Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

[emma_o_rama]

Since the 1st of August 2005 you're no longer allowed to protest without permission outside the Houses of Parliament. MPs wanted to get rid of a protester named Brian Haw, who had been making a nuisance of himself in Parliament Square since June 2001, and apparently they also said that the noise made by protesters was distracting them from their

Comments

[hauntedchippy]

If I remeber correctly, I believe the House of Lords was intrumental in blocking the 90 day holding legislation.
I personally believe that Lords reform will be a complete disaster. No longer will you have experts such as diplomats, lawyers and generals keeping an eye on the Commons, but instead just more self serving politicians looking out for the Party instead of the country.

[emma_o_rama]

It was, yeah. The Lords has absolutely no right to be useful, but it so often is.

Much as I think 90 day detention is barbaric, in a democracy the people who support it have every right to be angry about this unelected, unaccountable body blocking them. If the Lords tended to block things you wanted passed, would you feel the same way?

[hauntedchippy]

It is very easy to feel resentment to the Lords because they are unelected. It was never supposed to be a house of representation.
Democracy is a word that gets thrown around alot today and if something is termed 'undemocractic' then it is unquestionably a bad thing.
The great thing about the Lords is there is no pressure to be popular (in order to get re-elected)and no loyalty to any party, and this allows them to vote purely on their conscience.
Look to the Americans to see the problems of having two elected houses.

If any house tended to block things I agree with then yes I'd feel disappointed. Of course I can choose not to vote for the government that did that but I cannot choose to vote against the Lords. Is that ultimately a bad thing? Can I accept that the people in the Lords will usually have a lifetime of experience to fall back on whereas I probably just have an opinion?
If it ain't broke.

[emma_o_rama]

I get what's good about the Lords, I did standard grade modern studies. Of course democracy's flawed, because the majority of the people can be moronic. But that's what you get when you say you want democracy. And, playing devil's advocate, isn't it the case that if you have one undemocratic institution, you don't have a democracy? You can't have 'mostly a democracy', or a 'democracy with exceptions'. You either have rule by the people or you don't. And if you don't, and you think it's better that way, then why do you still want to call it a democracy? Can't you stand up and be proud of your oligarchy or whatever?

Incidentally, meritocracy appeals to me a little, though it's hugely flawed and could probably lead to totalitarianism more easily than democracy (Brave New World etc), but I don't think the Lords is that.