PDA

View Full Version : Should The House of Lords be abolished?



DJ Biscuit
30-04-2005, 20:08
...Discuss.

The British Parliament, seat of democracy, birthplace of civilization and liberal thinking.

An elected representative, but not entirely. The so called upper house, the house of Lords is made up of specially chosen people and people who are given seats depending on birth. Is this democratic? Is it archaic? Is it necessary? Is it perhaps both quaint and usefull? Checks and balances or hypocritic?

What do you think?

J.D.
30-04-2005, 20:13
As an American the idea of your upper house rubs me the wrong way but I have been told by some Brits that it actually does serve a useful purpose of dampening the mood swings of the elected government. Tempted as I am to condem it just on principle I'll bite my tongue since I've never lived under it.

Tatiana cat
30-04-2005, 22:21
If I'm not mistaken once it was abolished but then started again... Cos it should be smth instead of it but no one had a clear idea what...
Soon I heard it'll be discussed in both houses of parliament: completely elected or totally nominated?

If to think about 'democracy' specially chosen ppl sure should not have the final say in government.

boscoe
30-04-2005, 22:25
disappointed you didn't make the list again are we DJ??

Chubby Hubby
01-05-2005, 06:56
They're less politically influential than a rotary club. They weren't able to preserve their hunting rights. Personally I would have just banned the silly red jackets and white trousers.

Lled
01-05-2005, 10:37
Very good point DJB, well presented without much swearing.

My proposal is that we should be governed by people who can spend shedloads of money in order to get a seat in parliament. No, wait, that's already being done in America.

Let's see, where to find a working democracy? Switzerland ! There you go, direct democracy, people vote on EVERYTHING ! What a maddeningly uneventful place ! If it were down to the Swiss they'd still be debating whether Hitler should be opposed using military force or whether we should all just look angrily in his general direction.

I thought the general set up of The House of Lords HAD been changed? Do they get to say anything?

Chubby Hubby
01-05-2005, 10:47
Hey don't knock the Swiss - they DID invent LSD.


http://members.aol.com/sheattle/images/acidsue.gif

They also discovered DNA, had the first chocolate factory, invented Absinthe and the sugar cube; Einstein made many of his most important discoveries in Switzerland, and last but not least.... a Swiss invented the World Wide Web! Not bad for a country with 3/4 the population of New Jersey.

Lled
01-05-2005, 11:59
Well spotted Chubby Hubby. I am not knocking CH, I had the good fortune to grow up in CH, am sitting here right this moment and have my apartment here. Love the place.

Any country that encourages scientists to ride bicycles across bridges while enjoying the first mind blowing acid trip is OK with me.

Valentinovna
01-05-2005, 13:33
About hunting, the Lords (even the Labour-created ones) were for the most part fighting the ban as it stands every step of the way, and it was only by evoking a near-obsolete act that the bill passed.

It does serve to curb the worst ideas, and does give a sense of continuity between governments. Even if the Lords may no longer be the ruling cl**** pretty much everyone who chooses to take their seat is an educated and well-informed person, which is more than can be said about lots of the Commons. Personally I consider that they are more than able to represent the needs of the people, and as such should be supported.

Halyavshik
01-05-2005, 19:33
Biscuit, I don't know enough to say one way or the other, but wanted to ask, that by your arguements above, couldn't you also advocate the abolishment of a royal family ? Isn't the royal family ALSO given their rights by birth ? Can advocate the removal of one and not the other (and I'm not saying you are, I'm just curious to hear if that's the case or not).

Random
01-05-2005, 20:06
No !!!! I'd have no where to go for a snooze on a weekday when in London !!

Chubby Hubby
01-05-2005, 22:45
The British Monarchy: Keeping Canada out of the USA since 1812! Seriously, I think the UK should keep a monarchy without spending so much on them; King Carlos of Spain and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands don't get nearly so much in terms of welfare.

trebor
01-05-2005, 23:04
About hunting, the Lords (even the Labour-created ones) were for the most part fighting the ban as it stands every step of the way, and it was only by evoking a near-obsolete act that the bill passed.

It does serve to curb the worst ideas, and does give a sense of continuity between governments. Even if the Lords may no longer be the ruling cl**** pretty much everyone who chooses to take their seat is an educated and well-informed person, which is more than can be said about lots of the Commons. Personally I consider that they are more than able to represent the needs of the people, and as such should be supported.

Fox hunting is a cruel sport so it should be stopped. Doesn't matter if you live in the country or the city. Cruel is cruel and we shouldn't be doing it in this day and age.
As for the house of lords. Get rid of the hireditary(?) peers, we don't need them but why not use all those former prime ministers and other experienced polititians in matters of state after they have been voted out of office.
As is usualy the way. When people want to destroy something its usualy because they have a grand scheme to replace it with something else.
In this case something thats not tried or tested.
We have a pretty good system in the UK. If it 'aint broke, why fix it?
Just get rid of the hireditary(?) peers.

