Tin gongs and corrupt vootes.

[Hope]

A bill, whether introduced from either pseudemocratic anachronism, goes through three stages before being passed to the other chamber to be debated, rewritten etc. Then the final bill goes back to the Commons - after being changed beyond recognition - to be approved before someone pulls Liz's strings to sign it into law.

" ... after being changed beyond recognition ... " - often by the elected MPs in the House of Commons, Jim.  Some of the worst laws that the UK government have passed were ones that weren't changed in either House - for instance: the original Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991, which was amended in 1997, and again in 2014.  Even the Scottish Parliament has never passed a law, at least to my knowledge, that hasn't gone through changes whilst in its 'Bill' state.

[Anchorman]

At least all acts of Holyrood's parliament were scrutinised by elected members in a proper manner, rather than the 800 strong mess of criminals, unelected political appointees, bishops and a few experts whom no-one elected.

[Hope]

At least all acts of Holyrood's parliament were scrutinised by elected members in a proper manner, rather than the 800 strong mess of criminals, unelected political appointees, bishops and a few experts whom no-one elected.

Actually, no Parliament scrutinises Acts of Parliament, Jim - not even the Scottish one.  A Parliamentary Bill, be that in Edinburgh or Westminister, is scrutinised and passed by the elected MPs or MSPs, after which it is passed to the relevant authority for signature.  In Westminster, that is the monarch.  In Scotland that is, surprise, surprise, the monarch.

What happens in Westminster (and various other national Parliaments - but not those of Scotland or Wales) is that the Bill is also scrutinised by a second (or higher) chamber.  It's final shape still remains in the hands of the primary chamber.

[Jack Knave]

Does democracy always have to be through elected people?

It doesn't have to be - in principle you could organise a public vote on all issues, the ultimate in reality TV! In practice, though, parliamentary democracies are the most common form.

Look, for instance, at a US President's 'Cabinet' - how many of them are elected?  Surely, having people who are experts in their fields to advise and fine-tune legislation is more important than having elected representatives who may lack any of this expertise?

The thing is, the President's advisors have no actual power or authority.

Jim, if you really wanted to ensure the expertise, rather than blind political allegiance, how would you go about creating an electoral system to provide it?  Would you have teachers elect teachers. medics elect medics, geographers elect geographers, etc.?

Ah, meritocracy, and the endless discussions about a) who chooses what topics need to be represented and b) who chooses what constitutes expertise in those areas.

In theory it's a fantastic system, but in practice it just breeds different special interests, and there would still be group of professional 'administrators' to occupy the central ground in co-ordinating your meritocracy, electing their own kind to be the lynch-pin of the system. Institutionalised politicians.

O.

Basically true but what would you have in its place?

When I was younger I was fanatically supportive of the idea of a meritocracy, but the older I get the more and more I find myself agreeing with Churchill on this one:

"Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"

O.

But we have an elected chamber this other one doesn't have so much power and is based on expert advice, and we don't need a second one as this would turn into the farce we have in the commons.

The way I would start to deal with the HoL would be to kick out all those who were politicians; all those cronies of Blair, Cameron etc., except those with special expert knowledge in a field other than politics. I would have stricter rules about their conduct and tighten up how and when they got paid.

Those who want it to be elected, have they actually thought how this would be carried out? Would a Lord candidate have a constituency? How would people judge if the person would be an asset and expert in the HoL? They can't even tell when our venal scummy politicians are lying and taking them up the garden path and when they do obviously lie the twatish voters still elect the morons into power!!!

[Jack Knave]

I doubt if all of them are complete wastes of space.

Nor do I.

-
So you think someone should be able to make laws on your vbehalf regardless of the fact that niether you, nor anyone else, voted for them?

But this is true of Quangos. They have executive powers which create statutorily binding rules. None of what they do is seen or approved by our government and parliament. Basically they are dictators.

Then there is the fuck-up of the EU as well!!!

[Jack Knave]

At least all acts of Holyrood's parliament were scrutinised by elected members in a proper manner, rather than the 800 strong mess of criminals, unelected political appointees, bishops and a few experts whom no-one elected.

If you want a mess and a sick joke just look at the European parliament!!! And you dumbass Scots wanted to be independent of the UK to join that abortion!!!!!!

[BeRational]

So does a bill from the Lords have to be passed by the Commons to become law.

All laws, regardless of where they have started out, have to complete their stages of consideration in the House of Commons.

Can they override the Hol after 3 attempts?

[Harrowby Hall]

The Third Reading, in both chambers, is a formal acceptance of the Bill with all amendments. It is then sent for Royal Assent (to the best of my knowledge she doesn't actuall sign them, assent is given in her name - and in Norman French).

The Commons usually has the last word on any legislation.

[Hope]

Can they override the Hol after 3 attempts?

Not sure that it has to be after 3 attempts.  It's referred to as 'applying the Parliament Acts'

[jeremyp]

When I was younger I was fanatically supportive of the idea of a meritocracy

I think a meritocracy would be a great idea as long as it is me defining what merit means.

[jeremyp]

If you want a mess and a sick joke just look at the European parliament!!! And you dumbass Scots wanted to be independent of the UK to join that abortion!!!!!!

You are Floo and I claim my five pounds.

[Jack Knave]

If you want a mess and a sick joke just look at the European parliament!!! And you dumbass Scots wanted to be independent of the UK to join that abortion!!!!!!

You are Floo and I claim my five pounds.

You are blind and misguided. Floo would never write such things, she's pro EU.

[jeremyp]

If you want a mess and a sick joke just look at the European parliament!!! And you dumbass Scots wanted to be independent of the UK to join that abortion!!!!!!

You are Floo and I claim my five pounds.

You are blind and misguided. Floo would never write such things, she's pro EU.

your comment was in her style though.

[Jack Knave]

If you want a mess and a sick joke just look at the European parliament!!! And you dumbass Scots wanted to be independent of the UK to join that abortion!!!!!!

You are Floo and I claim my five pounds.

You are blind and misguided. Floo would never write such things, she's pro EU.

your comment was in her style though.

Oh dear, Jeremy, you are getting senile. Many talk in that style here. It's all getting a little confusing for you, isn't it!   

[Anchorman]

The Third Reading, in both chambers, is a formal acceptance of the Bill with all amendments. It is then sent for Royal Assent (to the best of my knowledge she doesn't actuall sign them, assent is given in her name - and in Norman French).

The Commons usually has the last word on any legislation.

-
Yep.
Anachronistic claptrap.
What has 'Norman French' to do with the United Kingdom, rather than the English, Parliament?

[Sassy]

The latest batch of 'honours' from the westminster mob  brings another 45 unelected waste of spaces into the antidemocratic mess of Westminster.
More vermin in ermine.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dissolution-peerages-2015

The Queen isn't an idiot. I daresay they were the best of the bunch selected and even worse rejected.

[Anchorman]

The latest batch of 'honours' from the westminster mob  brings another 45 unelected waste of spaces into the antidemocratic mess of Westminster.
More vermin in ermine.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dissolution-peerages-2015

The Queen isn't an idiot. I daresay they were the best of the bunch selected and even worse rejected.

-
I never said Lizzie Windsor was an idiot.
I DID say she was an unelected, unappointed anachronistic parasite though.