Wales 29

A GUEST POST BY PENDDU

The Conservatives have recently announced their plans to reduce the total number of MPs at Westminster by 10% to 585, but with equal constituency sizes in Wales, which would mean a reduction from the current 40 MPs to 29. They also announced that electorates should vary by no more that +/-3.5% and that boundaries should not have to rigidly follow county boundaries or take geographical size into account. So how might this look in Wales?

Surprisingly, I found it very easy to carve up Wales into equal sized constituencies, which seem to be both natural and logical. I did this using a spreadsheet containing all of Wales’s electoral wards and the Ordnance Survey’s excellent election map system. Then I just started at the 4 corners of Wales and worked in, taking local authority boundaries into consideration wherever practical, but largely ignoring the existing constituencies. My calculations are based on the 2005 electorates, but this could be replicated with more current data, and on this basis Wales’s electoral quota for 29 seats would be 76,745 with a permitted variation of +/- 2,700.

For example, in the South West I started in Pembrokeshire. The County has an electorate of 89,829 so it would be necessary to remove around 13,000 voters to achieve the electoral quota. This could be done by transferring the Tenby area into Carmarthenshire, but it makes more sense both geographically and linguistically to transfer the Preseli area into Ceredigion. This would then create a new seat – I have called Penfro, but this is just a working name and can be changed – with an electorate of 76,067 or 99.1% of the electoral quota.

The Preseli area with an electorate of 13,762 would then be added to Ceredigion which has an electorate of 52,514, and this would give a combined electorate of 66,276. This is still too small at only 86% of the quota, so it would be necessary to find another 10,000 voters from somewhere. I considered extending the seat north to Machynlleth, or east into Powys, but it seemed more logical to take in some of the electoral wards in north-west Carmarthenshire, along the Teifi valley. This then created a new seat – which I have called Teifi - with an electorate of 75,856 or 98.8%.

Carmarthenshire, excluding the Teifi valley wards and the existing Llanelli constituency is getting close to the electoral quota, and by adding some wards in the Burry Port area, a new constituency – Myrddin – is created with an electorate of 100.4% of the quota.

The remaining electorate in Llanelli is only 47,000 which means that it needs to add 30,000 voters from West Glamorgan, and here I propose a new seat of Lwchwr which crosses the boundaries of the preserved counties.

I continued a similar process working in from all 4 corners of Wales, and considering a number of alternative solutions, and arrived at the following proposal.

South West Wales
Penfro	Pembrokeshire, exc Preseli	99%
Teifi	Ceredigion, Preseli & Teifi Valley	99%
Myrddin	Carmarthenshire E & W, exc Teifi Valley	100%
Lwchwr	Llanelli & North Gower	97%
Swansea Gower	Swansea West & South Gower	97%
Swansea Tawe	Swansea East & City Centre	99%
Neath	Neath, Aberafan & SW Powys	97%
Margam	Port Talbot, Porthcawl & Llynfi Valley	99%
South Central Wales
Cardiff East	Cardiff South & Cathays	103%
Cardiff North	Cardiff North & Gabalfa	102%
Cardiff West	Cardiff West & Grangetown	103%
Bro Morgannwg	Vale of Glamorgan, inc Penarth exc Cowbridge	103%
Ogwr	Bridgend Town, Ogmore Valley & Cowbridge	102%
Rhondda Elai	Rhondda & Ely Valley	101%
Cynon Taf	Cynon Valley & Pontypridd Town	98%
South East Wales
Usk	Monmouthshire County & Blaenafon	102%
Newport	Newport County	103%
Cwmbran	Torfaen & North Newport	100%
East Gwent	Blaenau Gwent & East Islwyn	101%
Caerfilli	Caerphilly & West Islwyn	99%
Rhymney	Merthyr, Rhymney & NW Islwyn	98%
South Powys	Brecon, Radnor & S Montgomeryshire, exc SW Powys	99%
North Wales
Gwynedd	Merionydd & Caernarfon	99%
Menai	Ynys Mon, Bangor & Nant Conwy	101%
Conwy	Conwy County	99%
Rhuddlan	Denbighshire Coast & North Flintshire	97%
Flintshire	Flintshire, exc North Flintshire	100%
Wrecsam	Wrexham County	99%
North Powys	North Montgomery & South Denbighshire	99%

This can still be optimised further, but it took me only a few hours to arrive at this solution – so why does the electoral boundary commission take so long?

