Look at a map of the continent of Africa, and you will see many straight lines. They mark national boundaries which were often established with scant regard for common ethnic identity. The boundaries were, of course, drawn early in the imperial period — insensitively, and with imperial arrogance. Interestingly, there has never been much enthusiasm for changing the boundaries to make them a more accurate reflection of ethnic groupings. It is fairly easy to understand why that is so; people are usually reluctant to lose territory, however logical the loss may be.
I have been thinking about boundaries in this way because in the United Kingdom a process of consultation has begun about altering the boundaries of some parliamentary constituencies. This process is, of course, nothing like the imperial arrogance of the 19th century. The reason for the planned changes is the logical concern to ensure that constituencies are of comparable size (and to correct inequalities that have developed as occupations have changed and people have moved).
Inevitably, some of the proposed changes involve the mixing of logically (and ethnically) distinct areas. The use of the term “ethnically distinct” in this context is not really accurate, but it does help to reflect the strong sense of identity in different parts of the country. The people of Cambridgeshire, for example, do not think of ourselves as being the same as the people of neighbouring Norfolk.
The proposed changes include also a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament (in England, a reduction from 533 to 502. Proposals for change in Scotland and Wales have yet to be announced.)
Potential losers
It is not difficult to justify the plan to reduce the number of MPs. This is, after all, a fairly small country. The plan, however, is certainly not without controversy. MPs in some of the constituencies whose boundaries are set to change are likely to lose their seats, and no one in that position is expected to be enthusiastic, logical though the attempt to make constituencies more equal in the number of voters is, it will not be uppermost in the minds of the potential losers. Turkeys, as they say, do not vote for Christmas.
An analysis carried out by The Guardian suggests that if the last election had taken place with the proposed new constituency boundaries, the Labour party might have won 14 fewer seats, the Liberal Democrats ten fewer and the Conservatives only six fewer. That is the kind of consideration that will inevitably affect the attitude of MPs whose seats would be under threat.
If one tries to look at the proposals dispassionately, there is undoubtedly much to commend them. They should, for example, to some extent reduce the cost of parliament.
The case for reducing numbers is not, however, completely straightforward. If, for example, the reduction in the number of MPs is not accompanied by a reduction also in the number of government office holders (senior and junior ministers) the result is likely to be that even fewer MPs than now will be willing to take an independent stand on issues. There is obviously a case for expecting MPs to vote as the government whips, or the opposition whips, dictate. It is a case that party leaders will see as self-evident. It is not at all clear, however, that democracy is always best served by it. I want as my parliamentary representative someone willing to look at controversial issues, and make personal decisions about them. I realise that in that desire I am usually hoping for the unlikely, but I certainly do not want it to become even more unlikely.
Number reduction
There is another factor that ought to be considered: The size of the House of Lords. The second chamber does some excellent work, and often shows itself to be readier than the House of Commons to take an independent stance. Nevertheless, in spite of half-hearted attempts over the years to reform it, it remains larger than it needs to be. If there is a good case for reducing the number of MPs, there is surely at least as good a case for reducing the number of active members of the House of Lords.
The Boundary Commission for England is currently conducting a review into the constituency boundary proposals, in a consultation that is open until early December. It is very likely that a wide variety of opinions about them will be expressed. It is salutary to remember that no such consultation was possible when the imperial boundaries for Africa were drawn.
Bill Kirkman is an Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College Cambridge, UK. Email him at bill.kirkman@gmail.com
