A PROPOSAL by David Cameron to cut the number of MPs at Westminster could make it even more difficult for the Conservatives to win seats in Scotland, experts have claimed.
The Tories are aiming to increase the number of constituencies they hold north of the Border from one to five at the next general election.
But while Mr Cameron's proposal to cut the number of constituencies by 10 per cent would be likely to w
ork to the Conservatives' advantage in England, it could rebound on them in Scotland.
This is because their vote is thinly spread across the country – the Tories won nearly a sixth of the vote at the 2005 general election but won only one Scottish seat, in the Borders – and would be further diluted by an increase in the number of voters in each constituency.
Professor David Denver, a Scottish politics expert at Lancaster University, said: "(Mr Cameron's proposal] would make it much more difficult for the Conservatives to win seats, but the good thing for the Tories is that it would mean overall there would be fewer Labour MPs because Scotland would have fewer MPs."
Mr Cameron yesterday proposed cutting the number of MPs – currently 646, but due to rise to 650 at the next general election – by 10 per cent to make politics cheaper in the wake of the expenses scandal.
He also called for fixed-term parliaments – removing the prime minister's ability to call an election when it is judged most politically favourable – and vowed to give more power to backbench MPs to hold the government to account.
At the 2005 election, the Conservatives polled 65,704 more votes than Labour in England, but ended up 92 seats behind. In Scotland they received 369,388 votes (15.8 per cent), but won only Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale – the seat of shadow Scottish secretary David Mundell.
Prof Denver said: "You can see why David Cameron proposed this: MPs are unpopular, they're expensive and there are too many of them. But it would also help the Tories to redress the current unfairness in the system."
Ken Ritchie, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, warned some Scottish rural seats could be carved up in an attempt to increase the number of electors.
Orkney and Shetland is protected by law as a standalone constituency, but there are only 21,905 voters in the Western Isles, and 47,395 in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross.
Mr Ritchie said the plans were not properly thought through and could result in a "complete nonsense".
He said: "The bigger problem is the voting system. I would be quite surprised if David Cameron, once in power, wanted to make a great deal of progress on constituency boundaries."
Mr Mundell said Scotland may lose fewer MPs under Mr Cameron's plans because of the reduction in 2005 from 72 to 59 constituencies.
He said: "This isn't a ruse to somehow improve the Conservatives' position. It's a response to the fact that it's clear parliament can function effectively with less MPs. Scotland only four years ago had 13 more MPs than it does at the moment. I don't think anybody has noticed the difference."
Ross Lydall: Leader's proposed political revolution amounts to anything butDAVID Cameron's proposed shake-up of Britain's political system begs two immediate questions: does it go far enough; and how long will it take?
The ideas are proposed as a deep-cleansing of the body politic in the wake of the expenses scandal – more full detox and facelift than sticking plaster.
But they fall at the first hurdle for many critics by avoiding the question of electoral reform. The first-past-the-post system currently punishes the Tories by failing to award the party the number of seats its share of the national vote deserves.
Why has Mr Cameron avoided asking – let alone answering – this question? Because, at the next general election, he hopes to gain disproportionately. Labour and the Tories both believe that, when it comes to Westminster at least, proportional representation is bad because it can lead to coalition governments, and hence are willing to tolerate the unfairness of the system.
The other subject Mr Cameron avoids is the House of Lords. It was first to be implicated in the sleaze scandal at Westminster, and last week two peers were suspended until the end of the parliamentary term for being prepared to accept cash in return for tabling amendments to change the law.
But it remains out of touch with modern society – peers are there either by birthright or patronage. The reality may be that Tony Blair tried for a decade to reform the Lords and only got so far, and Mr Cameron may not judge it a priority.
As for his proposal for fixed-term parliaments – we are led to assume he means four-year terms – this risks creating lame duck prime ministers and governments that drift towards elections. It already happens towards the fifth year of a current parliamentary term, and fixed terms would only make this a certainty with an unpopular administration.
Mr Cameron also proposes gimmicks – text messages to update constituents on the progress of bills and removing a ban on television coverage of parliament currently being placed on YouTube. This would allow a wider audience to see him marching ever closer to 10 Downing Street – something these proposals advance only to a limited degree.
