Resident Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I usually vote however for the last general election I missed out because I was on holiday and didn't get around to setting up a proxy vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I think due to the lack of a "None of the above" box. That's my reason too. We don't need proportional representation, or alternative votes. I'd be happy with a 'None of the above' box that forces a re-election if it wins. It wont happen because it's not a popular idea with politicians, because it could be embarrassing for them. If I don't like any of the candidates, then how (or why) should I vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 1. No they can not. The House of Lords can propose amendments and can refer legislation back to the commons (and they often do when the legislation has been drafted poorly.) They cannot 'prevent a law or policy change.' See The Parliament Acts (1911) and (1949.) The elected lower house has the ultimate right to enact legislation in the face of opposition from the upper house. 5. If people were to accept full responsibility for their actions, would that not mean the demise of most of the present benefit system? 'If you don't bother going to school, or if while you are there you muck about and don't bother to learn, then you may find that you are unemployable. That's your fault and the state is not going to support you.' That would go down well. 'If you breed 'em and you can't feed 'em, that's your fault.' That'd go down well, too. Errm perhaps we live on different planets then because in my world the House of Lords can and has rejected legislation: The House of Lords debates legislation, and has some power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. From Wiki- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords House of Lords rejects 42 day Bill: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4935478.ece Lords block assisted dying Bill: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4763067.stm Lords reject government ID card: http://www.out-law.com/page-6756 Lords block Bill to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information Act: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-461728/The-Lords-destroy-bid-MPs-expenses-secret.html I could go on... They do it usually by blocking the Bill for 1 year as a means of getting around the Parliament Acts. Now before you start saying 'well isn't it a good thing many of these Bills were stopped' I'd like to remind you that my original point was that the very fact that the House of Lords exists and can prevent these bills means that we do not live in a democracy, but we actually have an oligarchy. It's just a fact. It's set up that way because historically politicians haven't trusted the public majority to make reasonable social decisions. With regard to your second point yes it would eventually mean the demise of the benefits system and good riddance to it! The benefits system only exists because the (more left wing) elites knew full well that capitalism cannot provide adequately for all. The benefits system wasn't set up so that generations of people could live without working, it was set up because there is an inherent business cycle of boom and bust associated with infinite growth monetary economies and the leaders didn't want useful workers and bust business owners to be left to starve every time the economy took its inevitable nose dive. Throw out capitalism and the monetary economy and you have no need for the benefits system. It is possible to replace these dinosaurs with something that works and is beneficial to all. Finally I'd just like to ask where you got those quotes from that you finish with? It looks as though you're answering points I've made, but I can assure you that I would never speak so crudely about such complex matters. If you want to put words into my mouth at least have the decency to make proper sentences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcrust Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 From Wiki- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords House of Lords rejects 42 day Bill: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4935478.ece Lords block assisted dying Bill: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4763067.stm Lords reject government ID card: http://www.out-law.com/page-6756 Lords block Bill to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information Act: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-461728/The-Lords-destroy-bid-MPs-expenses-secret.html I could go on... And you're arguing against this?! I've always been for an elected House of Lords, but am rethinking my position after reading the above! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 And you're arguing against this?! I've always been for an elected House of Lords, but am rethinking my position after reading the above! Hmm.. you really ought to read on before you post: They do it usually by blocking the Bill for 1 year as a means of getting around the Parliament Acts. Now before you start saying 'well isn't it a good thing many of these Bills were stopped' I'd like to remind you that my original point was that the very fact that the House of Lords exists and can prevent these bills means that we do not live in a democracy, but we actually have an oligarchy. It's just a fact. It's set up that way because historically politicians haven't trusted the public majority to make reasonable social decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcrust Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Hmm.. you really ought to read on before you post: I did thanks. It is still very interesting that you couldn't find any examples that would make people thing "oh how terrible"! You do make a rather strong case for keeping the present arrangements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 And you're arguing against this?! I've always been for an elected House of Lords, but am rethinking my position after reading the above! It does not cross the minds of anarchists/hard leftists that the Lords might do some good or are no longer a bunch of hunting and shooting right wing maniacs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 It does not cross the minds of anarchists/hard leftists that the Lords might do some good or are no longer a bunch of hunting and shooting right wing maniacs. Based upon your posts I doubt much of anything crosses your mind.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 It does not cross the minds of anarchists/hard leftists that the Lords might do some good or are no longer a bunch of hunting and shooting right wing maniacs. very few of the current members of the house of lords are hunting and shooting right wing maniacs, the previous government created lots of lords who were broadly left wing (or at least their version of left wing) and so have a created a "new labour" majority in the lords. the purpose of the second chamber is to take a second look at legislation and where necessary improve it, and by and large it actually does this rather well. the most they can do is delay legislation for a year, after which the government can enact the legislation using the parliament acts. it may sound nice to have an elected second chamber, but having one would probably mean its ability to revise legislation would be reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I did thanks. It is still very interesting that you couldn't find any examples that would make people thing "oh how terrible"! You do make a rather strong case for keeping the present arrangements. OK well how about these then?: House of Lords rejects Labour's attempt to prevent student tuition fees trebling to £9000. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/14/lords-rejects-labour-derail-tuition House of Lords rejects bill to ban smacking children: http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/749913/Children-Bill-Lords-rejects-move-ban-smacking/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH House of Lords rejects 'medical necessity' defence for use of cannabis: http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2005/11/28/medical-cannabis-house-of-lords-reject-medical-necessity-defence-appeal-petition/ Again I could go on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.