Less MP's

[Davethedog]

How does that work. The population is increasing but we get less representation.

[Old_Geezer]

Are we going to have them all decapitated then? Sounds good to me.

[mike11111]

The US has only 435 Congressmen and 100 senators, so we can easily do with far less. We have 650 MPs alone, not to mention the Lords.

[AB Editor]

Also, it's a case of there not being enough room in the commons for everyone - it'd be nice if everyone could fit.

Do we know how much they're cutting back? I'd suggest trimming back to something like 300 myself.

[B00]

"The population is increasing but we get less representation. "

Yes, because they do such a sterling job....

[JoeStalin]

we spend a fortune on these leeches, they should be reduced even further if you ask me.

[jd_here]

Good and bad in all Joe, perhaps you could suggest a better alternative. As far as I'm aware, the new boundaries will even out the number of voters in each Constiuency.

[JoeStalin]

we could reduce them further by introducing a one party state to ensure capitalist exploitation is ended and that power to the people is assured!

[jackthehat]

If some smaller constituencies are amalgamated until such a time when all constituencies are of comparable size (in terms of numbers of voters) then the winners of future elections may well better reflect the true choice of the majority of the voting public....as it should be.

[Old_Geezer]

62½ million people, 650 constituencies, means over 96,000 people that are supposed to be represented per MP, at the moment. Damned farce isn't it. So few can't possibly canvass everyone in order to represent them properly. No one is truly represented; save the MPs themselves maybe. The US of A is even more of a con obviously. But since politicians never seem to get it right, maybe the best number of them is zero anyway ?

[youngmafbog]

Far too many of them, around half the number would be more like it but then perhaps 'sub MP's' (with no perks or expenses or gold plated pensions) below them to help folk get to their MP?

[modeller]

There will be 600 MPs each to represent 76 to 81k . As I understand it we have more MPs per head of the population than any other similar democracies.

[modeller]

Dave they don't represent each one of us . That's why we have a massive civil service and several tiers of goverment . County Councils, District Councils , Town Councils, Parish Councils etc. each with its sub divisions.
Other countries like France, Germany and the US have federations of states and on top of that they have a very expensive presidency with its own tier of government . It may be a bit difficult to contact our MPs but in these federations its almost impossible.

I would like us to have only 200 as it appears 90% of our laws come from Europe . All ours do is to pass them on . So they have massives of spare time which they spend on playing the expenses system . I see many of them are still employing unqualified family members on fancy salaries.

[sandyRoe]

Belfast will be reduced from 4 seats to 3. South Belfast, where I live, will be devided between West Belfast(Sinn Fein) and East Belfast(Alliance).
If the reduction in seats ever happens I won't be voting again.

[scotman]

I don't think it is helpful to compare UK with other countries as most have governments that operate in a technically different way.
I believe the target is for each UK constituency to be about 75,000 voters.

[jno]

it's pretty simple: get rid of all the Lib Dem and Labour MPs. It's the only fair way

http://static.guim.co...nges-the-new--007.jpg

[AB Editor]

I really think they need to cut harder than that. Pathetic reform.

[sandyRoe]

Will MP's be expected to vote themselves out of a job?

[jno]

the fewer MPs you have, the more constituents have to share them and the harder it will be to see yours. Swings and roundabouts really.

[jd_here]

ah ha jno .... a Daily Mail reader I see :)

[jno]

I have never known the Daily Mail to observe that there are two sides to an argument...