14 pm

Author:

Mark Ferguson

Share this Article

The Tories have now followed Labour and the Lib Dems in beginning to select candidates on the basis of existing boundaries, rather than the hypothetical boundaries that they were seeking to implement with boundary changes/a reduction in the number of MPs, reports ConHome.

Although Grant Shapps denies this, that’s clearly a tacit acceptance that Cameron has given up on getting boundary changes through the commons, with all that entails for the next election.

As I’ve noted before, under existing boundaries, the Tories would need an 11% lead in the polls to win a majority. They’re currently 9% behind…

http://twitter.com/HarryThompson11 Harry Thompson

11% lead just isn’t happening – he got 7% after Brown, he’ll never increase his vote share.

With boundary changes gone, the chance of a Tory majority is essentially gone.
- http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh
  
  The chance of a Tory plurality of seats in the event of a hung parliament has gone, even if they are 1% ahead which won’t happen because that 45% of the LD vote has swung our way (but it is not enough).
aracataca

Forgive me Mark for throwing a spanner in the works but 2 points:
1 Shapps has given the Tory party a get out clause. Further in the Con home article it states:
Procedures will be put in place which will decide how adopted candidates are re-allocated to new seats if the new boundaries are eventually passed. All candidates seeking selection on existing boundaries will be expected to sign up, unconditionally, to these procedures.
2. What is the actual arithmetic on this measure? In particular aren’t the Fibs going to be thrown something, ie some piddling/irrelevant civil liberties measure? How are the SNP and Ulster MPs going to vote? I am pretty sure Plaid will oppose it.
- PaulMJLynch
  
  I, for one, would love to watch what happens to the Tories when ‘selected candidates’ are ‘re-allocated’ to other constituencies. Other constituencies that, potentially, could be miles away from where the candidates have spent months ‘connecting with the electorate’ (watching the local sports teams etc)
- postageincluded
  
  Dead right. They’re Tories; they can’t be trusted.
  
  Nevertheless, with the LibDems voting against I can’t see how the bill could pass. Only the Democratic Unionist have come out in favour. SNP, Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and the Green Party have come out against. Even if Cameron can persuade the Alliance Party (?) and Sylvia Hermon (very unlikely) that still leaves him short by 7(ignoring the probable Labour win in Corby).
  
  Salmond’s six votes are probably the most buyable, and we can be sure he’d extract the maximum price, but it’s still not enough if everybody turns up - including those on stretchers (spot the reference!).
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001102865655 John Ruddy
  
  The SNP are going to vote in favour of the boundary changes, on the basis of anything that makes a Tory Government more likely in 2015 is going to help boost the Yes vote in 2014.
  
  Cynical or what?
  - aracataca
    
    Cynical indeed, but I’ve got a horrible feeling that this measure is going to pass through Parliament after all. In particular I have no faith whatsoever in the capacity of the Fib Dems to stick by any undertaking that they give.
robertcp

A Tory lead in votes with Labour getting more seats is possible. Will electoral reform for the House of Commons be back on the agenda if that happens?
- postageincluded
  
  I don’t see why “a Tory lead in votes with Labour getting more seats” should be an issue. It didn’t bother the Tories in 1951 when the reverse happened and the Tories got an absolute majority, why should it bother Labour now?
  
  However, I would be all in favour of redrawing the boundaries on the basis of those eligible to vote, according to the census, instead of those who have registered to vote. That would be a much fairer system than the present one.
- http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh
  
  It won’t happen and no electoral reform won’t happen, Robert.
  - robertcp
    
    Renie, my understanding is that if the Tories are 2-3% ahead they will still not be the biggest party. That sounds perfectly possible. They will go on about the boundary changes if it happens and Ed Miliband will probably point out that they supported FPTP in the referendum.
    
    Electoral reform does look very unlikely but if we continue to have hung Parliaments it will keep the voting system on the agenda.
https://mikestallard.virtualgallery.com/ Mike Stallard

The LibDems have more or less handed Labour the next election on a plate.
The right is split into UKIP, the Conservatives and the Cameroon/Coalition now and there is an open goal.
(I am a Tory troll, remember) You are welcome to the LibDems. They are not up to governing this country.
- Serbitar
  
  The boundary changes would have gone ahead if the Conservatives had honoured promises made to the Liberal Democrats in respect to House of Lords reform. So now in order for the likes of Peter Lilley and his ilk to continue to become members of the Upper House the Tories have sacrificed any chance they might fleetingly have had to form a majoritarian government in 2015. The Tories were at fault and now will pay the price: David Cameron will go down in history as a one-term Prime Minister who never won an election. Finis.
ManchesterMaddy

Having the system rigged in our favour is not really something to be proud of.
- LordElpus
  
  Thoroughly agree – but of course with Milliband, Balls, Cooper and Harmann in charge everything will be rosy in the garden.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/FGQIBLTXGYWYWUQWWPHYJCHXNI Bob Smith
  
  I’ve said to other Labour people before that we should be very wary about appearing to be completely partisan about these matters and seeming not to care about the fairness of the system. In particular I think Labour should definitely make it clear we do think there needs to be a boundary review implemented at this time, just not one that arbitrarily cuts down the number of seats and sets more importance on a very tight limit for variation over traditional local boundaries. However, I would never go so far as to say we have the current system “rigged in our favour”. Factors like the lower typical seat size in Wales would obviously be changed in any review, but Labour didn’t create oddities like that in the past as part of some cunning plan.
  
