David Cameron: We're going to cut the size of the House of Commons by 10%…….

Gordon Brown: I would cut the numbers of the House of Lords, and not by 10%, but by 50%. A smaller House of Lords, directly accountable, and David, please, no more hereditary peers.

Source: BBC Transcript of the debate

Am I the only person to spot what I can only describe as a gaff on the part of Baronet Cameron? Surely this is the product of privilege and the class system openly admitting that his idea of reform of Parliament is to reduce the democratic representation of the electorate whilst at a stroke also proportionately strengthening the position of the unelected hereditary peers in the Lords.

Is there something I've misread or misunderstood?

cameron looked very poor on parliamentary reform

he was exposed as a self serving elitist at that point

brown isnt in a much better position than him regarding party funding, expenses etc
but with browns late call for pr and lords reform cameron could find no come back

and the limp dems looked much better than either

I'm not sure how Cameron's proposal would strengthen the Lords

care to expand?

Gordon is that you . . . . ?

I am literally shocked that he said it. Not even slightly surprised that he might see it as a good diea, but shocked that he would admit to it.

Why shocked BermBandit – the current house of lords has a huge tory majority – of course he wants to keep it.

Why does the proposal as quoted proportionately strengthen the position of the unelected hereditary peers in the Lords?

I think perhaps you've misunderstood the Parliament Act.

TJ I think you will find Labour are the most represented, you are a few years out of date.
See here for source
Fundamentally Lords are quite cheap compared to MPs as they only get paid expenses, the Lords clearly needs reforming as abolishing most of the heriditaries was only half the problem. The Lords is actually far more effective at scrutinizing legislation than the Commons has been recently.

I'm not sure how Cameron's proposal would strengthen the Lords

care to expand?

proportionately strengthening

was what I said, and it would increase the proportions of Lords to elected Mp's. From there it depends how sinister you want to make it. Under Thatcher, in my area, which is a uber mariginal and often decided by single figure numbers, they moved a whole council estate into the neighbouring Tory safe seat, thus turning the marginal their way. So I would presume that the 10% to go would obviously be supporters of Dave …. right?

I think perhaps you've misunderstood the Parliament Act

I think you are a bit patronising. Doesn't make either of us right though does it? 😉

Sorry to patronise. I'm afraid I still don't understand what difference it would make, except that there would be proportionnately more lords than at present. But as that doesn't matter because the lords doesn't vote against the commons on the basis of numbers I don't see why it matters, if you see what I mean. There could be 10x as many lords as members of the commons, but if you didn't change the constitutional relationship between the 2 houses it would be irrelevant. 🙂

The proportion of Lords to MPs is irrelevant as any law has to go through both houses so it is the state of those houses that matter rather than the relative sizes of the house. The Commons is the more powerful by virtue of the Parliament Act where it can force its will on the House of Lords. This is on the basis that it is elected. Whether it will deserve such power if the House Of Lords becomes elected is a moot point.

Boundary changes, which are continuous, and are managed independently by the Boundary Commission (so it is can hardly be a Tory plot). Between 2005 and 2010

In all, 478 of 533 seats in England, 22 of 40 constituencies in Wales and all 18 seats in Northern Ireland have had their boundaries changed, according to David Cowling, the Editor of the BBC's Political Research Unit.

Mefty:

managed independently by the Boundary Commission (so it is can hardly be a Tory plot)

Berm Bandit:

From there it depends how sinister you want to make it.

Mefty:

The proportion of Lords to MPs is irrelevant

Unless of course you consider the perpetuation af an archaic and antiquated system and the lack of a proper degree of oversight, (which recent events clearly indicate is not a necessary feature of our system……right?) to be a bad thing. Or if you think that patronage (Bribery) of the sponsors of political parties corrupt, then you are clearly correct and far better informed than I.

Personally I favour a democratic and vigourous senior chamber with some power to modernise and manage our political system, rather than the current farce which maintains the status quo.

Defintion of Conservative : One favoring traditional views and values

Blimey and I thought it was me being a spanner!

So is the fact that 90% of english constituencies have had their boundaries changed under the present Government evidence of a Labour plot?

My point that you singularly failed to grasp probably because you suffer from the affliction indicated in the final line of your post is that how many Lords compared to MPs there are has no impact on what law can or can not be passed.

Personally I favour a democratic and vigourous senior chamber with some power to modernise and manage our political system, rather than the current farce which maintains the status quo.

