Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have served on a jury.

The purpose of the jury is to make a decision based on the evidence presented to them. They do not need to be legal experts or any other kind of expert -- scientist or whatever -- in fact judges aren't allowed to serve on juries if I remember correctly.

This decision making authority is the same function of parliament. The Government has a political objective, it gets up a plan. The technical details are worked out by expert groups, civil servants and written up by lawyers. The whole plan is presented to parliament and passes through the process of debates, select committees and so on. Finally a decision is made by the collective wisdom of the Commons and Lords.

I don't see why having lay Lords would make this process bring about worse decisions.

With regard to the House of Lords, I honestly see them as a bastion of Democracy.

Why?

Well, Election Manifesto's, Back Tracking, Lies and a Landslide.

For example, Tony Blair, in 1997 landed Labour a massive majority in the Commons, meaning they could pretty much push through whatever the hell they wanted. And there is nothing forcing them to stick to promises made. Ergo, they could push through some very, very dodgy policies. House of Lords however, serves as a buffer. Sure, they can't stop it, but they can buy time by refusing it and forcing a re-write. Eventually the Commons will be able to Bypass the Lords, but not before the Bill has changed for (hopefully) the better.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:With regard to the House of Lords, I honestly see them as a bastion of Democracy.

Why?

Well, Election Manifesto's, Back Tracking, Lies and a Landslide.

For example, Tony Blair, in 1997 landed Labour a massive majority in the Commons, meaning they could pretty much push through whatever the hell they wanted. And there is nothing forcing them to stick to promises made. Ergo, they could push through some very, very dodgy policies. House of Lords however, serves as a buffer. Sure, they can't stop it, but they can buy time by refusing it and forcing a re-write. Eventually the Commons will be able to Bypass the Lords, but not before the Bill has changed for (hopefully) the better.

Very true. This is how the Lords should work. However from '99 the government has tried to tip the hand and rebalance the lords overtly to mimic/rubber stamp Commons policy.

This act should be reversed soon before more damage is done. A Restoration is the answer.

The way to ensure that the Lords resumes its proper function is to have a mix of persons appointed by the elected state, appinted by non electred state, and those who are not and cannot themselves be influenced by the state. Hereditaries are the best way, ALL methods of generating non-representational upper house is in some way unfair. But this way is our culture, our roots. If ethnic minorities can have their culture overtly placed here, why can't we.
The real root problem with public distain for hereditaries is politics of envy, its stupid really, because the worst closed shop around in the current goverment. Not part of the new elite, no future for you. People have no idea how much that nation has changed, and what changes they do see they dont see the source of, it is nothing short of a revolution, and revolutions make far more losers than winners.


There does exist the Parliament Act for overruling the House of Lords, it is an emergency measure not to be used lightly. Blair used it however in non critical circumstances on at least one occassion, such to force though the Fox Hunting ban. The Parliament Act is a national safety valve, it is not there to save the Prime Minister embarrassment.

Kilkrazy wrote:I have served on a jury.

The purpose of the jury is to make a decision based on the evidence presented to them. They do not need to be legal experts or any other kind of expert -- scientist or whatever -- in fact judges aren't allowed to serve on juries if I remember correctly.

YES.

Kilkrazy wrote:This decision making authority is the same function of parliament.

NO. This is where your logic breaks down. Peers are intended to be informed not lay.

Kilkrazy wrote: The Government has a political objective, it gets up a plan. The technical details are worked out by expert groups, civil servants and written up by lawyers. The whole plan is presented to parliament and passes through the process of debates, select committees and so on.

Do you actually believe this?
Ok, where to start.

Legislations is being masked by lawyers so that people DONT understand it, this includes Peers and MP's.

