Sass posted this today: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/an ... y-forward/

an excerpt:

The English Nationalist view would be that England is a country like Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland, and that if the other countries of the United Kingdom are to have devolved powers that must apply to England too – whether via an English Parliament or English votes on English measures for Westminster MPs.

The Unionist position, by contrast, ranks the unity and integrity of the United Kingdom above the unity and integrity of any individual component of the United Kingdom. Because the English population constitutes more than four fifths of the UK population as a whole, an English Parliament (whether in the form of a separate entity or a Grand Committee of English House of Commons MPs voting on English-only laws) would have almost all the relevant powers and influence of the United Kingdom as a whole. Such an arrangement would de facto replace the Union as one country with a collaborative confederation of four largely separate countries, with that federation dominated by one country – England. In the case of the Grand Committee option, it would effectively make it impossible ever subsequently to have a Prime Minister of the Commons coming from anywhere other than England.

The Unionist cannot accept that. In my view (and this has been my view ever since the Welsh Assembly was first agreed) the Unionist position must have four elements:

And right up to there I was with him. But here are the four elements...

The rejection of dominance — The Unionist, regarding Britain as one entity, must reject the idea that any region should dominate in influence or affluence. The governance units in any new arrangement must be of broadly the same order of magnitude.

I agree on this, to a point. England makes up about 85% of the population of the UK. It always has been the major partner in the Union, and before other partners joined the Union, England was already exerting influence through force on each. But in a modern democratic state, it is not sustainable for one polity to be so much larger than the others. However, I would be flexible on size - particularly with smaller units. I'd be comfortable with Cornwall having the same status as any region, and with the 'Crown Dependencies' finally coming into the fold if they want to.

The rejection of federalism — We should conceive of whatever new arrangement arises for the Union as a form of regional governance. There is no passing of fundamental sovereignty to “states” or “statelets” of the Union. Sovereignty must remain with the Crown in Parliament. Governance through regional assemblies or “parliaments” should be understood as a scaling up and deepening of local government via county councils or regional authorities, not a passing down of sovereignty from Parliament to federal units. One implication of this is that there is no need for any "constitutional convention" or "written constitution" setting the relationships involved; neither is there any need to consider questions such as the role of the House of Lords. These assemblies are just a grand-scale form of local government – nothing more.

Not only do I fundamentally disagree, I also note that now we can see that these four principles are negative, not positive. As a republican (who can accommodate a weak monarchy for the sake of harmony), I would argue that we should consider power as coming up from the citizenry, not being devolved down from the Crown. And I also disagree with the idea of using this as a way to simply pass things up from local authorities to larger (and more remote) units. A written constitution is not a must, but we should have a consultative and open process before we do undertake much more radical change. Scotland, Wales and in particular Northern Ireland all had such processes before a referendum on change.

The rejection of permanence — Like any form of non-sovereign local government, future reforms might change things considerably, reorganising boundaries or relevant subdivisions. And responsibility for how such governance works must remain with the Crown-in-Parliament. The most important part of Cameron’s promises of further devolution to Scotland that must be repudiated (for he made no promises in my name or after having secured any agreement from the Conservative Party, let alone the country) is that the Scottish Parliament should be made “permanent”. Scots voted No to independence, not yes, so they rejected the idea that Scotland should become a separate state with full individual sovereignty.

Quite apart from seeking to renege on this, the idea that we should explicitly avoid permanence would undermine any outcome. Rather, we should intend reforms to result in an indefinite outcome (and if change is needed, address it then). Like the second, this seems to be about devolving responsibility without any real power, and making sure that it's clear that any and all local governments know that they are mere baubles in the hands of the power of the centre - the 'Crown in Parliament', ie: the current UK government.

