UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[Dumb Ideologies]

Having an appointed upper-house that scrutinises the bills from the lower house is actually a good thing to have. A sober-second-thought. They have more time to go over the legislation from the House of Commons.

I disagree. Any attempt to moderate the influence of democratically-elected bodies with undemocratic institutions by itself is detrimental to the overall will of the general populace.

Alternatively, democracy itself is detrimental to the overall will of the general populace. Everything is misleadingly presented for propaganda purposes by an increasingly always-on adversarialism, and a plurality of votes on one occasion is sufficient to have control over executive power and the lawmaking agenda for 4/5 years. Any institution that can interrupt the process with the compulsory interjection of other voices is of profound benefit.

[Celritannia]

There have been times the Tories passed laws that would have been damaging to the people the House of Laws helped criticise. The bedroom tax being one of them.

When the House of Commons has an absolute majority of one party and they can pass any law they want that won;t get scrutinised, having the second chamber that is mainly non-partisan is essential.

Having 2 elected houses would be damaging as both would fight for political power.

When a system is so broken that it needs oversight from such a body, perhaps we should just look to change the existing system rather than enabling the elitist tendencies of the Lords.

Again, the HoL is mostly appointed, with hardly any hereditary peers. So the elitism is not fully founded.
Plus, it's mostly non-partisan, so political alliances are less likely to disrupt the process.

[Lost Memories]

With that reasoning i guess you would have no objections to random people writing on your car and front door something inflamatory but true. It would be true, afterall.

I was responding to a post that seemed to suggest that vandalism is endangering people.

Though I will say that it is strange that you did not notice that while editing my post to include the link from your post but exclude the post I was responding to. Almost as if you are being deliberately disingenuous.

If instead your confusion was only about "rather than putting the rest of us in more danger."
It's cause we are in the middle of a pandemic, DUH. And the UK isn't shining there, to start with. (UK is very close now to get past Spain for total number of infections)

Truly.

If you had not replied selectively to only parts of my post, you would have otherwise noticed that, in doubt, i had addressed both possible understandings of your comment. Quite the opposite of not noticing.


(but regrettably, commenting selectively is a bad habit of this and other forums. Tweet sized text bits vs reading a post in its entirety)

[Dumb Ideologies]

Why have your laws scrutinised by a group with expertise when you could just have them scrutinised by another group of politicians?

We've ascended so far up peak liberal ideology that I'm getting dizzy from the altitude.

[Celritannia]

Why have your laws scrutinised by a group with expertise when you could just have them scrutinised by another group of politicians?

We've ascended so far up peak liberal ideology that I'm getting dizzy from the altitude.

If it makes things better we could just change the title of the House of Lords to the Chamber of Oversight, Chamber of Advisers, Chamber of Counsellors, or something similar.

But we do need to remove the bishops that sit in there that's the only thing that needs to happen.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Why have your laws scrutinised by a group with expertise when you could just have them scrutinised by another group of politicians?

We've ascended so far up peak liberal ideology that I'm getting dizzy from the altitude.

If it makes things better we could just change the title of the House of Lords to the Chamber of Oversight, Chamber of Advisers, Chamber of Counsellors, or something similar.

But we do need to remove the bishops that sit in there that's the only thing that needs to happen.

A tricky matter in the current layout given that they can only move diagonally.

[Celritannia]

If it makes things better we could just change the title of the House of Lords to the Chamber of Oversight, Chamber of Advisers, Chamber of Counsellors, or something similar.

But we do need to remove the bishops that sit in there that's the only thing that needs to happen.

A tricky matter in the current layout given that they can only move diagonally.

Well when the Queen enters the chamber, anything can go down.

[The Islands of Versilia]

Why have your laws scrutinised by a group with expertise when you could just have them scrutinised by another group of politicians?

We've ascended so far up peak liberal ideology that I'm getting dizzy from the altitude.

If it makes things better we could just change the title of the House of Lords to the Chamber of Oversight, Chamber of Advisers, Chamber of Counsellors, or something similar.

But we do need to remove the bishops that sit in there that's the only thing that needs to happen.

I like HoL better. It has more soul.

