European Elections

[RogueHanger]

I think that unelected rulers of our country is just a little bit mediaeval.

Seems rather appropriate for your attitude, I thought.

Seeing as you intend educating peeps,thought past tense,think present tense.

You're not making much sense. Please explain yourself.

 

[Doug99]

The camera never lies

 

[AronSearle]

My idea is to have two houses (I don't know what we would call them, but that's not important), the members of which are both elected by the people of this country. The difference would be that one house would continue to be elected by the 'first past the post' system, whilst the other - the replacement for the Lords - would be elected by 'proportional representation'.

The whole point of having a second non public elected house is to allow the members to vote without being influenced by party politics or popularism, you create a much bigger problem just to perform a bodge fix of another.

 

[JBR]

My idea is to have two houses (I don't know what we would call them, but that's not important), the members of which are both elected by the people of this country. The difference would be that one house would continue to be elected by the 'first past the post' system, whilst the other - the replacement for the Lords - would be elected by 'proportional representation'.

The whole point of having a second non public elected house is to allow the members to vote without being influenced by party politics or popularism, you create a much bigger problem just to perform a bodge fix of another.

OK. Then one house could be occupied entirely by independents, perhaps a much smaller number than at present, but still elected by the people and being obliged to stand for re-election every five years.

I still think that both houses should be elected by PR, though.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It is pointless you and/or we thinking of solutions for that which is not a choice.

'tis the Turkeys and their friends who make the rules and you want them to vote for Christmas.

You may have a (very slightly) better chance should you vote Labour but I seem to remember you are not in favour of such.


Vive la republique.

 

[JBR]

You may have a (very slightly) better chance should you vote Labour

Why?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well, because the Conservatives will never do anything to reform their bosses.

Labour will at least try (but not succeed).

 

[AronSearle]

OK. Then one house could be occupied entirely by independents, perhaps a much smaller number than at present, but still elected by the people and being obliged to stand for re-election every five years.

People wonder why "democracy is broken" when they don't even understand the system we have, but want to improve it.

The point of having a second house *is* for it to be unelected, having elected people in the second house means they will be pulled by popular opinion, now before going on about "but yes, that's how it should be" no, popular opinion is not necessary public opinion, and is subject to whims.

Very often some such disaster happens, and especially when it is with children, some sod comes up with some stupid law, and few people will vote against it for fear of the media painting them as uncaring/racist/out of touch losing them their potential for election, so they get swayed by popular opinion, but popular opinion can change with the weather. Unelected people in the house can vote on their conscience, looking at the long view, and not based upon what will get them voted today.

Remember as well they can only block laws for so long, to force reform of bad laws, they can't stop any laws if they are determinately pushed through, any problems with the house have nothing to do with them being elected or not.

Understand the system and why it exists before waffling on some nonsense about elected houses.

Its like people voting in the EU elections based upon local and internal issues, stupid electorate then forces MEP's to campaign on these local issues, nothing to do with EU politics, then the public wonder "why does my MEP do nothing good for me.

There is nothing wrong with the system we have, it just the voters are ****ing stupid.

 

[RogueHanger]

I may not fully agree with your position, Aron, but an extremely well-reasoned argument.

 

[JBR]

Well, because the Conservatives will never do anything to reform their bosses.

Labour will at least try (but not succeed).

So you're saying that the Labour party will try to reform their bosses - the unions?

 

[JBR]

OK. Then one house could be occupied entirely by independents, perhaps a much smaller number than at present, but still elected by the people and being obliged to stand for re-election every five years.

People wonder why "democracy is broken" when they don't even understand the system we have, but want to improve it...

...Understand the system and why it exists before waffling on some nonsense about elected houses...

...There is nothing wrong with the system we have, it just the voters are **** stupid.

So what you're saying is that the Lords are there as moderators because they know better than us what we want - or what is best for us.

I don't suppose they could ever be accused of making decisions on what is best for themselves.

Surely a democracy, by definition, is rule by the whole population via elected representatives.

I will agree, however, that many of the electorate are **** stupid. Perhaps another option would be to remove the right to vote from the **** stupid ones. Perhaps you, personally, could decide who, exactly, those people are.

My apologies for 'waffling on', btw.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well, because the Conservatives will never do anything to reform their bosses.
Labour will at least try (but not succeed).

So you're saying that the Labour party will try to reform their bosses - the unions?

That doesn't follow from what I wrote but it's a good point.

'New' Labour might but 'Proper' Labour shouldn't.
It was, after all, formed by the workers' representatives at the time.

I do not agree with New's policy of manipulation just to get elected and the resultant 'Bit-Less-Conservative' party.

 

[AronSearle]

So what you're saying is that the Lords are there as moderators because they know better than us what we want - or what is best for us.

Facepalm.

Nobody knows what's best, that's the point of having a second unelected house that can stall bad laws, but not stop them, make it an elected house and it just becomes a mirror of the first house.

You know, the one where all the stupid laws come from.

I don't suppose they could ever be accused of making decisions on what is best for themselves.

Which is why they have only the power to stall not stop laws, power checks within power checks, all in place (through design or luck) to limit human stupidity.

Really, any issues with the house are not to do with it being elected, in fact its gotten worse since hereditary peerage was replaced by peerage placements by MP's, you know, those elected representatives you talk about.

 

[JBR]

Facepalm.

Oh dear. Do you have a headache? Take a couple of aspirins, I find they help.

Nobody knows what's best, that's the point of having a second unelected house that can stall bad laws, but not stop them, make it an elected house and it just becomes a mirror of the first house.

OK. If not elected representatives, who would you suggest occupy the second house? Or are you happy with the present system?

 

[ntb]

Splendid result.