Fewer MPs will leave the Commons filled with well-behaved careerist politicians

Send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Changes to constituency boundaries will see fewer MPs elected

The new provisional constituency boundaries published today are based on the principles that we should have fewer MPs and that each should represent an equal number of constituents. They were the parameters set by the Government and, from my initial perusal of the recommendations for Leeds, where I live, the Boundaries Commission have produced a more sensible solution than they did for the city five years ago. That isn’t setting the bar particularly high.

My principle objection to the proposals relates to the reduction in the number of MPs. This, on the face of it, would seem to be a popular move, but I see two reasons why this is misguided. The governing party appoints MPs to more than 100 appointed posts – secretaries of state, ministers and whips, right down to parliamentary private secretaries. Any of these people are expected to resign if and when they wish to rebel against their party’s position. There are no plans I am aware of to reduce these numbers.

Also, consider that a proportion of honourable members are going to be well behaved in anticipation for future promotions. The move to reduce numbers is going to threaten the independently-minded backbencher – the very sort of politician who we need. The careerists who attract public disapproval will make up a greater proportion and power will move towards the executive. If the number of politicians does concern us, then surely the starting place should be the other chamber, with more than 25 per cent more members, all unelected.

The other objection to reduced numbers is that the smaller the house, the greater the disproportionality of the result. While we have ‘first past the post’ system, any reduction in the number of MPs will reduce the chance of a varied House of Commons and increase the distance between the Government and the governed. The Conservatives have identified one part of our system that does disadvantage them – and proposed to solve this for their own benefit without tackling any other issue. The end result will be to give more power to the executive while in no way making it less likely a party can provide that executive with less than 40 per cent of the vote.

Chris Read
Leeds

Sean O’Grady writes that in 1968 the Home Secretary refused to introduce legislation to give effect to boundary changes which were disadvantageous to Labour. It was 1969 – and it was more cynical than that. The Home Secretary, James Callaghan, was obliged by statute to lay orders before parliament giving effect to the changes. He did so, and then whipped his MPs to vote them down. As O’Grady points out, this was to no avail since Labour lost the next election anyway.

Gordon Elliot
Burford

What happens when Hinkley goes wrong?

When Hinkley Point goes belly up at some time in the future, everyone who has foisted this project on us will be dead, pensioned off or living in luxury in another country having made a fortune. And guess who always pays the price for such reckless adventures?

Jennifer Bell
Tiverton

If only 7 per cent of Britain's electricity is expected to be provided by Hinkley Point, providing enough energy to power 5.8 million homes, where is the other 93 per cent coming from? And at what cost? Or are the rest of us just going to be left in the dark?

Sarah Pegg
Seaford, East Sussex

Having sold the UK something that does not exist anywhere in the world, with no evidence it will work properly and that is already over budget, could the Brexit team co-opt the negotiators from EDF and CGN to help with our departure from the EU? We can only dream of the sort of deal they would be able to obtain for us.

Ashley Herbert
Address withheld

Truth seekers

Ben Chu hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that the Chinese could not admit that the story about the sparrows was untrue because the Government had caused the famine by their economic policy. Equally, our Government could not tell the truth about immigration in the referendum campaign. They could not tell people that their problems with getting a house, long queues for NHS treatment, difficulty getting a school place had nothing to do with the EU policy on free movement of workers. To do so, they would have had to admit that the reason was their failure to adequately invest in building houses and inadequate funding of the NHS and in schooling.

Chris Elshaw
Headley Down, Hants

Technological progress or social regression?

Having been self-employed since the early 1960s until my retirement, it would have indeed been an advantage to have been able to manage my working day with all the technology that exists today. In the early 1970s, I could see that technological advances would affect our working environment but I naively thought it could only mean good for the average working person. Demeaning, repetitive and dangerous occupations would be no more. The possibility of a three-day working week was bandied about. Leisure time would be the norm.

What has happened, of course, is that these advances have meant safer and less repetitive jobs but have also resulted in large scale redundancies. Management and industry has benefitted by becoming more efficient and profitable, but these benefits have only been enjoyed by the very few. What was heralded as a giant leap for mankind has ended with millions at their wits end trying to keep homes and families together. Those who are unemployed are vilified as being lazy and good for nothing. It is ironical to think that, despite all the technological advances that have been made, socially we are retreating back into the last century.

Trevor Dalley
Camborne, Cornwall

The Great British Brexit Off

To get a true understanding of how the UK found itself voting for Brexit, where huge sections of the electorate were unaware of Article 50 and did not question misleading statements put out by vote leave on immigration, one only needs to look at the front pages of the popular press this week. In a week where the former Prime Minister leaves Parliament following the election pledges he had made being torn up by his successor (who now has no mandate to govern), and the week where Government foreign policy is blamed for the advance of Isis, our front pages are dominated by news that a cookery programme is moving two channels along on the EPG. I used to, naively, think that that the “tabloidisation” of our media would have few ill effects, but by dumbing down we really are becoming a dumb nation.

James Shepherd
Lincolnshire

Yet again it is left to the House of Lords to remind us we live in a democracy and it would be “constitutionally inappropriate” to invoke Article 50, triggering the Brexit process, without allowing parliament to a vote on the terms proposed. The referendum was advisory – which doesn't mean parliament can reverse it, but it does mean it must be ratified, the terms of negotiation scrutinized and the key issue of whether we remain in the single market debated in both houses.

Rev Dr John Cameron
St Andrews

R H Tawney is quoted as saying that it is no consolation to the other tadpoles if one frog escapes the pond. He also said, “Freedom for the pike means death to the minnows.” May Theresa May not fulfil the analogies.

Canon Christopher Hall
Banbury

Transparency on television

“BBC forced to disclose which on-screen Stars earn more than £150,000” I don't have a problem with this; but why does it not apply to all TV companies? At least with the TV licence I have a choice not to have a TV, but I have no such choice with commercial channels funded by advertising revenue. Clearly such outlay by companies comes out of the cost to the public of their goods or services and buyers of such goods and services do not have any choice.

Brian Phillips
Ilkley

Honeymoon ends for Theresa May

Theresa May says the only reason she's Prime Minister is because she went to grammar school. That’s all the reason you need to refrain from bringing back grammar schools. When it occurred to me during the Tory leadership campaign that I wanted May to win I was horrified because I realised that if May is the answer them you're asking the wrong question. One of the most repressive Home Secretaries of recent times, she didn't campaign to stay in Europe because she was actually in favour of Brexit but didn't say so for selfish career reasons but somehow stumbled into the premiership for the solitary reason that she was better than a flock of lame ducks like Andrea Leadsom and Michael Gove.

Darren Zak Scott
Address withheld

I saw the following headline on your website: “May: I am only PM because I went to a grammar school.“ Only Prime Minister? What more does she want? To be Queen?

Kenneth Mortimer
Lebanon

Rich Olympians should fund themselves

To avoid any possible future embarrassment, I suggest that our politicians exercise caution in awarding “gongs” to Olympians. It would be wise to exclude from consideration anyone who has missed a drugs test.

Further, a significant number of our Olympians, who have received enormous amounts of public money, have become very wealthy. I do not begrudge this financial windfall but perhaps it would not be asking too much that these multi-millionaires now fund their own training expenses, including equipment, travel and hotels. This will leave more in the pot for the development of younger competitors. In particular, the so-called “Golden Couple”, Laura Trott and Jason Kenny, who currently dominate the front covers of magazines such as Hello, could in future agree to buy their own £5,000 pedal cycles.

David Gibbs
Prestbury