The “if one suffers, we all suffer” principle — The argument for additional governance layers, from the Unionist perspective, is nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of governance by that means. Many folks are taking this opportunity to push their own preferred forms of local government. But arguments about whether regional or big city assemblies are a good form of government are irrelevant. I believe assemblies and “parliaments” are manifestly a bad form of government. But as a Unionist, my belief is that we must have common forms of governance throughout the Union. So if two components of England-and-Wales, say, are going to have assemblies (Wales and London), then we all must suffer that way of doing things for a while. I would hope that, in fifty years or whatever, we shall all come to our senses, see what a daft way of doing things this is, and in due course abolish the whole of them. But in the meantime we are where we are and must make the best of it.

This is the most bizarre 'principle' of all - he doesn't like democratically elected assemblies, but as some people have to 'suffer' them, he suggests we should all put up with them. This is basically the most negative principle of all. I'm wondering what he would prefer. Perhaps a return to the rule of the Major-Generals of 1655?

My principles would be (in response)

1. Balance of powers - no one area should dominate the others, whether at a 'national', 'regional' or local level. This means that each should be sustainable as a unit and able to stand up for its residents, representing their will not that of a powerful neighbour.

2. Power should derive upwards from the people - we have replaced the Monarch with a strong central government that has adopted the power of a Monarch. It's high time we moved into the Enlightenment and actually recognised the Rights of Man, not the Divine Right of Kings. And we should extend the Major principle of 'Subsidiarity' - which was then only about power moving down from the EU to the nation states and no further to mollify the opponents of Maastricht.

3. Stability and flexibility - While recognising that things do change, the framework should be robust, and if not part of a 'Constitution' at least easily codified so that any institutions created or reformed have credibility.

4. What works for an area, and is approved by the people, should be the guide - within basic democratic principles.

While it's true that I did indeed post that article, I must say that it's not one that I actually agree with. It was more of an interesting discussion point to show that regional devolution within England has its advocates from the right. I guess it should be noted that Andrew Lilico (a very interesting columnist btw, he always comes out with thought-provoking stuff) is not really an advocate of regional devolution either. Rather he just sees it as the least worst option in the face of the fait accompli that our leaders have presented us with as regards enhanced Scottish devolution, the bribe they felt the need to give to Scotland to secure a No vote.

The fundamental problem we face is that since 1999 we've had distinct Scottish and Welsh assemblies (I'll leave out discussion of Northern Ireland, which is just a whole different mess) with various devolved powers while also sending MPs to Westminster who are then able to vote on legislation at a 'UK' level which in effect only has any impact on English citizens without affecting their own constituents. The so-called West Lothian Question. Needless to say the vast majority of British people have never heard of it and until very recently haven't given a damn. It was only political junkies like Dan and me that actually took any interest in constitutional affairs that understood the issue, and the vast majority of this very small minority (myself included) have been willing to ignore the problem because it was too much of a headache to address it and the overall impact in the grand scheme of things has been small. Throughout the period 1997-2010 the Labour party commanded an outright majority in England irrespective of their seats in the rest of the UK so the number of votes that have been passed that needed Scottish MPs to ensure they got over the line has been very small. With that said though, there's one standout issue. When Labour brought in university tuition fees they faced a backbench revolt and had to rely on votes from their Scottish MPs to pass the bill, even though this was a devolved issue in Scotland. that meant that the 40-odd Scottish Labour MPs were voting to impose thousands of pounds worth of extra debt onto every university student in England that their own constituents were exempt from.

The reason why this is becoming a much bigger deal now is that the current polls are showing a likelihood of a Labour government next year with a wafer thin majority. Labour currently have 41 MPs in Scotland, the Tories have 1. This means that a Labour government with a small majority will be wholly reliant on Scottish MPs to pass any legislation. Also, in a fit of panic following a couple of dubious polls, all three main party leaders made a 'solemn vow' to the Scots that they'd begin work on a massive expansion of devolved powers to Scotland right away, including extensive powers on taxation, welfare and all kinds of other issues. Combine the two and you have the recipe for a constitutional crisis. Most of the legislation that these Scottish MPs will be voting on won't actually affect the people who elected them, a point which the Tories, who are likely to have a majority in England, can be sure to point out at every opportunity. We're not likely to be able to get away with ignoring the West Lothian Question for very much longer, hence all the sudden talk of constitutional reform. If Labour wins with a small majority next year the very legitimacy of the government will be called into question. Repeatedly.

