Discussion Thread: Have second chamber that represents different sectors

This is an archived discussion thread for the "Have a second chamber that represents different sectors" voting page. Voting, and this discussion thread, have now closed.  

lozhensel 1 month ago
This is probably the best variation on an elected second chamber I have seen. Some care would have to be taken with what the sector were, however, and they would have to adequately represent the populous of the country without either over or under representing any group. This means they may have to be fluid. Perhaps this is a place for proportional representation?

Tom 1 month ago

1 person liked this.
prefer different organisations to be represented by their chiefs as with bishops representing C of E at present. Interests such as law, finance, religious groups in addition to C of E, business, education sectors, local government, health sectors would be automatically represented by their senior personnel who would retire from house when they left their post. Government and opposition benches would be appointed by party leaders to allow the house to be run as an integral part of parliament. All 4 countries of the Union would appoint members to these benches pro rata with populations. The house would have paramount rights to oversee and comment on EC legislation.

Andii 1 month ago in reply to Tom

1 person liked this.
I'm not sure about this. I think organisations should decide for themselves who represents them. It may not be appropriate for their executives or heads to do so. For example, as an Anglican, I'm not convinced that continuing Bishops as political rep's is a good idea; I'd like for us to be able to decide who would best be representative of 'us'.

feyeleanor 1 month ago

1 person liked this.
It's a nice idea, but who decides what sectors are represented or even what the boundaries of a given sector are?

MauriceFrank 1 month ago in reply to feyeleanor
There would have to be a power to propose a sector. Being a needs group in society. you should have some sort of active involvement in the sector that you can describe, but you shouldn't have to belong to a big organisation, often the big organisations operate sneakily or ruthlessly and don't consult properly with the folks they claim to speak for, they don't deserve to have power biased in their favour. 

e.g. in high functioning autism, the community want to speak for themselves, on life issues around work and health and community acceptance, and many are strongly opposed to big organisations that portray autism negatively and push medically unpleasant theories of curing it. 

We used to have public participatory Cross Party Group meetings on autism in the Scottish parliament. Because they were too successful, they were shut down in a sudden coup organised by Labour. I hold that their success made a case for their constitutional permanence and an uncorrupt system would have safeguards against it getting shut down. Sectors of society having direct membership of the second chamber sounds a stronger and more structurally permanent idea than was a talking-shop group that the MSPs attended poorly. CrossParty Groups would still have a worthwhile role too, because the chamber business won't provide for each interest sector to have its own issue as the topic regularly.

TonyMC 1 month ago

bill_gedim and 2 more liked this.
• Recallable delegates of member-based organisations, the number of delegates in proportion to the organisation's accredited membership base and as factored against an upper limitation of the overall number of delegates to sustain the chamber as a whole. The minimum definition of a member-based organisation should include demonstrable arrangements for due process of accountability in its actions to the organisation's membership. Organisations may include political parties. The function of this chamber should be to reinforce mutual deference to the expertise of delegates pertaining to the issues under-pinning proposed legislation. The chamber should have powers to generate legislative proposals in its own right.

bill_gedim 1 month ago in reply to TonyMC
I generally agree. Organisations should be any big enough, plus selected professional associations. And appointment of delegates should be by STV, directly or indirectly. , with reservations. But representation should not be "in proportion" to membership.

For a fuller specification of this proposal see http://w2x.org.uk/p/hol_001a.pdf.

Andii 1 month ago in reply to TonyMC

I did think at first that we shouldn't allow political parties with this idea. But then, if there is a limit to the amount of delegates then why not? In general terms this idea would be workable, I think. It's pretty similar to an idea I suggested for voluntary-sector organisations to be represented.

TonyMC 1 month ago in reply to Andii
As far as political parties go I'd recommend reform of the House of Commons to ensure members really were held accountable to their constituents. The first chamber is nominally about geography rather than special interests, so I'm thinking on the lines of neighbourhood councils endorsing candidates to local authorities, who in turn endorse candidates to Westminster. At present our representatives are essentially delegates, political appointees, held accountable to their party hierarchy - not to the expressed interests of their electorate.

