The United Kingdom

Considering the performance and quality of the current crop of MP's, it's easy to see why England is less than enamoured of politics.

EVEL is a compromise, but as I wrote earlier, unpicking what is a purely English matter will be very difficult. As most funding issues in England have a knock-on effect in the devolved areas due to the Barnett Formula, there's actually very little, really, that is England only.

If the English don't want devolved regions/cities or for non-English MP's to vote on matters which affect them, then they might well have to pinch their noses and accept the extra administrative layer of an England only parliament.

After all, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have to put up with that extra layer, so what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

Mike.

munroburton wrote:Personally, however, I think it's a missed opportunity to deal with the House of Lords, the vast majority of which are life peers appointed by a sitting government, occasionally in exchange for cash(A £100k "donation" could be repaid after one year, due to a £300-a-day expenses allowance!). We could get rid of the thing and replace it with a second type of MPs, elected by proportional representation to represent various regions within the UK. They could either sit in the second chamber or merge with the Commons(a la the Holyrood parliament) and the government might or might not have to depend upon their confidence.

(Bolding mine)
Replacing the House of Lords with a second elected chamber would be a bad thing as it would lead to it becoming populated almost purely by lifelong politicos, like the House of Commons currently is.
I think that the House of Lords should be replaced, but not with an elected body. Instead, it should be composed of several different sections.
-The first section: retired businessmen voted in by active CEO's. This gives the House of Lords access to knowledge of the Business world, something that far too many MP's lack.
-The second section: Those who have earned the Victoria or George Cross. Their patriotism is confirmed and those of a military background will have at least an idea of the threats that the country faces.
-The third section: Those with noble titles as voted for by the nobility. This gives access to those with historical knowledge via family archives and who know the traditions of the country.
-The fourth section: Lottery-style selection limited to those who do not have a (serious) criminal record. Petty theft, maybe (as long as it was several years plus in the past) but assault, manslaughter, murder, blackmail, rape etc mean that they are not allowed to enter the lottery. This gives a link to the general populace.
-The fifth (and smallest) section: Former Prime Ministers. Keeps them from trying to covertly sabotage their predecessors and should they try to become Prime Minister again, they'd have to resign from the House of Lords.

The two Houses are meant to balance and counter each other. Having both elected would turn them into near-duplicates of each other, thus allowing political extremism and corruption to flourish. And despite what people may think, the UK political process is one of the least intrinsically corrupt in the world.
I don't see how proportional representation could do anything other than weaken it and encourage factionalism.

Let me list the ways in which I disagree.
Firstly ask Obama or the last three Australian PMs what it is like dealing with a Senate that you don't control. Our elected Senators are a contentious bunch who do in their own words "keep the bastards honest".

You suggest replacing your current lot of unelected drones with yet another lot of similar inappropriate people.
Retired businessmen - (I notice not business women) so they can continue to feather bed their investments.
Those who have earned the VC or George Cross - worthy individuals but personal courage is no guarantee of good governance.
Those with noble titles -you do know that this is the 21st century not the 12th?
Lottery style - this is marginally sensible, but you would get some interesting people!
Retired PMs - to get them to attend you would have to pay them so they could supplement their already generous pensions, and prepare for ego massaging.

The Senate system used by many countries works well. Allocate one or up to six per area (Counties?) enough to make up about 50-100, and elect them at council election time and half for alternative two terms. This would ensure they weren't just a copy of the Commons.

Michael Everett wrote:

munroburton wrote:Personally, however, I think it's a missed opportunity to deal with the House of Lords, the vast majority of which are life peers appointed by a sitting government, occasionally in exchange for cash(A £100k "donation" could be repaid after one year, due to a £300-a-day expenses allowance!). We could get rid of the thing and replace it with a second type of MPs, elected by proportional representation to represent various regions within the UK. They could either sit in the second chamber or merge with the Commons(a la the Holyrood parliament) and the government might or might not have to depend upon their confidence.

