« Stephan Shakespeare: The public need to be convinced that changing government is worth the risk | Main | Peter Franklin: Abolish the Treasury »

Comments

Michael Davidson

This article is a joke, right?

Andrew Lilico

[email protected]:53

You propose an all-elected-plus-lag Upper Chamber. But although you (quite correctly) say that we should determine first what we want the chamber to do and propose some possibilities, you don't yourself tell us your answer. What purpose do you propose for the Upper Chamber? I suspect not to protect Liberty from Democracy (or, as you might prefer to put it, to protect us from the "tyranny of the majority", though that is Millian language that I wouldn't favour). What, then? A revising chamber?

TaxCutter

Andrew

I think Dave has been using your ideas on random selection for some of the new seats in the Shadow Cabinet.

My own thoughts are found here
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/100policies/2006/08/damon_lambert_r.html

If we wrongly rejected an elected 2nd House, then my concerns about picking by lot, is that those picked simply won't turn up and do the job properly. Re the comments about suitable bodies, there's the question of how you select those, but there's an argument that life peers often come from those groups anyway.

A thought-provoking article, but one I disagree with

Tim Roll-Pickering

Andrew Lilico at 06:05 PM: My point was in regards the "hybrid" models floating about. I don't think they're terribly workable because of the tendency to regard some votes as "less legitimate" than others.

Whether nomination/election is by a grand committee, the devolved parliaments, local government or the people at large (in whatever form - many upper houses have fixed boundaries) is indeed dependent on what the upper house would do - and I'd personally like see a house that could take a long term view and protect against misuses of power by the Commons (something the Lords doesn't do too well at the moment) rather than just a chamber for extra deliberation or trying to anchor the devolved parliaments in. But I don't currently have a firm view on this.

Sandy Wallace

Andrew, good to see you still thinking freestyle.

If I can play fantasy constitution with you, I prefer the upper house to be, as it is at present, a revising chamber, with an in built inferior democratic mandate to the lower house. It should be the House of Elders, composed of members representative of the view of the nation over the last generation, while the Commons is the view of the nation on a particular Wednesday last May

I therefore propose 80% members elected for life, both the reduce their democratic mandate over time and to free them from party pressure or fear of the electoral consequences of speaking their mind

Candidates would be required to be over 40, and be holders of the MBE or above, again to both improve the quality and reduce their claim to democratic legitimacy over the lower house

They would be elected by a different method to the lower house, such as ATV.

Of the remaining 20%, 5% would be elected by the hereditary peers, 5% by the life peers, 5% by the Lords Spritual and 5% by judges. Again , calculated to both enhance the quality and undermine the democratic legitimacy.

Two seats would be reserved for you and me.


Mike Crahart

"members should be delegates sent by bodies representing our role as workers and businessmen"

I agree with this section and think the whole upper house could be based on this. Lets get rid of the remaining fossils and expell the last hereditary peers. We could have a totally democratic upper chamber elected on the basis of occupational franchise.

The comments to this entry are closed.

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker