Surely then we should nationalise everyone's private property?
I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "private monarch."
Surely then we should nationalise everyone's private property?
Well fair enough then, I can understand why one might argue for a senate on the grounds that 300 senators could well be cheaper than 600+ peers, but surely the simplest option here would just be to reduce the number of peers? Occam's razor and all that.
Furthermore, while in principle I should be a republican, there's very little point in getting rid of the monarchy. I can't think of any better alternatives.
However, we absolutely should completely nationalise the Crown Estates and the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall so that they can benefit the nation as a whole rather than being owned by a family of inbred aristocrats who only acquired them by theft in the first place.
Well, there are a series of questions we need to ask:
Do we need an upper chamber? Yes.
Should it continue to have legislative powers? Yes.
Is there any reason why it should be mostly composed of unelected hereditary individuals? No.
Therefore the answer is to keep the chamber and elect it (just like almost every other country does with their upper chamber) in accordance with the principle that the power to make and influence the laws governing a country must come from the ballot box.
I'm not sure simple lack of party affiliation is guarentee of impartiality, after all who is it that grants them their seat and lovely robe? Wouldn't be the partial, partisan and elected government would it?
How about instead of election or appointment, the the second chamber is selected at random from the population. Like a giant citizen's jury. That way it's representative of the people, as it is of the people, and it's members are still not beholden to a party and election cycle.
The Lords, and all other remnants of the decrepit British aristocracy including the monarch, are never impartial. They have both their own personal political biases and their inherent, conservative class interests. "Independent" does not equal "impartial" either.
I'm not sure simple lack of (overt) party affiliation is guarentee of impartiality, after all who is it that grants them their seat and lovely robe? Wouldn't be the partial, partisan and elected government would it?
How about instead of election or appointment, the the second chamber is selected at random from the population. Like a giant citizen's jury. That way it's representative of the people, as it is of the people, and it's members are still not beholden to a party and election cycle.
That could only be said of Life Peers, and I'm not sure whether they're a thing yet or not.
What way would you want the Senate to be elected, Antonine?
I did not understand.
I believe the french system could be an amelioration, Senators are elected indirectly by approximately 150,000 officials ("grands électeurs"), including regional councilors, department councilors, mayors, city councilors in large towns, and members of the National Assembly. This way it represents territorial collectivities of the Republic and French citizens living abroad, and is wonderfully moderate. A place where bipartisan bill are alive and were politics are less stereotypical and divisive. More democratic than hereditary peers, but still somewhat "above politics".
It doesn't have much more power than the House of Lords so the comparison seems legit
On the contrary, what reason is there for the Lords to be elected aside from the romantic principle that it should be "democratic" for the sake of being so? Say what you will about the Lords, but it is by a wide margin the most impartial political body in the land, with a greater number of political independents than the Commons and the devolved assemblies combined. These independents are free to exercise their impartial judgements on issues precisely because they have no political affiliation and are not under pressure to adopt one. There are plenty of individuals out there who merely vote for the party rather than the candidate, and I fear that even with STV (if you suggested a closed list I would figuratively beat you over the head with my order papers until your forehead resembled Mikhail Gorbachev's) many capable and fair-minded independent individuals will lose their seats in favour of two-bit party hacks following the lines given to them by their whips in either House.
Now, I'm not saying that unelected chambers are inherently superior to elected ones and that we should dissolve the Commons or ban political parties. Merely that the combination of an unelected, impartial Lords with a partial, democratically-elected Commons is superior to two partial, elected chambers or two impartial unelected ones.
If you're concerned about party influence then only allow senators to sit one term - if they're ineligible to stand for re-election then parties can't threaten them with not supporting their re-election campaign.
And let's not forget now that the very existence of the Lords corrupts the Commons. How many MPs and ex-ministers are bribed by the promise of a future peerage? How many donors to political parties do so in exchange for a peerage? No sane person designing a system from scratch would create the House of Lords so keeping it just because it's what we already have is a ridiculous argument.
((Ummmm... If I were to choose one or two most important British liberals of all time, which would I choose? Or what about a few moderate conservatives? And socialists would get Attlee(right?), but what about someone a tad bit more radical?))
((Ummmm... If I were to choose one or two most important British liberals of all time, which would I choose? Or what about a few moderate conservatives? And socialists would get Attlee, but what about someone a tad bit more radical?))
((Well, they really don't have to be in the timeframe, if the foundations were laid long before by someone a lot more important.During the AAR's timeframe? Sinclair and Grimond. Don't let Densley corrupt you with his 19th Century nostalgia for the GOM.
During the AAR's timeframe? Sinclair and Grimond. Don't let Densley corrupt you with his 19th Century nostalgia for the GOM.