Discussion: Is reform required in our Government?

[GRALISTAIR]

So as an example you might - say - end up with a Peers being nominated by the Royal Society and the Institute of Physics etc. (for scientific expertise), by Faith and Humanist groups (experience in ethics), by the CBI (industry), by various organisations who work with the vulnerable, and with the homeless, by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing - and so on.

I must admit I quite like this idea. How about some electrification and railway engineers in the DfT please?

 

[Meerkat]

To go back to basics why do we need a second chamber at all?
Shouldn’t the expert scrutiny be in the HoC committee stages, where they can ask for whatever experts they like?
It seems perverse to me to elect a parliament to run the country and then want a second chamber to stop them

 

[Struner]

There are 26 CoE bishops in the House of Lords.
As long as CoE is the Establishment Church of England, they have the rights to stay in the house.

Of course, direct involvement in politics by religious persons does violate the principle of seperation of politics and religion.

It’s only English jesusfreaks overthere, discrimination.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

(Although, to be fair, with a President like Donald Trump, stalemate is probably the least bad option until we can have a more reasonable President).

I disagree - but then I am an out and out Trump supporter and so is almost everyone at the company I work for and the owner donates large sums to his campaign.

 

[mmh]

Perhaps pedantic, but the title of this thread should say Parliament, not Government.

 

[edwin_m]

It's an interesting idea. But I think the problem is that you'd end up with a House of Lords that largely duplicates the Commons - especially if we ever introduced proportional representation for the Commons - and PR for the Commons would be absolutely top priority on my list of reforms. And if the two chambers are duplicates, why have them both?

I'd suggest a variation on this, where say 100 peers were nominated at each five-yearly election in proportion to party shares of votes received, but their term was say 15 years (or if they died or resigned their original nominating party could appoint a replacement). The Lords would then act as a brake on the more radical instincts of the Commons, although as now its powers might be limited to delaying and modifying rather than blocking completely.

So as an example you might - say - end up with a Peers being nominated by the Royal Society and the Institute of Physics etc. (for scientific expertise), by Faith and Humanist groups (experience in ethics), by the CBI (industry), by various organisations who work with the vulnerable, and with the homeless, by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing - and so on. Obviously add several hundred other groups, with no group able to nominate more than one or two Peers - so it's impossible for any one group to exert more than a tiny amount of influence.

I think the problem there would be that the climate deniers would want representation to balance the scientific bodies and the flat earthers would want representation to balance the Royal Geographic Society. A bit like how the BBC needs to present two sides to every argument even when one of them is evidently codswallop.
​

However the single most important reform in my view would be a more proportional voting system for the Commons. We'd never have had the current mess if parties had to work together to build a concensus, rather than just pandering to their base because they know they can win on 30-odd percent of the vote. Recent events have also shown that the monarch's nominal powers are in fact exercised by the prime minister unless challenged in the courts, neither of which is a very satisfactory situation, but there needs to be someone with the ability to break the deadlock when the rest of the state can't agree so if we remove the monarch's powers we probably need a president instead.

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps pedantic, but the title of this thread should say Parliament, not Government.

There's a good case for reform of other parts of the government too. The monarchy has been mentioned already and there are probably aspects of the executive that give people cause for concern.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I assume that former prime ministers, Foreign secs, home secs and chancellors would be automatically eligible for the 2nd chamber?

 

[mmh]

I assume that former prime ministers, Foreign secs, home secs and chancellors would be automatically eligible for the 2nd chamber?

No, they have to be appointed and it isn't automatic.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think the problem there would be that the climate deniers would want representation to balance the scientific bodies and the flat earthers would want representation to balance the Royal Geographic Society. A bit like how the BBC needs to present two sides to every argument even when one of them is evidently codswallop. ​

That's where you'd need a robust mechanism for selecting the organisations able to nominate. But I wouldn't see that as a real problem: A robust system would presumably select organisations on the basis of their expertise in certain fields - and climate deniers on the whole, of course, basically do not have any relevant expertise!

Of course people getting elected who believe codswallop that is clearly refuted by scientific evidence is a considerable problem in the current system - just look at some of the groups that people vote for as MPs. I'd argue that a robust system to choose professionals and experts would reduce, rather than increase, that problem.
​

However the single most important reform in my view would be a more proportional voting system for the Commons. We'd never have had the current mess if parties had to work together to build a concensus, rather than just pandering to their base because they know they can win on 30-odd percent of the vote. Recent events have also shown that the monarch's nominal powers are in fact exercised by the prime minister unless challenged in the courts, neither of which is a very satisfactory situation, but there needs to be someone with the ability to break the deadlock when the rest of the state can't agree so if we remove the monarch's powers we probably need a president instead.

