The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Does anyone else think that the House of Lords laughs in the face of those that think we're living in a democracy?
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that people that we don't vote for decide things for us?
For example, the idea of dropping the age of homosexual relationships a year or two back. The House of Commons (who are our MP's that we vote for) thought it was a good move, and wanted to drop the age from 18 to 16 (if my memory serves me correctly).
However, the Bill then has to go through the House of Lords. Who are people we do NOT vote in. I'm not sure exactly how they get there, but they're there anyway. And the House of Lords decided to not allow the age to be dropped.
A similar kind of thing happened with fox hunting earlier this year.
This, in my view, is wrong. We (supposedly) live in a democracy, yet people who we don't vote for are deciding things for us. The government decides things for us, which we may not agree with, but at least in the next election we can vote them out.
This doesn't happen with the House of Lords and, in my view, it's wrong.
Thoughts?
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that people that we don't vote for decide things for us?
For example, the idea of dropping the age of homosexual relationships a year or two back. The House of Commons (who are our MP's that we vote for) thought it was a good move, and wanted to drop the age from 18 to 16 (if my memory serves me correctly).
However, the Bill then has to go through the House of Lords. Who are people we do NOT vote in. I'm not sure exactly how they get there, but they're there anyway. And the House of Lords decided to not allow the age to be dropped.
A similar kind of thing happened with fox hunting earlier this year.
This, in my view, is wrong. We (supposedly) live in a democracy, yet people who we don't vote for are deciding things for us. The government decides things for us, which we may not agree with, but at least in the next election we can vote them out.
This doesn't happen with the House of Lords and, in my view, it's wrong.
Thoughts?
Page:
The Lords? They live in a house, a very big house in erm, London? Thats about all I know, and feel that I need to know.
I don`t know if its lack of intelligence or what, but its never really bothered me at all. There are things that change, costs of university living and stuff like that, but I just accept it and work round it as if its a fixed part of life.
And, Hi YH!
I don`t know if its lack of intelligence or what, but its never really bothered me at all. There are things that change, costs of university living and stuff like that, but I just accept it and work round it as if its a fixed part of life.
And, Hi YH!
"Today parliament passed a motion specifiying that Black is now officially White. A huge Labour prescence in the House Of Commons allowed this motion to be favoured, despite the opposition of all other parties.
The House Of Lords however, is expected to overrule the decision, on the basis that it is absurd"
And that's exactly it. I have far more respect for the Lords than I do for parliament, because they are essentially working on different principles. In the Commons, a motion is passed if a majority consider that voting in favour of it is likely to increase their popularity with the public. In the Lords, it is passed if it is seen as realistic and practical, something which would be a benefitial implementation in the real world. Democracy doesn't work, politians are satanists, and the Lords don't give a monkeys about them. Which is excellent.
The Commons consists of vote-greedy MP's, whereas the Lords consists of retired professionals who have worked in the real (as opposed to political) world, for forty or so years, basing their decisions on a sound background of experience.
The House Of Lords however, is expected to overrule the decision, on the basis that it is absurd"
And that's exactly it. I have far more respect for the Lords than I do for parliament, because they are essentially working on different principles. In the Commons, a motion is passed if a majority consider that voting in favour of it is likely to increase their popularity with the public. In the Lords, it is passed if it is seen as realistic and practical, something which would be a benefitial implementation in the real world. Democracy doesn't work, politians are satanists, and the Lords don't give a monkeys about them. Which is excellent.
The Commons consists of vote-greedy MP's, whereas the Lords consists of retired professionals who have worked in the real (as opposed to political) world, for forty or so years, basing their decisions on a sound background of experience.
Either that or have a revolution.
But seriously I think the idea of a full democracy is unobtainable anyway as it may have too little authority and power, and you need power to govern. Most democracies have some 'higher' body of decision and monitoring.
And at least the Lords are fairly cheap to maintain...unlike the monarchy...
But seriously I think the idea of a full democracy is unobtainable anyway as it may have too little authority and power, and you need power to govern. Most democracies have some 'higher' body of decision and monitoring.
And at least the Lords are fairly cheap to maintain...unlike the monarchy...
I think for a start there needs to be an audit of who can sit in the House of Lords. Hereditary peers have little place there. "Daddy was rich so I can pass laws". What crap.
You don't want commoners there either. Laymen who have no idea about law and politics.
Instead you want professionals.
Doctors, lawyers, accountants, psychologists, police chiefs, magistrates etc.
People who can decide what is best given what they know about their customers. And these professionals are going to then be in direct contact with the people they effect with the laws they do or do not pass. So they will feel the changes.
rename it too.
The House of Lords is an elitist name. I tshould be the House of Educated Decision processing.
You don't want commoners there either. Laymen who have no idea about law and politics.
Instead you want professionals.
Doctors, lawyers, accountants, psychologists, police chiefs, magistrates etc.
People who can decide what is best given what they know about their customers. And these professionals are going to then be in direct contact with the people they effect with the laws they do or do not pass. So they will feel the changes.
rename it too.
The House of Lords is an elitist name. I tshould be the House of Educated Decision processing.
Beefcake wrote:
> Politicians always manage to get some things through parliment
Yes that's because parliament isn't the house of lords. The House of Lords is required to pass legislation, which pensions are not. Though I do agree that they should try to make the Lords a better representation of society as a whole.
It's wrong to assume that democracy is a great and good thing, and that you want as much of it as possible. It's quite easy to have too much democracy, by reforming the Lords for instance, which while not perfect by any means, performs a more valuable role at the moment, than it would as an elected body. More worrying is proportional representation, which is democracy in the extreme. Instead of competing for individual seats, seats are allocated according to the percentage of the vote a particularly party received. For instance, in a two-party state, labour could beat the conservatives by 51% to 49% in every single seat and gain all the seats in parliament under the existing system. Many would argue that such an allocation was grossly unfair because on a national scale Labour had only beaten the conservatives by 2%, and not the landslide that the result suggested. Instead, under PR Labour would receive 51% and the conservatives would get 49%. Yay democracy. But put that principl into a multi-party state such as our own, and things start to go a bit wrong. Fringe groups and extremists get a few seats, and suddenly you're left with a very fragmented parliament, which finds it difficult to reach a common ground and is an inefficient form of governance.
Democracy's a good thing, but like many good things, too much of it is a bad idea.
> Politicians always manage to get some things through parliment
Yes that's because parliament isn't the house of lords. The House of Lords is required to pass legislation, which pensions are not. Though I do agree that they should try to make the Lords a better representation of society as a whole.
It's wrong to assume that democracy is a great and good thing, and that you want as much of it as possible. It's quite easy to have too much democracy, by reforming the Lords for instance, which while not perfect by any means, performs a more valuable role at the moment, than it would as an elected body. More worrying is proportional representation, which is democracy in the extreme. Instead of competing for individual seats, seats are allocated according to the percentage of the vote a particularly party received. For instance, in a two-party state, labour could beat the conservatives by 51% to 49% in every single seat and gain all the seats in parliament under the existing system. Many would argue that such an allocation was grossly unfair because on a national scale Labour had only beaten the conservatives by 2%, and not the landslide that the result suggested. Instead, under PR Labour would receive 51% and the conservatives would get 49%. Yay democracy. But put that principl into a multi-party state such as our own, and things start to go a bit wrong. Fringe groups and extremists get a few seats, and suddenly you're left with a very fragmented parliament, which finds it difficult to reach a common ground and is an inefficient form of governance.
Democracy's a good thing, but like many good things, too much of it is a bad idea.
MP's are useless as well
Have you seen them?
They sit on their fat backside, falling asleep and shout and groan when somebosy talks.
But of course they're the best people to run the country?
Have you seen them?
They sit on their fat backside, falling asleep and shout and groan when somebosy talks.
But of course they're the best people to run the country?
To be honest I don't like the fact my vote is often wasted, especially when I choose a candidate who cannot win in an opposition "safe seat". You know, voting for someone standing against Mr Blair for example.
