|
|
Post by jimhacker on Jul 9, 2024 5:26:16 GMT
In America, our nation's legislature is bicameral, but that was a product of compromise (Senate would represent the States equally and the House, the people proportionally). I gather that that of the UK (and Kingdom of England before that) is bicameral for a different reason.
What is that reason? When and why were the representatives of the realm divided into two bodies, Commons and Lords? Is there some reason the nobility wanted to separate themselves from the representatives of communities (Commons)?
I wasn't sure which forum to post this in, so I figured this would be the right place for historical questions rather than present politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 9, 2024 6:54:36 GMT
It makes sense to have scrutiny of policy by people who aren't proposing the policy. Having a dedicated house for study, criticism, amendment, approval or rejection of policy is a great idea .
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 9, 2024 6:56:56 GMT
Wiki is quite good at explaining the origins of the present system - much of it happened due to accident and conflict. House of Commons of England |
|
|
|
Post by jimhacker on Jul 12, 2024 23:17:30 GMT
Fascinating. But I still do not understand why. It says that they were less powerful than the Lords and that the burgesses were practically powerless before the King, and the "speaker" of the Commons, as its representative, was imprisoned. The article doesn't delve into the how and why Parliament was split, only when.
Was it like the French Revolution when the "3rd estate" (analogous to a "commons" representing communities rather than Lords or Clergy) walked out of the Estates-General? or did the Lords/Clergy of the House of Lords boot them out?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimhacker on Jul 12, 2024 23:19:06 GMT
It makes sense to have scrutiny of policy by people who aren't proposing the policy. Having a dedicated house for study, criticism, amendment, approval or rejection of policy is a great idea . It is. But sometimes oversight requires force. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Jul 13, 2024 2:36:56 GMT
Fascinating. But I still do not understand why. It says that they were less powerful than the Lords and that the burgesses were practically powerless before the King, and the "speaker" of the Commons, as its representative, was imprisoned. The article doesn't delve into the how and why Parliament was split, only when. Was it like the French Revolution when the "3rd estate" (analogous to a "commons" representing communities rather than Lords or Clergy) walked out of the Estates-General? or did the Lords/Clergy of the House of Lords boot them out? Further digging only suggests that the Commons for the first time met separately from the nobility and clergy: The origins of British bicameralism can be traced to 1341, when the Commons met separately from the nobility and clergy for the first time, creating what was effectively an Upper Chamber and a Lower Chamber, with the knights and burgesses sitting in the latter. This Upper Chamber became known as the House of Lords from 1544 onward, and the Lower Chamber became known as the House of Commons, collectively known as the Houses of Parliament.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BicameralismPrior to this Wiki states: Originally a unicameral body, a bicameral Parliament emerged when its membership was divided into the House of Lords and House of Commons, which included knights of the shire and burgesses. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_EnglandBritannica goes a little further in the explanation: The English Parliament became bicameral in recognition of the distinction between the nobility and clergy and the common people.
Ending up with: In Britain, where the House of Lords had been weakened, and in France, where the Council of the Republic (renamed the Senate in 1958 on the foundation of the Fifth Republic) was practically impotent, the governments operated, in effect, on the unicameral principle. A unitary system of government does not imply a unicameral legislature. Modern constitutional states often retain two chambers even though bicameralism has declined.www.britannica.com/topic/bicameral-system |
|
|
|
Post by jimhacker on Jul 24, 2024 12:37:33 GMT
Thank you, that is very helpful.  Do any Britons want to see the upper house, Lords, abolished? The Canadian Senate plays a similar role as the Lords and many Canadians want it abolished, because all it does is agree with the lower house, maybe hold some hearings and tack on the odd amendment. Exactly what CAN the Lords do that gives them any actual power these days? Interesting about the decline of bicameralism. The German Bundestag is called "the parliament" even though there is an upper house too, the Bundesrat, as well. It just doesn't really matter much unless it's specifically an issue having to do with the Lander (constituent states of Germany). The US Senate is truly an equal partner with the House of Representatives, and Article V of the constitution (the one that explains the amending process) says the only amendment that cannot be made is one that "deprives any state of its equal suffrage in the Senate, without its consent." In the US, I think we should do away with bicameralism in the state governments. In my state, both chambers are based on the same population/apportionment scheme. It's dumb. Like a photocopy machine. No state is allowed to apportion its upper house by geographical equality (like the US Senate). Both houses must be "one person, one vote". It makes having two chambers pointless, even though ending the old system was a good thing. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 26, 2024 7:01:29 GMT
In America, our nation's legislature is bicameral, but that was a product of compromise (Senate would represent the States equally and the House, the people proportionally). I gather that that of the UK (and Kingdom of England before that) is bicameral for a different reason. What is that reason? When and why were the representatives of the realm divided into two bodies, Commons and Lords? Is there some reason the nobility wanted to separate themselves from the representatives of communities (Commons)? I wasn't sure which forum to post this in, so I figured this would be the right place for historical questions rather than present politics. Because if it wasn't you'd get the sort of control Freakery you see in Wales or the state spinsored genocide you're seeing in Gaza. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jul 26, 2024 10:30:22 GMT
House of Commons are elected by the population at elections.
