Analysis

[tinyjo]

Well, I'm relieved to find that I've not had any difficulties in sticking to my week off. It's always reassuring to just check your addiction levels so even though I haven't noticed any particular changes in my recovery rate or general health I think it's worth doing every now and then. I think that I am going to go back to drinking tea occasionally - I have over the last couple of months anyway - as I do seem to be able to do it in moderation now. I've been having perhaps one Earl Grey every couple of days and I don't think that's going to have too deleterious an effect on me.

I was listening to more discussion of the supreme court bill on the radio yesterday and reflecting on how very far the Labour party has fallen in my estimation these days. I am all for the idea of the separation of powers and normally, with the Lib Dems supporting the bill as well I'd be happy to dismiss Tory warnings that it'll reduce the independence of the judiciary as scaremongering, especially as I haven't heard anyone explain how it will. But I just can't imagine David Blunkett sponsoring anything to make the judges more independent right now and so I find myself suspicious. I just don't trust them to do something like this properly. I feel torn - if sending it to select committee is really a measure to allow more consultation on the bill, as the sponsors of the amendment claim then that's a really good thing. On the other hand, I can see why the government suspect that it's just a plan to can the whole thing, given how rarely it's used and how it was used last time on the hare coursing bill (nearly 30 years ago). Now, the only government I can imagine trusting to make this kind of legislation fairly is the Lib Dems, and then probably only early on in their term before I become disenchanted with them. It's not a good position because we do need separation of powers.

I'm similarly ambivalent about the plans for the House of Lords. On the one hand, patronage is not a good thing for the political system, in my opinion. On the other, the Lords has benefited a lot from it. It's members tend to be well respected experts in their fields - lawyers, expert politicians, even a few scientists (e.g Robert Winston) and philosophers. The existence of the cross benchers, the history of the house of commons suggests, would be difficult to maintain in an elected house for example, which would be a great shame - I think that our law making benefits from having a partially apolitical voice involved. In the end, I'm not sure that election is a very good way to choose leaders - you tend to get those who are great at talking the talk, but not necessarily those who'd be best at walking the walk. And with regular elections your elected representatives are always concious that they've got to get re-elected in a few years time which doesn't encourage them to make long term decisions. So I don't think I'd like to see an all elected house - one of the proportional solutions would probably get my vote. And at least the appointments process would come out of the hands of Downing Street to a commission. In the mean time, I'll just have to try and have a brainwave of a better way to choose our politicians than electing them - I could lead the next revolution :)

Oh, and while I'm on current affairs, I'd just like to respond to the interviewer who said to Lord Sainsbury "How can you justify having a consultation and then ignoring what 90% of the respondents say?". If 90% respond in one way but can't actually give any credible reasons or arguments to support their position and the other 10% can back up what they say with data then you'd be a fool to go with the 90%. The majority is not always, or even often right.

I've also started collecting icons from a few of the many many icon communities around, so this counts as a gratuitous icon post for this one - there's a couple of other ones too if for some reason you're interested.

Comments

[soulsong.livejournal.com]

The problem with having a commission to appoint members of the upper house is, "who appoints the commission?" It seems to me like the same problem just one step removed. The government gets to pretend that it's not involved in cronyism, while simultaneously getting to appoint commission members it approves of.

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

It's not a great, but it would at least be better than what we have now. Every step removed increases the chance of independant minded people slipping through the net.

[shepline.livejournal.com]

Firstly, I think the government are quite right to abolish the heredity peers from the House of Lords. I see no reason why someone should be given special rights and prevaliges just because of whom their father happened to be.

This said, I am also wary of having any kind of elected second house, because it is likely that this will introduce the worst elements of the current House of Commons. I am also scepticle of some form of *People's House* (as I think has been suggested?) to me this could end up being like a copy of Kilroy or Question Time.

There is also the tendancy that the very people who you would want to making the decisions are the very people who are too *sensible/intelligent* to not want to enter politics. For this reason, having an Appointed House of some form would seem the best approach. But who to appoint? As soulsong says, you could have an *independent* committee, but how is that appointed, and by whom?

An election of some form would be good, but only if once elected they were a *member* for a fixed term (or maybe, life?). This way, once elected they could not be beholden to anyone for re-election.

So about candidates for election appointed by some committee drawn from across the population (maybe at random like with jury service?) and then put up for election. Or would appointments made from a *jury* be enough?

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

Yeah - this is pretty similar to how I feel about it. I wondered about having long terms (but regular elections - say 1/3 of the house to be re-elected every 5 years?) but only allowing people to ever be elected once. That way you remove the re-election fears.

I think jury style membership would end up being Kilroy-ish too. Often, the issues are going to be of a nature that it's foolish to be asking a large group of untrained laymen to make the descisions on it.

The whole conundrum reminds me of Douglas Adams. If only we could get the man in the hut to do it for us :)

[shepline.livejournal.com]

we could get the man in the hut to do it for us

But wouldn't he only be concerned for his cat, and even then, not very...?!!

Seriously though, if we could get the right kind of people in there in the start, the appointment system could probably work internally from within (for the sake of argument we'll still call it) the House of Lords. Of course, we would have to get those people in there to start with but an independent, self-regulating House might (in time) work...

Or do I still have too much faith in idealism, optimism and a faith in human nature...?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

so this counts as a gratuitous icon post for this one

No it doesn't. It can't be a GIP if it's got actual, interesting content. :)

[shepline.livejournal.com]

Speaking of icons, I love that one your's you've got there! And I like the way you've just gone for a detail from the bigger item.

*stares jealously at it*

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Feel free to take and use it! And I can't claim credit for making it, either; it comes to me courtesy of despotliz.