THIS is why the House of Lords serves a purpose.

[el Chi]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4671566.stm
Ok, so it was only one vote, but the fact is that, time and again, that loathesome little bastard Charles Clarke tries to put forward a rather suspect motion in the name of anti-terrorism, and the Lords bar it.
So well done House of Lords. Well done indeed.


Solaris?

 

[kirovman]

Good show. If the commons had their way, there'd be no Lords, and no safeguards against totalitarian laws! :O

 

[jondy]

Solaris?

Heh.

It's not the first time they've saved our collective asses on anti-terror legislation either :|

 

[Sulkdodds]

Jolly good show.

Ministers have said they will try to overturn this defeat.

Oh **** aawwwwf. D:

 

[kirovman]

Can't they just accept defeat gracefully?

The Lords voted no now, what makes them think they'll vote yes next time?

Unless they abolish/bribe/blackmail/kill the Lords of course.

 

[Kangy]

If you ask me, the Lords seem to reflect public opinion and sensibility more than MPs do now, as they're not at risk of being expelled from parties or at least having their careers ended, therefore they can't really be whipped into a position. With any luck though, the overturning won't go through because of the backbenchers.

 

[gick]

I still think we should have a second house, but one that is elected/appointed, not hereditary.

 

[Sulkdodds]

But then, wouldn't the party be able to exert the same control over them as they can over the Commons? I mean, if they can be elected they can be de-elected and the threat of that might often make them keep quite (as it does with the back-benchers).

 

[gick]

But then, wouldn't the party be able to exert the same control over them as they can over the Commons? I mean, if they can be elected they can be de-elected and the threat of that might often make them keep quite (as it does with the back-benchers).

Hmmm. Touche.

But there must be some alternative to the current situation?

 

[Rupertvdb]

That's pretty much what Blair was trying to say. I disagree, it's useful to have a second house that is not as party based. The concept of an unelected but benevolent group of representatives means that a reasonable debate can be had over legislation that is prone to party-political influence. They are not a total safeguard as in theory, with enough attempts to pass a piece of legislation, the Lords have to let it pass. This is not something that happens much though. A better way might be a group of recognised but independent academics from several disciplines: Politics, Philosophy, Law, History, English, Economics etc etc. Who could debate the entirety of somethings value to society; practically Roman forum-esque. You heard it here first, utopian ideals.

 

[Rupertvdb]

i just wrote such a grueling answer and the internet ate it... or didn't it, LIES! Soz for the double post, machines are liars.

 

[jondy]

Hmmm. Touche.

But there must be some alternative to the current situation?

Does there need to be? The Lords can only amend bills -or delay them for a couple years- and have no say over the budget; they've had little power since 1911. They don't pose a threat to our democracy- and if they did cause enough fuss, they'd simply be overruled by the precedent set in the 1832 Reform Act.

However, that's exactly what we need right now- a body that can lay the smackdown on opportunistic legislation without worrying about partisan advantage.

 

[Solaris]

The commons can just overule the Lords at any time, although for the current labour party it wouldn't be a good idea.

Right now the lords is helping to defend our freedoms.

It's a sad day right there when we rely on a group of unelected aristocrats to defend our civil rights and freedoms from our elected leaders, a sad day in deed.

 

[Sulkdodds]

And what would you propopse? Another elected body?

But then, wouldn't the party be able to exert the same control over them as they can over the Commons? I mean, if they can be elected they can be de-elected and the threat of that might often make them keep quiet (as it does with the back-benchers).

I like rupert's idea actually. As long as I get in!

 

[Solaris]

And what would you propopse? Another elected body?

Why Socialism of course!

 

[Sulkdodds]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :vader:

So no suggestions that would slot into our existing political system?

 

[jondy]

It's a sad day right there when we rely on a group of unelected aristocrats to defend our civil rights and freedoms from our elected leaders, a sad day in deed.

..why? You'd rather the bill passed?

If the legislation was important enough the Lords wouldn't have any power over it; there'd be a controversy and the bill would get passed most anyways. So don't worry about the Lords having any undue aristocratic influence, they're only here to save our collective asses when ****s like Tony go a bridge too far and field opportunistic pitches like this

 

[baxter]

I apologies I have not read anybodies opinion in this thread but choose simply to put my own forward.

The house of lords serves but one purpose that is to show to us all how insignificant and trivial we all are. They are unelected, silly, bunch of bureaucrats, whose only purposes is ... to be there.

They are so blind, narrow minded and really do live in this make believe world where the actually think that anybody listens to a single world that comes out of their drooling inane mouths.

The House of Lords stands testament to our own stupidity, that being that we actually give them some sort of credibility. They sit on their faded red leather seats living their faded dreams and for reasons beyond understanding actually have some sort of say in the running of The UK.

Hang on while, I skip work, get paid a fortune and droll and drivel something that is totally beyond my compression....oh I guess I will sit with the rest of the pompous, egocentric idiots ………..the LORDS.

 

[el Chi]

Can't they just accept defeat gracefully?

Kirov, this is the House of Commons; House of Commons, this is Kirov. I don't believe you've met?

They are so blind, narrow minded

As opposed to the House of Commons, who try (time and time again) to pass laws that quite blatantly oppress more than they protect?
I see, and to an extent empathise with your problems with hereditary "rights", etc. but the fact is that they serve a purpose, and they usually do it well. If they are SO narrow-minded, why are gay unions legal? Unless I am very much mistaken, the Lords could have barred such a progressive move (ok, it's still separate but equal but it's still a step forward), but they didn't. Real closed-minded. The ban on fox-hunting passed. Could they have barred such a move?

If the House of Lords had not been allowed to vote on this matter (not to mention all the other "anti-terror" laws), would you be so happy? Would you really be so very content if the ID card bill had passed without a secondary source of opinion?
Think about it: the idea may be antiquated, but their purpose is sensible and their results are often good ones.

The commons can just overule the Lords at any time, although for the current labour party it wouldn't be a good idea.

I'm sure Galloway and Respect would completely disregard the system of government had has existed and evolved over centuries of (relative) national stability and welfare. I feel sure he'd shake up the system and give those dastardly Lords what for. Yes, a government led by Galloway would certainly be a massive departure from the current situation and would never ever, in spite of the necessity of a degree of equilibrium, compromise their values. NO, they would NEVER do that.

It's a sad day right there when we rely on a group of unelected aristocrats to defend our civil rights and freedoms from our elected leaders, a sad day in deed.

Yes, because you yourself, as a supposed Socialist, would never advocate an imperfect means to an ends. No, of course not.

Wake up to yourself, Solaris.