NationStates Jolt Archive

This Thread is mainly aimed at UK posters, but non-Uk Posters are welcome and will probably provide some interesting perspective/

The Second Mandate System is a way to make the British legislature more democratic. The Second Chamber becomes wholly elected. It is made up by calculating the vote share of each party. eg. If Labour get 30% of the popular vote, then they get 30% of the seats. There is no minimum amount needed. So even extremist parties might get in, but since the House lacks any power to propose legitslation, they will remain largely powerless.

The benefits are that it makes the government more representative of the electorate, more transparent. And will help reduce the democratic deficit in the government.

However its biggest strength is also its biggest weakness. The cornerstone of the British constitution is parliamentary soveriegnty, and parliament cannot be sovereign if the upper house has more legitimacy to rule.

I doubt it will be inplemented, even though Lord Falconer is considering it. This is because no PM (or a rare one), will willingly clip their own wings by reducing their power in such a way. Blair has already shown that his idea of Lords reform is a 100% appointed house, where each parliamentary party is alotted a percentage of the upper house that is the same as the percentage of the Commons party.

Anyway, my original post was much longer, but the server ate it :evil:

::bump::

Hmm. I voted against the proposal (I'm American, BTW).

Before the U.S. Constitution was amended to have direct popular election of the Senate in 1913, each state legislature appointed its two Senators. If I remember correctly, it was done to prevent the people from having too much power to decide their government (the Founding Fathers apparently didn't trust most of the rank and file populace to be able to decide intelligently enough).

I'm not sure it's possible to make radical changes to the configuration of Parliament without therefore making radical changes in the character of the government as a whole. That may or may not be something you'd want to have happen. It sounds to me like you want your cake (ie, having a "monarchy") and you want to eat it too (ie, having a full-fledged democracy). Then again, I could simply be a bloody wanker who knows nothing of British tradition.

Incidentally, when I drew up the Sarzonian constitution, I blended some of the things from the U.S. Constitution when I determined how to set up my own parliament. I had the Senate appointed by the state governors and approved by the legislature (and my capital's mayor and city council doing the same for the city), but I had the Senate be the LOWER house. My House of Delegates is the UPPER house and it's directly elected by the people.

Hmm. I voted against the proposal (I'm American, BTW).

Before the U.S. Constitution was amended to have direct popular election of the Senate in 1913, each state legislature appointed its two Senators. If I remember correctly, it was done to prevent the people from having too much power to decide their government (the Founding Fathers apparently didn't trust most of the rank and file populace to be able to decide intelligently enough).

Interesting fact, thanks. As I was taught it, the Founding Fathers were afraid of 'Mobocracy,' which is why the US also has institutions like the Electoral College.

But I am for the SMS because at the moment the legitslature is in no way representative of the electorate. First Past the Post (FPTP), amplifies the victors majority. At the last election Labout took about 34% of the vote share, yet took 70% od the commons seats. I have nothing particuarly against this, but I think that those disenfranchised by FPTP should be able to be heard, and the way to do this is to have the SMS.


I'm not sure it's possible to make radical changes to the configuration of Parliament without therefore making radical changes in the character of the government as a whole. That may or may not be something you'd want to have happen. It sounds to me like you want your cake (ie, having a "monarchy") and you want to eat it too (ie, having a full-fledged democracy). Then again, I could simply be a bloody wanker who knows nothing of British tradition.

Well, you obviously know enough about Britain to use the word wanker.

Anyway. I guess you found this on the monarchy thread. In which case you should know that I want Britian to be a Republic, so it is not a case of having my cake and eating it. If you didn't go to the Monarchy thread then I apologise.

I realise that the legitslature cannot be reformed so radically without altering the the configuration of the whole system. Again, this does not bother me. I believe that it is nessasary.

Well what ever your views on reform to the Lords i think its fair to say most would agree Tony Blair has managed to make a mess of it.

I am in favour of an appointed seocnd house. After all its main aim is the Scrutinise laws and it therefor helps to have a House of Lords made up of experts in there fields, such as Dr Wintson for example. There are alsoe expert politicians there as well.

