Why the Tories' dream of a majority could finally end today

The likely defeat of the boundary changes by Labour and the Lib Dems means the Tories will need a lead of seven points to win a majority in 2015.

Update: MPs have voted in favour of delaying the boundary changes to 2018 by 334 to 292. 

Labour, the Lib Dems, the nationalist parties and at least four Conservatives (David Davis, Philip Davies, Richard Shepherd and John Baron) voted in favour of the rebel amendment. 

 

Barring any last-minute upset, the Conservatives' proposed boundary changes will finally receive their last rites in the Commons this afternoon. MPs will vote on a Labour amendment to delay the reforms until 2018 and, without the support of the Lib Dems, who will fulfil their pledge to oppose the changes in revenge for the abandonment of House of Lords reform, there is no hope of the Tories preventing defeat. 

In addition to Labour and the Lib Dems, at least two Conservative MPs - Glyn Davies and Philip Davies - are likely to rebel, with David Davis also considering voting against the changes (an assortment of rebels that suggests the whips should also keep a close eye on David Davies). Thus, even if the Tories succeed in winning the support of the eight DUP MPs (the SNP is expected to abstain), they will be well short of the numbers needed to save the reforms. As David Cameron's official spokesman delicately put it yesterday, "clearly, from the Prime Minister's perspective, the arithmetic looks pretty difficult". 

The defeat of the changes means it will be all but impossible for the Conservatives to win a majority in 2015. Under the existing boundaries, and assuming a Lib Dem vote of around 15 per cent, the Tories require a lead of seven points to win an overall majority, compared to a lead of four points under the new boundaries. Labour, by contrast, needs a lead of just one point to win a majority under the current system, compared to a lead of three points under the new boundaries. 

The party's advantage is partly due to differential constituency sizes, a factor that the boundary changes, which would have fixed constituency sizes at plus or minus five per cent of 76,000 voters, were designed to mitigate. Since Labour tends to perform best in smaller, urban seats, while the Tories perform best in larger, rural seats, it takes an average of 33,470 votes to elect a Labour MP, compared to an average of 35,030 to elect a Conservative one (and 119,944 to elect a Lib Dem, which is why they bang on about electoral reform). 

But even with the boundary changes, Miliband's party would still have enjoyed a significant advantage over its opponents. This is because the the electoral bias towards Labour 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. As a report by the University of Plymouth concluded: "The geography of each party's support base is much more important, so changes in the redistribution procedure are unlikely to have a substantial impact and remove the significant disadvantage currently suffered by the Conservative Party."

By 2015, as the Tories struggle to even remain the single largest party (something that will require a lead of four points), the more reflective Conservative MPs might ask themselves whether it was worth sacrificing the boundary changes for the sake of preventing an elected House of Lords. When I interviewed former Conservative education secretary Kenneth Baker earlier this month, he told me that he regarded Cameron's failure to secure the boundary changes as his "biggest mistake". ConservativeHome editor Tim Montgomerie has described the defeat of the reforms as the Tories' "worst single electoral setback since Black Wednesday". 

Note the date - 29 January 2013 - it may well be remembered as the day that the Tories' hopes of outright victory in 2015 finally ended. 

Conservative and Liberal Democrat ministers will vote against each other for the first time since the coalition was formed when parliament votes on the boundary changes later today. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Why is Theresa May wasting time and money on the Article 50 case?

The Prime Minister has wasted time, money and weakened her position for no good reason. 

The question of who has the power to pull the Article 50 trigger – the executive or the legislature – is still rumbling at the Supreme Court, but yesterday’s vote renders the matter somewhat otiose. 

461 MPs voted in favour of a motion supporting the government’s timetable for triggering Article 50, with just 89 dissidents, with 23 Labour MPs and Ken Clarke joining Caroline Lucas, the nine Liberal Democrats and the SNP in voting against the motion. 

“MPs hand May 'blank cheque' for Brexit” is the Telegraph’s splash. “Hooray! MPs say yes to EU exit” roars the Express. “Victory for PM: Commons backs May on Brexit” is the i’s take. “Day MPs spoke for Britain” is the Mail’s splash, while the Guardian goes for the somewhat more sedate “MPs back government timetable to trigger Article 50” below the fold.

But that doesn’t mean that the deliberations of David Neuberger and the rest of the Court don’t matter. If the Court rules that Article 50 does represent a loss of rights not provided for in the referendum, that requires a vote of the legislature – and that means both houses of Parliament and an full Act of Parliament. 

