A cabal of MPS who left Britain stuck with unfair electoral boundaries
SIR – It is worth recalling the origins of the boundary change provisions (report, October 17). Under a single clause in the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and
Lib Dems, Nick Clegg was to be given a referendum on the Alternative Vote and there would be boundary changes, well overdue in order to correct our uneven voting system. The two were clearly interconditional and both were approved in the same referendum Bill.
Clegg got his referendum – duly given the raspberry it deserved – but he then conspired to kill the boundary changes in a fit of pique because Lords reform, which was in a separate clause and never part of the boundary change provisions, had not gone through. Most people did not want another elected chamber of party hacks.
This childish act of betrayal was possible because of sloppy wording which Lib Dem peers had spotted in the late-night agreement drafted by the Cabinet Office.
Charles Pugh
London SW10 SIR – MPS who oppose the Boundary Commission recommendations are putting self before country.
The recommendations should be implemented in three pieces of legislation, reflecting the devolution settlements. Then the DUP could vote on all the recommendations for England and Wales and Scotland without worry, while blocking those in Northern Ireland.
That way, at least most of the recommendations would be implemented.
Andrew Wauchope
London SE11
SIR – In the 2017 general election, the Tories’ share of the vote was 42.3 per cent, against Labour’s 40 per cent – yet they won 317 seats, against Labour’s 262. Who exactly was this unfair to?
Tim Shelton-jones
Brighton, East Sussex
SIR – The attitude of MPS to democracy troubles me. A sizeable proportion decided to ignore the referendum and the wishes of the electorate to leave the European Union.
Now, in evident self-interest, they threaten not to support an equitable reorganisation of constituencies. They seem to have no understanding of the concept of democracy.
Alec Ellis
Liverpool
SIR – Parliament cannot be trusted to make the decision on constituency boundary changes. It should rule itself out on grounds of a conflict of interest.
We have an objective independent commission making proposals, seeking representation from interested parties, and making final proposals. There it should stop. Parliament should have no further say and the proposals should be implemented.
The Boundary Commission should also update its proposals every
10 years as a matter of course, without interference from Parliament.
Ray Mitchell
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire