How To Live In The 21st Century

Hi Jim

‘fraid I don’t agree with you on this. This is what I wrote on an earlier submission: There are very good arguments against an elected HoL The second house should be a reforming chamber, aiding the elected representatives, and needs expert appointees with no political imput whatsoever. Now that the house is not dominated by hereditories, it functions quite well, but it could do so much better.

I disagree with an elected HoL. We need experts, as I’ve already said. I’d even allow representatives from the faiths because ethics are an important component of law-making, but I’d also have humanists/atheists onboard because theists have no monopoly on ethics.

One important reform is also to remove all titles, so the second chamber would need renaming.

An elected second house has not worked particularly well anywhere. In particular, in the US, the same political short-termism is very nearly as evident in the Senate as it is in the House of Representatives.

It’d just be a slow-motion re-run of the difficulties in the Commons. Short-term policies, Gerrymandering, and knee-jerk reactions to terrorism, climate change, WMDs, etc. etc. will predominate as the Lords will be focussed on soundbites to win their next election, rather than the issues at hand.

A bicameral system with both chambers elected is effectively unicameral. Yes, such systems also work - when things are going well - but in the face of difficulties there are no checks and balances, and they fall prey to populist sentiment even when that isn’t in the interests of the country as a whole.

If the two chambers are elected by different methods (e.g. PR and First Past The Post) then they should have differing political balances. As such they should complement each other and correct each other’s democratic deficiencies, not merely reproduce them in a quasi-unicameral system. To this end I have proposed such a system in “For true liberty and democracy we need electoral reform of both Houses of Parliament not just one”. The problem of short-termism can be corrected simply by preventing HOL members from standing for re-election. If they don’t need to worry about what the electorate or their party think or say, they are more likely to act independently, just as the current HOL does.

Hi carol,

You will I’m sure allow me to disagree with you - and I know we won’t fall out. In my view if I have ‘people’ taking decisions on my behalf I need to know - who put them there, and why, and how can we get rid of them.

At least in ‘an elected house’ the ‘people’ are in some control. I don’t at all accept the notion that ‘experts’ should be given a ‘free run’ in managing our democratic system - which if it means anyhting must be based on democratic outcomes by way of the democratic ballot box.

Who would these ‘experts’ be - the Bankers! Big Pharma: Industrialists; Scions of Old established Families. No I’m afraid not.

By selecting them form ‘different constituencies’ and different methods - for example by ‘Primaries’ and not alllowing the Party aparatchics to ‘control’ the selections and end up with a ’safe pair of hands’ we should I feel have a more challenging political culture in the Upper House if democratised.

I’m not sure I fully understand how a bicameral sytem would metomorphose into a unicameral one if both are elected but having different constituencies, terms of office, selection procedures and so on.

If the second chamber is a revising chamber which can always be overriden by the elected chamber I do not see the problem. Law-making doesn’t have to be totally party-political with most of the first drafts originating in the first chamber.

I also do not see the problem with coming up with a list of professions and other bodies which could usefully supply experts: medicinel, engineering, trade unions, co-operatives, finance, education, law, ethics, sport, etc. etc. The list doesn’t have to be dominated by the capitalist class.

I don’t see the point of 2 elected chambers with 2 different functions. Elections are political, appointments need not be. If both chambers are political they will conflict - we have quite enough of that.

Carol, does this mean that you think the voting process used to elect the Commons is satisfactory and not in need of radical change?
The whole point of having an elected second chamber is that it allows the make-up to be decided by a different electoral method, and therefore have a different political make-up, from the primary chamber. There are many possible electoral systems that we could use (STV,ATV,FPTP,PR lists), and while all have their positive attributes, all possess some negative ones as well. The advantage of having two elected chambers is that you can adopt two different voting systems, thereby enjoying the pluses of both while hopefully using each to correct the deficiencies of the other. I have outlined this argument in my proposal:
“For true liberty and democracy we need electoral reform of both Houses of Parliament not just one”.
That is how you introduce checks and balances to prevent small political cliques from exercising absolute power: by denying any one chamber or voting system a monopoly of power.
True democracy is only achieved in a political system if all the measures that are passed by that system have the support and represent the views of a clear majority of the electorate. While in practice, this may be a utopian ideal, in my opinion it should be the aspiration of all true democrats and is essential for ensuring social justice, political freedom and civil liberties. Having governments elected with massive majorities on the basis of only 22% of the public voting for them is not real democracy.
Yes, a two chamber system would lead to arguments and power struggles. But argument and debate are good. We are having one now, aren’t we? It is only through such processes that a broader consensus can be achieved and the viability of an idea tested. I cannot agree with your assertion that we have too much of this already. In the current parliamentary setup there is virtually none. The Government steamrollers ever increasing numbers of badly thought out bills through both houses with little scrutiny or debate, then passes even worse legislation to try and correct the deficiencies of the previous lot. We need less government, but better government.
As for the so-call experts in the HOL, most do not have a monopoly of expertise in their given field. If they are so essential to the democratic process, then let them stand for election themselves. Better still, let them lobby parliament members or select committees like any other citizen or organisation.

