the coronan broke through last march, the leaders of the groups in the parliament, to lose weight, the number of members of the board from 349 to 55, in order to reduce the risk of cross contamination.
this has been affected to approximately the same as that you can imagine. The major parts have come to a standstill, as a society, in many respects, has stood still. Human services committee, finance committee, and others, whose work has been influenced more directly by the crisis, at the same time to meet almost all of the time.
Rather, the roles have been tightened. The most able of the members have been forced to shoulder a greater burden, since they are pretty meritokratiska when the time comes. Parliament has been supported, said people familiar with, which is a good thing for the rest of us. Less durkdrivna members of the board has, in effect, taken the time off, which is nice.
to be Sure, in the long run, for 55 members of parliament in order to get the. On the other hand, is 349 too many of them. It has been obvious for a long time, but has become all the more evident in the coronakrisen, in order to paraphrase, Research group leader mr Tobias Billström, the Swedish Report is on the way. He does not rule out as a policy debate when the crisis abated, and the Parliament has become the mangrann again.
a large number of elected representatives, and beats the short, dank, some don't even have to get to some of the most well-known, dedicated time to be devoted to building personal brands in social media.
the Arguments against are the very thin: They are of smaller political parties did not have representatives from all over the country. And the workload of the members of the board that is left over is likely to increase slightly.
However, either the Christian democrats or the green Party sat in parliament, as in its present size was in the mid-1970's. The importance of democratic considerations for small parties as well, is really a efterhandskonstruktion. They want to have more and more members of the board, they can start to do better in the elections.
There is no good reason for Sweden to have the 349 members of the riksdag, far more per capita than our neighboring countries. Slimming down the house of one of the members, would force parties to sharpen their riksdagslistor. It would make the parliament a better and to the benefit of Sweden in general.
READ MORE: Parliament in need of a hearty dieting