|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 23, 2022 22:26:24 GMT
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. Well basically you are talking about the US system where legislation has to pass the (elected) House and the (elected) Senate. As the majority of the time the House and the Senate are controlled by different Parties getting anything done at all is problematic. Is that really what you want for the UK? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 22:32:09 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. There is a balance somewhere which is the optimum level of fairness that would be accepted by the largest number of people, if also shorn of abuses like unequal access to justice or wealthy elites buying access to power. Generally, because we are excessively unequal the less inequality there is, the fairer things will seem to most. Up to a point. Because if inequality were diminished to too great an extent, more people would come to see the equality as excessive in which case ever more of it would seem to be ever more unfair. The need is to find the optimum level of equality versus inequality, and we are far too unequal for most at the moment. This does give excessive power to wealthy elites vis a vis the rest, and creates the ideal conditions for them to abuse their wealth and power by buying political influence. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 22:36:26 GMT
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. Well basically you are talking about the US system where legislation has to pass the (elected) House and the (elected) Senate. As the majority of the time the House and the Senate are controlled by different Parties getting anything done at all is problematic. Is that really what you want for the UK? Not necessarily. The powers of the second chamber may still be limited. Besides, on past performances it might be advantageous if governments can get away with doing less without cross party support. And what makes you think the US system is basically what I am talking about? Most western democracies have an elected second chamber of some kind. I was thinking more of our European neighbours. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 23, 2022 22:58:39 GMT
Well basically you are talking about the US system where legislation has to pass the (elected) House and the (elected) Senate. As the majority of the time the House and the Senate are controlled by different Parties getting anything done at all is problematic. Is that really what you want for the UK? Not necessarily. The powers of the second chamber may still be limited. Besides, on past performances it might be advantageous if governments can get away with doing less without cross party support. And what makes you think the US system is basically what I am talking about? Most western democracies have an elected second chamber of some kind. I was thinking more of our European neighbours.So give us a specific example of what system you would like |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 23, 2022 23:02:07 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. The question is not whether an elected second chamber is possible - it plainly is - the question is whether it would result in better or worse legislation. If we are to retain a system of the HoC being the primary legislation making body with the second chamber being a subservient revising body, the harsh reality of any election for the second chamber would be a low turnout electorate disengaged affair with the electorate voting on party lines. Scrutiny would then similarly be party driven depending whether the same party controlled both houses or differing parties. Either way the second chamber therefore feels suboptimal. The alternative I would favour would be as far as possible a depoliticized group of experts checking legislation but ultimately the democratically elected politicians in the HoC who can overrule if they wish. Make the experts be approved by the HoC on appointment if that gives you the democratic legitimacy you seek. I can’t say I remember the parliamentary approval process for the poll tax but believing that a democratically elected second chamber would have stopped it is perverse. It was the democratically elected first chamber that came up with the idea and passed the legislation in the first place. The second chamber would have passed it too if it was controlled by blue or rejected everything that the HoC proposed if controlled by red. A depoliticized experts chamber may have pointed out its folly before implemented. Outcomes matter not theory. Your democratically elected second chamber would in practise produce more party politics, less scrutiny and worse legislation all for an illusionary democratic legitimacy. Not for me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 23:47:16 GMT
Not necessarily. The powers of the second chamber may still be limited. Besides, on past performances it might be advantageous if governments can get away with doing less without cross party support. And what makes you think the US system is basically what I am talking about? Most western democracies have an elected second chamber of some kind. I was thinking more of our European neighbours.So give us a specific example of what system you would like A directly elected version of the German Bundesrat, based on the counties and cities, each member elected for 9 years with a third of them up for election every three, something like that. The number of representatives from each city or county would have to take account of population size but should be at least three. As with the Bundesrat, it's approval would be necessary for major constitutional changes but it could also function as a revising and scrutinising chamber. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 24, 2022 0:00:23 GMT
How many people in say Devon would vote in your second chamber election?
