Today’s Independent carries a very perceptive analysis by Nick Clegg on what’s wrong with our democracy. His suggestions for improving the character of the House of Commons with a fairer voting system, beefed up parliamentary committees and greater scrutiny of ministers and senior officials should be applauded by all democrats. But it raises the question; if these reforms were implemented, why would we need a House of Lords?
May 20, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
Second chambers generally provide an oppurtunity for learned alternatives to be presented, to that end second chambers are usually for elder statesmen who have detailed knowledge in a particular area or those who can take a national (or larger) view rather than a constituency view.
A second chamber also provides a check on the government and in most systems the makeup is different to that of the lower house.
May 20, 2008 at 4:56 pm |
Isn’t the fact we have a house of lords and admittance that the house of commons isn’t good enough to do the job of governing and passing policy with integrity?
May 20, 2008 at 4:57 pm |
I am very uneasy at the prospect of a unicameral legislature.
Perhaps we should have a House of Lords which is selected in such a way that party politics is less important. I’m not sure how though.
The US was originally meant to do this with the Representatives representing the interests of the voters and the Senate representing the state, unfortunately by making senators directly elected they got into the situation where senators are more interested in special interest groups and bribing voters rather than their state… (although Senators must have always played to the interests of the state legislature or whoever selected them…)
Whatever happens, the Lords or its replacement should serve as a revising chamber, acting as a check on the Commons and the Government (as Parliament used to act as a check on the monarch). If elected on a rolling schedule (by thirds or equivalent) it would be far less likely to have a huge majority of one party.
May 20, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
Tristan – But does that need to be a whole house of people? Surely informed and independent committee’s based upon the policies being discussed would be a much more efficient and objective way of working out a policies boundaries, and what amendments are outside of reason before going to the commons for the “democratic” vote? I don’t know, pretty tired right now but ultimately I can’t see how two chambers is better than one necessarily, and if I was to accept it then I’d have to ask why don’t we have 3, or 4, or 5?
May 20, 2008 at 5:52 pm |
There is nothing to stop Parliamentary Committees caling ‘expert witnesses’ as indeed they do at the moment. I also think that where there are unicameral legislatures, such as in Finland and Denmark, the scrutiny processes are much more developed.
And a further point. If bicameralism is so good how is it has never been extended to local government?
May 20, 2008 at 7:18 pm |
Surely we need a place to channel the energies of our distinguished and knowledgable experts who represent the best qualities of each field and estate of society.
We also need to be inclusive of all the non-partisan interests which current politics has a tendency to overlook in the common arenas of the popular media and partly to benefit from the counterbalance to the hyperbole and sensationalism promoted by those with vested interests in partisanship.