J.D.
02-05-2005, 15:04
Biscuit, I don't know enough to say one way or the other, but wanted to ask, that by your arguements above, couldn't you also advocate the abolishment of a royal family ? Isn't the royal family ALSO given their rights by birth ? Can advocate the removal of one and not the other (and I'm not saying you are, I'm just curious to hear if that's the case or not).
By your logic of logic Hal we should also get rid of this natural born citizen stuff that we have in the U.S.
I suppose we should also just plain get rid of citizenship. Why does a citizen have the right to vote and run for office just because he was born there where as a mere resident has no such power?
Further more in some countries citizenship doesn't come from place of birth but only through the parents. Even if the child is born abroad and never lives there.

Halyavshik
02-05-2005, 16:35
By your logic of logic Hal we should also get rid of this natural born citizen stuff that we have in the U.S.

J.D. Huh ? I don't see the analogy. We're talking about ruling positions by birthright. Unless you can argue that Ted Kennedy's successor will also be a Kennedy, you're gonna have a hard time drawing any kind of logical comparison. Citizenship is not elected representation.

Thanks for coming down, though.

equalizer
02-05-2005, 18:44
the fox hunting was purley a class issue nothing to do with the foxes,do see anyone running out there to save other wildlife ,rabbits,deer, badgers ,other wild game .....................no ,purley a matter of jealousy and envy and as i said a class issue.
as for the house of lords ,outdated and since half them are asleep during any debate it proves the point ,dont need them.
now the royal family they have definatley got some s*** to answer for ,but it was the past generations i am talking about.and as for self rule.............well just look at the complete F*** up in scotland ,they are given independence and the first thing is build a new parliment and that was budgeted at 30million pounds and the finish was not 20 to 30 percent over we are talking 300million pounds ,,,,,,,,one thousand percent...... good start to self rule...give it ten years all the country will have is unemployed as its to expensive to work.............taxes and more .........taxes maybe the soviets did have a good idea

trebor
02-05-2005, 19:48
the fox hunting was purley a class issue nothing to do with the foxes,do see anyone running out there to save other wildlife ,rabbits,deer, badgers ,other wild game .....................no ,purley a

I couldn't have put the case for banning fox hunting better myself. Thanks.
Its purely entertainment (not sport) A class thing. The participants don't even get their f*cking hands dirty. Its just a chance to socialise on horseback at the foxes expense.
Rabbits? if you want to take your gun (traps are illegal in England) and hunt them for consumption. Good luck too you!
Hunting of badgers is also illegal, they are an endangered species.
Other wild game? If sporting methods are used and the game is eaten i think it can survive for a while longer.

J.D.
02-05-2005, 22:24
J.D. Huh ? I don't see the analogy. We're talking about ruling positions by birthright. Unless you can argue that Ted Kennedy's successor will also be a Kennedy, you're gonna have a hard time drawing any kind of logical comparison. Citizenship is not elected representation.

Thanks for coming down, though.

Sorry if that was too big of a leap for you Hal.
To be president of the U.S.(read rule the U.S.) you have to be 'born' an American citizen.
To self rule in the U.S. one must be a citizen. Again one can be 'born' a citizen.

oh, and thanks for letting me come down.

Halyavshik
02-05-2005, 22:41
Sorry if that was too big of a leap for you Hal

It's an enormous leap, albeit it one into irrelevancy.

We can, of course, turn this conversation into a discussion about abolishing all things that come with birth (last names, parents, citizenship, etc), or whether you advocate letting foreign citizens run our country, but that's completely different train of thought.

Now, if you'd attempted to argue that the prohibitive cost of an election campaign in the US limits our candidates to the exceptionally affluent and moneyed classes, you may have come a bit closer to the original question.

You're welcome to come down and try again !

J.D.
02-05-2005, 22:50
Nixon, Ford, Carter and Regan were not rich.
I would not have taken your alternate argument because while it does seem to take money to win, or even run, it doesn't have to be your own.

I think my initial point is a logical and near obvious and only a small expansion of the point in question. You might make a comparison to citizens of the Roman Empire although I would admit that that comparison might not be quite so near the point at hand.

DJ Biscuit
03-05-2005, 15:02
Biscuit, I don't know enough to say one way or the other, but wanted to ask, that by your arguements above, couldn't you also advocate the abolishment of a royal family ? Isn't the royal family ALSO given their rights by birth ? Can advocate the removal of one and not the other (and I'm not saying you are, I'm just curious to hear if that's the case or not).

I could advocate the abolishment of the royal family, but that would be a different topic wouldn't it? If you read the title carefully you will notice the tell tale words: Houes of Lords. Geesh!

DJ Biscuit
03-05-2005, 15:13
...The two subjects Mr.Hal are connected but may be discussed as seperate entities.

Thanks for playing.

My opinion is abolish, oh and for Hal, yes the royal family too.

:)

DJ Biscuit
03-05-2005, 15:14
disappointed you didn't make the list again are we DJ??

Lord Wasted of Mix?

Halyavshik
03-05-2005, 15:26
Thanks for playing.

I've played more interesting games of pick-up sticks.

