And into a land of fifteen year stints.
The British government proposes a revised upper parliamentary chamber trimmed from 788 (+ 21 peers on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified from sitting, notes Wikipedia) to 240.
Of the two hundred and forty, 80% would be elected, plus 60 members appointed for their expertise, and 12 unelected bishops clogging the benches.
We'd start voting in 2015, so they hope, with new members sitting for fifteen year terms.
America sports only 100 federal Senators, servicing a population five times greater than the UK's. All are elected for six years.
As many in the revised upper chamber at Westminster would be pretty elderly when elected, how senile would they be after 15 years?
And with so many salaries to pay, how could each be supported by sufficient research and support personnel? American senators benefit from the luxury of huge offices to enable them to operate effectively. How well could their British counterparts function on paltry resources?
The whole UK plan appears ill-conceived. It's undemocratic and unweildy. And now Deputy PM Nick Clegg proposes NO referendum on one of the biggest constitutional changes in Britain for a century.
They should rethink their plans, and trust the electorate to endorse them.
Check out all commentaries in the Index here.
No comments:
Post a Comment