Best Time to Abolish House of Lords

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.?
 

kernals12

Banned
One of those countries is bankrupt. Two more of them had had to act drastically to avoid potential insolvency.
So unicameralism causes countries to go bankrupt. Also, Nicholas Cage appearing in movies causes more people to drown by falling in pools
1*5-eIhWSj8iB8OK99cDraHg.png
 

kernals12

Banned
Look at all of the countries with a single house.
940px-Unibicameral_Map.svg.png

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.
 
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.
Disproportionately poorer countries at the national level.
 

kernals12

Banned
NO, not at all. But if you think unicameralism is good for stability and individual rights, by all means, demonstrate it.
Maybe it's not good for stability, but by not having an unrepresentative upper body, it's more democratic.
 
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)

Fellow AHers

please look again at my proposal above

In particular:

Provision 1 ensures that Government patronage is reduced
Provision 2 ensures that minority parties are better represented than in the "first past the post" First chamber
and encourages those elected to think "outside their geographical constituency"
Provisions 3 & 4 provides for a measure of "hysteresis" in that the change in membership will be slower and more gradual than the First Chamber
Provision 5 prevents "career" politicians (even solely in the Second Chamber)
Provision 6 prevents key interest groups ... especially political activists ... dominating the chamber

IMHO this allows for many of the benefits of a "Modifying" second chamber without creating a redundant pale imitation of the first.

Of course all this could and should be part of a wider constitutional reform
for example a written statement protected by a separate constitutional court.
 
Top