Would Wild Birds Eat Grapes If They Were...
Home & Garden2 mins ago
John Bercow: Cut The Size Of The House Of Lords
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Reform of the House of Lords has been a problem for all Parties for than a hundred years. Should we not adopt the system used in Germany and, to an extent, in France and Switzerland. Their second chamber is comprised of representatives of local authorities and doesn't present a threat to the directly-elected primary chamber. This seems to me eminently sensible, particularly as local authorities have to implement central government legislation.
Obviously Bercow is an idiot, and this is already being sorted.
The HOL was culled in the 1999s with the abolition of the Life Peers. By then it had bloated to 1300 members, largely due the Thatcher and Major dishing out Peerages like confetti to gerrymander the second chamber.
So 800 members is an improvement. Rather than size of the membership, the problem is its appointment and composition. memberships are given to political friends and the candidates often very weak. So a properly elected chamber by the people, not by politicians has to come. I am not bothered if membership is 800 or 8000 as long as it is representative and chosen by the people. It can be argued that there should be more Lords because their job is to scrutinise the crap that comes from the Commons.
The elephant in the room is the number of MPs, which should be halved. With improvements to communications and more information readily available to anyone, the number of local representatives needed to fulfil the local democracy aspect, is less than it was.
http://
The HOL was culled in the 1999s with the abolition of the Life Peers. By then it had bloated to 1300 members, largely due the Thatcher and Major dishing out Peerages like confetti to gerrymander the second chamber.
So 800 members is an improvement. Rather than size of the membership, the problem is its appointment and composition. memberships are given to political friends and the candidates often very weak. So a properly elected chamber by the people, not by politicians has to come. I am not bothered if membership is 800 or 8000 as long as it is representative and chosen by the people. It can be argued that there should be more Lords because their job is to scrutinise the crap that comes from the Commons.
The elephant in the room is the number of MPs, which should be halved. With improvements to communications and more information readily available to anyone, the number of local representatives needed to fulfil the local democracy aspect, is less than it was.
http://
"Obviously Bercow is an idiot..."
Sums it up nicely for me. The dwarf is a joke. I even preferred Gorbals Mick and that's saying something. At least he had, ahem, 'character'.
I agree with getting shot of the Lords Spiritual and the other peddlers of fairy tales. Religion should play no part in politics.
Of course there will be some in the Commons who will loudly voice their opposition to the Lords and then hypocritically accept a Lordship. See John Prescott.
Sums it up nicely for me. The dwarf is a joke. I even preferred Gorbals Mick and that's saying something. At least he had, ahem, 'character'.
I agree with getting shot of the Lords Spiritual and the other peddlers of fairy tales. Religion should play no part in politics.
Of course there will be some in the Commons who will loudly voice their opposition to the Lords and then hypocritically accept a Lordship. See John Prescott.
1 to 14 of 14
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.