Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Helgoland]

I'd be highly in favour a system where the Lords came primarily from academia, various industries and unions.  Maybe seats could be granted to organisations rather than people, and these organisations would have to elect their own representative.  One seat for each major union, one for each major university, one for each major industry, one for each major religion (atheism/humanism included).

One from each industry? And how are you going to select the atheism dude?

Other than that, all fine and dandy - I've thought for a long time that giving the universities some direct political power might be a good idea.

[Max White]

Only because universities are left wing breeding grounds. If there is one thing that is ruining society, it is education! Back in my day we didn't have education, and I grew up to be a god fearing man!

Anyway, I wouldn't include religious leaders myself, simply for the sake of secularism.

[Frumple]

I do want to say, as a fellow from the states, that idea is mildly terrifying. There's a pretty incredible amount of corruption in the higher echelons of higher education around here, especially in regards to corporate/industry ties and universities. Individual academics are considerably less likely to be involved with such, but actual university representatives? Bloody hell, I wouldn't want them anywhere near the political process in most cases. Blatant corporate shills are often the best thing you can say about them.

Maybe... maybe it's better over in Europe? If so, chalk another mark down for "Reasons to paddle over".

[scriver]

I wouldn't mind an unelected house drawn from legal experts, primarily judges, maybe throw in a high profile barrister if they deserve it. give them the job of making sure laws are just and fair and enforceable, rather than looking at the reasons why the law is required.

Judges be cray-cray, yo.

That's pretty much a universal constant. Just ask Truean.

[Helgoland]

I wouldn't mind an unelected house drawn from legal experts, primarily judges, maybe throw in a high profile barrister if they deserve it. give them the job of making sure laws are just and fair and enforceable, rather than looking at the reasons why the law is required.

Judges be cray-cray, yo.

That's pretty much a universal constant. Just ask Truean.

I was under the impression that it's mostly judges who get the US to move forward on social issues...

[Max White]

Yea, my experience with judges is that they are head and shoulders above the public on pretty much everything, and tower above politicians...

[lordcooper]

One from each industry?

The major ones, yes.  Banking, manufacturing, tourism, software development, television, the press etc etc.  I kinda feel (hope?) that giving business a legitimate place in politics might help cut down on their illegitimate places.  Besides, sometimes it's good to have the input of successful and respected business leaders.

And how are you going to select the atheism dude?

My first inclination would be to grant the seat to a representative of the British Humanist Association.

Anyway, I wouldn't include religious leaders myself, simply for the sake of secularism.

I'm probably best classified as an agnostic pagan and have a moderate distaste for organised religion, but it's a big part of society and many people's lives.  Excessive religious influence on politics is horrible, but a little shouldn't hurt too much.  Assuming secularism is inherently better because that's the way you lean just seems wrong, particularly in a country where religious extremism/nutters aren't too common.

I do want to say, as a fellow from the states, that idea is mildly terrifying. There's a pretty incredible amount of corruption in the higher echelons of higher education around here, especially in regards to corporate/industry ties and universities. Individual academics are considerably less likely to be involved with such, but actual university representatives? Bloody hell, I wouldn't want them anywhere near the political process in most cases. Blatant corporate shills are often the best thing you can say about them.

Maybe... maybe it's better over in Europe? If so, chalk another mark down for "Reasons to paddle over".

This would ideally be a monitored democratic process.  Take Oxford for example.  Each academic currently in the employ of Oxford University should be able to vote for one of their peers.  Winner gets the seat.

[hector13]

I'd be highly in favour a system where the Lords came primarily from academia, various industries and unions.  Maybe seats could be granted to organisations rather than people, and these organisations would have to elect their own representative.  One seat for each major union, one for each major university, one for each major industry, one for each major religion (atheism/humanism included).

They're still unelected though.

Just because you happen to have the drive to reach the top of your chosen profession, it doesn't necessarily mean you're capable of making a balanced decision. Indeed, I imagine people in Western society have reached the top of the tree based on one thing entirely: their ability to maximise the pennies.

