13 April 2009

Cameron Spins Boundary Fiddle As Efficiency Gain.

This is very dangerous. It has been known for a long time that the Tories are going to fiddle the boundaries back in their favour and spin it as 'saving money by reducing the number of wasteful MPs'. But to spin it as making votes 'more equal' is laughable. If the Tories make this a manifesto commitment and they will, the debate has to be moved 'loudly and quickly' onto how on earth the present system can ever be fair when 80% of seats are foregone conclusions and also how can it be in keeping with the Tories precious 'constituency link' to move the boundaries all over the place and increase the number of constituents each MP has to serve?

In the dying days of this Labour government - a government that promised the people a say on how MPs were elected when it came to power 12 years ago, are we really to have to wait another generation while the Tories acquire power once again with only 20% of eligible voters supporting them and then fiddle the boundaries so they can win power on even less than that. It is so depressing. Whenever people tell me that the Tories have changed I will refer them to this nonsense - the Tories don't even believe in democracy, so how can they ever believe in equality?


  1. "are we really to have to wait another generation while the Tories acquire power once again with only 20% of eligible voters supporting them and then fiddle the boundaries so they can win power on even less than that"

    Yes, because people like you stuck with Labour after it was clear they were a bunch of control-freak tossers with a lust for Iraqi blood.

  2. TT: In 97, 2001 and even 2005 Labour promised a referendum on PR - no other government has ever promised that. Ok, they lied but what other option did we have but to try and push this government into honouring their promise.

    Besides this of course and I know this won't mean much to you, but Labour have devolved power to Scotland, Wales and London under proportional representation (and PR for the European parliament). They have provided a minimum wage, they have provided desperately needed funds to education and the NHS, they have given equal rights to minorities, a freedom of information act and they have redistributed over £100bn to the poorest 20%. That makes the last 12 years worth a lot more than what we would have got out of a continuation of Tory control freaks in power.

    Thatcher and Major gave us Quangos and widespread CCTV, quadrupled the number of managers in the NHS, abolished local government centralising everything from Whitehall. Politicised the police in the most brutal way during NI troubles and miner strikes with regular social unrest through 2 massive recessions and 5m+ unemployed and rioting in the streets as a result. They gave us the most unpopular taxes in history placing the burden on the poorest including the poll tax and council tax. They gave us section 28 to monitor our sex lives and continued the 'sus' laws. In short they poked into our everyday lives as much as they could, do you really think they would have been any better on civil liberties than Labour as new technology like the internet came our way? Look at how they have placed moles to read ministers' emails and expenses for political dirty tricks. The Tories would have made this lot look tame by example. No doubt when Cameron takes power in a years time you will begin to realise this.

  3. Trooper Thompson18/4/09 12:22 pm

    How can you possibly champion Labour's promise of a referendum in one sentence and admit it was a lie in the next?

    It's called 'doublethink'.

    "Thatcher and Major gave us Quangos and widespread CCTV..."

    Yes, and Labour took the baton from their hands and ran with it. No change.

    "Politicised the police in the most brutal way"

    But did they send the police to ransack opposition politicians' homes and Parliamentary offices?

    "do you really think [the tories] would have been any better on civil liberties than Labour as new technology like the internet came our way?"

    In one way, yes. Because unlike the tories, Labour are true believers in the unlimited power of the state.

  4. "doublethink" - The point is, what is better? when a government promise a referendum and let you down? or when they refuse to offer one? At least in the first example there is a possibility of change even if ultimately they renege on their promise. It at least gives reformers something to point to. 'doublethink' is still better than removing the word from the dictionary altogether (which is the Tory option).

    Thatcher and Major used the state as an Iron fist to control the people when they didn't do as they wanted. Labour use the state to spend money on the poor (wastefully in your opinion). Yes, Labour think the state can be used for good, but don't be fooled into thinking the Tories don't use the state, they do and more ruthlessly than Labour ever have.

    "ransack opposition' - Don't you remember during the Tory era? - Spycatcher? the ludicrous dubbing of Sinn Fein MPs? the regular jailing of journalists? the spying and infiltration tactics during the miner strike and infiltration of other left-wing organisations throughout the 80s and 90s? abolishing local government? harrasment of minorities etc etc? Don't be fooled into thinking the Tories do not use the state more than Labour, just in different more ruthless ways.

  5. Also, remember that the Tories had secret files on most Labour MPs in the 80s and 90s including such subversives as Harriet Harman, Peter Hain and Jack Straw.

  6. I find the idea that promising something and breaking the promise is better than not promising that thing baffling. It was a cynical ploy to get elected, which shows Labour's attitude to the public. And they did it again with the EU constitution.

    "Labour use the state to spend money on the poor (wastefully in your opinion)"

    The poor bankers, do you mean? Where does Labour get all the money from? Answer: they take it from the people.

    I advise you to listen to former MP Alice Mahon, who has done the decent thing and left your party.

  7. If more of the 200,000 people who have left the party had stayed, maybe the Labour party would have won the debate on things like electoral reform. When only two parties can get into government and one of those parties is the Tories who allow their members no say over policy, how does it help electoral reform for loads of people who believe in reform to leave the one party that might bring that about?

  8. Trooper Thompson21/4/09 11:53 am

    Those 200,000 people left the party no doubt for a number of reasons, the unifying one being that they no longer wanted to be associated with the lies, spin and war crimes of the leadership. Your party is not controlled by the members, the policies are dictated from elsewhere, namely the WTO, the EU, the Bilderberg Group etc.

  9. The funny thing is the Tories and their press friends have always been better at spin than Labour (new or old). I think the Damian McBride thing demonstrates how bad we are at it.

    The Tories have even spun the fact that Labour got a bit better in handling the ferociously hostile Tory media as a bad thing. You got to hand it to the devious bastards. Genius!!