Would they in practise vote for the candidate or the colour of their rosette
Do you think the electing of the police commissioners has been a success? If so, why? If not why would this be different?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 24, 2022 8:13:49 GMT
So give us a specific example of what system you would like A directly elected version of the German Bundesrat, based on the counties and cities, each member elected for 9 years with a third of them up for election every three, something like that. The number of representatives from each city or county would have to take account of population size but should be at least three. As with the Bundesrat, it's approval would be necessary for major constitutional changes but it could also function as a revising and scrutinising chamber. That sort of hybrid system where the assembly would have both scrutinising and voting powers would only work with a written constitution that details exactly what voting powers the assembly has. Not saying that would be a bad thing but you are talking about massive constitutional change and I'm not convinced that is considered very important at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 24, 2022 10:32:43 GMT
How many people in say Devon would vote in your second chamber election? Would they in practise vote for the candidate or the colour of their rosette Do you think the electing of the police commissioners has been a success? If so, why? If not why would this be different? Ideally I'd like to take the partisanship and politics out of the second chamber. You don't want a chamber that opposes the Hoc, but rather one that offers expertise and insight to help the Hoc where it lacks this. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 24, 2022 10:37:22 GMT
It 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. You would have to give me some significant examples of the Lords preventing bills out of self interest. For me they are to wide a body for self interest to prevail. I object strongly to the number who just turn up, take a cheque and contribute nothing, the amount given for travel costs and a place in town is obscene. But I would be really worried about swapping them out for a bunch of Boris's, Farages and other folks the good old public would vote for. As for my Sarcasm. To me it was aimed at the strength of your comment, not you personally. Not implying you are naïve or stupid or a sheep. However I will take it on the chin. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Nov 24, 2022 19:23:31 GMT
You would have to give me some significant examples of the Lords preventing bills out of self interest. For me they are to wide a body for self interest to prevail. I object strongly to the number who just turn up, take a cheque and contribute nothing, the amount given for travel costs and a place in town is obscene. But I would be really worried about swapping them out for a bunch of Boris's, Farages and other folks the good old public would vote for. As for my Sarcasm. To me it was aimed at the strength of your comment, not you personally. Not implying you are naïve or stupid or a sheep. However I will take it on the chin. You’d also have to example or quantify the number who just turn up for the daily allowance. I’m not saying you’re wrong but, as someone who believes the primary legislative assembly needs overseeing, what could/would you offer in place of the current selection and scrutinising processes…? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2022 20:19:00 GMT
A directly elected version of the German Bundesrat, based on the counties and cities, each member elected for 9 years with a third of them up for election every three, something like that. The number of representatives from each city or county would have to take account of population size but should be at least three. As with the Bundesrat, it's approval would be necessary for major constitutional changes but it could also function as a revising and scrutinising chamber. That sort of hybrid system where the assembly would have both scrutinising and voting powers would only work with a written constitution that details exactly what voting powers the assembly has. Not saying that would be a bad thing but you are talking about massive constitutional change and I'm not convinced that is considered very important at the moment. I doubt Starmer is serious about it anyway, to be fair. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 24, 2022 20:21:21 GMT
You would have to give me some significant examples of the Lords preventing bills out of self interest. For me they are to wide a body for self interest to prevail. I object strongly to the number who just turn up, take a cheque and contribute nothing, the amount given for travel costs and a place in town is obscene. But I would be really worried about swapping them out for a bunch of Boris's, Farages and other folks the good old public would vote for. As for my Sarcasm. To me it was aimed at the strength of your comment, not you personally. Not implying you are naïve or stupid or a sheep. However I will take it on the chin. You’d also have to example or quantify the number who just turn up for the daily allowance. I’m not saying you’re wrong but, as someone who believes the primary legislative assembly needs overseeing, what could/would you offer in place of the current selection and scrutinising processes…? It would be difficult to quantify it, but with the HOL now reaching 800 members, this is what I'd like to curtail. www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/30/labour-peer-never-spoke-house-of-lords-claims-50000-expensesI would curtail this by removing peerages as rewards. I suggested earlier in the thread that I would have lords voted in by the HOC. Proposed candidates would need 70% support in the commons to get in. And would sit for 10 years. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2022 20:25:05 GMT
It 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. You would have to give me some significant examples of the Lords preventing bills out of self interest. For me they are to wide a body for self interest to prevail. I object strongly to the number who just turn up, take a cheque and contribute nothing, the amount given for travel costs and a place in town is obscene. But I would be really worried about swapping them out for a bunch of Boris's, Farages and other folks the good old public would vote for. As for my Sarcasm. To me it was aimed at the strength of your comment, not you personally. Not implying you are naïve or stupid or a sheep. However I will take it on the chin. I have already given the example of many voting through the poll tax unamended - out of self-interest - in spite of the furore in the country about the gross unfairness of it Many of them were wealthy landholders who stood to save a fortune personally. Some who turned up to vote for it were amongst those who never normally contributed at all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2022 20:32:42 GMT
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. The question is not whether an elected second chamber is possible - it plainly is - the question is whether it would result in better or worse legislation. If we are to retain a system of the HoC being the primary legislation making body with the second chamber being a subservient revising body, the harsh reality of any election for the second chamber would be a low turnout electorate disengaged affair with the electorate voting on party lines. Scrutiny would then similarly be party driven depending whether the same party controlled both houses or differing parties. Either way the second chamber therefore feels suboptimal. The alternative I would favour would be as far as possible a depoliticized group of experts checking legislation but ultimately the democratically elected politicians in the HoC who can overrule if they wish. Make the experts be approved by the HoC on appointment if that gives you the democratic legitimacy you seek. I can’t say I remember the parliamentary approval process for the poll tax but believing that a democratically elected second chamber would have stopped it is perverse. It was the democratically elected first chamber that came up with the idea and passed the legislation in the first place. The second chamber would have passed it too if it was controlled by blue or rejected everything that the HoC proposed if controlled by red. A depoliticized experts chamber may have pointed out its folly before implemented. Outcomes matter not theory. Your democratically elected second chamber would in practise produce more party politics, less scrutiny and worse legislation all for an illusionary democratic legitimacy. Not for me. I would point out that several of those countries with more democratically accountable second chambers - Germany for example - seem on the whole to have enjoyed better legislation than we have resulting in societies that serve their people better. So I don't buy the argument that our chamber of experts and cronies works better than theirs. There is a lot to be said for democratic accountability when it comes to serving the interests of the people. |
|
