Playing Politics With the Constitution?

Tinkering and meddling with the make-up and functions of the two Houses of Parliament is a recurring theme in Westminster these past few decades. Every government - it matters not of which political persuasion - appears to be possessed with the innate desire to change the rules in the middle of the game, often aiming to the disempower the opposition. In a way, then, it should not come as a surprise that David Cameron is planning to do the same. He's just following in the well-trodden footsteps of his illustrious Labour predecessors.

Mr. Cameron has long expressed a wish to lower the number of MPs and create more equal-sized constituencies. The main problem with the current number and boundaries of constituencies is that Labour has a build-in advantage over the Tories and the Lib Dems. Safe Labour seats tend to be smaller. Thus, to win such a seat requires fewer votes than a win in a safe Tory seat. Understandably, the Tories believe this to be manifestly unfair, and they have a point. Labour should be allowed to profit unjustly from their earlier gerrymandering. Given the current state of affairs this Labour criticism of constituency reform is laughable:

"Labour insists that the proposed changes to the Commons are an attempt at "crude gerrymandering" designed to increase the Tories' chances of winning a higher proportion of seats at the next election."

Far from skewing the system in his party's favour, Mr. Cameron seems to want to make it fairer for all parties, to level the playing field if you will. This alone is the proper intent that should lie behind constitutional reform: to see a fault and to rectify it, unbiased and for the good of all. Should Mr. Cameron accomplish this he will set himself apart from Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

However, if the fear implied in the article in the Guardian turns out to be justified, Mr. Cameron has no such honourable motive. His critics say that he wants fewer MPs elected simply to enlarge the power of the executive:

"We are concerned that the [reform] bill could possibly result in the executive's dominance over parliament being increased," the report states. "This is an unsatisfactory basis on which to embark on the fundamental reform of the legislature."

As a conservative I am naturally suspicious of constitutional reform, but Mr. Cameron gets the benefit of the doubt for now. None of the parties are saintly when it comes to reforming Parliament and the Prime Minister should be given the opportunity to explain his motives before he is judged. Instead of immediately assuming the worst, a little patience to hear the arguments would be a good thing. But perhaps Mr. Cameron's critics are so quick to cast stones because down in the unspoken of depths of their hearts they know why they would want reform and they see but their own intentions mirrored in his eyes.