Tory appetite for reducing seat numbers wanes now that they wouldn't benefit from it

Greater number of Tory MPs means Tories losing interest in changing constituency boundaries. So much for democratic necessity

The Tories’ gains in the general election have dampened their enthusiasm for changes to constituency boundaries that would have reduced the total number of MPs from 650 to 600, according to parliamentary sources.

The changes would previously have worked in the Tories’ favour, with an overwhelming majority of eliminated seats held by Labour MPs – but now Boris Johnson has additional Tory MPs to keep happy, the Conservatives’ eagerness for the ‘democratic’ change has mysteriously waned.

As ever, ‘democracy’ is a term of convenience for the Tories – one to be cast aside as soon as what is ‘convenient’ changes.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

8 responses to “Tory appetite for reducing seat numbers wanes now that they wouldn't benefit from it

  1. It has long been the case that Tory MPs were unhappy with the plans which is why a decision has been repeatedly delayed. The redrawing of the boundaries affects all constituencies bar about three. The overwhelming majority of remaining MPs would face an increased workload, disruption to their local election machine and a loss of data about their patch.

    These rumours of discontent have abounded ever since they were proposed by Osborne/Cameron. Furthermore, the numbers of voters required to elect a MP has switched from fewer for a LP one to more… can’t remember the exact figures but in region of 38k on average for a Tory MP to 58k for a Labour one.

    In other words, the story makes is probably true … but doesn’t mean that the reduction in constituency numbers won’t happen.

  2. Its been on the cards for a while now after recomendations from the boundary commission and leaves the Labour party with less seats. Obviously nobody can say how the working classes will react to the demolition job Johnson’ plans for the country.but I can see some weeping and gnashing of teeth when he starts on a overhaul of what the torys call our overgenorus social security system. Maybe the public will then realise that voting for the elite party has no benefits.

  3. “after recommendations from the boundary commission”

    This wasn’t initiated by the Boundary Commission – they were working to a Tory brief.

    • RH well take that as obvious in the current political climate,but I didnt want to be acussed of conspiracy theories by any of our “moderate” posters….

      • There’s nothing ‘conspiratorial’ about this, Joseph, and I don’t think anyone would have credibly accused you of that – it was a move by the Tories in plain sight, using the specious and simplistic argument of ‘equal populations’ that would appeal to the dim. The Tories are good at appealing to the dim, as you know – it won the recent election!

        I mentioned the fact partly because we have the (apparently unconnected) EHRC investigation impending – which will, I’m sure, raise issues about the integrity of public bodies. I may be being paranoid, but their actual bending to pressure for an investigation that didn’t include other political parties and a wider remit fills me with trepidation – especially after the Head Honcho was indisputably compromised prior to the decision.

        I hope that I’m wrong, because if the neutrality of public bodies like the EHRC and the Boundary Commission is compromised, we are even further up shit creek than might be thought in terms of corruption.

      • Roger Stone said he was accused of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’ because of his book that shows how LBJ killed President Kennedy. He is far from being the only person to have expressed that view.

        He countered with a fantastic response:

        “No, I’m a conspiracy realist”.

        I thought that was very good and use it myself now.

Leave a Reply