Clegg has set out his plans to replace the House of Lords with a chamber of 240 elected representatives and 60 appointed people with the elected people to be elected in thirds under STV. The draft bill doesn't seem to be on Hansard yet but it will be debated before a full bill is brought before parliament in early 2012.
Initial thoughts are difficult without sight of the draft bill but...
1. Better 100 years late than never.
2. STV? The public voted against AV which is similar to STV just a couple of weeks ago. If you are going to reform voting then go with something tried and tested that the public already understand, like list PR as we have for the Euros.
3. Election in thirds for 15 year terms: No real problem with the thirds bit, but 15 year terms? I would have thought that 10 was too long and 5 about right. How about a palriamentary election every 2 years alternating between upper and lower chambers for four year terms?
4. What legitimacy do the 60 appointed people have?
Green Party campaigner in Kent. Also a nurse, academic, former manager, writer, Druid, husband and father...
3 comments:
Are you saying the public didn't understand AV?
Many didn't, I spent quite a lot of time in April explaining the process to people on the doorstep.
15 year terms is to reduce the Lords being limited by short-term thinking in relation to re-election. I.e. they'd be there for multiples governments. Seems not a bad idea to me.
Post a Comment