Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log In with LinkedIn Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

With your Shetlink login details, all classifieds, private messages, and invoices are now accessed through the new Njord | Market system. Please see Njord | Market FAQ for more details.

Photo

British Democracy


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Muckle Oxters

Muckle Oxters

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 15 January 2019 - 12:04 AM

I'm hoping dis doesna turn into anidder Brexit discussion, but what do you folk think about the state of British democracy?

 

Personally, despite the current hoo-haa I think it standing up quite weel.

 

I'd like to see electoral reform though - proportional representation is a much fairer and, weel, representative system than first past-the-post. I've never backed a winner for many years!

 

I'm in two minds about the House of Lords too. I can see the benefit of another house to make sure the main een doesna make too much o an muckle sphincter of it, but the whole peerage thing is a bit of a throwback.

 

Whit tink you?



#2 George.

George.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1406 posts

Posted 15 January 2019 - 08:51 AM

There is nothing democratic about the House of Lords. It never has been democratic, in any way, and I doubt it ever will be.



#3 Muckle Oxters

Muckle Oxters

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 15 January 2019 - 08:56 AM

^ do you mean how dey are appointed?

 

Dey're part of the British democratic system o checks n balances, and dey use democratic principles in how dey operate (debating, voting etc) so dey ir in many (most?) ways democratic



#4 George.

George.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1406 posts

Posted 15 January 2019 - 09:53 AM

There is nothing whatsoever democratic about how they are appointed, and there is nothing at all democratic regarding what they choose to do.


Edited by George., 15 January 2019 - 09:56 AM.


#5 Muckle Oxters

Muckle Oxters

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 15 January 2019 - 10:00 AM

^ whit does du mean by "nothing at all democratic regarding what they choose to do"? They debate and vote on legislation. Dat's democratic by nature.

 

How da Lords themselves get appointed isn't a very democratic process though.


Edited by Muckle Oxters, 15 January 2019 - 10:07 AM.


#6 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2232 posts

Posted 15 January 2019 - 10:19 AM

^ whit does du mean by "nothing at all democratic regarding what they choose to do"? They debate and vote on legislation. Dat's democratic by nature.

Excuse me for wading in.

 

The House of Lords are NOT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE "PEOPLE" !

 

Most, if not all, "lords" either inherit their position, or are appointed by various governments.  Either way, there is a complete disconnect between them and the voters.  That isn't democracy as I understand it..



#7 George.

George.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1406 posts

Posted 15 January 2019 - 10:57 AM

Remember, twenty-six archbishops and bishops of the Church of England are in the House of Lords, too. It's certainly not democracy that puts them in, is it? Members of the House of Lords are appointed by the wee Queen. That's not very democratic, is it? Then again, there's no democracy in royalty either. They're born to be your superior, whether you like it or not. Still, some call it democracy - regardless.


Edited by George., 15 January 2019 - 11:01 AM.


#8 Rasmie

Rasmie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 625 posts

Posted 15 January 2019 - 10:58 AM

I think its time for Proportional Representation similar to what they're doing in Holyrude. I used to favour our two party system, but its not been working very well recently, mainly because the main parties have failed to pull together. With PR it would help stop one party from dominating Parliament.

I realise it would lead to the occasional stalemate, but look whats happening with the current referendum nonsense.

 

The House of Lords need reforming, and is no longer relevant in today's age. However I think it would need to have some system of employing people of  proven ability to counter the rabble in the Commons. Perhaps people who have given a long period of public service.


  • Muckle Oxters likes this

#9 paulb

paulb

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4871 posts

Posted 15 January 2019 - 10:59 AM

no very few are hereditary. most are life peers. we have to have a second chamber the choice is more elections and you could just end up with duplicate control. maybe it's not perfect but its worked. maybe give it more power to veto laws. why change just for the sake of change. but maybe stop the party nominations.



#10 Muckle Oxters

Muckle Oxters

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 15 January 2019 - 11:01 AM

The House of Lords are NOT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE "PEOPLE" !

 

^ I suppose it depends on whaa 'the people' are. If you're a member o da aristocracy or are landed gentry den dey probably do represent you ;-)

 

But yis, I agree dat how dey ir appointed isna in line we democratic principles, and one of the first things dat should be looked at in da wake o (hopefully) a long, hard look at post Brexit democracy



#11 Muckle Oxters

Muckle Oxters

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 15 January 2019 - 11:16 AM

The House of Lords need reforming, and is no longer relevant in today's age. However I think it would need to have some system of employing people of  proven ability to counter the rabble in the Commons. Perhaps people who have given a long period of public service.

 

Dat is a very good point. MPs in the house o commons are, at da end of da day, engaged in a popularity vote every election so need to be seen to dae whatever is popular at da time whereas (to my mind onywye) da Lords should have the longer-term mair balanced view dat would come from age and/or experience.



#12 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2232 posts

Posted 15 January 2019 - 02:35 PM

no very few are hereditary. most are life peers. we have to have a second chamber the choice is more elections and you could just end up with duplicate control. maybe it's not perfect but its worked. maybe give it more power to veto laws. why change just for the sake of change. but maybe stop the party nominations.

I suppose that a simple solution would be;

 

If you win an election > parliament, if you come second > lords,  any other placing > tough, try again next time.

 

There would probably be plenty of "bottlenecks" to any legislation but, at least we would (possibly) get laws that are in the interests of the country as a whole.  Checks and balances.


Edited by Colin, 15 January 2019 - 02:36 PM.


#13 George.

George.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1406 posts

Posted 15 January 2019 - 03:50 PM

If you win an election > parliament, if you come second > lords,  any other placing > tough, try again next time..

That doesn't quite work out. The House of Lords where the lords pretend to be useful is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It would be more use if a couple of things were done. Leave the U. K. as Parliament does no more than leech off of us, and go indy while benefiting from the oil and gas that we can take out of the sea.



#14 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9267 posts

Posted 15 January 2019 - 06:46 PM

EU Level = Who knows how that pointless behemoth works, but what spews out of it seems considerably less than democratic. There's nothing about them that deserves better than being thrown in the pan, and flushed.

 

UK Level = The jury is out until at least March 29th concerning the democracy afoot among the rabble in Westminster, but so far its not looking too hopeful. The Lords needs to go, it represents the main political parties that are already well enough represented among the rabble, and a time and life long gone. Automatically stepping in to a position of power and influence depending on whose bed you were born in or what position you hold in a largely irrelevant belief system was never much of a way to run a nation, and definitely isn't fit for purpose to run one in the 21st C.

 

A second or upper house is needed to provide checks and balances to the despotic and/or political driven foolishness conceived by the rabble, but it needs to represent the entire population is a fair and proportionate manner.

 

Scottish Level = Who knows. I consider their current state superfluous and irrelevant. They do very little, so how democratic they are is difficult to assess and of minimal importance. Either make them a full parliament, or disband them, the playing at being a parliament they've done so far is pointless. I'll worry about their contribution to democracy when they become the first one.

 

Local level = Its democratic insofar as we elect those who sign off on stuff, but there it ends, as what they sign off on it dictated on a Hobson's choice basis by their hired help.


Edited by Ghostrider, 15 January 2019 - 06:55 PM.

  • thebfg likes this

#15 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2232 posts

Posted 15 January 2019 - 06:47 PM

@George

 

Why doesn't it work out ?

 

Presently, Lords is referred to as the "upper house" but, what I proposed would be a complete change to the way things are done at present.

 

On the other hand, leaving the UK (possibly as a Crown Dependency) has it's attractions as well.