Michael McCarthy 1 month ago

3 people liked this.
In a profoundly class-divided society such as the UK, the "sectors" which are most blatantly unrepresented or under-represented in parliament are the poor, the unemployed, the low-paid, those living on pensions and benefits, and all those who are not middle class (overlapping categories, clearly). A "sectorally" reformed second chamber which fails to include the knowledge and experience of those who have suffered at the sharp end of a class-based society would be mere window-dressing.

ianhenderson 1 month ago
Can you explain what power this body would have over The House of Commons?
Would there be fixed terms for members of this House?
How would they be compensated?
Would this be a gift to lobbyists?
Does any nother country have a similar House?

Ian Henderson

Andii 1 month ago in reply to ianhenderson

1 person liked this.
What do you think? Those questions don't reveal anything necessarily 'fatal' to the basic idea; so they are matters to be discussed as to the best options. The answers don't inhere in the basic idea.

However, my take would be that there seems, in other parts of the world, to be a value in having a scrutinising chamber running at a different 'pace' to the main chamber (which may suggest fixed terms for our parliament so that a pace could be set for the "Lords". I'd have thought compensation as for the present HoL -ie a daily allowance for attendance (and if we're taking people away from jobs to be there then this seems reasonable) -but I've not thought that through; there could be other considerations.

As to whether anyone else has such a body. I don't know; I don't think so. But so what? We could try it out. We do know that we have a crisis of legitimacy on the one hand and yet a reasonably active civil society on the other with lots of expertise tied up in matters of legislative interest and we probably don't want to reproduce a way of appointing members that reproduces Parliament else we have a problem of legitimacy in another way.

As to lobbyists: in a way is this not a way to counterbalance and to scrutinise them?

simonferrigno 1 month ago
I actually think the second chamber should be selcted at random from the electoral register, as the Jury system is. This would give ordinary citizens a chance to scrutinise and hold to account elected representatives and also give citizens a greater sense of ownership in society. Citizens would sit for one fixed term and be compensated according to service.

MauriceFrank 1 month ago in reply to simonferrigno

1 person liked this.
When you are on a jury, your only concern is criminal justice, and you have a personal interest in its fair functioning because someday you might be the defendant.

You can't make folks show an understanding interest, against their will, in the issues behind all sorts of different laws and policies, some of which are remote from their lives and of no personal concern to them. A jury-type parliamentary chamber will consist of many bored folks who are not interested in politics and don't want to be there and are having their lives disrupted by it, they will be justly antagonistic to the whole process. That will not make the chamber function well or care to do sensible responsible work. You might by chance get a large number of racists/fascists selected, without even them being voted for. Meanwhile, folks who are interested and practically involved in the issues at stake have something worthwhile to say will be shut out, just by chance. That's absurd. 

I'm against the campaign for a so-called "Citizen's Convention" on electoral reform for the same reason.

simonferrigno 1 month ago
Sorry, double post. See previous

gregoryknopp 1 month ago

1 person liked this.
Another way of doing this might be to have a single national poll, in which any organisation can ask for votes, with the seats to be allocated in strict proportion to the number of votes cast. This might well mean that some action groups would work together to further a joint cause, whether it be a social, religious, medical, pensioners or something entirely different.
It could sit for a longer fixed term than the Commons and act as an oversight on legislation proposed by the Commons. This would give us the Commons run along party lines as now but with a truly representative body able to act as a counterweight to the party politicking we see every day, without removing the sovereign right of the Commons. 

Edward Vickerman 1 month ago
Yes, this proposal is attractive but has two drawbacks: it ignores the wishes of the general populace and it does not ensure a body with the interest and experience properly to scrutinise legislation sent for revision by the House of Commons.

