Constitutional reform in the UK

[6th Vigil]

So i saw David Starkey on This Week last night and i though some of the ideas presented during th show quite interesting especially the notion of reducing the seats in the Commons and an elected house of lords.

Personally though i do not believe that constitutional reform is going to occur simply because the people who can institute any reforms are the most effected by them: the MPs.

What's your opinion?

[Каие]

It is currently Conservative Party policy to reduce the number of MPs by 10% and to introduce an elected Lords.

The Liberal policy is similar except they want to abolish the Lords and replace it with a Senate and have not committed to reducing MPs.

[cristophe el perno]

It is currently Conservative Party policy to reduce the number of MPs by 10% and to introduce an elected Lords.

The Liberal policy is similar except they want to abolish the Lords and replace it with a Senate and have not committed to reducing MPs.

Vince Cable was on Question Time last night, and I think he said he was OK with the idea of some level of reducation in the number of MPs.
Elected Lords would be great. Rome, I would be interested to see what sources you cite for the Lib-Dem proposal for Lords reform creating a senate, or a second house of commons as you said in another thread. Nothing I can find on their website or elswhere seems to suggest that. I may have missed something, but I'd be interested to read what you've read about this.

Also on the list for constitutional reform must be reform of the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system that we continue to use in the UK. Obviously there needs to be a debate as to what to replace it with, but I thinks it is suffice to say that the current system is undemocratic and unfair.
FPTP doesn't even neccessarily deliver the victory to the party with the most votes - in 1951, Clement Atlee's Labour Government got well over a million votes more than the Conservative opposition, but the Tories won the election nontheless.
Ted Heath got mroe votes than Harold Wilson in 1974, but Wilson won the election.

[Каие]

Vince Cable was on Question Time last night, and I think he said he was OK with the idea of some level of reducation in the number of MPs.
Elected Lords would be great. Rome, I would be interested to see what sources you cite for the Lib-Dem proposal for Lords reform creating a senate, or a second house of commons as you said in another thread. Nothing I can find on their website or elswhere seems to suggest that. I may have missed something, but I'd be interested to read what you've read about this.

It was in the Lib Dem 2005 manifesto, and the reduction of MPs isn't official Lib Dem policy, it was just Cable's idea.

Hague was on the same show, and he confirmed they would seek to reduce the number of MPs by at least 10%, and he Hague is personally in favour of an elected House of Lords, Cameron personally is in favour of a substantially elected one at least, I.e. 33% elected. So you can bet on change if the Tories win. When they win, should I say.

Also on the list for constitutional reform must be reform of the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system that we continue to use in the UK. Obviously there needs to be a debate as to what to replace it with, but I thinks it is suffice to say that the current system is undemocratic and unfair.
FPTP doesn't even neccessarily deliver the victory to the party with the most votes - in 1951, Clement Atlee's Labour Government got well over a million votes more than the Conservative opposition, but the Tories won the election nontheless.
Ted Heath got mroe votes than Harold Wilson in 1974, but Wilson won the election.

Because the British system is based on voting for your local MP in 650 mini elections. It';s who wins the MPs not the votes. Representative democracy.

Please whatever we do, lets not call it a senate. (The Americans will be telling us it was their idea!)

Seconded. The elected Lords, should be called Lord Senators like UKIP suggest. Or SPs instead of MPs. Sentators of Parliament.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I don't really believe that any significant water change has been reached.

[Desperado †]

Personally I don't want a change in the Lords in any way. Sure, in theory and principle it's an outdated idea that should be abolished. But in practice, the unelected house has been a greater protector of our civil liberties than the elected one of late.

Should a benevolent dictator be removed?

And less MP's means less representation. England deserves it's own senate, just like Wales and Scotland. Perhaps if it was given that, cuts in MP numbers would be fair.

[Yorkshireman]

Please whatever we do, lets not call it a senate. (The Americans will be telling us it was their idea!)

[Their Law]

Please whatever we do, lets not call it a senate. (The Americans will be telling us it was their idea!)

QFT


Yeah we need to have a look at the existing system, as it's been made clear recently it is lacking in certain areas. That's the tricky part though as the House of Lords does have some good quirks to it. Some of which would be lost if we transfer it to an entirely elected body.

I don't want to see it become another house of commons, riddled with party over policy decisions and party line voting...

[Fishy]

QFT


Yeah we need to have a look at the existing system, as it's been made clear recently it is lacking in certain areas. That's the tricky part though as the House of Lords does have some good quirks to it. Some of which would be lost if we transfer it to an entirely elected body.

I don't want to see it become another house of commons, riddled with party over policy decisions and party line voting...

I agree I'd be careful with that as well.

In the netherlands you have something that sort of resembles that.

You have the second chamber, which is basically like parliament our government is in there along with the opposition and they can vote on legislation, and how to run the country in same ways.

Then you have the first chamber, which is more like our house of Lords. It has the ability to overwrite any law created by the second chamber if they say it's unlegal or against the constitution or what not. After it get's through those two the Queen signs the law and we have a new one.

