Newsletter
Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
Jobs
Policy | Charity & Fundraising | Research | Education | Executive | Media | Social Care | Communications
User login
RSSWithout the boundary changes, a Tory majority is impossible
Cameron's party would need a lead of 11 points to win without the changes.
By George Eaton Published 04 August 2012 12:07
There is no guarantee that the Lib Dems will vote down the planned boundary changes in retaliation for the abandonment of House of Lords reform. Contrary to what some claim, no link was made between the policies in the coalition agreement (the AV referendum was the quid pro quo for the boundary changes) and Nick Clegg has previously told MPs that "there can be no justification for maintaining the current inequality between constituencies and voters across the country." This is a powerful position from which to argue that the Lib Dems should not renege on the agreement.
If, however, Clegg vetoes the bill, the final version of which is not due to reach parliament until 2013, who benefits? The most obvious answer is Labour. Without the boundary changes, Miliband's party only needs a lead of three points (on a uniform swing) to win a majority, compared with one of four points under the new constituencies. Conversely, the Tories, who would need a lead of seven points with the changes, would need a lead of 11 points without them.
The reason Labour retain their electoral advantage is that the electoral bias towards the party owes more to differential turnout (fewer people tend to vote in Labour constituencies) and regional factors (the Tory vote is poorly distributed) than it does to unequal constituencies (the coalition plans to fix constituency sizes at around 76,000 voters).
As I've argued before, even if the boundary changes are implemented, the odds are against a Tory majority in 2015. No sitting prime minister has increased their party's share of the vote since 1974, and Cameron is failing to make progress among those groups that refused to support him last time round. But if the boundary changes are abandoned, it is no exaggeration to say that a Tory majority, difficult to achieve at present, becomes impossible. For this reason, it is no surprise that Cameron is determined to push ahead with the bill.
Tags: Boundary Changes David Cameron House of Lords reform
Related articles
-
21 May -
21 May -
21 May -
21 May
George Eaton is editor of The Staggers blog
From the magazine
-
Ian Mulheirn -
Robert Skidelsky -
Felix Martin -
New Statesman -
Rafael Behr -
Ryan Gilbey -
Laurie Penny -
Alice O'Keeffe -
Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett
Elsewhere on the Blogosphere
- FT Westminster
- ConservativeHome
John Baron and Peter Bone table a cunning EU referendum amendment
- Labour List
Harrow Labour Group splits, as several councillors form “Independent Labour Group”
- Liberal Conspiracy
- Left Foot Forward
Benefit fraud accounts for just 0.7 per cent of welfare budget
Blogroll
- Alastair Campbell
- Benedict Brogan
- Coffee House
- Comment Central
- Conservative Home
- Dave's Part
- Gary Gibbon
- Guardian Politics
- Hopi Sen
- Iain Dale
- Labour List
- Labour Uncut
- Left Foot Forward
- Liberal Conspiracy
- Liberal Democrat Voice
- Luke Akehurst
- Neil Clark
- Next Left
- Our Kingdom
- Paul Waugh
- Penny Red
- Pickled Politics
- Political Betting
- Political Scrapbook
- Simon Fletcher
- The Bleeding Heart Show
- Think Politics
- UK Polling Report
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists
52 comments
George,
You are either deliberately or out of ignorance omitting the important assumption "assuming that the Lib Dems get 23.6% of the vote"
If they get less, lower leads are required for either Cons or Labour.
For example, UNS with the Lib Dems on 14% gives the Tories a majority on a lead of 6.5%. Which may be a steep call, but certainly not impossible.
Put the Lib Dems down to 10%, and a Tory lead of about 5.5% is needed for a majority - exactly half of what you claim.
I see Clegg has said, the boundary changes will not happen until after 2015.
"No sitting prime minister has increased their party's share of the vote since 1974"
Indeedy. And no sitting Tory PM has increase the party's vote share since Eden in 1955. Even that case was rather exceptional as Eden had only been PM for 2 months when re-elected so the voters held few grudges against him.
In fact since universal suffrage no full-term (4 yrs plus) PMs of any party have been relected with an increased vote share.
Cameron knows that there is only a microscopic chance that he will succeed where Blair, Thatcher, Atlee, Baldwin and Lloyd George failed. He needs those boundary changes. If the LDs vote the changes down only a "new-boy" like Eden could possibly save the day for the Tories. Step forward Mr Boris Johnson.
