By: Patrick Nolan, Student Voices writer
We live in a representative democracy, right? Our MPs are elected as representatives of a geographical constituency on a simple majority, correct? There is nothing proportional about First-Past-The-Post. Agreed? So it is therefore a false defence to suggest that this change- reducing the number of MPs in the Commons to 600 and re-drawing boundaries based purely on populations- is about making results somehow more proportional or representative. The point of representative democracy is that minority voices may be heard and all interests represented, rather than a tyranny-of-the-majority approach in other systems. It is, thus, not the priority of our system that boundaries are determined by numbers alone but by geographical changes that mean differing characteristics and interests in each constituency. Constituencies such as the Isle Of Wight, albeit large, make sense as one singular constituency as there is a definitive geographical barrier that mean the interests of constituents are likely to be similar- the very interests that MPs are meant to, but seldom, stand up for in Parliament. Furthermore, dropping the number of MPs to 600 is surely, mathematically, a reduction in public representation in the Commons. If they wanted actual proportional representation for the public, constituency boundaries would be the fine print in any reform.
A report last
March from a cross-party committee suggested that, if boundary changes were to
be made, they need not aim to strictly limit differences in constituency
populations to 5% but that a 10% variation either way was satisfactory. The
Tories rejected this in favour of myopically pushing their own agenda. Strange,
since this is the same party that only allowed the Liberal Democrats the
Alternative Vote as the alternative to FPTP in the 2011 referendum and still
campaigned against it. “Equality and fairness must be paramount” said the
cabinet office- if we’re going to have less MPs and less representation we may
as well do it fairly, eh folks? The committee also suggested that immediately
cutting 50 MPs was unnecessarily quick but again, clearly determined to
diminish representation, the government has chosen to ignore this.
A sign of what's to come? |
This attack on workers’ rights, through Trade Union
Bill, again highlights the ideological, provocative nature of the Tory
onslaught on everything that, in the decades after the war against the evils of
the far right, the British people built up, deciding that we wanted to look
after each other and not the elite anymore. There is nothing practical or
democratic about introducing provocative attacks on the ability of Trade Unions
to protect us when strike action in the UK is unusually low for a “developed
democracy”. In the same vain as changing constituency boundaries but rejecting
all other electoral systems, the Conservatives are increasing strike ballot
thresholds and limiting workers’ rights instead of offering online balloting
which would substantially increase turnouts in strike ballots- again
unsurprisingly doing nothing to aid democracy when there would be no direct
Tory benefit. The right-wing elite, trying to break solidarity everywhere by
demonising every section of society in turn (those on benefits; Muslims;
Socialists; supposedly 'benefit-tourist' immigrants; it was the Irish too once
upon a time) are the true Class Warriors and they’re not going to stop soon. Their
fear-mongering politics has now moved onto attacks on democracy itself and, on
a 24% mandate, I see no right for them to dictate the terms of future elections
and move the goalposts to suit themselves.
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any more
blatant, there’s also the ongoing threat to cut Short Money- the state’s
funding for opposition parties. So following an attack on Labour’s funding
through trade unions (side note: I don’t remember fat-cat business owners
having to ask their workers permission in order to donate to the Conservative
Party) they’d finish of political opposition by directly limiting the funds of
all opponents in Westminster. In response to member s of their own party
showing dissent against such an American-style, anti-democratic policy, Downing
Street confirmed they were “committed” to reducing Short Money. Committed? The
next step, I presume, would be to declare Britain a one-party state and be done
with costly ventures such as General Elections. At least the Nazis got to 43%
of the popular vote before banning all political opposition.
Don’t bleat about stronger democracy or fairer, more
equal voting, these changes are purely political and aim to consolidate Tory
power for the future. When continuing with their politics of fear and
manipulation, I wish they would at least in part admit to their motives rather
than hiding behind numerous facades- in this case being that their boundary
changes are ‘more democratic’ and about “equality”. Whilst in power Labour
generally avoided manipulating the system for their own future gain and
actually cut ties with their biggest powerbase – the unions- albeit for
ideological reasons; the Tories seem to be going for the jugular in, as Nick
Clegg put it, trying to “rig every rule” in their favour. Surely anyone can see
that their agenda has nothing to do with being “all in this together” and
everything to do with diminishing the power of British democracy.
Meet the author:
Writer
A-level student. Labour Party member. Amnesty International supporter. Writing tends to focus on British politics or the International Relations of the Middle East. Unapologetically: “on the left”; largely a pacifist; a trade unionist; particularly interested in the oppression of Palestinians . I’m also excited by the growing left wing movements across Europe, posing a genuine alternative to the established elite in media and politics. Tw: @nolanpaddyyak. Web: standingleft.wordpress.com
Boundary changes: Another Policy of Diminishing Democracy
Reviewed by Admin
on
19:35
Rating:
No comments:
Share your views here! But read our Comment Policy first, found on the about page.