That was supposed to read -- FCS Discussion Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: That was supposed to read

Author:
Steph (U.S.)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:51:26 12/01/04 Wed
In reply to: Steph (U.S.) 's message, "U.S. Senate Model" on 16:49:47 12/01/04 Wed

The talk about having to give one or the other of the members of the proposed federation a disproportionate number of members of the House of Commons raises a question in my mind, Why not use the U.S. Senate model.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hm.

Author:
Ed Harris (Venezia)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 17:00:22 12/01/04 Wed

The trouble with that is quite simply that the British model for bicameralism is very different: the upper house is not related to population or areas. It is not representative of this or that particular region or group of people, but, traditionally, of specific interest groups which are vital to the nation's interests (although as Mr Blair's reforms are put into effect it shall probably end up representing large-scale donors to the leading political parties). The hereditary peers represent the landed and, theoretically, agricultural interest; the life peers represent the business and commercial interest, as well as bringing in those who are the leaders of other important sectors of society, such as the media, the thespians, etc. etc.; and the bishops, Chief Rabbi and Chief Imam represent the spiritual establishment (but no Catholics, of course, because of our religious laws). The attempt to superimpose a popular or geographical representative function on the Upper House would involve a complete re-think of the entire purpose of having a second chamber in the first place. I am not averse to this, but it would not be a simple transformation.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]