Let me give you an example, I will make it brief as I don't have all year to give you a better account. This just a scratch on the surface:

Mental Health Act.
The draft as PASSED by the House of Commons allowed a huge number of loopholes. The worst of which was, in short a 'Mental Health Professional' can on their own opinion, which they do not have to account to anyone else, including a doctor, can order a person to be detained indefinately without legal defence or recourse or appeal. If a second opinion is sought it has to convince the original 'Mental Health Professional' to change their opinion, yes the word opinion was used.
Who is a 'Mental Health Professional'? It is not specified, but the only excluded profession are doctors*, so a policeman could be one. The white paper refered mostly two who appointed them, namely local authorities and the home secretary. There were other equally frightening effects, someone could be restricted on where they could go, what they could do and where they could live, and be immediately detained if any of these were broken.

*This bill was explained to me under its fair face, mental health professionals not being doctors meant that doctors were not to be 'judge jury and executioner' in cases of sectioning. (Home Secretary appointees become that) That bit looked fair enough, ish, a bit.

So...someone appointed by the home secretary (hardly an impartial body) can declare you mad and lock you away, on their own opinion, and dont have to defend their opinion to anyone else.

WTF. Soviet Union? Yes this is the bill AS THE COMMONS PASSED IT.

After the Lords went though it, to cut a long story short, removed the opinion bit, allowed a form of appeal and limited incarcertation time. They did their job.

The House of Lords is not a proofreading body but a reforming body. What is passed to them should already be passed by the Commons. i.e adequately debated on and agreed to prior to being passed for review.

Still the law is 'vague' as most New Labour laws are. Mental Health Professional is still not defined in the Act. What people do not realise is there is no such thing as vague regislation. Above all else the law is RAW. If the Home secretary can now apploint a single official to declare you mad and lock you away, this is precisely what the Home Secretary can do.

Alarmist? Not at all. Counter terrorist legislation has been used for other purposes other than what it was made for. I see no difference here.

Most recently a good example came up, and very very few have understood the ramifications of this single line in the press.

How did Gordon Brown place sanctions on Icelandic Banks?
Answer : Anti-terror legislation.

See for yourself. Last time I checked Iceland is not waging a terror campaign in or against the UK.
Laws are what they say, laws are RAW. Its the Codex, it is the new edition rules.

And you want Gav Thorpe lotto peer writing it? Why not, he is a trained professional fit for jury service. Sorry I could not resist that injoke, but please wake up. Parliament isnt what it used to be.

Kilkrazy wrote: Finally a decision is made by the collective wisdom of the Commons and Lords.

Odd use of the term wisdom. I like your humour, but sadly you weren't joking?

>>NO. This is where your logic breaks down. Peers are intended to be informed not lay.

In my view the Lords should be a second chamber that acts as a counterweight to the Commons. As in the US Senate. That requires it to be constituted a different way, but does not require the membership to be experts.


Kilkrazy wrote: The Government has a political objective, it gets up a plan. The technical details are worked out by expert groups, civil servants and written up by lawyers. The whole plan is presented to parliament and passes through the process of debates, select committees and so on.

Do you actually believe this?
Ok, where to start.

It's thw way things are supposed to be done. Sadly, much legislation is rushed through and done badly, e.g. the Dangerous Dogs Act, and many others.


Kilkrazy wrote: Finally a decision is made by the collective wisdom of the Commons and Lords.

>>Odd use of the term wisdom. I like your humour, but sadly you weren't joking?

I agree with Winston Churchill that "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

While many matters of public interest are difficult for the lay person to understand, it is important for the population broadly to agree with the laws and policies that make up the Commonwealth. Therefore government needs to find ways to explain and persuade, rather than rule by executive fiat.

Orlanth wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Wow, you aint from a working class background are you.

Very astute but I am part of the clkass I am espousing, so self interest isnt my handle here. Besides you seem to be of the opinion that the working class and the lords are opposed.

Nah, I just mean yours is far from an argument u'd hear from a working class perspective.

