Cutting down the Commons will cripple Cameron’s government

While covering up unfortunate remarks made by his colleagues, David Cameron told us again that he wants to reduce the number of MPs.

The logic is, on the face of it, that fewer MPs will claim fewer expenses. It true in absolute figures, less so in proportion. Members of Parliament are quite unpopular at the moment so it follows that we should have fewer of them.

It is yet another example that Cameron is nowhere near being prepared for government; leaping on top of a simple solution with a short term benefit with no regard for the long term decision.

No wonder they called him “Mr 10%”. See this interview in the FT.

Fewer Labour seats mean less Opposition

The real reason behind this measure is really just to cut the number of seats the Labour party has and thus make it easier for the Tories to win a majority by moving the goalposts, as my Bath counterparts have explained.

It’s not a bad strategy. By reducing the number of MPs, those remaining will have to take on more constituency casework. This will be particularly the case in Inner City areas (which generally happen to be the Labour seats) where there tends to be more casework generated than for the MPs in rural constituencies.

Fewer Labour MPs will therefore need to take on more casework, and if they’re busy in their constituency office all the time they won’t be able to be in Westminster preventing legislation. They won’t even be getting out and about in the community, scoring up those pesky Labour votes. This is where the phrase “chained to the desk” applies itself well.

It could be worth giving constituency casework to local Councillors, though they tend to like to maintain political independence and loyalty to their council group rather than the Constituency Party. Perhaps it could be an area of reform to give Local Government some teeth.

Fewer Cameroons, more Hannanas

When (if?) Cameron is asked to form a Government, and he enacts his proposal, not only will he have to say goodbye to a few of his chums (which I am sure he is ruthless enough to do) but he will also have to make new ones.
Consider the following quite from Yes Minister:

There are only 630 MPs and a party with just over 300 MPs forms a government and of these 300, 100 are too old and too silly to be ministers and 100 too young and too callow. Therefore there are about 100 MPs to fill 100 government posts.

There are about 646 MPs right now and there will be 650 (due to new constituencies) after 2010. So a party needs 325 for a majority. Cut that by 10% and we have 585 MPs, 292 of which can form a majority.

Now you see the significance of the YM quote, I hope.

The result is that it will completely cripple DC, depending on when/if he gets the legislation through. I sound as if it is a fait accompli though you can be sure Labour and Lib Dems won’t take kindly to it, and I doubt newly elected Tory MPs will be so quick to sacrifice themselves in the name of Conservative hegemony either.

DC will have fewer Tory MPs to choose from and so in terms of probability alone it means he will have to offer jobs to the very same Old Tories and Thatcherites he has been trying to get away from for years. You know what’s worse than a Cameron Government? A Cameron Government with Health Secretary Dan Hannan in it. He will be at the beck and call of not just his backbenchers, but his frontbenchers too.

So it will not only weaken his particular government, but any subsequent government’s prospect of longevity. Obviously, as more and more MPs go through the ministerial ranks, the harder it is to control parliament. As it was with Major it is with Brown. With fewer qualified MPs to start with, the half-life of a government decreases and the pendulum will swing faster between Labour and Conservative (not necessarily a bad thing, though).

Cameron has said that there isn’t enough talent to go around on the Labour benches, despite a 60ish majority, hence the appointment of Lord Mandelson as Dark Lord of the State.

But that’s another story…