The news is awash with news that the Liberal Democrats have pulled out their support for -the Tory gerrymandering- boundary changes and thus Devonwall. Which is great news obviously, but I can't help but feel that celebrating is not the right thing. After all the plans have not been defeated because there was little appetite for them, they've not been defeated because the Tamar should be a sacrosanct border or that in a democracy with a rising population the number of representatives should go up not down. But no not for any of these good reasons and indeed others the length and breadth of the UK but because the Conservatives have reneged on their coalition promise to reform the House of Lords and Clegg has in turn reneged on his promise to support boundary changes.
So all the arguing for the boundary changes by the Liberal Democrat party, voting for it in the Commons etc has now been cast aside. The question that I ask, speaks to the heart of Westminster democracy, why oh why can parties and MPs vote and argue for laws that they do not agree with? Surely life itself and especially parliamentary life is far too short to waste time on matters they do not agree with? If there is something that politicians should look at, if there is some reform that the UK electoral system needs, surely it is to rectify this problem? There are many qualities people seek in political parties and MPs but I doubt this moral flexibility in voting is one of them.
For more info on the Devonwall u turn see Dick Cole's blog here.