This is already a long post and I'm about to go to bed, so I won't continue right away into a discussion of all the proposed solutions to the 'English question', but I will say that I see major problems with the conept of trying to solve the WRQ through breaking up of England into arbitrary regions and devolving powers downwards in piecemeal fashion. So far as I'm concerned the WLQ is a distinct issue which can be tackled quickly and relatively easily while a separate conversation about wider devolution takes place. The reason it hasn't been resolved already is largely down to the fact that Labour benefits enromously from the imbalance and never had any incentive to change while they were in government, but also down to the fact that none of the proposed solutions is without its problems. However, of those that i've seen my preferred option would be the Grand Committee solution. Essentially this would mean that for any legislation that only affects England a committee would be formed drawn proportionately from a party's representation in England. Any laws would have to pass a double majority of the whole House and of the Committee. Most of the time this wouldn't change very much, but for those occasions where there's a Labour majority UK-wide but not in Englkand it could force them into having to compromise. They'd be working in what would amount to a minority government position and need to make deals to get their legislation for England through, while still occupying all the ministerial posts. It's the least disruptive solution to the problem, and most of the time wouldn't change anything. The question of whether further powers should be devolved downwards anyway is one that can be tackled on its own merits at a more leisurely pace. I see no reason why this would preclude non-English people from being PM, or for that matter why it would have to mean that we'd need an English First Minister and separate English government.

Let's resolve the West Lothian Question now and then worry about subsidiarity at our leisure.

On the specific question of whether power in England should be devolved to the regions, I have to say that I'm very sceptical. There are obvious problems with the concept. Firstly, what are these regions ? Scotland and wales are historic nations with centuries of history behind them and a keen sense of national identity. This makes them natural administrative units that all of the citizens can buy into. I can't think of any comparable region in England which you could say the same about. Maybe Yorkshire would work in the way, and maybe Cornwall I suppose, although Cornwall is tiny and heavily populated by people who were born elsewhere. The fact is that people in England don't really self-identify by their region so there's no natural boundaries that you could create that would make sense. It's also the case that we tend to be very suspicious of plans to impose yet more layers of government upon us. Labour originally planned to bring in regional assemblies but the first time they put one to the vote it was rejected with an 80% No vote that derailed the whole process. There's simply no desire in England for regional devolution.

Secondly, regional devolution wouldn't really solve the West Lothian Question. It's highly doubtful that the same sort of powers would be devolved to the English regions as are currently proposed to go to Scotland. Can you imagine there being a dozen different regions of the Uk all with their own different rates in income tax, their own differing NHS, education and welfare policies ? It'snot going to work. People already complain about so-called 'postcode lotteries' in the provision of public services. It would be a million times worse if we devolved those powers down to a bewildering range of different regional administrations. The voters would instinctively demand that somebody at the centre take hold of the situation and ensure equal treatment for all, which would completely undermine the whole concept.

Thirdly, it happens to be the case that there are very few Engliosh regions that are not completely dominated by one political party. If we had regional devolution then inevitably what we'd see is that the North would be a permanent Labour fiefdom and the south would be Tory for evermore. This is a recipe for nepotism, corruption and poor government. If we want evidence of this we need only look at Wales, which has a locked-in Labour majority in its devolved assembly and also happens to have some of the worst performing pubic services anywhere. Take a look at local councils like Rotherham for similar tales of underperformance and complacency. It's hard to see how we could draw up the boundaries of these regions in a way that would prevent them becoming rotten boroughs.

Like I said, I'm sceptical. You're an enthusiast though Dan, so maybe you can explain to me how this could be made to work ?

Sassenach wrote:On the specific question of whether power in England should be devolved to the regions, I have to say that I'm very sceptical. There are obvious problems with the concept.

And there are obvious problems with EV4EL, especially if you don't allow for the imbalance it causes in England. The question is how bad the problems are and whether there are any solutions.

