Sack the Lords! - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
By B0ycey
#15183906
snapdragon wrote:Language has always evolved and always will, but that’s a separation conversation. My daughters used to laugh at me for using words like snazzy and trendy.


How is it another conversation? If people evolve language and eliminate the sound of G from the English language, that is language evolving. Slang is really another word for evolving language and Lord Snooty Shit would have had an issue with Shakespeare back in the day given he made words up to explain conditions within his play.

Nobody’s saying this young lady ought to have a plummy accent, but she should be able to be able to pronounce her words properly with a job like hers.


Well she DOES pronounce her Gs as it happens but clearly not to Digbys liking. That is if it wasn't an ulterior motive. Nonetheless there are other presenters who also have regional twang and pronounce words differently that are on the tele and as long as they can communicate and are clear in their message I don't really see what the issue is here. Although that ISN'T a factor for Scott in any case given she is VERY CLEAR in her communication actually.
By B0ycey
#15183915
Puffer Fish wrote:I think there's a balance to be struck.

The concept of nobility and a privileged class is not entirely right, but on the other hand creating an environment of pure democracy is likely to result in the type of mob rule and chaos that was best exemplified in the wake of the French Revolution.

Sad to say but the trashy commoners can't be trusted to run themselves all by themselves. You often get a totalitarian society that way, as they keep passing more and more stupid rules and power gets consolidated.

But if you create a privileged elite, even though their government may be more civilized, there will always be a strong tendency towards self interest and apathy towards the economic situation of others in a different position than themselves.


I can see this is a reply on The House Of Lords specifically. Are you aware the House Of Lords is a relic of historic customs and isn't needed at all? Plenty of Democracies that have a second chamber do so democratically without the need of privilege or turning into a French Revolution in any case. Some even came about from Revolution. There doesn't need to be a balance. It has only retained because they don't interfere with the Commons chamber very often and this has nothing to do with making government civilized or to keep the 'trashy commoners' from self harm.
By Patrickov
#15184492
Arguably the House of Lords does make a government (or more accurately, the state machine) more civilized. It serves as a legitimate medium for political donations and thus serves as a (mostly) harmless sinkhole for "corruption".

In the United States, where both Houses are elected and functional, lobbying and corporate rule have less check than the United Kingdom.

The British are pretty smart by awarding something prestigious to political donors, yet limiting their power as much as possible.

If someone wants to abolish the House of Lords, I suggest them first try to make it not prestigious.

My only suggestion for the House of Lords is to stop paying the Lords. Most if not all of them should be filthy rich anyways.
By snapdragon
#15184673
Speaking with a regional twang is one thing, but sloppy speech is another.

If you want to get rid of the House of Lords , then you’re going to need a better argument than one of them getting annoyed on the pronunciation used by one of the presenters, who was after all commentating on the Olympic Games and not a house party.
User avatar
By Puffer Fish
#15184914
B0ycey wrote:Are you aware the House Of Lords is a relic of historic customs and isn't needed at all?

The fact that it is a historic relic does not mean that it is not relevant in modern times at all, or that some of the reasons for its existence have not still survived in modern times, although it probably would not be specifically described in words that way.

It still serves an important advisory function, and helps to moderate the impulses of the masses.
By B0ycey
#15184995
Puffer Fish wrote:The fact that it is a historic relic does not mean that it is not relevant in modern times at all, or that some of the reasons for its existence have not still survived in modern times, although it probably would not be specifically described in words that way.

It still serves an important advisory function, and helps to moderate the impulses of the masses.


Well the Lords is redundant given if it was abolished tomorrow Westminster could still function. Its relevance was checks and balances anyway. That is to say to make sure the Plebs didn't bring legislation by their elected MPs that challenged the King or Nobleman. Today they just turn up for their prostitute money and maybe turn down a Brexit bill or two. What is the point? But even if you did want two Chambers for whatever reason, the second chamber can be Democratically elected anyway which isn't the case today.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15185008
B0ycey wrote:the second chamber can be Democratically elected anyway

Aleatoric democracy.

If as @Patrickov says the Lords is a (mostly) harmless sinkhole for corruption, why not choose members of the Lords by sortition, randomly?

And spread the love - their prostitute money, corruption - around.

To save the embarrassment of someone turning down the job of Lord, you could sell tickets for the lottery.

12 lucky winners a month for a 5-year term:

(800 ÷ 5) ÷ 13 = 12.3


:)
By Patrickov
#15185162
ingliz wrote:If the Lords is a (mostly) harmless sinkhole for corruption, why not choose members of the Lords by sortition, randomly?


I said the House of Lords is a sinkhole of donation because it's the donors who are to become Lords.

In other words, they are to pay, not the other way round.
Taliban need Billions

If the Taliban fail to pay the Doctors and Teacher[…]

while pledging anywhere from $5 to $50. So nobod[…]

Europe cultural split between east and west

It's all OK, my message to you and your opening th[…]

MMT economists do look far more closely at the em[…]