A
Alarm
Not all, so a bit lame as an argument.
Scrap the house of Lords?
- Thread starter joe-90
- Start date
Not all, so a bit lame as an argument.
Sponsored Links
Yes, and that is the problem.
Laws made because they are popular can be ill thought out and rushed through.
Now I am of the mind that benefits should be slashed (the 26k proposed HB cap is 2000k a month, that's still a stupid amount of money).
The lords need reform, as they keep getting things brazenly wrong (like at the end of labours term they started pushing through a load of crap before they got kicked out, which the lords failed to scrutinise).
Just remember that if it wasn't for the lords, labour would have pushed through a hell of a lot more "anti terrorist" laws. And what did get through has been massively abused (like councils using anti terrorist laws to inspect bins).
so every one voting to do away with the house off lords are happy to except the excesses of thatcher and blair except much worse 
remember thatcher and blair both thought they where god like and and completely right
remember thatcher and blair both thought they where god like and and completely right
Sponsored Links
Well firstly, they cannot stop anything, only delay it.
And secondly, what is your point, that because the house is flawed it should be scrapped, or because it is flawed they should be improved?
And secondly, what is your point, that because the house is flawed it should be scrapped, or because it is flawed they should be improved?
The problem with scrapping the lords is what do you replace it with? Another elected body? One of the advantages of life peerages is that those people don't have to worry about winning votes and can act according to their conscious's.....hopefully.
Sounds ok but I don't like the idea of "samples" too open to abuse.
Maybe a referendum website where people who are eligible to vote could be registered using NI numbers and suchlike.
Maybe a referendum website where people who are eligible to vote could be registered using NI numbers and suchlike.
If you're going to let the people decide, do it properly.
In this day and age a website with a register could be set up with all NI numbers andelectoral roll details in it. That could then be used by the people to vote on matters of national importance.
We'd be out of that european crap and afghanistan pretty quick. Which is why it will never happen, even though it's easily accomplishable.
In this day and age a website with a register could be set up with all NI numbers andelectoral roll details in it. That could then be used by the people to vote on matters of national importance.
We'd be out of that european crap and afghanistan pretty quick. Which is why it will never happen, even though it's easily accomplishable.
S
Susiejb
Sounds good sooey and Joe but I think the problem is by using random 'people' they will then be asked to vote on matters that they fail to understand...considering that a certain percentage of the population have probably only ever voted on Big Brother are they the ones to be asking about matters of such importance.
Are you sure? They are all as bad each others, John Prescott is a member of the Lords, wasted half a billion pounds just on one project, the biggest money wasters ever to have served in government
If it was a national website encompassing the whole populace. then the people would be deciding, for good or bad.
The problem I see with it is that people are easily persuaded, so the interest groups with the most money to throw at their argument will generally win the day. i.e. big business....just like now.
The problem I see with it is that people are easily persuaded, so the interest groups with the most money to throw at their argument will generally win the day. i.e. big business....just like now.
You do realise we have representative democracy, not direct democracy?
The people don't decide, their representatives do.
Ask yourself if the enabling act of 1933 would have been passed if Germany had a house of lords?
Because it's a system that works, it stumbles, it makes mistakes, but it's a system that is almost second to none.
I hate maggots, but they can clean a septic wound, not everything that works is pretty.
Nice in principle, doesn't work in real life.
Who decides what is "of national importance", who decides what laws are created through democratic representatives voting, or through a referendum.
Every law that affects trade is of national importance, have you ever read a standard on CE marking, do you understand the reams, the bloody endless REAMS of paperwork that goes into the legislation behind them, half the population can't be arsed to vote, you think a fraction of the population is going to spend time reading these documents so they can thoughtfully vote yes or no on new trade legislation?
Or maybe you argue that such laws are not of national importance, or can be left to representatives and not through referendums.
You could turn this on it's head further.
The benefits cap would have affected 60,000 people at most (remember it was only a cap on HB not other benefits), and accounted for less than a fraction of a % of the budget.
How is that of national importance?
Sponsored Links
