This democracy lark is festering at the back of my mind and provoked by some of my commenters I have been trying to come up with some ideas for improvement. Of course, being, at heart, a conservative (small 'c') I am instinctively wary of changing anything, certainly anything in a radical way. Even so, I do think the system can be improved around the edges.
By and large I am content with matters in the Commons. There is a good case for not allowing Scottish members to vote on purely English home matters given that English members cannot return the favour! That, of course, would seriously hamper any Labour government who rely on their Scottish members to gain a majority in the House but if that reigned in some of their wilder social legislation, so be it. However, there is one important matter which should be rescinded immediately – fixed-term parliaments are an abomination. Should you doubt me then consider this via Wiki:
When introducing the Bill to the House of Commons, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said that "by setting the date that parliament will dissolve, our prime minister is giving up the right to pick and choose the date of the next general election—that's a true first in British politics."
Anything Clegg proposes needs to be treated like poison and Cameron is a fool for accepting it!
So much for the Commons but it is in the Lords that I think some radical changes could be made with advantage. First of all I would make membership of the Lords a sinecure in the sense that the pay and perks would make any member comfortable for life as recompense for giving up their career. Second, I would make the minimum membership of the Lords 15 years and the maximum 25 years. As indicated I would make the pension thereafter extremely generous – dependent on time served and regular attendance maintained!
I would like to see British society divided up into its main constituent, or if you like, ‘corporate’ parts – armed services, the law, religions, trades unions, local authorities, charities, big business, small business, civil service, farming, Women’s Institute and so on, plus a certain number of people who belong to no corporate body whatsoever. Once agreed on the definitions, each of these groups would invite volunteers on an age restricted basis, say, 35 to 55, and the results would come via a lottery. Once appointed, a ‘Lord’ could not be dismissed except for illegality or poor health – or any other cause which kept him or her from regular attendance. Absolutely no parties or sects or pressure groups would be allowed to operate in the Lords. Each member would debate and vote on his or her own individual opinion.
Having created a fair reflection of British society the question then arises as to what powers they might have. Well, first of all, they can make no laws. Their responsibility would be strictly to advise and consent – or not! I am not sufficiently well-informed on the arcane subject of exactly how Bills are raised and passed between Commons and Lords but I do know that eventually they go up before the Lords for consideration. If there is sufficient disapproval of a measure then the Lords should have the ability to delay its passing in the Commons by, say six months or so, pending changes which might make it more acceptable. If that fails then they should, perhaps have the chance to delay it for a further six months, but if that fails, too, then the Lords by a solid majority, say, 60-40, should have the power to refuse it until after a general election. Of course, if after that election, the next elected government returns the Bill then the Lords must give way and nod ascent.
Well, there are a few ideas. Anybody have any more?
