Planetarion Forums

BuddhistPunk · 2 Jul 2003, 17:18

Somebody explain something to me using small words and big pictures.

As far as I understand :

1) The british government is made up of two chambers. The House of Commons is made up of democraticly elected representives, the House of Lords which is mainly hereditary peers and others allocated (not by election) the title of Lord etc.

2) To pass new legislation the House of Commons debates and votes on the subject, if they agree to the matter at hand this is then passed onto the House of Lords which has the ultimate decision as to wether the legislation becomes reality. Case in point, the democratically elected government has recently voted to ban fox hunting, but everything points towards the fact that the unelected House of Lords will prevent this from becoming law.

Considering the fact that the House of Lords isnt elected, how can we call this governmental system electorally democratic?

Maybe I am missing something here, so I am dipping into the expansive and opinionated pool that is GD.

Kurashima · 2 Jul 2003, 17:22

Quote:

Originally posted by BuddhistPunk
Somebody explain something to me using small words and big pictures.

As far as I understand :

1) The british government is made up of two chambers. The House of Commons is made up of democraticly elected representives, the House of Lords which is mainly hereditary peers and others allocated (not by election) the title of Lord etc.

2) To pass new legislation the House of Commons debates and votes on the subject, if they agree to the matter at hand this is then passed onto the House of Lords which has the ultimate decision as to wether the legislation becomes reality. Case in point, the democratically elected government has recently voted to ban fox hunting, but everything points towards the unelected House of Lords preventing this from becoming law.

Considering the fact that the House of Lords isnt elected, how can we call this governmental system electorally democratic?

Maybe I am missing something here, so I am dipping into the expansive and opinionated pool that is GD.

Hereditary Peers were removed several years ago, so clearly your news source is horrifically out of date. Current peers are awarded their seats by the queen at the instruction of the current government.

MrL_JaKiri · 2 Jul 2003, 17:24

This is also a monarchy.

BuddhistPunk · 2 Jul 2003, 17:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Kurashima
Hereditary Peers were removed several years ago, so clearly your news source is horrifically out of date. Current peers are awarded their seats by the queen at the instruction of the current government.

Fair enough, but I believe that was covered under :

"and others allocated (not by election) the title of Lord etc."

The point is that I dont have any part in deciding who is and isnt awarded seats, yet they have the power to decide upon legislation that directly effects me and you.

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
This is also a monarchy.

It is, and on paper the Queen has the final decision on these matters, in reality she never exercises that right. Can you imagine the uproar if she decided to do so?

2 Jul 2003, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by BuddhistPunk
Fair enough, but I believe that was covered under :

"and others allocated (not by election) the title of Lord etc."

The point is that I dont have any part in deciding who is and isnt awarded seats, yet they have the power to decide upon legislation that directly effects me and you.

you'd prefer Blair had absolutley no checks on his power?

queball · 2 Jul 2003, 17:32

How does a country qualify as "democratic"? Is America undemocratic if unelected judges can deem laws unconstitutional?

The House of Lords is a great thing, it's filled with experts from all sorts of areas. There are plenty of unelected organisations in the UK and Europe that can decide rules and regulations, while the House of Lords hardly has any power particularly with the Parliament Act. Their effect is to make sure totally loony parts of laws don't get passed just because no-one in the Commons understands physics/computers/animals/whatever.

BuddhistPunk · 2 Jul 2003, 17:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Insane Badger
you'd prefer Blair had absolutley no checks on his power?

Do you prefer that somebody you didnt elect has control over matters that directly effect you.

Maybe you should consider moving to Cuba

Regardless of my and your opinion of our current commons government there is no denying that they were democratically elected to represent us. The House of Lords is not, yet they have the power to decline matters decided upon by the elected government.

2 Jul 2003, 17:44

Quote:

Originally posted by BuddhistPunk
Do you prefer that somebody you didnt elect has control over matters that directly effect you.

Maybe you should consider moving to Cuba

personally I'd rather have government power limited,this isn't my ideal way of doing it but its better than nothing.

Quote:

Originally posted by BuddhistPunk
Regardless of my and your opinion of our current commons government there is no denying that they were democratically elected to represent us. The House of Lords is not, yet they have the power to decline matters decided upon by the elected government.

I didn't elect labour,yet they are taking away my freedom to hunt foxes,that is an enormous infringement on my liberty,being democratially elected doesn't make them right.

The value in the House of Lords isn't in the power they wield,but in the power they deny to others,of course if you think government should have no limits to its power then we aren't going to get anywhere.

acropolis · 2 Jul 2003, 17:49

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
How does a country qualify as "democratic"? Is America undemocratic if unelected judges can deem laws unconstitutional?

If it's unconstitutional, it's against law that was created democratically.

The constitution can be changed democratically anyway.

And judges are appointed by an elected person.

