“Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg is calling for the number of MPs in the House of Commons to be cut by 150. This would save taxpayers millions of pounds and cut political parties’ need to raise cash from big donors, he says.”
At first glance, this looks like a worrying way of bring power to the people, by effectively diluting our already watery vote – on average there is one Member of Parliament per 70,000 electors and under Clegg’s proposals this would increase to about one MP per 90,000 electors. In fact, let’s be honest, this looks like a way of removing power from the people and increasing the caseload of MPs we’re told are already overworked.
First impressions, however, are not everything and it looks here as though he wants to reduce the number of MPs whilst giving more powers to local authorities. But isn’t there a danger, especially for the Liberal Democrats, who have MPs scattered across the country, that the inequalities inherent in our first-past-the-post system will just be exacerbated by larger constituencies? For example, an area with a safe Labour seat and a marginal Conservative would probably end up with one Labour seat under Clegg’s plans.
I suppose what I’m getting at is are the Liberal Democrats putting the cart before the horse? By arguing for a slimmed-down House of Commons before they even have a proportional voting system and real devolved powers for local authorities, doesn’t it just seem like the Lib Dems just want to remove power from the people and grant it to a concentrated elective dictatorship?
Loading ...
4 responses so far ↓
1 Peter // Mar 13, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I think Clegg is on safe ground because the number of MPs would never be reduced except as part of a comprehensive reform package, including at least PR (STV?) and Lords reform. In fact, I suspect he doesn’t much want to do it anyway.
Calling for a reduction in MPs is, however, good politics because it allows the party to show that constitutional reform can be an anti-establishment objective, rather than a way of stitching up power between the parties. Hence, I think this is more or less a dog whistle to cynical, libertarian voters who don’t trust politicians.
2 asquith // Mar 13, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Re: Hailsham’s coning of the phrase “elective dictatorship”.
I agree with what he said, but he himself was a hypocrite of the first water. He bitched about a Labour government, but he didn’t complain when his mate Thatcher formed three governments despite never even getting half the vote.
What a complete Tory!
3 Gavin Whenman // Mar 13, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Yes, it is interesting that Hailsham’s “elective dictatorship” speech came in 1976, when he was to go on to become Lord Chancellor under Thatcher and do nothing to advance electoral reform.
4 Lee Griffin // Mar 14, 2008 at 2:33 am
It’s the way of the world. When out of power tell the people you will give them more power (even if this is a bizarre way to say it) then when in power have a sudden onset of amnesia.
Of course your statement assumes we haven’t been in a state of elective dictatorship for decades now
Leave a Comment