This solution could also be used for creating 58 dual STV seats for Assembly elections, although I still prefer a solution that is independent of Westminster, with variable sized multi-member seats based on local Authorities.

Cymru 29

Start with some blurb

South West Wales
Penfro	Pembrokeshire, exc Preseli	99%
Teifi	Ceredigion, Preseli & Teifi Valley	99%
Myrddin	Carmarthenshire E & W, exc Teifi Valley	100%
Lwchwr	Llanelli & North Gower	97%
Swansea Gower	Swansea West & South Gower	97%
Swansea Tawe	Swansea East & City Centre	99%
Neath	Neath, Aberafan & SW Powys	97%
Margam	Port Talbot, Porthcawl & Llynfi Valley	99%

South Central Wales
Cardiff East	Cardiff South & Cathays	103%
Cardiff North	Cardiff North & Gabalfa	102%
Cardiff West	Cardiff West & Grangetown	103%
Bro Morgannwg	Vale of Glamorgan, inc Penarth exc Cowbridge	103%
Ogwr	Bridgend Town, Ogmore Valley & Cowbridge	102%
Rhondda Elai	Rhondda & Ely Valley	101%
Cynon Taf	Cynon Valley & Pontypridd Town	98%

South West Wales
Usk	Monmouthshire County & Blaenafon	99%
Newport	Newport County	99%
Cwmbran	Torfaen & North Newport	100%
East Gwent	Blaenau Gwent & East Islwyn	97%
Caerfilli	Caerphilly & West Islwyn	97%
Rhymney	Merthyr, Rhymney & NW Islwyn	99%
South Powys	Brecon, Radnor & S Montgomeryshire, exc SW Powys	97%

South West Wales
Gwynedd	Merionydd & Caernarfon	99%
Menai	Ynys Mon, Bangor & Nant Conwy	99%
Conwy	Conwy County	100%
Rhuddlan	Denbighshire Coast & North Flintshire	97%
Flintshire	Flintshire, exc North	97%
Wrecsam	Wrexham County	99%
North Powys	North Montgomery & South Denbighshire	97%

------------

South West Wales
Penfro	Pembrokeshire, exc. Preseli	99%
Teifi	Ceredigion, Preseli & Teifi Valley	99%
Myrddin	Carmarthenshire E & W, exc. Teifi Valley	100%
Lwchwr	Llanelli & North Gower	97%
Swansea Gower	Swansea West & South Gower	97%
Swansea Tawe	Swansea East & City Centre	99%
Neath	Neath, Aberafan & SW Powys	97%
Margam	Port Talbot, Porthcawl & Llynfi Valley	99%

South West
Penfro	three	99%
Teifi	five	99%
Myrddin	five	100%
Lwchwr	five	97%
Swansea Gower	five	97%
Swansea Tawe	five	99%
Neath	five	97%
Margam	five	99%

     

South West
Penfro	Pembrokeshire exc Preseli	99%
Teifi	Ceredigion & Preseli & Teifi valley	99%
Myrddin	Carmarthenshire E&W exc. Teifi valley	100%
Lwchwr	Llanelli & north Gower	97%
Swansea Gower	Swansea West & south Gower	97%
Swansea Tawe	Swansea East & city centre	99%
Neath	Neath & Aberafan & SW Powys	97%
Margam	Port Talbot & Porthcawl & Llynfi valley	99%

Reduce and Equalize

A couple of weeks ago, the Electoral Reform Society Wales published a research paper on the implications of the Tory plan to reduce the number of Westminster constituencies to about 500 and make their size more equal, as well as how this would affect Assembly elections.

