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.
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.
20 Responses to “Who’s really ‘gerrymandering’? Express attack on Labour backfires”
AlanGiles
I left school at 15, and I had very little interest in politics at that age – which I think is quite common. It is only as you get older you start to form views and impressions, and looking at some 16/17 year olds playing games on their mobile phones and being more interested in TV talent shows and talking on Facebook, I don’t think they have changed much.
It’s not a question of what they earn – I have no problem whatsoever with people on benefits or unemployed voting, so I am not trying to exclude adults, it’s just that to me, at anyrate, it seems questionable why rabid EU supporters want to demand the 16/17 year olds should vote. I frankly doubt many of them will. Could it be that they think they will be easier to influence?
wilwa
The Tories wish to base boundaries on the number of voters registered in each constituency. But not all constituents are registered. At the moment boundaries are based on the populations of each constituency, a far more democratic method. People should register, it’s in their own interests to do so, but the fact that they do not, should not be used as an excuse to gerrymander their fair right to equal representation out of existence. The only reason the Tories are trying to do this is because a higher proportion of Tories register than Labour. Sad but true. But the gerrymandering is on the part of those who seek to discount those who are failing to register.
wilwa
It does seem unfair, regardless of who wins under it. Proportional representation is favored in many countries today, it works well in Germany. We need to look at it without the blinkers of self interest.
Brumanuensis
“Or perhaps its applying the law to remove the Gerrymandering of electoral boundaries that favour Labour?”
So you’re accusing the Boundaries Commission of deliberately drawing constituency boundaries to favour Labour? That’s a very strong accusation. Any evidence for it?
Fun fact. Here is the vote – seats ratio for each of the major political parties at the 2015 General Election.
Conservative – 34,244 votes per seat won
Labour – 40,290 votes per seat won
SNP – 25,972 votes per seat won
Lib Dem – 301,986 votes per seat won
UKIP – 3,881,129 votes per seat won
Green – 1,157,613 votes per seat won
http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/8203-VOTES-SEAT-4-million-votes-UKIP-seat-just-35/story-26474728-detail/story.html
Here are the figures for 2010:
Conservative – 34,989 votes per seat won
Labour – 33,350 votes per seat won
Liberal Dem – 119,788 votes per seat won
SNP – 81,898 votes per seat won
http://www.lightrefrain.net/election2010/
I’m not spotting a massive bias against the Tories or in favour of Labour, in those figures.
Brumanuensis
“At the moment boundaries are based on the populations of each constituency, a far more democratic method”
No, they’re not. They are based on registered electors.