View Single Post
Old 28-08-2015, 16:30   #9
Ignitionnet
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Age: 47
Posts: 13,995
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Re: How many Lords do we need?

We don't need 450 members of the second chamber any more than we need 650 members of a first chamber.

India has a population of over 1.25 billion, a parliamentary system based on ours, and somehow manages to get by with only 790 members across both houses.

Devolution of power to local areas is an excellent opportunity for a mass cull of the Commons, and the Lords is way past its use-by date.

I'd love to see Bishops out of the Lords, it's us and Iran that automagically appoint clerics to legislature, what great company to be in, and indeed the Lords become a fully elected house.

Of course I'd also like to see the Commons cut at least in half, and switch from FPTP to STV with full-on list-based PR for the second chamber, and Parliament moved out of Westminster.

None of it will happen. Too many vested interests. The odds of MPs happily allowing half of their number to be removed from the gravy train prematurely are slim.
Ignitionnet is offline   Reply With Quote