(Bolding mine)
Replacing the House of Lords with a second elected chamber would be a bad thing as it would lead to it becoming populated almost purely by lifelong politicos, like the House of Commons currently is.
I think that the House of Lords should be replaced, but not with an elected body. Instead, it should be composed of several different sections.
-The first section: retired businessmen voted in by active CEO's. This gives the House of Lords access to knowledge of the Business world, something that far too many MP's lack.
-The second section: Those who have earned the Victoria or George Cross. Their patriotism is confirmed and those of a military background will have at least an idea of the threats that the country faces.
-The third section: Those with noble titles as voted for by the nobility. This gives access to those with historical knowledge via family archives and who know the traditions of the country.
-The fourth section: Lottery-style selection limited to those who do not have a (serious) criminal record. Petty theft, maybe (as long as it was several years plus in the past) but assault, manslaughter, murder, blackmail, rape etc mean that they are not allowed to enter the lottery. This gives a link to the general populace.
-The fifth (and smallest) section: Former Prime Ministers. Keeps them from trying to covertly sabotage their predecessors and should they try to become Prime Minister again, they'd have to resign from the House of Lords.

The two Houses are meant to balance and counter each other. Having both elected would turn them into near-duplicates of each other, thus allowing political extremism and corruption to flourish. And despite what people may think, the UK political process is one of the least intrinsically corrupt in the world.
I don't see how proportional representation could do anything other than weaken it and encourage factionalism.

Daryl wrote:Let me list the ways in which I disagree.
Firstly ask Obama or the last three Australian PMs what it is like dealing with a Senate that you don't control. Our elected Senators are a contentious bunch who do in their own words "keep the bastards honest".

You suggest replacing your current lot of unelected drones with yet another lot of similar inappropriate people.
Retired businessmen - (I notice not business women) so they can continue to feather bed their investments.
Those who have earned the VC or George Cross - worthy individuals but personal courage is no guarantee of good governance.
Those with noble titles -you do know that this is the 21st century not the 12th?
Lottery style - this is marginally sensible, but you would get some interesting people!
Retired PMs - to get them to attend you would have to pay them so they could supplement their already generous pensions, and prepare for ego massaging.

The Senate system used by many countries works well. Allocate one or up to six per area (Counties?) enough to make up about 50-100, and elect them at council election time and half for alternative two terms. This would ensure they weren't just a copy of the Commons.

It's a little different from the US Senate in that if parts of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 continues to apply, the second chamber could still be overruled by the first.

Michael Everett wrote:(Bolding mine)
Replacing the House of Lords with a second elected chamber would be a bad thing as it would lead to it becoming populated almost purely by lifelong politicos, like the House of Commons currently is.
I think that the House of Lords should be replaced, but not with an elected body. Instead, it should be composed of several different sections.
-The first section: retired businessmen voted in by active CEO's. This gives the House of Lords access to knowledge of the Business world, something that far too many MP's lack.
-The second section: Those who have earned the Victoria or George Cross. Their patriotism is confirmed and those of a military background will have at least an idea of the threats that the country faces.
-The third section: Those with noble titles as voted for by the nobility. This gives access to those with historical knowledge via family archives and who know the traditions of the country.
-The fourth section: Lottery-style selection limited to those who do not have a (serious) criminal record. Petty theft, maybe (as long as it was several years plus in the past) but assault, manslaughter, murder, blackmail, rape etc mean that they are not allowed to enter the lottery. This gives a link to the general populace.
-The fifth (and smallest) section: Former Prime Ministers. Keeps them from trying to covertly sabotage their predecessors and should they try to become Prime Minister again, they'd have to resign from the House of Lords.

The two Houses are meant to balance and counter each other. Having both elected would turn them into near-duplicates of each other, thus allowing political extremism and corruption to flourish. And despite what people may think, the UK political process is one of the least intrinsically corrupt in the world.
I don't see how proportional representation could do anything other than weaken it and encourage factionalism.

I disagree with the retired businesspeople(and I had a good chuckle at the idea that MPs don't have sufficient access to the business world) and the nobles elected by nobles. I'm on the fence regarding former PMs - it would give them an official reason to walk into the Palace of Westminister every day. That seems like far more opportunity to meddle and sabotage going-ons and when you consider that most PMs end up leaving office because they're forced out, immediately sending them to the Lords is a little dubious. Many ex-PMs seem to end up there anyway!