It’s entirely possible that the Supreme Court could rule that Article 50 does entail a loss of rights BUT that the legislature had already weighed in by voting to have a referendum – Neuberger described this as the “hole” in the claimants’ case – but the whole affair raises questions of Theresa May’s judgement. It’s not clear what the government has gained by appealing a judgement rather than seeking parliamentary approval. It is clear that the government has wasted both money and time on the court case, when a parliamentary majority was always at hand.

There's a bigger risk to the PM, too. If the Supreme Court judgement limits executive power further, or rules that not only Westminster, but the devolved legislatures, must also vote on whether to pull the Article 50 trigger, the PM’s pugnacious manner could put Brexit – and her premiership – in some jeopardy. 

TROUBLE AHEAD

Speaking of the PM…Theresa May is interviewed in today’s FT by George Parker and Lionel Barber. Among the topics: why she gave George Osborne the push, whether or not she’s a “control freak”, and why she once compared herself to Elizabeth I. 

But the striking moment is the brief appearance of the old Remain-backing May, with her warning that the nations of the EU27 “don’t want to see others looking to break away and to vote to leave in the way the UK has done” making the negotiations over Britain’s Brexit deal trickier than many – including May herself – are often willing to admit publicly. 

DERAILING GRAYLING

Chris Grayling is under fire after the Evening Standard’s Pippa Crerar revealed that he blocked Sadiq Khan’s takeover of London’s suburban railways not in order to look out for passengers, but to keep his grubby Labour hands off it. Bob Neil, the Conservative MP for Bromley, demanded that Theresa May sack the Transport Secretary at PMQs yesterday. Over at CityMetric, Jonn is very angry about the whole thing.

SO, EVERYONE, THEN? 

Another Theresa May interview, this time with Fraser Nelson and James Forsyth in the Spectator. She has some sharp words for the Civil Service, accusing officials of trying to second-guess her and to quantify everything. Particularly exercising her: Whitehall’s attempt to quantify what the “just managing” she wants to help means in terms of income (£18k-£21k).  She says it means anything from “holding down two or three jobs in order to make ends meet”, to those worried about job security, to homeowners “worried about paying the mortgage”.

SLING YOUR HYKE

Polls are open in the Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election, an ultra-safe Conservative seat that voted to leave the European Union by 60 per cent to 40 per cent. But all attention is being focused on the battle for second and third place, with Ukip expecting to steal second from Labour. Meanwhile, Labour fears they may be pushed into fourth by the Liberal Democrats.

OUR STEEL, SAVED?
A deal has been struck to save the steelworks at Port Talbot, with Tata Steel commiting to keep production there running, provided that workers agree to close off the pension scheme they inherited from British Steel to new workers. “Tata and unions agree rescue plan for Port Talbot steelworks” is the FT’s splash.

MATTE-OH

Matteo Renzi has officially resigned as Italian Prime Minister after two-and-a-half years, the fourth-longest serving PM in the history of the Republic. 

DFID CONSULTANCIES

Private consultancies working in international development will be forced to disclose their fees and salaries, Priti Patel has vowed after a Timesinvestigation into the millions spent on consultancies by the department. 

SEE? IMMIGRATION CREATES JOBS

The Home Affairs Select Committee will launch an inquiry into public attitudes to immigration today. Committee chair Yvette Cooper says that it will be “a different kind of inquiry, looking outward at the country, not inward at the government.” MPs will tour the country talking to the public about the issue. 

DOMINIC, AGGRIEVED

Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney-General, has called on Theresa May to dissociate herself from the Mail’s “vitriolic abuse” of judges in the Supreme Court case. Anushka Asthana has the story in the Guardian.

CAMERON, INC

David Cameron has set up a limited company to manage his speaking engagements and private ventures in retirement. He has also sold his memoirs, albeit for what is believed to be a lower fee than that secured by Tony Blair for The Journey. Michael Savage has the story in the Times.

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

Christmas is coming! And the Christmas sandwich is already here. The NS team – including our editor – share their thoughts on the best and the worst.

MUST READS

Britain is heading for the hardest of Brexits, says Charles Grant

Julia wonders if Brexit has transformed British politics just as Scotland’s referendum did

Labour and Tory MPs alike fear what Brexit could unleash, says George

This originally appeared in today's Morning Call: get it in your inboxes Monday through Friday - sign up here.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.