Unicameralism
Kelvin Hopkins MP has set up an EDM, signed by 34 people to date, that points out what I said in a draft post on Lords reform - 163 MPs, 155 taking the Labour whip, voted for a unicameral system. I wrote (but didn’t post, and I know how that looks):
I believe that the best system would be unicameral with reforms to the Commons. One hundred and sixty-three MPs voted for that system including Margaret Beckett, Steven Byers, Jon Cruddas, Keith Hill (Blair’s PPS), John McFall (chair of the Treasury Select Committee), ‘Red’ Dawn Primarolo and Alex Salmond. I don’t know if there is an ulterior motive that I’m missing; if I’m reading the procedure correctly, a no-vote would not have prevented the later votes and the cries of outrage would have been audible even in the Commons. I sincerely hope that they were genuinely voting for a single chamber.
The point Hopkins makes I did not; scrapping the second chamber outright should at least be honestly and seriously considered. If nearly half the PLP want a single chamber, it has more support among the governing party than any other option.
The Lords is there as a revising and delaying chamber. Its existence suggests that the Commons does not do its job properly. Reducing the power of the whips, strengthening select and standing committees, the introduction of PR and a facility for ‘experts’ to be attached as non-voters to committees, along with some general tidying up, could cover the Lords contribution to democracy. Yes, it would be a large change, but it is not without precedent - Denmark abolished the Landsting, which had equal power to the Folketing, in 1953 at the same time as it introduced referendums on any Parliamentary vote that 10% of deputies requested. Since 1953, no referendums have taken place under that provision.
xD.
March 28th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
I am not sure unicameralism would work in the Commons. Given the volume of legislation, it would require far more standing committees to review legislation. It would also neeed MPs to be better informed and more likely to challenge the whips. Am not sure that would happen.
Additionally, there is no country as large as the UK that has ever gone unicameralism. Large polities seem to lend themselbes to bicameralism.
Also, to be honest, i think that - sometimes - having delaying power over legislation can be a good thing. It gives governments a year or so to ‘think again’ and to perhaps reach compromises with those who have reservations about some parts of a bill.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:04 am
IMO, the best thing would be to have a unicameral legislature that is entirely seperate it from the executive. Have a directly elected Prime Minister with a Cabinet entirely outside of the House. The PM would be elected for a fixed term of four years, and the annual legislation to renew the government’s power to maintain a standing army and collect taxes, upon which the survival of a government rests, would no longer be necessary. This would hopefully free the House from the control of Whips who are members of the Executive, and allow MPs to concentrate on being legislators rather than positioning themselves to be Ministers.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Vino - China is unicameral (although I know that’s a piss-poor example) as are the Israeli Knesset, the New Zealandish Parliament, the Portuguese Assembly and the Meclis of Turkey (pop. 72m).
I think I’m right in saying that Arend Ljiphart in Patterns of Democracy argues that a pure Westminster model would only have one chamber. I’ll check.
Gregg - I’m not sure. I think that moves to far towards presidentialism, to which I’m opposed for various reasons. Would the executive be dependent on the confidence of the legislature? There are varieties that have been and are used around the world.
Ultimately, though, this shows that we need a more informed and ongoing debate about the constitutional arrangements in the UK.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Yes, I had forgotten about the Turkish example. I think they are the largest democratic state without a 2nd chamber.