Re: Red Rain (not verified)
Labour a few years back suffered one of its worst ever defeats.
Yes and in 1997 Labour nearly obliterated the Conservative party who have never won an election since 1992!
Cameron did not win last time and there is no way the British eletorate will give him a second bite at the Cherry!!
So what's on offer?
If Clegg doesn't use the "boundaries" as a quid pro quo for the Lords reform he will be dumped as a patsy by the Lib Dems of whom I am one. The Tories did down the LibDems in the AV referendum. It is time now to reciprocate. The Tories are an anachronism in this modern age - they are the standard bearers of what remains of the evils of colonialism, imperialism and class - and happily are a diminishing community. Any attempt at resuscitation should be steadfastly resisted. Labour should replace yawnable Milliband with James Purnell the charismatic intellectual - if they did I might desert the LibDems.
Purnell is hated, and rightly so. He bogged off because he was bored by attacking the poor. But he set the destructive agenda for IDS - and unbelievably is proud of it.
Yes, the poor poor Tories, who only have massive corporations, most of Fleet Street, and legions of rich donors to keep them going. Oh, pardon me while I shed a tear.
this argument over boundary changes just shows how much we need pr.
the tories are in reality complaining that they need a higher proportion of votes to gain a majority of seats in the house of commons, at an election, than labour.
but the reality is that the tories only had a 36% share of the vote, and came close to getting a majority, and now just want to make it easier, but surely a majority of members of parliament should depend on a majority share of votes, not just who gets the largest minority share of votes.
however, i think the lib dems have realised that the party that is going to come off worst out of this change is themselves, as proportionately they lose most seats, and seeing as, compared to their share of votes, they are already under represented in the house of commons i am at a loss to know why they voted to reduce it further.
time for pr to end these ridiculous games.
At the 2005 election Labour got 35% of the vote, and formed a majority government.
I can't wait for the next election so that they scrap the council tax, cut local government by half, remove all the freeloading bureaucrats, put the criminals within the banking system in jail, stop paying money to the EU, and put several hundred police officers in jail for a good long time.
Sounds perfect. Just tell me which party is promising to do all this and they got my vote.
Sounds perfect. Just tell me which party is promising to do all this and they got my vote.
Irrespective of whether the Liberals vote against the proposed Boundary Changes, and if they are that naive and vindictive they will vote against them, David Cameron should call an Immediate General Election, and invite the Liberals to prepare for opposition inpetuity.
I'm afraid they are all rather stuck with the set-term of five years. Any shenanigans now would destroy Britain's economic credibility - a minority Conservative gov. after a coalition breakdown would be an international laughing stock.
Labour will lose the next election....
A simple exercise for you to follow. Put the current polling figures (Con 33%; Lab 43%; Lib Dem 10%) into the UK Polling Report's Swing Calculator on the proposed boundaries.
[I put in a link here but the daft Mollom filter decided it was spam. You can find it easily enough.]
Result:
Con 213 seats
Lab 353 seats
Lib Dem 12 seats
Labour majority of 106
By 2005 I was regretting voting Labour in 2001, but like a good working class lad from Barnsley, I decided to give them one more chance. I soon realised that I had been a complete idiot. I'm sure that a great many of those people who voted Labour in 2005 were also giving them "one last chance". Labour never did learn how to manage the money they were throwing around like confetti. Not only that, but when Gordon Brown took over there was a growing incompetence across all parts of the government. You can add to that the dithering, sleaze, spin and outright lies about the state of our economic future. Now only the most ardent lefties are willing to give Labour yet another chance.The problems for Labour cannot be fixed between now and the General Election. Many have already given them their last chance. But most importantly, Labour can no longer buy our votes with promises of massive public spending. Gordon Brown tried to keep that lie alive with his "Labour investment vs Tory cuts", but he was the only one who believed such rubbish. The pot is empty. In fact if it gets much worse, we may have to borrow money to repair the cracks appearing in the pot. So the people are looking for a government to get us out of the mess we are in - Labour have proved themselves to be financially incompetent - and they have no more expensive bribes to buy our votes. The Conservatives got the country out of the mess left by a previous Labour government back in the 1970's, and the country will hope they can do so again. I'll be voting Tory come the Election..
