We used to be against deference as well, didn’t we? On a very serious point, does the Minister recall that the original rationale for the figure of 585 was offered by the Leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, in the middle of the expenses scandal when, in order to demonstrate how radically different a Conservative Government would be, he said that there was a commitment to reduce the numbers in the House of Commons by 10 per cent, taking it down to 585, in order to save public money? That was the original rationale. So why now, at this point in the debate on changing the numbers in the House of Commons, are we not still presented with that figure, which at least had the legitimacy of being in one party’s manifesto? And why, if it is not 585, is it 600? May I underline, by repetition, the question that he has yet to answer? Why 600? If his calculation is based on rough equal numbers per constituency, why again has that number been chosen? There is no substantive rationale behind it.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kinnock
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 January 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
724 c184 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:35:50 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_701500
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_701500
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_701500