Nobody will be surprised that proposed boundary changes have caused outrage among many MPs.

There are two forces driving the reforms. One is a desire to ensure all constituencies are of roughly equal size.

As the Government points out, it cannot make sense for some constituencies to have as many as 90,000 voters while others have as few as 40,000. It means that votes in some parts of the country are worth significantly more than others.

The second factor is the desire to cut the number of MPs in the House of Commons.

Here, Ministers are on shakier ground. Following the expenses scandal, and given the natural tendency to be a little cynical about politicians, it’s tempting to say that the country could survive quite happily with fewer MPs.

But the effect of cutting numbers will be to make it harder for constituents to attract their MP’s attention when, for example, they are seeking help or support for a particular cause.

It also means there will be fewer MPs to scrutinise legislation.

Crucially, unless Government is also cut back (leading to a cut in the number of shadow ministers on opposition benches too), cutting the number of MPs will mean cutting the number of backbenchers who might take an independent view on proposals put forward by the front benches.

In other words, it will increase the power of party leaders such as the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition while reducing the independence of the House of Commons, because a larger proportion of the Commons will be part of what is known as the “payroll vote”, unable to speak their minds in the way that backbenchers are generally able. Still, this is the decision that has been taken. The result is a dog’s dinner of changes which in some cases appear to lack any logic.