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Both Cameron & Osborne in opposition up until the financial crash supported Labour spending and indeed pledged to match it. This is because it was affordable and the only reason you are now stating otherwise is because you have been easily taken in by the lies of a mainly right wing media. I would suggest you apply for a job with Murdoch, he too has no grip on reality.
Straight from the Tory party propoganda department. Never cease spreading the big lie that the past Labour government massively increased government spending and the present Tory government, like all Neo-Con govts, is only cutting spending because there is no alternative (unlike private businesses who always borrow to invest in the future). Tell the lie often enough, hog the media with the big lie, present it as an undeniable fact, unquestioned by friendly moderators and reports, and you will be able to dismantle the state, government and civic society and return the rule of the rich, blaming it all on an overbloated social-market economy and welfare state, which is what the Tory party has always been about: keep the rich in power and hoard the wealth. Oh yes, and you are Nathan Bickerby a working-class lad from Barnsley, and not Rupert Smytthe-Whyttte (pronounce Smithwhit) of Chipping Sodbury, Bucks. Eeeh lad, you nearly fooled us you did.
Whether he's from Barnsley or not, I'm sure he knows Chipping Sodbury isn't in Bucks
Five million working people walked away from Labour... why? five million now look on in total bemusement many preferring the old enemy than a lost friend they no longer understand. Labour will lose the next election why... Because without vast amounts of our money Labour can't bribe the electorate with promises of cake tomorrow. Working people fully understand the financial constraints facing this coalition government, working people fully understand who are responsible for these financial constraints. Labour appalling recklessness and financial incompetence will not be easily forgotten.
Spot on. The interesting thing about Tories is that they think if they say something often enough it is a fact. They don't actually care about reality, only the pretense of it, to them 'saying is believing' hence the PR man at the helm. Unluckily for them there is such a thing as the cold light of day, under which their ideas crumble - they will not make things better, in fact Labour always have to overspend to compensate for their destructive actions. To put this in plain terms, what country other than one whose empire pillaged a large part of the globe should, by rights, have enough money for a NHS (or other public services) somehow the retarded rich have squandered an absolute fortune. Sound familiar?
Straight from the Tory party propoganda department. Never cease spreading the big lie that the past Labour government massively increased government spending and the present Tory government, like all Neo-Con govts, is only cutting spending because there is no alternative (unlike private businesses who always borrow to invest in the future). Tell the lie often enough, hog the media with the big lie, present it as an undeniable fact, unquestioned by friendly moderators and reports, and you will be able to dismantle the state, government and civic society and return the rule of the rich, blaming it all on an overbloated social-market economy and welfare state, which is what the Tory party has always been about: keep the rich in power and hoard the wealth. Oh yes, and you are Nathan Bickerby a working-class lad from Barnsley, and not Rupert Smytthe-Whyttte (pronounce Smithwhit) of Chipping Sodbury, Bucks. Eeeh lad, you nearly fooled us you did.
Your assertion was "Labour will lose the next election".
You've given your reasons, at some length, why you'll be Tory but polls and election results point towards a Labour victory or Labour being the largest party in a hung parliament.
Labour a few years back suffered one of its worst ever defeats but it was no more than they deserved. Gordon Brown and his gang proved once again that every Labour government eventually runs out of our money. Labour always spends too much, wastes too much, borrows too much and taxes too much. Every Labour government raises taxes, debt increases and the dole queues lengthen. Since Labour's defeat we have had no apology for it's reckless spending. No apology for the longest recession amongst the world’s biggest economies. No apology for the deepest economic contraction in Britain’s history. No apology for the biggest deficit in the developed world. No apology for the fact that it's the old, young and poor who suffer most from Labour's failures.
Red Rain, Thatcher never got around to issuing any apology.
Thatcher with all her faults didn't nearly bankrupt the whole country and go around invading other people's countries.... now did she? your lot are responsible for a catalogue monumental errors, blunders and mistakes.
Nice to see the CPHQ Socks are still in operation
Once again you've stated your opinion (one voter) but the next General Election will be decided by 30 million voters.
What you want to happen and what will happen are two different things.
