YP Letters: Number of Lords should reflect standing of the parties

From: Tim Hunter, Farfield Avenue, Knaresborough.
Should Lib Dem peers be allowed to wield undue influence in the House of Lords?Should Lib Dem peers be allowed to wield undue influence in the House of Lords?
Should Lib Dem peers be allowed to wield undue influence in the House of Lords?

As we all get ready to elect MPs to the House of Commons, it might be worth considering the fact that the House of Lords is totally unaffected by the democratic process.

Whatever we may say about MPs, at least they have to submit themselves to a democratic verdict at every election. Lords, however, are not democratically elected and cannot be removed (they are a bit like EU bureaucrats, really). There are more than 800 Lords. They are appointed by the Prime Minister and, once they are in the House of Lords, they are there for life.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

There are currently 98 Lib Dem Lords. When you consider there are only nine Lib Dem MPs out of 650, a fairer allocation of Lib Dem Lords would be about 12. Their current allocation may have reflected their greater standing a few years ago.

Clearly, we need to introduce a system that enables the de-appointment of Lords when their party’s standing in the Commons is substantially reduced. The proportion of Lords for each party should broadly reflect each party’s standing in the Commons, for that Parliament. This should be re-assessed after every parliamentary election.

From: Paul Rouse, Main Street, Sutton upon Derwent, York.

I STILL live in hope of seeing a political manifesto full of facts and common sense. The general public have shown very recently that they can see through the bluster and populist policies, so why can’t politicos tell it like it is?

Take immigration for example. It is a fact that over the past three years we have seen a net inflow of migrants equivalent to the size of Birmingham.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Birmingham has eight hospitals, 80 GP surgeries, over 400,000 houses, and 450 schools. So it follows that to keep pace with immigration we should have created the same number of those facilities somewhere in the UK, which clearly we have not. It explains why our GPs are moaning, the hospitals can’t 
cope and the teachers are leaving the profession.

We seem to be building just enough new houses, but as those are needed in order to house the influx of new people, we are not helping our existing housing crisis.

I’m sure that if the situation was made clear to people, we would hear a lot less from those who can’t understand why we need to stop the free movement of people from the EU, or why we must clamp down on those who come here from Asia, Africa, or the Middle East.

It’s not anti EU, or racist, it is common sense.