Orlanth wrote:Similar experiences to me, but sadly likely far more recent. Officer quality has deteriorated at least, but then recruiting standards have fallen, and in New Labour Britain most new officers have to swallow the dogma fed them. They also come from more middle class nimby backgrounds, and frewuently dont care. Chaplains worst of all. Go a generation back and you will see real officers. Such officers are still there but are actively being passed over.
You miss the essential truth, currently any form of government positi0on, church armed forces civil serivce comes with the policy, not New Labour, not welcome.
Remember the young officers who capitulated like scared schoolgirls when Iranians in powerboasts came towards them. This shocked the Admiralty who wondered why the Royal Mariens were so weak, the answer is the additin of PC dogma training and the new Britain officer caste. The Iranians tried the same trick with the Aussies and had to back off, Oz doesnt dumb down its officer class with PC bull and party poltical dogma.

Dont criticise the source for the rot added to it. It is just like the calls for Lords disbandment because it is broken, when it was the current government who broke it.

But that wasnt my point. You were supporting the image of these noble types by saying they lead from the front, etc. Which from my experience isn't so much the case.

Of course regiments are built from the stock they take from but give me a highland regiment any day over them 'noble' types, those guys are tough.

Orlanth wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I'm not saying they're useless cause there have been some great examples, however Harry and Andrew are about the worst two you could have possibly given.

How so. Prince Harry explodes the myth that the Royal Family are self serving toffs. Over-rich, out of touch and freeloading; none of those sterotypes are true.
Prince Andrew has his faults, but he served on the line.

If you are shallowly criticising the private lives remember they are real people, not living saints. Under press scrutiny all the time and unforgivewn for things you and I would say or do without recourse. Frankly it is a curse.
Have you forgotten Diana, the cant-do-wrong hallowed memory Peoples Princess. The same press had nothing nice to say about her when she was alive.

Give them a break.

It's a PR stunt. I have no respect for the monarchy, I can't see any point for it. Neither do I believe that it's part of our o so precious history. Tell that to a sixteenth century sailor who starved at sea like a thousand others after defeating the spanish armada, because Elizabeth would have had to pay them if she allowed them to returned home. Some nice history that.

Orlanth wrote:

whatwhat wrote:In actual fact most of these lord types live on their 300 acre estates doing not much more than watch their vintage culture rotting while seemingly sitting obliviously comfortably in it.

Interesting, do you know of any? You seem to be another voter who has swallowed the dogmas. If you negative stereotyped anyone else this way it would be racism.

I live in northumbria, there like one a penny outside of the cities. My brother works in an agricultural supplies store, deals with them all the time. Besides I can't respect anyone who earns their wealth out of inheritance no matter what their image.

You can give me as many arguments as you want for hereditary power, but they're not genetically different to everybody else.

And yet, in theory a Hereditary Peer is from a monied background, and one would hope very well educated. And consequently, better able to asses Bills of Parliament for loopholes, inconsistencies and other flaws.

Sure, thats the theory and it's not necessarily the practice, but please do not judge people based on hearsay etc.

Kilkrazy wrote:There has been a suggestion that the House of Lords should contain "lay members" drawn from the general public.

They could be chosen at random from the electoral roll, like jury members. They would certainly need to be paid and accommodated properly -- we already do this for MPs anyway so it would not be hard.

The best possible solution I read somewhere was to have this pool of people be made of former MPs. As stated earlier in the thread many of the issues that need to be debated upon are very specific or technical in nature and aren't always suitable for simplification or a lower level of discussion. The finer points of certain economic policies for example. Sure not every MP has a great grasp of subject "X", but neither will many/any of the Lords.

In my opinion the value of the second chamber is that it should be as different to the first as possible, partly to avoid polarisation along party lines.

A lot of the current lords (life peers) are ex-MPs and other politicians like Mandelson.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And yet, in theory a Hereditary Peer is from a monied background, and one would hope very well educated. And consequently, better able to asses Bills of Parliament for loopholes, inconsistencies and other flaws.

Sure, thats the theory and it's not necessarily the practice, but please do not judge people based on hearsay etc.

How exactly am I doing that?