Gerrymandering and Boundary Review – With Phil the Test Manager

Going Postal

Following on from an article I wrote about earning the right to vote, Voting-earn the right

I was asked about the upcoming boundary review.  There are various sources of information for the changes  expected, here is the Telegraphs: New Commons boundaries top Conservative government agenda

Re-drawing boundaries just to keep yourself in power, is Gerrymandering.

I do agree that reducing the quantity of MP’s from 650 to 600 is a good start, and I do agree that MP’s should  represent, at least approximately the same number of constituents and that reducing the quantities of MP’s must  mean redrawing the boundaries.  To do so to gain political advantage must never be the reason, but a government of  any colour will always try and take advantage.

The problem with this boundary review in my opinion, is that it does not go far enough.  We must start with the  quantity of MP’s needed.  650 was always way too much, and 600 is still many more than most countries have per  capita.  Compared to other countries, the UK is massively over-represented. We, with a population of 63 million  (probably 70 by now) people, have 650 MPs; Germany, with a population of 82 million, has 600; Japan, with a  population of 127 million – twice the size of ours – has only 470; Russia, with 144 million, has 450; and America, with 293 million, has 430 Congressmen.

Let us take the US, and for clarity, simplify the figures.  Each MP (congressman) have around 680,000  constituents.  Assuming the population of the UK is say 65 million, then we should have about 95 MP’s.

If though, we only employed say 100 MP’s, then I suspect this would not be enough given all the various  departments, committees and other HoC requirements such as a speaker and deputies, and a Whips office.  Also, an  MP would actually end up being very busy with HoC duties, due to not having umpteen PPS and deputies.  If they  would be that busy with just HoC duties they genuinely would not be able to find time for what I consider to be  their core functionality, which is to look after the needs of their constituency.

I think most would agree 600 is too many, and I think 100 too few.  I would therefore suggest that the HoC be a  maximum of 300 MP’s, so around 220k registered voters in their constituents per MP.

The Boundary commission, should now look again at re-defining the boundaries so each MP has approximately this  number of registered voters.  If people are not registering, they are not doing so for a reason, therefore, they  should have no access to their MP until they do register.

Of note, with the population of Scotland being around 5.2 million, they would have 24 MP’s and not the current 59. Which then leads on to bringing in proportional representation, or stay with first past the post (FPTP).  Based on  that AV referendum we had a few years ago, which was soundly trounced, I would (waiting for the screaming), stick  with FPTP.  It has worked, both good and bad throughout history, it’s not perfect, never will be, but is as  democratic as you can get, and there are a lot worse options.

Having proportional representation limits (but does not stop) any abuse of Gerrymandering, but if you reduce the  quantity of MP’s to a sensible level, FPTP would still work.  Think about those constituencies that would vote  Conservative, or Labour, no matter which idiot was standing.  Take for example the recent by-election in Witney or  Bately and Spen, if the size of each of those constituencies was 3 or 4 times the size of what they are now, then  there is lots of scope for not “Packing” towns with one type of person who always vote for a particular colour.

So, for this first round of boundary changes which will probably happen before the next GE in probably 2020, I  say, good start.  Then, by the time of the next GE in 2025, let us get down to 300 MP’s.

This reduction is not just about saving a few quid.  With the quantity of registered voters for each MP being  significantly higher than is current, it is vital that each MP is of the highest caliber.  You will already know  some really, really awful MP’s we currently have, the one from Bately and Spen was a “star” of Coronation Street,  I am not knocking this, good for her, had a job, paid tax, all in favour, she would even qualify under my criteria  below.  But being a TV star or celebrity is not what I would call being qualified for what is probably the United  Kingdom’s most serious job.

So, what would you need to have done to become qualified to be a Parliamentary Prospective Candidate (PPC)?  I  would suggest they must meet the following criteria as mandatory:
Mandatory for all:

  • Be British, either by being born here or became a British citizen (not just by passing a stupid test  either, but that’s another story)
  • Live in the constituency.
  • Have no criminal conviction in any country.
  • Be over the age of 30.
  • Must be willing to swear allegiance to the monarch.
  • Must be willing to abide by the rules of the HoC, which will include minimum mandatory attendance and  voting record.
  • Must be fluent in English.

(Note, if elected and you do not meet the above, then you cannot sit in the HoC or claim any salary, or pension,  or other benefits)
In addition, any one, or more of the following:

  • Have served your country for a minimum of 3 years in the armed services
  • Have, or are, been a qualified doctor, nurse (and worked in the NHS), police, fire service, ambulance or  prison service for at least 5 years.
  • Have worked and paid income tax in any other occupation for at least 10 years.

It would be mandatory for all PPC’s to be voted for by their local party, to try and ensure they are qualified and  are suitable.

You will never of course be able to stop the fantasy beliefs of various political parties, but I feel the quality  of each MP would be vastly improved, and this can only be better for our country.

Having hopefully, increased the suitability for MP’s, we now need to make them respectable.  Not an easy task.   So, I would propose we start this with mitigation of what they currently have a bad name for.  Firstly, expenses  for which I, like many of you can find no excuse possible for the deliberate fraud that certainly did take place.
Expenses would be pretty much abolished.  All travel and accommodation would be booked via a central office (also  savings in terms of their power to buy).  No concept of a second home, if you live outside of where the HoC is  currently, then the central office will book you an apartment within a reasonable distance.   If working late,  taxis can be booked and the central office pays via their account with the selected taxi firms.

Do not even think about claiming for food a drink, everyone must pay out of their hard earned, MP’s are no  exception.

Expenses then would then become very limited, and anything claimed must be done via the central office who will  publish monthly, all claims, and whether acceptable to pay.

Behavior – An MP is representing over 200 thousand of their electorate, they are in fact ambassadors for them.   Therefore, if there was any improper behavior, and I would cite Vaz, they are immediately suspended, pending a  very prompt enquiry.  In the case of Vaz, if he previously stated he was homosexual, then his sexual behavior, no  matter what some may think, is acceptable, but there is no excuse for the drugs.  Once proved, you are out, and  you lose your pension rights.

To be an MP, you understand the rules, the behavior required, and the honour.  Pay therefore should be  commensurate with the responsibility.  I would propose on becoming an MP, the starting rate is £150,000 per annum.   50k extra for the PM, 40 for Chancellor, 35 for the defence secretary and the Home Secretary, with 20k extra for  other secretaries of state.

Being chairman of a select committee, or a member, does not confer any additional pay.  They should do this as a  patriot, and the fact they can bring the committee views to be debated in the House.  Let us just say if you have  not chaired a committee, you would be unlikely to be a secretary of state.

I would give the Speaker an additional 15k with deputies an additional 5k.

There would be no additional payments for anything else.

MP’s would be free to hold outside jobs, but must make this very clear on application to become a PPC, or if  already an MP, publish these details with how long they spend doing these activities.

There you have it, most likely not perfect, but it would be a good start.  Improve the quality of the HoC, you can  then look at the HoL, but that’s another story.

Phil the test manager ©