On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:35:49 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
"tim....." wrote:

The reduction in MP's is not to make it easier for them to get elected, it
is to save money for the economy.

Correct.

(Admittedly, the associated boundary changes are to make it easier for them
to get elected, but they only need to do that because the previous
incumbents gerrymandered the constituencies to make it easier for *them* to
get elected. At least the new Tory proposals are objectively fair for both
sides.)

This is also essentially true, although to be fair we've never had
active gerrymandering in this country (unlike in the US). What has
happened is that in recent years there's been a drift of population from
the old urban centres (typically Labour-held [1]) into the countryside
(typically Tory-held [1]). The Boundary Commission (BC) is tasked with
making changes to even out the constituency sizes, based on the most
recent census. This is quite a slow process, so the changes that came in
for the 2010 election were based on the 2001 census.

When I was living in Cambridgeshire, there were 85000 electors in SE
Cambs, compared to 70000 in some urban ones. Thus it was that the Tories
in 2005 got more votes than Labour in England IIRC but still less seats.

All that can be said that Labour did was to drag its feet slightly in
putting the 2010 changes through Parliament. Usually all sides accept
the Boundary Commission changes as fair (there's lots of consultation)
and they go through on the nod. This whole process can be seen as being
part of the way our Constitution works. [2]

I find it amusing that the LibDems, usually so keen on making the
electoral system "fairer", are going to oppose these changes when
finally proposed by the Boundary Commission.

It's a prime case of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. But if
they didn't put their foot down with a firm hand over this they
wouldn't be able to demonstrate how much influence they really hold in
this coalition. (Insert witty remark here --- )



[1] but not always, obviously.

[2] Anyone who says we haven't got one is invited to read the Wikipedia
article on my .sig.

Nick