And yet the US ranks lower than the UK for democracy. In Canada one of the biggest incentives for not wanting an elected senate despite it being held in the lowest regard is that we look south at the American system where no one takes responsibility for anything. In both cases the lords or our senate are rather toothless because they do not have popular support and not elected. We are trying to improve our selection process but believe it or not our senate actually periodically improves legislation since all it can do is send it back for reconsideration. Almost universally the US is ranked in the mid to upper teens for democracy behind the constitutional democracies and Switzerland. I have always wondered why Americans are not more worried about their democracy some congressmen actually being acclaimed whereas in our system each riding would have minimum 3 and as much as 10 running for the seat. and in your states a much higher number are acclaimed. America did much to advance democracy when it was founded but seems to not worry about any more legitimizing essentially bribery and restrictive voting and in some districts a one party election. Why are Americans who love their country which advanced democracy early in its history so blasé about the destruction of that democracy.
1
We're not so worried about our "democracy" because we never set about to create a pure democracy, those who understand how we're governed don't claim that we are one today, and we're quite satisfied to let Britain and some of the other constitutional democracies claim the title. The biggst difference between us and them is that we accept that some rights are not subject to the will of the people except in overwhelming weight, and in the safeguards we erect to make exercise of excessive power by a majority that is as likely to be "wrong" in any real sense as "right".
1
Before Harper chose to appoint hacks stooges and cronies to our upper house it was known as the house of sober second thought. Somehow despite the political process our Supreme Court and Upper House (senate) seemed to put Canada's best foot forward. Harper's desire to politicize both our Senate and Supreme Court brought tremendous shame to our Senate but fortunately the likes of Thomas, Alito and Scalia in on the Supreme Court were a bridge too far for our Canadian sensibilities.
We have always managed with twits in both our upper and lower chambers but the idea of in perpetuity strikes me as a very poor way to create a better future.
If I were a betting man I would give almost even money on Great Britain surviving until 2020, I don't think the existence of the House of Lords bears even scant consideration at this time.
We have always managed with twits in both our upper and lower chambers but the idea of in perpetuity strikes me as a very poor way to create a better future.
If I were a betting man I would give almost even money on Great Britain surviving until 2020, I don't think the existence of the House of Lords bears even scant consideration at this time.
3
Just make sure Justin receive a copy of the article.
In my view the Republicans and others who want to abolish the monarchy and change the government of Great Britain are by and large a group of earnest busy bodies who are always complaining about something. Suppose you abolish the monarchy. Who is going to greet visiting dignitaries, handout awards and metals, visit charity events, etc. which the Queen and royal family do? They do a great job at what they do and would need to be replaced by a "President" who would probably be either a crony of the Prime Minister or a has-been political hack.
As John Zotto says below the House of Lords was a check on elected politicians. The House of Commons can still have its way but it just gets time to reflect on policy. Tony Blair set out to "reform" the House of Lords and make it more democratic. What he did was take a house where most members were there because their ancestors were there and hence not beholden to any living politician (independent) and changed it to a house full of cronies he appointed. If you want the House of Lords to be democratically elected, then it should be elected by the people in which case it should have the same power and authority as the House of Commons.
Take my advice and leave it as it is or, better yet, go back to the hereditary House of Lords. The hereditary house had some intelligent people it. Don't meddle with what works.
As John Zotto says below the House of Lords was a check on elected politicians. The House of Commons can still have its way but it just gets time to reflect on policy. Tony Blair set out to "reform" the House of Lords and make it more democratic. What he did was take a house where most members were there because their ancestors were there and hence not beholden to any living politician (independent) and changed it to a house full of cronies he appointed. If you want the House of Lords to be democratically elected, then it should be elected by the people in which case it should have the same power and authority as the House of Commons.
Take my advice and leave it as it is or, better yet, go back to the hereditary House of Lords. The hereditary house had some intelligent people it. Don't meddle with what works.
1
Matthew d'Ancona omits to say that Tony Blair rid the House of Lords of the majority of heraditary peers during his first term and loaded the House with Labour luvvies. Likewise, the Conservatied have filled the coveted benches with has been politicians and donors.
His article is misleading and inaccurate regarding the vote presented in the House of Lords. This vote was legal because of a technicality the Government chose to ignore.
His article is misleading and inaccurate regarding the vote presented in the House of Lords. This vote was legal because of a technicality the Government chose to ignore.
4
This article is indeed interesting, though seems a bit ridiculous as it seems to believe that the UK is some form of Democratic government, as opposed to what it is: a Constitutional Monarchy designed in what is often referred to an HM's System.
This system includes, simply, the House of Lords and the House of Commons built - similarly to a multi-branch government - to ensure national interests by competing between their interests. All of this being monitored and supposedly controlled by the Monarch.
Therefore - it is foolish to consider that the House of Lords should be replaced in some way by a more democratic system as this act would possibly disrupt the government or give too much power to the House of Commons.
Again, an interesting article, interesting indeed.
This system includes, simply, the House of Lords and the House of Commons built - similarly to a multi-branch government - to ensure national interests by competing between their interests. All of this being monitored and supposedly controlled by the Monarch.
Therefore - it is foolish to consider that the House of Lords should be replaced in some way by a more democratic system as this act would possibly disrupt the government or give too much power to the House of Commons.
Again, an interesting article, interesting indeed.
How, in 2015, can one defend this? By noting that human in 2015 is fundamentally no different than it was in 1915, or 1615. Civil society that rests its legitimacy on the consent of the governed must, if it is not to degenerate into mob rule as has happened with such severe consequences too many times in the last two centuries, have some mechanism for obstructing the mob. The Lords is Britain's. It is not what I would choose for our Republuc but is rooted in their history just as our Senate and electoral college are rooted in ours.
3
As a Brit, I am 100% in agreement with the author that the House of Lords is anachronistic, but it does serve a purpose, as he alluded, which is to make use of the experience of people from various professional backgrounds and professions. But perhaps it would have been germane to mention the equally questionable condition of the United States Senate, where a bunch of mostly white, mostly male old dinosaurs get to vote for pay raises for themselves and only actually spend about 30% of the year doing anything that could be construed as work?
5
Oh the barnacles that a political system, even one that is democratic and usually does seem to work or at least plod through, does pick up over the generations! The US has nearly as many, maybe more:
1. OUR senate, where a vote from sparsely peopled Wyoming matters 40(?) times more than one from California
2. The electoral college selects the president, certainly not popular vote.
3. The party in charge every tenth year gets to gerrymand congressional districts.
4. If not poll taxes, obstacles thrown in front of eligible voters to get a desired outcome.
5. Our capital District of Columbia without congressional representation!
6. $
I could go on...
1. OUR senate, where a vote from sparsely peopled Wyoming matters 40(?) times more than one from California
2. The electoral college selects the president, certainly not popular vote.
3. The party in charge every tenth year gets to gerrymand congressional districts.
4. If not poll taxes, obstacles thrown in front of eligible voters to get a desired outcome.
5. Our capital District of Columbia without congressional representation!
6. $
I could go on...
5
The House of Lords should not be surprising in a country whose citizens overwhelmingly support the concept of "Royalty". A life of privilege. wealth and power, paid for by the populace all because of an accident of birth. When people believe that others are superior to themselves, for whatever reason, institutions such as the HOL will exist. I am much more concerned what is happening in this country. It seems a similar attitude exists, but because of wealth. It appears many Americans believe that the rich are somehow superior to the rest of us. That the fact that they were able to accumulate vast sums of money means that they are imbued with some type of super DNA or they are inherently more intelligent (never mind that many of the wealthy in this country are rich because of inheritance, not success, i.e. Trump). Idolizing and deferring to others because of their wealth is irrational and dangerous.
