If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Lords inflict "Supreme Court" blow
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
.
0
Comments
I think the House of Lords has to go anyway. It is a useless anachronism- a club full of self-serving, out of touch elders who consistently fail to read the mood of the nation and who have single-handed torpedoed and delayed every single piece of legislation they happen to disagree with simply because of their (generally very right wing) leanings. Give as a second elected chamber, like everyone else does, instead of this irremovable cosy club.
Really do get the feeling that with the Govts majority, the Lords can't really stop anything anymore. Only offer amendments.
Would agree with the elected chamber approach too...
They are concervative, and they make the Government justify why they need new laws, which is a good thing in the main. However I can see your point about them delaying needed laws too.
However, using the Parliment Act isnt as simple as it sounds, yes they can push it through, but they have to revert to the original Act as it was first presented. So its not always a good idea if there have been changes made.
I would like to see a representative second chamber and a first past the post main chamber, and I would like to see a second chamber which could call MP's up and question them, hold them to account for what they are doing.
And yet these grave dodgers have managed to sabotage the legislation for 7 years. Nothing will happen this side of an election and if the Tories win then you can kiss the ban on hunting goodbye. Until the next time Labour gets into office, when they will try to pass legislation again and the grave dodgers of the upper house will sabotage it again.
Not to mention endless delays and opposition to dropping the evil Section 28 and countless other things that don't meet the approval of their Lordships.
The way those people can hold the whole country to ransom makes me explode. :mad:
Now do you trust Labour enough to allow them to make anything they want law?
Yes democracy is the rule of the majority but this could well to serious misuses of law and order.
The mess that the Lords is in at the moment is a disgrace. Labour has taken upon itself to bring about constitutional change without fully thinking it through. The last vote on the composition of the House of Lords (what % should be elected) proved that they have no idea what they want from the upper house in the future. And don't get me started on devolution.
I'm not sure how a supreme court would be any better than the status quo. Would someone care to explain the pros and cons?
As we have seen they have the power to do so anyway.
I don't trust the Lords any more than I trust the Commons.
If you truly believe that then you need to be examining the Commons far more closely than you are.
Tyrrany of the majority, anyone? In many rural areas, the exact opposite is true- why should they not have a say simply because there aren't as many of them?
That's ratehr kind of you. I rather think that Blair has got EXACTLY the second chamber he wants- stunted, in limbo and toothless.
A Supreme Court is something that sounds delightful on paper, but it isn't something that is desirable. A Supreme Court would be like in the USA, where judges are elected by Parliament, and there would be a subsequent lack of legitimacy.
But apart from making it less independent, nothing much would change. Except it would cost billions of pounds to implement- what would happen to the Queen's Bench?
The traditional judicial system, the amalgamation of Equity and Law, is the best way because it is tried, tested and it works. Any changes are unnecessary unless it is the Government's intention to remkove the independence of the judiciary- something which I suspect is true, especially given the way Lord Justice Woolf is irritating the Government at the minute.
Remember- in the proposed system there would be no room for Lord Justices such as Woolf and Denning. If they don't agree with Blunkett, they don't get a job.
Why can't people see that this "constitutional reform" is all just a stitch-up for Bliar to cement his position?
Well as you state the Lords is toothless, stunted and in limbo therefore whats the point in its existance? The electorate however have the power democratically to remove the government if they are not satisfied with its performance.
Tyranny of the majority or democracy? The arguments for and against fox-hunting have been made loud and clear for years, the rural areas and those who represent them have had their say just like the antis. I've heard them loud and clear.
If the majority vote goes against them, so be it, do we really a system where the minority goes 'hang on, I know better therefore you are overruled?'.
The Second Chamber should be independent, and should be no more than 50% elected IMHO. The role of the Parliamentary second chamber is to ensure that law passed is good law, not populist law. The Parliament Acts are so rarely invoked because normally the two houses liaise and reach a settlement as to good law.
But do we really want a system where the majority gets it's view imposed on all simply because of the brute strength of numbers.
In most rural constituencies fox hunting is supported as a necessary evil, no more; the rahs going off in their red coats are not indicative of every hunt and, in fact, Cumbrian hunts are performed on foot without any razzmatazz. It is urban constituencies that support a ban, without any experience of the countryside- about countryside issues, I do tend to think that those who live there would know slightly more than those who don't, or don't participate in rural life.
I shall use another example- would it be good if Parliament said that, say, Islam was cruel and should be banned? All ethnic minorities only constitute 8% of the population, so this policy would be 'popular' and a majority would pass it because of numbers. It wouldn't make it right though, now, would it?
Re: the Lords see your point, by why only 50% elected, I don't want to be represented by unelected officials at all.
On the other point, good example but one is a human rights issue the other a sport. To be honest if there was a problem with foxes, I would agree with other methods ie shooting.
I knew a hunter who was honest to admit that this method was more effective than the tally-ho brigade, she said the arguments they put out was just to keep people from supporting the antis, most hunters loved the chase and the killing.
This is what I base my view on.