Boundry Changes

[#1]

There is a recommendation that the size of boundries should change thus reducing the number of MP's to 600, if this went through the House of Lords would be next in line for a reduction in numbers.

But will this change ever take place ? What MP is going to vote for something that may cost him his post ?

Will it get implemented ?

What do you think ?

Personally I have my doubts.

[#2]

I remember way back it being proposed that the number of MP's should be around 500.

Instead of that we added to the number with the addition of Scottish, Irish, and Welsh parliaments.

MP's the countries top growth industry.

No wonder the country is in so much debt.

When we eventually leave the EU I fully expect MP's to vote to increase their numbers to cope with the extra "work".

[#3]

Never really given much thought other than to think that at 650 we have far to many. If Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can manage with so few compared to England (117 compared to 533) then why the imbalance? Add to that Assembly Members for here in Wales and of course those MEP's then matters certainly need to be looked at.

The more the merrier? Well yes, if we the tax are paying their wages and expenses. 

[#4]

---

gleneagles wrote:

But will this change ever take place ? What MP is going to vote for something that may cost him his post ?

Will it get implemented ?

---

There are some MPs that will retire and this will leave vacancies for some that see their seats disappear. Others could be persuaded by promises of other things such as knighthoods - or even a seat in the Lords.

[#5]

Thats not the case though is it artmo. According to something I heard recently Jeremy Corbyns constituency is one of the targets of being resized and would see him booted out of politics.

Are you seriously telling me that he'd be 'persuaded' to leave? - At a time when the public are backing him in vast numbers while his party is stabbing him in the back?

Then there are the other MPs who will lose their posts - labour again.

No this was nothing to do with numbers, this was to do with Dave and Gordon reducing the threat to their premierships. They wanted to stay in power for as long as they could and they were rigging the game with odds in their favour in order to do so. We've had a system that worked well for many years, why the sudden need to change it when we've got two very power hungry eton kids at the helm?

It was about political assasination. You can't lawfully target and destroy another political party when you're running the government because that would be undemocratic and dictating... but to dictate was exactly what cameron wanted.

[#6]

The Establishment should first trim the House of Lords to 100 members. The current bunch are unelected and represent no electorate. 

[#7]

Unfortunately the democratic process is no guarantee of fair representation however, the House of Lords is in need of reform. Would just reducing the numbers be the answer? It does have a reputation of being some sort of old boys reward for services now always rendered club all the same.

[#8]

I think the aim of everyone's vote having equal weight has merit, there are some large differences in constituency sizes that need to be addressed.

[#9]

@dvorak yes that is correct. Some constituencies are currently three times the size of others. This is unfair to electors and also the MPs that represent them.

The Boundary Commission is independent see Here

7up was quick to complain about Corbyn's seat disappearing. Did he not notice that George Osborne's seat also goes?

It should make no difference to Corbyn as he wants all his MPs to put themselves up for re-selection at the next election so he will be able to select an appropriate seat.

[#10]

"Independent" bit like "Free"

Independently supporting .....................

Independently aiming to .......................

Bank of England independently running the country down

[#11]

Changing the boundaries is just moving the goalposts, it won't fix the problem that is the current system of voting, what is needed is Proportional Representation, that way the number of votes received actually matches the number of seats gained by parties in the HoP...

The independent did a reasonably good demonstration of PR and the result that could have been had it been implemented prior to last years' election:

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/heres-how-the-election-results-would-look-under-a-proportio...

[#12]

If they get rid of more than 50 MP,s  just think how much money we could save

The basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2016 is £74,962. MPs also receive expenses to cover the costs of running an office, employing staff, having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency.

say get rid of 100    £7,496,2000 By heck NHS would like that

[#13]

---

twocvbloke wrote:

Changing the boundaries is just moving the goalposts, it won't fix the problem that is the current system of voting, what is needed is Proportional Representation, that way the number of votes received actually matches the number of seats gained by parties in the HoP...

The independent did a reasonably good demonstration of PR and the result that could have been had it been implemented prior to last years' election:

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/heres-how-the-election-results-would-look-under-a-proportio...

---

As I see it pure PR is as bad. Representation may be proportionate, but I don't have a person who is "for my town".

Best would be a smaller number of multi-seat constituencies to represent locally, and additional ones to bring the mebership of the Commons in line with the votes cast nationally.

[#14]

Given politicians aren't always "for my town", usually for their wallets, then it doesn't really matter what system we go for, but PR does result in votes meaning seats for those who received them, rather than votes being pretty much thrown in the bin in favour of the people that got fewer votes than the seats they won...

[#15]

PR results in permanent coalition governments with parties ditching their manifesto pledges during the negotiations. Belgium was months without a government because the coalition negotiations failed. The worst of all worlds! Get the historical bias to Labour sorted and there's nothing wrong with FPTP