The House of Lords is one of the few checks left on the Elected Dictatorship that is the House of Commons. The Prime Minister enjoys powers and capabilities that a US President would envy. The national bureaucracy can meddle down to the lowest levels of govt. and society. Many local councils are essentially rubber stamp organizations for national or regional policy, and some are barely above the level of ceremonial. Despite token efforts at decentralization, power and money, not to mention highways and railroads, flow inexorably to London. Would things be better without the Lords? Who knows. But reform will not consist of abolishing it.
1
I wish people would remember their civics classes and understand why the Senate is not apportioned in the same way as the House - it is not a flaw and it doesn't ignore population. Stop whining that all states in the upper chamber have the same number, as if that's the end of the line, while in reality population sizes are precisely the means of allotment in the lower chamber. California has 12% of all seats in the House. Many states, with only one member, have a mere 0.2%! Just the top five states have almost 35% of all House seats; the top 10, or 20% of the states, have 49% of seats. The Senate, by design, levels the playing field so that a few states cannot totally dominate the entire legislative process, forcing more balance and recognition of citizens in less populated area whose voices are just as important as someone from LA or San Francisco or New York City or Dallas.
This is not a flaw but a wise system that ensures that in many areas we all get a voice in the outcomes from the legislature.
This is not a flaw but a wise system that ensures that in many areas we all get a voice in the outcomes from the legislature.
5
That's all very well, but the system was designed for a country where the most populous States had less than 10 times as many people as the least. That ratio now stands at about 60 to 1 and climbing.
2
So what are you suggesting? Just throw out proportional representation in one house and equal representation in the other (the current system) and replace it with....what?
2
The enthusiasm for democracy is based on the idea that if you can just gather enough idiots together, wisdom will emerge from their aggregated stupidity. Or, seen another way, the plural of 'yahoo' is 'houyhnhnm'.
Our rebel founders didn't love the peerage largely because they weren't part of it. (I've often suspected George III and Lord North could have bought them off with seats in the Commons, or a title.) Not only did they restrict the franchise to patricians like themselves, they intended the Senate to be elected by state legislatures, i.e., themselves. In effect, laying the ground for a native-born peerage of their descendants.
There is, at least in theory, something to be said for a standing panel not obliged to pander to the lowest common denominator.
Our rebel founders didn't love the peerage largely because they weren't part of it. (I've often suspected George III and Lord North could have bought them off with seats in the Commons, or a title.) Not only did they restrict the franchise to patricians like themselves, they intended the Senate to be elected by state legislatures, i.e., themselves. In effect, laying the ground for a native-born peerage of their descendants.
There is, at least in theory, something to be said for a standing panel not obliged to pander to the lowest common denominator.
2
"...a standing panel not obliged to pander to the lowest common denominator."
Sorry, I for one do not want to be ruled by a panel of "betters" (versus us in the "lowest" sectors of thought) or supposed "experts" who will be accountable to no one. Far, far too often these groups are highly biased, partisan and wouldn't have the interests of the people at heart.
Sorry, I for one do not want to be ruled by a panel of "betters" (versus us in the "lowest" sectors of thought) or supposed "experts" who will be accountable to no one. Far, far too often these groups are highly biased, partisan and wouldn't have the interests of the people at heart.
2
George S., the 'people' do not have the interests of 'the people' at heart. They have their own tiny parochial interests at heart, and do not understand in the least the matters on which they are asked to render an opinion. You might as well ask my cat to solve the Unified Field Theory.
What you are propounding is exactly what I am rejecting: the notion that if you just congregate ignorant idiots, their collected ignorance and idiocy will, by spontaneous combustion or miracle or some other as yet uncomprehended and inexplicable process, will produce enlightened wisdom. If you have a convincing explanation as to how that would work, please provide it, as I haven't heard one yet, nor have I ever seen it happen in 60 years of observing 'democracy' in action.
What you are propounding is exactly what I am rejecting: the notion that if you just congregate ignorant idiots, their collected ignorance and idiocy will, by spontaneous combustion or miracle or some other as yet uncomprehended and inexplicable process, will produce enlightened wisdom. If you have a convincing explanation as to how that would work, please provide it, as I haven't heard one yet, nor have I ever seen it happen in 60 years of observing 'democracy' in action.
I disagree but this is the debate America should be having. America is sliding into totalitarianism and before we can successfully engage the future where on the line between democracy and totalitarianism we rest should be the only topic of discussion. I am in the Bernie Sanders camp of democracy but realize the dangers we face when we deliberately decide to miseducate and fail to properly safeguard the medical needs of our nation.
It is 2015 and for us outside the USA the inability of Americans separate fact from belief gives us all fear that our democracy is in danger. Here in Quebec where separation of church and state is the Prime Directive we know how difficult democracy is but we move ever closer to that elusive goal.
It is 2015 and for us outside the USA the inability of Americans separate fact from belief gives us all fear that our democracy is in danger. Here in Quebec where separation of church and state is the Prime Directive we know how difficult democracy is but we move ever closer to that elusive goal.
The writer expects us to be shocked that "Elected representatives had bowed to the will of an unelected elite.", but it has happened numerous times in the US. Abortion regulation, definition of marriage, restrictions on campaign contributions. In the US case the unelected elite is called the Supreme Court and they have to pretend that they "discovered" their decisions in the Constitution, but it amounts to the same thing: removing issues from the democratic process.
6
In the U.S. the billionaire class is our House of Lords. The big difference is that in England the citizens know who the individual Lords are. In the U.S. the billionaires maintain anonymity through political action committees.
5
Life peerages are a powerful perk which the two major parties can use to reward allies. They would obviously be less desirable if the new Baron of Wherever didn't have a House of Lords to go to.
1
We have a copy of such political aberration in Canada. In our case, we call it The Senate. Here Senators are appointed until him/her reach the age of 75. During our last federal election (Oct. 19) every political party stated that "The Senate" has to be closed. Today, nobody talks about it. Why? Because the party that wins the election fills any vacancy from its close members or friends. Like in England, in Canada we cannot get rid of the Senate because it is a constitutional nightmare. What an aberration!
Mr. d'Ancona is obscuring the real purpose of the Lords. One of the major problems with a parliamentary system is that there are no checks and balances against whoever won the last election. It is like the American system, if anything passed by the House of Representatives immediately became law. The British lawmaking system is essentially tyranny by party: there is no other chamber, no Presidential veto, no Bill of Rights, no Supreme Court challenges. The only possible way to stop the ruling party from passing a bad law is via the House of Lords. It may be unelected, but it is practically the only check on the Prime Minister's power (and a rather toothless one at that, which the author grudgingly concedes in the third-to-last paragraph).
Since the Tories took power, the Commons has instilled a nationwide internet "pornography" filter on every UK home. The previous government banned fox hunting, despite less than 20% public support, because they promised it to animal rights activists during the election. These two laws went quickly through despite massive public opposition, and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it. Now they are about to make the private use of any form of encryption illegal - in the current bill, the iPhone will be banned in the UK unless Apple builds in a "back door" for the police.
Without a bill of rights and more robust judicial review, the undemocratic House of Lords is the only thing standing between citizens and dictatorship by committee.
