SamuelRSmith said:
SciFiBoy said:
SamuelRSmith said:
I personally don't think the Lords have enough power. They should be largely or wholly elected body with nigh-on equal amounts of power to the Commons.
The Commons has, over the centuries, slowly been eroding the powers of all the checks and balances that surround it. We're essentially living in a unicameral system, yet we pay for a bicameral one.
The Commons is too powerful and it needs to be reduced. |
how would you structure that and what sort of powers would you give the HoL?
|
Once the Commons has passed something, if the Lords would have to put a 75% no vote to block it, and the could do so indefinitely - as long as they give a basis and suggest amendments.
As for the structure, I'd go for 70% elected, 30% appointed. The 70% elected would be done on a purely PR system, and the terms would be longer than the Commons - Lords elections every 10 years, or so. The 30% would not be appointed by the Commons, but by an independent body who appoint solely on intellectual merits rather than for political gains. Appointed Lords will serve until they choose to retire, or if the appointment body deems that they are acting unprofessionally (never turning up, corruption, etc).
So the Commons will still have more power than the Lords, to keep the process quick (as loci is law pointed out  ), but the Lords will hold a lot more scrutiny over the UK.
Of course, with my kind of devolution plans, this structure would simply be for the England, Wales, Scottish and Ulster Parliaments. Not the UK one (of which would not exist).
|
