Morning call: pick of the comment

The ten must-read pieces from the Sunday papers

1. Cameron tells us Britain is broken -- but not how to fix it (Observer)

After the horror of the Edlington case, says the Observer editorial, we must search our society for explanations. But there is a gap in Conservative social policy between the big "broken Britain" rhetoric and the little ideas.

2. Sending signals is not enough (Independent on Sunday)

John Rentoul points out that back in 1993 Tony Blair used rhetoric similar to Cameron's. But the Conservative leader's flailing semaphore doesn't address the complexities of "our broken society".

3. This social work by computer system is protecting no one (Sunday Times)

Hundreds of thousands of children are growing up in disorder and neglect, says Jenni Russell, and our system is prepared to deal with only a fraction of them. We must provide early intervention, or intensive support.

4. Marriage just wasn't a choice for my mother (Observer)

The Conservative MP David Davis defends Tory reticence on defining a marriage policy, arguing that it is a complex area. He illustrates this with personal experience, saying he favours marriage, but we must not forget those who are divorced, widowed or abandoned.

5. Apple's Tablet: a gizmo to save the world (Sunday Telegraph)

William Langley looks ahead to the launch of Apple's latest device, the iTablet, and thinks it could rescue our society from electronic servitude.

6. We were too slow in Haiti, and need to know why (Independent on Sunday)

Frank Judd says that wiith disasters likely to become more common, we need beefed-up international bodies that reflect the global public's desire to help.

7. After the Massachusetts Massacre (New York Times)

Neither in action nor in message is Barack Obama in front of the anger roiling the country over a dysfunctional economy and corrupt business culture, says Frank Rich. He must exercise take-no-prisoners leadership to stay in the White House.

8. Barack Obama's banking plan could split the west (Sunday Times)

Picking up the same theme, the Times leading article says that governments collectively can prevent banks from playing the system. Divided, they will end up achieving little.

9. Stop playing politics with our rights and freedoms. They're too valuable (Observer)

The Human Rights Act was used as a fig leaf for attacks on our civil liberties, says Henry Porter. What we need now is a great repeal bill which restores all that Labour has taken from us.

10. David Cameron's dream could end up a nightmare (News of the World)

Fraser Nelson discusses the possibility of a hung parliament, warning that the Tory leader could end up at the mercy of party rebels if he is elected without a large majority.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Why are boundary changes bad for Labour?

New boundaries, a smaller House of Commons and the shift to individual electoral registration all tilt the electoral battlefield further towards the Conservatives. Why?

The government has confirmed it will push ahead with plans to reduce the House of Commons to 600 seats from 650.  Why is that such bad news for the Labour Party? 

The damage is twofold. The switch to individual electoral registration will hurt Labour more than its rivals. . Constituency boundaries in Britain are drawn on registered electors, not by population - the average seat has around 70,000 voters but a population of 90,000, although there are significant variations within that. On the whole, at present, Labour MPs tend to have seats with fewer voters than their Conservative counterparts. These changes were halted by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition years but are now back on course.

The new, 600-member constituencies will all but eliminate those variations on mainland Britain, although the Isle of Wight, and the Scottish island constituencies will remain special cases. The net effect will be to reduce the number of Labour seats - and to make the remaining seats more marginal. (Of the 50 seats that would have been eradicated had the 2013 review taken place, 35 were held by Labour, including deputy leader Tom Watson's seat of West Bromwich East.)

Why will Labour seats become more marginal? For the most part, as seats expand, they will take on increasing numbers of suburban and rural voters, who tend to vote Conservative. The city of Leicester is a good example: currently the city sends three Labour MPs to Westminster, each with large majorities. Under boundary changes, all three could become more marginal as they take on more wards from the surrounding county. Liz Kendall's Leicester West seat is likely to have a particularly large influx of Tory voters, turning the seat - a Labour stronghold since 1945 - into a marginal. 

The pattern is fairly consistent throughout the United Kingdom - Labour safe seats either vanishing or becoming marginal or even Tory seats. On Merseyside, three seats - Frank Field's Birkenhead, a Labour seat since 1950, and two marginal Labour held seats, Wirral South and Wirral West - will become two: a safe Labour seat, and a safe Conservative seat on the Wirral. Lillian Greenwood, the Shadow Transport Secretary, would see her Nottingham seat take more of the Nottinghamshire countryside, becoming a Conservative-held marginal. 

The traffic - at least in the 2013 review - was not entirely one-way. Jane Ellison, the Tory MP for Battersea, would find herself fighting a seat with a notional Labour majority of just under 3,000, as opposed to her current majority of close to 8,000. 

But the net effect of the boundary review and the shrinking of the size of the House of Commons would be to the advantage of the Conservatives. If the 2015 election had been held using the 2013 boundaries, the Tories would have a majority of 22 – and Labour would have just 216 seats against 232 now.

It may be, however, that Labour dodges a bullet – because while the boundary changes would have given the Conservatives a bigger majority, they would have significantly fewer MPs – down to 311 from 330, a loss of 19 members of Parliament. Although the whips are attempting to steady the nerves of backbenchers about the potential loss of their seats, that the number of Conservative MPs who face involuntary retirement due to boundary changes is bigger than the party’s parliamentary majority may force a U-Turn.

That said, Labour’s relatively weak electoral showing may calm jittery Tory MPs. Two months into Ed Miliband’s leadership, Labour averaged 39 per cent in the polls. They got 31 per cent of the vote in 2015. Two months into Tony Blair’s leadership, Labour were on 53 per cent of the vote. They got 43 per cent of the vote. A month and a half into Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour is on 31 per cent of the vote.  A Blair-style drop of ten points would see the Tories net 388 seats under the new boundaries, with Labour on 131. A smaller Miliband-style drop would give the Conservatives 364, and leave Labour with 153 MPs.  

On Labour’s current trajectory, Tory MPs who lose out due to boundary changes may feel comfortable in their chances of picking up a seat elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.