• wewbull
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    10 days ago

    As a long term LibDem voter, mainly because of PR, this is one of the few issues I disagree on.

    Another elected house isn’t desirable and I’m generally fine with it being a house full of experienced politicians and subject matter experts. I’d like to reform the appointment process to avoid the stuffing we’ve seen from Johnson and Truss. The Lords Spiritual should be ended as a group. I have no problem with community leaders being appointed, which may include religious leaders, but not as a fixed role in the house.

    I see all of that as fairly minor reform. Not rip it up and start again.

    • frazorth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      I think devolution of powers should be considered first. Ignore the Lords initially because they dont really matter in the grand scheme of things. When the Tories really wanted something they just submit it several times until the Lords couldn’t say no.

      We have good examples with Wales and Scotland, and so geographically we should do the same to England and split into 3 regions.

      Southeast, Southwest and North, where in this context the “south” stretches up to Nottingham. Move the Commons to either Birmingham or Leeds, and limit their powers to the overarching national policies that would normally also cover the UK. Voting for the province would be AV, and Commons would be PR or STV. Although we should probably devolve more powers, which would get more traction if we were able to have better representation.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      What if the new elected upper house worked similarly to the Australian Senate? Our House of Representatives is the same as your House of Commons (except that it uses IRV instead of the undemocratic FPTP) with single-winner districts. But the Senate uses a proportional system (STV) electing 6 Senators per state for twice the amount of time an MP is elected for. So they’re relatively less concerned about the day-to-day shifting polls than MPs are, and you get a result that’s much more representative of what the people actually want.

      In the UK context, it might be easier to sell PR in an entirely new house than it would be to update how the Commons is elected.

      • wewbull
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        That voting scheme is what I’d like to see the commons be, but I see where you’re coming from with the idea of using a second house to bring the concept in.

        On terms, I actually like the perpetual appointment aspect of the lord’s, but I do think it should have a retirement age, say 75. I think that’s one of the reasons I’m against making it an elected house because I don’t see how you make the two work together.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Personally I like the idea of a second house that is able to act as the house of review, thanks to its members having longer terms than the lower house. That’s a quality we have in Australia federally, but not in my home state of Queensland which is unicameral. It’s also something New Zealand lacks with its unicameral legislature (elected via MMP).