We bought it all,

No "we" didn't. A lot of people did. A lot of people didn't.

The papers do this all the time - use "we" as if it meant everyone out there in the real world, when it really means mean the writer and the people he or she runs into around the office and around the dinner party circuit.
.............................................

The problem with cutting down the numbers in the Commons would be that, unless they change a few other bits to the system, it would make some things even worse - which is probably why so many people in the public opinion industry are suggesting it.

Under the Westminster system, ordinary MPs live in the hope of being given jobs as ministers or shadow ministers etc, jobs that put them in the pocket of their party leaders. Cut down the number of people in the Commons, while keeping the same number of jobs for the boys (and girls occasionally), and the "payroll vote" would be massively increased in proportion. There'd be hardly any backbenchers left.

There's supposed to be a rule to stop rulers buying people's loyalty that way - any MP accepting "an office of profit under the Crown" automatically ceases to be an MP. It's a rule used in order to formally allow MPs to resign - they accept a notional job such as "Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds", which counts as "an office of profit", and bingo, they are out as MPs.

But perversely the jobs given out by the government to its supporters do not count as "offices of profit under the Crown", though that is just what they are, sinc ethe government exercises all the powers that lie with "the Crown". Change that rule and it would shake up the whole system, and greatly reduce the power of governments to control the House of Commons.

One idea would be that anyone accepting a paid government or opposition job should automatically cease to be an MP, and move over the House of Lords for so long as they hold the job, with a by-election to replace them in the Commons.

But I somehow don't think they'd much like that one.