Re: One party state
>Gerrymander constituency boundaries - worth 20 seats - to make sure they win the next election.
I'll inevitably get seriously down-voted by the more leftward voting El Reg readers for this, but. If it were Gerrymandering we were talking about, the OP wouldn't be able to quote a number of seats ahead of time. This is something different (and, yes, it will inevitably work to Labour's disadvantage; if you actually believe in the idea of democracy in the UK, rather than giving lip service provided it always delivers the result you like, that's no reason it shouldn't go ahead).
Firstly, courtesy of the LibDems throwing their tantrum over the Tories not letting them dictate how the Lords should be reformed, we're overdue an adjustment of constituency boundaries (the reviews of which are carried out at intervals, by law, by 4 non-political Boundary Commissions, by the way).
Secondly, after past adjustments, and in particular the fourth such review back in 1995, it has been generally agreed by independent political commentators that Labour activists have consistently beaten the Tories hands-down at gaming the commissions system to their party-political advantage. I doubt that left wing voters need fear that THAT's changed much.
The big thing that's different about the proposed legislation is that it would require all constituencies to be of roughly similar size. And that would kick into touch the built-in, but manifestly unfair, electoral advantage that Labour currently gains from the UK having a large number of small, inner-city constituencies. Well - if that's Gerrymandering, all I can say is, not before time. If a party of any hue can't convince the electorate on a level playing field, it doesn't deserve to be in power. Although for my money, I'd prefer a system in which my own vote actually counts for something each time (I've lived all over the country, but never yet voted in an election in which the constituency result wasn't a foregone conclusion).