[Agarntrop]

The HoL is a ridiculous, snobby, undemocratic institution and needs to be abolished, replaced or democratised.

[Celritannia]

If it makes things better we could just change the title of the House of Lords to the Chamber of Oversight, Chamber of Advisers, Chamber of Counsellors, or something similar.

But we do need to remove the bishops that sit in there that's the only thing that needs to happen.

I like HoL better. It has more soul.

I don't mind the title either. But it's an option for those who don't like Lords

[Celritannia]

The HoL is a ridiculous, snobby, undemocratic institution and needs to be abolished, replaced or democratised.

Ehhhhhhh
Not necesserily.

Again, having a second elected chamber would only cause 2 houses to become gridlocked due to the more partisan aspects of Parliament. Having a chamber that has mostly nonpartisan people allows a better flow.

Removing the second chamber while the HoC still uses FPTP is a terrible idea. No country should be ruled by a single party for an extended period of time.

Replaced, yeah, replacing it with a Chamber of Advisers could work, although that's practically what it is currently.

As for ridiculous and snobby, it really isn't. They form a really good function to scrutinise the legislation from the HoC due to the more time it has. And it hasn't been snobby for many many years.

And sure, it may be democratic, but the HoC isn't the air of democracy either. But at least the HoL questions terrible legislation from a house that has a single party majority that can do what it wants.

[North German Realm]

It isn't a question of can or can't, as a matter of fact the history of Britain indisputably does include the history of minority groups.

Yes, and yet the perspective of the state is that of the majority, not its minorities. It's not necessarily a "good" thing (as it can often be immoral), but the other way around -when taken neutrally, rather than with a "White bad non-white good" lens- is a lot more horrific.

Especially when said majority is also the country's "nationality", which is what I responded to.

White people are not the "nationality" of Britain. British is the nationality of Britain.

And 'British' is Caucasian in origin.

[Philjia]

As long as the Commons is FPTP, it might be nice to introduce some proportional representation into the Lords. Experts to catch the stupid ideas, elected members to challenge the policies that might not actually be what the public want.

[Lost Memories]

Talking once again about vandalism.
I really hope this website to be just a tasteless joke:
https://www.toppletheracists.org/

Otherwise there are two curious bits of information to be found there:
-an association called "Stop Trump Coalition" is sponsoring the removal of statues and memorials in the UK
-some also have issues with stained glass windows (Ronald A. Fisher Memorial Window, Cambridge)

[Celritannia]

As long as the Commons is FPTP, it might be nice to introduce some proportional representation into the Lords. Experts to catch the stupid ideas, elected members to challenge the policies that might not actually be what the public want.

Or the commons should just introduce PR.

[Ifreann]

It isn't a question of can or can't, as a matter of fact the history of Britain indisputably does include the history of minority groups.

Yes, and yet the perspective of the state is that of the majority, not its minorities. It's not necessarily a "good" thing (as it can often be immoral), but the other way around -when taken neutrally, rather than with a "White bad non-white good" lens- is a lot more horrific.

I'm talking about the history of the nation, I don't know why you're contrasting that with the point of view of the government.

White people are not the "nationality" of Britain. British is the nationality of Britain.

And 'British' is Caucasian in origin.

No, it's not, because not all the people in British history were white.

[The Blaatschapen]

Statues teach us nothing and cost money.

Hear, hear!

Someone give this person a statue!

Wait...

[Agarntrop]

The HoL is a ridiculous, snobby, undemocratic institution and needs to be abolished, replaced or democratised.

Ehhhhhhh
Not necesserily.

Again, having a second elected chamber would only cause 2 houses to become gridlocked due to the more partisan aspects of Parliament. Having a chamber that has mostly nonpartisan people allows a better flow.

Removing the second chamber while the HoC still uses FPTP is a terrible idea. No country should be ruled by a single party for an extended period of time.

Replaced, yeah, replacing it with a Chamber of Advisers could work, although that's practically what it is currently.

As for ridiculous and snobby, it really isn't. They form a really good function to scrutinise the legislation from the HoC due to the more time it has. And it hasn't been snobby for many many years.