Totally agree there. Although I would strongly prefer to keep the monarch.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

To go back to basics why do we need a second chamber at all?
Shouldn’t the expert scrutiny be in the HoC committee stages, where they can ask for whatever experts they like?
It seems perverse to me to elect a parliament to run the country and then want a second chamber to stop them

HoC Committee stages certainly scrutinise. But they are also regularly ignored by Governments insistent on pursuing their own political agenda irrespective of the evidence. And with whips controlling the Commons, there's very little that can be done if the Government insists on ploughing ahead.

On the other hand, a 2nd Chamber that has the power to do something like, say - delay legislation for a couple of years would I suspect be much more effective at making the Government listen. Especially if populated by people who have no party political axe to grind, and therefore are likely to be motivated to improve, rather than completely block, legislation.

 

[Meerkat]

Especially if populated by people who have no party political axe to grind,

or as they could also be described “unelected”, and likely to be from the upper echelons of society so not very representative either.

 

[Struner]

[…]
Totally agree there. Although I would strongly prefer to keep the monarch.​

​

What is the benefit of having a monarch, compared to an elected president like in Ireland?

 

[Meerkat]

What is the benefit of having a monarch, compared to an elected president like in Ireland?

you don’t have the costs of an election.

 

[Struner]

you don’t have the costs of an election.

Indeed...

 

[HSTEd]

To go back to basics why do we need a second chamber at all?
Shouldn’t the expert scrutiny be in the HoC committee stages, where they can ask for whatever experts they like?
It seems perverse to me to elect a parliament to run the country and then want a second chamber to stop them

Because then the Prime Minister of a majority government or strong coalition would have essentially unlimited dictatorial powers to do whatever they want however they want.

 

[sprunt]

you don’t have the costs of an election.

It's hard to find authoritative figures on the cost of the monarchy, but Forbes suggests £67 million in 2018.

The 2015 general election cost roughly £115 million to organise, so assuming a presidential election would cost about the same, and there was a four year term, the monarcy would be approximately twice as expensive.

(Yes, I realise that this is an extremely blunt object to be using here. For a start, the presidency itself would have associated expenditures, and there's a huge amount of fat that could be trimmed from the royal family's budget I'm sure. Not having so many hangers on with their noses in the trough would be a start.)

 

[HSTEd]

It's hard to find authoritative figures on the cost of the monarchy, but Forbes suggests £67 million in 2018.

The 2015 general election cost roughly £115 million to organise, so assuming a presidential election would cost about the same, and there was a four year term, the monarcy would be approximately twice as expensive.

So this president will not be paid, have no residence, and go on or accept no state visits or any other ceremonial duties?

(Yes, I realise that this is an extremely blunt object to be using here. For a start, the presidency itself would have associated expenditures, and there's a huge amount of fat that could be trimmed from the royal family's budget I'm sure. Not having so many hangers on with their noses in the trough would be a start.)

Even the Irish President's office costs several million euros per year, and they have ather less to spend on state visits and the similar, and that notably excludes all election expenses.
Also do you propose to allow all the Royal Palaces to crumble into dust?

Buckingham Palace is going to cost a lot to upkeep even if you have brought about your glorious republic?

That Forbes article demonstrates that costs have risen drastically in recent years, to pay for a backlog of maintenance on these properties that are the property of the state and not the monarch.

EDIT:
The German presidency costs over €25m every year, and they have fewer (and newer) residences that have to be maintained.

It is extremely unlikely that any reasonable republic will be cheaper than the current system.

 

[sprunt]

So this president will not be paid, have no residence, and go on or accept no state visits or any other ceremonial duties?

Isn't this question a bit silly given that you followed it up by quoting me saying "For a start, the presidency itself would have associated expenditures"?

Also do you propose to allow all the Royal Palaces to crumble into dust?

Buckingham Palace is going to cost a lot to upkeep even if you have brought about your glorious republic?

This is ludicrous. Of course I don't propose any such thing and absolutely nothing that I have said suggests that I do. And what is this "glorious republic" nonsense? I haven't even advanced an opinion on whether we should be a monarchy or a republic - I merely quoted some numbers about costs, and clearly caveated them. I'm not really sure what you're so worked up about.

 

[HSTEd]

This is ludicrous. Of course I don't propose any such thing and absolutely nothing that I have said suggests that I do. And what is this "glorious republic" nonsense? I haven't even advanced an opinion on whether we should be a monarchy or a republic - I merely quoted some numbers about costs, and clearly caveated them. I'm not really sure what you're so worked up about.

You made a disingenuous statement that was caveat-ed by a different paragraph.
Saying that it would be twice as expensive by discarding most of the cost base of one option (and not explicitly stating that you have done so at the time you made the claim) and then saying that you shouldn't discard it later is not a good way to make arguments.

