If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
make some suggestions if you think you're so wise
Potentially flawed, I personally don't see any real loss with only having those who have achieved a certain level of excellence. Perhaps there could be a system of sponsership? If maybe 10% of the Lords can be persuded that a person who doesn't have the acedemic/professional qualifications is intelligent, then they could stand for election?
A fully independent upper house is my preference. But using proportional representation you could never give the electorate a true choice in who they vote for. It would still be appointed because there would have to be a list of candidates ranked by importance for each party.
[ETA: Language, oops, apologies for offence]
And your suggestion is? Local people in local elections? But party politics will get in the way of that, surely the local Lib Dems or whomever will put forward someone.
Local people in local elections is not necessarily the answer, but certainly local choice over the Lords, yes.
I find it truly shocking how ignorant people are of the Lords and the legislative process in this country. By voting locally, perhaps that will change.
How to you mean?
They would each print a manifesto and the public would read these and compare?
You have a LOT more faith in the public than me.
What should be done, and how the public respond are entirely separate
But I think if we are going to be voting for Lords, and they are going to be independent, we need to have a fptp system with constituencies so that you vote for the person who has applied in your area, not someone off a central list. You could then make the Commons proportional representation because people generally vote by party, not by MP.
I have faith in the public. Some call it naivity, I prefer to call it democratic principles.
You cannot assume that the public won't know what's good for them and so have to decide it for them.
No, no no.
You'll end up with stupid co-alitions in the Commons if we do % rep. Laws that need to be made and changes that need to be done will never get past.
You seem to be suggesting the complete polar oposite of what I put forward.
I can and do. They are in the main dumb beasts.
Remind me what you're suggesting.
There we go.
I dont really believe in Democracy per say, I think a benevolant dictatorship would actually be a much more effective system of governance. Long term planning would be possible which it cant be under the current system.
I dont think you can really avoid it.
You admited that parties would put forward candidates in the local elections, so it would end up being exactly the same as now. Local people can come forward but they virtually always loose.
I didn't say that the Lib Dems would put forward a candidate because the Lords would have to be politically independent. They could endorse one candidate over another of course.
The flaw I forsee in your proposal is that the government would have too much power. The party whips would be able to force legislation through a lot more easily because the party in power is highly likely to have a majority in the Lords.
So they would 'endorse' a candidate rather than putting them forward, and the difference would be?
And there would be no decent checks on new laws because as you rightly point out the Whips could push it through.
With % rep in the second house the main party in the lower chamber would likely have to get votes from other parties, therefore minority groups would get a little say.
unelected doesnt necesserily mean undemocratic, some people are better suited for actually being critical of the laws passed by the public, which go through the commons
the commons decides what to legislate and makes amendment to get it through, and then the upper house makes amendments and decide whether its allowed or not as a whole
just cause the people think somethin gis right, doesnt make it right in terms of the basic principles the nation is founded upon
like if the public wanted wanted capital punishment, it wouldnt go anywhere anyway since it goes against european law
That the Lord would not be subject to the influence of a political party and would therefore be independent. Lords could express opinions without being forced to stick to the party's view, and would have a free vote.
No, the whips would only be effective if the Lords had political affiliations. That's not what I am suggesting. I think there would be better checks on new laws with independent Lords. No, the party with a majority in the Commons is likely to have majority in the Lords. PR has the advantage of giving seats to minority parties, but the main parties would still be strongest.
FYI:
de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1.Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2.A political or social unit that has such a government.
3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4.Majority rule.
5.The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
erm democracy, as the idea was founded was a government that represented the people, it doesnt necesserily mean elected majority, as having first past the post isnt always an elected majority, nor is the presidential elections
you can have someone that has what the people need, but they may not realise it yet
the older the more i realise how democracy is tyranny of the stupid masses
House of Commons:
Elected on a party list system (PR) for a period of 2 years, in three classes.
House of Lords:
Elected on a FPTP, with single member constituencies, for the life of the Parliament.
The government could be formed by the majority party of both houses. A dose of PR would lead to a break up of the two party political system, but the rotating nature of the Commons, and FPTP of the Lords would ensure a Parliamentary government perhaps based on a 2 party coalition would embody greater democratic legitimacy, whilst ensuring that there was a reasonably effective government.
Personally I would be wary of making the upper chamber a one for an appointed elite, as by nature that is undemocratic, and would result in a good consultative body, however one which is as ineffective as the current Lords, as it would have little democratic credibility, to ‘stand up’ to the Commons.