And sure, it may be democratic, but the HoC isn't the air of democracy either. But at least the HoL questions terrible legislation from a house that has a single party majority that can do what it wants.

so.... you want to keep an unelected chamber in the 21st century because "tories bad"?

I am sorry, but we shouldn't keep having unelected 'representatives' in 2020 because someone's great great grandfather was in the nobility or because someone managed to cosy up to the government but is too cowardly to fight in an election

[The Reformed American Republic]

Even better: a directly-democratic system.

Because it works so well in the US and Australia /s

We are not fully democratic. We are a republic with some representative elements.

[The Islands of Versilia]

Talking once again about vandalism.
I really hope this website to be just a tasteless joke:
https://www.toppletheracists.org/

Otherwise there are two curious bits of information to be found there:
-an association called "Stop Trump Coalition" is sponsoring the removal of statues and memorials in the UK
-some also have issues with stained glass windows (Ronald A. Fisher Memorial Window, Cambridge)

Tasteless, cultureless idiots. Maybe instead of crying at the sight of a statue of a man who was more successful than they ever could be, maybe they could be useful for once and actually help fund charity work which would do a world of good for those who are actually oppressed.

[North German Realm]

Yes, and yet the perspective of the state is that of the majority, not its minorities. It's not necessarily a "good" thing (as it can often be immoral), but the other way around -when taken neutrally, rather than with a "White bad non-white good" lens- is a lot more horrific.

I'm talking about the history of the nation, I don't know why you're contrasting that with the point of view of the government.

Statues, etc. are manifestations of the view of the government. 'History of a Nation', within the context of statues, etc. (which are what's being discussed), does not exist in the public sphere 'neutrally'.

And 'British' is Caucasian in origin.

No, it's not, because not all the people in British history were white.

All British people were -and continue to be- white. What you're describing is a citizen of the British Nation-state.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

so.... you want to keep an unelected chamber in the 21st century because "tories bad"?

A reviewing chamber elected by limited suffrage > another HoC.

[Philjia]

As long as the Commons is FPTP, it might be nice to introduce some proportional representation into the Lords. Experts to catch the stupid ideas, elected members to challenge the policies that might not actually be what the public want.

Or the commons should just introduce PR.

I'd like the commons to adopt STV but it's not going to happen without the Lib Dems essentially being in a position to blackmail Labour.

[Celritannia]

Ehhhhhhh
Not necesserily.

Again, having a second elected chamber would only cause 2 houses to become gridlocked due to the more partisan aspects of Parliament. Having a chamber that has mostly nonpartisan people allows a better flow.

Removing the second chamber while the HoC still uses FPTP is a terrible idea. No country should be ruled by a single party for an extended period of time.

Replaced, yeah, replacing it with a Chamber of Advisers could work, although that's practically what it is currently.

As for ridiculous and snobby, it really isn't. They form a really good function to scrutinise the legislation from the HoC due to the more time it has. And it hasn't been snobby for many many years.

And sure, it may be democratic, but the HoC isn't the air of democracy either. But at least the HoL questions terrible legislation from a house that has a single party majority that can do what it wants.

so.... you want to keep an unelected chamber in the 21st century because "tories bad"?

I am sorry, but we shouldn't keep having unelected 'representatives' in 2020 because someone's great great grandfather was in the nobility or because someone managed to cosy up to the government but is too cowardly to fight in an election

Did I say Tories? I said having a party that has a full majority, I never mentioned the type of party.

I also gave other examples why to keep the HoL, including it's ability to scrutinise bills easily with more time, and also to alter them. The fact the HoL is nonpartisan, allowing less politicisation in the HoL, and they have more experience than elected members of the HoC.

Another elected chamber will also gridlock a parliament as both chambers will fight for dominance.
Again, the HoL is filled by a majority of life peers, or people who have been appointed. Only 92 are hereditary out of 754 regular members.

[Celritannia]

Or the commons should just introduce PR.

I'd like the commons to adopt STV but it's not going to happen without the Lib Dems essentially being in a position to blackmail Labour.

I would prefer PR, simply because they'll be a wider range of political representation in a slightly larger constituency, then everyone has a representative they can go and see.