Display:
Not sure that is right in the case of the UK. It seems the government is moving towards a proposal to have a largely elected upper house, with fewer powers than the largely hereditary House before 1999 and the largely appointed House which currently exists.

Some people may favour an elected House with more powers, but the mediocrities in the House of Commons are jealous of rival centres of power.

by Gary J on Thu May 11th, 2006 at 10:25:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Isn't it rather contradictory to improve the popular mandate and at the same time reduce its powers?

That would be yet another nonsensical Blair policy.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 12th, 2006 at 06:36:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Precisely, but it is not totally without support in the House of Commons. A lot of Labour MPs would really like a unicameral Parliament, so reducing the other House's powers is attractive to them.

In general the further a politician is from power the more likely he is to favour checks and balances on the executive and the elective dictatorship it exercises so long as it controls the House of Commons.

by Gary J on Fri May 12th, 2006 at 11:20:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series