Yes, the details are the issue here....
but they should be easy to sort out. The expenses nonsense is clearly daft, but I see no problem with the number so long as expenses was linked to participation.
Regardless, I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water.
(, Wed 15 Feb 2017, 20:51, Share, Reply)
Well the devil is in the detail.
The Lib Dems have 98 peers. Seems massively over the top to me given that they only had eight MPs elected in 2015, and nearly 1.5 million more people voted UKIP than voted Lib Dem. UKIP have three peers.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Wed 15 Feb 2017, 21:00,
Share,
Reply)
That seems fair though, in relation to how long they've been around...
So far UKIP is a flash in the pan, so has almost no representation in the Lords. If they prove to have some kind of permanent relevance then their share of Lords seats will be increased.
You don't want the Lords to be populated by the latest fads... equally you don't want the Lords to be DE-populated by the latest fashionable hatreds.
(, Thu 16 Feb 2017, 16:17, Share, Reply)
I respectfully disagree.
They have only existed since 1988 after a merge. Their best ever performance in terms of MPs was 62 in 2005. This was only because the Tories were in complete disarray and people weren't that keen on Gordon Brown. They have always been a fringe party with a tiny grassroots base that picks up the floating voters that can't face the Tories or Labour. They have never been a serious political force, but for about ten years were a large fringe party. In 2010 when they got their largest ever share of the popular vote they actually lost about half a dozen seats. They are made up of lightweights and losers. They are hugely over represented in the Lords. They haven't been around long and have achieved fuck all, unless you believe the myth they were a moderating influence on the Cameron administration. Which is bollocks.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Thu 16 Feb 2017, 18:15,
Share,
Reply)