Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda
I'm totally opposed to the House of Lords being peopled by those there because of their birthright, and am against hereditary peerages, but when you have replaced (most) of them with snivelling lackys, cronies, toadying sycophants, and people so lacking in morals such as Baroness Uddin, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, and Lord Ashcroft, we're really no better off.
The sooner we have an elected second Chamber, with people accountable to the public that put them there, the better.
(If only to stop that other waste of space, Mark Thatcher, from eventually taking his seat, and lording it over us.)
|
'PLANS to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a wholly elected, 300-seat second chamber are set to be unveiled by the government before the general election.'
'The government’s reform blueprint would have all members directly elected, ending the tradition of party patronage. A proportional representation system would be used to select members, with voting taking place at the same time as general elections.'
'One-third of the new chamber would be elected on each occasion, with members serving three terms — 15 years — in a system similar to the one used to select members of the United States Senate.'
'The new “peers” could also be subject to a US-style “recall ballot” that would disqualify them for incompetence.'
Jack Straw plots to abolish House of Lords - Times Online
Well that news has certainly cheered up my Sunday afternoon.
About time.