Agree with the second, after checking out living recipients of the VC/GC. I do have concerns about attaching powerful political baggage onto those awards of valour - I don't like the idea of someone trying to get one just to get into the new "People's Lords".

Fourth, we have jury duty, why not parlimentary duty? The caveats are reasonable.

How would you balance your five sections? IIRC, there are ~25 living GCVC holders, 3 living former PMs and 90 elected hereditary peers. If we make the second chamber similarly sized to the first and designate GCVCs and ex-PMs as supernumeraries, that leaves 510 seats to divvy up between jury duty and the businessmen. Heh, don't tell me you're replacing the bishops with people selected by CEOs!

I think that the House of Lords should be replaced, but not with an elected body. Instead, it should be composed of several different sections.

In theory this could be workable. The biggest problem with this is that all of the other interest groups not covered will want a section, trade unions leap to mind. And if you add them some other group will be next etc etc.

-The first section: retired businessmen voted in by active CEO's. This gives the House of Lords access to knowledge of the Business world, something that far too many MP's lack.

I would modify this. This gives power to big business at the expense of small business. That gives them the chance to push crony capitalist legislation that will further empower the major corporations. "Sure I'll vote in favor for the new defense budget but in return we'll want..." Having a business voice is a good idea since most legislators are lawyers and are a bit clueless as to how business works, but to keep big business from preying on the small, I would split the first section in half. Half of the representatives to be elected by big business CEOs. Half of them to be elected by small business owners.

-The second section: Those who have earned the Victoria or George Cross. Their patriotism is confirmed and those of a military background will have at least an idea of the threats that the country faces.

May need to expand this slightly. As one of the other posters mentioned, there are just too few people who qualify. That said, this would allow the voice of the military to be heard by those who truly understand battle, not just by generals who are more politician than soldier.

-The third section: Those with noble titles as voted for by the nobility. This gives access to those with historical knowledge via family archives and who know the traditions of the country.

Wouldn't work in the US, but I think that it would in the UK. Those from the old system would still have a voice, even if it is reduced. Historically a portion of the aristocracy has served England well by upholding the traditional ideals of noble service, if those happen to be the ones elected....

-The fourth section: Lottery-style selection limited to those who do not have a (serious) criminal record. Petty theft, maybe (as long as it was several years plus in the past) but assault, manslaughter, murder, blackmail, rape etc mean that they are not allowed to enter the lottery. This gives a link to the general populace.

That would be nice. Ordinary people... Definitely a revolutionary concept.

-The fifth (and smallest) section: Former Prime Ministers. Keeps them from trying to covertly sabotage their predecessors and should they try to become Prime Minister again, they'd have to resign from the House of Lords.

Interesting.....

Someone else mentioned Bishops..

I am adamantly opposed to Bishops having temporal power. That leads to individuals choosing to enter the ministry hoping to rise to power, not because they feel called to serve the Lord. Historically those types of individuals have been a disaster for their church(s) and for society at large.

Having a religious component in parliament though isn't necessarily a bad thing. Ministers/priests often have valuable perspectives, but just don't use Bishops. If a religious component is included it should be a lottery of ordained ministers/priests. Similar to the ordinary people lottery. Because it's a lottery, all the backstabbing, behind the scenes manipulations etc which have caused such pain in the past won't work and thus there will be no reason for those of that sort to try to use the ministry to climb to power. They'll try the lower house instead.

" Historically a portion of the aristocracy has served England well by upholding the traditional ideals of noble service, if those happen to be the ones elected...."

A very small portion, most seem to look out for themselves and their privileged class.

I'm a bit baffled as to why there should be preference given to military and religious people. In the interest of true democracy they should have an equal chance, but personally the ability to kill people, or to believe in invisible friends wouldn't be my selection criteria. Our current PM went to a seminary and this leads him to impose his antiquated views on us, plus we just comprehensively sacked an ex military state premier who tried to rule us like we were in uniform.

In answer to biochem, the Lords is made up of two groups:

Lords Temporal

Lords Spiritual

The former is made up of the remaining hereditary peers and those who are life appointees. A fair number of the latter are politically connected to whoever was in government at the time they were elevated to the peerage. Usually ex-politicians, as a matter of fact. Others are awarded peerages based on contributions to society, the arts or to science.

The Lords Spiritual are the direct representation of the Church of England, including the Archbishop of Canterbury. Their role is now largely symbolic as I believe they are now prohibited from participating in passing or voting on legislation.

As for lords reform, I'm with Daryl in this one. Fully elected, please.

Mike.

Daryl wrote:I'm a bit baffled as to why there should be preference given to military and religious people. In the interest of true democracy they should have an equal chance, but personally the ability to kill people, or to believe in invisible friends wouldn't be my selection criteria. Our current PM went to a seminary and this leads him to impose his antiquated views on us, plus we just comprehensively sacked an ex military state premier who tried to rule us like we were in uniform.

Bolding mine to show which bit I'm referring to.
There is an old saying -
Good men sleep at night knowing that there are rough men ready to do violence on their behalf. (paraphrased)
Military forces are one of the main defences of the country that pays them. However, if they are specifically denied a voice in selecting the direction of the country, they begin to feel under-appreciated and may try to seize power in a coup.
Furthermore, many members of academia look down on military forces as "Uncouth barbarians", right up until they realise that they need these "barbarians" to protect them from the true barbarians.
It is therefore a very good idea to at least listen to the military (and let them know that they're being listened to) in order to avoid unfortunate incidents such as coups.
As for not having a military... well, it didn't work out well for Alderaan, did it?

Having spent more than a decade with the Australian Army I'm fully aware of how important a strong military is, and how many good people there are in uniform.
As is often the case Kipling said it well in -
http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/k ... tommy.html

Which may have been the original inspiration for your quote, variously attributed to Orwell or Churchill, but the validity is there regardless.

However while I respect and appreciate the members of our armed forces, my experience is that they are no wiser or better informed than the general population. In some cases they are less well informed, in that being looked after by their system they share a naivety regarding how to cope in open financial society with tenured priests.
Many of my colleagues had gone straight from school to Military Academy, to good paying officer's positions with Messes to feed and house them. Friends who left the service even bemoaned how they now had to choose what to wear each day.
As to letting them have an inside to decision making in order to avoid coups, I'd hope that modern western democracies have moved well beyond that.

Michael Everett wrote:

Daryl wrote:I'm a bit baffled as to why there should be preference given to military and religious people. In the interest of true democracy they should have an equal chance, but personally the ability to kill people, or to believe in invisible friends wouldn't be my selection criteria. Our current PM went to a seminary and this leads him to impose his antiquated views on us, plus we just comprehensively sacked an ex military state premier who tried to rule us like we were in uniform.

Bolding mine to show which bit I'm referring to.
There is an old saying -
Good men sleep at night knowing that there are rough men ready to do violence on their behalf. (paraphrased)
Military forces are one of the main defences of the country that pays them. However, if they are specifically denied a voice in selecting the direction of the country, they begin to feel under-appreciated and may try to seize power in a coup.
Furthermore, many members of academia look down on military forces as "Uncouth barbarians", right up until they realise that they need these "barbarians" to protect them from the true barbarians.
It is therefore a very good idea to at least listen to the military (and let them know that they're being listened to) in order to avoid unfortunate incidents such as coups.
As for not having a military... well, it didn't work out well for Alderaan, did it?

One point: whatever is done should remember the principle of subsidiarity. This says every difficulty should be handled at the lowest level that can do it. The problem is that too often, you get people running for high office that love to be meddlers.

Here in the US, since we moved from senators appointed by state legislatures to popular vote, we have a situation where instead of at least trying to do strategic thinking (there is always a shortage of that, and it is always valuable) many spend much time tinkering with details. Most of us then are buried under the paperwork. We are currently working on our income tax - unpaid and forced labor is slave labor.

Modern super computers don't use one ultra capable processor, but many less capable ones working in parallel. This is the best way to handle situations where data bandwidth, rather than processing speed is the critical point. Any social system is certainly high bandwidth.

Or to put it another way, it is unlikely that a prime minister is best qualified to tell a shepherd how to handle the sheep. He is better occupied in keeping the nosy bureaucrats off the backs of all honest shepherds. This applies to most other occupations also.