I have a theory

[baloonworld]

My theory is that I hate myself. It explains why I keep reading the BBC Have Your Say debate about House of Lords reform.

This is so retarded my head is exploding just thinking about it

Comments

[ailsa-chan.livejournal.com]

Masochism is the only reason for reading any of the BBC Have your say debates.

That or as a way of convincing yourself that the human race really does need a good cull.

[roadkillgerbil.livejournal.com]

You needed convincing?

[baloonworld.livejournal.com]

I don't think you can say something is `needed' without some sort of external position to make the judgement from. Which implys assigning humanitity a purpose.

Plus, on a personal note, I don't think that the proposed cull is an elegent solution. :P

So I am unconvinced.

[almosthonest.livejournal.com]

If this is me lacking gorm, I apologise - I also only read the first three pages of comments. But, er - everyone there was making good sense! It is the House of Lords who endlessly block - to my great relief - the most terrifying new legislations. Any change that the Labour government wants to impose on them can only be to the benefit of the Labour government - something I don't want! It is a bit of a kicker that we still have ruling nobility in this day and age....but look at the cock-up we've made of the alternative. At least the Lords don't have to stay "popular".

[baloonworld.livejournal.com]

1. The popular vote of the MPs on this consultation (for a fully elevcted second house) was not that suggested by the government (for a mix of elected and appointed second houses).
Viewing the governments plans with susspission is one thing, but those plans arn't going to happen.

2. At present the PM can appoint as many peers as he likes. Mysteriously, the largest Lords party is now Labour.
How will changes to this clearly be to Labours benifit?

3. Before, they were hereditory Tories

4. They have no power to prevent unpopular laws from passing. They can pause them for a year, or make adjustments.

5. When they had such powers they didn't use them. See 3. and "poll tax"

6. Whatever the Pope says, the barons retain their duty of rebellion asgainst unjust laws as decreed by the orginal Magna Carta.*

*There may be implimentational issues in discomforting the king by ceasing his castles

7. They don't have to stay "relivent", "sane" or "interested" either.

I am interested by the by-election of the 92nd hereditory peer though. I find it confusing.

Making good sense:
"every day we move one little step closer to becoming the worlds first communist democracy, and we don't even know it is happening!"
Please explain

[almosthonest.livejournal.com]

Ah. That last one I admit failed my input filter: I only recall reading it because you brought it back up. I did assume the commentator was using a Koan to highlight some point I'm not enlightened enough to grasp.

7. None of them really do, except for during the run-up to elections. And even then "sane" remains relative.

4. But it has been enough, in the past, to hold off some really stupid ideas. Such as silenced, unreportable, non-judiciaryily approved 90-day long house-arrests. Admittedly they only got it down to a fortnight, but it was an improvement!

I admit I'm worried now. I wonder how many other comments I don't know I didn't read because it fell below my SNR filter...