Firstly, what are these regions ? Scotland and wales are historic nations with centuries of history behind them and a keen sense of national identity. This makes them natural administrative units that all of the citizens can buy into. I can't think of any comparable region in England which you could say the same about. Maybe Yorkshire would work in the way, and maybe Cornwall I suppose, although Cornwall is tiny and heavily populated by people who were born elsewhere.

I don't think this is as big an issue as you think, or insurmountable. Firstly, we do have regional variations and some clear cultural differences, with common ground. Secondly, regional divisions don't have to be historical or deep rooted to work well. Germany's Lander are not really that old at all, and other than Bavaria were formed by joining together and/or splitting the old regions. Other countries have managed it - of course they are more likely to have avoided the strong central government we've seen for most of our history.

The current regions (created by the Major government in the 1990s) are probably not the ideal starting point. A common theme I see is to use (as a geographical and naming basis) some of the old Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, but there are other ways to do it.

I think that people do to an extent self-identify by where they come from and live. And the question of what level that is is a contextual one.

The fact is that people in England don't really self-identify by their region so there's no natural boundaries that you could create that would make sense. It's also the case that we tend to be very suspicious of plans to impose yet more layers of government upon us. Labour originally planned to bring in regional assemblies but the first time they put one to the vote it was rejected with an 80% No vote that derailed the whole process. There's simply no desire in England for regional devolution.

London is part of England still, and they voted for regional devolution.

I think that it would not be 'another' layer of government if we did two things:

1) simplify the lower tier of local government into unitary authorities, removing a whole tier from much of England

2) Ensure that the powers are coming [b]down[b/] to the regions from government, and identifiably so.

Secondly, regional devolution wouldn't really solve the West Lothian Question. It's highly doubtful that the same sort of powers would be devolved to the English regions as are currently proposed to go to Scotland. Can you imagine there being a dozen different regions of the Uk all with their own different rates in income tax, their own differing NHS, education and welfare policies ? It'snot going to work. People already complain about so-called 'postcode lotteries' in the provision of public services. It would be a million times worse if we devolved those powers down to a bewildering range of different regional administrations. The voters would instinctively demand that somebody at the centre take hold of the situation and ensure equal treatment for all, which would completely undermine the whole concept.

Well, I don't thing 10-11 is a 'bewildering array', and they would probably be more like London in terms of devolved power than Scotland.

Yes, people complain about 'postcode lotteries'. They also complain about the remoteness of Westminster, and about the problems of a 'one-size-fits-all' approach. People will complain. But if they have power to do something about it by arguing for change at a more local level.

And I would take a 'horses for courses' approach.

Thirdly, it happens to be the case that there are very few Engliosh regions that are not completely dominated by one political party. If we had regional devolution then inevitably what we'd see is that the North would be a permanent Labour fiefdom and the south would be Tory for evermore. This is a recipe for nepotism, corruption and poor government. If we want evidence of this we need only look at Wales, which has a locked-in Labour majority in its devolved assembly and also happens to have some of the worst performing pubic services anywhere. Take a look at local councils like Rotherham for similar tales of underperformance and complacency. It's hard to see how we could draw up the boundaries of these regions in a way that would prevent them becoming rotten boroughs.

A 'rotten borough' does not mean that. It was a pre-1832 Parliamentary constituency that had so few voters and a powerful landowner that it could be effectively bought by whoever wanted to stand there.

But let's look at this properly.

1) Wales has not got a "locked-in Labour majority". to have a majority a part needs 31 seats. Labour has never had more than 30, which it has now and had 2003-7. At any time over the last 25 years the other parties could have formed a coalition and taken over.

2) There are ways to avoid a single party dominating, and the most obvious one is a decent PR system. While Labour is the largest party in parts of the North, and the Tories are in the South, it would be rare for them to consistently poll over 50%. Also with PR we are more likely to see smaller parties emerge to challenge the status quo, which with FPTP is very hard to do.

