Nick Clegg’s reformed House of Lords should go further

By
Alex Singleton

12:07 EST, 1 July 2012

|

12:56 EST, 1 July 2012

Crisis averted? Gove has said that a coalition rift will be avoided because every child would have the chance to sit the more rigorous qualification

Nick Clegg’s plans for a part-elected chamber don’t go far enough

If you listen to most people on the centre-Right, they want Nick Clegg’s plans for a part-elected chamber to be put in the bin. But I don’t. Actually, I think his reforms should go further.

Our political system ludicrously over-emphasises the needs of London – and I say that as a Londoner. Let’s face it, the overwhelming majority of taxpayers (and jobs) are outside the M25. Yet these people – the ignored backbone of our economy – are ignored by our political class. Yes, MPs theoretically represent constituencies. But they spend so much time in the capital that many of them are sucked into thinking as metropolitan southerners.

What we need is a fully-elected house that rebalances our politics away from London – with the upper chamber based in Manchester.

This new northern Senate would be ideally placed: its senators would only need a short cab ride to  television and radio, now that many BBC programmes, including BBC Breakfast, have located at Manchester’s Media City.

The perspectives of a northern chamber would inevitably be different, with less of an obsession with the City (important though it is), and more emphasis on revitalising enterprise in the Midlands and the North West.

Moving the second chamber ‘up north’ would also help solve the Palace of Westminster’s chronic overcrowding. There is simply too little office space for MPs and their staff, and the increasing demands for meeting and function rooms.

Focus on the North: We need is a fully-elected house that rebalances our politics away from London

Focus on the North: We need is a fully-elected house that rebalances our politics away from London

One final point: some on the Right claim that it would be unhelpful to have an upper chamber that was equal in power to the lower house. I disagree: after all, it has worked rather well in the United States. And with politicians of all hues endlessly imposing new rules and red tape, having a more powerful counterbalance in the form of a Senate would help those of us who believe that government should be small.

Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts,
or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have not been moderated.

Just shows you what Lalalalaland the mps are living in. Totally irrelevant even in good time, but in the middle of a finacial catastrophe never, have they nothing better to do? No !!! well they damn well should have.

Lords reform does nothing to address England’s democratic deficit. Best way forward in my opinion is to get rid of the Commons, replace it with a much smaller English parliament, say 200 EMPs locate it in the middle of England. Cut the number of Lords to a hundred. This would save a fortune and give the English what is fair and what we desperately need – an English parliament that works in the long term English interest.

Nothing to prevent the new Senate from sitting at alternative locations around the country.

Do you really think the North would want them?

I don’t suppose we can relocate Cleggy to the North, sorta like Rockhall, that’s up North

Most people don’t give a tinkers cuss about Lords reform – we are NOT a democracy when Clegg got so few votes and all three parties have the same manifesto promise.AND nobody wants to be run like America.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes