Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

A view from the labour lib/dem supporting paper -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm...-lords-political-fix

'So even before the coalition government has outlined its Queen's speech it already starts the parliament with 47 more peers than the Labour opposition in the House of Lords.

But apparently that is not good enough. The Daily Telegraph says today that the coalition has "agreed to drastically alter the make-up of the upper chamber" because it is "dominated by Labour's 211 existing peers". It is hard to see how a chamber of 707 peers can be "dominated" by a group of 211 – especially as it was a group that suffered more than 350 defeats over seven years – but let us put that to one side.'

 

Blizz'ard
The New Politics/Gerrymandering democracy abuse Pt 3

According to Wiki Labour have 211, Tories 188, LibDems 72, UKIP 2 and Crossbenchers 182, Lords Spiritual 24



Tories and LibDems by themselves can outvote Labour.  Making a reasonable assumption that Crossbenchers are likely to be rich and therefore tend towards the right wing then it's easy to see how Labour can have been outvoted so often. 



So Labour shouldn't be the largest party and some adjustment needs to be made but never the less Labour certainly don't  'dominate' the House the Lords.
Carnelian
Reference:
So Labour shouldn't be the largest party and some adjustment needs to be made but never the less Labour certainly don't 'dominate' the House the Lords.
There are of course the new additions about to swell the ranks from the Honours List for the outgoing government, which will add more Labour peers, therefore more Conservative peers will also be needed.
squiggle

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×