Alan Carcas knows a lot more than I do about the workings of the Boundary Commission, however the changes which would have given David Cameron a 20 seat advantage is gerrymandering on a large scale.
Proposed changes to voter registration is likely to reduce the number of registered voters therefore this should precede the so-called balancing of voter numbers within the new boundaries. The less well-off and likely Labour voters are most likely to not register.
The House of Lords has been augmented with hundreds of new peers by this Government in order to create a Conservative majority. All Governments have done this but failure to curtail the number of peers at the same time as reducing MPs is hypocritical in the least.
It would be interesting to know how many of the marginal seats were to be split up in the latest proposals. I would find it difficult to believe that the Boundary Commission having all the information concerning the voting patterns of the local elections are not influenced in some way to achieve some bias (maybe personal to the person who framed the proposals) such as in Spenborough. I am sure it must be coincidence that Robert Light publicised in this paper a similar Birkenshaw/Bradford merger some time ago!
Nick Clegg was right to scupper David Cameron’s plans for Boundary changes. What is needed is a radical reduction in the number of MPs, a corresponding reduction in Ministers and drastic reduction in the membership of the House of Lords. Following this we could pay MPs and Ministers a bit more (one per cent). The overall effect should be to have full-time politicians and a reduction in the cost of Government to show that ’we are all in this together’.