Seats dispute goes beyond a boundary

 

Did you wake this morning worried about the size of MPs' constituencies?

Did you gulp your cornflakes fretting that the House of Commons is too big? Did you brood on your way to work about when MPs should vote on planned boundary changes? Did you agonise at your desk over delays to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill?

No, I don't suppose you did. But peers in the House of Lords did. Not for them the nail-biter over the water to choose the most important man in the world. No, their Lordships chose to debate the arcanery of constituency boundaries.

If it sounds boring, that is because it is. But bear with me. This story is important and goes to the heart and future of your coalition government.

It runs like this. Last year Parliament passed the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act. Among other things, this would reduce the size of the House of Commons from 650 to 600 seats and redraw the parliamentary boundaries.

Twist

The act stipulated that once various commissioners had drawn up their new constituency boundaries, Parliament would sign them off in a final vote. That vote is scheduled for 2014.

Once upon a time the Lib Dems supported boundary changes. They signed up to the coalition agreement which demanded "the creation of fewer and more equal-sized constituencies". But after the Conservatives refused to support their plans to reform the House of Lords, the Lib Dems changed their tune. Nick Clegg is now firmly opposed to boundary changes and has said he will vote against them in 2014.

So far, so good. Here comes the twist.

In the last few weeks, Labour peers in the House of Lords introduced an amendment to another piece of legislation that would delay that boundary vote until 2018.

And it is an amendment that the Lib Dems have chosen to back, an amendment that the Conservative part of the government is now fighting hard to keep from the floor of the House of Lords.

It all came to a head in the Lords today when Lord Strathclyde, the Conservative leader there, told peers why he had postponed the Electoral Registration Bill for a second time. He argued that the Lords' clerks had made clear that the Labour amendment on boundary changes was inadmissible because it had nothing to do with voter registration. His counterpart for Labour, Lady Royall, accused him of subverting democracy.

Now if you followed all that without needing a strong drink, more power to your elbow.

The bottom line is this. Unless David Cameron and Nick Clegg do a deal and defuse the row, their government can delay a vote on the issue only for so long. At some point peers will get the chance to vote on whether to delay changes to Parliament's boundaries. And at that point the coalition government will come to a rather interesting juncture.

Thus far the coalition parties have finessed their differences by fudge, abstention, and creative ambiguity. But this will be the first time that Liberal Democrat ministers will be in a position where they may be voting against ministers with whom they form a government. They would be voting on the instruction of the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, against David Cameron's official policy.

The Lib Dems insist that they would not be voting against government policy because they claim there is no government policy. They insist that this stand-off would be a one-off.

In the past, government ministers who vote against the government have always resigned. But few expect that this time.

"You could shrug your shoulders," says one Conservative member of the cabinet. "Or you could jump and down at the constitutional outrage and demand an inquiry by the cabinet secretary."

That probably won't happen. But, for the first time in this coalition government, it looks as if some time soon Liberal Democrat ministers will vote against Conservative ministers. A new constitutional line will have been crossed and our governing parties will take another step further apart.

 
James Landale Article written by James Landale James Landale Deputy political editor

More on This Story

More from James

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 23.

    50 less MPs is NOT a good thing. It gives the PM and the Cabinet more power to force through stuff in Parliament.

    constituencies are not the same size because rural and urban divide. City people are part of a different community, no point forcing them into a tory voting rural seat

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 22.

    Is it BBC policy that any article about constitutional reform should be prefaced with an apology for how dull the subject is (and occasionally asking to be excused for their own interest).
    Considering the loss of trust in our institutions, changing the systems that consistently produces poor outcomes should be just as interesting as changing the people who deliver it.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 21.

    Maybe this is LibDem payback for the ridiculous AV referendum which no-one actually wanted. Naively the LibDems agreed not realising it would be slaughtered. They should have stuck to their guns on PR. FPTP will produce unfair overall results whether there are equal constituencies or not.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 20.

    I always thought the Lords went their own way anyway, so why the stamping of feet? The 'Other Place' will ignore them and do something completely different. Lady Royall complains about democracy being frustrated! She jests, this is the unreformed and unelected Lords so, unless they are, what's boundary changes to them?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 19.

    No14Wanaitt,
    Is it true that the new chairman of the Conservative and Unionist Party, with his three names, gets 3 votes in all elections? If so, it would be helpful, to prevent the party meltdown at the next general election if this could be extended to all potential supporters.
    Which name is he using this week, I need to write, in order that I can seek clarification?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 18.