Hi Carol,

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. The fundamental issue for me is that ‘our lawmakers’ or revisers should be in the ultimate control of the electorate. That means for me a wholly elected ’second chamber’. I’m happy to have a different name as ‘Lords’ is a bit out dated. Senate, Upper House, House of Representatives - there are many names about - and this is not a big issue for me. I don’t believe ‘experts’ are neutral any more than an elected ‘member’ might be. The strenght of democracy is that peolpe have to subject themselves to the ‘will of the people’ not just because they happen to be an often self ‘declared expert’. Of course if we have an Upper house of experts what is to prevent a case being made that the same should apply to the ‘Lower House’. I feel it would be dangerous to ‘dilute’ democracy in htis way.

Hi Adrian,

I’m more in tune with your ideas on this. I’d be happy for a different electoral system to be used. Perhaps STV is the most ‘democratic’ but it of course depends on the constituency boundaries and so on.

I’d like to see a ‘regional’ element worked in somehow which I feel would be difficult in a chamber of experts.
I agree too that if the ‘experts’ are really interested in democracy they should be willing to stand for election. Futhermore ‘experts’ could always be ‘called in’ by Committees of the Upper House - for expert opinion or ideas. This would still leave the ‘decision’ with the democratically elected members. In my view this is more sound than a chamber of experts who no one much knows or what their ‘interests’ are. And when did experts agree on much in any event? - ecomonists, medics, scientists, even ‘church people’ are all apt to disagree -sometimes even violently!

Yes of course there will be difficulties but who said politics is about ‘agreeing’ on all things at all times. We should not fear this.

Hi Jim, I guess what I’m saying is that I cannot see the point of two chambers doing the same thing, in effect. The elected chamber should take precedence, initiating the finalising legislation, but there should be experts available to ensure that the legislation is good - i.e. a revising chamber. I do think we need the experts from all disciplines to help in lawmaking. Yes, they will all have their political bias but the bias can be ironed out by the elected chamber which can always override - as it does now.

Hi Carol,

We’re obviously not going to agree on this. The two ‘elected chambers’ would have defined functions especially the new Upper Chamber. But they MUST be democratically answerable to the ‘people’. For me this is the kernal of democratising our political culture a bit more than is currenly the case.

An ‘unelected’ Upper Chamber would be just another ‘Quango’ - surely we have enough of these uncontrolled creatures already. Adding another one and with ‘legislative responsibilities’ is the democratic pits in my view.

The two chambers would NOT be doing the same thing - revising rather than initiating legislation in the Upper House for example. I have not settled my mind on whether the Upper House should be allowed to ‘initiate’ legislation’ - the Mandleson proposal re Royal Mail - is hardly a good omen!

Best wishes for now and thanks for th minutes re the Land Campaign

If we think of parliament as representing power with the House of Commons representing the power of the people it may be useful to use the House of Lords or senate or call it what you will to represent other elements of power in our society. So we could have senior bankers, representing the power of money; we could have senior professionals such as Doctors, Architects, Lawers etc representing the power of professionals; we could have senior trtades unionists, representing the power of unions; senior newspaper people, representing the power of the press etc etc. The one proviso is that they should all be elected from within their power grouping by their peers. This way we could have an indirectly elected House of Lords and introduce demorcacy into some of the unaccountable power bases within our society.

Yes, I agree. This is what I originally had in mind but didn’t give it much thought. Problems may arise with eligibility to vote - it would require more formal structures for professional bodies, but then an appointment system would probably have the same problems. What about it, Jim?

Dear Carol and Gerard,

An unelected 2nd chamber has superficial attractiveness but it is an ‘unelected’ house in an democracy nonetheless.It may well be less ‘messy’ thna a democratic vote and elections but I always prefer a ‘messy’ democracy to a neat and tidy ’selectocracy’.

Why not go back to the ‘old’ House of Lords. They had all the ‘powerful and important’ people amongst their ranks and were then added to by old political hacks, TU leaders and a few other ‘worthy’ personages to give it balance and legitimacy.

The only legitimacy in a democarcy in my view is gained through the ballot box as a first step.

Incidentally Gerard how would we balance all the ‘bankers’ ‘barristers’ etc with miners, bus drivers, pensioners and so on. It just will not work and these ‘power brokers’ know how to use power to ‘their own advantage’ and I doubt they would think much about the needs of the less well connected.

Best wishes JIM KING

Hi Jim

With the final say resting with the elected chamber and the second chamber charged with improvements/ recommendations only, I don’t see the problem frankly. Agreement on the composition of the second chamber could of course prove contentious, but ultimately achievable.

Just admit it! Just pleasing! Your publishing manner is charming and the way you dealt the topic with grace is valued. I am intrigued, I assume you are an expert on this subject. I am subscribing to your upcoming updates from now on.

Some good posts on this site and a load of good knowledge. Should you have time, visit me and come and take a look at my efforts and give me a comment at My Site.