'Gerrymandering' - or protecting an unfair bias?

Must admit that I'm not keen on the proposals to equalise the size of Parliamentary constituencies at the same time as reducing the total number of MPs from 650 to 600. I'm just not sure its worth the rumpus. But I really cannot see how it can be called 'gerrymandering' as some pseudo-apoplectic Labour MPs are claiming. The protests seem to be loudest in Wales. Lets consider what's actually being proposed here.

First thing worthy of note is that what's proposed is exactly what David Cameron made clear he would do before he became Prime Minister. In fact the proposal is not quite so radical. The cull of MPs is 50 rather than the 65 previously proposed. Secondly, I cannot see how anyone can dispute the fairness of expecting all MPs to represent a roughly similar number of constituents. Its possible to argue that greater note should be made of historic boundaries, or that sparsity should be a factor - but not 'gerrymandering'.

Lets consider how these proposals apply to Wales, which currently sends 40 MPs to Westminster. It seems that this number will fall to 30 (or thereabouts) - a bigger reduction than will happen anywhere else in the UK. All this tells us is that Welsh MPs must be currently representing fewer constituents than other parts of the UK. What's being proposed is an end to this imbalance. If the Bill is approved, the arithmetical calculations can produce no other result. "Its logic Captain". And contrary to some of the devious comments I've heard used, its nothing whatsoever to do with devolution. The 600 figure does not take any account at all of the fact that MPs in England will have wider responsibilities. Several areas of policy have been devolved to the National Assembly. The worst aspect of this is that those who squeal 'gerrymandering' must know that there is no justification for their desperate cries as they pursue retention of their unjustified self-interest.