Columnist Ross Clark throws a stick but it's really a boomerang
Express columnist Ross Clark warns that Labour are seeking to ‘manipulate voting rules’ to fudge the result of the EU referendum (May 26, p12). He accuses the party of ‘blatant gerrymandering’ in calling for the vote to be open to 16 and 17-year-olds.
Mr Clark even decides to show off a bit with some trivia about the provenance of the term:
“What they are doing is a grubby piece of gerrymandering – named after a 19th-century governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, who redrew electoral boundaries in such a way as to maximise his chances of winning.”
This certainly is a grubby move. But isn’t there another contemporary example that better suits the charge of gerrymandering?
Perhaps the scheme to redraw electoral boundaries in such a way as to maximise their chances of winning by the current Conservative government..?
Adam Barnett is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow MediaWatch on Twitter
Read more:
Telegraph columnist says British poverty isn’t so bad – we have indoor toilets!
Daily Mail’s racial scaremongering on ‘Filipino killer nurse’ undermines its work exposing him
Sign up for our weekly email by clicking here.
20 Responses to “Who’s really ‘gerrymandering’? Express attack on Labour backfires”
GTE
Perhaps the scheme to redraw electoral boundaries in such a way as to maximise their chances of winning by the current Conservative government..?
===========
Or perhaps its applying the law to remove the Gerrymandering of electoral boundaries that favour Labour?
Perhaps the Tories should get the electoral commission to include a requirement that the boundaries are fair over time, as well as at a particular point in time. That way the bias that Labour has enjoyed, gets balanced by a period where the Tories get an inbuilt advantage.
Basically, your a pillock because you didn’t complain when it was in your favour. That makes you a hypocrite as well.
jaz
If one was to spend one’s time pointing out the fallacies in columns in the Daily Express, there would be nothing left of one’s day.
Cole
Maybe the pillocks are those that favour the current voting system. The Conseevative government has an overall majority but was opposed by 63% of those that voted (and the situation was pretty similar with Labour in 2005). It’s daft.
AlanGiles
Surely the real question is should 16/17 year olds be allowed to vote, and – if so, why?. Thanks to the ridiculous laws which now forces you to stay at school till you are 18, they are (sorry no other word to use) school pupils, and they are making no financial contribution to society. I wonder how many would vote anyway?. It is interesting that it is the pro EU lobby who most favour 16/17 year old voters – perhaps they feel they are more gullable?
Mat Bob Jeffery
Actually, 16 year-olds only have to attend school/college or some form of formal training if they don’t have a job. As such, many are “contributing” to society in exactly the way you describe: they are paying taxes. To be honest though, your definition of who is worthy to participate in a democracy is not far off a “land-owning” democracy concept, which is more than a little rubbish.