Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [5]

[Bluebottle]

Yeah, it's not really a legislative power. It's more of a suspensive mechanism for particularily far reaching legislature.

In a system like the British where a simple parliamentary majority can make pretty radical changes to a countries policies, I think having some mechanism like that is really important. Not that I think the British solution is in any way the best way to handle it. But it's all they've got.

[Bluebottle]

Actually, I take that back. It is a legislative power. Although it is only suspensiv in nature. The way the British system was built, and what was actually the basis for Montesquieu's treatment on the separation of power, was that the legislative power was divided in three. You first had to have a law passed by the House of Commons, that then had to be accepted by the House of Lords and finally it needed to be given royal assent.

That way you had three players in the legislative process, you had the HoCs, who represented the people (or at least the people with a right to vote (which was far from everyone)), you had the HoLs, which represented the nobility, the church, the courts, people of great power and wealth, with a vested interest in the status quo of the nation, and you had the Monarch.

Now, while the constitutional powers of the Monarch remains, they haven't actually been used as intended for a long time. The HoLs has had it's power curbed since 1911, when it's veto was made simply suspensive, and matters of state finances, pure money bills, where removed from their area of competence. So, today we have come to an age where the popular chamber of parliament in many ways reign supreme. In a system were the absolute separation of power were the central building block, the principle of popular sovereignty, which is enshrined in the popular branch of the government, the HoCs, has supplanted the strict separation of power that constituted the unwritten constitutional British system.

[Bluebottle]

What is really interesting is that both Norway and the US instituted a two chamber system for our parliaments, but without any of the actual normative foundation the British or Montesquieu had put in it. Both chambers being taken from the same electorate, both chambers being elected by popular vote.

I guess we both were young nations without any nobility or others with a vested interest and power to grasp themselves the position a hereditary second chamber of parliament entails.

[Bluebottle]

What is really really interesting about the norwegian system is that we instituted a two chamber parliament, where the second chamber was simply 25% of the members. And on any issue the two chambers disagreed, the issue was settled by a vote by the full parliament. So, in other words, completely pointless. Aside from a slightly suspensive temporal dimension.

It's changed now. We removed our two chamber system some years ago.

[halfwise]

The American two chamber system is meant to represent the populace (house of representatives) and the state governments (Senate). Made more sense when people had stronger identification with their home state than they do now so that regional interests could be protected.

President can veto (though congress can over-ride a veto) and the courts can review it and declare it unconstitutional. This last power has been somewhat controversial of late.

[Pettytyrant101]

One of the few advantages to the UK version ios the lackof political rivalry between the two chambers- their are rivalries of who has what power (as in ths case) but party lines don't mean a lot in the HoL most of the time as the members aren't trying to impress anyone or advance their careers or get reelected, they are much more likely to vote with their concious and their experience. This is probably primarily why it works as a second chamber.

[Mrs Figg]

hip hip hoorah for the Lords!!!!  Bloody brilliant!

I may even kiss Lord Trumpington Figg!

[Pettytyrant101]

Steady on there Figg!

[Pettytyrant101]

The government has responded to the Lords-

'The government has announced a review into the workings of Parliament after its Lords defeats over tax credit cuts.

Downing Street said it would examine "how to protect the ability of elected governments to secure their business".
It will consider "how to secure the decisive role of the elected Commons in relation to its primacy on financial matters and secondary legislation".- BBC

Now this is very stupid in my view beyond belief, Cameron is trying to use this as an excuse to curb more than just the Lords acting on finincaial matters.
The crucial bit here is 'and secondary legislation'.
Secondary legislation was introduced in the 1940's after the war- and since then the Lords have rejected such legislation and sent it back about half a dozen times.
If Cameron is arguing the Lords acted unconstitutionally by stepping out their bounds, then heis acting unconstitutionally by trying to deny the Lords a power it has statutory right to use.
If Cameron gets that through then anything tricky a government doesn't want a fight about it just bungs onto something else as secondary legislation and they are off scot free.

I don't get how Cameron thinks now is a good time to try to do this- the Tories might be angry with the Lords, but by and large the public and the media are not- they are trumpeting the Lords for saving the poor from a kicking from the government.
Cameron risks looking like a sore loser who wants to punish the people who stopped his party doing something very unpopular and stop them with a huge overreach and unnecessary attempt to take even further power from them at the same time.

I am starting to think m,ore than ever that Cameron is quite simply the poorest example of a Prime Minister in my life time- and I lived through Thatcher and Blair- hated both but at least they were good at what they did and had a plan and a vision they wanted to enact.
Cameron just lurches about making badly timed statements and poorly thought out political calculations.

