Premium
An Elected Upper House and Other Fallacies
Author(s) -
PEARCE EDWARD
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
the political quarterly
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.373
H-Index - 37
eISSN - 1467-923X
pISSN - 0032-3179
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-923x.2009.02054.x
Subject(s) - house of commons , law , house of representatives , competence (human resources) , contradiction , privilege (computing) , independence (probability theory) , sociology , politics , lower house , upper class , political science , parliament , economics , management , philosophy , statistics , mathematics , epistemology
All fashionable political talk is of an elected House of Lords. Doing this smart, new unthought‐out thing, says Edward Pearce, means dissolving the reliably rebellious upper house regularly rejecting bad bills from Tory and Labour governments, for a House as submissive as the Commons. Second‐line politicians will replace the difficult individual people, soldiers, doctors, academics, scientists, assorted and distinguished experts who, by lucky muddle, go there today. Far better, he says, to abolish actual titles which create a false idea of privilege, but continue drawing upon independent professional specialists. Also, Ministers should be barred from the pernicious Mandelson Effect, of making an instant Minister by life‐ennoblement, huge powers conferred without a voter in sight. An upper house called ‘The Upper House’, chosen as now for competence, will be a House of Commoners, of Independence, of Contradiction. Elected Party‐liners under guidance would be a House of Sheep.