speaking of Lord's Reform (yeah, I know, this thread has been hijacked) this is a really good link:  http://www.electthelords.org.uk/

 

if these guys are right, it looks like some elected element in Lords will become a reality this term.  the real fight will be over how much muscle to give this more "legitimate" body.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting link. But it won't happen. Blair doesn't have the votes to get through anything that wasn't in his manifesto, and I don't think this was. It's a shame. More democracy is almost always a good thing.

... Except when it means more stupid people get a say in what happens to everyone else ...

speaking of Lord's Reform (yeah, I know, this thread has been hijacked) this is a really good link:  http://www.electthelords.org.uk/

 

if these guys are right, it looks like some elected element in Lords will become a reality this term.  the real fight will be over how much muscle to give this more "legitimate" body.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting link. But it won't happen. Blair doesn't have the votes to get through anything that wasn't in his manifesto, and I don't think this was. It's a shame. More democracy is almost always a good thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now, I know absolutely nothing about the British parliamentary system, but I always got the impression that the House of Lords was, well, a house of lords precisely because lords aren't elected. Don't they have very little power compared to Commons, anyway?

Well, at the moment no-one in the House of Lords is elected, and they are indeed all Lords (or Baronesses, or the like). Some are appointed (Tony's Cronies), and others are hereditary. However, if it's reformed so that some or all of the members are elected, it will probably still be called 'The House of Lords', for tradition's sake.

 

They have very little formal power, and the House of Commons can push legislation through without their consent. They've had, in the past, very little moral authority because they're unelected. However, we currently have a government that is autocratic, unpopular, dishonest and inept. I mean moreso than usual. So the Lords are somewhat emboldened by their support in the country.

Edited October 31, 200520 yr by SteveThaiBinh

Well, at the moment no-one in the House of Lords is elected, and they are indeed all Lords (or Baronesses, or the like).  Some are appointed (Tony's Cronies), and others are hereditary.  However, if it's reformed so that some or all of the members are elected, it will probably still be called 'The House of Lords', for tradition's sake.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pff. Keep it as hereditary, and just let them deal with only the most trivial of issues. One of the things that's great about you Brits is the whole monarchy thing. I know you'll still have that as long as you have a monarch, but c'mon. House of Lords. Nobody else has a government body named that.

Goes well with the matched pair of "House of Commons" ...

However, we currently have a government that is autocratic, unpopular, dishonest and inept.  I mean moreso than usual.  So the Lords are somewhat emboldened by their support in the country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

One of the points that the FAQ on that site makes is that most larger countries with democratic elections have a bicameral system. The FAQ points out that the British Prime Minister's Office amounts to an elected dictatorship.

 

But, then again, such a system allows one to "get things done". The American system is not as streamlined but, perhaps, a little more transparent.

On the plus side, the Prime Ministerial dictatorship has helped manage the stiffling bureaucracy ...

Samuel Alito is the new nominee. Are Republicans going to support this one?

Samuel Alito is the new nominee.  Are Republicans going to support this one?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

the preliminary answer is "yes"....as long as he doesn't trip up in the hearings.

 

however, he is a solid conservative. one of the main problems with nominees of late is that the Democrats (the minority party) cannot block the nominees with a straight up or down vote and so they torpedoed recent judicial nominees by threatening to "fillibuster" the nomination by using the Senate rules of unlimited debate.

 

the so-called "nuclear option" that has been talked about is for the majority to change the rules of the Senate so that unlimited debate only applies for legislation, not nominees.

 

the real question is whether the Dems will invoke the fillibuster and, if they do, whether the majority will change the rules of the Senate in this regard.