Additional research by Maria Arbiter of the Fabian Society
The Liberal Democrats will be the party most affected by the cut in the number of seats announced by Nick Clegg on Monday, research undertaken by Left Foot Forward reveals. In his statement on constitutional and political reform, in which he confirmed the news broken by Left Foot Forward a week ago, that a referendum of electoral reform would be held on May 5th next year, the deputy prime minister unveiled plans for a boundary review – resulting in the loss of 50 MPs.
More than 40 per cent of Lib Dem seats (23 out of 57) are isolated, surrounded entirely by seats of opposing parties – including Mr Clegg’s Sheffield Hallam constituency – while his Coalition partners are the least likely to be affected: just 1.3 per cent of Tory seats (4 out of 307) are isolated. For Labour, the figure is 4.7 per cent (12 out of 258).
As a consequence of the boundary review, some seats will stay the same size while others will get much larger, which we haven’t accounted for. On a uniform enlargement, however, it is clear the Liberal Democrats stand to be affected the most from enlarging constituencies to take in areas of non-Lib Dem held seats.
While it has been suggested by some that Labour’s opposition to the propsed changes is purely cynical, there are many principle reasons for opposing these particular reforms, one of them being that cutting the number of MPs would do nothing to improve proportionality, as explained below.
During the writing of the Jenkins ‘Commission on the Voting System,’ Dr. David Butler, the eminent psephologist, was asked to convene a group of academics – including Vernon Bogdanor, John Curtice, and Patrick Dunleavy – to consider a series of questions including, “Can deviation from proportionality under the current system be corrected to any significant degree by changing the criteria for redrawing constituency boundaries?”
They replied:
“The principal sources of disproportionality have nothing to do with boundary-drawing or the detailed statutory rules which the Boundary Commissioners have to apply. Changes in these rules would do very little to make results more proportional…
“In general, no significant reduction in disproportionality can be expected from further action to improve the workings of FPTP.”
The Butler discussion also looked at ‘bias‘ which has swung from the Conservatives in the 1950s and 1960s to Labour in recent years. They outlined a number of solutions, including “more frequent drawing of boundaries” but concluded that:
“All of these policies would be likely to prove controversial. In any event only a limited net difference could possibly result from pursuing these approaches. They could not cure the disproportionality of the sort experienced by the SNP and the Liberal Democrats.”
More recently, the Independent recently cited new research at the University of Plymouth :
“The geography of each party’s support base is much more important, so changes in the redistribution procedure are unlikely to have a substantial impact and remove the significant disadvantage currently suffered by the Conservative Party.”
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
30 Responses to “Lib Dem turkeys vote for Christmas”
Rich
It’s pretty obvious people aren’t understanding what gerrymandering means. The current system suffers from it already, and new boundaries fixes the disparities in constituencies. Just because a current imbalance would be fixed doesn’t make it gerrymandering. Labours defence of the bad status quo is a bit pathetic really. Putting your party before voters again?
The article is pretty demonstrative of how Labour is attacking the Lib Dems on anything. One moment we’re in the coalition out of pure greed, then you say we’re idiots doing something that’ll hurt us. Have you thought that perhaps we have principles that we’re staying consistent to?
The quote from the Jenkins ‘Commission on the Voting System’ seems to miss the very bit it quotes, in that boundaries are part of the problem, just not the principal issue. It finishes that changes in the rules wouldn’t significantly effect the FPTP system, with no mention of the effect when combined with any form of PR or AV. Poorly written article it seems, that assumes we won’t read the articles it selectively quotes and interprets poorly.
Chris
@Rich
Spouting the LibDem party line yet again. I understand perfectly what gerrymandering means and the reduction in the number of MPs is a perfect example of it. One of the key aims of the Boundary Commission has *always* been to produce constituencies of approximately equal size and the next one won’t be any different except the upper and lower bounds on size will be tighter and county boundaries will be ignored if necessary. That is *not* gerrymandering, the last boundary review has only just been implemented and didn’t affect the election very much.
