Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive learn something like this before. So good to search out any individual with some original thoughts on this subject. realy thanks for starting this up. this web site is one thing that's wanted on the web, someone with a little bit originality. useful job for bringing something new to the internet!

To come back at BigC and his quoted "statistics": In better days the Conservative Party, electorally, was always associated with a strong vote emanating from the Shires (countryside, small town and village). Big city and large town populations tended to vote Labour. The LibDems (or just "Liberals", as they were then), fitted in somewhere but I propose not to go into the "where", as in this Coalition they are merely making up the Tory numbers so that Cameron and Co. might make up a "government" of sorts.

As far as I am aware Labour constituencies have generally had a larger voting population but been smaller in area. Conservative seats tend towards a much larger constituency area, electing their MP's with fewer votes overall. To balance the size of the constituency boundary viz-a-viz voter numbers in each case was impossible, but the number of seats in a Parliament gave a greater degree of fairness.

Proof of the pudding occurred in the 1951 election when the Tories were put in to govern with more than one million votes LESS than Labour. This has apparently happened on other occasions, working in the favour of either of the two largest parties. A "swing-vote" has generally decided the fate of the incumbent party except where landslide voting has occurred. The status quo in this case need never have been changed - it made for balanced voting and a change of government when the people so chose.

Allowing for the fact that there HAVE been boundary changes in the more recent past which will have altered the balance of voting in some constituencies, these proposed boundary changes (IF passed) will make general elections and, one suspects, bye-elections even more unfair than now, as in the past NO reduction of parliamentary seats has been involved. A change of democratic voting rights is intended which WILL affect the right of many people to elect a KNOWN parliamentarian of their choice. This should be blocked whatever political party one may support!

it has always puzzled me why the lib dems supported this in the first place, as even someone with basic maths skills could see the ongoing impact on each constituency of the changes in size, and seeing as they are so reliant on the public profile of their mps within their constituencies, the redrawing of every single constituency boundary was bound to destroy the personal votes of all their mps, which they are so reliant upon.

but i am not sure which theory has been proven, either it is that turkeys do vote for christmas, or that mps vote for bills because their whips tell them to, without reading them first, or both!

it deserves to be lost, because it was stupid, undemocratic, reduced accountability, probably extremely expensive to implement, etc, etc, etc. and even the assumption by the tory party that it would benefit them was questionnable. it was an awful lot of change for no benefit. it is a white elephant bill that perfectly represents the appalling self interest of the cameron tory party.

oh well, watching what happens next is going to be fun!

To the unbias Tory person above, do you think these changes would be happening if the majority of seats lost where Tory ones?, and in your unbiased Tory opinion, if it was labour coming up with these plans would you still find them ok?, or does being a tory give you the divine right to rule?, just wondering, considering you`re an unbiased Tory, and find elected labour governments very biased and unfair because they won?, But with you being unbiased the only fair result to you would be a permanent Tory regime??, Hmmmm...Looks like bias to me!.

The government apparently have time on their hands.

Theory of everything lies in
zero-dimension with the formula
M= -0+
This new formula has today,
Prime Minister David Cameron. also that the formula now has a Minister
for Environment and
Energy development.

Put simply the government plan is to rid Britain of 50 Labour MPs. No prises for guessing why it has so much opposition.

@Indu pendent - the debts left for our kids came from the GLOBAL BANKING CRISIS - the hint as to who is responsible is in the name by the way - granted you can have a go at Browns deregulation strategy but bear in mind Osbourne planned to deregulate even further and was saying so at the time.
The most tragic thing is people like yourself are so busy blaming the last government for bad bets made in the city that the real culprits have gotten away Scott free......

Is it me or does that picture of Flashman make him look like a cabbage patch doll!!!.

It is sad B Flat denies the facts, and gives us a sob story to chew on.

Mrs T plunged this great country into a wasteland and is still angling for a £5 million state funeral.

Honest John put 17.5% VAT on energy bills, remember that one.

Reducing the number of MPs is one of those knee-jerk things which will gain public support 'reducing the number of crooks in parliament? I'll vote for that!', but is pretty dumb when you think about it.

The fewer MPs you have the more power those that are left will have, this is a recipe for more corruption, not less.