The Conservatives’ plan to ensure they retain power indefinitely is under threat. In order to be successful, the plan depends on the Conservative government succeeding in redrawing constituency boundaries. But the party’s own MPs now look set to fight against these boundary changes to save their own skins.
Making the 2020 election count for the Tories
A boundary review was promised by the Conservative government two days after winning the 2015 general election. It is billed as a cost-cutting exercise, and was formally launched in February of this year. Its stated aim is to reduce the number of constituencies, and therefore MPs, from 650 to 600 – by equalising the number of voters in each area. The new arrangement will be put before parliament for approval in 2018.
The government’s suspected motive for the changes is to increase the number of Conservative constituencies, so it can try to garner a stronger majority in parliament in the 2020 general election. According to research by Conservative peer Robert Hayward, the changes may affect 200 Labour Party seats. He says Labour may lose 30 seats completely.
Ruin Labour by all means, but don’t come after us
But the review would also affect some Conservative seats. And Tory MPs are now starting to speak out against the changes.
It seems perverse to reduce the number of elected representatives in this place while the Lords continues to gorge itself on new arrivals.
Mr Speaker, I believe in an appointed upper House but not at the current price and not at the expense of this elected and therefore accountable chamber.
We in this place must guard against bringing this country’s democratic settlement into disrepute.
We also have the situation whereby the Government are proposing to reduce the number of MPs by 50 but not reduce the number of ministers by an equal proportion, thereby giving the Government more control over the House of Commons, which clearly has to be an outrage.
Commons Speaker John Bercow agreed with Davis’ comment that the number of government ministers should be reduced if the boundary changes go ahead.
Laying down barriers to the boundary review
These demands, reducing the number of Lords and government ministers, are not likely to be met easily. Reforming the House of Lords has always been a hot topic, but any real action to tackle it has often fallen flat. The 2010 Coalition government vowed to reform the Lords, by making it an elected house, but plans were scuppered by Tory MPs.
Furthermore, even if these conditions could be met, the process would be lengthy. Theresa May’s government would struggle to ensure it can commit to these changes before the parliamentary vote on the boundary review in 2018.
Now that Conservative MPs are speaking out against the government’s proposals, it is looking increasingly unlikely that the boundary review will be implemented any time soon. Ensuring these demands are met, and constituencies redrawn, by the 2020 general election would be no small feat.
A failure to do so would certainly please Labour MPs facing the electoral chop or reselection. As it would the Conservative MPs facing the same fate.
– Read more Canary articles on the boundary review.
– Support The Canary if you appreciate the work we do.
Featured image via Chatham House/Flickr
We need your help ...
The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world, fast. And we will do all we can to keep bringing you news and analysis throughout. But we are worried about maintaining enough income to pay our staff and minimal overheads.
Now, more than ever, we need a vibrant, independent media that holds the government to account and calls it out when it puts vested economic interests above human lives. We need a media that shows solidarity with the people most affected by the crisis – and one that can help to build a world based on collaboration and compassion.
We have been fighting against an establishment that is trying to shut us down. And like most independent media, we don’t have the deep pockets of investors to call on to bail us out.
Can you help by chipping in a few pounds each month?