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: Hm. | |
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 17:00:22 12/01/04 Wed In reply to: Steph (U.S.) 's message, "That was supposed to read" on 16:51:26 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. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |