I can’t remember how often MP’s, of all political persuasions, have suggested that UK policing could benefit from being more like our counterparts in the USA. Of course they avoid the obvious dissimilarities but the constant drip of criticism and insistence that everything on that side of the Atlantic must automatically be better is, how shall I put it, slightly annoying.
An article in the Telegraph today (See here) explains that the suggested reform of the Upper House reducing the numbers from 788 to 300 is a step too far. This article refers to the committee carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny on the proposals and suggests they are leading to conclusions that the House of Lords should have about 450 members. Elected peers would be filtered in over about 10 years in a series of elections.
I am not a big fan of an unelected chamber, in fact I believe it is archaic so any change is welcome as far as I am concerned but it got me thinking and my mind wandered over the Pond.
How is it that a Nation covering such a huge land mass as the USA and a population twice the size of the UK can operate a lower House the House of Representatives with 435 members (six non voting) whereas we have 650 MP’s? Their Upper House, the Senate, has just 100 members compared to 788 Peers!
OK so there are some differences in their system but it never stopped MP’s now did it? Just think, the cost of the House of Commons reduced by around 30%. The House of Lords down by nearly 87.5%! Well we know it is not going to happen and yes those differences do come into it and I am sure our MP’s would expect to be paid more for working harder unlike the rest of the population but I can dream can’t I?