|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 23, 2022 17:03:57 GMT
With direct democracy - the electorate itself form self-interested gangs. It becomes a winner takes all fight over the ability to use government power against other gangs. A stable democratic system starts with a stable society that isn't composed of competing gangs. Too true. It is why the likes of OBV have asked of parliament in the past where are the black faces, or Muslims seeking more Muslim MPs, or woman seeking more women MPs or too many posh white men. The thought seems to be if they are not of us how can they represent us and that leads to the breakdown in democracy. Maybe that is the long term aim which seems more likely to be a short terms aim now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 18:40:03 GMT
With direct democracy - the electorate itself form self-interested gangs. It becomes a winner takes all fight over the ability to use government power against other gangs. A stable democratic system starts with a stable society that isn't composed of competing gangs. That itself requires a less unequal society, and one where an elitist minority do not have excessive influence as here. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 23, 2022 18:53:05 GMT
That itself requires a less unequal society, and one where an elitist minority do not have excessive influence as here. So long as the rules are generally accepted as fair, an unequal situation isn't necessarily divisive. Of course, if inequality in itself is painted as an injustice and this notion is accepted widely, then likely no peaceful system is possible |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 18:53:19 GMT
srb7677, your post above was interesting. There is no perfect form of government. It is by its nature a human construct and hence will be invariably full of flaws and compromises. I agree we do not have to always reinvent the wheel and should look at what other countries do and be prepared to copy the best of them. I don't support direct democracy. The decisions that need to be made are complex ones that interract with other laws etc and need detailed knowledge and consideration to get right. I don't think it would be possible to educate the public in those complexities and I think inevitably complex decisions would instead be boiled down to simplistic soundbites. No basis to run a country IMHO. I do think for all its flaws, the representatives in the primary legislature, the HoC in our case, have to be elected to achieve the accountability you mention, so agreement there too. The second chamber, our HoL, has a different function to the HoC. Its role is to review and scrutinize legislation, suggest changes where needed but ultimately to be subservient to the HoC will. Given those limitations in scope I dont agree with you that this chamber needs to be elected - if it is it has equal status to the HoC - dont think we want that - and inevitably just becomes another referendum on the current popularity of the blues and the reds with little notice being given to the quality of the candidates wearing the rosettes. The Police Commissioner elections show the downsides of this approach. I think practically i would prefer a HoL of unelected scrutinising legislation before returning to elected MPs to make the ultimate decision rather than a HoL of more politicians with little expertise no doubt whipped simply replicating the HoC. If you are going to do that, not sure I see the point of the second chamber at all. And yet - and I must stress this essential point again - most other western democracies manage to function very well with an elected second chamber so why can't we? Why is the existing - or even a reformed version of - the current democratic deficit that is the Lords supposedly so essential for parliament to work here when it doesn't seem to be essential anywhere else? Surely the example of other democracies proves that democratic accountability for a second chamber that still works effectively is possible? That it doesn't have to be an either or an or? Certainly, I have never forgotten how a bunch of unaccountable peers and lords voted against the national interest and in their own personal interests in voting through the poll tax, secure in the knowledge that they would never have to face a ballot box having done this. This is the inherent danger with a bunch of wholly unaccountable legislators who never have to face the people. They need take no heed of public opinion or the wider public interest if they don't want to. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 19:00:31 GMT
That itself requires a less unequal society, and one where an elitist minority do not have excessive influence as here. So long as the rules are generally accepted as fair, an unequal situation isn't necessarily divisive. Of course, if inequality in itself is painted as an injustice and this notion is accepted widely, then likely no peaceful system is possible There is no widespread acceptance that the rules here are fair. Effective access to justice often requires the kind of money that many do not have. There is a widespread feeling that the wealthy elites are dodging paying their dues and that in this they are in cahoots with the government whose influence they are buying with donations. People think they smell the whiff of corruption. And the notion in general that there are different rules for different people is widespread. And a lot of this is itself borne of systemic inequality. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 19:10:06 GMT
A second chamber scrutinising government proposals must surely be desirable. Why not a body similar to the US Supreme Court in that its members are appointed for long periods — 10 years, 20 years or life — after their appointments being approved by a vote of the Commons? The number would be limited to 20 or 50 or even 100, all of which would have to resign any political party memberships, and it’s power would be limited to revising and recommending. Personally I would not have clergy** as members as of right — but OK if they’re there for some other quality. It might be called the House of Revision… ** Isn’t it about time the UK became fully secular and dispensed with the C of E (or any religious body) as its established religion? Democratic accountability is also desirable, which you won't get by appointing people for life, and in fact don't get by appointing people at all. Most other functioning western democracies manage to do perfectly well - often better than us in fact - with an elected second chamber so I don't buy the argument that we are uniquely ill-suited for a fully elected legislature. We should look to see what works elsewhere. The flaws involved in a lack of democratic accountability are logically obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 23, 2022 19:17:51 GMT
There is no widespread acceptance that the rules here are fair. Sure - but I am adding a twist. Because inequality itself has been widely painted as unfair, there is now likely no system that would be generally accepted as fair that would also be workable. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 23, 2022 19:35:13 GMT
I agree the make up the Lords is Cons, 257, Crossbench 184. Labour 168, Lib Dems 84, Non-Affiliated 38, Bishops 26 (as normal) DUP 5, Greens. 2 Ulster Unionist 2, Ply Cymry 1.
