Â鶹Éç

BUT ARCHER IS IN A CLASS OF HIS OWN

Lord Archer represents all that is British.

It must be getting very over-crowded in the Upper House. Do they all get seats or is it standing room only?

Good Lord: what would happen if they all turned up at the same time?

we are doing away with hereditary peers but we are replacing them with guys off the Kop or the shed end....

DID NICK-n-DAVE SIGN UP TO DEMOCRACY - AT ALL?

Brings a 'whole new meaning' to the term 'ball point'.

re last night's NN..we do not need long shots from roof cameras re Emilie's interview with page three girls, just a two shot will suffice and we can see their faces and we had no time for the papers...damn bad show..what..

"Lords to be over 800 in size" is the title of Mr Crick's blog.

There are, of course the usual seats, inherited, by birth. Apart from a revolution - no change there.

However, what is an increasing concern is that there has been an accelerating wave to that House in the last decade, at least?

All, I want to know is why we don't hear, or read enough, of what the basic premise in the 21st Century, the Lords, Ladies, Peers et al do, and how much they cost the public in proportion to their input?

My questions are all over the place, and not particularly articulate.

However, it's long overdue for those working hard in The House of Lords to post what they do for the public, and how much value the public gains for paying for the House of Lords; their allowances and subsidies too?

Ultimately, credibility and transparency is increasingly the political and ethically required behaviour? Why should the House of Lords be excempt from that scrutiny and best behaviour?

how come afghanistan and iraq do not have this excellent system of appointment 'democracy'? Shouldn't karzai establish the hereditary principle of appointment?

Another 53 unelected, unaccountable unrepresentative hacks lying around like butchers dogs waiting to pick up their hundreds of pounds a day for turning up. It is exactly what we need to help deal with overspending, and solving the economic crises.
It is outrageous. What an expensive joke. What a laughing stock we must be to other modern legislatures.

Three cheers for Baroness Crumpet of Thinkingman! But why is Ms Bakewell not sitting on the cross-benches?

Utterly outrageous and an affront to democracy. The expenses scandal pales into insignificance compared to the national disgrace that is this unelected part of our life.

An elected upper chamber of 100-200 members to act as an oversight on Parliament - why oh why do we not have this? Because the Establishment is alive and kicking.

`..why is Ms Bakewell not sitting on the cross-benches?'

Maybe she is happy?

BECAUSE THE ESTABLISHMENT IS ALIVE AND KICKING (10)

Same old same old Ginge. But AV will save us all. What a bunch of pledgers.

Reference to Michael Crick's blog. It was a tantalising indication that requires more elaboration?

However, sadly, this this be another missed blog by a favourite News Night contributor.

What is particularly frusrating by Michael Crick's comment on his blog is that he may not follow-up on his comment that raises questions; yet will quietly vanish.

More Â鶹Éç online exposure for Michael Crick's blogs please?! Worth a try.