quote:Originally posted by TSN: Of course, in a world that made that least bit of sense, it would be the hereditary leaders who do whatever the hell they want, because they don't have to worry about losing their jobs. The elected leaders would have to try their hardest to do what's right, because, otherwise, the people would vote them out.
The country is still led by an MP. Most of the Cabinet are MPs. The House of Lords is just a check on them. If we were living in the 19th century, when the Lords really did control the country, then you'd have a point, but the power of the Lords has been restricted so much that their only real function is to check and provide further debate on legislation passed by the Commons, a function that they performed rather well before 1999.
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Of course, when has an electorate ever considered a silly thing like fitness for leadership?
In the UK, not since the 1960s, probably.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
I also have problems with an elected upper house. The influence of the parties in the Commons and ergo on the government is already so strong I feel that a second, party controlled, chamber would be prejudicial to the national interest. A major problem with PR is, as pointed out, that we would be perpetually ruled by a Labour/Lib Dem coalition. And yes, the government of the day will try to 'pack' the chamber with its own supporters, but at least there's the liklihood that at least some will have a measure of independance. The 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts restrict the power of the Lords so much that it can't really be said to be an elite overpowering the interests of the masses.
As to the structure of the UK government, the position of president is split between the Crown (Head of State) and PM (Head of govt.) but the Cabinet is much more important to the UK govt than in the US system. Technically, anyway; it often depends on the personality of the PM, Maggie and The Dear Leader have both been criticised for being too presidential. Most ministers these days are MPs but many are Lords, often because they were experts in the relevant field prior to their enoblement.
The 1999 Parliament Act was a silly, ill thought out gesture by Blair to the left of the Labour party (since abandoned to its fate). The hereditaries weren't actually that bad; Labour and the Lib Dems just have this silly ideological dislike of them. They didn't consider the fact that most of the debates in the Lords were (and in many cases still are) far more academic and far reaching than those in the Commons, which are usually driven by Party needs. Yes, some of the Lords are tossers (Archer) and some are rich, arrogant tossers, but most are OK. Many of the hereditaries (although by no means all) are motivated by a sense of duty, far better than the petty Party and ideological concerns of most MPs. Basically, if they'd just made the expenses dependant on Lords pitching up to 25% of debates (far more than most MPs-Blair is at about 7%) then that would've reduced the Lords to those who actually cared (well, mostly).
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
