just out of curiosity... how powerful was the HoL before 1911, during the 18th and 19th Centuries, etc... did they generally stomp on the Commons, pass most of the laws, etc.?
One of those countries is bankrupt. Two more of them have had to act drastically to avoid potential insolvency.Sweden, Greece, Finland, and New Zealand all have unicameral parliaments. I don't see why Britain can't.
So unicameralism causes countries to go bankrupt. Also, Nicholas Cage appearing in movies causes more people to drown by falling in poolsOne of those countries is bankrupt. Two more of them had had to act drastically to avoid potential insolvency.
Look at all of the countries with a single house.
Disproportionately poorer countries at the national level.Denmark, Iceland, Norway, South Korea, Taiwan, and most of Southeastern Europe are on the list (in orange). And subnational governments such as the states in Germany and Canada and in Queensland in Australia and in Nebraska.
Correlation. Does. Not. Equal. Causation.Disproportionately poorer countries at the national level.
I'm aware, but it does not by itself rule it out either.Correlation. Does. Not. Equal. Causation.
So should we ban Nicholas Cage from making movies to stop swimming pool accidents?I'm aware, but it does not by itself rule it out either.
NO, not at all. But if you think unicameralism is good for stability and individual rights, by all means, demonstrate it.So should we ban Nicholas Cage from making movies to stop swimming pool accidents?
Maybe it's not good for stability, but by not having an unrepresentative upper body, it's more democratic.NO, not at all. But if you think unicameralism is good for stability and individual rights, by all means, demonstrate it.
So should we ban Nicholas Cage from making movies to stop swimming pool accidents?
I was waiting for someone to make that joke.No - banning him for just for being a really bad actor is reason enough![]()
Maybe it's not good for stability, but by not having an unrepresentative upper body, it's more democratic.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.Maybe it's not good for stability, but by not having an unrepresentative upper body, it's more democratic.
Parliament already has the power to pass whatever it pleases so this wouldn't increase the risk much.Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
But a review and revirion function is still more helpful than not. A weak check > no check.Parliament already has the power to pass whatever it pleases so this wouldn't increase the risk much.
Okay, maybe Britain should get a written constitution.But a review and revirion function is still more helpful than not. A weak check > no check.
Okay, maybe Britain should get a written constitution.
As you say 1911 was a key date in defining i.e. limiting the powers of the Lords.
... the Lords CANNOT initiate legislation, nor can it formally end legislation ... merely repeatedly delay by sending back to the Commons with suggested changes.
and for different types of bill the amount of delay is specifically limited
....
IMHO it is the composition of the Lords not their role that is undemocratic not their role.
in fact I believe that the current division of powers is probably the best between a first and second chamber anywhere in the world.
What is needed are mostly simple measures:
1. To make all the Lords (or whatever they would then be called) elected
2. Do this via a suitable form of proportional representation that minimizes constituency dependence
(and encourages acting in the national interest)
3. To provide a fixed term of office different to the commons ... almost certainly longer (?9 Years vs 5)
4. rolling partial elections of the 2nd Chamber (1/3 every 3 years ... after the initial startup)
5. Term limits (2 or 3 ) on membership to prevent "career politicians"
Unfortunately the necessary last step is less easy to describe:
6. To institute "self denying" rules
Put simply they are situations where if you have every taken or even applied for certain other roles you cannot apply for others
(as was the case historically and remains in place for some trivial situations)
Most obviously any candidate for the First Chamber ... even an unsuccessful one .. cannot apply for the Second (and vice versa) ... EVER
Similar rules should apply to judges, senior Civil Servants, Senior army officers and executive members of political organisations
(though in some cases these might be time limited not for life)