Why have a House of Lords if there’s not a single lord left in it?
The last thing we need is a second chamber filled with yet more professional politicos.
8:55PM GMT 06 Jan 2012
Last year, Mr Clegg failed to persuade the British people, in a referendum, that the Alternative Vote system was the answer to their political ills. This year, he hopes to persuade both Houses of Parliament to invent a new House of Lords. He thinks the present House is “an affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern democracy”.
Actually, there is a close relationship between electoral reform and the reformed second chamber, because one of the key provisions of the Clegg White Paper is that the new House of Lords… but stop a moment! Will it actually be called the House of Lords?
Read the full article here: The Telegraph
- 300-member House of Lords is ‘too small’, says committee (independent.co.uk)
- Committee expected to reject Nick Clegg’s plans for Lords reform (guardian.co.uk)
- House of Lords ‘too small’ with 300 peers (telegraph.co.uk)
- Opinion: Why is Nick Clegg being quite so wrong on Lords reform? (libdemvoice.org)
- Lords changes ‘set for rejection’ (bbc.co.uk)
- Peers and MPs reject Clegg’s plans to cut size of the Lords by a half (independent.co.uk)
- Nick Clegg pledges to push through reform of the House of Lords (dailymail.co.uk)
- Nick Clegg on the House of Lords: this is a man consumed by the politics of envy (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
- Parts of Clegg blueprint for Lords reform torn up by peers (thetimes.co.uk)
- National News: 300-member Lords deemed ‘too small’ (coventrytelegraph.net)