Is having less MPs really the answer?
The fallout from the revelation of MPs expenses has been the call for smaller parliament. It takes 435 Representatives to run the House in the USA. This does make the 646 MPs in the UK look insanely large.
The current governing party holds 350 of those seats. They hold a rather thin majority and the backbenches are filling up with exhausted ex-ministers how have either resigned or been managed out by the Prime Minister in reshuffles. With around 100 Members of either democratically elected Commons or the hereditary/friends of the PM Lords needed to make a government, the pool of talent is shallow even with a change of administration.
The every stretching arm of government is now an arms race and isn't going to be easy to rationalise. The Spectator published a post yesterday that states that David Cameron's rhetoric may not have meaning because of the amount of shadow cabinet it would upset if it turns out they aren't going to walk into a job in government should the Tories win the general election next year.
If small government is what the Conservatives want then they need to commit to it now and implement early. The answer that came to me was to use a policy of natural wastage if reassembling Whitehall and upsetting some loyalist MPs is too much for a start out administration. The problem with that is it gives out a message of weakness and dithering.
So the only way is to be bold and do it early or change tact. If a few shadow cabinet members have to wait before they get a post then they should bear in mind that it won't take long for their colleagues to mess up and Cameron can take comfort that he has a pool of replacements to choose from.