Whether it’s a result of me being Welsh or my fondness of democracy, the idea that the Tories’ proposed boundary changes will take away approximately 27% of the MPs Wales currently have doesn’t quite sit well with me.
Especially when considering the fact that the rest of the figures* look like this:
- Northern Ireland lose 6%
- England lose 7%
- Scotland lose 11%
Scotland wouldn’t come out so well from these changes either. I mean, the fact that they’re being dragged out of Europe despite being a Remain country perhaps demonstrates that Westminster has little regard for anything that Scotland wants democracy-wise.
Surprise surprise, the BBC seems to think that being “unbiased” means they must show both sides of the argument being treated equally. Now, you may think it’s poor form to suggest that only one side of the argument should be presented in a publication which sees itself as impartial, but… just read;
“Although the changes are expected to most benefit the Conservatives at the ballot box, some big name Tories – including former foreign secretary Boris Johnson and ex-Brexit secretary David Davis – could face a tougher battle due to changes to the composition of their seats.” – BBC
So basically a few prominent Tories made sure their seats are less safe so that The Sun could use that as their headline to take attention away from the other 400 who will be more safe. But this is being presented as… a counter argument? It makes me sad that this section wouldn’t be out of place in The Sun.
I also can’t help but feel like this was written in a GCSE English exam paper. Where else would you see both sides of an argument being presented as equal despite the fact that one of them is nonsense? “For and against” should be reserved for the children this country forces to take exams.
I mean, even a child would remember to mention that the statistics show that countries are disproportionately affected. I mean, is it remotely shocking at this point that the BBC failed to do this? They even went to the extent of kind of blatantly supporting the governments plans by saying that;
“If MPs reject the proposals, the next election will be fought on demographic data based on the 2000 electoral register and will not take into account changes since then.” – BBC
Oh, right. So it doesn’t matter that the proposals are skewed to help the Tories keep winning elections?
“The Tories have insisted the system is currently weighed against them and the boundaries – decided by population figures – are out of date.” – BBC
Yeah, so deciding it by the number of people isn’t a good idea. We should decide it by the number of tories in the area, then draw them all round that.
Even if it is somehow disadvantaging the tories, they’ve been in government for 10 out of the total 19 years that this system has been in place so… how bad is it really. And if that really were the case, skewing it so that it advantages them instead is hardly an improvement? At least, if we’re talking about having a more democratic system as an improvement. For Mr Prorogue Parliament, democracy is clearly not something to be respected or aim for. Did I mention he wants to get rid of the 5-year rule so that he can decide when we get to vote him back into office?
If the Tories get their way, Wales will have almost a third less voices than it has right now to argue our case in parliament. Let’s hope the voices we have right now can shout loud enough to stop this from happening.