<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Year message</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2007/01/01/new-year-message/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2007/01/01/new-year-message/</link>
	<description>Conservative Party Member of Parliament for Wokingham</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:06:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2007/01/01/new-year-message/#comment-174</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 02:06:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=32#comment-174</guid>
		<description>Agree on the object for the Lords - "We need people of experience and independent mind with power to hold up or amend meddlesome or badly thought through legislation, but not a replica of the Commons squabbling with MPs for power over our lives."

This is more or less what we have - so why risk change?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agree on the object for the Lords - &#8220;We need people of experience and independent mind with power to hold up or amend meddlesome or badly thought through legislation, but not a replica of the Commons squabbling with MPs for power over our lives.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is more or less what we have - so why risk change?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kit</title>
		<link>http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2007/01/01/new-year-message/#comment-133</link>
		<dc:creator>Kit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2007 12:54:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=32#comment-133</guid>
		<description>1. Agree. However, why stop with just a common (free) market with Europe? A free market with the world would be far better.
2. Agree. I also believe that a PR electoral system would be suitable for the House of Lords. This would reduce the likely hood of both houses being dominated by one party. The use of the Parliament Act should also be limited.
3. Yes. Please no "English Parliament". 
4. Yes. And more local tax raising powers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1. Agree. However, why stop with just a common (free) market with Europe? A free market with the world would be far better.<br />
2. Agree. I also believe that a PR electoral system would be suitable for the House of Lords. This would reduce the likely hood of both houses being dominated by one party. The use of the Parliament Act should also be limited.<br />
3. Yes. Please no &#8220;English Parliament&#8221;.<br />
4. Yes. And more local tax raising powers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken Adams</title>
		<link>http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2007/01/01/new-year-message/#comment-132</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Adams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2007 12:34:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=32#comment-132</guid>
		<description>Jolly good 

A question on number 4. Which perhaps you might consider in a later posting, I note you say Abolition of all unelected regional government in England</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jolly good </p>
<p>A question on number 4. Which perhaps you might consider in a later posting, I note you say Abolition of all unelected regional government in England</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