And America isn't a democracy anyway, it's part republic and part representative democracy.

queball · 2 Jul 2003, 17:54

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
If it's unconstitutional, it's against law that was created democratically.

Surely it must have come before the thing it describes. And it's not "direct" - if an anti-democracy party came into power through democratic means things the system they set up won't be democratic. But anyway, ditto for the Lords.

Quote:

The constitution can be changed democratically anyway.

ditto

Quote:

And judges are appointed by an elected person.

ditto

Quote:

And America isn't a democracy anyway, it's part republic and part representative democracy.

America=>Britain, republic=>monarchy

Dante Hicks · 2 Jul 2003, 18:02

It's all irrelevent anyway since parliament > * everything.

Yes, the monarch can technically dissolve the government, yes the Lords can reject what they like, but in reality parliament is basically sovereign. If the Lords (or the monarch) started being silly, they'd simply be abolished/"reformed" anyway. Kind of what happened to the heriditary peers.

There isn't any real formal effective check on the executives power. The main thing which constrains the British government doing something stupid is an idea of "fairness" (believe it or not) or fear of breaking everything up. If the government banned people from wearing red clothing (for instance) the law wouldn't be enforced, Europe would be involved, judges would resign, and the civil service would be their usual inefficient self.

BuddhistPunk · 2 Jul 2003, 18:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Insane Badger
personally I'd rather have government power limited,this isn't my ideal way of doing it but its better than nothing.

And who gets to decide who is part of the control body? At some stage some group has to make the final decision.

In my opinion that group should be elected by the population it serves.

huh · 2 Jul 2003, 18:04

I don't anyone really understands it fully.

2 Jul 2003, 18:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
It's all irrelevent anyway since parliament > * everything.

Yes, the monarch can technically dissolve the government, yes the Lords can reject what they like, but in reality parliament is basically sovereign. If the Lords (or the monarch) started being silly, they'd simply be abolished/"reformed" anyway. Kind of what happened to the heriditary peers.

this is the point,opposing the government over issues and being a check on their power is what they are supposed to do,obviously if they where being daft measures can be taken,and have been in the past but they are a vital check on government power,if not an absolute one.

BuddhistPunk · 2 Jul 2003, 18:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Insane Badger
this is the point,opposing the government over issues and being a check on their power is what they are supposed to do,obviously if they where being daft measures can be taken,and have been in the past but they are a vital check on government power,if not an absolute one.

If the the members of the House of Lords are so worldy wise and correct on all matters, why bother with the House of Commons at all?

The money that could be saved would run into the high millions.

2 Jul 2003, 18:13

Quote:

Originally posted by BuddhistPunk
And who gets to decide who is part of the control body? At some stage some group has to make the final decision.

In my opinion that group should be elected by the population it serves.

Personally I'd like a written constitution that guarantee's peoples freedoms and so forth...

However at the minute the people still have the final choice,they can use (I think) the Parliament Act to force legislation through if the Lords were acting above their powers,however if they started doing this willy nilly to force through stupid legislation that the Lords were rightfully telling them to bugger off over the government would be in lot of trouble,to say the least.

It's all a balancing act.

2 Jul 2003, 18:16

Quote:

Originally posted by BuddhistPunk
If the the members of the House of Lords are so worldy wise and correct on all matters, why bother with the House of Commons at all?

The money that could be saved would run into the high millions.

Because then the people aren't represented,the job of the House of Lords and theoretically the Monarchy is to prevent the tyranny of the majority,not cause the tyranny of the minority.

queball · 2 Jul 2003, 18:18

Quote:

Originally posted by BuddhistPunk
If the the members of the House of Lords are so worldy wise and correct on all matters, why bother with the House of Commons at all?

The money that could be saved would run into the high millions.

Ugh.

They know different things. They're both valuable.
If the proofreaders know so much about grammar, why don't they write the book?
If the scientists know so much about reality why don't they rule the world?

Foxhunting is a great example; if you don't know anything about nature you might think foxhunting is cruel and should be banned. But we have people with expert knowledge, called the Lords, so we'll end up with licensing hopefully.

Dante Hicks · 2 Jul 2003, 18:22

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
Foxhunting is a great example; if you don't know anything about nature you might think foxhunting is cruel and should be banned.

Fox hunting isn't an issue of knowledge, it's an issue of perspectives. There are some supremely well educated/informed animal-rights types who oppose fox hunting.

Justifying the Lords (or even more absurdly, the Monarch) on the basis that they know stuff is madness. What the hell test did they take to be there? Gee, a few ex-trade unionist lackeys who sucked up to the government for a few years, what a great qualification on life.

Nodrog · 2 Jul 2003, 18:23

Quote:

Originally posted by BuddhistPunk
Do you prefer that somebody you didnt elect has control over matters that directly effect you.