It reminds me of the day after the Scottish Independence referendum- when instead of saying just the first part of his speech -

''Scotland voted for a stronger Scottish Parliament backed by the strength and security of the United Kingdom and I want to congratulate the No campaign for that – for showing people that our nations really are better together.
I also want to pay tribute to Yes Scotland for a well-fought campaign and to say to all those who did vote for independence: ‘we hear you’.
We now have a chance – a great opportunity – to change the way the British people are governed, and change it for the better."

He thought it the perfect time to say this-

'I have long believed that a crucial part missing from this national discussion is England.
We have heard the voice of Scotland - and now the millions of voices of England must also be heard.
The question of English votes for English laws – the so-called West Lothian question –requires a decisive answer.'

And so made Scotland think he was just using the result as a means to screw us over some more by making non-English MP's in Parliament of less value. And saying it in the speech following the result just looked like he had been lining it up just awaiting with glee the chance to use the election result as the excuse.
And indeed this half-baked idea has been a thorn in the side ever since as its damn near unworkable without the obvious solution- a devolved English parliament which Cameron doesn't want- and even his own side aren't keen on the idea seeing, quite rightly that it will only weaken the bounds which tie the Union together.

And of course following the result and Cameron's reaction the SNP support went through the roof.

And now he is trying the same stunt with the HoL- using the opportunity to further an agenda which strengthens his government by reducing its oppositions powers, rights and abilities.

I predict just as big a fuck up as for EVEL (The unfortunate name by which English Votes for English Laws has become known).

[Mrs Figg]

The trouble with Cameron is that he dominates due to the fact there doesn't seem to be anyone with any clout to take the shine off him. of course there's Boris who has more charisma, but charisma can hide a lot of flaws, or being barking mad.

[Pettytyrant101]

The worrying thing about Boris is how intelligent he is- intelligent enough to know the value of seeming harmless and bungling. He has deliberately hit a lot of sentimental British archetypes, from bumbling professor, to jolly fat man and eccentric old toff all rolled to one.
But he also adds one more subtler thing- politician. People vote for the combination.

I dont mind him being smart, but I am suspicious of someone who uses it to perform an act- whats he hiding? Whose the real Boris?

[Mrs Figg]

oh I think he is the genuine article. he is intensely competitive like a public schoolboy, have you seen him squash those kids.

[Pettytyrant101]

Yeah intensely competitive- has being in competition with Cameron and Osbourne since school too over who would get to PM. Cameron won the race and Osbourne up until this latest cockup over tax credits, was looking a shoe in to beat Boris into last.

Whats despicable is that a bunch of rich toffs can still get together in this country as mere boys and decide the future fate and leadership of the country as essentially a rich boys game, and then have the influence, connections, money and power to bring it about.

[Eldorion]

Actually, I take that back. It is a legislative power. Although it is only suspensiv in nature.

Yes, that was my point.

The way the British system was built, and what was actually the basis for Montesquieu's treatment on the separation of power, was that the legislative power was divided in three. You first had to have a law passed by the House of Commons, that then had to be accepted by the House of Lords and finally it needed to be given royal assent.

No, the third branch of power in Montesquieu's system was a politically independent judiciary.  The main divisions for Montesquieu were executive, legislative, and judicial.  The House of Lords did previously serve some judicial functions up until very recently, which was part of the fusion of powers in the British system, although much of the rest of the judiciary did enjoy great independence.  But the real reason why the British system has moved away from separation of powers is because the executive authority moved from the Monarch to Parliament.

In a system were the absolute separation of power were the central building block, the principle of popular sovereignty, which is enshrined in the popular branch of the government, the HoCs, has supplanted the strict separation of power that constituted the unwritten constitutional British system.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to call the separation of powers a building block of the British system.  That sort of implies that it was planned or intended to be important, when in reality it evolved slowly over time as Parliament took on more and more authority, but ended up being more of a transitional period being absolute monarchy and modern parliamentary supremacy.

[Eldorion]

The American two chamber system is meant to represent the populace (house of representatives) and the state governments (Senate).  Made more sense when people had stronger identification with their home state than they do now so that regional interests could be protected.

President can veto (though congress can over-ride a veto) and the courts can review it and declare it unconstitutional.   This last power has been somewhat controversial of late.

Yeah, a lot of people forget that the Senate used to be elected by the state legislatures. Congress approved the amendment changing that in 1911 (same year the House of Lords was defanged, I notice) and it was ratified by the required 75% of the states in 1913. After which the Senate became the kinda superfluous House 2.0 that Blue describes, although it does still have shadows of its original role in giving a disproportionately larger voice to smaller states.

[Eldorion]

If Cameron is arguing the Lords acted unconstitutionally by stepping out their bounds, then heis acting unconstitutionally by trying to deny the Lords a power it has statutory right to use.

