Theresa May shelves MPs’ constituency boundary review, to quell Tory rebellion

This, then, is the fact behind the Conservative Party’s boundary review, begun so many years ago under David Cameron.

It isn’t about cutting a wasteful 50 MPs who were sponging from the public purse – but we knew that from the Tories’ profligacy in stuffing the House of Lords with their yes-people.

It isn’t about making the number of voters in each constituency more equal – but we could tell that from the weird constituency boundaries proposed in the review, intended to make it easier for the Tories to win a majority of Parliamentary seats.

It is about the Tory leadership doing whatever it has to, in order to keep the loyalty of its MPs and candidates.

The plan to gerrymander electoral victories by creating a smaller number of Parliamentary seats that were more likely to be won by Conservatives seemed sound a few years ago, especially as the Conservatives were a minority government, propped up by the Liberal Democrats.

But times change. After the EU referendum, supporters of Brexit have realised that their seats are likely to be abolished – or they are likely to lose if seeking election in constituencies with the proposed new boundaries.

With Mrs May unlikely to get a majority for the proposals in the Commons, it seems likely that the boundary changes will be shelved indefinitely…

… proving very clearly that Conservatives have absolutely no interest in democracy. Their only interest is in keeping power for themselves.

An embattled Theresa May has postponed a Commons showdown on plans to slash the number of Parliamentary seats after Tory rebels looked set to defeat her.

As the Boundary Commission published its final proposals to cut Westminster’s constituencies from 650 to 600, it emerged that the Government has backed off moves to stage the key vote next month.

Cabinet Office Minister Chloe Smith revealed it could take months to draft the required Parliamentary order needed to enact the boundary changes. Number 10 also refused to commit to holding a vote before Christmas.

Labour swiftly said the PM was “running scared” of her backbenchers and should dump the plans because they were wrong in principle.

Source: Theresa May Shelves Plans To Slash Westminster Seats Amid Fears Of Tory Rebellion

Visit our JustGiving page to help Vox Political’s Mike Sivier fight anti-Semitism libels in court

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:



  1. nmac064 September 11, 2018 at 8:37 am - Reply

    The corrupt Tory gerrymandering is postponed.

  2. jill Phillips September 11, 2018 at 8:57 am - Reply

    Rather than how many rich or poor people can be crammed into – or bled out of – present voting areas to enrich Tory funds, a better way MUST be chosen.
    Voting for the 2nd House would NOT be based on Boundaries – but built onthe political preference of all citizens at the time of the 2 elections.

    Each Party has Members – even if the Greens eg,, disgracefully, have only one (brilliant) MP. Party Leaders should work hard to increase the number of their Members. . For I suggest that active party members would probably (sic) have more enthusiasm and knowledge of appropriate experts and professionals needed to inform and activate agreed subject proposals a little time after each election time – once they are known.
    The CVs of potential 2nd Hopuse members should be made publicly available; they would include preferred subject matter and expertise.
    The number of people in the 2nd House would be fixed, but with an agreed clause to allow for temporary opting -in for particular reasons; not including just money.
    Thus, a truly proportional number of Party Members throughout the country + the actual MPs (voted in under the present system) would decide who should be included.

    Party Committees could be made up inside this 2nd House – which could choose to work across Party lines. Each member to provide an agenda agreed with his committee(s). (Thus no paid hangers–on)
    Such a system would give a much fairer voice to ALL citizens; in particular to those who have always lost out.
    Funding would be recovered from tax havens to pay members as agreed – and if required.
    Lords,Ladies and Corporative Bosses et al would not be permitted to give money to parties. They may support projects which have the agreed support of all the 2nd. House committees.
    Experts could be co-opted with the agreement of all committees.
    Elections would be held after sufficient time has been given for discussion by the new MPs of the subjects raised by the people; and for candidates to make themselves known in conjuction with the needs expressed.
    Just a START, perhaps, but a meaningful one – needing expert attention.

  3. Tony September 11, 2018 at 12:08 pm - Reply

    This is very good news.

    It is funny how, since devolution, we still have secretaries of state for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Abolishing these would be a good idea.

Leave A Comment