An autocratic approach to the constitution

By Chris Bryant MP / @ChrisBryantMP

I cannot understand how a Conservative peer could conceive of voting through the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill unamended. Leaving aside the referendum on the Alternative Vote, the second part of the Bill, which will redraw the boundaries of every seat in the UK, is an extraordinary assault on the historic traditions of our parliamentary system.

Unlike other countries, the basis of British representation has always been that communities, rather than just individuals should have their voices heard. So Simon de Montfort in the 13th century summoned four knights from every English shire and within a hundred years it was established that parliament should include two knights from every shire and two burgesses from every town. By the 19th century some of these towns had died and become rotten boroughs, with Cornwall heavily over-represented compared to the new metropolitan centres like Manchester and Leeds, but in essence the principle remained the same. Constituency boundaries were not drawn up according to a strictly mathematical equation, but according to historic cultural ties.

Even with the extension towards universal suffrage the aim was always to try and build politically, geographically and culturally coherent seats. So the Isle of Wight and Anglesey both remain stand-alone seats, despite being larger or smaller than average in terms of numbers of registered voters. Not just geographical boundaries like rivers, estuaries, mountains and valleys but ancient county boundaries were respected. Under-populated rural areas kept their seats.

It’s true that there is a need for greater equalisation of seat size today, but splitting wards between constituencies and constituencies between counties will only confuse voters. That’s why most academics argue that it would make far more sense to amend the Bill so that the vast majority of seats are within 5% either way of the national average number of registered electors, as the government wants, but the Boundary Commissions have a greater 10% leeway where there are exceptional circumstances.

Otherwise the Commissions will have no choice but to draw up what one Lib Dem MP has called “antiseptic constituencies with permanently changing boundaries”. One seat, for the first time, will have to bridge the river Tamar. The isle of Wight will be be split. There will probably not be a single seat with a Welsh-speaking majority – another first. Councillors will find they have two or more MPs for their ward. Voters may find that they are shunted in and out of a seat every general election, so there is no continuity of relationship between voter and MP.

Even with this amendment British seats would be far more equal than in the US, which draws its boundaries on the basis of population rather than registered voters.

I know some Tories will worry about the partisan advantage but it is a myth that rigid equalisation will undo the supposed in-built electoral advantage to Labour. In fact the reason Labour wins more seats with a lower share of the vote is primarily down to the fact that the Tories build up massive majorities in their strongholds thanks to high turnout, whilst in Labour seats the turnout is low.

So a Conservative peer, mindful of our parliamentary traditions, should be supporting amendments to allow a greater leeway, secure in the knowledge that it would not harm the Tory cause.

I hope they would also want to keep full public enquiries as Boundary Commissions have frequently changed their proposals after the public have responded. Especially this time, when every boundary is being redrawn, public enquiries are vital.

There is one other tradition I hope Conservatives would want to maintain – the belief in the Lords as a less partisan chamber regulating itself without government threats or guillotines. There is a challenge here. The combination of the AV referendum and boundary reforms in one bill with a very tight deadline was always a mistake. Bullying noises now from the government are very foolish. Let’s not forget, this is a bill that will dramatically change the way that every MP is elected to parliament. It includes proposals of once-in-a-generation constitutional effect with a reduction in the size of the commons by 50 MPs, a redrawing of virtually every constituency in the UK; and the removal of the mechanism that allows local people to reject those imposed new boundaries if they fail to reflect the community and geographic ties in the area. If the government is determined to have the referendum on 5 May, all it has to do is split the bill. But forcing the bill through the Lords and ignoring every convention is a worrying sign of an autocratic approach to the constitution that should concern us all.