If the paper received much publicity at the time I have to admit that I missed it, and I'd hazard a guess that others did too. So here it is, in Welsh and English:

     

Executive Summary

The paper analyses the effect that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition's proposals to cut the number of MPs in Westminster would have in Wales, and in particular on the National Assembly.

However, with the prospect of increased devolution coupled with the over-representation of Wales in Westminster, the issues raised in the paper will remain relevant in Wales over the coming years. Electoral Reform Society Wales believes that an informed discussion of the options available in the event of such changes is vital for the future health of Welsh democracy at all governmental levels, be they at the Westminster, devolved, or local level.

I haven't read it yet, but I'd invite others to start a discussion about what's in it which I'll join when I have.

However I did notice that their preferred option for the Assembly is that it should be elected by STV in multimember constituencies of varying size, based on Local Authority boundaries. This bears an uncanny resemblance to what Penddu proposed in this post last November.

A Fixed-term Parliament

As David Cornock has noted, the next Westminster election is now scheduled for 7 May 2015 ... the very same day as the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections.

Whatever else the Tories and LibDems are, they're not so stupid as to have not realized it, and are bound to try and justify the coincidence on the grounds that it will increase turnout and therefore as something which is good for democracy.

But applying the same logic, that means we should hold our referendum on primary lawmaking powers on 5 May 2011, the same day as the Assembly elections, for that will increase turnout in the same way. But no, the LibDems and the Tories in particular have been dead set against that idea, because they say it will confuse the voters; even though the more obvious reason is that it will split their party to have half campaigning for one thing, and half for something else, while at the same time trying to be united around their election manifesto. Nice to see the first manifestation of double standards.

-

To me, this is more than an innocent oversight, there is a more sinister agenda. The LibDems got to be in this position of power by virtue of an equal amount of exposure in the televised leaders debates. They will of course expect the same treatment again. So in 2015 the UK media will provide saturation coverage of what to 85% of the UK will be only one election (though there'll be a selection of council elections too) drowning out not only the voices of Plaid Cymru and the SNP on UK-wide issues, but any debate from all parties on the different issues that apply to the Senedd and Scottish Parliament.

The only conclusion to be drawn is that the Tories and the LibDems want to squeeze out Plaid and the SNP in elections to the devolved legislatures as well as to Westminster. This is a complete perversion of the democratic ideal of fixed-term parliaments. It is nothing but a blatant attempt to prevent democracy operating as it should.

-

But if the Tories and LibDems get away with this (for I have no doubt that the Electoral Commission will condemn them for it and try and get things changed) there is still a way that the Assembly and Scottish Parliament can get round it. We can call the elections up to six months early—for November 2014—with the next one held as usual in May 2019. But the circumstances are limited, for it requires a two-thirds majority in the Senedd, and the stitch up by the ConDems will suit Labour every bit as much as it does them for exactly the same reasons.

It's far from ideal, for nobody really wants a winter election with a lower turnout due to bad weather and dark evenings. And canvassing will be a nightmare. The idea situation would be for Westminster to have four year parliaments on a cycle that doesn't clash with the elections in Wales and Scotland.

Getting what you really, really want

I'm not going to criticize the LibDems for going into coalition with the Tories. Negotiating an agreement between parties is not only the normal way of forming a government in a democracy in which no party gets 50% of the vote, but it is the right way.

But the secret of any negotiation is to make sure you get what is really important to you. You need to strip out the inessential and concentrate on the essential. If you can find agreement on other things, fine. That's icing on the cake. But there's no point in getting the icing without getting the cake.

-

I'd invite people to think back three years to the Assembly election in 2007. Plaid were in a very similar position then to that in which the LibDems have found themselves in the last week. We had the choice between dealing with one party or a combination of other parties. Either way we would be in government. The choice was ours to make.

