Join the new world

This article was penned by JerryGFL:

Jerry: First i would like to point out that our legislation clearly states a 48 hour discussion period before any proposal can be voted upon. Only the PM can fasttrack a proposal.
Secondly Iain , your proposal is so full of BS, it is unbelievable.
Most people prolly have their mind made up anyways but i would just like to make a point.

For any of you that havent seen it here is Iain's repealment proposal.

Iain's bill: "This is the law in question, and the repeal would also amend the parliament act.

Reasons for repeal:

Firstly, inactivity has always been a problem with the Lords. Many hoped that the introduction of new Lords would solve this, but the truth is the new Lords don't make up for the lack of activity from the old. A lot of members never contribute."

Jerry: There is sufficient legislation that ensures a minimum activity level is needed for a HoL vote to be valid. It is true that some members hardly ever contribute, but then what have you got to fear?


Iain's Bill: "Secondly, the existing Lords represent a very narrow set of views and have failed to take public opinion into account at all. This was seen as they twice rejected a gifting commune bill that had the support of the commons and introduced RoadRunnerSpeed as a member despite more than half of people disagreeing with it."

Jerry: Has it ever occured to anyone that the HoL may be right? HoC never take any feedback of the Lords on board they jsut keep pushing the same proposals.


Iain's Bill: "Thirdly the function of the Lords is to review legislation, but I feel in many cases the Lords has become politicised and can no longer be viewed as an unbiased arbiter. I agree with Rayf Drayson that a committee system could be an option but with these existing laws in place it is difficult to propose an alternative."

Jerry: The Lords largely consist of non party affiliated members, or people who have shown in the past that they can rise above political bias.


Iain's Bill: "Fourthly the Lords is not needed- plenty of very successful countries exist without the Lords. We need competition at the very top (congress) of the political chain and if you find the idea of congress being at the top funny it is probably because we don't have the talent we should. The truth is talented new players CAN beat the old ones if they're not as good. We shouldn't be stepping aside to give new players an easy ride, it should be a challenge to get into congress and we need the best players we can get in there."

Jerry: Wrong - The lords are needed, the events of the last few days clearly show the lack of experience in Commons. Now if all HoL people woudl run for Commons then we wouldnt be abel to give the new players a chance as you put it. OF course there is a few very talented young players that may have an edge over the older population, but the general ruel of thumb is, they dont.


Iain's Bill: "Fifth the concept of Ministers needing to come from the Commons or Lords is pretty much scrapped now, so we don't have to worry about getting players in there to be Ministers."

Jerry: A further example of Legislation is disregarded in this country.


Iain's Bill: "Sixth the honours system has been separated from the legislative system, so a future where a citizen can be given a Lordship as a ceremonial title of respect without needing any say over legislature is entirely possible."

Jerry: The Lords purpose isn't to give ceremonial titles. It is to ensure to make the HoC aware of flaws etc in any propose legislation, but YOU WILL JUST NOT LISTEN. EVER!


Iain's Bill: "Seventh the House of Lords has lost the trust of the people. With members including known traitors and thieves we can no longer look upon the institution as being trustworthy. Some people would argue that the good things they have done outweigh the bad. I would say that is a matter of opinion. However the issue is that once someone has betrayed the trust of the people they should regain that trust at the ballot box, and shouldn't receive a free ticket to the legislature."

Jerry: Having RRS in the House aside, show me one person who's a traitor or thief? You're classifying one person who's done something rotten (solid intent does not justify the means) to classify the group. If you aren't man (or woman enough) to admit that, then I feel sorry for just about every person in your Real Life, let alone anyone who trusts you on the Interwebz.


Iain's Bill: "Eighth I believe there needs to be a public debate surrounding this issue, and opening this act for repeal will give that debate a chance. I am doing this personally to show that this isn't just a thing new congressmen who don't understand the ins and outs yet care about- it is something that is pertinent to many congress people, and some Lords including Final Destiny as well."

Jerry: This (wrongly/illegaly) fast tracked proposal achieves the exact opposite.


Iain's Bill: "Ninth, and a matter of detail here, the Lords selects its own members. Since neither the President of Congress selects the members they have no accountability. This means that they are theoretically the only section of the government that can't be removed by the electorate. The only option is 2/3 of congress, and that means that short of a Lord actively screwing the country there is no option to show discontent at bias or whatever and remove them- because it is almost impossible to get a majority of congress to agree to anything on these sort of issues."

Jerry: The Lords have no "accountability"? They can be removed by Congress, and can be bypassed by our democratically elected Commons, which happens at least once per term. Lords are an advisory body, and cannot give final say one way or the other. If the "cabal" you're referring to are the advisors to the Prime Minister, then removing the House of Lords isn't going to remove that. It's simply going to make it less official.


Iain's Bill: "Finally I would like to repeal this act because it is unnecessary. Interest groups like the cabal we hear so much about, as well as parties and major business owners, hold a lot of power. There is no need for a veto from the Lords when these groups effectively monitor legislation anyway. The last time a piece of legislation was actually necessary to do anything was back in Sara's term. The expertise is there now, and as such interest in the Lords has died along with its function.

We need to repeal this act, see if we actually NEED any other legislated level of government, and if we do go from there.

Please support my bill.
Iain"

Jerry:
1. Elitism does not exist. You truly do not understand what little "sway" the Lords really have if you think ten active citizens have any control over the thousands of people in the United Kingdom. Most of them are not forum goers, and have no idea of what you're talking about to begin with. As you yourself (Iain) have shown, if you have an idea you want in practice, you're more than welcome to do it yourself (like the food cooperative). Throwing a temper tantrum because your bills are being rejected (and for good reason) is what this measure is, plain and simple.

2. Voting procedures are flawed, in both the HoC and HoL. When the HoL pointed this out on several occasions, you (Commons) voted to bypass them rather than fix the issues. This resulted in a lot of good Lords stepping down because basically you feel like you can run things yourself. Replacing what you call a "cabal" with your own group of trusted members is nothing more than a coup disguised in democracy, and shouldn't be treated as anything differently. You don't like what the people in Lords say, so you're going about removing them. It's really that simple. When we tried to make the HoL more dramatic and drastic in the last reform, you said no. Now you want to throw a fit about the bill you passed?

Most of this bill is "baaw they wouldn't accept me or my bills so I'm going to get even by writing a bunch of untrue shit to get it abolished". Anyone who believes more than 1% of it deserves to be kicked out of any legislative body, and not to be elected ever again, really. Basically, if Commons would learn to write better legislation, the Lords wouldn't be needed. Until that happens, repealing the House of Lords is only going to fuck you even more, excuse the French. Make emergency measures for in game proposals, etc that don't need advising, but removing all your elder statesmen is a great way to appease the people. Last time I checked, when we elected a young Prime Minister and she pushed ahead with everything without support, we did real well.