You are reading a single comment by @DoubtfulAce and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@DoubtfulAce
I agree with the idea that the Peers not having to face re election brings something to the revising chamber, as dose having people who are expert in their field. a commission apointing the great and good?
The patronage and apointment part of it stinks, always has and always will. It's a form of corruption, give x million to the tories and your a Peer!
I've always liked the idea, that at least a proportion of the chamber reflects the vote at the last General Election. So 10% of the national vote equates to 10% of the seats, or at least the fraction of seats that are allocated with this method, it dose have a like to a Democratic vote whilest not being directly elected, perhaps term limits of two election. I know this would have to use a Party List system giving the party leaders some powers of patronage but I still think it's a more democratic system.