 

[ashkeba]

There's a good case for reform of other parts of the government too. The monarchy has been mentioned already and there are probably aspects of the executive that give people cause for concern.

Ministers of the executive should be subject to confirmation hearings and confidence votes, like in many governments. As I understand it, ministers are currently subject only to the whim of the Prime Minister which is almost as outrageous potential for abuse of patronage as being able to make Lords and Sirs/Dames and allows incompetence to escape detection more easily until a ministerial blunder is made. Let Parliament appoint the whole cabinet!

 

[Meerkat]

Because then the Prime Minister of a majority government or strong coalition would have essentially unlimited dictatorial powers to do whatever they want however they want.

A coalition is a compromise, and a dictatorial PM with a majority would still need to carry their MPs with them (who will be concerned about getting re-elected).
The alternatives are an elected second chamber, who are likely to be on the same side as a PM with a landslide majority, or unelected - which isn’t a democracy.

 

[OneOffDave]

Civil service rules...

It's a very key difference that parliament and all it's employees are not part of the Civil Service. Civil Servants are accountable to the government in it's broadest sense and parliamentary employees are accountable to parliament only. Researchers and admin staff are employed by the individual MP and when that individual ceases to be an MP.their employment ceases. If they were employed by parliament, they'd have to be reallocated to new MPs following elections which may not work for a number of reasons. The hours kept in parliament wold result in much higher wage bills if the staff had to be employed under civil service terms and conditions.

 

[HSTEd]

A coalition is a compromise, and a dictatorial PM with a majority would still need to carry their MPs with them (who will be concerned about getting re-elected).

They will be concerned about being re-elected, so will need to obey the leader in all things or they will not be on the ballot next time.

The alternatives are an elected second chamber, who are likely to be on the same side as a PM with a landslide majority, or unelected - which isn’t a democracy.

If democracy is the only objective then we can just go the Swiss model and have referenda all the time on policy matters.
There are alternatives though, direct election of legislators is not the only way to do it for a second chamber.

Myself I would prefer to cap the size of the honours list in terms of people per year, and formalise the process by which names are picked to give some to devolved administrations or other things.

 

[Meerkat]

They will be concerned about being re-elected, so will need to obey the leader in all things or they will not be on the ballot next time.

That is clearly not correct, there are lots of rebel MPs.

Myself I would prefer to cap the size of the honours list in terms of people per year, and formalise the process by which names are picked to give some to devolved administrations or other things.

That’s just fiddling with a broken system

If democracy is the only objective then we can just go the Swiss model and have referenda all the time on policy matters

That’s a better model than having a second chamber

 

[HSTEd]

That is clearly not correct, there are lots of rebel MPs.

And as the experience of the Conservatives proves, rebels when the leader cannot afford them get dealt with.
There will be fewer next time.

That’s just fiddling with a broken system

It's not really that broken.
The lords exists to slow things down and increase the cost of controversial things in terms of time and political capital.
It can't actually stop anything the Commons actually wants.

It can also be used as a device to allow constitutional entrenching of key bills without removing Parliamentary Supremacy.
(Amend the Parliament Act so it cannot be used to amend or repeal provisions of a defined list of 'entrenched' acts, then impress on the Lords that their duty is to defend the Constitution)

That’s a better model than having a second chamber

Given the experience of our previous referenda, I don't think I agree.

 

[Meerkat]

And as the experience of the Conservatives proves, rebels when the leader cannot afford them get dealt with.
There will be fewer next time.


It's not really that broken.
The lords exists to slow things down and increase the cost of controversial things in terms of time and political capital.
It can't actually stop anything the Commons actually wants.

It can also be used as a device to allow constitutional entrenching of key bills without removing Parliamentary Supremacy.
(Amend the Parliament Act so it cannot be used to amend or repeal provisions of a defined list of 'entrenched' acts, then impress on the Lords that their duty is to defend the Constitution)


Given the experience of our previous referenda, I don't think I agree.

There have been rebel MPs for as long as I can remember MPs!
Having an unelected chamber that’s sole purpose is to hamper the work of the elected one is bizarre.
Without wishing to start a Brexit debate I think the result of the referendum showed exactly why we need referenda.

 

[najaB]

What is the benefit of having a monarch, compared to an elected president like in Ireland?

A monarch doesn't owe anyone anything. A politician who gets into office invariably does.

 

[ashkeba]

Without wishing to start a Brexit debate I think the result of the referendum showed exactly why we need referenda.

Why is that? Because newspapers should be able to run the country, with the last three referenda going the way newspapers wanted?

 

[HSTEd]

There have been rebel MPs for as long as I can remember MPs!

And yet when the chips are down, most simply fall into line.

Having an unelected chamber that’s sole purpose is to hamper the work of the elected one is bizarre.

That's what constitutional protections do.
Just this one is composed of people.