Cherry
03-05-2005, 15:40
the abolishment of the royal family

DJ Bolshevik:)

DJ Biscuit
03-05-2005, 15:46
Why am I not surprised that you play pick up sticks?

DJ Biscuit
03-05-2005, 15:47
DJ Bolshevik:)

:) LOL!

I love parties!

Cherry
03-05-2005, 15:50
:) LOL!

I love parties!

yeah you're a huge party animal!! and its great :drink: :hooray: :nut: :thumbsup:

DJ Biscuit
03-05-2005, 15:52
Feeling the effects now. Went out on Friday night at 6pm, finally stopped partying at 5am Monday morning!

Cherry
03-05-2005, 15:53
Feeling the effects now. Went out on Friday night at 6pm, finally stopped partying at 5am Monday morning!

same here:)

DJ Biscuit
03-05-2005, 15:55
As an American the idea of your upper house rubs me the wrong way but I have been told by some Brits that it actually does serve a useful purpose of dampening the mood swings of the elected government. Tempted as I am to condem it just on principle I'll bite my tongue since I've never lived under it.


Two words: Electoral College.

DJ Biscuit
03-05-2005, 15:56
same here:)

Good god woman, I would never have expected such behaviour.

aysihsK
03-05-2005, 16:03
Feeling the effects now. Went out on Friday night at 6pm, finally stopped partying at 5am Monday morning!

lightweight! :rolleyes: I went out on Friday and was home at noon on Saturday! :p

DJ Biscuit
03-05-2005, 16:06
You need to work on your stamina. A weekend should last right through, what should you be doing/Going to Ramstore or something?

aysihsK
03-05-2005, 16:35
You need to work on your stamina. A weekend should last right through, what should you be doing/Going to Ramstore or something?

well maybe I had so much fun and just wasn't able to walk at all? :p :D

You should train me how to last for longer ...wanna be my coach? ;)

jchidg1
03-05-2005, 17:21
Fox hunting is a cruel sport so it should be stopped. Doesn't matter if you live in the country or the city. Cruel is cruel and we shouldn't be doing it in this day and age.
As for the house of lords. Get rid of the hireditary(?) peers, we don't need them but why not use all those former prime ministers and other experienced polititians in matters of state after they have been voted out of office.
As is usualy the way. When people want to destroy something its usualy because they have a grand scheme to replace it with something else.
In this case something thats not tried or tested.
We have a pretty good system in the UK. If it 'aint broke, why fix it?
Just get rid of the hireditary(?) peers.



A couple of misconceptions that need adressing -

Hereditary peers no longer sit in the House of Lords, only life peers. This has been the case for quite some time.
The House of Lords - as with the House of Commons is a court of Law. It does not consist solely of politicians but also members of the Judiciary and the Church. Lords belonging to the Judiciary or the Church will be long serving members of these professions and will be deemed to have completed many years of public service. Because the House of Lords is a court of law, legal experts able to advice on the law are required.
An MP does not necessarily become a Lord or Baroness should he/she lose their seat. If an MP chooses to stand down they may be invited to become a Lord. This will be because an MP is recognised as having made a significant contribution to public life, a particular area of expertise and may still contribute to parliamentry debate and regulation of Bills.
The Lords is the last port of call as it were, before a Bill is approved by the Monarch and becomes an Act of Parliament. Should the governing party have a very large majority - as is the case in the UK, this is often the last opportunity to prevent ill thought out Bills or Bills that require further debate becoming law as they may have been pushed through the Commons due to guillotine procedures or lack of time. Although you may argue that the Lords is undemocratic becuase they are not elected it is perhpas not a bad thing that we do have a mechanism in place that can temper governments who possess a very large majority.

You cannot "buy" your way into the Lords - you are appointed by Parliament. The poster may be confusing Knights and Lords. It is not a rare occurance for individuals who have made very healthy contributions to party funds (of any party) to be proposed for a Knighthood by the govenment in power at the time.
Knights serve no political purpose and literally have only the title. .......how else would you explain Sir Mark Thatcher?????

The red leather seats in the House of Lords are however, particularly comfortable and suitable for an afternoon doze.

DJ Biscuit
03-05-2005, 18:40
I am sorry it was all a mistake.

Silly typo really. See the pub down our road is called The House of Lords and it's going to be DEMOLISHED. Sorry for confusion.

J.D.
03-05-2005, 22:39
Two words: Electoral College.
Yes I have lived under the electoral college system. It was not designed as a way to rule but as a way to keep foreign influence out of the US election results. It would do so by blatantly usurping the election process. It has never been used for this purpose but it has been used to subtly influence the process, i.e. by delaying delivery of votes.
It was established with the best of intentions but I think it is wrong only because it is more vulnerable than the election process itself.

Random
04-05-2005, 13:24
I am sorry it was all a mistake.

Silly typo really. See the pub down our road is called The House of Lords and it's going to be DEMOLISHED. Sorry for confusion.


Phew at least I can still have my afternoon snooze when I am in Blighty ....

:verycool: