Balls' protest kicked back

Ed Balls was one of four Labour MPs who legally appealed against boundary changes which would hurt their careers - his seat of Normanton will no longer exist. The High Court has rejected their appeals and awarded costs to the Boundary Commission.

These changes are a modest attempt to address the fact that the Conservatives need about a 10% lead over Labour in terms of votes, to return the same number of MPs.

Oliver Heald, Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, made the point that this would further increase the unlikelihood of Brown calling a snap election:

"This is a major blow to Ed Balls' attempt to allow Gordon Brown to call a snap election on out-of-date and unfair Parliamentary boundaries. We are pleased that the High Court has seen through a clear attempt to delay the independent Boundary Commission's proposals."

With Murdoch sticking his oar in, no money in the Labour bank, and repeated opinion polls putting Brown behind Cameron - a snap election can't be on the cards at this stage. That is, if Brown wins...

Deputy Editor

Comments

[Normantonian]

"The High Court has rejected their appeals"

Thank goodness for that!

[Cllr Nicholas Bennett]

Good, all three parties can get on with the constituency organisation changes for Jan 1st 2007.

[Chris Palmer]

These boundary changes are good for winning extra seats but bad if the Conservative party wishes to form a Government at the next election. Some seats are made easier to win but others harder to win. If we wanted to form a Government in 2009 (or whenever the next election is called) then we would have been better off under current boundaries.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Am I the only person whose eyes began to water as a result of reading the headline to this thread too quickly?

[Andrew Woodman]

I do hope Balls finds a new seat. He's such an unattractive politican with his over active sixth form debating style and likeness to Piers in the New Stateman. Put him together with Brown and our election chances increase.

[Andy P]

I think Chris Palmer has got it wrong. We will gain under the new boudarries. There isn;t a single person who doesn't accept that - between 10 and 20 seats.

[Andrew Woodman]

Andy, what Chris probably means is although we gain seats initially, the ones we need to win lower down the target seat list get a bit tougher. For example in Derbyshire, although we get a notional gain with the new seat of Mid Derbyshire and South Derbyshire gets a bit easier, Derby North, Erewash and Amber Valley get a lot tougher so we could end up with 2 gains instead of 4 if we don't get a big enough swing.

[Yet Another Anon]

These boundary changes are good for winning extra seats but bad if the Conservative party wishes to form a Government at the next election. Some seats are made easier to win but others harder to win. If we wanted to form a Government in 2009 (or whenever the next election is called) then we would have been better off under current boundaries.
The more seats a party or grouping has, the more chance it has of forming a government - with 198 seats out of 646 the Conservative Party could only form a government if significant numbers of other MP's decided to back them, as happened in 1924 when there was a situation that the Conservatives didn't want to form a coalition with either other main party and equally the Liberals didn't want a coalition with Labour and the Liberals and Conservatives saw it as an opportunity to allow Labour into government but in a situation in which legislation was still reliant on Liberal and Conservative votes and they could be brought down at the most suitable time, supposing the notional gains were accurate and in the improbable event of the next election going exactly the same way in terms of votes then 214 out of 650 is 32.93% of seats compared to at 198 out of 646 seats - 30.65% of seats and the Conservative Party would then be 14 seats closer towards a total neccessary to form a government allowing for the greater number of seats, on the one hand the Conservatives need Labour to fail but equally they need to succeed themselves given that the Liberal Democrats appear likely to oppose anyone forming a government who does not embark on a serious programme to introduce PR, in addition PC & SNP would expect moves towards Independence for Scotland and Wales, the SDLP will be likely to back Labour and equally UKIP would want a committment to withdraw from Europe and anyway will be likely to be in small numbers if any, pretty much that leaves cutting a deal with the DUP which would only add the backing of an extra 10-13 MP's. In addition under the new boundaries it is more difficult for Labour than under the old, changes in voting patterns could eliminate notional gains or intensify them but at worst the new boundaries will be no worse for the Conservative Party and no better for Labour.

Any party wanting to have a hope of introducing it's agenda largely as is will need over 300 seats at the least.

[Antony Calvert]

If any betting peeps out there fancy a flutter then put some dosh on Balls getting Prescott's Hull East seat.

[Andrea]

"If any betting peeps out there fancy a flutter then put some dosh on Balls getting Prescott's Hull East seat."

Chris Leslie (former MP for Shepley) was rumoured to be interested in that seat too.

[sjm]

Sorry to get personal and pedantic, but whilst I'd love to read Yet Another Anon's analysis, until s/he learns to punctuate, it is impossible to understand. Really, just the occasional full stop would help, I'm not asking for anything difficult, like a semi-colon.

[Paul Kennedy]

Maybe Mrs Balls will relinquish her seat (Pontefract & Castleford - 15,000 odd majority - 18th safest seat)in favour of her husband, interesting idea about Hull East. If all else fails I'm sure an MP with a safe seat in the area can be incentivised to "retire". ;)

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Wouldn't it be faintly ironic if he was selected as Tony Blair's successor in Sedgefield?

[Antony Calvert]

You can't be serious about Cooper (Mrs Balls but without the marital name (well, would you??)) giving up her seat, can you?! I mean, what else would/could she do other than be an MP, other that being a union official, of course?

Balls and Cooper will by MPs after the next election, I can guarantee that. The good thing about this judicial challenge to the BC is that it was the MP's who stumped up the cash, or the Labour Party to be precise.

It pleases me to see their campaign budget for the next local elections squeezed further.

[CDM]

Pleasing as this news is, what guarantee is there that the alterations will make it through parliament? It would get bad press, but isn't it conceivable that Labour MPs might be wipped to vote aginst the changes, as they will be the biggest losers?

[Antony Calvert]

CDM - I would be very surprised if that were the case. Convention dictates that this will go through unopposed. Labour would have great difficulty in justifying voting against the BC plans and it would reflect badly with their popular support.

[Cllr Nicholas Bennett]

Although in 1969 that's just what they did. Callaghan as Home Secretary laid the Boundary Commission recommendations before Parliament as required to do and then led Labour through the lobbies to reject them.

[Preston]

In reply to the last post, this is why the whole boundary change system itself needs to be altered. The Government of the day voting for or against boundary changes which could harm chances of re-election? What nonsense...If the independent commissions have made their recommondations, that should be the end of it.