Make out a case against an elected second chamber

The British constitution, claims Norton, has the benefit that there is one body - the Government, chosen through elections to the House of Commons - that is responsible for public policy. The ultimate issue, therefore, seems to be that the executive would dominate both. It is true that the White Paper has little to say on how a reformed chamber can be made socially as opposed to politically representative in terms of gender and ethnic make up.

Democracy is best served by having multiple sites of legitimacy. To elect other bodies "that can then claim the mandate of the popular vote undermines that core accountability. Perhaps then a complete reform of the electoral system for all bodies could resolve these problems. For example, inthe Lords forced huge amendments to government plans for more casinos — a proposal that had narrowly passed through the Commons, because of its Labour majority.

Arguments against an elected Lords

However, proportional representation would be likely to increase the quality of electoral representation, by avoiding problems created by FPTP such as electoral deserts.

Instead, Norton makes the case for an unelected body on the basis of a democratic principle: A second chamber, elected under a proportional system which preserves its cross-party composition, would have the independence and popular legitimacy necessary to challenge the government.

The result has been a series of ever greater policy disasters and the systematic erosion of our rights and liberties. Lots of evidence shows that the UK public is already disillusioned with the political system — namely the turnout of significant elections, such as Is there a democratic case to be made against an elected second chamber?

David Marquand was not convinced. That is, it is not simply a case of opting for the "output" legitimacy of higher quality legislation over the "input" legitimacy of periodic elections. They can therefore oppose government decisions.

This increase in adversarial politics in the chamber could prevent legislation ever being passed. The British House of Commons has proven itself unable to hold the executive to account.

As Lord Tyler posted in responseit is ironic that peers who argue most strongly for the primacy of the Commons should reject the result of the March vote by MPs in favour of a wholly or partially elected second chamber simply because it does not suit their own personal opinions or interests.

It is needed now more than ever. If anything, it is an argument in favour of a more proportional electoral system since PR would produce a legislature which is more socially representative as well as having the virtue of being democratically accountable.

Overall, there are certainly a number of valid criticisms for creating an elected second chamber. Instead, Lords can focus on protecting the rights of civilians without political interference.

However, the fact that such an important body is not democratically elected arguably contributes to apathy. As in the USA, gridlock could be a common occurrence, and the governing party would not be able to fulfil their manifesto commitments.

Each of the constitutional bodies acts as a check on the power of government with the aim of upholding the values and ideals that underpin democracy itself. People would be likely to vote along their usual party lines, meaning that Lords would have to focus on political tactics to get elected, such as charisma, rather than expertise.

An elected second chamber could also lose power to hold the executive to account, because peers would be subject to the same dominance as the Commons. Now Lord Norton has put the "democratic" case for appointment. Guy Aitchison 16 July Subjects: Voting for peers could also result in voter fatigue.

Anthony Barnett has made the case on OK for the Athenian practice of sortition as an alternative and democratic form of citizen engagement that could help renew the second chamber.

If the electorate disapproves of these policies it can vote it out at the next election. In the words of another Tory peer, Lord Halisham, it is an "elective dictatorship". However, most of these issues seem to stem from the fact that the Lords could then encounter the same problems as the Commons.

Norton claims that an elected rather than appointed chamber would lose the "diversity" that the current House of Lords has relative to the House of Commons.Essay: Make out a Case against an Elected Second Chamber in the UK.

The UK currently has a system of Parliament whereby there are two chambers who can pass or reject (or, in the House of Lords just delay) bills. The House of Commons is a fully elected chamber and it is made up of representatives from different areas in the United Kingdom.

Start studying MAKE OUT A CASE AGAINST AN ELECTED SECOND CHAMBER. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Make out a case against an elected second chamber?

25 Marks The House of Lords is part of the UK s Parliament, and has been seen to be reformed for over. Anthony Barnett has made the case on OK for the Athenian practice of sortition as an alternative and democratic form of citizen engagement that could help renew the second chamber.

David Marquand was not convinced. Consider the case for and against an elected second chamber. Introduction Arguments for an elected second chamber Accountability Arguments against an elected. • Removal of hereditary peers would further enhance the chamber’s democratic legitimacy.

Make out the case against an elected second chamber

• An elected second chamber might create a balance against the power of the majority in the Commons which is largely controlled by the executive. • Greater accountability should bring the second chamber closer to public opinion.

Make out a case against an elected second chamber
Rated 4/5 based on 8 review