If the present parliamentary boundaries favour Labour, then what happened last year?
But the proponents of "equal sized constituencies" are like the Proportional Representation lot, convinced beyond argument that their case is self-evident.
In fact, though, representation is a highly subtle affair.
There is nothing representative about constituencies that ride roughshod over natural communities on the ground, or which are so large as to be unnavigable.
And yes, poorer areas require more representation than richer ones, simply because they have more problems with which to deal.
This crude attempt to solve a problem that turned out not to exist will never pass Parliament, just as Theresa May's out-of-thin-air education proposals never would.
And just as repeal of the European Communities Act never would, but the failure to attempt it is just as toxic within the Conservative Party.
None of the three Cabinet Ministers responsible for that will last 18 months.
None of the three Cabinet Ministers responsible for that will last 18 months.
At this rate, May will be the second of this Parliament's three Conservative Prime Ministers.
There will always be changing conditions for boundary changes to be made.
ReplyDeleteHowever I'm not sure why less MPs per head of the electorate is a good thing for democracy (whatever the parlous state of it is at present) as the Membership list of the other House grows, and not by democratic means.
West Durham and Teesdale is a more difficult seat for you than Consett and Barnard Castle would have been. Two Gateshead wards instead of angry Tynedale farmers who'd vote for whoever was best placed to defeat the official Labour candidate.
ReplyDeleteToday's proposed boundaries are demented. Tow Law in City of Durham, along with part of Sunderland. Barnard Castle East and Barnard Castle West in two different constituencies. And so it goes on.
Delete