Since evolutionary psychology points to the optimum and maximum sizes of personal community measured by the amount of contact between members (~1,500 for a village, ~25,000 for a town etc), there may be an argument in favour of better and more accountable representation by corresponding the figures more closely with the ability to be represented.

Once such a link is fixed in principle, the legitimacy of the case for more proportional representation is strategically advanced. Thus it is a natural LibDem policy argument.

I would go further because I think this also makes a case for additional devolution and an extra level of government at a federal or regional level.

On those grounds I begin to differ as a dual approach to reform offers improvement by combination whereas a single shiny headline-grabbing announcement only threatens to undermine the current state of our institutions. One without the other won’t work.

So what, exactly, are you now trying to say?

Felix: Yes, you’re right, but also all those countries actually have much stronger (and frequently full time/professional) regional and/or local politicians. Our proposals are to build a local tier and thus allow the reduction at the national level.

Chris: Yes, it’s a fraction, but it’s a longstanding policy that I supported independent of the party and as part of a coherent overall settlement makes very good sense. If using the story-du-jour to promote elements of longstanding polciy gets us coverage, why is that bad?

I really have problems with the idea that Nick getting positive headlines for policies we’ve had since I was a kid is in some way bad.

What is that as a percentage of government expenditure? 2 or 3 hundredths of one percent?

If that’s the best idea we have for saving money, we’d better not say anything more about aspirations to cut taxes as a result of efficiency savings.

But if it’s not the best idea we have for saving money, why is it the headline? It’s difficult to believe it’s not a cheap attempt to play to the “John Lewis” issue.

Playing to the agenda of the right-wing tabloids is a very dangerous game. Surely the EU referendum debacle demonstrated that clearly enough?

Chris Phillips

It would appear we are towards the top end in terms of numbers.

The Tories, like NuLab have ABSOLUTELY NO PRINCIPLES. They will say ANYTHING to get elected, even, if as in the two policies you cite, their previous policies – and actions in Government – were the diametric opposite of what they say now.

Did you learn nothing from the last 10 years?

I am deeply amused to hear someone claiming the moral ground in opposing “anti-politics” making that brain-dead argument.

There is an anti-politician, anti-system, anti-status quo sentiment. Our policies are designed to solve the reasons for that sentiment, I fail to see why highlighting them in a way that’ll appeal to people is a bad thing.

If the electorate fail to see the benefit in fair votes of actually getting what they vote for, then I seriously doubt they will make the link between MP-bashing & constitutional reform.

Nick Clegg & his advisors should really then be finding ways to make the fair votes argument instead of jumping on the anti-politics tabloid bandwagon.

And James, if the Tories have the same policy then it’s very likely to be the wrong one, isn’t it?

Well, I seem to recall it being in a 2001 policy paper, but to quote the 1997 manifesto:

Modernise the House of Commons. We will reduce the number of MPs by 200 (one third) and introduce tougher rules for their conduct, behaviour and outside sources of income. We will improve drafting and consultation on legislation, and strengthen MPs’ ability to hold the government to account.

So if it is ridiculous policy (the Tories have it too by the way), we’ve had it for at least 10 years (longer than that I think you’ll find actually).

I joined the party because getting a better Parliament through STV and reforming and updating the constitution are my overarching priority, every other problem comes from that. But given that it’s my top priority I’m very understanding that most people neither know much about it nor care much either, and I don’t really blame them.

If by doing this “populist crap” as you so nicely put it Nick gets us some headlines and helps get us more support and votes, by highlighting that we’re the only real chance to really reform and clean up the broken system, cashing in on the “anti-politician” feelings but turning them towards something positive (ie the rest of our package) then he’s doing exactly what needs to be done.

If the public don’t care about an issue, pick one we’ve got good policies on that they do care about. Capture the mood and move it forward. If we don’t do that, we might as well give up and go back to 6 MPs sharing a taxi.

Where does the figure of losing 150 MPs come from? Where’s the emphasis on fair votes & the essential parts of our constitutional reform policy in this little soundbite then?

But I’m confused when you go on to say “This isn’t.” having already called the policy ridiculous.

I quote from For the People by the People (pdf) which I seem to recall was passed unamended at Brighton (I voted to amend slightly IIRC):

“A smaller government, with further devolution of the powers that have been centralised over the course of the past century, would allow us to reduce the number of MPs. The eventual number would depend on progress with reform of the electoral system, not least the size of
constituencies under the STV system” (page 18)

So which part of policy as presented by Nick and voted for last Autumn do you think is “ridiculous“? Or am I misunderstanding and you’re talking about a different proposal?

We have fully developed policy on electoral reform & constitutional change which is truly radical. This isn’t.