News1 min ago
Democracy Reform.......
5 Answers
https:/
it is common for opposition parties to call for different systems when they don't usually win under the current one but in order to enact their suggestions they have to win under the current system. Now if Labour do manage to form the next government would they really change the system that put them there?
it is common for opposition parties to call for different systems when they don't usually win under the current one but in order to enact their suggestions they have to win under the current system. Now if Labour do manage to form the next government would they really change the system that put them there?
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// ... if Labour do manage to form the next government would they really change the system that put them there? //
Possibly not, but it's happened multiple times before. Think of the many times that the vote has been extended -- most notably the 1832 and 1867 Reform Acts, the 1918 Act giving the vote to women (over 30), and the 1928 Act extending the vote to all adults.
What's particularly interesting about these Acts is that, after the 1867 and 1928 Acts, the Governments who introduced them lost the subsequent elections. The 1918 Act is more complicated to assess, because of the Lib/Con Coalition staying in power but swinging sharply Tory. So sometimes reforming does backfire, but we can surely be grateful that the Governments in those cases were not cowards, as both times the reforms were essential.
A more likely scenario here would be that the reforms implemented are smaller in scope than are being called for here. Most notably, I don't believe that Lords Abolition is likely any time soon, although hopefully measures will be taken to drastically reduce its size and the manner in which new Lords are appointed (eg severely limiting the number of political appointments, removing all the remaining Lords Spiritual, etc.), as a step towards reform or replacement with an elected (or semi-elected) second chamber.
Possibly not, but it's happened multiple times before. Think of the many times that the vote has been extended -- most notably the 1832 and 1867 Reform Acts, the 1918 Act giving the vote to women (over 30), and the 1928 Act extending the vote to all adults.
What's particularly interesting about these Acts is that, after the 1867 and 1928 Acts, the Governments who introduced them lost the subsequent elections. The 1918 Act is more complicated to assess, because of the Lib/Con Coalition staying in power but swinging sharply Tory. So sometimes reforming does backfire, but we can surely be grateful that the Governments in those cases were not cowards, as both times the reforms were essential.
A more likely scenario here would be that the reforms implemented are smaller in scope than are being called for here. Most notably, I don't believe that Lords Abolition is likely any time soon, although hopefully measures will be taken to drastically reduce its size and the manner in which new Lords are appointed (eg severely limiting the number of political appointments, removing all the remaining Lords Spiritual, etc.), as a step towards reform or replacement with an elected (or semi-elected) second chamber.
Sounds ridiculous. A second chamber is a useful check, it needs overhauling not abolishing. Where decisions are made can be debated but a) a nation needs to be guided by a national government b) putting out decisions to local areas force citizens into a postcode lottery regarding what is offered and what those up the road enjoy c) unless determined to split up the UK then passing control to the seperate areas is a retrograd step, if possible the error of creating such assemblies should be corrected, not made worse.
There must be an agenda to put out support for such nonsense. Just not sure what it is.
There must be an agenda to put out support for such nonsense. Just not sure what it is.
// A second chamber is a useful check, it needs overhauling not abolishing. //
I generally agree with this -- and, if nothing else, I tend to think that focus on Lords Abolition/Reform (or Republicanism, ie abolition of the monarchy) are lower priorities than other reforms related to the Commons.
But there are eminently sound reasons behind increased localisation/devolution of certain issues, as it allows a national Parliament to focus on (inter)national matters, rather than getting distracted on important but ultimately local affairs.
I generally agree with this -- and, if nothing else, I tend to think that focus on Lords Abolition/Reform (or Republicanism, ie abolition of the monarchy) are lower priorities than other reforms related to the Commons.
But there are eminently sound reasons behind increased localisation/devolution of certain issues, as it allows a national Parliament to focus on (inter)national matters, rather than getting distracted on important but ultimately local affairs.
1 to 5 of 5
