David Cameron and the 585 project
"Literally" and "decimate" are two of the most misused words in the English language.
However, I can state with confidence that Conservative leader David Cameron literally plans to decimate the membership of the House of Commons.
It is known in Conservative ranks as the 585 project, the party's plans to reduce the number of MPs by 10% - from 650 to 585.
Some analysts think it is all a populist gimmick and will never happen, but Mr Cameron is absolutely committed to the idea, and, I'm reliably told, his plans are extremely well-advanced.
A bill will be placed before the House of Commons within weeks of him getting elected - if Mr Cameron gets a majority.
The plan is to give the Boundary Commission new rules, and carry out a new boundary review before the next election, assuming a Parliament of the usual four or five years.
Even if the Tories do not have a majority the cull might still happen since the Lib Dems also want to reduce the number of MPs.
So MPs will be under huge pressure in the next Parliament, knowing they face a 10% cull, especially when much of the dead wood has already been pruned away over the last few months, with record numbers of retirements.
The question is how MPs will react to this threat? Will they become more independent-minded, more aware of local constituency feeling?
Or will they toady up to the whips and the party leadership, in the hope that when it comes to the crunch, they might be saved by a diktat from on high - the kind of equivalent of the parachuting operation we've seen in recent weeks?
It's all set to be very interesting.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 6th Apr 2010, barriesingleton wrote:AND IF HE FAILS?
Will he resign or just shrug?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 6th Apr 2010, Tony Geo wrote:Sounds like a cunning plan to increase Tory channces for re-re-election before they have even been re-elected.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 6th Apr 2010, stevie wrote:a ten per cent cull? We could have a fifty per cent cull and not miss any of 'em
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 6th Apr 2010, BluesBerry wrote:Perhaps a good idea, but definitely mis-timed.
I don鈥檛 think that under these difficult economic conditions, it鈥檚 a good idea to reduce the number of MPs by 10% - from 650 to 585, though I do agree that stopping the subsidized meals & drinks at Westminster could stop. Right now would be a good time for that.
Cutting the fleet of 171 cars on stanby to Ministerial whims. That could be considered; now would be good to start.
Validating the need for a 拢10,000-a-year communications allowance for MPs. This would be good to consider; now would be good time to start.
Surely, Mr. CaMeron, there are more pressing matters that must be placed before the House of Commons within weeks of your electoral victory than realligning boundaries?
Right now, who cares about boundaries? Is this top priority for the unemployed, people losing their homes, those that can鈥檛 feed their families. This recommendation dropped on me like lead weight - another elitist ploy, and very badly timed at that.Even Cameron admitted that the savings this plan would generate were a "pinprick". So, for a 鈥減inprick鈥, the Conservatives will spent valauble pennies to redraw electoral boundaries, confuse the public when confusion exists aplenty, and add to the political instability.
David Cameron said that politicians had to set an example.
I smile.
Is this boundary plan the example the Conservatives seek to set.
I don't thionk so; I think the p[oeple want meaningful, powerful legislation from day one no matter which party gains the majority? Cameron says the Tories are different; they are serious about cutting public spending. Okay, David, please show us something better than tinkering with boundaries.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 7th Apr 2010, Paul wrote:The US can cope with 400 odd in the house of representatives and 100 in the senate... Why do we need 650 in the Commons and 750 in the Lords?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)