1. There would still be massive pressure on parliamentary time. A second chamber relieves that.
2. A proportionally elected house would not be less contentious and argumentative, in fact more so, because in your present system the government can almost always get what it wants. That would be a lot dicier in a proportionate house.
I'm not sure how (1) isn't solved by just having more committees, and plausibly more representatives to staff them. Why you would need to split the committees into two whole houses and elect them separately makes no sense to me.
I'm not sure how argumentativeness is a factor here? What's the issue with people arguing?
Committees are very useful, but they're still taking up the time of the same people whose time is already packed with the functional chamber. More representatives wouldn't help: the Commons is already awkwardly overpopulated as it is. A second chamber is different people with a separate agenda.
I'm not sure how argumentativeness is a factor either, but I couldn't figure out why you said "I do not see what a second house would add to a proportionally elected house." What would make it less needed then than it is now?
What makes them a different group of people? That they are different people. The one house's members are the people whose agenda is to be members of the House of Commons, which is the governing body of the country. The other house's members do not have that responsibility, and have the ability to undertake duties that the first house's members don't have time for, as described earlier. That's the main point of having a second chamber under the current UK system, however its membership is determined.
As for their political-issue agenda, we don't in any case want these to be too different, or debilitating conflict will occur even if one house holds the political power and the other does not. But differences will naturally arise in the course of things, if only because the members are human beings and not party automatons. That's true even under the present situations of party discipline and three-line whips.
And they will especially arise if the two houses are elected at different times, and consequently the PR allocations are likely to differ.
What MTBC and Rhythmaning wrote is also applicable here.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2022-11-20 12:00 pm
no subject
1. There would still be massive pressure on parliamentary time. A second chamber relieves that.
2. A proportionally elected house would not be less contentious and argumentative, in fact more so, because in your present system the government can almost always get what it wants. That would be a lot dicier in a proportionate house.
no subject
I'm not sure how argumentativeness is a factor here? What's the issue with people arguing?
no subject
I'm not sure how argumentativeness is a factor either, but I couldn't figure out why you said "I do not see what a second house would add to a proportionally elected house." What would make it less needed then than it is now?
no subject
no subject
As for their political-issue agenda, we don't in any case want these to be too different, or debilitating conflict will occur even if one house holds the political power and the other does not. But differences will naturally arise in the course of things, if only because the members are human beings and not party automatons. That's true even under the present situations of party discipline and three-line whips.
And they will especially arise if the two houses are elected at different times, and consequently the PR allocations are likely to differ.
What MTBC and Rhythmaning wrote is also applicable here.