Doesnt this also apply in a democracy to everyone who didnt vote for the winning team?

Haer · 2 Jul 2003, 18:24

I may have missed something, but noone seems to have addressed the key point in the Lords/Commons debate.

That being that Lords does NOT have the final say on legislation. Once a motion has been passed in commons it goes to lords. If it passes it goes onto become an act of parliament. If it fails it goes back to Commons. The Lords cannot block legislation, only delay it and suggest ammendments.

huh · 2 Jul 2003, 18:25

think

queball · 2 Jul 2003, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Fox hunting isn't an issue of knowledge, it's an issue of perspectives. There are some supremely well educated/informed animal-rights types who oppose fox hunting.

No. They're wrong.

Quote:

Justifying the Lords (or even more absurdly, the Monarch) on the basis that they know stuff is madness. What the hell test did they take to be there? Gee, a few ex-trade unionist lackeys who sucked up to the government for a few years, what a great qualification on life.

Oh well, better than nothing. Bring back hereditary peers!

Dante Hicks · 2 Jul 2003, 18:28

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
No. They're wrong.

Yes, they're wrong, but not because they're not informed. Presuming that people just need to learn a few more facts before they're on the path to salvation is idealism. Peter Singer (random example) is almost certainly more informed about animal rights than me, but I still think he's wrong and I'm right.

Nodrog · 2 Jul 2003, 18:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Yes, they're wrong, but not because they're not informed. Presuming that people just need to learn a few more facts before they're on the path to salvation is idealism. Peter Singer (random example) is almost certainly more informed about animal rights than me, but I still think he's wrong and I'm right.

However, it doesnt matter how good you are at reasoning if your fundamental premises are wrong.

Dante Hicks · 2 Jul 2003, 18:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
<snip>

Agreed.

BuddhistPunk · 2 Jul 2003, 18:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Doesnt this also apply in a democracy to everyone who didnt vote for the winning team?

How else would you suggest doing it? The majority decides the minority conforms at least until the next round of elections.

Even so the minority is also represented in government.

Nodrog · 2 Jul 2003, 19:40

Quote:

Originally posted by BuddhistPunk
How else would you suggest doing it? The majority decides the minority conforms at least until the next round of elections.

Even so the minority is also represented in government.

So what youre essentially saying is that you dont like the House of Lords because they are an unelected body which is stopping the winning team doing things to the members of the losing teams, who didnt elect them?

huh · 2 Jul 2003, 20:05

Why do you hate fair and honest Democracy so much?

You do realise if we didn't have the system like it is now, we'd be living in a communist dictatorship. Is that what you want?

Weeks · 2 Jul 2003, 21:32

You've got it just about right.
The House of Lords thing is a bit dodgy at times.
But my life is pretty good and the goverment looks after me i don't really care.

Edit:

It is generally accepted that the House of Lords will go someday. But it is part of English history and heritage. Things generally work ok with them there.

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 2 Jul 2003, 21:45

im always convinced by the sound argument of a woman who appeared on kilroy when they were debating the monarchy many moons ago

comment to person who wanted to abolish the monarchy (to much applause from the audience)
"what do you want instead? bring back hitler?"

cant argue with that really.

Weeks · 2 Jul 2003, 22:01

Quote:

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua

comment to person who wanted to abolish the monarchy (to much applause from the audience)
"what do you want instead? bring back hitler?"

cant argue with that really.

Lol, i love those kind of comments.
I love even more those people to think, oooooooh she's got a good point.
No monarchy == Hitler ofc.
My current favourite.... is 'What do you want? To live in a communist dictatorship?'
What worries me more is people who make these arguments oftern believe them.

BuddhistPunk · 3 Jul 2003, 11:08

Quote:

Originally posted by huh
Why do you hate fair and honest Democracy so much?

At no point in this DISCUSSION have I mentioned hate, its a rather extreme and illogical emotion that doesnt really apply here.

One thing that does arouse more than a little curiousity is your definition of "fair.....Democracy". Fair from who's perspective? It seems to me that an unelected portion of higher government is, from the point of view of the citizens it serves, hardly fair.

Quote:

Originally posted by huh
You do realise if we didn't have the system like it is now, we'd be living in a communist dictatorship. Is that what you want?

Defining a fully elected government as a "communist dictatorship" is a leap of delusional logic that I am simply not prepared to make.

Radical Edward · 3 Jul 2003, 14:11

I think we should be run by an anarcho-socialist beaurocracy, who use the evil nanobots that are smaller than atoms that prince charles is so worried about to carry out their evil plans.

inf · 3 Jul 2003, 15:43

The House of Lords isn't designed to create laws, just check them.

JonnyBGood · 3 Jul 2003, 16:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Weeks
My current favourite.... is 'What do you want? To live in a communist dictatorship?'

