Anti-democratic Tories pin their hopes on boundary changes

Tories don’t like opposition. That much was made plain in 1986 with the passing of the Local Government Act. This act abolished the metropolitan county councils – all of which were Labour-controlled – and effectively left large areas of the country without any form of unified administration. The Act also contained the notorious Section 28, which forbade councils from “promoting” homosexuality. Abolishing local authorities because of their political complexion is the sort of thing that we have come to expect in countries where the rule of law comes from the barrel of a gun. Not here. Not in Britain?

When the Tories went into coalition with the Lib Dems, they announced that they were going to impose boundary changes on the country. Why? Well, they don’t like losing in the inner cities.  Their rationale – such as it is – is that it’s simply unfair and beastly that Labour continue to win in the inner cities and they cannot.  Rather than accept that they will never be popular in such areas, they resort to crooked means to get what they want.

However, the issue isn’t so much the boundary changes but the reduction in the number of Commons seats.  Under the proposed changes, the Tories would gain 12 seats and Labour would lose 25. This idea for a reduced number of seats comes straight from the pages of Hannan and Carswell’s The Plan, from which the majority of the Tories craziest policies have originated. “We want to get rid of safe seats”, declare the book’s authors. What they really meant was “we want to abolish safe seats that are controlled by other parties”. Be assured that the ideas laid out in The Plan have little or nothing at all to do with democracy (as we know it) and has more to do with refashioning this country in the image of the United States but, more importantly, creating a system that rewards the Tories with governmental power for eternity.

What the Tories fail to grasp is the fact that they are by far, the least popular party in the country. Since the 1979 General Election, more people have voted for Labour or other parties than the Tories who, under the present electoral system, are allowed to govern with a lower percentage of votes than the opposition parties combined. For example, in the 1987 General Election the total percentage of votes for the opposition when added up was 50.7%, the Tories won the election on a paltry 43.9%. Under a proportional system, the Tories would have been in opposition. Indeed after the Murdoch-rigged 1992 election, the Conservatives would have found themselves on the opposition benches for a generation or two.

No one should believe the excuses that come from Lord Snooty and his pals that these changes will result in more ‘balance’ in the Commons. When Tories talk about “balance” and “fairness” they really mean a playing field that is skewed in their favour.

In the last couple of weeks, Cameron has been talking about what his party is going to do after the next General Election. This is revealing because it completely exposes the lack of ideas that I’ve been talking about on this blog for the better part of two years. Bereft of intellectual gravitas and a philosophical anchor, the Tories can only fantasize about what might happen in years to come.  Lord Snooty has talked about moving even further to the right after 2015 but he wilfully ignores the fact that no one, except those in his own party, has the stomach for any more public sector cuts and privatizations.

Lord Snooty knows that his backbenchers are restless and so he offers the Europhobes a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU on the same day as the election. To hear them talk, anyone would think that a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU is more important than any discussion about the lack of housing or jobs. Moreover, we get a referendum on this issue but what about the issues that really matter? Did any of us get a say as to whether or not we wanted the wholesale privatization of our national assets or whether we wanted ‘free’ schools? No.

The Tories failed to win an outright majority in 2010 (they won 36.1% of the vote while Labour won 29% and the Lib Dems were on 23%). They believed that this was because Labour continues to win in the much-coveted inner cities, not because they are seen (and rightly so) as the party of the rich and the privileged. Furthermore they cannot see themselves winning the next election without resorting to some kind of ‘fix’. When all else fails, cheat.

Finally, from The New Statesman,

The awkward fact for Conservative strategists remains that Cameron and Osborne struggled to beat Gordon Brown, a reviled incumbent, in an election when the left vote was split by disillusioned Labour voters backing Nick Clegg. For all Ed Miliband’s weaknesses as a candidate, he has acquired a higher, plumper cushion of a core vote from Lib Dem refugees. Cameron, meanwhile, hasn’t made much progress in the north or Scotland or among swing voters who considered backing the Tories last time but weren’t quite persuaded.

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under Boundary changes, Conservative Party, Government & politics

5 responses to “Anti-democratic Tories pin their hopes on boundary changes

  1. Reblogged this on Representing the Mambo and commented:
    Interesting piece on the Conservative’s plans for re-drawing the electoral boundaries. One doesn’t have to be a genius to realise that the only reasons for the plans are to increase the Tories share of the seats (and considering they barely muster a third of the vote any proposal to give them more seats is manifestly undemocratic) but the desire to engineer a situation where they can govern indefinitely is a worrying one.
    I initially suspected that as a plan it could work. I did envisage a situation where the Conservatives could win an outright majority at the next election. If enough of their natural support remained largely unaffected by the cuts and economic woes they could carry on regardless and beat a divided opposition. It worked in the 1980s and it could work now.
    As time goes by I’m starting to harbour doubts however. Osborne (the ‘tactical genius’!?), Cameron and Clegg stumble from one crisis to another and there are at least a few green shoots of hope. Opposition to the government and it’s deeply unpopular policies is increasing and every day their flawed policies are being exposed as such. Those on the right stupid enough to be arguing that the government’s economic strategy is working are exposing themselves as fools.
    Hopefully enough people will see sense in 2015 and kick them and their Liberal bag-carrying friends out. A Labour government is not an end in itself however. They have to implement radical policies, policies that no Labour government has ever really been willing to implement (at least in my lifetime, but that’s a debate for another day…….) Is that really likely right now? Things would be marginally better (they always are when Labour is in office) but marginally is the operative word.

  2. Paul

    “The Tories failed to win an outright majority in 2010 (they won 36.1% of the vote while Labour won 29% and the Lib Dems were on 23%). They believed that this was because Labour continues to win in the much-coveted inner cities”

    Odd then that one of the requirements is that constituencies all be the same size, or as close as possible isn’t it ?

    You don’t think it at all odd that Labour won an absolute majority in 2005 with 35.2% of the vote ?

    Some of this is down to Labour voters not turning out to the same degree (Note: this is called being ‘honest’, something you clearly don’t grasp), but a fair chunk of it is down to Labour constituencies having fewer voters per seat.

    • You sound so plausible but your desire for equal sized constituencies is meaningless without an equal desire for proportional representation. Please don’t pretend that the Conservatives are doing this out a sense of ‘fairness’ because that’s a lie. But I notice that, while you cite Labour’s 2005 victory, you have no complaint with the Tory victories of the 1980s. Is this the only example you could muster? And you talk about honesty? Don’t make me laugh!

  3. Paul

    “Since the 1979 General Election, more people have voted for Labour or other parties than the Tories who, under the present electoral system, are allowed to govern with a lower percentage of votes than the opposition parties combined. For example, in the 1987 General Election the total percentage of votes for the opposition when added up was 50.7%, the Tories won the election on a paltry 43.9%”

    How old are you ?

    Here’s a clue. Look up the number of votes that Labour got in 1997, 2001 and 2005. (Clue: 43.2%, 40.7% and 35.2%).

    (Incidentally if you add up all the votes for one party and all the votes for the opposition it comes to 100%, unless you count spoiled votes)

    On virtually no election since we switched to a three party system has the governing party had an absolute majority. It didn’t in 1979 either, but you obviously couldn’t be bothered to check wherever you copy this ignorant twaddle from.

    Probably the biggest majorities that I’m aware of are the 1935 election, where the Labour vote collapsed to the extent that Ramsay MacDonald lost his seat, and the post war 1945 election where the Churchill vote collapsed.

    Neither quite managed to get 50% of the vote.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s