BLOG

The impact of Boundary Changes | 16/02/12

Psephology, the scientific analysis of elections, is often viewed as an intellectual folly, with very little practical impact on the ground.

As someone who has spent great swathes of time looking at the proposed boundary changes, taking data from the sources available, and trying to make sense of this all, I would disagree with this assertion. The impact of political change is of course profound, with significant implications for our economy, specifically on businesses both large and small. In a time of economic uncertainty, political stability is both a cause for optimism, and in turn, a foundation for growth.

At this juncture it is important to reiterate that these proposals have no certainty of actually getting through Parliament. There are some radical changes that MPs have been particularly vocal against, and some which lend themselves more to fulfilling the statistical criteria of ensuring seats of equal size, than to any adherence to geographical reason or historical ties.

An excellent example of this is the proposed City of London and Islington South Seat. MPs across the three major parties are unhappy that this breaks the historic tie between the Cities of London and Westminster. It also raises the very distinct possibility of a Labour MP representing the City of London. What links Islington, with its stark divide between haves and have-nots, and the financial centre of Europe, on anything other than a geographical mapping tool is not apparent. However, it does mean that a prominent Conservative MP in Mark Field is likely to face-off against Labour incumbent Emily Thornberry in a seat that historically Labour has only faced a fleeting challenge from the Liberal Democrats in the 2000s. History aside, the creation of any new three-way marginal is exciting for the psephologist. 

Using 2010 voting data, the impact of the new boundary changes are stark. The Conservatives would have secured 298 seats, three short of an overall majority. So, one could conclude that a Coalition Government would not have been averted. But the very dynamics of the Coalition would have changed as the need for a large caucus of Liberal Democrats to reach a majority would not have been necessary. With the recent positive noises emanating from the Democratic Unionist Party over their support on Conservative Party policies, their six MPs would have been enough to secure a majority under the new model. It would be safe to conclude that the impact of six unionist MPs from Northern Ireland would have been restricted to a token Cabinet position for their leader Nigel Dodds, averting the friction we have witnessed at times in this Parliament surrounding Liberal Democrat dissention on Tuition Fees, Welfare Reform and the Health and Social Care Bill.

This, of course, remains hypothetical. In 2015, with these boundary changes in situ, there are various factors that we have to legislate for; a potential collapse in the Liberal Democrat vote, the reinforcement of a Conservative campaigns platform devoid of ‘soft’ Coalition-focused policies, and the expectation that the Labour Party may have found a coherent policy platform that re-engages itself with the public.

The electoral landscape will become clearer as the Coalition Government progresses and, although there are merits to applying national polling trends to data, I think the beauty of these boundary proposals lie in some of the individual battles that will emerge, that will perhaps determine the direction of our next Government. Such battles will include: Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Vince Cable coming up against Conservative pin-up boy Zac Goldsmith; Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith having great swathes of Labour North-East London pushed into a previously safe Conservative seat in the Essex/London hinterland; and former Chancellor of the Exchequer Ed Balls in serious risk of finally losing his seat, with his Morley and Outwood constituency abolished and with the political landscape of the area radically altering, taking on more historically Conservative Wards.

Statistics aside, political parties need to recognise the wider demographic and economic trends that make policy attractive, and accordingly make these boundary changes work for them. An interesting analysis of how this might impact upon on our next Government was recently written by former MP Paul Goodman on ConservativeHome. With all things considered, the era of three-term Government appears to be dead. The political stability the economy craves looks set to diminish under a future of political uncertainty.