The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,940
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 22, 2022 11:07:01 GMT
What would we call the replacement second chamber? House of Senators? House of Representatives? Second Chamber? House of Lords, perhaps? But surely the whole point is that it wouldn't be?  |
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,672 
|
Post by pl on Nov 22, 2022 12:21:24 GMT
But surely the whole point is that it wouldn't be? They would be, if you still called it the House of Lords. It's a very English version of having Senators. We've used the word "Lords" even as the composition of the upper house as changed. The Lords spiritual have declined in number over the centuries, Law Lords have waxed and waned, the hereditary peers is now much reduced, Royal Princes have gone and we now have Life peers. What does it matter if we elect people to the peerage (even if temporarily) as opposed to appointing them. Any changes to the composition of the Upper House must protect the constitutional settlement that the two chambers are not co-equal. Keeping the name the same helps to underscore this. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 22, 2022 14:02:57 GMT
In the Protectorate Parliament, during the Commonwealth, when they decided they needed a second chamber (having initially intended a somewhat reformed HoC alone) they pretty much gave up on finding a name and just referred to it as the 'Other House'. So that was effectively its name.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 22, 2022 23:34:45 GMT
What would we call the replacement second chamber? House of Senators? House of Representatives? Second Chamber? Senate, just like the upper houses in Australia and Canada. |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Nov 23, 2022 0:40:01 GMT
What would we call the replacement second chamber? House of Senators? House of Representatives? Second Chamber? Senate, just like the upper houses in Australia and Canada. The worst possible name for it. Just like everyone else with no cultural distinctiveness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 4:49:31 GMT
I want a Commons which reflects how people actually cast their vote, which is why I've supported some kind of proportional voting system all my life. As any one who is a British constitutional moderniser will know, such dreams will be an anchor around your neck until you die, alongside a working relationship with the EU and not treating everything as an issue for thicker and thicker Public Order Acts.
Anyway, tied with that wish, I've always wanted a Second Chamber with democratic accountability and the power to hold the Commons to account. Creating bad law in the Commons happens far too often, far too easily. What makes it worse is the power of the Prime Minister to appoint cronies to the Lords to assist in pushing through that bad law.
It's a serious problem within the British system that politicians can use their wish for re-election to write extremist law. It's another serious problem that the head of the Government can appointment yes-men in times of trouble to ensure that extremist law is passed. That the Second Chamber has no upper limit in terms of size must make President Xi stroke his chin in admiration.
I'd prefer a balance in the Second Chamber/House of Senators between directly elected scrutineers of law with a very narrow, very specific appointed selection of experts from within the existing ranks of Lords. This "Council of Elders" would have no role, direct or otherwise, in assisting the Government of the day pass extremist legislation.
Keeping British tradition alive is one thing. There comes a point when that is an anchor to progress and good governance. Tying our legislature to Bishops, barons, and Russians doesn't make us a shining example of democratic credibility: it makes us look fools.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Nov 23, 2022 8:52:20 GMT
Senate, just like the upper houses in Australia and Canada. The worst possible name for it. Just like everyone else with no cultural distinctiveness.
We could use the two types of anglo saxon government together for the name, and call it The House of Witan Moot.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 23, 2022 9:14:52 GMT
If the House of Lords won't do (and it's fine) then just call it the House of Peers.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,727
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Nov 23, 2022 10:32:44 GMT
Interesting debate, but I am a unicameralist who believes in a wider range of devolved powers. Imagine if legislation passing stages in the Commons could be amended and/or challenged by the devolved regions/nations and then sent back (as presently happens from the Lords) for final stages.
|
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Nov 23, 2022 11:43:09 GMT
Interesting debate, but I am a unicameralist who believes in a wider range of devolved powers. Imagine if legislation passing stages in the Commons could be amended and/or challenged by the devolved regions/nations and then sent back (as presently happens from the Lords) for final stages. Bring back the regional assemblies, give them real power akin to Scottish Parliament. No need for a second federal chamber. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,780
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 23, 2022 12:28:53 GMT
The worst possible name for it. Just like everyone else with no cultural distinctiveness.
We could use the two types of anglo saxon government together for the name, and call it The House of Witan Moot.
Go full Dane and call it The Thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Nov 23, 2022 13:13:27 GMT
We could use the two types of anglo saxon government together for the name, and call it The House of Witan Moot.
Go full Dane and call it The Thing.
Not the worst name possible, though if the chamber is abolished the name will be a Moot point.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,735
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Nov 23, 2022 13:26:47 GMT
We could use the two types of anglo saxon government together for the name, and call it The House of Witan Moot.
Go full Dane and call it The Thing.  |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,727
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Nov 23, 2022 14:06:25 GMT
Interesting debate, but I am a unicameralist who believes in a wider range of devolved powers. Imagine if legislation passing stages in the Commons could be amended and/or challenged by the devolved regions/nations and then sent back (as presently happens from the Lords) for final stages. Bring back the regional assemblies, give them real power akin to Scottish Parliament. No need for a second federal chamber. That is what I I am suggesting. |
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Nov 23, 2022 15:39:55 GMT
Bring back the regional assemblies, give them real power akin to Scottish Parliament. No need for a second federal chamber. That is what I I am suggesting. I don't want the regional assemblies having a formal input on federal legislation - so I think we have slightly different perspectives, unless I misread your earlier post. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2022 16:34:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 23, 2022 18:24:04 GMT
This reminds us that the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 referred to a 'Second Chamber' based on a popular rather than a hereditary principle.
So there's our name, already chosen.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 24, 2022 15:25:00 GMT
At each GE MPs are elected from individual constituencies in the established way. But in addition, the votes cast for each party's candidates in each constituency are added together, on a regional basis, and seats in the second chamber (whatever we're calling it) are apportioned between party lists using STV or some similar proportional mechanism. In each region at each GE the number of persons 'elected' in this way is, let's say for argument, one fifth of the number of MPs for that region, rounded to the nearest whole. So NI, with 18 MPs, would elect four; SE England, with 91 (incl IoW) would elect 18. The persons elected would serve for three Parliaments. So about 130 persons would be elected at each GE giving a chamber of about 390 (or if you think this is too few, make the proportion one-fourth rather than one-fifth, which would mean 487-ish in all). There would be no byelections - casual vacancies through death or resignation would be left unfilled until the next GE, when an additional person would be elected in the relevant region to serve out the remaining one or two Parliaments of the term.
I don't think you actually mean STV, since that would require preferential voting in the constituencies. D'hondt (if you want the system to slightly favour larger parties) or Sante-Lague (if you want it to slightly favour smaller ones) would be the appropriate mechanisms for apportioning seats in this model. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 24, 2022 20:15:24 GMT
If the House of Lords won't do (and it's fine) then just call it the House of Peers. You are Ito Hirobumi and I claim my £5. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 21, 2023 23:14:26 GMT
Surprise in the House of Lords forthcoming business - Lord Carter of Haslemere will be introduced on 4 December.
Harry Carter was general counsel at 10 Downing Street and was awarded a Peerage in September 2019 in Theresa May's resignation honours list. He was due to be introduced to the House in December 2019 but his introduction was cancelled due to the early dissolution and he has not until now rescheduled the introduction.
|
|
