That AV Vote

[DTES]

doesnt say much for it then does it. i dont know why they had to move so swiftly, less than a year after the election. maybe they could have waited another 18-24 mths and engaged in a debate.

If they didn't get it in the coalition agreement from day 1, there's no way they'd ever have got any kind of referendum out of the Tories.

Yes, the Tories have broken the agreement with this new NHS bill (which is a separate issue), but that doesn't in any imply they'd have been willing to give more to the Lib Dems in terms of electoral reform...

 

[paddy]

and worse, they are saying Clegg will get a go at the Lords next, again an area ripe for change but only if carefully considered. no doubt he'll push for the worse of all worlds, probably PR elected 80%+ with no actual power but forever claiming to be more representitive. (i think the unelected nature of the Lords is a benefit as it removes the party politics. i dont care if its not representitive if its populated by educated/experienced people with a broader, deeper, longer term view of legislation than the next polling day).

This. Reform the appointment system rather than creating a carbon copy of the Commons. The Lords, unlike the Commons, actually works.

 

[DTES]

This. Reform the appointment system rather than creating a carbon copy of the Commons. The Lords, unlike the Commons, actually works.

If the appointment system worked well based on expertise alone then there would be no need for any of the Lords to be affiliated to a political party.

At the moment we have hundreds of Tory Lords, Labour Lords and Lib Dem Lords all being appointed - so many that the House is now overflowing and Cameron is being warned not to appoint any more. What is really controlling the number of Lords - and what is controlling the number per party?

I agree that the expertise is needed, but why not select your experts in the same way and place them on a party list, then select/appoint your quota based on the results of a PR election?