Since the Tories took power, the Commons has instilled a nationwide internet "pornography" filter on every UK home. The previous government banned fox hunting, despite less than 20% public support, because they promised it to animal rights activists during the election. These two laws went quickly through despite massive public opposition, and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it. Now they are about to make the private use of any form of encryption illegal - in the current bill, the iPhone will be banned in the UK unless Apple builds in a "back door" for the police.
Without a bill of rights and more robust judicial review, the undemocratic House of Lords is the only thing standing between citizens and dictatorship by committee.
7
The House of Lords is a component of the British system's "checks and balances" calculated to rein in unfettered legislative power.
Although to us the British system seems Snow Whitish, a parallel can be drawn between the House of Lords and The U. S. Supreme Court.
In fact, even today judges in "common law" states can still "interpret" and thus legislate in much the same manner as did the House of Lords in days of old,
2
The UK has its own Supreme Court, there is little relation between its role and the role of the House of Lords.
As a Yank, I well understand the efficacy of a system in which the head of state is above politics, representing some mystical higher sense of tradition and continuity. When I observe how US heads of state are increasingly degraded and humiliated as part of day-to-day politics, it is hard not to conclude that we routinely propose or debate extremist constitutional changes because day-to-day internecine fighting has fogged up our sense of the dividing line between The Rules of the Game and the details of the game in play.
The House of Lords' injection of itself into a minimum wage and budget issue is totally the opposite. In medieval times, when day-to-day government was large in the hands of the greatest landowners and church leaders, it made sense for this body to be consulted on national policy. Doing so is what led to the creation of a permanent body for commoners, and the rise of essentially republican and democratic practices.
The rules of that game have evolved so enormously over the last six centuries that there is no clear justification for the House of Lords to be part of The Game. The nobles have no greater interest in public policy than any other citizen, and the churchmen have none. They should all be seeking elective office if they want such a voice.
The House of Lords' injection of itself into a minimum wage and budget issue is totally the opposite. In medieval times, when day-to-day government was large in the hands of the greatest landowners and church leaders, it made sense for this body to be consulted on national policy. Doing so is what led to the creation of a permanent body for commoners, and the rise of essentially republican and democratic practices.
The rules of that game have evolved so enormously over the last six centuries that there is no clear justification for the House of Lords to be part of The Game. The nobles have no greater interest in public policy than any other citizen, and the churchmen have none. They should all be seeking elective office if they want such a voice.
1
That was clear a century ago? More than that...
"Well, now that the peers are to be recruited entirely from persons of intelligence, I really don't see what use we are down here. "
Gilbert & Sullivan, Iolanthe, 1882
"Well, now that the peers are to be recruited entirely from persons of intelligence, I really don't see what use we are down here. "
Gilbert & Sullivan, Iolanthe, 1882
2
I have to admit I thought of 'Iolanthe' as well. :}
Here's a link to a performance of the most on-point song in the show, 'When Britain Really Ruled the Waves'. (Though a purist, I like the tweak in the second verse to update the lyrics.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeUAWXUw_iI
Now, if only here, in the US, our 'noble [elected] statesmen [and women]" in every branch of government and at every level, did not 'itch to interfere with matters which they do not understand' - which, in our case in America, means 'pretty much every matter that comes before them'!
Here's a link to a performance of the most on-point song in the show, 'When Britain Really Ruled the Waves'. (Though a purist, I like the tweak in the second verse to update the lyrics.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeUAWXUw_iI
Now, if only here, in the US, our 'noble [elected] statesmen [and women]" in every branch of government and at every level, did not 'itch to interfere with matters which they do not understand' - which, in our case in America, means 'pretty much every matter that comes before them'!
1
All governments, even democracies, have these seemingly undemocratic laws, written and unwritten. How different is our “Fed” from the Lords, or our many unelected czars every president of both parties now appoint without the nomination process? We do many seemingly undemocratic things in running our country. Filibusters, “filling the tree,” refusals to consider presidential nominees, executive privilege, undeclared wars, presidential orders, judicial review, unwritten “fundamental laws,” and so on. Whether someone likes them at any given time usually depends on whose ox is being gored. Maybe this is the only way humans can manage themselves because we can’t even begin to create some perfect written and working system that can survive the first moment of real life. What is more important is that we hold close the enlightenment values of freedom and toleration and what Justice Learned Hand called the Spirit of Liberty in a speech that is too long to quote here in full but which you can easily find online and I wish everyone, including our “leaders” would read frequently.
1
Whenever I watch a British Prime Minister being grilled in the House of Commons, I wonder who has the better system.
3
"The plan would trim spending by $6.7 billion..."
First of all, the correct statement would be "The Plan would shift &6.7 billion to employers in the form of mandatory higher wages..."
Secondly, the knee-jerk reaction of most people to the idea of raising minimum wages is "how could one be opposed to something so obviously good'. That was my reaction also....but if you read the serious academic work done on the subject, not so good....only a very small proportion of min. wage employees are supporting families. There are other ways to help them. The vast majority are just young...and they should make a low amount for menial work in that its good for the economy to actually pay what one is worth, and it's good for them to realize they have to improve their skills, and go to school, to improve their earning power.
First of all, the correct statement would be "The Plan would shift &6.7 billion to employers in the form of mandatory higher wages..."
Secondly, the knee-jerk reaction of most people to the idea of raising minimum wages is "how could one be opposed to something so obviously good'. That was my reaction also....but if you read the serious academic work done on the subject, not so good....only a very small proportion of min. wage employees are supporting families. There are other ways to help them. The vast majority are just young...and they should make a low amount for menial work in that its good for the economy to actually pay what one is worth, and it's good for them to realize they have to improve their skills, and go to school, to improve their earning power.
However anachronistic the House of Lords might look in modern times no government would like to part with the power of patronage and favour that it exercises while nominating several peers and members to the upper chamber.
3
A very timely piece, I was just reading about the British Peerage last night & was impressed to learn that wealth and honours bestowed to the Duke Of Wellington for his success in vanquishing Napolean Bonaparte or the Duke of Marlborough victory at Blenheim are still paying very handsome dividends centuries later..the current crop of Hereditary Dukes and Dukesesses have it made. all those London Squares and real estate - --- where's the General Washington Estate and Trust?
3
The plural of 'duke' is 'duchess'. And a lot of stately homes have been sold or made into public trusts; the notion that a title necessarily entails vast wealth was out-of-date even a century ago when Thomas Hardy portrayed just such a down-at-heel nobleman in Tess of the D'Urbervilles. Your average hip-hop rapper in America has more money and greater bling and more stately mansions than the average English baronet. And let's not talk about Trump.
3
The plural of "duke" is "dukes." "Duchess" is the feminine version of the title.
2
Sorry, VB! typo. I meant to write that the feminine plural of Duke is Duchess. At any rate it is not 'Dukess'.
I stand corrected. :}
I stand corrected. :}
1
The ways of the Lords are more curious than Mr D'Ancona realises. The closest their Lordships get to democracy is when not when the whole House holds internal by-elections to fill vacancies in the reduced ranks of the remaining hereditary peers who survived the 1992 compromise that swept most of the others away. The franchise is actually restricted to hereditary peers who belong to the same party or group as the peer whose death caused the vacancy. Thus, the current Duke of Wellington recently regained his famous ancestor's seat with the support of 21 hereditary Conservative peers, whose ranks he joins.
For enlightenment or further bafflement, see: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/lords/house-of-lo...
For enlightenment or further bafflement, see: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/lords/house-of-lo...
