But on the flip side, politically appointed peers end up weighting the second house towards political parties that hold power.
Sure -- I don't think any kind of appointment system is defensible.
Whereas an elected house that mimics the Commons would be completely pointless.
But an elected house that doesn't mimic the Commons would be excellent, and to my mind ideal. Is the US Senate pointless? They certainly don't think so.
One of the real advantages of the Lords is that it contains politically independent (in party terms) individuals that are capable of scrutinising legislation on its merits.
I don't think though that that can only be achieved by appointing them.
To lose that would be a bad thing, and to design a system that allows a government control of both houses would be potentially dangerous, in terms of economic stability and freedom.
We've had government control of both of the current houses for most of the last few centuries, whenever the Tories have been in charge -- as they have always (until the recent reforms) had a majority in the Lords. But it seems tome that you are saying here "Elected politicians can't be trusted to run the country" -- which is a fair enough position, but one that is fundamentally opposed to democracy, and as I said above I think that's a different argument.
I'm not advocating an elite group of people being granted rulership - merely some balance against ignorance and stupidity exercised by an elected government.
There doesn't seem much point having an elected government at all, if its every decision is to be subject to veto by a bunch of interest-group appointees! Surely simpler just to let them take charge altogether, and we can forget about the whole crazy dream of elected representatives governing on behalf of the popular will.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-13 04:51 pm (UTC)Sure -- I don't think any kind of appointment system is defensible.
Whereas an elected house that mimics the Commons would be completely pointless.
But an elected house that doesn't mimic the Commons would be excellent, and to my mind ideal. Is the US Senate pointless? They certainly don't think so.
One of the real advantages of the Lords is that it contains politically independent (in party terms) individuals that are capable of scrutinising legislation on its merits.
I don't think though that that can only be achieved by appointing them.
To lose that would be a bad thing, and to design a system that allows a government control of both houses would be potentially dangerous, in terms of economic stability and freedom.
We've had government control of both of the current houses for most of the last few centuries, whenever the Tories have been in charge -- as they have always (until the recent reforms) had a majority in the Lords. But it seems tome that you are saying here "Elected politicians can't be trusted to run the country" -- which is a fair enough position, but one that is fundamentally opposed to democracy, and as I said above I think that's a different argument.
I'm not advocating an elite group of people being granted rulership - merely some balance against ignorance and stupidity exercised by an elected government.
There doesn't seem much point having an elected government at all, if its every decision is to be subject to veto by a bunch of interest-group appointees! Surely simpler just to let them take charge altogether, and we can forget about the whole crazy dream of elected representatives governing on behalf of the popular will.