The problem is that some time ago, there was a debate about Referenda. The first chamber shot down the bill, not because it was illegal against the constitution or what not. But because of political idea's. If you have an elected body then it will automatically gather more publicity and more public pressure on the outcome of those votes. What they should be doing however is not bow to public pressure but bow to the laws of the nation. Personally if I were English I would probably like to keep the House of Lords even if it's undemocratic, because at least it ensures that your country is ruled and it's rulers are checked up upon by a relatively stable factor.

[Каие]

That's exactly the argument for keeping the Lords. There is though room for reform in terms of who gets to go into the Lords, who chooses, how long they stay, exactly what powers it has etc.

[cristophe el perno]

Any government which attempts to reduce the number of MPs should do so very carefully.
I find it interesting how the Tories tend to cite the link between MP and constituents as an importan arguement against any kind of PR, but they seem very happy with cutting the number of MPs, and thus making it harder for MPs to adequately represent their constituents. Reduceing the size and cost of the House of Commons is a great idea, but it would be bad for representive democracy if taken too far or done in the wrong way.
For example, if you cut the number of constituencies by 33%, or ensured that all constituencies had the same population in, you would end up with massive constituencies in rural areas, especially the Scottish Highlands or rural Wales. Even in some parts of England like Devon and Cornwall making constituencies bigger would make it very hard for our MPs to do a good job of representing us.
I'm not saying reducing the number of MPs is a bad idea, but it owuld have to be done carefully. A reducation in the number of Lords would certainly be a good thing though - there are far too many or them, most of whom don't even turn up at all regularly.

Rome, can you send me a link to the part of their manifesto you mention. As far as I can tell, the 2005 manifesto doesn't once use the word senate. That said, constitutional reform wasn't a popular issue in 2005.

[Каие]

Any government which attempts to reduce the number of MPs should do so very carefully.
I find it interesting how the Tories tend to cite the link between MP and constituents as an importan arguement against any kind of PR, but they seem very happy with cutting the number of MPs, and thus making it harder for MPs to adequately represent their constituents. Reduceing the size and cost of the House of Commons is a great idea, but it would be bad for representive democracy if taken too far or done in the wrong way.
For example, if you cut the number of constituencies by 33%, or ensured that all constituencies had the same population in, you would end up with massive constituencies in rural areas, especially the Scottish Highlands or rural Wales. Even in some parts of England like Devon and Cornwall making constituencies bigger would make it very hard for our MPs to do a good job of representing us.
I'm not saying reducing the number of MPs is a bad idea, but it owuld have to be done carefully. A reducation in the number of Lords would certainly be a good thing though - there are far too many or them, most of whom don't even turn up at all regularly.

What you say is true, but having more equal constituencies, and bigger ones which are more varied in population, there will be less safe seats. If there are more marginal seats, MPs will spend more time in their constituency helping out as it is harder for them to win so easily.

Rome, can you send me a link to the part of their manifesto you mention. As far as I can tell, the 2005 manifesto doesn't once use the word senate. That said, constitutional reform wasn't a popular issue in 2005.

Well the Liberal Democrat one, I can't find the original manifesto, but this link outlines their view.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/393672.stm

The Liberal Democrats are another party whose desire to radically reform the House of Lords goes back a long way. They were the last government to seriously reform the House of Lords when the passed the 1911 Parliament Act, which dramatically reduced peer power.

In their submission to the Royal Commission they set out plans for a directly-elected "Senate" made up of 261 members.


he Senators would be elected from across the UK using the massive constituencies used in the European elections. Elections would be held every two years with a third of the senate being elected at each poll.Predictably for the Liberal Democrats the elections would be held under proportional representation.

Interestingly I found out that the Conservatives under Ian Duncan Smith in 2001 proposed a Senate too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/jan/14/uk.lords

January 13 2002
Iain Duncan Smith reveals a plan for a US style senate with 80% of elected peers. Tony Blair denounces the plans as a 'recipe for deadlock'.
Tory plan for senate 'recipe for gridlock' says Blair

This is a time line of House of Lords reform history, and all developments in the last decade or so from each party and what they want to do and how that has changed.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/lords...678088,00.html

[The Dude]

I can't figure this out for the life of me. What does MP mean? Member of Parliament? That's the best guess I have.

[Каие]

Massive Penis

[Treize]

Master Pickpocket

[Their Law]

Master Pickpocket

Massive Penis

Both of the above....


Nah seriously it means Military Police

[6th Vigil]

Massive Penis

Master Pickpocket

Nah seriously it means Military Police

They all mean the same thing...Metropolitan police.

On topic;

The Lords has always been a topic for reform but what about other proposals. Some separation of the executive and the legislative? A PM and cabinet not chosen from the Parliament? But maybe that is in conflict with our system as we already have an impartial head of state, our monarch.

Perhaps some new legislation to force the PM to interact more with the cabinet. Or is the increasing presidential status of PMs to the benefit of the British system?

About the FPTP system. I see the importance of the MP-constituent link but perhaps we could still maintain the constituencies but replace the simple plurality system with a majoritarian system. So that each MP is selected by say Alternative vote or Supplementary vote.

[Каие]

Wouldn't mind an majoritarian system myself.

[Fibur]

Just out of curiosity...when was the last time the constituencies in the UK were modified?

[Каие]

2007. 4 new ones were created.