The House of Lords reform has been discussed for a very long time, it is more than a 100 years since the parliament act was passed. In 1910 the House of Lords vent to anger when Peers refused the Liberal government’s budget. According to the House of Lords reform Timeline, the first reform happened in 1911 and 1949 where acts were introduced that significantly diminished the House of Lords powers. The House of Lords second reform bill reading was on the 9th July 2012, 100 conservative MPs were unhappy with the bill. They said it was going to end up in making a greater friction between the modificated House of Lords and the commons. Reforming the House of Lords would solve some problems as well as it would cause problems. If the House of Lords is reformed in a way that there will be 50/50 split between appointed and elected peers, the 50 elected peers would present an element of democracy into the House. While the 50 appointed peers would have an area of expertise to bring into the House. On the other hand we would lose more experienced and acknowledged experts in various fields’ peers. If the peers were to be fully appointed it would be more economical than having elections as it is not known how often the elections will take place, and removing the 92 hereditary peers would be a bad idea since they know and understand a lot about laws and have been checking laws since a long time and the new peers would not have any experience regarding laws. The House of Lords reform would solve more problems owing to the fact that it would make the house more representative. Ethnic minorities currently make up a small percentage in the house. In addition they are little women in the house, so having more women that know how real life is and h... ... middle of paper ... ...rming the House of Lords would solve more problems than it would cause in a sense that the goal is to make the house more representative as well as it would decrease the amount of money spent on meals, accommodation and the money the peers receive every time they seat in the house. The system will be strong bicameral similar to the Us and the parliament will be more democratic. There may be life peers who want to resign but cannot, so reforming the house would give the opportunity to those who are willing to resign owing to being tired and they want to rest, they might be tired of doing the same thing for their entire life, and after the reform when a peers is not doing the work as it should be he/she can be expelled. The House of Commons would share all the responsibilities with the Lords since they do not have a lot of time now that they are the only ones elected.
Ahead in the book, I discover that Norway, Sweden and Denmark nullified their second chambers, choosing that bicameralism was no more essential. In reality, even the House of Lords in England has had its energy fundamentally decreased through time and as Dahl says, "The fate of that old chamber stays in extensive uncertainty." The purposes behind these bicameral contemplations in the constitution need to do with accommodating equivalent representation.
...s, be more representative, leading to policies that better reflect the average voter and smaller parties that actually have some influence in parliament. Voter apathy would likely decrease with a system that increased the value of every vote and my research has also concluded that many of the myths concerning the negatives of PR systems are unsubstantiated or are unlikely to apply in Britain. There are numerous Proportionally Representative democracies and numerous PR voting systems that have been developed, so Britain could choose that which would best suit it’s populace. The problem will be having to convince a government that has got in under the current system that the system needs to be changed, but given that one of the parties in power is pushing for a change , we may, if we’re lucky, be voting for a more democratic Britain come the next general election.
then prepares its reports. If a change to the law is decided on then a
However, this is not the only option. Being appointed without the possibility of renewal, such as an 18-year term limit, would accomplish the same goal. In both situations, the judges would not have to seek reappointment, run for office, or worry about their political popularity.
Senate reform in Canada has been a popular topic for decades but has yet to be accomplished. Since the Senates formation in 1867 there has been numerous people who call for its reform or abolishment due to the fact it has not changed since its implementation and does not appear to be fulfilling its original role. An impediment to this request is that a constitutional amendment is needed to change the structure of the Senate, which is not an easy feat. Senate reform ideas have developed from other upper houses in counties such as the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany. From those two different successful governments emerges examples of different electoral systems, state representation, and methods of passing legislations.
The first reform bill was put forward in March 1831, but was refused when it came to the House of Lords; this was because of the bills indication of removing some of the lord’s privileges. Nonetheless, the Reform Bill was eventually passed through parliament, in 1832 and given the royal assent, this was to prevent the possibility of a revolution. The countries attitude was going through a large change at this time, because of the American and French Revolutions. Both of these revolutions led to the overthrow of the countries monarchical power.
...e a lot of parties are going to be running for office. However, for the fringe parties this creates a major advantage for them. With the load of political parties in the House of Commons, there would be a wider range of interests for people but there would be a lot of indecision and coalitions.
Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the Rule of Law, and it can exercise power arbitrarily.
...d I believe that proportional representation would be the most effective system to further the goals of democracy. If we use the single member plurality system we automatically ignore and exclude the voice of the people who didn’t win the election in a first past the post method. On the other hand in the proportional system rather than all seats being given to the party with the most votes every party gets the seats equal to the amount of votes they were able to obtain. This would allow all the people who voted to have their ‘”voice” represented in the government even though the party they voted for did not end up winning the election. This would encourage and engage many citizens to become involved in the political process; who otherwise would be discourage to vote at the fact that even if they vote, if their party loses their vote would be useless.
has been known for the Law Lords in the House of Lords not to be able
When the Parliament Act of 1912 was passed it removed a huge obstacle. in the way of the home rule bill due to the fact that the House of Lords could not reject the bill if it had passed the House of Commons. three times and could delay the bill for up to two years. So in 1912 the third home rule bill was introduced by the liberals and Having made it through the Commons by Jan 1913 it was rejected by the Lords but would only have to wait until 1914 to become law under the new Parliament Act. Understandably, the introduction of a third home rule bill sparked a major political crisis and the time between the bill being rejected.
It is widely acknowledged that the judiciary within England and Wales is not representative of the wider society. The composition of the judiciary is regularly subject to criticism on its apparent homogenous identity’ being largely comprised of elderly, white male barristers educated at Oxford or Cambridge. This ethos has prevented diversity within the judiciary, particularly the upper echelons of the judiciary. Academics such as John Griffith have suggested that the narrow range of the judiciary threatens to undermine public confidence in the judicial system. Similarly, Baroness Hale argues that a representative judiciary is paramount for directives associated with the promotion of equal opportunities and strengthening of judicial legitimacy. The government has attempted to combat these issues with statutory and procedural changes to the Courts and Legal Service Act 1990, the Courts Act 2003, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and the Judicial Appointments Committee. However, the government’s reforms have made little impact on the demographic profile of the judiciary, as the cornerstone of all judicial appointments is merit. Until diversity can break into the judiciary, particularly the upper echelons of the judiciary there will continue to be a lingering threat to the publics confidence of the judiciary as diversification has yet to materialize.
The public perception of the senate has become negative throughout the years of being “lazy”. However the senate performs as the house of second thought (Brooks, 2015).This enables senators to make educated decisions on laws and passing them. There is more of a debate and looking in depth of bills. Compared to the idea of only having a House of Commons where political parties are either in a majority, minority or a joint form of government. In this case members of the house are impacted by party discipline where they are obligated to vote with their party even if their belief in a bill or policy is different. It does not allow proper discussion within a political party or house because opinions are subject to being silenced. Therefore if senate were abolished and only The House of Commons was in place it would not allow for a meaningful implementation of laws. This is the reason why reform of the senate in contrast to complete abolishment would be beneficial to fixing the problems within the senate(Hoffman, 2012). The reason being is that reform is an ability to make changes in order to improve it.In contrast to abolishment it is more of a compromise because it addresses the problems, whereas abolishment it a quick fix for a short period of
the same, for British parliament, the upper house monopolised by nobles, each senator must be
...ople who are there until they chose otherwise. I would also give less power to the President on the election of members, and instead let the people vote that they feel like represent them to the best of their ability. This will ensure equal voice from various different groups and states of representation. In all honesty I believe the way members should be elected should be the same uniformed process as discussed in the legislative branch.