    15.stevie
    1 Hour ago
    Why don't we just wait for Scotland to declare over separation that may reduce the number of seats in parliament overnight

    .... Makes sense to me - and if we don't vote yes I know they could alter the bounderies all they like in Scotland but we would still not vote Tory!!

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 17.

    Whatever the legal ins and outs between coalition parties, one thing about boundary change that makes these changes essential;

    It means 50 less politicians than there are now - that must be a good things.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 16.

    #13 - Ashley - Both Tories AND Labour can win more seats than the LibDems with the same number of votes because of 'first past the post system'. If MP's really wanted 'fairness', they would have supported a proper system of proportional representation.
    Instead they support their version of 'fairness' to gain an advantage over their rivals. If a system suits - it's fair!
    If not - unfair!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 15.

    Why don't we just wait for Scotland to declare over separation that may reduce the number of seats in parliament overnight. Why is there this constant rush for "parliamentary democracy" all we see is the politicians trying to stitch up their own "Rotten Boroughs" and the claims Cameron made for localisation of politics hitting the waste paper basket pronto.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 14.

    People underestimate how critical this is to the survival of the Tory Party (it is the equivalent of Clause 4 moment for them). Schnapps is hoping that people will have forgotten his aliases of Green & Fox and he may be taken seriously by then. Watch the Tories heavy weights (and of course their friends in the media) as they get nearer voting time. Expect more policy bribes from the Tories.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 13.

    What is Gerrymandering is the fact that Labour want to keep the boundaries as they are as it means they would then actually have to win more votes (and therefore more of the general publics genuine support) than they can muster at the present time!
    That way they can win an election with a lot less votes than the Tories. This is not Democratic.
    Only Labour supporters would try to defend this.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 12.

    Has no one noticed how complimentary Butch Flashman has started to be to the peripheral parties' MPs who ask questions at PMQs? Tories are already going behind the Literal Doormats & trying to do a deal with all the other parties hoping to scrape this through. This matters to them for the 40 seats they have targeted. This is too big a prize for the Tories that they will say & do anything.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 11.

    I have no idea how anyone could maintain any opposition to these new constituency plans. How can it be right that the smallest constituency has an electorate of 21,000 and the largest over 110,000. Votes carry more weight in the smallest constituencies. It is simply unfair and undemocratic.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 10.

    This is attempted gerrymandering, pure and simple.

    If you want to win elections, you need decent policies.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 9.

    3.calamitywatch - ".....valid argument as to why equally sized constituencies and a reduction from 650 seats to 600 is a bad thing for...."


    The Tories are using this to gerrymander in their favour. If the new seats were based on actual population, rather than electoral role nos everyone would be for it.....

    ....the Tories are using reduced as a cover for gerrymandering....

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 8.

    Typical Lib Dem behaviour. They get their referendum on AV and, when they fail to get public support for that nonsense, they renege on their promise to support the reduction in number of MPs (that the public definitely do want!). Dishonourable behaviour. The coalition should be abandoned, a new General Election called and the LIb Dems consigned to the (even further) obscurity they so deserve.

  • rate this
    -5

    Comment number 7.

    As a voter who will be thrown into the ridiculous concocted constituency of Keyworth and Coalville, I am bitterly disappointed that this vote has been dropped. Surely constituency boundaries should reflect the character and physical boundaries that already exist and the associated inherent workload rather than a meaningless nominal figure.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 6.

    The Constituencies sizes (numbers) needed to be aligned a long time ago.
    Labour dragged their heels over it when in Government as it did not suit them as it meant that they could hold on to power a little bit longer.
    The key is, it should be about the same (always going to be a few discrepencies no matter what) for each seat, otherwise that in itself, it not actually democratic!

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 5.

    The Literal Doormats turncoats will sell out anyway - Schnapps (or is it Green or Fox) has already indicated that as soon as the Tories wave loadasa wonga at them they will do the deal.
    At a time of cuts how have the Tories managed to find £12m for this - has their gerrymandering started already?

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 4.

    The Tories made their 'pact' with the Lib. Dems. then they began as they have begun every term in office: redrawing the boundaries to gerrymander the vote. Before the 'Great Reform Act' they used 'community of interest' to defend Rotten Boroughs, Now its suits them to tie urban areas to dormitory villages in order to thwart representative rather than numerical democracy. Hope it never happens.

 

Page 1 of 2

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.