I agree with the author that it is "an affront to democracy" when elected representatives bow to the will of an unelected elite. But this is precisely what is wrong with politics in the US today: every day politicians bow to the will of an unelected elite–viz, the very rich.
23
Easy to say that but, despite the undeniable influence of money in politics, the electorate does have the power to oust these members from Congress, something the British people cannot do as readily with the Lords. The fact that it doesn't happen that often is NOT the fault of Congress or design, but of the voters who will reelect, for example, a Charlie Rangel, over and over and over again even with the full knowledge of arrogance, ethical misconduct, chicanery, and all the rest, just because of party loyalties.
1
The title of this story is completely inappropriate given the UK's lack of constitution
If we lacked a constitution we would not exist. Do a bit more reading.
1
Of course the United Kingdom has a constitution. The difference with the USA is that it is contained in a complex set of documents, not in one easy-to-read piece.
You're wrong, Iwd. Britain does indeed have a constitution. It's not a single written document, but based instead on centuries of tradition and practice. The fact that it does not look like the American constitution does not make it invalid or nonexistent.
1
The US has its own House of Lords, including hereditary peers. The Koch brothers are one example.
They use their money and power to buy politicians, elections, policy, and outcomes.
They use their money and power to buy politicians, elections, policy, and outcomes.
26
Didn't take long to cue the predictable "Koch brothers" line no matter the subject.
1
Hear, hear!
Firstly let us not go overboard about democracy which was used by the greatest criminal of all times to get to power, Hitler, and used by another would be dictator desirous of the same power, but not so criminal - so far, in Turkey. Second non-elected chambers however quirky have their place as moderators to a point because their members do not have to worry about being re-elected. How democratic an Institution is the Electoral College? Nevertheless, its choices follow that of the voters. So alls well that ends well and the quaint penchant of the Britons for illogical traditions and not to dispense with them is a measure of their respect, no matter how begrudging, for the system that was, is and will continue to be.
2
Except of course, when the Electoral College doesn't follow the will of the voters: in 1824 when John Quincy Adams was elected, in 1876 when Rutherford B. Hayes won, in 1888 when Benjamin Harrison won, and of course, in 2000 when George W. Bush won. In all of the above, the loser had more popular votes than the "winner". But I suppose 4 out of 44 Presidents who didn't deserve to be elected is too bad a percentage to you, no?
If people weren't so afraid of life they wouldn't pass that responsibility onto just anyone who stands up and says he or she will help shoulder that burden.
Unfortunately we have been so processed that we accept almost anyone who says yes to the abusive joke that elections have become.
It isn't any real wonder why just about anyone who accepts almost any position in any level of government feels it is fine to take whatever is offered from anyone who .
Good government is good for those who take up the mantle, but not so much for the rest of us who expect anything socially beneficial to be enacted by those who purport to represent us.
These men are typical of all who have made it and don't care if anyone else ever does. For them there will never be enough to go around.
I wish I was being cynical.
Unfortunately we have been so processed that we accept almost anyone who says yes to the abusive joke that elections have become.
It isn't any real wonder why just about anyone who accepts almost any position in any level of government feels it is fine to take whatever is offered from anyone who .
Good government is good for those who take up the mantle, but not so much for the rest of us who expect anything socially beneficial to be enacted by those who purport to represent us.
These men are typical of all who have made it and don't care if anyone else ever does. For them there will never be enough to go around.
I wish I was being cynical.
2
Our system stinks as well an cries out for reform:
1- California has over 38 Million people according to the US Census 2014 estimate and Alaska 736,732. Yet both have 2 Senators.
2- The Seniority system- mandated nowhere in our Constitution- allows some Senators far more power than others based upon years of service.
3- Senate Rules requiring a 60 vote majority for routine business allow minority political parties to hold the entire Congress hostage. In the first 2 years of the Obama Administration over 300 Bills easily passed the House only to die in the Senate despite having majority support because of the 60 vote threshold imposed by Senate Rules.
The Senate is a vestige of the practice of Slavery. Southern states wanted a way to guarantee that the more populous north would not ban slavery.
1- California has over 38 Million people according to the US Census 2014 estimate and Alaska 736,732. Yet both have 2 Senators.
2- The Seniority system- mandated nowhere in our Constitution- allows some Senators far more power than others based upon years of service.
3- Senate Rules requiring a 60 vote majority for routine business allow minority political parties to hold the entire Congress hostage. In the first 2 years of the Obama Administration over 300 Bills easily passed the House only to die in the Senate despite having majority support because of the 60 vote threshold imposed by Senate Rules.
The Senate is a vestige of the practice of Slavery. Southern states wanted a way to guarantee that the more populous north would not ban slavery.
29
As to number one, that isn't a flaw. California's population leverage is addressed in the House of Representatives, where it has 53 seats (out of 435) the most of any state, while some states (including Alaska) have but one seat. The Senate was designed by the Founders to be a second body but there the states would be equal, regardless of population, each with two. Rather a clever design actually and it doesn't "stink".
1
The Senate was created to represent the states - - this is one of the basis of a federalism. That is, a federal republic. Go back to high school and study civics and American political philosophy.
1
The monarchy and all that is associated with it, including the House of Lords, are a living dinosaur exhibit, a reminder of what enlightened society decided to evolve beyond with governance institutions that achieve political accountability which is antithetical to monarchy.
2
When was the last time anything useful was achieved in the United States Senate?
So long as the Lords are there, I sleep well at night. They are our bulwark against totalitarianism. Governing sixty million people's lives cannot be left entirely to the discredited, motley collection of egotistical, self-seeking show-offs in the lower chamber.
11
I think it was Churchill who said something like 'democracy is a very flawed system but it's better than anything else.' Churchill knew what he was talking about, didn't he; however, the British parliament really isn't democracy, not with appointments for life. A very bad idea, for any branch of a democratic government. Theirs and ours.
4
Our unelected Supreme Court wields far greater power.
16
Well, yes and no. Yes, the court can overturn acts of Congress, just like the president can veto one of their bills and the Congress can override his veto. Congress has the power to change some things the court can hear or address thus limiting the judges' power. The SCOTUS also has little real power to enforce some of its rulings. It's called checks and balances.
The unelected Lords is made up exactly as was the Senate of the ancient Roman Republic. And as in Commons' ultimate dominance, the Roman Assembly could override the Senate. Rare, but it happened.
2
It might be interesting to take a look at some of the more modern 'democracies' around the world rather than focusing on the problems facing the long established and ancient.
Having lived in both the UK and US it is clear both systems have massive problems. From our perspective here in the US I seriously doubt we can learn anything from the UK system (IMO, and I concede I could be wrong), on the other hand I seriously suspect we might be able to learn something (if only we are willing) from... well, take your choice.
None of these newer 'democratic systems' are perfect, but a father should not discount the possibility of learning from a son.
Who knows, if the Brits ever get their act together with genuine democratic reform (fat chance, again IMO) they might just leapfrog over our system here- if not the Brits, then very possibly the Scots if and when the time comes that they achieve full independence.
Just my thoughts...
Having lived in both the UK and US it is clear both systems have massive problems. From our perspective here in the US I seriously doubt we can learn anything from the UK system (IMO, and I concede I could be wrong), on the other hand I seriously suspect we might be able to learn something (if only we are willing) from... well, take your choice.
None of these newer 'democratic systems' are perfect, but a father should not discount the possibility of learning from a son.