We dealt with the Tories and LibDems first, and came up with what I thought was a very good programme for government. But the one thing that we wanted above anything else was a referendum to give the Senedd primary lawmaking powers; and the only way of getting that was to agree a deal with Labour, because getting the referendum required a two-thirds majority in the Senedd. Everything else could be achieved by the simple majority that a coalition with the Tories and LibDems would have given us ... but Labour could effectively veto the referendum.

Going into the 2007 election, it was clear that Labour had no intention of holding that referendum any time in the foreseeable future. Back then, Peter Hain was talking about it taking a generation, others were saying at least ten years. The chances of getting them to agree to a referendum—and to campaign for a Yes vote in it as well—seemed to be about zero.

But we did it. We knew the basic instinct of a party like Labour is to be in power rather than in opposition.

-

Now look at the LibDems. The LibDems have always said that they think a fair voting system is fundamental. Yet it is now clear that they had not kept the demand for the Single Transferable Vote as an option in a referendum on electoral reform on the negotiating table. At some stage, perhaps during their negotiations with the Tories, or perhaps before they even went into the first meeting, they decided that they would only press for a referendum which included the Alternative Vote option. But having abandoned STV, they still pressed on with a whole host of other issues.

Then, when they walked away from the negotiations to talk to Labour, the Tories were able to shout after them to come back, saying they would now give the LibDems exactly what they had asked for with regard to electoral reform. The Tories did not say, "come back and we'll meet you half way by including AV but not STV in a referendum".

Now I can't guess at what the response would have been if the LibDems had stuck to their core principles. Perhaps they might have responded by saying, "OK, a step in the right direction is better than nothing" and we would be where we are now. But at least they would have had the option of saying, "No, if you accept it's right that the people should decide about the voting system in a referendum, then why shouldn't that referendum include both options?" In my opinion the Tories would have agreed to that: first, because the big thing was to concede the principle of a referendum and second, because—just as with Labour in 2007—the basic instinct of a party like the Tories is to be in power rather than in opposition.

-

Only a week or so ago I, like others, urged people who would normally vote Plaid to vote LibDem in seats where they stood the best chance of beating one of the two main parties. I did that for the sole reason that the LibDems, if given the opportunity, would put a more proportional voting system at the centre of their negotiations if they held the balance of power. They have betrayed the confidence I had in them.

They should have stood firm on what they believed in and let the Tories try and govern as a minority rather than compromise their core principle. As I said in other posts, the other parties did have enough votes to get a referendum thorough either as a short term alliance with that one aim, or in opposition. Then, after a referendum, we would elect a new parliament in which the numbers of seats better reflected the number of people who voted for each party.

But, by tying themselves to the Tories, the LibDems will not be able to break ranks. Yes, there will be a referendum where we will be asked to choose between FPTP and AV only. I am sure that either Plaid, the SNP or the Greens will put forward an amendment to that legislation to include an option on STV. But it will be voted down, and we will then witness the ultimate tragedy of the LibDems voting against STV, simply because they have bound themselves to an agreement with the Tories that does not allow for it.

And it will be a tragedy not only for them, but for democracy itself since, as I noted here, the vast majority of the public—62% to 13%—had supported the LibDems in wanting to see STV used for elections to Westminster.

Of course, when the referendum comes I will vote for AV, because I think it is a step in the right direction. But it contains no element of proportionality, and so in the next Westminster election one or other of the usual two parties will almost certainly get an artificially inflated majority of seats despite getting only a minority of the vote, and the LibDems will be unceremoniously dumped. The knife-edge result we just had was a once in a generation opportunity that they failed to take. They have sacrificed not only a fair electoral system, but their own future as well, in return for the promise of five of their politicians having a seat at the Cabinet table for five years.

Don't be pessimistic, there is a way

I read this post by Peter Black yesterday and was struck by the pessimism of one part of what he said:

Labour ... are clinging to power in a desperate hope that the Liberal Democrats and other minor parties will join them in an anti-Tory coalition government. However, tempting as that is the numbers do not add up. Such a construct would not be stable and could not get its legislation through the House of Commons. That includes a PR Referendum Bill, which would surely fail to attract the support of all the Labour MPs, leaving Gordon Brown without anything to offer us.

