Dear David Davis,
You have me confused.
In your speech today you warn against “the destruction of a 200-year-old constitution” and give this as a reason to oppose the introduction of the alternative vote.
But aside from our voting system, there is another part of that 200 year old constitution that is also currently up for change before Parliament.
200 years ago the size of Parliamentary constituencies varied hugely. Much more than 5% or 10% and not simply on islands or in the Highlands. Massive variations were built into the system, specially to protect particular vested interests.
So if you are wanting to protect our 200 year old constitution, I would have thought you would be opposing equalising the size of Parliamentary constituencies? But looking at your Parliamentary record, I see that’s not the case.
Of course, other aspects of our 200 year old constitution that aren’t so hot either. Like not letting women have the vote. Or banning people from public office based on religion.
Or have I got you wrong? Is this in fact a principled stand of yours and you will not only be opposing the changes to Parliamentary boundaries but tabling legislation to ban women from the vote and certain religions from public office?