What do you think of British Lords?
Oct 18th 2003, 5:55 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
What do you think of British Lords?
You know I did not appreciate this until I emigrated to Australia.
Last time I went back to England on holiday I was struck by the influence of the Lords.
These people to me are an outdated class of parasites who historically kept the peasants down and also drafted them into wars to fight for their master's benefit.
In Australia we have no House of Lords. Instead we elect a Senate at the time of a general election. Thus the Senate consists of politicians elected by the people. The Senate fulfills the same role of the House of Lords.
My brother still living in England tells me that he knows a girl whose brother has the right to sit in the House of Lords. If he were to die in some accident then she would have the right to sit in the House of Lords. She takes drugs and has had two illegitimate babies to far.
I know that electing politicians has problems but I would prefer to elect my rulers than be dictated to by a bunch of sex offenders and Tories (the House of Lords)!
Another thing is that Maggie Thatcher was voted out because the majority of us could not stand her. So what happens - she still has an influence over Britain because she got her mandatory place in the House of Lords.
Last time I went back to England on holiday I was struck by the influence of the Lords.
These people to me are an outdated class of parasites who historically kept the peasants down and also drafted them into wars to fight for their master's benefit.
In Australia we have no House of Lords. Instead we elect a Senate at the time of a general election. Thus the Senate consists of politicians elected by the people. The Senate fulfills the same role of the House of Lords.
My brother still living in England tells me that he knows a girl whose brother has the right to sit in the House of Lords. If he were to die in some accident then she would have the right to sit in the House of Lords. She takes drugs and has had two illegitimate babies to far.
I know that electing politicians has problems but I would prefer to elect my rulers than be dictated to by a bunch of sex offenders and Tories (the House of Lords)!
Another thing is that Maggie Thatcher was voted out because the majority of us could not stand her. So what happens - she still has an influence over Britain because she got her mandatory place in the House of Lords.
Oct 18th 2003, 10:31 am
#2
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: newbury
Posts: 1,015
i feel you sadly misunderstand the roll of the h.o.l
basically it's there to check on the 'elected dictatorships' which we have under the f.p.t.p. system.
there are so so many stories about our 'elected' representitives that one 'drug addict' -who isn't even in the h.o.l -is hardly a cohesive arguement against them..
during the conserative period the h.o.l knocked back more bills than during the previous labour period.
part of this g.ment reason to abolish them is to be able to pass laws unchallanged
there are an a lot of members who are able to sit but don't bother (i would expect your druggie would fall into this catagory if she ever got in)
but an solid core of good people (left right and centre) who sit far more than the so called 'elected' members
which is a fudge anyway as you only get the chance to elect a 'labour/conservitive etc candadate if the committiee (of about six) select him/her
so in a safe seat the 'election' actually is down to a few 1/2 dozen people
(and if the 'powers on high' decree the candadate is actually selected by number 10 if he ensures someone is 'parachuted' in to the constituency...
the system that is being replaced is far better all round than the 'tony's cronies' one that will replace it..)check out who he has made a lord/lady since office...
the election system is also open to abuse for example see the recent GWB election about the rigging that went on and the problems of the electronic poll booths that seem to be able to give the 'right' result whilst no one knows how the software works (apart from those that pay) which are being used in the next 'election' there
cheers
richard
basically it's there to check on the 'elected dictatorships' which we have under the f.p.t.p. system.
there are so so many stories about our 'elected' representitives that one 'drug addict' -who isn't even in the h.o.l -is hardly a cohesive arguement against them..
during the conserative period the h.o.l knocked back more bills than during the previous labour period.
part of this g.ment reason to abolish them is to be able to pass laws unchallanged
there are an a lot of members who are able to sit but don't bother (i would expect your druggie would fall into this catagory if she ever got in)
but an solid core of good people (left right and centre) who sit far more than the so called 'elected' members
which is a fudge anyway as you only get the chance to elect a 'labour/conservitive etc candadate if the committiee (of about six) select him/her
so in a safe seat the 'election' actually is down to a few 1/2 dozen people
(and if the 'powers on high' decree the candadate is actually selected by number 10 if he ensures someone is 'parachuted' in to the constituency...