And where did I say that I didn't? I am in favour of a substantially elected House of Lords. Your original point was that Cameron was supposedly undemocratic in wanting to get rid of MPs which would give more power to the House of Lords. That was the point I was addressing because it is palpably not the case.

Cameron was supposedly undemocratic in wanting to get rid of MPs which would give more power to the House of Lords

Where did I say that?

reduce the democratic representation of the electorate whilst at a stroke also proportionately strengthening the position of the unelected hereditary peers in the Lords.

You still haven't explained why it's a gaff and why it "at a stroke also proportionately strengthening the position of the unelected hereditary peers in the Lords". Either you're confused how the Lords and Commons works or you have some inside knowledge that the proposed 10% reduction will come purely from elected peers?

Personally I think Brown came off far worse on that topic and Clegg did a good job exposing him. Brown either lied about supporting parliamentary reform or his own MPs don't give a toss what he thinks and voted against it anyway.

It's all a crock of sh*t in the end, I reckon it's time for the Liberals to have a shot but anyone voting Liberal is helping Labour get re-elected so you basically have to vote Tory if you want change.

I'm watching the iPlayer recording of last night's "Q. Time" and just heard Milliband The Younger say:

"The debate about immigration in the debate was informative and spoke to the rest of the debate".

Nobody said "Excuse me, Ed, but what exactly the f*ck are you going on about?" 🙄

What I said was that it would reduce the democratic representation of the electorate and strengthen the position of the unelected hereditary peers.

The position of hereditary peers is now and has been previously under attack. I believe the only party talking about not reducing them is Camerons lot. So by the act of not reducing their numbers, whilst reducing the number of those that might vote gainst them by 10% is strengthening their position surely?? Or are you assuming that Cameron is intending to preside over getting rid of his buddies??

whilst reducing the number of those that might vote gainst them by 10% is strengthening their position surely??

in no way whatsoever

personally – I'd sack the lot of them & have a totally elected 2nd chamber

Personally I think Brown came off far worse on that topic and Clegg did a good job exposing him.

I think this was what Clegg was talking about when he told Gordon that Labour voted against reform and the Conservatives didn't turn up.

reducing the number of those that might vote gainst them by 10%

MPs don't vote against Lords.

MPs vote with/against MPs. Lords vote with/against Lords.

There could be three MPs and 3000 Lords and it would make no difference.

You are making as much sense to me as Milliband did to Mr Woppit.

But here goes, reducing the number of non hereditary peers would increase the power of the hereditaries but that is not what is being said, he is going to reduce MPs which has no impact on the power of the hereditaries in the House of Lords as proportionately in that House they are where they were before.

I believe the only party talking about not reducing them is Camerons lot.

Well you believe incorrectly, the Tories want a substantially elected House of Lords which is in their manifesto.

So by the act of not reducing their numbers, whilst reducing the number of those that might vote gainst them by 10% is strengthening their position surely??

MPs don't vote against the Lords they vote against each other to determine the House of Commons view then there is the House of Lords view which can be overuled by the Commons.

So by the act of not reducing their numbers, whilst reducing the number of those that might vote gainst them by 10% is strengthening their position surely??

Still don't quite see that, I dont think thats quite how it works.

I'm not sure I see the point in having a Lords made of elected people, isn't that effectively just going to end up having "parties" and just doubling the paperwork/work with no additional benefit/safety?

Lords reform is tricky. On the one hand, a load of hereditary old Tories falling asleep after too much port at lunch, on the other a bunch of placemen loyal the prime minister who gave them a peerage.

But replace them with an elected house and what will be the difference between them and commons? Currently the wierd old mix in the Lords has several times refused to bow to government pressure and saved us from the police state that Brown wants to impose on us for our own good. How can we have an elected 2nd house that will stand up to the government of the day?

There is a lot of confusion about the make up of the House of Lords, only 7% is made up of hereditary tories and only 26% are Tories. 13% of the whole are herditary.

I think Berm Bandit's point works like this:

1 – the Tories want to keep the hereditary peers in the Lords (as miketually points out, not entirely this simple)

2 – the Tories want to reduce the number of MPs in the commons by 10%

3 – they plan to use the resulting boundary changes and consolidation of constituencies to their electoral advantage, thereby strengthening the Tory majority in the commons in future elections

4 – this strength in the commons will make it more likely that a Tory government will be able to resist pressure to remove the last herediatry peers from the house of lords.

It makes sense if you accept that "3" is likely, otherwise it's not right.

In which case he is

1. Wrong
2. Right
3. Wrong
4. Wrong