The Commission set up some years ago when revision of the House of Lords was discussed allowed me to put before them a scheme on these lines:

The whole electorate, with no geographical or other constituencies and one national list of candidates, should be able to vote for members of the reformed second chamber. Electors would support a candidate representing a view or views, which they feel to be of particular importance. This may be political, but it may equally be any of a wide range of interests as, say, a religion (or atheism), a region, the environment, the caring services, the disabled, one or several charities, an ethnic or other minority, the retired, the armed forces, business, professions, trades unions, arts organisations, or educational or scientific interests. These candidates might be asked to stand by any appropriate representative bodies. Candidates with support from more than one of these are more likely to be elected. Political parties have a great advantage in organisation, but would need to put up candidates genuinely attractive to electors. Individual popular candidates, footballers, pop artists and the like might also be put forward and would receive strong support, though the financial rewards will hardly be enough to encourage their regular attendance if elected. The proposed minimum age limit would restrict such selections. (Appropriate Standing Orders might be necessary to prevent extreme candidates, who might be elected, from disrupting the proceedings of the chamber.)

For nomination a candidate will require a hundred* sponsors. For election a candidate will need 10,000* votes. Electors will choose several candidates in order of preference and where a first nominee has already received 10,000* votes the second choice will be used and so on. When all ballot papers have been recorded the less popular candidates will be eliminated, those with fewest votes first, and their supporters' next choices taken into account.


* The actual numbers must be decided after advice from statisticians.

Andy 1 month ago

1 person liked this.
Yes, lots of advantages. It would give special interest groups a transparent way to raise issues, rather than by back door influence and lobbying. Bring expertise into the House of Parliament and allow a lively debate within and between different organisations. The groups to be represented would need to meet a minimum democratic threshold for selecting their representatives. Could include unions, business groupings, voluntary sector etc. But it would be wrong, I think, to give this chambre an equivalent status to the House of Commons. Best to limit it to srutiny and debate, not to initiate new laws.

Andii 1 month ago in reply to Andy
I'm not sure I'd be unhappy about them being able to initiate legislation: it'd still have to go through the primary chamber ... perhaps they could propose outline legislation?

JohnH 2 weeks ago
The danger is that the second house could then become a "TUC mark II".
I don't want to vote for the composition of the house until I know what its functions and powers are to be.

Jim Ewing 2 weeks ago
This would allow the Upper Chamber to continue its task of vetting legislation knowledgebly while guaranteeing a wider range of informed voices (we could go so far as to include the PEN Club) but it could also have directly elected consitiuency members along the lines of a Senate, say representing the counties and cities. That way, all legislation is passed by a majority of the population through their MPs in the House of Commons and at the same time no part of the country feels that it's constntly outvoted because it's too small or too remote.

PhilipWalker 1 week ago
Er, this is how Oswald Mosley wanted to organise government. I'm not sure that's a brilliant precedent.

Andii 1 week ago in reply to PhilipWalker

1 person liked this.
Two main problems with this comment Philip, as I see it. First it's a well-known logical fallacy: to associate a proposition with a person or persons or position that is universally derided and then to use that (non-logical or unproven) association to denigrate the proposition. What it fails to do is to say why it would be a bad idea: on the basis of what you wrote how do we know that in actual fact that (a) this is what Mosely actually proposed (or is close enough)? and (b) how do we know that it wasn't the one thing (for the sake of argument) that Mosley proposed that wasn't dependent on his Fascism and was actually quite a good idea?

The second problem is that what you say here doesn't tell us whether you have really grasped the point of the idea. It seems like you may have missed the point: this is merely being touted as a way of doing a second chamber with its remit based in scrutiny. As such that's not 'government' merely a part of it. The main power would reside with elected (hopefully proportionally so) representatives.

PhilipWalker 1 week ago in reply to Andii
Yes, I thought someone might comment that I was committing the genetic fallacy. Hence my suggestion that it wasn't a brilliant precedent, rather than that it proves it's a silly idea. Mosley might have been onto something, I guess...

You can read what he proposed for yourself if you like, it's floating around somewhere on the web. It might be educational to find out what Mosley actually thought, as opposed to what the popular perception decrees that he must have thought. It was certainly dependent on his 'fascism' (corporatism is the accurate term): Mussolini had exactly the same idea, only he got to try it out.

If you want a substantive comment on the idea apart from noting its popularity with people who want totalitarian control over society (which I do not think is an unreasonable point to note), I think chopping the country up into blocks like that is unprincipled and socially divisive.