And among that lot 92 Hereditary Peers, quite a mixed bunch
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2022 19:36:45 GMT
My concern in putting it to the public is the expectation that they would have enough knowledge of Professor Gerald Jenkins of the royal guild of neurology, to decide if he's better for the job than Professor John Hamilton of the institute of gene research. I get your point. The largest single voting bloc out there is the idiot bloc and the brutal fact of the matter is that no one can win an election without the support of at least some of it. Yet limiting democracy because of that is not in my view the way we should be going. Wasn't it Churchill who said something about democracy being a poor system except for everything else that had ever been tried? A legislator with no democratic mandate and no need to fear an electorate is free to vote for self-interested reasons - as the poll tax vote in the Lords proved all those years ago. We need democratic accountability so that their self-interest can be made to align more with the public interest. But the HOL is an advisory body and their advice gets passed back to your elected body. To me what you are suggesting is equivalent to your heart surgeon being appointed by public vote. Two answers. 1, Looking at the lower house in America I'd argue that claim is doubtful. 2, How many second chambers are just advisory? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 19:47:44 GMT
There is no widespread acceptance that the rules here are fair. Sure - but I am adding a twist. Because inequality itself has been widely painted as unfair, there is now likely no system that would be generally accepted as fair that would also be workable. That is an overly pessimistic view and logically inaccurate. It is not inequality itself that is considered unfair, but excessive inequality, and the abuses that often go with it and help to maintain or even intensify it as the wealthy elites game the system in their favour. Most people accept a society of rewards for effort and for talent as well as for risk. We all accept that some jobs are worth more to society than others and that some jobs require higher and/or rarer skill levels, whilst some come with much higher levels of responsibility. It is considered normal and fair for some roles to pay a lot more than others because of this. And most consider it fair that someone who both works hard and takes financial risks should be rewarded with financial success for that if it pays off. Some measure of inherent inequality is baked into the public concept of fairness. But also a society that ensures that everyone has equal access to justice, healthcare, education, and public services, and where undue wealth cannot be used - or appear to be used - to buy undue influence is also central to the majority's concept of fairness. The more we move away from the kind of society we have now towards the above kind of society, the more widespread will become the belief that the rules of the game are fair |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 19:58:18 GMT
I get your point. The largest single voting bloc out there is the idiot bloc and the brutal fact of the matter is that no one can win an election without the support of at least some of it. Yet limiting democracy because of that is not in my view the way we should be going. Wasn't it Churchill who said something about democracy being a poor system except for everything else that had ever been tried? A legislator with no democratic mandate and no need to fear an electorate is free to vote for self-interested reasons - as the poll tax vote in the Lords proved all those years ago. We need democratic accountability so that their self-interest can be made to align more with the public interest. But the HOL is an advisory body and their advice gets passed back to your elected body. To me what you are suggesting is equivalent to your heart surgeon being appointed by public vote. Two answers. 1, Looking at the lower house in America I'd argue that claim is doubtful. 2, How many second chambers are just advisory? It is a nonsense that the house of lords is just advisory. Like many democratically elected second chambers in other more democratic nations it has limited powers. But these powers are real. It can amend legislation and vote through its own amendments, forcing the Commons to either use up valuable time batting it back and forth or just give way. And it can block legislation entirely for a year. This amounts to a de facto veto in the last year of any parliament. In practice the Commons will often back down and allow the amendments to stand. Thus, the unelected second chamber has real de facto legislative power and differs from most democratically elected ones only in the fact of being unelected. And no one has been able to demonstrate how an unaccountable parliamentarian appointed for life can be deterred from voting against the public interest for personal gain if he so chooses, as was demonstrated most obviously by the poll tax vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 23, 2022 20:20:15 GMT
