this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
87 points (92.2% liked)

World News

38522 readers
2303 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

UK still has the stupid house of lords, but maybe Labour has enough support to get rid of that too?
Apart from being stupid by life time membership, it's extra stupid for having mandated religious influence. Truly a leftover from medieval times that has no place in a modern democracy.

[–] palordrolap@kbin.run 6 points 2 months ago (4 children)

The House of Lords serves as a check and balance against a government running amok. Now, they're not necessarily a good check or balance, but every government needs one. Very occasionally they have been - to be mildly disingenuous - useful idiots. (And occasionally, obstinate asses, but I digress.)

Ideally though, we could do with a House of ... whatever's below Common, because if the ones in the Commons are commoners, what does that make the rest of us?

And how would we stop corruption in this lower, lower house?

But nonetheless, it would be useful for a government to have to take heed of people who are closer to the real world. (And I don't just mean MPs' surgeries or correspondence because the repercussions for falling behind on that are slim at best.)

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

The House of Lords serves as a check and balance against a government running amok.

But checks and balances from a body that by design is vastly conservative and somewhat religious is not a FAIR checks and balances.
If the government is elected democratically instead of first past the post like in UK, the checks and balances is democracy itself, but also the supreme court, as laws must align with the constitution.
Parlament is also a form of checks and balances.

So no House of lords is not a form of Checks and Balances, they are a form of oppressing the will of the people, so they don't take too much power or money away from the rich. That's what it was designed for, not as an instrument to improve democracy.

Ideally though, we could do with a House of … whatever’s below Common, because if the ones in the Commons are commoners, what does that make the rest of us?

Rulers will probably never be actually average. Even in a pretty good democracy. But I can say for sure, we are closer here in Denmark than the UK, because our democracy is better designed and more democratic.

[–] anlumo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The UK doesn’t have a constitution, and it won’t get one any time soon. They'd have to get rid of the monarchy first, and that isn’t going to happen.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Plenty of countries with monarchies have constitutions.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

True. And none of those countries is the UK.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)