Workingman wrote:Deflect, deflect, deflect.
I am not deflecting. I'm explaining why Starmer will not gain Labour votes in Scotland by claiming that they will get more "voice" withing Westminster.
You don't understand because your viewpoint is English centric. So long as the Scottish government is left alone, the Scots don't care what happens to the HOL. They will continue to vote for the party they see as best for representing the Scots position in England (yes the UK but they can't see beyond England any more than the English can).
The HOL? Will the turkeys vote for Christmas? I doubt it. Will Charles see another elected chamber as a "better" thing when the majority of the corruption comes from the lower chamber and also that the upper chamber often holds the lower chamber to account in a way that an elected upper chamber would not. So if he doesn't see it as value will he cooperate in trying to get enough Lords in that will vote for Christmas??
If and I do mean IF, they were to reconstitute the Lords as an elected upper chamber, I assume that they would need to make the elections at the 2.5 year point. To ensure that the people are able to vote with the full knowledge of the intentions of the lower chamber. If they do not, then you know it is a blatant power grab. But if they do that people will start to get election fatigue again. Just as they did with the European Parliament elections. Never mind the growing influence on both chambers as all the parties have to raise funds for Both elections.
All of the disadvantages of the US system with Senators captured by the system, donations and constant elections, would be gained and all the ability to be objective, separate and come to a different conclusion to the lower chamber would be lost.
Beware what you wish for. You might just get it.
