4 ms·
Sometimes, you need some one to make a decision, and not have a really life-or-death, time-sensitive decision in the hands of a vacillating committee that fails
by PostOnce 5y ago
Sometimes, you need some one to make a decision, and not have a really life-or-death, time-sensitive decision in the hands of a vacillating committee that fails to act until it is too late.
- MarcScott 5y agoBut in the UK we seem to have no issue with that. The Queen rubber stamps everything, and our upper house can be easily overruled. We've had no problems implementing emergency legislation during the pandemic, or past wars. So I just don't see the point of anything above and beyond a simple parliamentary democracy.
- stordoff 5y agoIn principle, the UK's upper House acts as a house of scrutiny, both in that members can be appointed for having expertise in a particular area and because, as life appointees, they are not beholden to fickle political whims. The Parliament Acts allow it to be overruled, but not immediately - this generally forces a compromise between the two Houses. This recognises the democratic superiority of the Commons, whilst still giving the Lords opportunity for meaningful review and scrutiny. How well this works in practice is a matter of endless debate.