That's somewhat disingenuous. The Boundary Commission is an independent body set up to keep (amongst other things) constituencies at a similar number of voters. People move, so boundaries need to change and there is a review about every ten years. The last one was in 2007 so it's around the time for another review.
To say the review is in order to improve their chances is bending the facts to suit an agenda somewhat.
Vin
[Edit: from Wikipedia:
Once a Commission has completed a review, it submits a report to the appropriate Secretary of State who puts forward legislation to the Parliament implementing the recommendations. Parliament may approve or reject these recommendations, but may not amend them. If Parliament approves the recommendations, then the Sovereign signs an Order formalising the boundary changes which are to be used at the next general election. Any by-elections use the pre-existing boundaries.
Although for many years the legislation gave the Secretary of State power to modify a Commission’s recommendations, this power was never exercised. This separates boundary making by a combination of structure and convention from those elected from the resulting electoral areas, thus significantly reducing any scope for gerrymandering.]
To say I am being disingenuous implies that I actually know what I am talking about, and am trying to deliberately pull the wool over people's eyes.
I am only repeating something, that has oft been stated, including on Question Time, without it being challenged as being inaccurate.
This is why, in an earlier post, I said that I would like a truly independent body to outlay the pros and cons, of staying in the EU, as there are already too many, for want of a better phrase, urban myths regarding how things work/are, causing confusion.
I bow to your superior knowledge, with regards to this, which highlights why this is a good thread - I have learnt something I didn't know.