Geographic division is a matter of convenience: we could easily choose different boundaries without too much complaint. You can't do this here: it is dividing people according to a certain characteristic, and then treating them as a collective on the basis of that characteristic. That strikes at the heart of liberal individualism: the idea that we ought to be treated as individuals, rather than herded into collectives of the state's making.

It is not as if society is harmoniously problem-free with all our different occupations. I think entrenching those divisions in Parliament would be a recipe for social tension.

MauriceFrank 1 week ago in reply to Andii
Also, surely in a fascist version the dictator chooses who the sectors are.

With the proposal here, there is some question over who will choose who the sectors are, but there is at least a geographically elected precedent chamber who our votes for can be swayed if we object to the choice of second chamber sectors. That said, the proposal will be too corruptible and under the system's control, frustrating some of its ideals, though certainly not fascist and still an improvement on the House of Lords, if it is left to the system in any way to choose the sectors, e.g. if a parliamentary commission does it. They would structure is so as to get sectors saying safe normative predictable things. The careerist leaders of big NGOs always want to only do that, they have been bought.

In order not to be, and not to be discreditingly seen as, manipulable by oligarchic forces, this proposal needs to include that the sectors will be self-selecting. I mean by that, if you want to take part and there is not already a sector that matches the branch of society you want to speak for, then you can propose a new sector. Save only for challenge if your new sector is thought to duplicate an existing one, which proviso is enough to prevent the number of sectors growing unlimitedly, you should get your new sector created by automatic right. No officials could say no to you.

Andrew Dickie 1 week ago
I have long thought that having a second Chamber selected/elected on a different basis from the purely local and geographical made sense, both as a way of counter-acting the rivalry between different bodies representing the same areas (a problem in e.g. the USA, where Congressmen and Senators are often acting in rivalry, even if from the same Party), but more importantly as a way of cutting across the politics of Party and class, by allowing interest-based politics that often cuts across such class and Party-based thinking. This strikes me as an excellent idea

Elizabeth D 3 days ago
One big down side to this idea is that it would encourage channel vision. This is what we suffer from now in Government. We need people of wisdom in the second chamber. All rounders. People who are capable of thinking systemically - commonly called joined-up thinking. This gift is not a product of high education. It certainly does not necessarily come from knowing a great deal about a defined area.

Andii 3 days ago in reply to Elizabeth D
@Elizabeth D: It would be a good concern that you articulate. However, I don't think that people who know about development issues, community issues and the like are going to be 'narrow'. But even if thry were, the point of the proposal is to bring together people who do know between them quite a lot about issues that the general public already show concern for via charities, community groups etc. The aim of a scrutinising chamber would be to bring expertise to bear and the composition of such a chamber needs to bring people from all sorts of sectors in order to do that well.

It would be a mistake to think however, that such people are 'narrow'; on the whole they are better informed about a range of things that most of the public and many MPs.

scrutoneer 1 day ago
This proposal is much nearer the desired solution for a Second Chamber - and I am going to vote for it. It seems to combine accountability to the community at large, whilst incorporating the element of competence and expertise which is certainly not guaranteed via the party-political route.

Might I suggest, however, that one "constituency" which requires representation is that which may be best described as that of the "common man"; incorporating, one hopes, the possibility that "common sense" may sometimes be brought to bear on social and economic issues. Michael Mccarthy's remarks are important here. I also support Bill Gedim's point fully. Representatives of this constituency may, perhaps, best be chosen by lot: i.e. "chance" should be given a chance to provide random additions to the pool of ideas.

On the point of whether a Second Chamber should be able to initiate laws, it must surely be possible for gaps in legal provision to be highlighted in their debates. These would then, in the normal course of things, be pointed out to MPs. It would be their (MPs) prerogative to initiate legislation - as has been suggested by Andy and Andii.

Johnofleeswood 4 days ago

From Twitter via BackType

just voted for a second chamber of different sectors to make the #POWER2010 Election Pledge, do the same at http://tinyurl.com/ykxrowm