Welcome to UKIPland- a nightmare vision of future britain

Post Reply New Topic

We will then have an upper house that's a replica of the lower house.

It might be better to have a sortition type system rather than the hereditary peers that we have. I don't think electing the Lords is helpful.

Oh, and she might not be elected, but Brenda is popular. I bet she's more popular than that idiot that calls himself President of Ireland.

You at least have the advantage that the unelected Upper House is clearly and unambiguously subordinate to the House of Commons.

Canada's Senate has coequal power with the House of Commons, but because of its lack of electoral mandate, it has generally limited itself to constructive revision of legislation. The last public bill refused by the Senate was the attempt to write a new abortion law in the 80's.

But Australia's situation demonstrated itself to be much more dangerous. An elected Senate, with coequal powers and a legitimate electoral mandate refused supply in 1975 and brought down the Government of the day. That is, to my way of thinking, an intolerable circumstance. In a federal country, an Upper House serves an important balancing factor; but this should always be tempered with the clear an unambiguous primacy of the Lower House.

On the other hand, an unelected Head of State can be very valuable. If the Head of State and the Head of Government both have electoral mandates, stalemate can occur. The French constitution was amended to move parliamentary elections so as to minimize the likelihood of cohabitation administrations. While not directly relevant, the US budgetary deadlocks demonstrate what can happen when the legislature and the government refuse to work together.

Far from being undemocratic, the Crown has demonstrated itself to be willingly subordinate to the Advice of the Government of the Day, And I, for one, am quite happy that there is one person to whom the Prime Minister must defer when called to account.