As part of the deal which resulted in not changing the voting system, the Conservatives insisted on slashing the number of MPs to 600, with the aim of cutting the cost of politics, or so they said. Basing decisions about the way you run a democratic political system on cost is completely tactless. There were several good arguments against AV, but if it was truly more democratic, cost should not have been one of them. After all, the cheapest system would be to eliminate elections and voting completely. Clearly there is another reason for this reduction.
Is it a problem?
Since the Coalition first announced its plans to shake up the political system, certain people have been wailing about how undemocratic it is to create more Lords but have fewer MPs. This is absurd as the powers allocated to either chamber are not based on the number of members. The powers of the Commons remain the same whether its members have a 650th of the power or a 600th, and in fact, as the number is reduced each individual MP becomes slightly more powerful, and vice versa with the Lords.
But is the reduction necessary? Short answer: no. The £12m that's expected to be saved as a result is probably exaggerated and, even if accurate, is negligible as a proportion of total government spending. It's true that the Houses of Parliament, particularly the Lords, are more populous than most other legislatures in the world, but when you see how many MPs attend an average debate, one does wonder, if there were 8% fewer there would it be worth holding the debate at all? Then the cost of politics could be reduced by turning off the lights.
Regardless, the fact remains that the number of MPs is almost completely arbitrary. If there were 600, would the people who oppose the reduction be campaigning for an increase, or if there were 550 would the people who supported the change to 600 be arguing for an increase or for numbers to remain the same? There's no right answer to the optimum size of legislature.
What's more important is the size of constituencies which is what the objectors, mostly in the Labour party, are most concerned about. The Labour Party has had an in-built advantage in general elections for years which they are reluctant to let go. Much like those in the Labour Party who opposed AV, this is the politics of self-interested politicians who are reluctant to see the pitch slanted in any direction other than their own. However many MPs we decide we need, even sized constituencies are crucial. Had the Labour Party won the same share of the vote as the Conservatives at the last election they would have had a majority. First Past the Post is an inherently unfair system, but if we're stuck with it we should at least have fair constituency sizes.
Some have complained about the size of new constituencies, but again this is negligible. The UK is a relatively small country which, even after these changes, has a large legislature. The US House of Representatives has 435 members, for example, for a country several times the size. Still feel like grumbling about travel?
Accusations of gerrymandering will fly around, and while it is probably true that the Tories are doing this for their own benefit, the boundary commission will always be in charge of where constituencies are, so the prospect of the Conservative party manipulating the electoral map for their own ends remains an absurdity. And if it's fairer, who can really complain?
Is it a problem?
Since the Coalition first announced its plans to shake up the political system, certain people have been wailing about how undemocratic it is to create more Lords but have fewer MPs. This is absurd as the powers allocated to either chamber are not based on the number of members. The powers of the Commons remain the same whether its members have a 650th of the power or a 600th, and in fact, as the number is reduced each individual MP becomes slightly more powerful, and vice versa with the Lords.
But is the reduction necessary? Short answer: no. The £12m that's expected to be saved as a result is probably exaggerated and, even if accurate, is negligible as a proportion of total government spending. It's true that the Houses of Parliament, particularly the Lords, are more populous than most other legislatures in the world, but when you see how many MPs attend an average debate, one does wonder, if there were 8% fewer there would it be worth holding the debate at all? Then the cost of politics could be reduced by turning off the lights.
Regardless, the fact remains that the number of MPs is almost completely arbitrary. If there were 600, would the people who oppose the reduction be campaigning for an increase, or if there were 550 would the people who supported the change to 600 be arguing for an increase or for numbers to remain the same? There's no right answer to the optimum size of legislature.
What's more important is the size of constituencies which is what the objectors, mostly in the Labour party, are most concerned about. The Labour Party has had an in-built advantage in general elections for years which they are reluctant to let go. Much like those in the Labour Party who opposed AV, this is the politics of self-interested politicians who are reluctant to see the pitch slanted in any direction other than their own. However many MPs we decide we need, even sized constituencies are crucial. Had the Labour Party won the same share of the vote as the Conservatives at the last election they would have had a majority. First Past the Post is an inherently unfair system, but if we're stuck with it we should at least have fair constituency sizes.
Some have complained about the size of new constituencies, but again this is negligible. The UK is a relatively small country which, even after these changes, has a large legislature. The US House of Representatives has 435 members, for example, for a country several times the size. Still feel like grumbling about travel?
Accusations of gerrymandering will fly around, and while it is probably true that the Tories are doing this for their own benefit, the boundary commission will always be in charge of where constituencies are, so the prospect of the Conservative party manipulating the electoral map for their own ends remains an absurdity. And if it's fairer, who can really complain?
