In answer to your question Malcolm: "[H]ow [do] you square a totemic belief in the constituency link when you are proposing (i) to do away with many of those longstanding constituency identities and (ii) to vastly increase the number of constituents per MP and so diminishing that very personal link you set so much store by?"

(i) I suggest the first part of your question is perfunctory. However, the 'constituency link' is not one of a geo-historic nature; it is between the elected member and the electors they serve. Boundaries are regularly re-drawn by the boundary commission. In Lincoln near where I reside an entire polling district has been transferred and two attached to the Lincoln Constituency, but when the next election comes this is unlikely to have a significant impact on the way people choose to cast their votes.

(ii) I also disagree that increasing the number of constituents in a constituency should provide any sort of additional burden. In Scotland and Wales, and London, certain issues taken up traditionally by MPs would now more properly be dealt with by members of the Scottish Parliament and by members of both the Welsh and London Assemblies. Further, should the government succeed in reforming the House of Lords, with a significant elected component, then surely that would be a further source of representation at the parliamentary level for people to turn to? I also suspect that an increase of around 7,000 individuals would not hinder the work of an MP in light of the plurality of representation afforded the citizen currently. If I required some interaction with the state then I would have no fewer that 11 parish councillors, 2 district councillors, 1 county councillor, a Member of Parliament and 6 members of the European Parliament to turn to.
MPs do have a personal link with their constituencies simply by virtue that they are unique within the consituency all matters relating to the sovereign body of our land go through one individual which means that 'when the buck stops here' it is clear with whom the buck actually stops.

Does either the tory or the labour party realise that they are becoming more and more semidetached from the concerns of the electors?

One of the great stumbling blocks to a decent relationship between politicians and electors is the right wing press and commentariat interposing its views all the time

We should just go for proportional representation

the tories will never support Proportional representation,so David Cameron is just trying old ideas again,unless PR comes in for westminster elections which i fully support nothing in our electoral system will ever change

The hollowness of Cameron's adherence to the "Constituency link" is shown up in the numerous local council seats that have multi members. These work well giving constituents the chance to choose which councillor to go to for assistance, maybe the one who is known to get results, or maybe the one that belongs to the party the constituent supports.

A second and more important aspect of voting reform lies not so much in the composition of parliament as in the composition of the cabinet, where in the likelhood of a coalition the PM will not be able to strong arm compliance on the threat of removal from cabinet of those members who were not selected by him/her.

From Thatcher to Blair ill considered policies went through cabinet owing to the power of the PM to deselect contrary voices. Does anyone think we would have invaded Iraq without full UN suport if there had been a coalition government? Yet one rarely if ever hears this consequence of voting reform voiced in debate/question time etc even by the Lib Dem members of the panels.

I completely agree with you that our present electoral system is unfair and take it that you intend, in consequence, to introduce a proportional representation system. Anything
else would do nothing to rmemedy the situation.

It is good to see David Cameron encouraging debate on the UK’s electoral system. Most people would agree that the way UK MPs are elected is a relic of the past and urgently needs reform. The ‘first past the post’ system is unfair and contributes to the public’s cynicism of politics. Apart from those in marginal constituencies, many electors feel that their vote is insignificant and they are absolutely right to feel that way.

The idea of “levelling-up” the size of constituencies will not give us the change we need because under this system there will still be marginal seats and safe seats. It is pointless anyone voting Labour or Liberal in my constituency (Cambridgeshire South East) because it has returned a Conservative MP at every election since it was created (by a Conservative government) and a Conservative voter in a constituency such as Glasgow Govan would feel similarly disenfranchised. Mr Cameron’s reforms would just be tinkering with the system so that it favours the Conservative party to make up for the time that it was rigged in favour of Labour – another swing of the two-party pendulum. Every vote should count and carry the same weight and the system Mr Cameron proposes will not give us this.

Electors should demand a fairer system. The Electoral Reform Society and ‘Make Votes Count’ advocate real reform based on proportional representation. There is also an urgent need for English voters to be given real democracy and for the unfairness introduced by devolution to be put right. Maybe these two nuts could be cracked at the same time?

I think that politicians of all parties should realise that urgent action needs to be taken to counter the deep cynicism and apathy that the UK electorate has for politics and politicians. This is a vital step for politicians to take to reconnect with the vast number of disillusioned voters.