Now, reducing the number of constituencies is a blatant attempt at gerrymandering. The financial reasoning for the reduction is totally undermined by the fact they are planning to pack the Lords with over 100 new peers, all getting a nice fat allowance for turning up. How can you claim to support a fairer voting system and be staying true to your principles, when you are supporting a policy which will actually make FPTP less proportional.
Arguments that Labour seats are smaller in population terms are overblown, people who vote Labour are generally more transient and less likely to be on the electoral roll. That is why there are an estimated 3.5 million people missing from the electoral roll, Labour have tried to increase voter registration in government but it is actually local councils job to do so. Also, Labour voters are less likely to vote if they live in a safe seat where as Tory voters, in general, see it as more of a civic duty and thus turn out to vote in seats that have been tory since time began.
Another nail in the coffin of this policy is that the redrawing will be based on this Decembers electoral roll and the 2001 census. If the LibCons waited for a year they’d have the 2011 census data which would give a much more accurate picture but that wouldn’t suit the Tories. By using the old data it is more likely that the seats that will be merged are inner city Labour seats. Also, they are desperate to push this through in time for the next general election. As they’d like to have some extra gerrymandered safe seats for themselves while simultaneously reducing the number of safe Labour seats.
Rich
How is it gerrymandering for constituencies to have the same number of electors? You fail to address this point, and spout a lot of stuff unrelated to the actual specific issue. Their is a vast difference between constituencies, something very clear to me going from inner London to a Welsh seat and the amount of people able to vote.
How does this make FPTP less proportional exactly? As for those missing from the electoral roll, Labour failed to make progress on this issue, and the coalition has started a push to actually do something.
You seem to be blaming the coalition for Labours failures, and blowing up small issues into big ones. Stop calling it gerrymandering. Straw was an idiot when he used it in parliament, and repeating it doesn’t make it anymore accurate! He’s one of the worst people in your party, especially if you’re supposedly on the left. You’re just repeating a bad line by a right wing politician.
Chris
@Rich
“How is it gerrymandering for constituencies to have the same number of electors?”
Its not!!! And I and stated categorically in my first paragraph that it wasn’t, FFS can’t you read? One more time to re-enforce the point for the illiterate Lib Dem apologist – Equal size constituencies are not gerrymandering but the reduction in the number of MPs is.
Reducing the number of MPs will favour the Tories, it’ll mean fewer inner city seats and towns more likely to be part of a much larger rural seat. This is exactly why the Tories have had this proposal in their manifesto for years. Your question about proportionality is answered in the article but as your illiterate I doubt you read it.
On the subject of voter registration, you say Labour made no progress – you are *totally wrong*, Labour spent time and money to increase voter registration including setting up the Electoral Commission and funding adverts in TV, papers, online, etc. I’m not blaming the LibCons for Labours failings, I am attacking the LibCons for engaging in a blatant attempt to gerrymander the electoral system by reducing the number of MPs, using outdated census and voter registration data when better data is available within a year. And finally for not conducting a voter registration drive before forcing through dramatic changes to our constitution. They are, as you put it, putting their parties before voters although in the LibDems case they’re putting their party behind the Tories.
Rich
The issue of constituency size and the number is linked when you’re starting from the basis of constituencies already being different sizes. Reducing the number of overall MPs has also been Lib Dem policy for sometime. As for what the article says, rereading it yet again, it oddly seems to say what I originally thought it said still.
Labour made a start on electoral registration, although as usual with an oddly half hearted effort. For Labour to suddenly start criticising the coalition on this, when it’s also said it would be tackling voter registration is bizarre.
On using outdated information, this is true at any point in time. The boundary commission will continue to update boundaries as it always has with the most recent information. It has to start sometime. As usual, your argument is based on party politics over the nation. You’d come up with reasons to stop any progress being made, as is evident already. The Lib Dems aren’t the Tories lap dogs, just as we were never Labours lap dogs as so many of you thought was natural.