The coalition's boundary changes threaten electoral reform

The boundary changes and the AV referendum should be split into two separate bills.

Almost everyone can find something to dislike about the coalition's proposed boundary changes. The plan to equalise constituency sizes will disrupt traditional boundaries and historic communities without correcting the electoral bias towards Labour (which is not due to unequal constituencies). In addition, the redrawn boundaries will take no account of the 3.5 million people not on the electoral register, producing a skewed electoral map that ignores millions of eligible voters.

Meanwhile, the accompanying 10 per cent reduction in the number of MPs will not be matched by a commensurate reduction in the number of ministers, further reducing parliamentary accountability and swelling the payroll vote. Aware of all these objections, the coalition is still planning to abolish public inquiries into boundary changes -- an extraordinary act of non-consultation.

There remains one last outpost of resistance -- the House of Lords. Today, peers will vote on a Labour motion to refer the bill to a parliamentary select committee local appeals process, something that could delay the legislation for months and halt the planned referendum on the Alternative Vote. Charles Falconer, who is tabling the motion, argues that the bill can be declared "hybird" because it singles out two constituencies -- Shetland and the Western Isles -- for special treatment.

There is no such exemption for the Isle of Wight, which with 110,000 voters is too big to fit the prescribed 76,000 limit, but too small for two MPs. The extra 34,000 constituents will be bolted onto a constituency in Hampshire -- an absurd solution that will require the MP to travel back and forth between the mainland and the island. Like an old colonial bureaucrat, Cameron is planning to draw lines on the map that take no account of geography, history and identity.

The solution is clear: to split the legislation into two separate bills by decoupling the boundary changes from the referendum. This would allow pro-AV Labour MPs to unambiguously support the bill while maintaining their opposition to the rest of the reforms. Conversely, Conservative MPs could vote against electoral reform without fear of jeopardising the coalition's boundary changes. It may not make much political sense to David Cameron (the referendum was a quid pro quo for the boundary changes) but it would make a lot of parliamentary sense.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Emmanuel Macron offers Theresa May no comfort on Brexit

The French presidential candidate warned that he would not accept "any caveat or any waver" at a press briefing in London.

Emmanuel Macron, the new wunderkind of French politics, has brought his presidential campaign to London. The current favourite to succeed François Hollande has a natural electoral incentive to do so. London is home to 300,000 French voters, making it by France's sixth largest city by one count (Macron will address 3,000 people at a Westminster rally tonight). But the telegenic centrist also took the time to meet Theresa May and Philip Hammond and to hold a press briefing.

If May hoped that her invitation would help soften Macron's Brexit stance (the Prime Minister has refused to engage with his rival Marine Le Pen), she will have been left disappointed. Outside No.10, Macron declared that he hoped to attract "banks, talents, researchers, academics" away from the UK to France (a remark reminiscent of David Cameron's vow to "roll out the red carpet" for those fleeing Hollande). 

At the briefing at Westminster's Central Hall, Macron quipped: "The best trade agreement for Britain ... is called membership of the EU". With May determined to deliver Brexit, he suggested that the UK would have to settle for a Canadian-style deal, an outcome that would radically reduce the UK's market access. Macron emphasised that he took a a "classical, orthodox" view of the EU, regarding the "four freedoms" (of people, capital, goods and services) as indivisible. Were Britain to seek continued financial passporting, the former banker said, it would have to make a significant budget "contribution" and accept continued immigration. "The execution of Brexit has to be compliant with our interests and the European interest".

The 39-year-old avoided a nationalistic tone ("my perspective is not to say France, France, France") in favour of a "coordinated European approach" but was unambiguous: "I don't want to accept any caveat or any waver to what makes the single market and the EU." Were the UK, as expected, to seek a transitional arrangement, it would have to accept the continued jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

Elsewhere, Macron insisted that his liberal economic stance was not an obstacle to his election. It would be fitting, he said, if the traditionally "contrarian" France embraced globalisation just as its counterparts were rejecting it. "In the current environment, if you're shy, you're dead," he declared. With his emotional, straight-talking approach (one derided by some as intellectually threadbare), Macron is seeking to beat the populists at their own game.

But his views on Brexit may yet prove academic. A poll published today showed him trailing centre-right candidate François Fillon (by 20-17) having fallen five points since his denunciation of French colonialism. Macron's novelty is both a strength and a weakness. With no established base (he founded his own party En Marche!), he is vulnerable to small swings in the public mood. If Macron does lose, it will not be for want of confidence. But there are unmistakable signs that his forward march has been halted. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.