Who knows, if the Brits ever get their act together with genuine democratic reform (fat chance, again IMO) they might just leapfrog over our system here- if not the Brits, then very possibly the Scots if and when the time comes that they achieve full independence.
Just my thoughts...
The difference between the UK's upper house and ours, the U.S. Senate, is that these people become life lords after demonstrating a lifetime of vigorous leadership in politics or other endeavors, whereas our senators become life lords after demonstrating a lifetime of doing nothing.
10
Which the voters can change if they would look beyond whether there is a D or an R after the Senator's name as the sole criteria when deciding to vote for him/her. The same goes for the House.
1
The 25 bishops of the Church of England have demonstrated what, exactly?
Sounds a lot like our Canadian Senate - unelected and unaccountable. Reform has been in the air for decades but it's just too tempting a gift for past political favors for any government to give up. At least we have a 75 yo age limit!
Recent scandals about fraudulent personal expenses for some arrogant Senate members with a sense of entitlement to their many perks has highlighted the need for reform. We'll see whether the new Liberal government will give up the candy basket and either abolish the upper house or make it an elective body.
Recent scandals about fraudulent personal expenses for some arrogant Senate members with a sense of entitlement to their many perks has highlighted the need for reform. We'll see whether the new Liberal government will give up the candy basket and either abolish the upper house or make it an elective body.
3
reading this, and that Peers are supposedly appointed/selected as the residual collectors of political wisdom to act as a check on MPs, who are biased by the idiocy of the voters; i wonder how true that is. I see a peer reviewed (odd choice of meanings here) paper in this (i assume there are peer reviewed political papers in England--i read the science papers and they are quite good, and there's a lot of new stuff on Shakespeare, but with a gay bent, which is generally about trying to find some serious intent in the running joke in the plays of the women being played by men, sort of like analyzing the song "Maria" from West Side Story for Hispanic meaning rather than romance). The paper would test the general knowledge of the voters and MPs against that of the Peers on some, or several, issues, both obscure and in the limelight. My guess is the voters would know as much or more. A second consideration would be the age of the voters.
There is no mention by the writer of direct democracy, which is being tried on a limited basis in the UK. As this is easily possible now, one would think this would represent looking to the future, instead of backwards to the House of Lords.
Why are there no Jewish bishops appointed; or Unitarians or Buddhists? Do the women Peers, which i assume are about 50%, wear wigs? The doo-dads on the backs of the Peer's chairs (which can be seen at Arundel) would make good next-level-treasures-sought in a computer fantasy game--something to work on.
There is no mention by the writer of direct democracy, which is being tried on a limited basis in the UK. As this is easily possible now, one would think this would represent looking to the future, instead of backwards to the House of Lords.
Why are there no Jewish bishops appointed; or Unitarians or Buddhists? Do the women Peers, which i assume are about 50%, wear wigs? The doo-dads on the backs of the Peer's chairs (which can be seen at Arundel) would make good next-level-treasures-sought in a computer fantasy game--something to work on.
Our Supreme Court -- largely become an unelected legislative body -- is not much better. It can reinterpret any law to mean what it -- rather than the original writers -- wish it to say. Or, it can declare the law "unconstitutional" and ban it from existence.
Then there is our Senate. With two Senators from each state, regardless of population, citizens of Wyoming have something like 73 times the individual representation of citizens from California. That body has the power to block any legislation that affects our entire nation.
Then there is our Senate. With two Senators from each state, regardless of population, citizens of Wyoming have something like 73 times the individual representation of citizens from California. That body has the power to block any legislation that affects our entire nation.
13
If the Senate were apportioned the same as the House, based on population, then smaller states (like Pennsylvania which has 18 House seats, less than half of California's) would in essence have no power or representation. California and a few large states would then have undue influence in the final outcome of everything and the small states with only one member might as well pack up and go home.
I had to laugh at the thought experiment that asks us to imagine one of Obamas proposals being gutted because "elected representatives had bowed to the will of an unelected elite," as if that were some unheard of oddity. Ha! The argument would have been more compelling if Britain had been compared to a functional democracy.
8
Britain's Democratic system is amazing. It shows how historical institutions can evolve but simultaneously maintain tradition.
The sovereignty of the nation radiates from a monarch, yet traditional powers have completely been circumscribed by democratic process. It maintains cultural identity and history, it deals with issues in the modern day, and when the tyranny of the majority oversteps its bounds a former elitist organization steps in to protect the populace?
Absolutely amazing! Good for the House of Lords! They have at last proved that they can act for the common good! I am positive this is rare, indeed. Yet democratic processes often are as corrupt and aristocratic as the legacies they were meant to replace.
That is why the UK should respect its traditions and its form of government. I would personally be very disappointed the day I found out that the UK became as boring and as absurd as the US. We have no right to claim our system has produced a better result.
The sovereignty of the nation radiates from a monarch, yet traditional powers have completely been circumscribed by democratic process. It maintains cultural identity and history, it deals with issues in the modern day, and when the tyranny of the majority oversteps its bounds a former elitist organization steps in to protect the populace?
Absolutely amazing! Good for the House of Lords! They have at last proved that they can act for the common good! I am positive this is rare, indeed. Yet democratic processes often are as corrupt and aristocratic as the legacies they were meant to replace.
That is why the UK should respect its traditions and its form of government. I would personally be very disappointed the day I found out that the UK became as boring and as absurd as the US. We have no right to claim our system has produced a better result.
8
You've got it in one.
2
Bow you trades men, bow you masses, bow you lower middle classes
2
Er.... I think you've missed the point. They make the lower house members bow, in order to protect the masses.
2
Since the ruling party in a parliamentary system can essentially do whatever it wants, given that the majority of Parliament and the Prime Minister are always of the same party, the House of Lords acts as a necessary check on runaway initiatives.
9
Largely true. But in the final analysis you would find that the country will stand with the sovereign, not the government. Forget ye not the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and all the royal army regiments. 'Soldiers of the Queen', my lad.
1
This is how it works most of the time, but there is always the no-confidence motion in extreme cases. Being able to get rid of an unpopular government at any time is a major strength of the British Constitution that I hope the Fixed Term Parliaments Act won't eliminate.
The House of Lords is extremely effective. It does as it was meant to, and the only problem is that it was mucked up by that vile war criminal Tony Blair when he removed the rights and privileges of the hereditary Lords in favor of political hacks with life peerages. The hereditary Lords Temporal, along with the Lords Spiritual, were and should once again be the most marvelously random agglomeration of British citizens, beholden to neither the electorate nor their own parties, and generally in close communion with the seats to which their titles are attached. They were demonstrably less corruptible and more in touch than the Commons - which rightly has greater power as an elected body - but very much more genuinely democratic because of what is now the highly random nature of Peers. Most MPs have similar backgrounds, especially educationally and politically. The Peers, most of whom have titles but not the land or wealth that once suggested are, ironically, a less uniform and more
authentic representation of Britain. In combination with a smaller cadre of life peers than we have now, they made the House of Lords a sober chamber of second thought unparalleled in any other democratic nation. It is unfortunate Blair chose to damage the institution. It would be criminal if Cameron allowed himself to be goaded into damaging it further. Rather, he should R oll back Blair's pointless reforms, but he dare not as the Lords is a more docile body now.
authentic representation of Britain. In combination with a smaller cadre of life peers than we have now, they made the House of Lords a sober chamber of second thought unparalleled in any other democratic nation. It is unfortunate Blair chose to damage the institution. It would be criminal if Cameron allowed himself to be goaded into damaging it further. Rather, he should R oll back Blair's pointless reforms, but he dare not as the Lords is a more docile body now.