And in his blog today, he seemed at pains to downplay the chances of getting any sort of electoral reform:

Much as I want to see electoral reform these talks are about bigger issues

Gordon Brown is dangling a referendum in front of us but he cannot deliver. The sort of coalition of losers he is promoting would be unstable and would not deliver electoral reform because the outgoing Prime Minister could not deliver his own Parliamentary Party

we [may] get less than electoral reform but will still be able to take a significant step forward

I can see where he's coming from, but it's clear to see that this line of thinking will get nowhere. So what I want to offer is a better way of looking at it, one that will deliver electoral reform ... which I think should be the main prize to be won from the tight result of this election.

-

At present the parties are talking at cross purposes.

• For the Tories, the emphasis is being put on a strong and stable government to get the UK out of the financial crisis. There might well be a role for the LibDems in this.

• For Labour, the idea is to maintain an "anything but the Tories" government, which they would of course lead.

But I would have thought that for the LibDems, the purpose is different. There must surely be one primary aim for the LibDems, namely reform of the voting method for the Commons. Other reforms are important too, but they must be instigated by the Commons and so it is right that they only happen when we have a House of Commons in which the number of seats more fairly represents the percentage of the vote obtained by each party. If we try and bundle everything together into one reform package to include fixed-term parliaments, the voting age, an elected House of Lords ... and maybe a few other things the chances of reaching an agreement become more remote. I firmly believe we should concentrate on only one issue: the voting system for the Commons.

There is a majority in the Commons for this reform:

Labour ... 258
LibDem ... 57
SNP ... 6
Plaid ... 3
SDLP ... 3
Green ... 1

Total ... 328

It should also be noted that the "winning post" is not 326. It is 323 because Sinn Fein will not take their 5 seats. It's a small point, but the numbers count.

That is enough to get a referendum bill through. The numbers do not have to remain in place to form a stable long-term government, and it is very unlikely that they would do so because the parties have different agendas on most other matters. They just have to stack up for this single issue.

The aim would be to get this bill through in a matter of months, and to then hold a new election under the new voting system if that referendum is successful.

     

Having established that there are the numbers to do it, the issue then becomes: What are the options that should be presented in the referendum? In broad terms, there are five possible options:

•  First-past-the-post (the status quo)
•  FPTP, plus additional members (Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament)
•  The Alternative Vote
•  The Alternative Vote, plus additional members
•  The Single Transferable Vote (Northern Ireland Assembly)

If there were just three options, it would be straightforward to ask two questions:

1.  Should the current voting system to the HoC be changed?
          Yes
          No

2.  If the current voting system to the HoC is changed, should it be to:
          System A
          System B

This would be an elegant solution, similar to the questions asked in the referendum to set up a Scottish Parliament (a Yes/No on the Parliament followed by a Yes/No on tax varying powers) but it relies on whittling down the five options to three. However it is possible, particularly as three options represent the respective positions of the big three parties; the Tories want to keep FPTP, Labour want the Alternative Vote (without additional members) and the LibDems want the Single Transferable Vote.

The other option would be for people to rank the five options in order of preference with a "1, 2, 3 ... " with the outcome decided by using the Alternative Vote mechanism. I think that would be better in terms of breadth of choice, but not as elegant. It would also involve two options which are compromises, rather than what any party really wants. Who would campaign for the two compromise options?

-

So my conclusion is that the ballot paper for the referendum should contains these two questions:

1.  Should the current voting system to the HoC be changed?
          Yes
          No

2.  If the current voting system to the HoC is changed, should it be to:
          The Alternative Vote
          The Single Transferable Vote

Now I do not see why any party should object to a referendum in this form. After all, the UK is meant to be a democracy, so this format leaves us the voters to decide.

If the three parties can agree to a binding referendum in this form, followed by a new election about at least three months but not longer than a year later, it then frees the parties to form whatever coalition or minority government they can negotiate based on all the other issues.