Quote:
Originally Posted by mosaix  That's a subjective viewpoint, Thadd, and not shared by everybody. |
Indeed, remember we're on a
politics topic, so everyone's opinion is subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mosaix Democracy is not just about voting in an administration but also about removing one when things go wrong. Right now we have an unelected presence in government that we can't do anything about. |
Yes, but you can only have a chance to remove them after an arbitrary term. Over 100,000 people marching through London couldn't stop Tony Blair from stage-managing an invasion of Iraq under utterly false pretences.
In the end, he was dumped by his own party for Gordon Brown, somebody most of the electorate seemed to feel they didn't vote for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ursa major Just a thought: If the hereditary principle provides such a sterling bunch of legislators, one has to wonder why we bother to elect the House of Commons? |
Well, because that's been the tradition for hundreds of years. Though admittedly only landowners used to be able to vote.
I don't think the argument is that the House of Lords would not benefit from some form of reform. The argument has always been
what exact type of reform. And so far, no one agrees with that.
Not least, if there is an elected upper house, how can we stop it being overrun by idiotic partisan politics as the Commons frequently is; or being bought out by big business interests, as the Conservatives obviously have never have been.