2
I am surprised at you sir! You point out that reform of the House of Lords was clearly necessary over a century ago, but as W.S. Gilbert wrote, "It so happens that if there is an institution in Great Britain which is not susceptible of any improvement at all, it is the House of Peers." Here, Here!
There, there!
1
Actually, it's Hear, hear!"
Why did anybody ever think a senate was a good idea for Britain? Bicameral legislatures are bad constitutional design, all an Upper House does is make it harder to get things done and muddy up accountability by making it harder for voters to tell who was responsible for what. Unicameral parliamentary systems are the best type of government that has been tried, all countries that don't have such a system should try to get one, and countries already thus blessed shouldn't mess with the good thing they have.
4
"Imagine President Obama introducing a controversial welfare proposal that quickly became the contentious subject of many columns and talk shows — but was approved, nonetheless, by Congress."
... if not, just before, stopped by a filibuster in the senate. The US political life is full of undemocratic blockades after all democratic hurdles have been overcome: after majorities in both houses and the president have agreed, a large minority of senators and the Supreme Court can still stop the bill or its realization. Compared with that, England has the better accountability, the buck stops in the House of Commons.
... if not, just before, stopped by a filibuster in the senate. The US political life is full of undemocratic blockades after all democratic hurdles have been overcome: after majorities in both houses and the president have agreed, a large minority of senators and the Supreme Court can still stop the bill or its realization. Compared with that, England has the better accountability, the buck stops in the House of Commons.
3
Imagine. Just imagine.
Is this so different from the US Congress many members of which owe their presence in office to the deep pocketbooks of a handful of billionaire individuals and corporations?
7
Right, because when you go to the polls on election day you don't vote for who you want, but stop and ask, "Hmmm, who do the Koch brothers or George Soros say I should vote for...I must obey as I have no choice."
The United States senate is peculiar too. States like California and New York with huge populations have the same number of representatives as states like Wyoming and Alaska with tiny populations. And don't get me started on the Electoral College.
1
The House of Lords: is it really wise to dis a peer?
The US system has far more checks and balances built in. The President and the two parts of Congress are separately elected, on separate schedules. The Supreme Court has a 200 year tradition of Constitutional review.
Britain does not have those things. There is one election to one house, the leader of which is Prime Minister. Unless his party revolts, he is near a dictator. Britain once had conventions of Cabinet responsibility as a check on the PM, but Blair greatly reduced that. The courts are no independent in the same way, except the highest court, which is also the Lords.
In Britain, an entirely unelected but broadly based Establishment in the Lords is the only real check on the PM. A check on power is vital.
While they are not elected, they are appointed over time in a variety of ways by elected officials, the variety meant to represent British accomplishment by their outstanding people. The US Supreme Court has a similar source and goal. True, some aristocrats get in, and some political hacks, but the majority do manage to be people who have real respect from the voters, as much as our Supreme Court anyway.
The British have and need the House of Lords because they don't have anything better. "Reform" that means the Prime Minister gets unchecked power is not real reform, it is the absolute power that leads to certain abuse.
Britain does not have those things. There is one election to one house, the leader of which is Prime Minister. Unless his party revolts, he is near a dictator. Britain once had conventions of Cabinet responsibility as a check on the PM, but Blair greatly reduced that. The courts are no independent in the same way, except the highest court, which is also the Lords.
In Britain, an entirely unelected but broadly based Establishment in the Lords is the only real check on the PM. A check on power is vital.
While they are not elected, they are appointed over time in a variety of ways by elected officials, the variety meant to represent British accomplishment by their outstanding people. The US Supreme Court has a similar source and goal. True, some aristocrats get in, and some political hacks, but the majority do manage to be people who have real respect from the voters, as much as our Supreme Court anyway.
The British have and need the House of Lords because they don't have anything better. "Reform" that means the Prime Minister gets unchecked power is not real reform, it is the absolute power that leads to certain abuse.
7
Prime Ministers aren't dictators. They can be deposed in a minute. The US system, with its electoral college, is corrupted and corruptible, not to mention undemocratic. So is the House of Lords. But really, for all your checks and balances, how is your system of government working out for you?
1
In the U.S., the people cast a vote for a presidential candidate; their state's electors are chosen based on the vote of the people and the state's laws concerning the selection of electors. In a close election, this has on occasion resulted in the election of a presidential candidate who did not win a plurality of the popular vote, but the same can happen in a Parliamentary system, where the only people who vote directly for the person who eventually becomes Prime Minister are the members of his/her party and voters in his/her constituency, and the party with the most seats is not necessarily the one that received the most votes. Those who criticize the electoral college as undemocratic by comparison seem not to understand this.
The will of the people, while democratic, is not necessary legitimate. The purpose of the Lords, as pointed out, is to provide wisdom, experience and specialist knowledge, which can put breaks to legislation written by the Lower House of Parliament with the support of the majority of the people, but to the detriment, freedom and liberties of the minority; that is, to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
In fact, this isn't too different from the United States. The Supreme Court is a nine-member club, none of them elected by the people, all of them serving for life. This unelected body uses their members' wisdom and knowledge to uphold the Constitution and prevent a tyranny of the majority by the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
The nomination of a Supreme Court Justice by the President and approval by the Senate is one of, if not the most, important decision a President and Senate make, that can influence the life of Americans for multiple generations.
In fact, this isn't too different from the United States. The Supreme Court is a nine-member club, none of them elected by the people, all of them serving for life. This unelected body uses their members' wisdom and knowledge to uphold the Constitution and prevent a tyranny of the majority by the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
The nomination of a Supreme Court Justice by the President and approval by the Senate is one of, if not the most, important decision a President and Senate make, that can influence the life of Americans for multiple generations.
36
Supreme Court members are generally distinguished jurists and academics, and the Supreme Court is on equal footing with the other two branches of government. The House of Lords is neither of these. It seems pretty much useless. Probably abolishing it makes the most sense. It has no purpose and isn't accountable.
Without the Lords, whatever would Robert Crawley give as an excuse for running up to London?
Beyond that, consider this: if the U.S. still respected hereditary titles and had its own version of the Lords, we wouldn’t need to deal with Ted Cruz, who hasn’t distinguished himself in ANY way OTHER than getting elected to the U.S. Senate; but we’d probably have to listen to The Donald, who has.
Beyond that, consider this: if the U.S. still respected hereditary titles and had its own version of the Lords, we wouldn’t need to deal with Ted Cruz, who hasn’t distinguished himself in ANY way OTHER than getting elected to the U.S. Senate; but we’d probably have to listen to The Donald, who has.
6
Mr D'Ancona, imagine that your PM, Mr. Cameron, decided that he was going to completely control an aspect of Britain's laws, say immigration, without
bothering to consult with the Commons at all. One man gets to decide everything. Then you would have the situation we now have on the other side of the pond. Your Queen has no real authority at all, but our self anointed
emperor (think Napoleon) has decided that he can rule without Congress
(with the help of court jester Harry Reid. I would prefer a body with some power over such a leader.
bothering to consult with the Commons at all. One man gets to decide everything. Then you would have the situation we now have on the other side of the pond. Your Queen has no real authority at all, but our self anointed
emperor (think Napoleon) has decided that he can rule without Congress
(with the help of court jester Harry Reid. I would prefer a body with some power over such a leader.
How can a country without a constitution have a "constitutional dinosaur"?
10
Britain has a constitution. This needs to be pointed out since you are clearly not joking when you make such an outrageous and ignorant comment. Britain's constitution is one of precedent, consisting of all the various laws made up to this point, with those that override or supersede the obsolete ones taking precedence. The British constitution can therefore be adaptable, unlike a single codified document allowed to become a husk of itself, venerated like a sacred cow despite being obsolete. Interestingly, one of the documents that makes up the British constitution is the Act of 1688 completing the Glorious Revoultion, which put William and Mary on the throne, and upon which the US Constitution - especially the Bill of Rights - is almost entirely based and only mildly modifies.
5
No, we have a constitution. The trouble is that we don't know what it really is until the wise-heads have scoured centuries of precedent, mulled it over and delivered a judgment; waited for and dealt with the disagreements; issued a ruling; and maybe had a referendum. Sometimes I actually think we don't know what we are doing. But generally we get to a consensus in the end. Our place in Europe is currently on the agenda. At least it's nice to be wanted.
4
The UK does have a constitution, it's just not codified in one document
3
True, the House of Lords is a bastion of clubby cronyism. But at least the Lords are not spending all their time selling their souls for millions in campaign contributions.
36
No, they're out spending their taxpayer-furnished stipends on cocaine and hookers:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174689/Lord-Snorty-Blair-crony-...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174689/Lord-Snorty-Blair-crony-...
1
Amen, exclent point.
Less than 10% of the US population can be represented by 41 Senators elected with notionally 5.01% voting for them, if turnout was 100% of those eligible, which doesn't happen. So tiny numbers of Republicans in states with tiny populations can and do use the US Senate, with its arcane rules, to thwart the democratic process. Guns, health care, abortion, death penalty, climate change, evolution, immigration; name the issue and find the forces of radical reaction wildly over represented and, to the continual shame of everyone else, putting the US socially on par with ISIS rather than the rest of the civilised world.
Give me the very introspective and self-controlled Lords any day for occasionally making the (minority elected) 'majority' government of Osborne and Cameron step back and re-think one of their more careless, needless and heartless Tory policies (which not only was not in last year's manifesto, but which they explicitly promised NOT to do).
Give me the very introspective and self-controlled Lords any day for occasionally making the (minority elected) 'majority' government of Osborne and Cameron step back and re-think one of their more careless, needless and heartless Tory policies (which not only was not in last year's manifesto, but which they explicitly promised NOT to do).
38
steve - By Jove, you've got it; the Senate filibuster rules over ride everything else in our democracy's machinery, and you correctly point out the tiny tiny number of voters whose Senators can obstruct. But it's even worse than it seems: there are 10 individual counties (=20 shared Senators) in the U.S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_populous_counties_in_the_...
with larger populations than the 15 least populous states (=30 Senators):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_pop...
combining with the arcane Senate filibuster rules to make utter mockery of the Founders' intended representative democracy. All special interests need do is make sure they can count on the votes of the smallest 15 states's Senators, then they only need to pick up an additional 10 Senators' votes in order to control the country's agenda :(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_populous_counties_in_the_...
with larger populations than the 15 least populous states (=30 Senators):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_pop...
combining with the arcane Senate filibuster rules to make utter mockery of the Founders' intended representative democracy. All special interests need do is make sure they can count on the votes of the smallest 15 states's Senators, then they only need to pick up an additional 10 Senators' votes in order to control the country's agenda :(
1
Mr. D'Ancona. You make two key points here.
'In the Lords, Parliament has not a senate, but a distinguished annex, full of wisdom, experience and specialist knowledge. It can obstruct the Commons, but the Commons wins in the end. If Mr. Osborne wanted to force the issue, there are various procedural tools he could use.' and;
'Yes, the system is indefensible — apart from the fact that, most of the time, it works.'
I say leave it alone. Perhaps we need to change the way that members are appointed via an independent body perhaps and remove the clergy. But lets ensure we retain wisdom, experience and specialist knowledge in our government. We certainly won't do that if we throw it open to the voters to decide.
'In the Lords, Parliament has not a senate, but a distinguished annex, full of wisdom, experience and specialist knowledge. It can obstruct the Commons, but the Commons wins in the end. If Mr. Osborne wanted to force the issue, there are various procedural tools he could use.' and;
'Yes, the system is indefensible — apart from the fact that, most of the time, it works.'
I say leave it alone. Perhaps we need to change the way that members are appointed via an independent body perhaps and remove the clergy. But lets ensure we retain wisdom, experience and specialist knowledge in our government. We certainly won't do that if we throw it open to the voters to decide.
16
Hear! Hear!
When I was young, I was all for removing constitutional monarchy in the UK (and I suppose in some ways, the so seeming anachronistic House of Lords). The monarchy (and the House of Lords) confirm unearned, inherited privilege. Down with unearned inherited privilege!!
Older now, and I hope, wiser, I'm far less certain I would do away with both. This system of constitutional monarchy and the house of lords actually works in so far as providing stability is concerned. Some might argue stability equals stagnancy. I disagree. I think stability allows it's citizens to operate in a transparent and predictable environment. The good of the nation is the winner here.
I shudder to think of a politicial system that gets gridlock like the USA where people like Donald Trump or Ben Carson or Chris Christie or Carly Fiorina or anyone else running as the Republican party candidate for presidency might actually have a chance of getting elected (Sarah Palin anyone?) Or a french system where the President and Prime Minister can fight over everything. Give me QEII and a House of Lords comprising wise people from all walks of life, who can't at the end of the day, block legislation but have the bully pulpit to be heard should they argue against a particular change of policy. and ask the government of the day to re-consider their approach or policy.
When I was young, I was all for removing constitutional monarchy in the UK (and I suppose in some ways, the so seeming anachronistic House of Lords). The monarchy (and the House of Lords) confirm unearned, inherited privilege. Down with unearned inherited privilege!!
Older now, and I hope, wiser, I'm far less certain I would do away with both. This system of constitutional monarchy and the house of lords actually works in so far as providing stability is concerned. Some might argue stability equals stagnancy. I disagree. I think stability allows it's citizens to operate in a transparent and predictable environment. The good of the nation is the winner here.
I shudder to think of a politicial system that gets gridlock like the USA where people like Donald Trump or Ben Carson or Chris Christie or Carly Fiorina or anyone else running as the Republican party candidate for presidency might actually have a chance of getting elected (Sarah Palin anyone?) Or a french system where the President and Prime Minister can fight over everything. Give me QEII and a House of Lords comprising wise people from all walks of life, who can't at the end of the day, block legislation but have the bully pulpit to be heard should they argue against a particular change of policy. and ask the government of the day to re-consider their approach or policy.
2
In the UK, friends of the governing party are appointed to the House of Lords. In the US, they are appointed to executive positions in agencies like FEMA, where they do a "heck of a job" serving the public interest, at least until some executive skills are actually needed.
Each system has pluses and minuses. No country has solved this problem entirely...
Each system has pluses and minuses. No country has solved this problem entirely...
14
What Mr. d'Ancona seems to be suggesting is similar to the Japanese House of Councillors. I think that would be the logical evolution. But given that a second house seems to run contrary to the parliamentary system, and the current House of Lords bears little resemblance to its earlier self, what is the point?
Why not do away with the House of Lords altogether, or keep it as a powerless body of tradition like the monarchy? Maybe even bring back the hereditary peers so tourists can get a better feel of Ye Olde Britainne.
Why not do away with the House of Lords altogether, or keep it as a powerless body of tradition like the monarchy? Maybe even bring back the hereditary peers so tourists can get a better feel of Ye Olde Britainne.
