« Like smashing your head against a brick wall... | Main | Conference Round-up »
October 06, 2005
Conservative Week: update
Reaction to my little think-piece the other day has been encouraging. It's been picked up in a number of places, so hopefully there are a few more enlightened souls roaming the streets.
Most encouraging so far is the response from Snafu of the estimable Tory blog Once More, who has very graciously highlighted the most damning statistics for the perusal of his right-wing readership.
The response to hawking both the full report PDF and my briefer version around various Tory think-tanks and MPs has been predictably taciturn. In addition to the fob-off response from Michael Howard's office, Boris's ever-lovely assistant, Melissa, (NB: not taking the piss) said she'd make sure Boris had a look at it (which is at least sort-of likely, I think, as someone from their office read this piece when I told them about it a while back).
Lewis went to the conference armed with copies of the PDF, so if he had any luck handing them out to interested parties, I'll let you know.
No response yet from Cameron, Willetts or Heald, or any of the think-tanks, or the chaps from the Telegraph. For my letter to Heald, and my response to Howard's office's reponse to me, read on.
From Me to Kate Marley, Office of the Rt Hon Michael Howard QC MP (in response to this)
Dear Kate,
Thank you for your sweet reply. It is nice to know that the information provided has been carefully noted. I trust this means we will hear no more fallacious nonsense of the kind Mr Heald is so keen on dishing out. I refer to this from June 13 where he mentioned that:
"Britain does need a fairer electoral system - but PR is not the answer. Proportional representation prevents voters from kicking out an unpopular government and leads to extremist and minority parties being elected with as little as 5% of the vote. Instead, we should review the way in which Parliamentary boundaries are drawn up, to ensure that constituencies are the same size,"
And again in the Commons on June 22:
Mr. Heald: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the bias in the system at present is mostly accounted for by variations in size between constituencies throughout the United Kingdom? If we had an equal electoral quota that was properly implemented throughout the country so that constituencies were the same size we would have a much more proportional system and one that did not have the bias within it?
It is nice to know that, although I have been responsible for vanquishing the Conservative Party's only contribution to the unfairness of the electoral system, I am now (following the careful noting) also responsible for giving them proper, reasoned, and indeed accurate, ammunition with which to continue their assault on the injustices they face.
If you would be so kind as to make sure that Mr Heald is aware of the full situation, that would be marvellous, both for my own vainglory and so that he can avoid making a further tit of himself in the future. I have written to Mr Heald myself, but you know elusive these politicians can be, especially when their errors are involved.
From Me to Oliver Heald MP (perhaps a little blunt, but achieving proper provocation is difficult)
I am writing to help you out, paying attention, is therefore, advisable.
Speaking in the Commons on June 22 you stated that:
Mr. Heald: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the bias in the system at present is mostly accounted for by variations in size between constituencies throughout the United Kingdom? If we had an equal electoral quota that was properly implemented throughout the country so that constituencies were the same size we would have a much more proportional system and one that did not have the bias within it?
I know this was a while ago, but I assume this is still your view. I write to you, therefore, to save you from making such fallacious comments ever again. The boundaries are as biased against the Tories now as they have always been (or at least since the 60s). The electoral bias, against which you rightly protest, has also, to some extent been around since the 60s, but up until the 90s, it was negligible. Now it is such that to gain a majority of 2 in a general election, the Tories would need an 11.7% lead on the popular vote, which, let's face it, isn't going to happen any time soon, not even if Boris was in charge.
There is little need to go on, all the information you could ever want about how the electoral system screws you over is here, which includes a section especially for you 'The boundary question, or why Oliver Heald is a bit of an idiot'. Perhaps you'd like to respond. I might be wrong, after all.
Now, I know you "love first past the post", but your job is to look at these sort of things, and from your previous statements it's clear you haven't been doing your job very well. Eventually that sort of behaviour is going to get you the sack. So please read the report available via the above link, digest it and learn. After that you are free to go on loving FPTP (although you won't be able to reasonably chat nonsense about the boundaries anymore).
I, and I'm sure the author of the full 'Conservatives and the electoral system' report, Lewis Baston, along with many others would love to hear your response. You've seen what clinging to erroneous statements has done to David Blunkett (ok, he's got a top job, but he'll go down in history as a liar and a fool). Don't go the same way, it just isn't pretty.
Hope I have been of some use, and sorry if any of this is painful, that's just the way some things are.
Posted by pauldavies on October 06, 2005
Comments
Of course, you know, and I'm sure a lot of Conservatives who oppose FPTP with all the sinews in their body know, that the 11.7% lead needed to win is based on even swing across the country. As the last election showed, universal swing is unlikely.
If the Tories can change tack and win the Blairites over in the right surburban seats, the lead needed is much less than this.
Posted by: Neil Harding at October 10, 2005 03:21 AM
The thing with the marginals is that the Tories could quite easily force a hung parliament on a small swing, about 1.4 or something, but actually gaining power is going to take a much bigger effort, one that they look incapable of generating at the moment.
Posted by: Paul Davies at October 10, 2005 10:17 AM
If they choose David Cameron (and I hope they don't), his boyish looks play well with the small number of 'special' voters who count. Apparently under him 50% of these voters lean towards voting Tory (according to a Guardian poll the other week). This would be enough for them to win.
Posted by: Neil Harding at October 10, 2005 04:46 PM
We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.