House of Lords are not elected by the population.
The Lords used to be hereditary yet the Blair government of 1997 changes that so most now are older politicians and senior clergy.
The House of Lords do not make laws though they ratify proposed laws from the Commons or delay pending changes.
I also think the H of L provide people to look into national enquiries when something goes wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimhacker on Jul 31, 2024 18:26:27 GMT
House of Commons are elected by the population at elections. House of Lords are not elected by the population. The Lords used to be hereditary yet the Blair government of 1997 changes that so most now are older politicians and senior clergy. The House of Lords do not make laws though they ratify proposed laws from the Commons or delay pending changes. I also think the H of L provide people to look into national enquiries when something goes wrong. Yes, Britons have told me that the House of Lords does provide some oversight, but does it have any authority to force the Commons (particularly the Cabinet) to reverse course on something? Is there any "track record" for that? Oversight is pointless if you can't force others to listen to you. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 31, 2024 21:34:46 GMT
House of Commons are elected by the population at elections. House of Lords are not elected by the population. The Lords used to be hereditary yet the Blair government of 1997 changes that so most now are older politicians and senior clergy. The House of Lords do not make laws though they ratify proposed laws from the Commons or delay pending changes. I also think the H of L provide people to look into national enquiries when something goes wrong. Yes, Britons have told me that the House of Lords does provide some oversight, but does it have any authority to force the Commons (particularly the Cabinet) to reverse course on something? Is there any "track record" for that? Oversight is pointless if you can't force others to listen to you. They can, and do, block legislation. By convention they do not block any legislation that is contained in the Manifesto - although that is stretched to the limit sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Aug 5, 2024 23:32:21 GMT
House of Commons are elected by the population at elections. House of Lords are not elected by the population. The Lords used to be hereditary yet the Blair government of 1997 changes that so most now are older politicians and senior clergy. The House of Lords do not make laws though they ratify proposed laws from the Commons or delay pending changes. I also think the H of L provide people to look into national enquiries when something goes wrong. Yes, Britons have told me that the House of Lords does provide some oversight, but does it have any authority to force the Commons (particularly the Cabinet) to reverse course on something? Is there any "track record" for that? Oversight is pointless if you can't force others to listen to you. Quite the reverse Te untimate sanction is the Parliament Act. You can get a better picture of what this is here www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/parliamentacts/In short, at the turn of the last century, The Liberal David Lloyd George proposed unparalleled taxation upon the wealthier end of the population to wage war on Poverty. His "people's budget" was blocked for a year by the Lords who at that time had the power to veto bills raised in the commons. In the end this came down to a general election in 1910 after which the Commons set about removing the power of the lords to veto bills, and the result was the Parliament Act of 1911.
In short the Lords have the power to suggest amendments to legislation but at the end of the day the prime minister may involkke the Parliament Act to force it through.
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Aug 15, 2024 15:22:51 GMT
Yes, Britons have told me that the House of Lords does provide some oversight, but does it have any authority to force the Commons (particularly the Cabinet) to reverse course on something? Is there any "track record" for that? Oversight is pointless if you can't force others to listen to you. Quite the reverse Te untimate sanction is the Parliament Act. You can get a better picture of what this is here www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/parliamentacts/In short, at the turn of the last century, The Liberal David Lloyd George proposed unparalleled taxation upon the wealthier end of the population to wage war on Poverty. His "people's budget" was blocked for a year by the Lords who at that time had the power to veto bills raised in the commons. In the end this came down to a general election in 1910 after which the Commons set about removing the power of the lords to veto bills, and the result was the Parliament Act of 1911.
In short the Lords have the power to suggest amendments to legislation but at the end of the day the prime minister may involkke the Parliament Act to force it through.
Yes indeed though they rarely go against the Lords I think because the press like to play on this and attack the government of the day. The other aspect is that the intended wording of the law will have grey areas clever legal people can pick apart. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Aug 15, 2024 15:28:07 GMT
Another worth mentioning is the pension act of 1909.
|
|
