Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6

Original poster

What do you think about removing the House of Lords?

137 replies

MarshaBradyo · 25/11/2022 16:22

I don’t follow them much but I remember the very emotive and excellent speeches re the word mother in the maternity act.

Some of us followed it on here, and I was grateful enough to the four key players to email them.

My concern is that without those speeches we would have gone in a direction many didn’t want

With proposals to remove it - do you agree?

OP posts:

Original poster

MarshaBradyo · 08/12/2022 10:00

JemimaTiggywinkles · 06/12/2022 10:09

Plenty of arguments here against democracy.

Perhaps, but the UK isn't a straight forward democracy. Every vote isn't worth the same, and once elected your MP is there for years and there's nothing you can do about it. If you live in a safe seat there may be nothing you can do about it for decades. Party politics also makes the situation complicated, as representatives are serving their parties ahead of their constituents.

And, of course, democracy without checks and balances is also the rule of the majority. You need things in place to protect the rights of minorities too. Which is why many countries have proper written constitutions in place.

The HoL, by the way, cannot stop legislation which comes directly from the government's manifesto. It can only stop legislation which has not been voted for by the general public.

The last part is very interesting imo and I wasn’t aware of it

Given the gridlock that can happen in US version this sounds closer to democracy to me.

We vote for MPs and mostly what we voted on will get by but not without checks and balance.

OP posts:

Itsoktogiveup · 08/12/2022 10:03

I don’t agree. It’s just handing more power to the Commons, which has been a total shitshow for decades.

Philosophically I’d love to agree that any hereditary power at all is awful and abolish it, but the problem with that is that they plan to replace it with a bunch of politicians’ cronies.

The House of Lords has provided some top quality scrutiny of Parliament and of draft legislation and I am very very nervous about the idea of abolishing it.

Shelefttheweb · 08/12/2022 16:48

It can only stop legislation which has not been voted for by the general public.

Ultimately it can’t even do that if all the stops were pulled out.

MangyInseam · 08/12/2022 18:00

The dangers of a total democracy have been understood since ancient Greece. It's a system that is inherently unstable and tends to degenerate into factions and the strong dominating the weak.

At some point people forgot that and adopted this idea that it was the most perfect system, without serious weaknesses.

A system that has developed over centuries to take advantage of the positives of democracy, while mitigating it's dangers, is something to be treated with respect.

ScrollingLeaves · 08/12/2022 18:09

Democracy, oddly, can lead to autocracy.
(Trump? Nearly)

Original poster

MarshaBradyo · 08/12/2022 18:10

MangyInseam · 08/12/2022 18:00

The dangers of a total democracy have been understood since ancient Greece. It's a system that is inherently unstable and tends to degenerate into factions and the strong dominating the weak.

At some point people forgot that and adopted this idea that it was the most perfect system, without serious weaknesses.

A system that has developed over centuries to take advantage of the positives of democracy, while mitigating it's dangers, is something to be treated with respect.

Absolutely

A not thrown away for a cheap headline and vote. I can see this happening, and it’s depressing. Although I hope not.

OP posts:

CliantheLang · 08/12/2022 18:46

ScrollingLeaves · 08/12/2022 18:09

Democracy, oddly, can lead to autocracy.
(Trump? Nearly)

Not really. Trump was totally defanged by the crazy BlueAnon "Russiagate" conspiracy theory.

Fordian · 08/12/2022 19:04

I am 100% in favour of retaining the HOL. Who gets waved in might need stricter checks and balances.... But over many years, far more sense gets spoken there than you'll find in the utter shit-show that the HOC increasingly is.

TheBiologyStupid · 08/12/2022 20:38

This issue has just been discussed on BBC Radio 4's The Briefing Room: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001fwj3

Barbadossunset · 22/12/2022 12:02

So Lord Watson has apologised to Lady Brittan but what about the others whose lives he ruined? Harvey Proctor?

I used to support the HoL for reasons given in previous posts, but Watson and Baroness Mone give it a terrible name.
If a Tory MP had given full support and publicity to a wicked fantasist like Carl Beech, Starmer would have gone berserk and would’ve done everything he could to prevent him becoming a member of the House of Lords.

MarshaMelrose · 22/12/2022 12:53

The investigation was actually going the right way til Tom Watson decided he knew better. He was after a story to stick on the Conservatives. And certainly for a long-time, thanks to the Mets ineptitude (how is it not a failing police force?), many members of the public felt they could call govt figures and dignitaries paedophiles with impunity because of the Met saying accusations of murder and torture of young children was credible.
I guess Starmer agreed he'd done a good job of throwing mud.

Barbadossunset · 22/12/2022 16:27

I guess Starmer agreed he'd done a good job of throwing mud.

Yes - Starmer would think that any bad publicity for the Tories is good news. There was a thread on here at the time (I think it was on here) and posters swallowed the preposterous accusations hook, line and sinker.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6