That is an overly pessimistic view and logically inaccurate. I don't think so. I don't think you can find a functioning social system that doesn't incorporate significant amounts of 'inequality' By insisting that inequality is unfair, you are basically dooming any enterprise you are involved in to failure. It is not inequality itself that is considered unfair, but excessive inequality, This is the same statement again,, but re-worded to make it sound different. There can be no definition of 'excessive inequality' without appealing to the unfair nature of inequality (ie more of it makes it more unfair). ..and the abuses that often go with it This would seem to me to be a separate issue. Nothing in inequality is necessarily abusiveMost people accept a society of rewards for effort and for talent as well as for risk. We all accept that some jobs are worth more to society than others and that some jobs require higher and/or rarer skill levels, whilst some come with much higher levels of responsibility. It is considered normal and fair for some roles to pay a lot more than others because of this. ..unless, that is, this process results in 'excessive inequality', then it becomes unfair. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2022 21:14:31 GMT
But the HOL is an advisory body and their advice gets passed back to your elected body. To me what you are suggesting is equivalent to your heart surgeon being appointed by public vote. Two answers. 1, Looking at the lower house in America I'd argue that claim is doubtful. 2, How many second chambers are just advisory? It is a nonsense that the house of lords is just advisory. Like many democratically elected second chambers in other more democratic nations it has limited powers. But these powers are real. It can amend legislation and vote through its own amendments, forcing the Commons to either use up valuable time batting it back and forth or just give way. And it can block legislation entirely for a year. This amounts to a de facto veto in the last year of any parliament. In practice the Commons will often back down and allow the amendments to stand. Thus, the unelected second chamber has real de facto legislative power and differs from most democratically elected ones only in the fact of being unelected. And no one has been able to demonstrate how an unaccountable parliamentarian appointed for life can be deterred from voting against the public interest for personal gain if he so chooses, as was demonstrated most obviously by the poll tax vote. It can recommend amendments, it cannot force them. It can delay things Oooooh. The HOL job is to scrutinise legislation and make it fit with the countries exist legal framework. They are a body of experts. I am all for removing the dead wood and the life peers. But respect the huge intellectual body they are. www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution_unit/files/full_report_to_holac_-_final.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 23, 2022 21:17:51 GMT
Anyways, enough of this irrelevant lefty infighting, let's get back to the plot: I'm ambivalent about scrapping the Lords but if it's replaced by a second elected chamber then I really don't see the point. It's replacing one set of jobs-for-the-boys with another. It allows a choice of better scrutineers and there would be far fewer of them. There are 784 Lords to 650 MPs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 22:20:15 GMT
It is a nonsense that the house of lords is just advisory. Like many democratically elected second chambers in other more democratic nations it has limited powers. But these powers are real. It can amend legislation and vote through its own amendments, forcing the Commons to either use up valuable time batting it back and forth or just give way. And it can block legislation entirely for a year. This amounts to a de facto veto in the last year of any parliament. In practice the Commons will often back down and allow the amendments to stand. Thus, the unelected second chamber has real de facto legislative power and differs from most democratically elected ones only in the fact of being unelected. And no one has been able to demonstrate how an unaccountable parliamentarian appointed for life can be deterred from voting against the public interest for personal gain if he so chooses, as was demonstrated most obviously by the poll tax vote. It can recommend amendments, it cannot force them. It can delay things Oooooh. The HOL job is to scrutinise legislation and make it fit with the countries exist legal framework. They are a body of experts. I am all for removing the dead wood and the life peers. But respect the huge intellectual body they are. www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution_unit/files/full_report_to_holac_-_final.pdfIt can legislate amendments and governments can only overrule them by invoking the Parliament Act and clogging up the legislative process. In practice it therefore feels compelled to accept the amendments most of the time. And your sarcastic dismissal of the powers of delay fails utterly to address the obvious fact that this is a de facto veto in the last year of a parliament, your sarcasm notwithstanding. And incidentally, if you wish me to honour your request to debate decently with you, the least you can do is reciprocate. And my point about appointed legislators who cannot be voted out of office being free to vote in their own interests rather than the people's still remains unaddressed by anybody, including you. What is your solution to this potential problem? Beyond ignoring it. Because the only possible antidote as far as I can see is some measure of democratic accountability. |
|
