But, make them elected and why should they bow down to the House?
Indeed, why should the Leader of the House be Prime Minister -- the Leader of the Senate would be just about as powerful (albeit without the money bill issue).
That last point leads to the problem -- in a two level fully elected legislature it makes more sense to have an independent American style President than a Prime Minister (because really you'd have two Prime Ministers -- one for the upper and one for the lower level). And we all know how well the American legislative system is working now.
Be careful of Senate reform -- it might well have unexpected consequences:
LONDON -- The British government is set to unveil plans to replace parliament's upper House of Lords with a wholly elected chamber in order to make it "legitimate," a minister said Sunday.
Transport Secretary Lord Andrew Adonis said there would be "firm proposals" for an elected House of Lords in the governing Labour Party's manifesto for the general election, which is expected on May 6.
"The time has now come to make it legitimate in the only way that a legislative assembly can be legitimate in the modern world, which is to be elected," Lord Adonis told BBC television.
"We can do it in this country as most democracies do it: we'd have two chambers, both of which are elected but with the government accountable to the first chamber," he added.
The Lords scrutinises and revises government legislation but is often seen by the public as an undemocratic "retirement home" for former members of the elected lower House of Commons, or a place for the privileged titled classes or political appointees.
The make-up of the 700-year-old chamber has been a bone of contention in British politics for decades, with near-constant cross-party rows about whether it should be elected or appointed.
7 comments:
There are various models for Senate reform. Everyone knows the US model of two senators for every state-big and small.
Australia's Senate is powerful, not because its members represent regional interests, but because its members are elected under STV instead of AV which is used in the House of Representatives. The House represents large parties while the Senate includes smaller parties that can't get seats in the House of Representatives. If Canada went with the Australian model, it wouldn't matter if each province had the same number of seats as each other or if the larger provinces had more seats. An STV or another proportional representation Senate would have more effect than its regional composition.
I have examined the possible effects of Senate reform in Canada. If both houses had its members elected by the current first-past-the-post voting system, there could be conflicts. If both houses used some kind of proportional representation, then the possibility of party coalitions could be possible. It would be highly unlikely that the Senate would block a House of Commons bill outright.
I'd also like to throw out the use of the Double Dissolution in the Australian Parliament.
If the Senate is unable to pass a bill sent to it by the House of Representatives, both Houses of Parliament are dissolved....both going into an election with the hopes one House will tip the balance of power.
I like the Australia model. It is the model we should use.
If Britain plans to modernize the Lords, we need to modernize the Senate.
I agree that Senate reform is long overdue -- heck, the Senate was seen as useless back in the 30's! My only point is that piecemeal reform wont work -- PR or a modification thereof is an option.
Back in the 30's. You look so young, James!
Well, there's this painting in the attic ...
> the legitimacy elections give.
Could someone explain to the dimmer readers (like myself) how elections and "legitimacy" have *anything at all* to do with each other. I'm not sure if Morton is being tongue-in-cheek by quoting the article, or if I'm supposed to be getting a double-dose of double-talk.
I'll answer that.
If the Canadian senators and UK lords decided to defeat half of the bills that originate in the respective House of Commons, there would be a very quick push to replace the existing appointed Senate and House of Lords.
While the Canadian senators may be bright and intelligent, they do not represent me. They represent the crown. I didn't get to vote for any senator. I didn't get a chance to run for a Senate seat. I think that I am bright and intelligent enough to sit as a Senator.
Post a Comment