In an interview with the FT David Cameron has said he wants to reduce the number of MPs by 60 and carry out an immediate boundary commission inquiry if he wins the next election. The aim would be to create 585 seats of equal size. This reform is long overdue. It's not as radical as the commitment by Michael Howard to cut the size of the Commons by 120, a point LibDem bloggers have already seized on. My reaction to their reaction is one of massive indifference. They tried to up the ante on Michael Howard by saying they would cut 150 MPs. Higher, higher! They live in a word of Forsythian 'Play Your Cards Right' politics.
This reform would mean that small inner city constituencies would be abolished, and the number of seats in Wales and Scotland brought into line with England. There is an argument for them having even fewer as they have their own assemblies, but let's put that one to one side for the moment.
No doubt this will be portrayed by Labour as gerrymandering, but it is surely difficult for them to argue that all seats shouldn't be roughly the same size. It is preposterous that there are more than 100,000 electors on the Isle of Wight and fewer than 50,000 in some inner city seats.
There may well have to be one or two exceptions for some of the more remote Scottish seats, or maybe not. Think of the vast areas covered by some US congressmen. Why should Scotland be treated differently? I am not, before anyone suggests it, being anti Scottish. I just believe that my vote should be worth the same as a Scottish crofter. At the moment the crofter's vote is worth at least twice mine.
The main thing is that there is a current imbalance in our electoral system and it needs to be put right. Labour can get a majority on 36% of the vote, whereas the Tories need 42% or an 8 point lead. LibDems will shout that if we had PR none of this would matter, Maybe not. But it isn't going to happen.