tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post6923727998018412898..comments2023-10-02T14:33:18.136+01:00Comments on The Very Fluffy Diary of Millennium Dome, Elephant: Day 4209: Lording ItMillennium Domehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430269096817934037noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-86613904354217515602012-07-13T10:42:54.890+01:002012-07-13T10:42:54.890+01:00Okay, last reply on this.
[1] You are still sayin...Okay, last reply on this.<br /><br />[1] You are still saying that it's okay for the unelected unaccountable Lords to interfere with the Laws BEFORE they are passed because they are SUBSEQUENTLY approved by a process (which you allow is not in itself terribly democratic). That's still TIME TRAVEL and it's not good enough.<br /><br />[2] Perhaps you might bother to go and look at the history of most pieces of legislation and you would see how many amendments are introduced in the Lords and accepted by the Government rather than resorting to Parliamentary Ping-Pong and ultimately the Parliament Act (something I thought it was unnecessary to say the first time as it was implicit in my last answer, but apparently not).<br /><br />[3] "Well yes, apart from me not saying (or indeed thinking) that at all."<br /><br />You don't get to defend the current unelected upper House and then pick and choose which bits you are or aren't agreeing with. The role of the Bishops and their power to derail legislation is a fundamental part of the package. To say you don't think that means that you've just not thought it through.<br /><br />You say "except they can't" when plainly they HAVE blocked the freedom of other religions to perform religious marriage (it's specifically excluded from the current consultation at their insistence). Please don't deny facts.<br /><br />The whole point of the power of PATRONAGE in that benighted chamber is that raw numbers count for nothing, and the whole place is a web of doing favours for influence. You say that the Bishops can only tip the balance; the reason there is a balance to tip, the reason there are theological block votes is intimately connected with the fact that the Bishops can and do do them favours in return.<br /><br />Now, I've had enough of the Lords making me miserable this week.Millennium Domehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08430269096817934037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-19114568672080800192012-07-13T01:25:37.696+01:002012-07-13T01:25:37.696+01:00So your saying that the House of Lords works by TI...<i>So your saying that the House of Lords works by TIME TRAVEL are you? They get to meddle with the laws but only after those laws have already been passed?</i><br /><br />No, I'm saying that laws have to be passed[1] by both houses[2] before they can come into force. Since everything is passed by a democratic house, there's not a problem with legitimacy of the laws that <i>do</i> make it out of the process. The problem is not hteir right to pass laws, it is their right <i>not</i> to.<br /><br /><i>The very rareness with which the Parliament Act is used shows how much Governments compromise with their unelected Lordships, including the most reactionary among them.</i><br /><br />Or that they are usually in agreement from the beginning, or that the Lords tend to cave to pressure, or that they are actually producing compelling arguments and useful changes, or one or more other reasons, or some combination. It also doesn't demonstrate that governments are compromising specifically wiht the most reactionary peers, as opposed to the fairly reactionary ones. There are certaily some things that have been blocked that I would prefer the Commons had stood firm on, and some that have gone through that I wish the Lords had fought harder. I suspect yuo are right that governments tend to give in too easily, but the record of use of the Parliament Act of itself doesn't show it, any more than climate change is proved/disproved by every passing bit of noteable weather.[3]<br /><br /><i>Which is why e.g. a bunch of unelected clerics get an absolute veto on religions not their own who would like to celebrate gay marriages.</i><br /><br />Except they don't. They've got the ability to <i>sometimes</i> tip the balance towards not doing things the government doesn't care about that much. Their bishoplinesses can hardly be called allies of sensible marriage law, but if Labour had really cared about it, we'd have it already. (rather than what we got instead, which was the NIR.)<br /><br /><i>These people dick about with me personally and I get NO SAY in the matter and you call that right? I think not.</i><br /><br />Well yes, apart from me not saying (or indeed thinking) that at all.<br /><br /><i>As for "democratic legitimacy" - </i><br /><br />Yes, that's 'democratic legitimacy' to the rather poor standard our current system, but the shortcomings of FPTP is a whole 'nother thing.<br /><br /><i>ironically, the ONLY laws in my lifetime I'd say even approach democratic legitimacy are the ones passed by the Coalition, as this is the only Government in my lifetime to have been elected with the support of more than 50% of the electorate.</i><br /><br />I'm not sure it's reasonable to interpret the elction results like that. A desparate mid-bedforshirean labourite voting for Linda Jack for reasons of barchartery isn't expressing a preference for Keith Angus over Diane Abbott.<br /><br /><i>Of course, if there have been 23% lib Dems and 36% Tories in the House last night we'd have passed this bill easily.</i><br /><br />Unless what we ended up with was an alliance of the worst, most illiberal aspects of the Tories and Labour...<br /><br />[1]Obviously by 'passes', I mean 'completes progress through that house'. You could mean it in the sense of completing the final stage of becoming law, but then your complaint of the Lords having no right to pass laws over you makes no sense, unless you are talking about the Lords Commissioners, who exist principally to perpetuate archaic French and fantastic hats.<br /><br />[2]I should have said <i>have or will be</i> in my original reply.<br /><br />[3]Although I see we're <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22037-climate-change-boosted-odds-of-texas-drought.html" rel="nofollow">much closer</a> to being able to actually do that.Obtusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208324703407336600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-90357725107367686162012-07-11T10:25:16.966+01:002012-07-11T10:25:16.966+01:00"The fact that those laws have been passed by..."The fact that those laws have been passed by the democratically elected Commons, surely?"<br /><br />So your saying that the House of Lords works by TIME TRAVEL are you? They get to meddle with the laws but only after those laws have already been passed?<br /><br />The very rareness with which the Parliament Act is used shows how much Governments compromise with their unelected Lordships, including the most reactionary among them.<br /><br />Which is why e.g. a bunch of unelected clerics get an absolute veto on religions not their own who would like to celebrate gay marriages.<br /><br />These people dick about with me personally and I get NO SAY in the matter and you call that right? I think not.<br /><br />As for "democratic legitimacy" - ironically, the ONLY laws in my lifetime I'd say even approach democratic legitimacy are the ones passed by the Coalition, as this is the only Government in my lifetime to have been elected with the support of more than 50% of the electorate.<br /><br />Of course, if there have been 23% lib Dems and 36% Tories in the House last night we'd have passed this bill easily.Millennium Domehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08430269096817934037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-31073396573031517882012-07-11T00:13:20.746+01:002012-07-11T00:13:20.746+01:00What gives you the RIGHT to pass laws over me?
Th...<i>What gives you the RIGHT to pass laws over me?</i><br /><br />The fact that those laws have been passed by the democratically elected Commons, surely? Acts that have passed through the Lords (within our lifetime at least) all have democratic legitimacy. Not everything that has democratic legitimacy gets through the Lords, but that's very much <i>not</i> the same thing at all.Obtusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208324703407336600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-13360855051696446352012-07-10T17:17:34.210+01:002012-07-10T17:17:34.210+01:00Well the Tories can now get back to concentrate on...Well the Tories can now get back to concentrate on the more "important" stuff of governing - like dishing the opportunities of companies in our main export market, and unnerving businesses looking to the UK as a gateway to Europe, by going on about the pin-up babe of Tory hypocrisy - the in / out referendum.JohnMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12880436007058091917noreply@blogger.com