99% (moray survey with a 90% swing) of MPs are only in it for the money and the power, they don't give a fig about you or I. The House Of Lords is the ultimate example of our social failings. Recently there was a drive to introduce new "common and public" people as representatives into the HOL. Anyone could apply. Strangely all the people who made the selection process were very rich, powerful and influencial people. Hmm.
Politicians always manage to get some things through parliment without too much trouble: pay rises (always after a general election so that the public forgets about this in four years time), pension rises and expenses. Strange that!
99% (moray survey with a 90% swing) of MPs are only in it for the money and the power, they don't give a fig about you or I. The House Of Lords is the ultimate example of our social failings. Recently there was a drive to introduce new "common and public" people as representatives into the HOL. Anyone could apply. Strangely all the people who made the selection process were very rich, powerful and influencial people. Hmm.
Politicians always manage to get some things through parliment without too much trouble: pay rises (always after a general election so that the public forgets about this in four years time), pension rises and expenses. Strange that!
Mostly what Mr Happy but also - remember that alot of MP's are there to do what will be seen as to be popular to win votes, this can cause legislation to be rushed through at the wrong time and the House of Lords help to maintain a balance.
Yes, but the idea is that both bodies limit the power of the other. I don't agree with everything the Lords do, but they frequently perform a role that an elected body could not do. For instance post-spetember 11th, the government was trying to push through some of the most draconian legislation in recent history, which would have allowed terrorist suspects to be held indefinitely without trial, among other things, and the Lords through it out.
Had the Lords been an elected body I don't think the same thing would have happened. If it had been they would have been expected to keep to a party line, and British politics would become more partisan than it already is. And do you think the great British public could cope with another election, amid the pop-idol and big-brother votes, for a political institution that most of them don't even understand? It would probably just result in the Lords being a mirror of the commons, with a Labour land-slide election victory giving labour a similar majority in the Lords. If that happened the government could do what it liked.
The undemocratic nature of the Lords is recognised, and as such, it is possible for a government to force a piece of legislation if the Lords rejects it a certain number of times. However, often a rejection by the Lords will lead to a better thought out piece of legislation, with fewer loop-holes, so it does serve some use.
I'm glad that they're phasing out hereditary peers, because that was just silly, but other than that I'm glad that the Lords has a degree of autonomy from the part-politics of the commons. It helps make sure that the government doesn't over-extend its power.
Had the Lords been an elected body I don't think the same thing would have happened. If it had been they would have been expected to keep to a party line, and British politics would become more partisan than it already is. And do you think the great British public could cope with another election, amid the pop-idol and big-brother votes, for a political institution that most of them don't even understand? It would probably just result in the Lords being a mirror of the commons, with a Labour land-slide election victory giving labour a similar majority in the Lords. If that happened the government could do what it liked.
The undemocratic nature of the Lords is recognised, and as such, it is possible for a government to force a piece of legislation if the Lords rejects it a certain number of times. However, often a rejection by the Lords will lead to a better thought out piece of legislation, with fewer loop-holes, so it does serve some use.
I'm glad that they're phasing out hereditary peers, because that was just silly, but other than that I'm glad that the Lords has a degree of autonomy from the part-politics of the commons. It helps make sure that the government doesn't over-extend its power.
Fox hunting is banned in Scotland at last.
Yay - but I see your point - who ARE these people, and what purpose do they serve apart from what seems to be to back-up or disagree with the House of Commons - this happened with the death penalty as well - the House of Commons were ready to abolish it way before they did, but the House of Lords just said no (until the sixties, when after a 5-year trial period of no death sentence, t'was at last abolished)
Histroy IS useful!
Yay - but I see your point - who ARE these people, and what purpose do they serve apart from what seems to be to back-up or disagree with the House of Commons - this happened with the death penalty as well - the House of Commons were ready to abolish it way before they did, but the House of Lords just said no (until the sixties, when after a 5-year trial period of no death sentence, t'was at last abolished)
Histroy IS useful!
Page: