A smaller House of Commons?

In an Interview with the Financial Times, David Cameron expressed the intention to reduce the number of MPs by sixty, or just under 10%, as a priority in his first term as prime minister.

This is not a reflection of the inadequacy of the Commons chamber to accommodate all MPs, nor an attempt to save money, though the saving would not be small. It is not even a reflection of the lack of work MPs do in London because so much legislation, - up to 80%, is made in Brussels.

It is merely because there is an injustice, with a built in advantage to the Labour Party as they return MPs with electorates as small as 50,000, especially in inner-city areas, whereas the national average is something nearer 80,000 electors. There has been a massive movement out from inner cities and into suburbs and rural areas. If Conservatives enjoyed a 10% advantage in votes, as in this week's poll, this would translate into a Conservtive majority of 34. If Labour had a similar lead they would have a majority of something like 130.

There have been somewhat slow and infrequent boundary and constituency adjustments since it was last done more often in the 1960s. So Cameron would be restoring a more regular process.

Ultimately, of course, it would help the Conservatives at subsequent general elections.

Could fewer MPs cope? Why not, - the House of Representatives in America has only 420 or so members, and for a much larger country? Are yes, but they have large states which undertake much government! That is true but we have local authorities who do work but are not permitted to make many decisions, as these are all handed down from on high. Arguably they should have more autonomy.

In fact many of the issues raised with their MPs by constituents are really the concern of local councils, and the MPs liaise with council departments and do work which really should be done by local councillors.

It seems fair to reduce the number of MPs, given that London is increasingly subservient to Brussels, to make all constituencies of similar size. In the process it will save millions of pounds and it could just push decision making back to where it belongs for many issues, to local authorities and their communities.

Cameron has my vote, for what it is worth!