If it was reckless spending why did Cameron/Osborne promise to match Labour. Please tell me which of the following you would have preferred; let the banks go to the wall with my savings, or to pump money in to save them. Before you answer, think on, because Cameron/Osborne are doing the same with QE.
With respect to the recession; Labour left an economy with positive growth, Cameron/Osborne's policies have produced a new recession with five of the last eight quarter having negative growth
Labour ran out of our money remember... and which government allowed the banks to become gigantic casinos?
No it didn't Sock Puppet
If it was reckless spending why did Cameron/Osborne promise to match Labour. Please tell me which of the following you would have preferred; let the banks go to the wall with my savings, or to pump money in to save them. Before you answer, think on, because Cameron/Osborne are doing the same with QE.
With respect to the recession; Labour left an economy with positive growth, Cameron/Osborne's policies have produced a new recession with five of the last eight quarter having negative growth
In your dreams.
The polls suggested we would have a hung parliament and we did. It's foolish to ignore them.
Libdems voting for boundary changes would rather be like proverbial "turkeys voting for Christmas". But as they have proven themselves to be a right bunch of turkeys over the last couple of years, nothing would surprise me.
Change the goal posts. Wasn't that how rugby was created. Differentiation - it was the perfect development. Social engineering par excellence.
Polo, yachting, rowing, shooting and other elite sports all require expensive equipment and social status. Money is the great excluder - an invisible boundary. Difficult to apply this principle to political constituencies.
However, the Brits are renowned for drawing geographic boundaries. Just look at Ireland and Israel. Just don't mention Scotland. And just prior to the American Revolt which then turned into a revolution, Mason and Dixon drew that infamous boundary labelled the 'Mason Dixie Line'.
The Brits kinda drew a boundary on the Indian sub-continent but not quite. And just look at the Dark Continent. They knew just where to draw the line in Africa. Africa is still paying for it. Still, you can't very well use Boer War tactics in this case. Concentration camps, was it? And Malaya. And Singapore. Remember that colouring book of the world? You certainly needed a red crayon.
And let's not denigrate Johnny Major of Brixton. He won more votes than Mrs T or anybody else since WWII.
OK, he had his chance and bungled it. But fair play to him - he looked a lot softer than Mrs T. Course when you got down to it - he wasn't. Proper poacher turned gamekeeper.
Constitutional monarchy - let's get back to princedoms.
Graphic Artist
It was Sir John Banham leading the last boundary change, the Tories then banked on him delivering a rock solid majority.
Personally, it is should not be about boundaries, but the voting system, first past the post elects an MP with minority support, I prefer the Single Transferable Vote.
We had the vote your argument lost remember....
Wrong. It was only AV on offer, a system which is not much of an improvement on the present dysfunctional FPTP, which the Tories are currently bent on gerrymandering.
"dysfunctional" What Labour inflicted on this country and particularly on the working class was dysfunctional do you honestly think that worm of a leader of yours can convince the working class to give them another chance. There's no more spending your way out of trouble or borrwing your way out of debt... Dark Heart of Toryland.....
Whatever socky
The Tories are doomed, so it would be better if they went down fighting, actually cutting public spending and tax to revive the economy.
Labour and its supporters. The only people who can get away with claiming that making constituencies roughly the same size for each parliamentary seat is gerrymandering.
By the way, liking the post-Hasan NS.
If you attempt to alter the voting system purely for party political gain, that's gerrymandering. And that's precisely what the Tories are doing.
But the Tories hope to gain extra seats. They are not devoted to fairness in life.
As Lewis Baston has argued in:
The proposed constituency boundary changes will hurt the Liberal Democrats and not help the Tories much either
(You can find it in a search: NS blocks the link.)
The Liberal Democrats will suffer severely in boundary changes. About 14 out of their 57 seats will go. Their remaining seats would be harder to defend.
What incentive have the Liberal Democrats got for voting for the boundary changes?
The same incentive they've had to allow the sell-off of the NHS, treble tuition fees, and let criminals like Jeremy Hunt free to mingle with Murdoch.
Because the current system favours Labour massively. They are loathe to change a system which may deliver the Cable-cabal's dream of a Li-Lab coalition in 2015.
Can't find the data on how many votes it takes to elect a member in each constituency, but I recall that Labour can get two or three members for the number of votes it takes to elect only one Conservative or Liberal Democrat (maybe not even one for the latter).