3) Yes, a consistent leadership can be corrupting. But then again there have been some very successful local authorities which have had long leaderships by one party or another. What we find is that places where local conditions mean that public services are stretched (so, places with higher poverty) tend to have worse outcomes. That is not caused simply by who runs the local authority.

4) Also, Rotherham is a great example to pull out, if you want to push emotive buttons, so long as you avoid the facts. The police (not run by the local authority but by a county-wide force under central government) and the CPS (part of central government) were clearly identified as being largely responsible for the fact that crimes were not properly investigated or prosecuted (and let's face it, those things are primarily the responsibility of those two bodies). Yes, the council had a responsibility and failed as well, but I don't know if that is clearly linkable to which party was in power or that a single party was in power. There was a lot going on and individuals as well as institutions need to be looked at.

Like I said, I'm sceptical. You're an enthusiast though Dan, so maybe you can explain to me how this could be made to work ?

'Enthusiast'? I just think it is better to move power away from the national level towards the people.

I'd also be happy if instead we devolved much more power down to local authorities, and allowed them to work across regions together - so long as it is consensual.

Well, I don't thing 10-11 is a 'bewildering array', and they would probably be more like London in terms of devolved power than Scotland.

As I thought. You don't really envisage a federal system for Britain at all, just slightly enhanced local government. The London Assembly has very limited powers, mostly concerning transport policy. If what you're proposing is just to roll out a similar system across the rest of England then it's hardly going to make much of a difference. People are going to reject that because a) it will be widely viewed as just another layer of local government with the same old same old making the same sort of decisions, and b) beca\use it doesn't do anything to tackle the WLQ.

This is exactly the sort of fudge I'd expect to see Ed Miliband come out with if he wins next year. It's not necessarily a bad idea as such, but it doesn't solve the constitutional problem that greater devolution for Scotland creates.

1) Wales has not got a "locked-in Labour majority". to have a majority a part needs 31 seats. Labour has never had more than 30, which it has now and had 2003-7. At any time over the last 25 years the other parties could have formed a coalition and taken over.

But they haven't, and the result has been one-party rule and poor governance.

2) There are ways to avoid a single party dominating, and the most obvious one is a decent PR system. While Labour is the largest party in parts of the North, and the Tories are in the South, it would be rare for them to consistently poll over 50%. Also with PR we are more likely to see smaller parties emerge to challenge the status quo, which with FPTP is very hard to do.

PR is a much broader issue of course. I don't think most people would choose it if given the option. The only examples of PR in the British constitution have been imposed without any consultation. AV was roundly defeated when we had the chance to vote on it.

3) Yes, a consistent leadership can be corrupting. But then again there have been some very successful local authorities which have had long leaderships by one party or another. What we find is that places where local conditions mean that public services are stretched (so, places with higher poverty) tend to have worse outcomes. That is not caused simply by who runs the local authority.

Single party rule is almost always a bad thing. If nothing else it's extremely bad for political engagement. Turnout declines and people take less of an interest.

4) Also, Rotherham is a great example to pull out, if you want to push emotive buttons, so long as you avoid the facts. The police (not run by the local authority but by a county-wide force under central government) and the CPS (part of central government) were clearly identified as being largely responsible for the fact that crimes were not properly investigated or prosecuted (and let's face it, those things are primarily the responsibility of those two bodies). Yes, the council had a responsibility and failed as well, but I don't know if that is clearly linkable to which party was in power or that a single party was in power. There was a lot going on and individuals as well as institutions need to be looked at

Mostly I raised Rotherham because I live just down the road and so it's a bit more fresh in the mind (a lot of my friends live there). I do think though that if the people in power in Rotherham had felt more accountable to their electorate (ie, if they'd faced a meaningful threat to their re-election), then they'd not have been so shockingly complacent for so long. Like I said above, single party rule is a bad thing.

Sassenach wrote:

Well, I don't thing 10-11 is a 'bewildering array', and they would probably be more like London in terms of devolved power than Scotland.

As I thought. You don't really envisage a federal system for Britain at all, just slightly enhanced local government. The London Assembly has very limited powers, mostly concerning transport policy. If what you're proposing is just to roll out a similar system across the rest of England then it's hardly going to make much of a difference. People are going to reject that because a) it will be widely viewed as just another layer of local government with the same old same old making the same sort of decisions, and b) beca\use it doesn't do anything to tackle the WLQ.

This is exactly the sort of fudge I'd expect to see Ed Miliband come out with if he wins next year. It's not necessarily a bad idea as such, but it doesn't solve the constitutional problem that greater devolution for Scotland creates.

The London Authority (Assembly and Mayor combined) do not just deal with transport (although, yes, it does run TfL). They also have responsibility on planning and housing.

London could get more powers, as could regions. Just as for Wales and Scotland, I'd want to see them established before gaining new powers.

1) Wales has not got a "locked-in Labour majority". to have a majority a part needs 31 seats. Labour has never had more than 30, which it has now and had 2003-7. At any time over the last 25 years the other parties could have formed a coalition and taken over.

But they haven't, and the result has been one-party rule and poor governance

If the 32 (or more) other members of the Assembly are allowing the 30 (or fewer) who run it to do so badly, that surely reflects on them. It can't be 'one party rule' if that party has never had a majority.

PR is a much broader issue of course. I don't think most people would choose it if given the option. The only examples of PR in the British constitution have been imposed without any consultation. AV was roundly defeated when we had the chance to vote on it.

AV is not PR. I support PR and voted against AV, and I know others who felt the same way.

And no, your assertion on it being imposed without consultation is wrong. It was part of the proposal that the referendums for Welsh, Scottish and London devolution were voting on.

Single party rule is almost always a bad thing. If nothing else it's extremely bad for political engagement. Turnout declines and people take less of an interest.

Hence PR, to reduce the likelihood of it.

Mostly I raised Rotherham because I live just down the road and so it's a bit more fresh in the mind (a lot of my friends live there). I do think though that if the people in power in Rotherham had felt more accountable to their electorate (ie, if they'd faced a meaningful threat to their re-election), then they'd not have been so shockingly complacent for so long. Like I said above, single party rule is a bad thing.

If anything, I was under the impression that fear of political opponents (the racist BNP et al) exploiting things was part of the reason behind not pursuing cases, and fear of losing support amongst the Pakistani community was why they were not being challenged. Which suggests it was not really complacency about being able to do whatever they wanted and win elections.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ction-poll

Well I guess this might (sort of) solve the West Lothian question...

It won't happen of course, but it is intriguing to see stuff like this so close to the election.

Sassenach wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/30/scottish-labour-snp-general-election-poll

Well I guess this might (sort of) solve the West Lothian question...

It won't happen of course, but it is intriguing to see stuff like this so close to the election.

I'm not a great fan of the SLP, to be honest. This is the kind of wake-up they need (and also the national party needs a bit of a check on how they deal with it).

It would probably be daft to read too much into this, what with it being only a single poll taken in the immediate aftermath of Johann Lamont's resignation. That said, it would be crazy to ignore it as well. i can easily see Labour losing maybe 10 seats in Scotland next year, which could make all the difference.

Quite what they do about it remains to be seen. I'm not wholly convinced that Jim Murphy is the answer. He had a good referendum but ultimately he's a guy who has never had a job in his entire life. He isn't really any different to Cameron, Clegg and Miliband in that respect, but since all three of them are massively unpopular right now this isn't necessarily a selling point. Labour in scotland is cryiong out for some authenticity and I really don't see Murphy providing that.

Not Mr Murphy's biggest fan either.

I can't see how you can have a leader of the Scottish party who is not in the Scottish Parliament, frankly. Some parties can get away with having a leader outside the main focus of their power, (UKIP can sustain Farage as leader outside the Commons - for now; the Greens can be led by a Welsh AM etc), but if Murphy does win, they will still need a leader of the Scottish MSPs who would lead the official opposition at Holyrood, so it sets up an instant rivalry.

Plus, he's a boor.

