much too hardcore an analogy for gracefully phrasing out a Senate rule (an internal Senate rule!) which has run its courseThe Senate filibuster could easily be eliminated through the twice used nuclear option.
much too hardcore an analogy for gracefully phrasing out a Senate rule (an internal Senate rule!) which has run its courseThe Senate filibuster could easily be eliminated through the twice used nuclear option.
I'm only using the standard term for it.much too hardcore an analogy for gracefully phrasing out a Senate rule (an internal Senate rule!) which has run its course
I guess a Senate with equal representation for each of the 9 regions in England plus Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
I guess a Senate with equal representation for each of the 9 regions in England plus Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
The HoL has lesser powers because it is appointed, not directly democratic. Make it fully elected, and you give it plenty of moral authority to oppose the HoC at every turn.
Well that was part of the original 1911 plan:What about replacing it with a Senate or a Senate-esque body?
it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation
Those 2 things are not directly connected.The HoL has lesser powers because it is appointed, not directly democratic. Make it fully elected, and you give it plenty of moral authority to oppose the HoC at every turn.
Personally, I'd just leave the set up as it is, convert it to a House where the Prime Minister appoints 40 "Lords" per year (of which maybe a half would reflect the makeup of the HoC, and the other half as the Government wishes) who would each sit in the House of Lords for 15 years, and then retire (they may be reappointed if a future PM wishes to after their 15 years has lapsed). Keeps it appointed and under the democratic chamber, a house of solemn review, but stops the Government stuffing new Lords in whenever convenient and keeps it slightly up to date with a slow constant churn of members. Something along those lines anyway.
Yes and it meant that Britain missed several chances to solve the Irish Question amongst other things, during which extended process btw the Lords most certainly pandered to the worst type of populism. The best chance of getting reform would be if the Liberal Party had somehow kept out of WW1 and Irish Home rule had gone ahead after the 1911 Act with the Lords still trying to stop it, as indeed seemed likely in 1914..How about no.
The fact that the Lords are not elected means that they don't have to pander to populism. That, and the fact that they have forced the government of the day to either back down or water down laws that would curtail civil liberties several times.
An elected second chamber would need to have very precisely defined powers, and, even then, it could end up in deadlock if different parties (or coalitions) control both chambers. The UK does not need a US-style senate.
Yes and it meant that Britain missed several chances to solve the Irish Question amongst other things, during which extended process btw the Lords most certainly pandered to the worst type of populism. The best chance of getting reform would be if the Liberal Party had somehow kept out of WW1 and Irish Home rule had gone ahead after the 1911 Act with the Lords still trying to stop it, as indeed seemed likely in 1914..
well the earlier attempts yes, but not in 1914.....At least part of that was Gladstone declaring that it was his way or the high way, though.
Either one of these seems a big improvement over the status quo.In Information technology terms, this is Rapid methods vs Waterfall.
Guess which was adopted first and which is now the norm
For the few non nerds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_application_development
The War on Drugs arguably goes back to the sixties if not longer ago than that.An all-time classic non-interchange between theory and practice would be the “war on drugs.” Began around 1986, and only now thirty plus years later are we beginning to talk about winding it down.
And with the opioid crisis, which has caused human harm, well, it’s back to the same old moralistic approach.
Much ore gradually and due in part to a weakened upper house.So has the UK.
And in the early 1970s, New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller was all in favor of tougher sentences.The War on Drugs arguably goes back to the sixties if not longer ago than that.
Drug prohibitions arguably were a liberal position. It was FDR who banned hemp after all.And in the early 1970s, New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller was all in favor of tougher sentences.
* a guy we often put forward as a liberal Republican