the system that is being replaced is far better all round than the 'tony's cronies' one that will replace it..)check out who he has made a lord/lady since office...
the election system is also open to abuse for example see the recent GWB election about the rigging that went on and the problems of the electronic poll booths that seem to be able to give the 'right' result whilst no one knows how the software works (apart from those that pay) which are being used in the next 'election' there
cheers
richard
Oct 18th 2003, 11:39 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree that electing politicians has its own problems but at leat they are answerable to the peole and know that if they do anything extreme that we can vote them out.
I agree that I do not know the full ins and outs of the British or Australian political system mainly because it bores me so much that I have never bothered to look it up.
However in very simple terms the House of Commons is the lower house that puts together legislation. Once this has been argued out and ammended as applicable it is passed by the House of Commons. It then goes for review by the House of Lords. The House of Lords can then reject legislation (I know that it can be forced through if necessary, revised etc etc).
This review function is what the Senate do in Australia. I think offhand that the Senate in Australia actually have more power than the House of Lords.
My point of contention is that we elect the Senate and if they are no good we can vote them out. This however is not true for the majority of the members of the House of Lords.
For example when I was last in England my brother told me about a bill that had been passed through the House of Commons to allow people to walk through lands in the countryside. This was rejected by the House of Lords. The reason why it was rejected was that many Lords own estates and they did not want the commoners to have right of access.
Please don't imagine that I think the Australian political system is good - it is not. We have State Governments here which really are a waste of space. For example when I moved from Melbourne to Sydney I had to re-register my car and change my driving licence. Also other things like I noticed a Freddie Kruger film in a video shop in Sydney with the words on it "Banned in Queensland"! A Dental Nurse trained in England is recognised in Sydney but not Queensland etc etc etc.
On top of these State Governements we have Councils as well.
:scared:
I agree that I do not know the full ins and outs of the British or Australian political system mainly because it bores me so much that I have never bothered to look it up.
However in very simple terms the House of Commons is the lower house that puts together legislation. Once this has been argued out and ammended as applicable it is passed by the House of Commons. It then goes for review by the House of Lords. The House of Lords can then reject legislation (I know that it can be forced through if necessary, revised etc etc).
This review function is what the Senate do in Australia. I think offhand that the Senate in Australia actually have more power than the House of Lords.
My point of contention is that we elect the Senate and if they are no good we can vote them out. This however is not true for the majority of the members of the House of Lords.
For example when I was last in England my brother told me about a bill that had been passed through the House of Commons to allow people to walk through lands in the countryside. This was rejected by the House of Lords. The reason why it was rejected was that many Lords own estates and they did not want the commoners to have right of access.
Please don't imagine that I think the Australian political system is good - it is not. We have State Governments here which really are a waste of space. For example when I moved from Melbourne to Sydney I had to re-register my car and change my driving licence. Also other things like I noticed a Freddie Kruger film in a video shop in Sydney with the words on it "Banned in Queensland"! A Dental Nurse trained in England is recognised in Sydney but not Queensland etc etc etc.
On top of these State Governements we have Councils as well.
:scared:
Oct 19th 2003, 2:50 am
#4
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
The senate in Australia is also a check on the laws passed by the lower house. The ruling coalition does not have a majority in the Senate and they need the co operation of the Democrats and the independents to pass laws.
I believe the HOL should be elected by PR. I do worry that it will become stuffed with Tony's cronies.
The other argument for elected officials is Jeffrey Archer. He is still a Lord.
I believe the HOL should be elected by PR. I do worry that it will become stuffed with Tony's cronies.
The other argument for elected officials is Jeffrey Archer. He is still a Lord.