3
It's the UK, okay?
Cheers!
Cheers!
2
As sentient beings, Americans do not have to imagine elected representatives bowing to the will of an “unelected elite.” We see it every day; the unelected elite are the lobbyists hired by America’s own entrenched aristocracy. Good luck with your problems as we address our own.
85
The US unelected elites are the big money donors who vet our candidates, pick the nominees we vote for and direct the limits of party platforms.
What is the role of big money in UK elections? Their last election campaign was only about 3 months long, so they saved billions that we waste for almost 2 years with media hoop la reporting the latest candidate picks by the super rich.
The Times reported that 158 families In the US donate the most to the campaigns. How many families donate in the UK and how much? Yet we call the US a democracy since we have universal voting rights. Ye In our democracy we still don't have universal health care, which the UK started in 1945.
What are the differences in campaign financing UK vs US? And what about our huge fees to media companies for political commercials? How does that work over there? Good topic for an op ed contributor.
What is the role of big money in UK elections? Their last election campaign was only about 3 months long, so they saved billions that we waste for almost 2 years with media hoop la reporting the latest candidate picks by the super rich.
The Times reported that 158 families In the US donate the most to the campaigns. How many families donate in the UK and how much? Yet we call the US a democracy since we have universal voting rights. Ye In our democracy we still don't have universal health care, which the UK started in 1945.
What are the differences in campaign financing UK vs US? And what about our huge fees to media companies for political commercials? How does that work over there? Good topic for an op ed contributor.
1
And yet, because of all the commotion and humiliation, Mr. Cameron has threatened to stuff the House of Lords with enough of his own to avoid such humiliation in the future.
1
But a lot of them change colour when they sit on the red benches. And so they might, because their purpose has changed. They are now upper - not lower.
For 125 years, until 1913, the US Senate was appointed by State Legislatures. It consisted of political crones, distinguished elders and battle worn generals , et al. It was hardly a bastion of democratic polity , and yet it served as a moderating influence on the lusts of the lower house, as it was intended by the founders. Political change should be an incremental thing; bearing the scars and brands of eager debate and the mellowing effect barrel aging.
13
Or stagnation like a stinking pond.
4
UNICAMERAL The description of Britain's bicameral government functioning as unicameral is causing great hardship.
Sadly, Britain is not the only place that has, in functional terms, a unicameral legislation. The only accurate way to describe the House in the US Congress is gridlocked. So while the Senate may be willing to collaborate across the aisle--to work with comity as mandated--the House brings the processes of legislation and governance to a screeching halt. Screeching because of the unending wailing, moaning and groaning on the House that they can't get the Senate to give in to its infantile tantrums. The word "brat" comes to mind, but that would be disrespectful toward elected legislators. So please, dear reader, understand that the four letter "b" word in this commentary does NOT refer to the House. To me it is startling that officials of the House, elected to legislate and govern, consider doing the jobs they're paid to do because they can't dictate to both houses. Whither justice? Whither logic? Whither adult deportment? I won't hold my breath waiting for any answers. After all, I'm one of those hopeless lost spirits who does not see the true light and the true spirit. No, I think that the House extremists are far to full of themselves, hot air and foul effluvia both for their own good and the good of the nation.
Sadly, Britain is not the only place that has, in functional terms, a unicameral legislation. The only accurate way to describe the House in the US Congress is gridlocked. So while the Senate may be willing to collaborate across the aisle--to work with comity as mandated--the House brings the processes of legislation and governance to a screeching halt. Screeching because of the unending wailing, moaning and groaning on the House that they can't get the Senate to give in to its infantile tantrums. The word "brat" comes to mind, but that would be disrespectful toward elected legislators. So please, dear reader, understand that the four letter "b" word in this commentary does NOT refer to the House. To me it is startling that officials of the House, elected to legislate and govern, consider doing the jobs they're paid to do because they can't dictate to both houses. Whither justice? Whither logic? Whither adult deportment? I won't hold my breath waiting for any answers. After all, I'm one of those hopeless lost spirits who does not see the true light and the true spirit. No, I think that the House extremists are far to full of themselves, hot air and foul effluvia both for their own good and the good of the nation.
10
A system where one party gets 37% of the actual votes and has a majority of seats in the legislature cannot be properly called a modern democracy.
25
Then the US isn't a modern democracy because the same thing could easily happen here if there were a 3rd or 4th viable national party.
Start a viable 3rd national party and prove it to me.
Here in the US, we have an outmoded anachronism as well, the US Senate. Created largely to serve the interests of early American bankers and capitalists, the US Senate is a completely unnecessary appendage that mainly serves the interests of the richest Americans. The Senate is the official branch of government that exists to serve the top 1% or richer fraction of society, and it has the power to block executive appointments, halt important legislation, and stop the House of Representatives, which in principal should be the populist counter to the executive, dead in its tracks.
If the US abolished the Senate tomorrow, the consequences to the broad population would be: precisely nil and void.
At least in Britain - a nation I can't admire much, as it becomes a true surveillance state yoked by overweening political correctness - the House of Lords, by all accounts, doesn't have the power of the US Senate to let the richest be over-represented further.
If the US abolished the Senate tomorrow, the consequences to the broad population would be: precisely nil and void.
At least in Britain - a nation I can't admire much, as it becomes a true surveillance state yoked by overweening political correctness - the House of Lords, by all accounts, doesn't have the power of the US Senate to let the richest be over-represented further.
2
CAF, the U.S. House exists to give the people equal representation - we can argue whether it is serving its purpose of equally representing the people of America.
The Senate, on the other hand, exists to provide equal representation of the States. Each State, no matter how big or small, elects two members to the Senate. The States of Wyoming or Delaware, two of the least populous states in the nation, have the same representation in the Senate as New York, Texas or California, with very large populations.
It is important that this isn't changed so that everyone knows the rules of the game, and those aren't subject to change by any one group of people.
The Senate, on the other hand, exists to provide equal representation of the States. Each State, no matter how big or small, elects two members to the Senate. The States of Wyoming or Delaware, two of the least populous states in the nation, have the same representation in the Senate as New York, Texas or California, with very large populations.
It is important that this isn't changed so that everyone knows the rules of the game, and those aren't subject to change by any one group of people.
3
If the U.S. Senate, with its curious rules regarding filibusters, individual senator perquisites and home-state advantage in accepting judicial nominees, DIDN'T exist in the current environment, then with the House of Representatives we have ObamaCare would be repealed in five minutes, the rest of our unsustainable healthcare entitlements would be fundamentally reformed in ten minutes, and Barack Obama would be both impeached AND convicted in fifteen minutes.
STILL sure you don't like the U.S. Senate?
STILL sure you don't like the U.S. Senate?
1
Why not eliminate the Lords and the Monarchy all together? Allow them to be historical reenactors to promote the tourist trade if they wish. But, let them do it without power and on their own dime or shilling or whatever.
15
i always love how americans are so quick to tell the Brits how they should eliminate their system of government that has been evolving on a practical basis since at least 1290 and maybe longer. they'll work it out as they want to.
28
Well, the government should subsidize them. Tourists love the Ye Olde Britainne shtick. Imagine the plunge in the tourist economy if the tourists can't take selfies while harassing the Guards.
1
Imagine this: President Cameron...doesn't have quite the draw as the current British monarch who has dutifully reigned for longer than the vast majority of us have been alive. Americans always seem to know what's best for other countries!
1