Could be interesting.

Quote:

How else would you suggest doing it? The majority decides the minority conforms at least until the next round of elections.

Abolish democracy. No they don't and they definitely shouldn't.

W · 3 Jul 2003, 17:12

There are no direct democracies.
The people are always ultimately in control; as a last resolve, they can choose to die, and the rulers will have noone to rule. Before taking that step there are multiple other actions to take.
There's a vital difference between taking power and being given power. True monarchs have an unbelieveable burden to bear, and it shapes everything they do. Military dictators who grab power does not in any way feel the same.
The usefulnes of democracy is very very dependant on the abilities and knowledge of those who get to vote.

vampire_lestat · 3 Jul 2003, 17:16

btw. I recon that anyone who is arguing against the lords from the good old US of A should take a close careful look at their 'democratic' system, and notice that the 'presedent' LOST the election.

secondly, without little things like the house of lords and the queen, who would stop mr blair from screwing everything up. Admitadley, however much it pains me to say this (being right winged as i am), people such as gordon brown from the labour party do a damned good job in securing that we have one of, if not the, best standard of living as a hole in the entire world.

Finally, badger, read stupid white men by michael moore, you wont regret it.

huh · 3 Jul 2003, 23:57

Quote:

Originally posted by BuddhistPunk
feeding the troll

You really are an idiot. Stupid communists.

G_frog · 4 Jul 2003, 00:29

Very few british institutions work as well on paper as in practice. I don't pretend to know why this is. Seperation of powers? what seperation of powers?

Mushroom · 4 Jul 2003, 00:37

Quote:

Originally posted by vampire_lestat
Finally, badger, read stupid white men by michael moore, you wont regret it.

I read your first sentence and knew you'd read that book.
It's quite scary really, isn't it?
That good old Jeb Bush removed not just all felons in florida from voting, but anyone who shared details with a felon - so if you shared the same name, birth date etc. with someone who'd committed a crime, your vote wasn't counted. Oh, and they basically wiped out all black floridans from the vote. Nice of them.
And that's just one revelation. Further explanation would require a new thread.
Yeah, our system is pretty boring and run of the mill in comparison

4 Jul 2003, 07:59

Quote:

Originally posted by vampire_lestat
Finally, badger, read stupid white men by michael moore, you wont regret it.

I once had the great misfortune of watching Bowling for Columbine to see what all the fuss was about,I have since vowed never to look at anything associated with that man ever again.

vampire_lestat · 4 Jul 2003, 09:22

how come, its a good, albiet daunting, film.

4 Jul 2003, 09:46

Quote:

Originally posted by vampire_lestat
how come, its a good, albiet daunting, film.

It's propaganda a labour spin doctor would be proud of.

4 Jul 2003, 10:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Becasue there's not enough pro-gun propaganda in America to strike the balance.

someone saying 2+2=3 makes someone saying 2+2=5 right?

huh · 4 Jul 2003, 14:26

yes

MrL_JaKiri · 4 Jul 2003, 14:31

Quote:

Originally posted by vampire_lestat
how come, its a good, albiet daunting, film.

He manipulates what's going on and he does it knowingly.

Two examples:

1. The 'weapons factory'; that makes rockets for commerical launches, and he was specifically and repeatedly told this throughout the time he was there. Hence the confusion from the interviewee about the question of the rockets killing people. The rockets are also moved at night to stop traffic disruption, not because of 'shame' or similar.

2. Charlton Heston. There is much that could be written here, but I'll just concentrate on the second NRA meeting that is shown. The one that 'once again, arrived hot on the heels' of gun crime involving minors, or words to that effect. The meet was over SIX MONTHS after the crime. If you stopped them having rallies for gun crime in the last year, then they wouldn't have any at all. If you reply to this by saying they shouldn't, then I sir call you a hypocrite.

Marilyn Manson · 4 Jul 2003, 14:55

The Lords has not been able to veto legislation from the Commons since The Parliament Act of 1911 - longer in actual political reality - Examine the events of 1832. Since 1949, and the second Parliament act, The Lords have been unable to block legislation for more than a year.

And there are no longer any herditary peers, except for the 92 who topped a vote by their chums and therefore remain, at least for the moment.

Marilyn Manson · 4 Jul 2003, 14:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Insane Badger
I didn't elect labour,yet they are taking away my freedom to hunt foxes,that is an enormous infringement on my liberty

It's has about the same weighting in terms of restricting civil liberties as any other piece of animal cruelty legislation has.

I.E, none.

Marilyn Manson · 4 Jul 2003, 15:00

Quote:

Originally posted by vampire_lestat
secondly, without little things like the house of lords and the queen, who would stop mr blair from screwing everything up.

You're decieving yourself if you pretend there are any effective instiutional checks on this government, or any other that operates under the present system.