Comments on: Unicameralism http://davecole.org/blog/2007/03/28/unicameralism/ Thoughts, notes and comments Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:18:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Vino S http://davecole.org/blog/2007/03/28/unicameralism/#comment-180 Vino S Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:21:00 +0000 http://davecole.org/blog/?p=215#comment-180 Yes, I had forgotten about the Turkish example. I think they are the largest democratic state without a 2nd chamber. Yes, I had forgotten about the Turkish example. I think they are the largest democratic state without a 2nd chamber.

]]> By: El Dave. http://davecole.org/blog/2007/03/28/unicameralism/#comment-179 El Dave. Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:19:00 +0000 http://davecole.org/blog/?p=215#comment-179 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).<br/><br/>I think I'm right in saying that Arend Ljiphart in <i>Patterns of Democracy</i> argues that a pure Westminster model would only have one chamber. I'll check.<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>Ultimately, though, this shows that we need a more informed and ongoing debate about the constitutional arrangements in the UK. 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.

]]> By: Gregg http://davecole.org/blog/2007/03/28/unicameralism/#comment-178 Gregg Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:04:00 +0000 http://davecole.org/blog/?p=215#comment-178 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. 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.

]]> By: Vino S http://davecole.org/blog/2007/03/28/unicameralism/#comment-177 Vino S Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:35:00 +0000 http://davecole.org/blog/?p=215#comment-177 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.<br/><br/>Additionally, there is no country as large as the UK that has ever gone unicameralism. Large polities seem to lend themselbes to bicameralism.<br/><br/>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. 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.

]]>