I am also in favour of the Law Lords remaining. Many argue we should seperate the legislaure from the judicary but i think its helpful to have the judiciary able to point out flaws in legislation

Yes i agree FPTP has many flaws but i still favour it above most other forms of voting who have as many disadvantages as FPTP.

Well what ever your views on reform to the Lords i think its fair to say most would agree Tony Blair has managed to make a mess of it.

I am in favour of an appointed seocnd house. After all its main aim is the Scrutinise laws and it therefor helps to have a House of Lords made up of experts in there fields, such as Dr Wintson for example. There are alsoe expert politicians there as well.

I admit that an appointed House does have its merits. And although I can see the advantaces of having experts in Government, it seems too technocratic for me to support it. Also, another resevation I have about an appointed House is that, who will appoint it?

You can hardly trust the current crop of politicians to be fair. Anyway, parties can easily put experts on their party lists, and since it is almost assured that every party will have a seat there, it will still be able to scrutinize legitslation properly and fairly (moreso than an appointed house imo).

I am also in favour of the Law Lords remaining. Many argue we should seperate the legislaure from the judicary but i think its helpful to have the judiciary able to point out flaws in legislation.

Law lords aren't the only ones with knowledge of the Law.

Yes i agree FPTP has many flaws but i still favour it above most other forms of voting who have as many disadvantages as FPTP.

The SMS keeps the FPTP system btw.

bump.

If the Second Mandtes System, as it seems proposes a powerless and meaningless branch of the government, which is what I took from your post, why even discuss it? What's the point?

The Second Mandate System is a way to make the British legislature more democratic. The Second Chamber becomes wholly elected. It is made up by calculating the vote share of each party. eg. If Labour get 30% of the popular vote, then they get 30% of the seats. There is no minimum amount needed. So even extremist parties might get in, but since the House lacks any power to propose legitslation, they will remain largely powerless.

The SMS keeps the FPTP system btw.

What you're suggesting is proportional representation (PR). Surely PR and FPTP are mutually exclusive?

You have to remember that the House of Lords in its current form is quite independent. Party whips have little control and there is a large amount of cross bench independent Lords. Electing them would likely cut, if not rid there numbers completely.
Secondly if you consider the main job of the Lords is to scrutinse legislation that the Commons doesnt have time to than it doesnt neccaserily need a mandate. By giving it a mandate you would eventually have to give it more power and this would end up with the Lords not having enough time to scrutinse either.
I would end by saying if its not broke, don't fix it. (although the hiereditaries should prob go)

The Second Mandate System is a way to make the British legislature more democratic. The Second Chamber becomes wholly elected. It is made up by calculating the vote share of each party. eg. If Labour get 30% of the popular vote, then they get 30% of the seats. There is no minimum amount needed. So even extremist parties might get in, but since the House lacks any power to propose legitslation, they will remain largely powerless.

The SMS keeps the FPTP system btw.

What you're suggesting is proportional representation (PR). Surely PR and FPTP are mutually exclusive?

One election. For two House of Parliament. The Common's compasition is calculated by FPTP, the second Chambers composition is calulated using PR.

Easy. ;)

You have to remember that the House of Lords in its current form is quite independent. Party whips have little control and there is a large amount of cross bench independent Lords. Electing them would likely cut, if not rid there numbers completely.

But Lords reform is half done. It needs to be finished. I admit that a lot of independent peers would go (which is one of my biggest reservations with the system).

Secondly if you consider the main job of the Lords is to scrutinse legislation that the Commons doesnt have time to than it doesnt neccaserily need a mandate.

But why should unelected politicians be able to wreck legitslation passed by a democratically elected Commons?

By giving it a mandate you would eventually have to give it more power and this would end up with the Lords not having enough time to scrutinse either.

Howso?

I would end by saying if its not broke, don't fix it. (although the hiereditaries should prob go)

Of course this is a subjective term. You do not believe it is broke. However I think it is.

If the Second Mandtes System, as it seems proposes a powerless and meaningless branch of the government, which is what I took from your post, why even discuss it? What's the point?

It would turn a near powerless branch of the government into a democratically elected near powerless meaningless branch of the Government.

Or we could have no second chamber like Sweden (if I remember rightly), who ever due to the nature of FPTP I think it would very dangerous to not have a house of review.