I think the best thing that might work, if the House of Lords has to continue existing, is something similar to what you suggest. Some people from these organisations gets nominated, and then the public voting on whether or not they get a seat.

I still think the House of Lords is a waste of time though. What's wrong with just having the Commons? The Lords are just a throwback to when the lawmakers thought the masses were too stupid to be able to make important decisions, so they had a safety net of people who could. People with land and money, because they obviously know better.

[Max White]

The Lords are just a throwback to when the lawmakers thought the masses were too stupid to be able to make important decisions, so they had a safety net of people who could.

You say that, but then the lords have been doing some good work lately, while elected officials, and public opinion, is a heavy carriage to pull.

[lordcooper]

I'd be highly in favour a system where the Lords came primarily from academia, various industries and unions.  Maybe seats could be granted to organisations rather than people, and these organisations would have to elect their own representative.  One seat for each major union, one for each major university, one for each major industry, one for each major religion (atheism/humanism included).

They're still unelected though.

...

What's wrong with just having the Commons?

The Lords have deflected so much bullshit legislation over the years.  Read back a few posts about IPNA for a good example that took place today.

Also, there is something to be said for having oversight by someone other than those who are good at wooing the masses with fancy rhetoric.

[scriver]

I wouldn't mind an unelected house drawn from legal experts, primarily judges, maybe throw in a high profile barrister if they deserve it. give them the job of making sure laws are just and fair and enforceable, rather than looking at the reasons why the law is required.

Judges be cray-cray, yo.

That's pretty much a universal constant. Just ask Truean.

I was under the impression that it's mostly judges who get the US to move forward on social issues...

Yea, my experience with judges is that they are head and shoulders above the public on pretty much everything, and tower above politicians...

I wish I could still remember the name of that site Truean often linked to.

[XXSockXX]

I used to have a favourable view on a sort of "expert government", but I don't think anymore that would actually be much better than what we have now.
In Germany (and I think that's similar everywhere) we already have many experts involved in lawmaking and advising the government. There is the ethics commission and the council of economic scientists for example, and also commissions that are just there for the purpose of "designing" a certain reform (like the Hartz commission). Unions have a big influence via political parties, as has the industry. Legal experts check laws at various stages, when it is first drafted, when it is voted on in parliament, when it is voted on in the upper chamber (which in Germany consists of state representatives) and when it is signed by the president. Then of course you can take the law to court, if you think it's unconstitutional.

All these experts and control instances still produce laws that do not work as intended or are just plain stupid.

An expert chamber would not be democratically elected, and thus while less likely to engage in campaign hijinks, also not democratically legitimized.

Experts, whether they come from the academia or elsewhere have political opinions and biases too. I doubt that they are more "objective" than politicians. (For a German example look at people like Hans Werner Sinn and Bernd Lucke.)

If you don't like that the Chamber of the Lords is not democratically elected, fine. But I don't think coming up with a complicated and balanced system where all sorts of experts constitute a chamber will change much. The opinions and biases are probably not that different.

[kaijyuu]

I'm all for a meritocracy, but good luck coming up with a system that ensures the "merit" part of it without unfortunate side effects.

[Helgoland]

How about a sort of Council of Elders? Recognized elder statesmen (and at least one Elder Stateswoman, after 2017) as well as a number of representatives elected by the universities (because I like that idea, and it ensures a left-wing bias) form a senate, which can block legislation iff it decides to do so with a two-thirds majority.
The idea might need some work, but it still seems better than our current Bundesrat...




(Also, I don't think Sinn and Lucke are representative of academia, especially because they're both economists - academia in general has a strong liberal/progressive slant.)

[Owlbread]

Perhaps I should inform fellows that it is the plan of the Scottish Parliament to remain unicameral. We will not have an upper house if we become independent, rather, we would go back to the way we were pre-1707.