4 ms·
> instead of allowing small groups of narrow-minded do-gooder elites to do so. Isn’t that the entire history of UK governance? They literally have something ca
by rcme 3y ago
> instead of allowing small groups of narrow-minded do-gooder elites to do so.
Isn’t that the entire history of UK governance? They literally have something called the House of Lords.
- jlokier 3y agoThe House of Lords are usually the sane and reasonable ones that block abusive legislation created by those in the House of Commons. The latter are far more political, and almost all the scandals, drama, grifting, public lies and human rights abusive legislation originates in the Commons. It's a strange thing that the "lords" protect individual freedom and democracy of the common person more than the "commons" but that's how it often appears to be. Case in point: The legislation this article is about. If it passes the Commons it is quite likely to be bounced back by the Lords following a more human rights focused debate there.
- nly 3y agoThe House of Lords can't block legislation though, they can only amend it and send it back, and only a limited number of times...and the amendments they propose are only advisory and can be ignored.
- cjs_ac 3y agoThe UK has a long tradition of reusing outdated institutions. If the only thing you know about the House of Lords is its name, you'll be very surprised about who's in it and what they do.
- rcme 3y agoEnlighten me
- fancyfredbot 3y agoBishops, hereditary peers, and the friends of ex prime ministers. It's great though.
- dragonwriter 3y agoBut except for who practically creates life peers, that’s the same as it has always been; not really a reuse, or surprising given the name. They have less substantive power, now, to be sure, but that's not what you seemed to be suggesting.