Well that's the other thing about having an unwritten constitution, isn't it? The Commons can do whatever the fuck it wants and all you can do is try to vote them out of office five years later. Or before last Parliament, vote them out of office whenever the PM chooses to call an election at the most politically advantageous time.

[Pettytyrant101]

Very true- but thats what makes it so exciting and flexible.
Now everyone will start pitching in- those who have been arguing for an elected second chamber for decades, those who want a non-elected chamber but one made of rotating leaders in their fields to scrutinise policy in their fields, to all sorts of other types.
And if the whole thing gets momentum, thanks to our flexible system the convention of current times is that any major constitutional changes go to the public via referendum.

[Bluebottle]

The way the British system was built, and what was actually the basis for Montesquieu's treatment on the separation of power, was that the legislative power was divided in three. You first had to have a law passed by the House of Commons, that then had to be accepted by the House of Lords and finally it needed to be given royal assent.

No, the third branch of power in Montesquieu's system was a politically independent judiciary.  The main divisions for Montesquieu were executive, legislative, and judicial.  The House of Lords did previously serve some judicial functions up until very recently, which was part of the fusion of powers in the British system, although much of the rest of the judiciary did enjoy great independence.  But the real reason why the British system has moved away from separation of powers is because the executive authority moved from the Monarch to Parliament.

In a system were the absolute separation of power were the central building block, the principle of popular sovereignty, which is enshrined in the popular branch of the government, the HoCs, has supplanted the strict separation of power that constituted the unwritten constitutional British system.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to call the separation of powers a building block of the British system.  That sort of implies that it was planned or intended to be important, when in reality it evolved slowly over time as Parliament took on more and more authority, but ended up being more of a transitional period being absolute monarchy and modern parliamentary supremacy.

True, but that was another part of his treatise. What a lot of people are not aware of are, one, that the system he described also entailed a three part separation of the legislative branch, seeing as laws are the primary emanation of power in a nation, giving the power to a parliament based on popular vote always had to be curbed by other measures, be that giving the executive branch a veto on legislature or having a second chamber in parliament where the nobility had to approve the first, popular, chambers legislature, and, secondly, that Montesquieu's scientific treatise on the subject, De l'esprit des lois, actually was a scientific treatise on the then current British political system.

What a lot of people get wrong is they hear separation of power and think immediately of Montesquieu. Missing the point that Montesquieu's treatise also entailed this separation of the legislative power. Simply to limit the rule of the people. What happened in the constitutions around 1800, including ours and yours, was that the concept of popular sovereignty skewed the way the concept of separation of power was implemented, and as such, in the constitutions of that day and age, the only two of which surviving today is our and yours, weighted the legislative branch stronger than the other two powers, as you pointed out, in Montesqiueu's more basic system.

[Mrs Figg]

Yeah intensely competitive- has being in competition with Cameron and Osbourne since school too over who would get to PM. Cameron won the race and Osbourne up until this latest cockup over tax credits, was looking a shoe in to beat Boris into last.

Whats despicable is that a bunch of rich toffs can still get together in this country as mere boys and decide the future fate and leadership of the country as essentially a rich boys game, and then have the influence, connections, money and power to bring it about.

er that's been happening for the last two thousand years.

[Pettytyrant101]

I know!! That's my point- nothing has changed- nothing looks like changing- hence my support for an independent Scotland- wipe the slate clean of Westminster and its old Boy network.

[Bluebottle]

And on that point we are in complete agreement, Petty.

[Mrs Figg]

instead you will have cronies and toadeaters currying for power in another form. you wont get rid of that just because its new. you are a bit naïve you know.

[Bluebottle]

Oh, there will always be a political elite, sadly. Unless you institute the old greek system of dividing public position by lots to the electorate.

[Pettytyrant101]

instead you will have cronies and toadeaters currying for power in another form. you wont get rid of that just because its new. you are a bit naïve you know.- Figg

We have got off to a decent start-better chamber, not clogged down by generations of procedure and ritual yet. A better fairer voting system than Westminster. Greater representation of minorities. A far better mix of classes in our MP's our countries leader is from as working class as you get, Govan in Glasgow, much higher representation of women at the very top of parties (all three main parties Labour, Conservative and SNP in fact and at the Conservative leader is gay and included her partner in her party broadcast- I cant see that playing in the Shires, can you?)
And when we do inevitably make mistakes, screw up, it will be our own mess to make and ours to clear up.

[halfwise]

Things do change over the decades. The politics of today in every country is different from a generation ago. But it won't happen unless someone makes an effort for it to happen. And of course, what you end up with will not necessarily be better. I know the US is much worse off in many ways, though the culture is better in other ways.