LDV readers prefer “Senate” as name for elected second chamber

Second chamber piechart
Last week we asked Lib Dem Voice readers what an elected second chamber should be called, following Nick Clegg’s answer in the House of Commons:

The cross-party Committee, which I chair, has been considering proposals for a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber. The Government will publish a draft Bill shortly, which will then be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government hope that that will be carried out by a Joint Committee of both Houses.

Our readers’ poll results are as follows:

“Senate” was the most popular choice, followed by “House of Lords” –

Senate 183 (31.18%)
House of Lords 138 (23.51%)
Upper House 48 (8.18%)
Second Chamber 29 (4.94%)
Council of Peers 15 (2.56%)
Legislative Council 10 (1.70%)
National Council 9 (1.53%)
House of Elders 7 (1.19%)
The Chamber 4 (0.68%)
First Chamber 3 (0.51%)
Others 141 (24.02%)

Others (suggestions supplied by participants) included:

The Other Place 7
Commons II: This time it’s personal 31
Rubber Stamp 8
Last Chance Whips Saloon 6
House of Scrutiny 17
Chamber of Peers 12
Chamber of Horrors 7
Supreme Soviet 26
Redundant 27

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Polls.
Advert

15 Comments

  • paul barker 9th Mar '11 - 3:47pm

    Given how widely split the vote was, perhaps you could run it again with just the top 2 or 3 – that might give a better indication of whether theres significant support for changing the name at all.
    I was really surprised by the result, particularly the support for keeping the name as it is.

  • James from Durham 9th Mar '11 - 3:59pm

    “Senate” sounds like we are copying the Americans. House of Lords – well, they won’t be Lords will they, fails the “what it says on the tin” test. Amd most of the names are so boring, it would be like saying “We don’t know why we want a second chamber but everyone else has one so we’d better”.

    How about something really English, like Witangemot?

  • First the Supreme Court, possibly now the Senate for the Lords. What next, renaming the House of Commons the House of Representatives?
    .

  • thechristophe 9th Mar '11 - 6:43pm

    ‘Senate’ is from Rome, not US-America

    Pretty sure Supreme Court predates 1776 as well. If anything we are borrowing from our continental friends.

  • Very uninspiring.

    I think as it is a revising chamber it should be called the ‘House of Revision’ and its members would be called ‘Revisionists’.

  • Keith Browning 9th Mar '11 - 11:27pm

    perhaps the ‘House of Vision’.

  • Senate seems fine, but the question remains is that would it be equal to the Commons? Like the Australian Senate? – If we have both elected by the people then they are entitled to the powers of the people? The only thing I think everybody has overlooked here is how will the government would cope if government has a majority in the commons, but opposition in the Senate? – It will close off the Supply granted. – Ireland’s Senad format would probably work, but that would mean an unelected chamber.

  • I voted senate because, as far as I know, an elected scrutinising chamber is exactly what a senate is. I think a change of function or structure warrants a change of title.

  • Absolutely NOT! It seems to me that, after the first few suggestions of “Senate”, everyone else followed like sheep! My suggestion did not even it the list and I am totally agains having yet another “Americanism” – we have enough truck with the US without calling our House of Lords the “Senate”.

    If you want my opinion, this was a skewed vote and “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”! Leave it as the House of Lords (especially as that one “supposedly” came 2nd in the “Poll”. It will save a lot of money if we leave things as they are.

    If you don’t want “House of Nobles” or some of the other good ideas, let’s stick with the House of Lords!

    This should be an “All Members” vote , not a straw poll among LDV readers! Let’s be properly democratic about this, please!!!

  • toryboysnevergrowup 10th Mar '11 - 12:58pm

    All of this further demonstrates to me that there is absolute confusion about what the role of the “Second Chamber” is meant to be. Perhaps there needs to be some thinking about what the Second Chamber is meant to do and is not meant to do, before anyone can reach a sensible view as to how its members should be selected.

  • Joe Donnelly 10th Mar '11 - 4:06pm

    I agree with Paul Barker and request that the poll is done again with only the ‘Senate’ and ‘The House of Lords’ as options.

  • The Roman Senate was based on unelected and usually useless aristocrats and favourites who chewed over anything but the issues of the day at great length and did nothing for the great mass of the people. Oh, wait …..

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Joseph Bourke
    Peter Davies makes the point that the Gaza strip may not be viable as a home to 2.3 million people. The Trump statement does raise the issue of evacuation to cl...
  • John Waller
    @Mick Taylor: “X should be avoided. We cannot be seen giving support to a Nazi who is destroying the US governmental system.” Agreed. Reddit has temporar...
  • Sandy Leslie
    One job of the local hero is to stand in by-elections when the local party is unable to find a candedate....
  • Nonconformistradical
    I share David Goble's cynicism...
  • Peter Martin
    There's a problem with a term like "Government Borrowing." It gives the impression that the government needs to go off to somewhere like the IMF or some World ...