INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

constitution uk

For news of events, petitions and campaigns that may be of interest to humanists and secularists.
Message
Author
Zeff
Posts: 142
Joined: August 6th, 2016, 2:13 pm

Re: constitution uk

#21 Post by Zeff » July 21st, 2017, 10:52 am

Latest post of the previous page:

.

Zeff
Posts: 142
Joined: August 6th, 2016, 2:13 pm

Re: constitution uk

#22 Post by Zeff » July 21st, 2017, 10:53 am

Zeff wrote:
Alan H wrote:But what is the 'right' number and why? Why 325? Why not 650 or 1,000?
Good people will make a bad system work and bad people will make a good system fail, but I would expect the leading 325 politicians to make better decisions than 1500 or so Commons and Lords who serve as they do. (325 is half of 650 and so easy to implement by just having one MP for two constituencies). Perhaps a few more could be added by Proportional Representation.

I agree with Nick that evolution is better than revolution, but we aren't getting much evolution. I also agree we don't want two elected houses.

MPs and Lords inability to reform themselves or even moderate their numbers illustrates the argument for a fourth (Constitutional) branch of government which could threaten them with a referendum on the subject if they don't. Those in power cannot much alter the system as they are too invested in it and convinced of its worth. After all, it put them in power.

Yet another bad decision may have been to keep MPs at Westminster instead of selling the property. I would like to see an independent assessment of the advantages of a purpose built, modern facility that would remove the need for all MPs to buy houses in London. It might make their security cheaper too and the sale of Westminster might pay for much of it, I don't know.

If we want reviews of Commons legislation done by experts employ some for the purpose, don't send it to the HofLords. Don't have a HofLords.

Bishops there by right of clerical office is a clear breach of the principle of separation of Church and State.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: constitution uk

#23 Post by Alan H » July 21st, 2017, 11:08 am

There is no principle of the separation of church and state enshrined anywhere in the UK. It may be an aspiration by some - and would certainly be opposed by others - but there is no law that could be enforced to provide it. There is supposedly one in the US, but it's clearly rather fuzzy.

But none of what you say justifies why you would like a change from 650.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: constitution uk

#24 Post by animist » July 23rd, 2017, 12:36 pm

Zeff wrote:
Zeff wrote:
Alan H wrote:But what is the 'right' number and why? Why 325? Why not 650 or 1,000?
Good people will make a bad system work and bad people will make a good system fail, but I would expect the leading 325 politicians to make better decisions than 1500 or so Commons and Lords who serve as they do. (325 is half of 650 and so easy to implement by just having one MP for two constituencies). Perhaps a few more could be added by Proportional Representation.

I agree with Nick that evolution is better than revolution, but we aren't getting much evolution. I also agree we don't want two elected houses.

MPs and Lords inability to reform themselves or even moderate their numbers illustrates the argument for a fourth (Constitutional) branch of government which could threaten them with a referendum on the subject if they don't. Those in power cannot much alter the system as they are too invested in it and convinced of its worth. After all, it put them in power.

Yet another bad decision may have been to keep MPs at Westminster instead of selling the property. I would like to see an independent assessment of the advantages of a purpose built, modern facility that would remove the need for all MPs to buy houses in London. It might make their security cheaper too and the sale of Westminster might pay for much of it, I don't know.

If we want reviews of Commons legislation done by experts employ some for the purpose, don't send it to the HofLords. Don't have a HofLords.

Bishops there by right of clerical office is a clear breach of the principle of separation of Church and State.
I don't see that one could have a sort of mixed system for one legislature on the basis of PR plus FPTP, however many individual MPs there were. And why do you and Nick both reject an elected upper house? I think that the more powerful house should be elected by some form of PR. One fair criticism of PR in general is that it neglects local representation in favour of fair representation, so maybe the upper house could be elected on a geographical basis; apparently the Australian system is the reverse of this, but I think that if parties (including eg Ukip and the Greens) were fairly represented in the primary legislative body there would be less temptation to hold referendums. If referendums ever are held again, they should only be used to confirm radical changes already decided by parliament, not (as with the disastrous one of 2016) forcing parliament to vote against its better judgment

coffee
Posts: 1589
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: constitution uk

#25 Post by coffee » July 23rd, 2017, 2:02 pm

There is a constitutional amendments section every 50 years on page 34 of the People's Constitution, I hope that is any help.

Post Reply