  And after any boundary review, it will remain the case for some years that we can win a majority on less votes than the Tories, because that’s just how the demographics and vote distributions are at the moment. Again, we didn’t orchestrate it. The fact that each boundary review reduces that advantage a bit is showing that natural demographic movements are changing that situation: Labour voters moving out of marginal Labour urban seats to safe Tory rural seats is gradually changing the fact that Tory votes stack up in very strong seats more than ours.
  
  In FPTP the votes for a majority is affected by how people are distributed. Accepting that is part of accepting that voting system. The principled position for Labour is to say that yes, we benefit from that at the moment, but the Tories benefited in the past and will do again. As time erodes our advantage, we will let the boundaries reflect that, but there’s no need to think that somehow the boundaries need to run ahead of where people actually are.
- http://profile.yahoo.com/JP42QNYATVR2UKDJIUXUEV6RNY Michael
  
  Better than it being rigged in the Tories favour.
aracataca

How many DUPs are there?
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1557475545 Jack Bonner
  
  If the Tories and DUP back it we have 315 MPs in support (8 DUP). If Labour and the Liberals all vote, we have 315 MPs (including those who were Labour but have been kicked out etc). If the SDLP, Greens and PC vote as we expect them to, we have 322 MPs against. If the SNP vote as we expect them to, we have 328 against.
  
  Of course, not all MPs are going to vote, and I suspect there might even be a couple of Tory MPs unhappy with the plans.
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
    
    There are at least 2 Tories who are unbiddable and have said they will vote against – Philip Davies, whose seat at Shipley would disappear into three seats, two Labour probables, and of course Nadine Dorries!
williamtheconker

All you’re doing Mark is pointing out how much the boundaries are skewed in favour of Labour.

And funnily enough postageincluded (see 2nd post below) not many people trust Labour.
aracataca

Sorry Jack it may be me but you’ve got 2 against figures here.
Could you clarify how many SNPs there are and how they might vote.
- postageincluded
  
  There are 6 SNP MPs, and the SNP is currently against.
  
  I wouldn’t trust Salmond as far as I could throw him though – and, well, look at him!
  - aracataca
    
    Thanks. So my assumption that the SNP will vote in favour because it increases the possibility of a future Tory govt in Westminster and thereby boosts the chances of a YES vote in the referendum is incorrect?
aracataca

6 ( snps)+315 doesn’t make 328-well it didn’t last time I checked. snps are voting in favour aren’t they?
http://profile.yahoo.com/JP42QNYATVR2UKDJIUXUEV6RNY Michael

It’s not about fairness, it’s about the Tories needing to rig the constituencies so that they can win next time. If they had been elected with a huge majority in 2010 with the existing boundaries do you really think they would be desperate to change them before the next election?
http://profile.yahoo.com/JP42QNYATVR2UKDJIUXUEV6RNY Michael

Does anyone think that if the Tories had won a huge majority in 2010 on the existing boundaries they would have been so desperate to change them in the interests of “fairness”? Reducing the number of MPs by fifty is the Tories’ way of guaranteeing that the mountain they have to climb at the next election is considerably reduced. What is the justification for removing fifty MPs from the commons when the population has increased by millions in the last ten years? Surely more MPs are needed? Instead of which the Tories and their Lib Dem Stooges have created hundreds more unelected, unaccountable Lords.

Latest

Comment
Why Labour is fighting for the legalisation of Humanist marriages today

By Glenys Thornton

Monday saw the first day of Committee on the Same Sex Marriage Bill, where it became clear after a three hour debate on how to distinguish Same Sex Marriage from so called “traditional” marriage that opposition to this bill has not gone away. Despite a huge defeat on Second Reading, opponents reheated and repeated their earlier speeches, in part because their arguments rely on belief and prejudice not evidence or fact. So we sat until 11pm debating conscience clauses, Registrars [...]
Read more →
Comment
Sometimes what is unsaid at PMQs is the most important thing of all…

By Mark Ferguson

Well that was a bad PMQs for Ed Miliband – the second in a row. Perhaps he hasn’t gotten back into his stride after such a long period without the weekly Wednesday joust, but whatever it is, Miliband isn’t hitting his marks at PMQs. Meanwhile Cameron – who has been jousting with world leaders this week – seemed far more o top of his game than we’ve been used to seeing him lately. Alas the problem for Miliband was that [...]
Read more →
Video
Cameron refuses to answer question on secret government plans to hike interest on student loans

Last week it was revealed that the government discussed secret plans to hike interest on pre-existing student loans, meaning that anyone with a student loan will be expected to pay far more than expected. Today, the Prime Minister was asked about this – he spoke for nearly a minute but wouldn’t answer the question. What does he have to hide? How much more does he expect graduates to pay?
Read more →
Comment
Who benefits? Delivering on energy and infrastructure

By John Woodcock

Across the industrial north, it is striking how old pit villages and industrial towns are proving far less willing to embrace renewable energy than the noisier, more polluting fossil fuels and industries which shaped their identity. Energy companies are getting a nasty shock after mistakenly believing that these communities would not bat an eyelid at a few wind turbines on the surrounding hills because they had been content to make huge slag heaps part of the landscape in decades past. [...]
Read more →
News
Put reckless bankers in jail – Media roundup: June 19th, 2013

Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this (and much more) in your inbox. You can sign up here. Put reckless bankers in jail Britain’s banking bosses should face jail if their decisions force fresh bailouts, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards says today. The commission’s hotly anticipated report urges the Chancellor, George Osborne, to oversee the [...]
Read more →