Pages: 1 2

 

2009-03-03 13:17:40
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6796|N. Ireland

Uzique wrote:

the House of Lords are a good 'filter and approve' system when it comes to bogus pieces of legislation and statute that get drafted up by the morons in the Commons.
Those "morons in the Commons" hold the dominant power in Parliament. The Lords can only delay bills for a year, in fact they can't even delay money bills or bills in a party's manifesto.

With regards to the OP - your separation of powers seems to create a kind of gridlock. Whereas with an elected body through the Commons, the Lords in theory should be able to operate more effectively.
2009-03-03 16:50:21
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

Teddy he's talking about the House of Lords as an executive and legislative branch of government, not the 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary that represent the judiciary. Nice copy and pasted essay response though, 7/10.

I think the House of Lords is a very valid part of our democratic process because they represent and safeguard the conservatism and moderation that we all need to keep our national identity, to keep our rights and to keep our country as what it is. With the major political parties of our island pretty much converging together on policies into what can only described as a spineless centralist-mess, the House of Lords are a good 'filter and approve' system when it comes to bogus pieces of legislation and statute that get drafted up by the morons in the Commons.
Well, this Lord Ahmed fellow is rather disturbing.
2009-03-03 23:49:39
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

..Teddy..Jimmy wrote:

I disagree greatly with this statement especially since the House of Lords now have responsibility of upholding the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK.
You're thinking of the court.
The House of Lords has been totally stripped of any real power or independence.
Fuck Israel
2009-03-04 07:48:02
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|6952

Dilbert_X wrote:

..Teddy..Jimmy wrote:

I disagree greatly with this statement especially since the House of Lords now have responsibility of upholding the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK.
You're thinking of the court.
The House of Lords has been totally stripped of any real power or independence.
The appellate committee are still strictly speaking part of the House of Lords. Although by convention they don't legislate they still technically can so I think mentioning them is still pretty important.

The other part are technically useless considering the commons can, if they want, use the royal prerogative to completely ignore whatever the Lords are saying.

One part is pretty useless the other isn't.
2009-03-04 15:06:15
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

..Teddy..Jimmy wrote:

I disagree greatly with this statement especially since the House of Lords now have responsibility of upholding the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK.
You're thinking of the court.
The House of Lords has been totally stripped of any real power or independence.
The appellate committee are still strictly speaking part of the House of Lords. Although by convention they don't legislate they still technically can so I think mentioning them is still pretty important.

The other part are technically useless considering the commons can, if they want, use the royal prerogative to completely ignore whatever the Lords are saying.

One part is pretty useless the other isn't.
But the question becomes...  should a non-elected group have the power to ignore what elected officials implement?

The American system of government does have powerful non-elected officials, but they usually are subject to elected officials.
2009-03-04 15:35:43
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|6952

Turquoise wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


You're thinking of the court.
The House of Lords has been totally stripped of any real power or independence.
The appellate committee are still strictly speaking part of the House of Lords. Although by convention they don't legislate they still technically can so I think mentioning them is still pretty important.

The other part are technically useless considering the commons can, if they want, use the royal prerogative to completely ignore whatever the Lords are saying.

One part is pretty useless the other isn't.
But the question becomes...  should a non-elected group have the power to ignore what elected officials implement?

The American system of government does have powerful non-elected officials, but they usually are subject to elected officials.
I already half answered that if you read the first comment I made.
2009-03-04 16:43:25
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:


The appellate committee are still strictly speaking part of the House of Lords. Although by convention they don't legislate they still technically can so I think mentioning them is still pretty important.

The other part are technically useless considering the commons can, if they want, use the royal prerogative to completely ignore whatever the Lords are saying.

One part is pretty useless the other isn't.
But the question becomes...  should a non-elected group have the power to ignore what elected officials implement?

The American system of government does have powerful non-elected officials, but they usually are subject to elected officials.
I already half answered that if you read the first comment I made.
I don't think I'll ever understand why you'd keep a figurehead monarchy around.  The U.K. (and every other country that has one) ought to abolish royalty at this point.

I'd love to see Saudi Arabia do that especially, but I know that's not gonna happen.
2009-03-05 00:37:12
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|6952

Turquoise wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


But the question becomes...  should a non-elected group have the power to ignore what elected officials implement?

The American system of government does have powerful non-elected officials, but they usually are subject to elected officials.
I already half answered that if you read the first comment I made.
I don't think I'll ever understand why you'd keep a figurehead monarchy around.  The U.K. (and every other country that has one) ought to abolish royalty at this point.

I'd love to see Saudi Arabia do that especially, but I know that's not gonna happen.
There's the whole tourist thing...but yeah I agree with you. I don't mind the queen but all the other royals are douchebags.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard