David Le Grice
Purpose of the Upper House and need for elections
The purpose of an upper house as I see it is so that
its members can concentrate on legislation without having to worry
about constituency work and since they have such direct and considerable
influence over legislation more so than that which some people
like to accuse trade unions big corporations and media moguls
of having, it makes sense that they have some sort of democratic
mandate.
It may prove beneficial if the Upper House were given
the power to work with the government to improve finance bills.
If this caused concern over primacy then the House of Commons
could be given the power to vote to proceed on finance bills without
the Upper House's consent without any waiting period.
That said, I think maintaining the primacy of the
House of Commons is only important because people have decided
it is, the first parliament act at least was intended as a quick
fix and was never meant to apply to an elected house. To my mind
the best way for the differences between the government and the
Upper House to be resolved would be through referendum or for
a bill to be delayed until after an election although I'm not
sure whether such a change would be considered.
Appointments
If there are to be any appointments to the upper
house then the appointments commission would have to make sure
that it appoints people from as diverse a range of backgrounds
and expertise as possible and that no background has noticeably
greater representation than any other as that would make the house
bias on certain issues; I currently get the impression that a
disproportionate number of peers are businessmen for example.
I'd personally prefer that all members had a mandate at any rate.
Bishops
I don't understand why the bishops should remain;
they are just as much an anachronism as hereditary peers as they
would not be there by virtue of being English Anglican Bishops
and not elected or chosen independently on merit. I can't think
why the established church needs to send people to speak let alone
vote in the upper house and I shouldn't think that there is anywhere
else in the world (except perhaps Iran but I haven't checked)
where this is the case. Furthermore reserving seats for Church
of England bishops in the legislature amounts to four types of
discrimination, these being discrimination based on nationality
(No bishops representing Scotland, whales or northern Ireland),
religion, sexuality (No practising homosexuals) and gender. It's
not as is you'll go to hell for removing the bishops from the
Upper House.
The church can always make representations to parliament
and the government and if necessary a member of the upper house
can be appointed to liaise with them as I believe is done in the
House of Commons.
Ministers
It would be very undemocratic to allow the prime
minister to appoint members to the upper house and the limit may
become seen as a target by some administrations if they had any
trouble with the upper house.
It would not be a problem if they were not entitled
to vote or could speak and introduce legislation without being
members of the Upper House (but still members of the government)
as is the case in some other legislatures such as the Danish Parliament;
apart from being more democratic this would also avoid placing
unnecessary restrictions on the prime ministers ability to choose
ministers.
Vacancies
It would be completely wrong if someone were elected
by voters largely based on their party affiliation only for them
to be replaced on death or retirement by someone from another
party.
Irish and Northern Irish MEP's will produce a List
of people to succeed them should they die or retire and I think
the same system should be adopted here.
Electoral system
I think the constituency sizes proposed are too small
electing close to seven people would be just about ok especially
with STV though I would prefer the number were closer to twenty
(though this would require open lists and thresholds). I especially
don't like the idea of having three seat constituencies' and am
not too keen on four seats either. Neither size delivers terribly
proportional results in European elections (in Whales, the North
east and Northern Ireland) as the parties represented have the
same number of seats each and they don't allow representation
for all major parties. Indeed a three seat constituency in Northern
Ireland would prevent nationalist representation by shutting out
the SDLP. Smaller constituency's also make the electoral process
more intimidating because there would be more attention and pressure
placed on a parties candidates if only one or two were likely
to win and they may need to campaign within the major shopping
areas of major population centres.
I think it would be especially important to have
larger constituencies if an open list system were used as more
votes would otherwise be wasted on vote surpluses and minor parties
under such a system. Alternatively one could consider the proposed
reforms to the Finnish parliament which has open list districts
but their seats would be assigned to make the to ensure representation
was in line with the national vote, such a system would of course
need national and or constituency thresholds to be imposed. Another
alternative would be to have vocational constituencies which people
would join when they register.
I also think that the minimum number of three seats
if adopted should only be permitted if national boundaries necessitate
it in boundaries should be redrawn if a constituency's allocation
is reduced to this number due to population changes.
Of course in order to have more seats in some Celtic
constituencies them one would have to elect more of the houses
members have a larger house than proposed, elect in halves instead
of thirds or over represent them; I personally wouldn't mind any
of these though preferably not the later.
If the the committee parliament or the government
is tempted to have more than 300 members in the Upper House for
this or any other reason (the average attendance is close to 400
at the moment) then I say do it even if some complain as you can't
put a price on democracy.
Ballot papers for Upper House elections will need
to be randomized and possibly candidates listed by party. This
is especially important for STV but it would also allow simpler
ballot papers for an open list as there would be no need to provide
an option of voting for a party and encourage people to express
their opinions of the candidates before them. Whichever system
is used it would be a good idea to switch to the same one for
European elections both to trial it and so that voters can get
used to it.
10 October 2011
| 
