Restructuring Houses of Parliament

[Marmora Man]

To follow comments made by David Carnell, Hugenot and Brendan on the Jacqui Smith thread Jaqui Smith thread - political restructuring

DC - I agree your points. There is a difficult balance to be struck.

This is worth a wider debate - hence new thread - on how Parliament (both houses) could be restructured to improve calibre of occupants, quality of their work (scrutiny of legislation / representation of constituents / representation of ills to be righted ect).

As a starter for 10 propose:

1. Reduce the number of MPs

2. Make constituencies more "recognisable" as a community rather than a manipulated sector. (A particularly poor example is South Hertfordshire (I think that's it's tile) - over 20 miles long it is, in parts, just 1 milw wide and can hardly be a genuine community.

3. Change the salary structure so that work is rewarded - so a committee chairman /member receives additional pay.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Am I being thick? Point 2. seems to contradict point 1.

[snorky]

explosives would be the most efficient restructuring tool for the HoP - and its inmates

[Brendan]

The most useful peculiarity of the British Parliament is the House of Lords. One that isn?t used for that public good as it could be. Mostly because the MPs from both Labour and the Conservatives do not have the public good on their agenda and have therefore been trying to destroy the House of Lords for years.

Here?s what I would do with regards the House of Lords:

? Get rid of all appointed and heredity peers

? Install a system whereby peers are first nominated on merit by, industry bodies, the judiciary, academia, and such and then elected by their industries.

? Make it illegal for peers to be politically affiliated in any way.

? Make any attempt to influence the House of Lords politically an act of high treason.

? Fully reinstate all powers for the Lords to reject legislation.

Then I would address the House of Commons thusly and in the words of Queenie of Blackadder fame: First I am going to have a little drinky and then I?m going to execute the whole bally lot of you.

I will then implement your suggestions for proper political representation.

[Marmora Man]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Am I being thick? Point 2. seems to contradict

> point 1.

No - fewer MP's means fewer constituencies, but I want the constituencies that are represented to be more meaningful. Why not just Southwark rather than having H Harman & T JOwell representing us.

[david_carnell]

What purpose would fewer MPs serve? Would it not make the HoC less representative?

[Marmora Man]

Fewer MPs with better support to handle constituency matters will, I believe, attract a higher calibre of representative who would be able to achieve more and crucially should make for better debate. Far too many of the current house are simply drones and lobby fodder.

[dukesdenver]

Edited

[Moos]

MPs should sit more reasonable and normal hours. The House sitting far into the night is entirely the norm. People can't do good work and make sensible decisions with those sorts of hours. However, they don't need absurdly long holidays.

[louisiana]

Dismantle Big Ben and reconstruct it in Southwark. At the centre of one of the Elephant & Castle roundabouts, for example.

[SteveT]

Can we throw out all mayors and woolsacks, blackrod carriers, and any other misbegotten hybrids that forumistas may care to identify?