Comments on: Nick Clegg: reduce parliamentary constituencies to 500 http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2009/09/nick-clegg-reduce-constituencies-to-500/ The inside track since 2003 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:10:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Gert http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2009/09/nick-clegg-reduce-constituencies-to-500/comment-page-1/#comment-89566 Gert Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:47:19 +0000 http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/?p=3847#comment-89566 Reducing the number of constituencies means reducing the number of MPs. That will lead to a smaller proportion (and number) of MPs being genuine backbenchers, because it is unlikely that the number of ministers, whips and PPS will reduce nor their shadows. What that means is an enfeebling of Parliament in holding accountable the executive. It's also a Tory policy Reducing the number of constituencies means reducing the number of MPs. That will lead to a smaller proportion (and number) of MPs being genuine backbenchers, because it is unlikely that the number of ministers, whips and PPS will reduce nor their shadows. What that means is an enfeebling of Parliament in holding accountable the executive.

It’s also a Tory policy

]]> By: Alun http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2009/09/nick-clegg-reduce-constituencies-to-500/comment-page-1/#comment-87459 Alun Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:52:14 +0000 http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/?p=3847#comment-87459 Presumably they would be defended on some dubious basis or other. Like how Alliance plans for PR included keeping certain extremely rural areas as FPTP... the Alliance held all but two of them at the time IIRC. Presumably they would be defended on some dubious basis or other. Like how Alliance plans for PR included keeping certain extremely rural areas as FPTP… the Alliance held all but two of them at the time IIRC.

]]>