Labour’s current slump in the polls has forecasters predicting the Party will be wiped out at the next election. Based on current opinion polls, the Electoral Calculus website is predicting that the Labour Party will have only 172 MPs. This week’s Knowledgeshop examines how boundary changes to parliamentary constituencies in England has exacerbated Labour’s problems and looks at those who will lose their constituencies under the new boundaries, and the fall out from this.

The Boundary Commission – a bit of history

The great Reform Act of 1832 worked to abolish “rotten boroughs”, which were constituencies with few electors, and so-called “pocket boroughs”, where the constituency was believed to be controlled by the main land-owner or family. Later, in the constituency redistribution of 1918, the principle of creating equal sized seats was established.

However, in 1939 there were still 20 constituencies with more than 100,000 electors and 13 with under 30,000 (with a range from 15,000 to 150,000). To tackle this problem, the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1944 set up an independent Boundary Commission for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The Commission are required to submit a report on a general review of all the constituencies in England every eight to twelve years from the date of their last. The last review, which was received Parliamentary approval last summer, is only the fifth report that the Commission has made.

Political Battle

The Labour Party has previously fared well from boundary changes, in particular their 1997 landslide was helped in part by the introduction of new boundaries that were detrimental to the Tories. Conservative Central Office have been viewed as making a greater collective effort in this round, and focusing their attention on the Labour Party, rather than getting caught up in internal squabbles. Opinion on how damaging this will be to the Labour Party is mixed. The Electoral Reform Society has conducted research into this matter and has concluded that if 2005 voting was replicated at the next General Election then the Labour majority would be reduced to 44, from 64. The Labour Party’s own private estimates put the impact rather higher and predict that the loss would be greater.

The Labour Party’s victory in 2005 was characterised by the fact that many of the seats they retained had such small majorities. Whilst the review abolishes nine seats and creates thirteen new ones entirely, there are a number of small changes to other seats. In lots of constituencies, wards have been removed and put into another constituency. In seats with small majorities, this has the effect of altering the balance of the constituency away from Labour.

The Conservatives’ strategy has been to funnel money to these newly-drawn seats, as well as marginal constituencies. The Government had designed legislation to cap spending at £12,000 for the duration of a parliament, starting the moment a candidate is adopted by the party, leafleting or gives interviews. No local candidate would get more than £12,000. However, an article recently leaked to The Guardian suggests that the Electoral Commission has concerns about this strategy.

“The commission’s view is that it would not be able to issue finalised guidance in this area until the relevant primary legislation had received royal assent and the commission had carefully considered the wider context in which guidance would operate, and consulted widely on the content of the guidance,” It is reported.

If the proposals became law by next summer there would then be a consultation period. This delay would leave little time for the funding changes to be introduced by the next election.

Affected MPs

Ed Balls’ seat of Normanton was one of the seats that was completely abolished in the review. Along with the three other MPs in the area (Jon Trickett, Yvette Cooper and Mary Creagh) he applied to the High Court for a judicial review of the change. This bid was rejected, leaving him without a seat. Both he and Colin Challen applied to stand for the new seat of Morley and Outwood constituency which incorporates around 2/3 of Challen’s current seat and 1/3 of Balls’.

Colin Challen subsequently announced that he would be standing down in order to campaign full time for global action on climate change, leaving the seat to Balls. 

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears, was also affected by boundary changes to her constituency. Her constituency Salford was merged with the neighbouring  seat Eccles, meaning she was forced to fight Ian Stewart MP for the selection. Blears was chosen to be the Labour candidate for Salford and Eccles by 174 votes to 79.

Sarah Teather – the Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretary for Business and Enterprise, also loses her seat as part of the review. Her constituency, Brent East disappears at the next general election – most of the seat will go to form part of a Brent Central seat, while three wards covering Kilburn area will be part of the new Hampstead and Kilburn constituency. Teather has announced that she will stand for the new Brent Central seat. However, the Brent GLA results saw either Labour or the Conservatives leading in every ward in the Borough, and the Lib Dems down on their 2004 in every ward except a minor rise in one. This would suggest that Teather faces an uphill struggle to win this seat.

New constituencies created:

Broadland
Chelsea and Fulham
Chippenham
Derbyshire Mid
Devon Central
Filton and Bradley Stoke
Kenilworth and Southam
Meon Valley
Northamptonshire South
St Austell and Newquay
Witham
Wyre and Preston North
York Outer

Constituencies to be abolished:

Birmingham Sparkbrook and Small Heath
Brent East
Eccles
Hornchurch
Knowsley North & Sefton East
Normanton
Sheffield Hillsborough
Tyne Bridge
Vale of York

The Next Election

The next General Election is already looking difficult for the Labour Party, with the outcome of the Boundary Committee firmly adding to its woes. The Party does have a difficult challenge ahead of it. We will have to watch and see it can reverse its fortunes and overcome the problems that the Boundary Review has presented. 

Additional reporting by Lucy Jenkins