Comments on: Cameron looks both ways on Lords reform

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 10 May 2012 13:01:15 +0000

I would have preferred Cameron to have made concessions on matters affecting people’s pockets more… but then sometimes the LDs seem to prefer constitutional issues

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 10 May 2012 12:21:26 +0000

the list system would make the change completely pointless unless it were a pure PR for one big constituency with no thresholds

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 10 May 2012 11:38:46 +0000

I have always been a supporter of a majority elected chamber. We cannot lecture / advise other emerging democracies what to do and use our system as an example. Imagine if another country said it wanted to have one of its two parliamentary chambers in effect, appointed the most powerful in the other. It doens’t stack up.
I do have a problem with single 15 year terms. I would suggest renewable 7 year terms, elected by a different method, perhaps STV not the list system used for Euro elections!

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 10 May 2012 10:35:25 +0000

I cannot quarrel the bulk of the Chamber being elected by PR, the larger the constituencies the better.
However there must be a nominated section since this is a way of getting cross-benchers in, and like it or not, most of the population are ‘cross-benchers’.

My preference has always been for a ‘soviet’ with people representing occupations, incl of course the unemployed and/or homeless. But maybe the idea would give some people sleepless nights.

My litmus test for a reform is twofold
(i) will it redress gender imbalances among MPs?
(ii) will it repesent traveller/Gypsies and/or homeless?