Fully elected upper chamber

Parliament has now voted to make the House of Lords a fully elected part of the legislature.

From a contemporary democratic point of view, this is a good thing. No more right to sit based on accidents of birth or by virtue of large donations to political parties.

On the other hand, the upper house has recently shown its worth by rejecting bills from the Commons.

Does making the Chamber fully elected make it more likely to support the government of the day?

Is it really a good idea as it sounds?

Sir Hayden Phillips - Hang your head in shame

How dare you.

How dare you attempt to force me as a taxpayer to fund party politics in this country.

On every level and for every possible reason I oppose this.

Put simply Phillips, because it is not the role of the taxpayer to ensure the survival of political parties.

If they cannot fund themselves from their supporters, they do not deserve to exist.

They spend so much money campaigning because they DO NOT deal with the electorate any more, its all soundbites and billboards.

It costs NOTHING to stand on a soapbox in a town centre. It costs nothing to visit town halls or other venues.

It costs MILLIONS to put up billboards or pay for adverts to attack your opponents.

If the parties want to do this, fine, let them - out of their pockets - not ours.

You miss the fundamental points and are working to help out the corrupt institutions are the heart of our "democracy". I'm sure you would say you were working within "limited terms of reference" - how convenient.

More on this here

Please do feel free to contact him via review@partyfundingreview.gsi.gov.uk

Check out the No Public Funding website for more specifics on why this shouldn't be allowed.