I think things will settle down, so long as Lamont's successor can turn things around quickly. But the legacy of the referendum campaign (and deliberately stoked up by the Nats with their accusations of 'betrayal', as if people should be loyal to a country that doesn't exist yet) and a longer legacy of corruption in power, sectarian tactics and complacency are going to tell.

On the main topic, I see that Miliband has produced a proposal - replace the Lords. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... er-regions

“It cannot be right that the north-west has almost the same population as London but only a small fraction of London’s number of peers. London is our capital and one of the world’s great cities but it cannot be right London has more members of the House of Lords than the East Midlands, West Midlands, Wales, Northern Ireland, the north-east and Yorkshire and Humberside added together,” he will say.

This is such a bogus argument. Of course there are more Peers who live in London, that's where the Lords is based and if they want to be able to attend regularly they need to be there as well. Move it to Manchester and you'd suddenly find an imbalance in favour of the North West (or more likely in favour of leafy Cheshire. Lords are not intended to represent a particular region in Parliament so it hardly matters where their main residence is. Frankly, there isn't really much of a case for making Peers into regional representatives unless we're also going to move to a fully federal constitution, which seems doubtful to me.

The Lords is an imperfect institution but it works more or less ok as is. I don't think an elected upper house is going to offer us much by way of improvement really. All it does is bring in another tier of politicians, who will inevitably start agitating for greater powers to reflect their new mandate. We'd lose an enormous reservoir of experience from the current house and add in a bunch of inexperienced politicians who would act in a more openly partisan fashion, which would probably lead to poorer legislation being drafted and more political conflict between the two houses.

Now I would be a liar to think I knew even a fraction of what I am talking about, if I were bold enough to comment on all of this. But from what you have explained to me, why is there still a House of Lords at all? Barring the British love of tradition, of course, there seems to be little need. New Zealand abolished its Legislative Council (upper house) I think in the 60's. The whole point of having an upper house in a parliamentary democracy is to be able to check the awesome authority of the government-dominated lower house. So perhaps what you just stated would be exactly right: if you had a House of Lords which had actual power again, but based on a different scheme of membership than prior to say, 1910, you'd end up with the United States Congress, especially the way it is at present. You would no longer have a "strong government, capable of acting." I think that's what you're saying, Sass.?

So why not abolish it? just a thought...

Oh, P.S., that's just ONE thought...if I have anything further to ask, comparative politics-wise, I'll "retreat" to the thread where we were talking about this---the one on parliamentary & presidential democracy. From here in, I'll just keep my head down and "listen" on this thread. I do not want to "infect" this one...

The Lords fulfills an important function which is not widely appreciated. It contains a vast amount of expertise built up over decades across a huge range of different fields.You have top scientists, constitutional experts, senior businesspeople, senior members of the judiciary, high level civil servants with decades of experience at the top level of government, long-serving MPs and government ministers with experience of running the major departments of state. Yes, these are all appointed to their position rather than being elected, so there's a lack of democratic legitimacy there, but they realise this and act accordingly, and in any case they can be overridden by the Commons so it's not necessarily an issue. What these people bring to the table is experience and independence. They're able to spot potential loopholes and unforeseen problems with proposed legislation and pass constructive amendments to draft bills to iron out the flaws. Most of them do have a political alignment but because of their age, seniority and lack of any need to be re-elected they tend to be much more independent of the party machine than MPs are. This means that they can't be easily leant upon by the whips.

It's an effective system that helps to improve an awful lot of bad legislation. It isn't terribly democratic of course, and that is a concern, but it works. The alternatives are all problematic. Having a directly elected Lords replaces all of that accrued experience and independence and replaces it with directly elected politicians who would be little different to the people elected to the Commons. The Lords would instantly become more party political and less considerative. Effective scrutiny of draft legislation would be reduced and high-profile conflict between the two bodies would be increased. The result would be diminished government.

Fascinating. That's why I like this site; always easier to learn from other people than from a textbook or something.

From what I've learned here it stands to reason why the UK, even in "reorganization" so to speak, has no singular, written constitution. The convention would take decades to finish the job....3 1/2 months wouldn't do....