Tories denied majority by unfair system

THE Conservatives are being denied a House of Commons majority under an “unfair” constituency system, the official review of MPS’ seats suggests today.

Changes now being proposed by the Boundary Commission to make the current system fairer would have given the Tories a small outright majority in the Commons in June’s election.

The review of boundaries, which was proposed under the Coalition but blocked by the Liberal Democrats, would deliver on a government pledge to cut the number of MPS by 50 to 600.

Senior Conservatives see the reforms as even more important in the wake of Theresa May’s disastrous snap election, in which she lost her majority in the Commons. Experts said that the Tories would hold a double-figure majority under the reformed system, removing their reliance on the DUP.

The boundaries are being redrawn to equalise constituencies, with the average Tory MP having 74,500 constituents compared with the average Labour MP who has 70,500, according to Electoral Calculus, the forecasting website.

An analysis of the Commission’s latest recommendations suggests that in a 600-seat House of Commons the Tories would have won between 305 and 310 seats, while Labour would be down to 240 MPS from its current 262. As the Speaker does not vote, and Sinn Fein MPS do not take their seats, the Conservatives would effectively have a double-figure majority.

One electoral expert said: “The reality is that if these proposals went through, the Tories would have a majority without anyone else and before you make allowances for anyone else.”

The proposals will go out to an eightweek consultation before Parliament votes on them in November 2018. If passed, they will form the basis for constituencies at the 2022 general election.

The Government has backed the reforms, saying they are necessary “to ensure fair and equal representation for the voting public across the United Kingdom by the next general election”.

Chris Skidmore, the Cabinet Office minister, said: “Without any boundary reforms, constituencies would be based on data that is over 20 years old. This would disregard significant changes in demographics, house building and migration.”

Sir Patrick Mcloughlin, the Conservative Party chairman, has told Tory MPS that without the reforms there would be an “unfair and unjustified bias”.

However, the plans look unlikely to be passed by MPS because the Democratic Unionist Party has said that at this stage it is against them. A senior DUP source told The Daily Telegraph: “In our view there is no majority for the boundary changes.”

Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat chief whip, has urged the Government to scrap the process, claiming it would take a “miracle” to be passed by Parliament. He said: “The Government should stop wasting public funds and bow to the inevitable.”

Labour figures also said there was no support for the reforms, with one source saying: “Nobody thinks this is going to happen.”

Proposals for England, Scotland and Wales are published today, with Northern Ireland’s to be made public in January. Under them, the number of MPS will be cut from 533 to 501 in England, 59 to 53 in Scotland, 40 to 29 in Wales and 18 to 17 in Northern Ireland.

The Tories have pledged that any of their MPS who have their constituency abolished will be fast-tracked on to shortlists for other vacant seats.

Among potential flashpoints, Boris Johnson’s Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat would be redrawn, taking in Labour areas and becoming a marginal.

David Davis’s Haltemprice and Howden seat would be cut in two, forcing the Brexit Secretary to fight for a new seat with fellow Tory MP Andrew Percy, while Priti Patel, the International Development Secretary, would be among MPS to lose their constituency.

For Labour, Jeremy Corbyn, its leader, Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, and Diane Abbott, shadow home secretary, could all potentially find themselves fighting for seats in north London. One Tory source said: “There is a risk of Labour heavyweights facing a carve-up.”

SIR – Your headline “Hammond’s ‘tax on age’ Budget” (October 16) should have read: “Chancellor’s desperate last bid to lose next election”, as he attempts once more to alienate older voters, most of whom would have voted Conservative, as they can remember socialism and know the damage that Jeremy Corbyn and his cronies will do to this country.

Does Philip Hammond really believe such changes will bring in younger voters in enough numbers to replace the older voters he will lose? John Sutherland

Uxbridge, Middlesex

SIR – Never mind the threat of a tax penalty for the elderly in the next Budget. In the last Budget, the 20 per cent tax threshold was not raised to £11,500 for those born between April 6 1939 and April 5 1949. Discrimination against older taxpayers already exists. Peter J Cullum

Farnborough, Hampshire SIR – Is Mr Hammond proposing to

increase taxes for older people to punish them for voting for Brexit? Derry Gibb

Epping, Essex

SIR – Mr Hammond fails to recognise a key tenet of politics – that it is unwise to bite that hand that feeds you. Simon Millar

Poole, Dorset

SIR – I get it now. The Tories are determined to burnish their image as the stupid party and lose the next election heavily. Andrew Shouler

Grays, Essex

SIR – Do the Conservatives believe that reduced tax relief for older workers would help them win the next election and produce a better Britain? How stupid.

As an NHS consultant radiologist, I could simply retire now, reducing tax revenues and limiting the sum in my pension pot above £1million.

The Tories need to be wary of whom

they upset at a time when there is a massive shortage of radiologists, leading to prolonged waiting times for cancer scans to be reported.

GPS plan to retire early and junior doctors plan to work abroad due to the conditions and demands they now face in the NHS. Dr Peter Riley

Belbroughton, Worcestershire

SIR – There is already a tax on age – on our ultimate demise. Inheritance tax. David Lawson

Leamington Spa, Warwickshire

SIR – If the Chancellor wants do something for younger workers, give the under-30s an enhanced tax-free personal allowance and perhaps a lower rate of NI contributions.

To balance the books, tax benefits such as the winter fuel allowance and align all benefits for older people, such as free prescriptions, so they begin at the same age as the state pension. Paul Fairweather

Henley-on-thames, Oxfordshire