Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
This is something I was asked earlier today.
What is the point of the House of Lords?
What is the point of the House of Lords?
The very many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXXI
- Thread starter Cutlass
- Start date
- Status
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
In theory, it's to provide a moderating influence over the House of Commons. Because the Lords are appointed for life, it is reasoned, they will be less less susceptible to the fickle mob, and will consider only the genuine interests of the nation.
In practice, well, it's trickier. The Lords do seem to moderate the Commons, but less because of any inherent wisdom or patriotism, and more because they represent the entrenched interests of the nation. From some perspectives, that's exactly what "moderating influence means", of course but for most, it simply serves to create an institutional counter-weight to reform.
It can also serve as a way of getting unpopular, controversial or electorally-inexperienced but none the less influential party-members into government, although this tends to be used sparingly to avoid appearing too undemocratic, and you'll generally find lords filling what are at least on paper minor posts.
Last edited:
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
The criticism that I was told seemed to be the opposite, that the House of Lords goes against the interests of the nation.
Actually, by that point the Roman ruling class was thoroughly bilingual and in Greek the word used ever since the Principate began was was ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ, i.e. King, so the sovereign claiming to be only the venerable first citizen and democratically elected leader of the army was a farce everyone and their dog could see through.
Which is codeword for ‘they're actually trying to be sensible about this whole European Union business rather than telling the
sophie
Break My Heart
Yeah, that's rather my point. We wouldn't call it a Kingdom, nor would we call Nero a King in English because, within the context of Modern English, 1st century Rome was an Empire, ruled by an Emperor (or a principate ruled by a princeps if you're an academic or pedantic *******). So he may have been a basileus in Greek, but he is decidedly not in English.
Is the UK really leaving the EU or not? It's been months since the referendum and all the news I read about it is still just mostly speculation and rumors. Has there been, or is there going to be, any real steps taken by the UK in one direction or the other?
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
they've been quite clear from the very beginning it's a process that's going to take at least 2 years
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
As I said, the practice doesn't always follow the theory.
Nor, really, is it meant to. The House of Lords exists because it exists, and it continues to exist because nobody is really serious about changing that. The Conservatives oppose abolition for the same reason they oppose anything that would make state more democratic or accountable, and the other parties are indifference because it's no longer so aggressively anti-democratic an institution that there's much political capital in reform. The only parties of any significance that are opposed to it are Sinn Féin and the SNP, and in both cases, their focus is on leaving the Union rather than changing it.
Like the monarchy, the House of Lords doesn't actually have to make itself useful, let alone more useful than the alternatives, it just has to avoid pissing off enough people enough that the Commons feels pressed to do something about it.
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
One of the things I've been told is that the British style of democracy is that it's the only kind of democracy that works properly and that Britain is the most democratic nation in the world. The evidence they point to for any other kind of democracy not working is what happened in Belgium, which they say is something typical and frequently happens.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Well that's just silly. Not because of the claim that the Westminster system is The Best In The World, it's a bold claim but one that you could plausibly argue it, but because Britain isn't actually a very democratic or functional example of the Westminster system. Plenty of other Westminster systems have more democratic and accountable governments, more clearly-defined separation of powers, and, last but not least, do not have to worry about over-mighty royals stepping outside their ceremonial roles. Britain is far too burdened by opaque government and aristocratic privilege to be considered an exemplar of anything.
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
What would be a better example of a working democracy?
What if someone thinks that aristocratic privilege is a good thing?
What if someone thinks that aristocratic privilege is a good thing?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Canada, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, while far from perfect, are generally regarded by scientists as more effective and transparent systems than the UK. Notably, Australia has a fully elected upper house, and New Zealand no upper house at all, and while Canada and Ireland maintain upper houses, there are no seats reserved for clerics or nobles, and limit the number of sitting members at any one time, ensuring that it remains an actual legislative body, and does not become, like the House of Lords, a bizarre and ever-expanding hybrid of legislative body, spoils system, and gentleman's club.
Then Britain is also a very poor example, because aristocratic privilege isn't formally built-in to the system, it has to operate covertly, in back-rooms and gentleman's agreements and old boy's clubs. Even the Lords is full of bankers and businessmen and party functionaries. Anyone who assumes the natural right of the aristocracy to rule would find the British system completely absurd.
Seeing this and the things you posted in the dedicated Brexit thread, please, please stop taking your political information from these people.
That's two years after Article 50 is invoked since Article 50 says the EU and the member wishing to leave have two years to negotiate the terms of the exit. However, the UK hasn't even voted on whether or not they are going to invoke Article 50 yet.
So I ask again: Is the UK leaving the EU or not?
And how long are they going to kick it around before making a final decision?
I don't know, but after literally all-but-one Tory MPs voted to impose no restrictions whatsoever on the Government's negotiating hand (one which we're constantly assured is excellent), the fact that it is coming back to the Commons for another reading makes me think that having a bicameral parliament can be a good thing.
(Naturally, the usual sources then started furiously protesting that the Lords be disbanded for opposing "the will of the people", because if you want modern British fascism in action, you only need to read comments on Brexit articles, whether they may be.)
(Naturally, the usual sources then started furiously protesting that the Lords be disbanded for opposing "the will of the people", because if you want modern British fascism in action, you only need to read comments on Brexit articles, whether they may be.)
shadowplay
your ad here
I'm thinking of asking my doctor for an anti-anxiety drug called buspirone (buspar). Anyone here taken it before?
- Status
Similar threads
