Winners and losers of Cameron's pledge to cut MPs
David Cameron has repeated his pledge to cut the number of MPs by 10%, and the Tories plan to table an amendment to legislation next week to bring this about (though it wont succeed).
This measure would be mean a reduction from 650 MPs (in the next Parliament) down to about 585.
Sixty-five constituencies would be axed. And 65 more MPs would lose their jobs.
And it is clear that the Conservatives plan to go full speed ahead with this pledge immediately on achieving power.
They know that cutting the number of MPs is likely to prove popular with voters, but many Conservatives also hope that the operation will help the severe unfairness in the electoral system at the moment, which operates against them.
(It is surely absurd that there should be any doubt whether the Tories' current 7-9% lead in the polls would lead to a working majority, when in 2005 Labour got a pretty handsome majority of 64 with a lead of less than 3% in the vote.)
Cutting the number of seats in time for the subsequent election (in 2014 or 2015, assuming the next Parliament runs to a usual term) would mean a new boundary review - just after the new boundaries in England and Wales introduced in time for the coming election.
In particular, the Conservatives plan to bring in two new rules for that boundary review which might help swing the distribution of seats back in their favour.
First, they would legislate to ensure that Parliamentary seats should be much more equal in population.
Second, they will change the convention whereby constituencies do not cross county boundaries.
The latter means that many seats in small English counties such as Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire are unduly large, and so the Tories do not get as many seats as they might.
The main losers from this process are likely to be Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but one leading expert on the process tells me that many Conservative MPs will inevitably lose their jobs as well.
Which is why some Tory MPs are not that pleased with Mr Cameron's pledge to cut the number of MPs, and are getting quite jittery about what will happen when they have to fight against Conservative colleagues for the diminished spoils.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 4th Feb 2010, Phillip wrote:Hopefully, should the Tories get in on 6 May 10, they will also address the Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland over representation. These areas of the UK must have constituencies the same size as those in England.
Scotland, with 8% of the UK population has 9% of the seats whilst Wales with 5% of the population has 7.5%!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 4th Feb 2010, barriesingleton wrote:THE VALUE OF THE WORD 'PLAN' IN POLITICAL-SPEAK
Plans, promises, intentions, in the political world, are not worth the ink they are printed with. When did a politician last tie his resignation to a promise? Lies, damned lies and plans.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 4th Feb 2010, JAperson wrote:Mr Crick ... At the risk of repeating myself sic ....
/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2009/11/monday_16_november_2009.html
16. At 8:50pm on 16 Nov 2009, JAperson
It is highly unlikely that even Helen Keller would fail to see the irony in the situation so belligerently and callously constructed by the Nu Cons. The public statements and the press releases all state - it would now seem, perchance, questionable - that the Nu Cons want to devolve more power down to constituency level.
There is too much central control ... They bugle!
鈥淎鈥 lists, 鈥淎ll women candidate lists鈥 鈥..more ethnic minority representation ..鈥 does not bode well if the candidates are imposed by the bullyington club boys at Central Office.
If the contentious PPC is retained by the local association it will be a clear indicator of how much pressure has been put to bear and just how desperate the Nu Cons are to win the next election. If the A Lister is rejected it shows just how much Nu Con Central Office is out of touch with grass root tories.
Would the local voters, given that their choices seem to be very limited, be willing to put their cross against the name of a candidate whom clearly has such little respect for the institution of marriage?
A possible re-run of the Bedford Mayoral debacle perhaps?
Lose - whatever way you look at it - lose, methinks!
And if M Mr Big Con can鈥檛 see that then it is very questionable whether he has the - desired - skills to run this country!
Could it cause the undoing of Mr Big Con himself?
Nah! He got away with breaking a cast iron promise didn鈥檛 he!
As said before 25 per cent of the list of a thousand are - and would prefer to be - ex lobbyists.
Are they, these so called 鈥榖est candidates鈥, going to want to pursue a Westminster career - which demands very much keeping to the party line, not biting the hands that feed you, and never sticking ones head above the parapet - or will they raise a question in the House about Mrs Blitherington-Smythe-Belcher鈥檚 .....
Dahlias and Hot Toddy?
I don鈥檛 think so!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 5th Feb 2010, Tom wrote:If the Conservatives are so worried about unfairness in the voting system, why are they so resolutely opposed to any form of proportional representation? Is it perhaps because they've benefited from similar unfairness in the past, and know that a proportional system would see them never again able to take a majority of seats on a minority of the vote - as they hope to do again at the next election?
You say it's absurd that there should be any doubt whether they would get a working majority with the current polling - but the current polling shows them on 39%. Why should they be entitled to a majority of seats when they don't get a majority of the votes? In fact, on current projections from UK Polling Report, the Conservatives are on course to win 49% of seats on 39% of the vote; Labour, 38% of seats on 30% of the vote; and the Lib Dems 8% of seats on 19% of the vote. And the Conservatives are the ones moaning about unfairness?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 5th Feb 2010, vstrad wrote:#4 Tom:
I don't hear the Tories "moaning" about electoral unfairness - perhaps you could provide a link?
Why are they so resolutely opposed to any form of PR? Probably for the same reasons that I am. As the percentages you quote show, PR leads inevitably to hung parliaments. This is a bad thing, as it means manifesto promises are meaningless. The actual policies pursued by a government will be the result of post-election horse-trading between the largest party and a random selection of smaller parties, depending on the arithmetic.
Perhaps LibDem supporters would just be grateful to see any of their policies enacted but, personally, I'd like manifesto promises to be promises and to know that the programme I am voting for is the programme I will get if enough fellow voters agree with me.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 5th Feb 2010, barriesingleton wrote:THE HUNG PARLIAMENT MYTH (#5)
Parliament only gets 'hung' because of the PARTY SYSTEM. I know that massive intellect: 'Good Ship Lollypop Blears', never stopped saying 'you have to have parties' but has anyone asked WHY? Has anyone answered in the affirmative - convincingly?
If party politics is so wonderful, why do we suspend it, when at (proper) war (there's a clue to the Iraq/Afghanistan/Terror lie there)?
A family that squabbles over all manner of petty stuff, stops squabbling when the floods float the furniture. Management of 60+ million, is a serious business. All effort should be applied to bettering the people's lot. This is not what the party politics of Westminster is PRIMARILY about. Britain's needs are secondary.
Get rid of parties - vote-in independent candidates as TRUE REPRESENTATIVES sworn to enact representative democracy, in so far as it is attainable. If those elected can't shake themselves into effective management, WE HAVE VOTED FOR THE WRONG STUFF - AGAIN.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 7th Feb 2010, alhjones wrote:Michael I would beg to differ on the assertion that constituencies do not cross county boundaries, Dai Harvard Lab MP has a constituency that crosses 2 counties, Merthyr is in the County Borough of Merthyr, while the other half of his constituency resides in Rhymney in county of Caerphilly with the county of Caerphilly having 2 other MP's as well.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)