Statement of Beliefs on the House of Lords.
Day 423, 04:05
•
Published in United Kingdom 
•
by
•
by Tommy Tommasino
J'ACCUSE
These are my PERSONAL beliefs and do NOT REPRESENT MY PARTY.
1. The House of Lords is unelected, holds great power over legislation and apart from resignation a post there lasts indefinitely. This gives an unelected few indefinite control over eUK legislation.
2. The House of Lords in its current form delays legislation - they can veto a proposal and send it back to commons, sometimes delaying decision-making by days. They say this is to make necessary edits, but there is no reason why they cannot propose these edits to legislation either in Public Discussion, or in House of Commons if granted access (without voting rights) which would terminate all delays but still allow for their suggestions to be heard.
3. The House of Lords is not representative - everyone can agree on that. Although the Lords have all contributed to eUK and are there for a reason - experience - this does not mean that their views are the same as public opinion. eRepublik is a game, it should be for the majority to decide, not for an unelected few to hold this undemocratic, unrepresentative power that seems to have no end.
4. A Prime Minister gets one veto a month. This veto could be really important to stop a piece of damaging legislation from getting through. Currently to make any amendment to the Lords it would probably require use of this veto since most Lords appear adamantly against any change.
5. Some Lords (not all!) have renounced opinion from in-game, citing that many of the in-game public are un-informed. The same members of the second chamber renounced data from 2 in-forum polls (one on the current forums, one on the previous) which BOTH concluded that the majority opinion is that the House of Lords needs some kind of reform (there was not consensus on what type of reform however).
6. To sum up I think it is an elitist power-holding club that should not and cannot continue in its current form. It is detrimental and merely delays due process in its current form. There is NO REASON why the proposals of change to legislation it makes cannot be done before the discussion has ended in the commons.
Certain forum members will of course continue to unrelentingly cast aside my views and opinions citing inexperience, attention seeking, whatever else. I feel that there is a large element of bias going down, and that over aggressive defense of the Lords is putting people off entering the debate. Casting aside peoples ideas, views and opinions in public 'discussion' is a grave error. New players may well be put off contributing and giving their opinions if they think they will simply be cast aside by certain individuals who are authority figures. Especially if these opinions appear to have the backing currently of around 36 citizens on forums.
I will be petitioning congressmen to support the proposal (see forums for full wording), though ask the public for further support as it is easy to be drowned out.
*once again this is completely independent of the MDU and does not represent the views of the party.
Thanks to anyone who has supported me in the debates. I'm currently in eUSA learning about their political system. Back soon!
SOME COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC:
''
Until a few days ago I was overwhelmingly in favour of the HoL. I still think we need to keep it. But the behaviour of some of the Lords over the last few days has been so shockingly rude and dismissive of any outside opinion to make me wonder if they don't have too much power. Checks on the Government are needed and an experienced legislative body is a good thing but completely dismissing the views of so many people is incredibly short-sighted. ''
''
With the best will in the world Lords are still going to a vested interest in reform of the HoL, Lords giving the commons advice on any possible reform is fine but having a say powerful enough to veto it as asking for trouble. ''
On the subject of the public opinion poll (forums):
''
Excuses against this blooming poll are getting even more and more ridiculous ''
''
I really wasn't too bothered one way or the other about the HoL, until a group hijacked the threads and started flaming. Suddenly I am concerned about the level of maturity of some of our Lords. Do I really want all legislation to have to be agreed on by them, when they can't even hold a debate without getting petty? ''
These are my PERSONAL beliefs and do NOT REPRESENT MY PARTY.
1. The House of Lords is unelected, holds great power over legislation and apart from resignation a post there lasts indefinitely. This gives an unelected few indefinite control over eUK legislation.
2. The House of Lords in its current form delays legislation - they can veto a proposal and send it back to commons, sometimes delaying decision-making by days. They say this is to make necessary edits, but there is no reason why they cannot propose these edits to legislation either in Public Discussion, or in House of Commons if granted access (without voting rights) which would terminate all delays but still allow for their suggestions to be heard.
3. The House of Lords is not representative - everyone can agree on that. Although the Lords have all contributed to eUK and are there for a reason - experience - this does not mean that their views are the same as public opinion. eRepublik is a game, it should be for the majority to decide, not for an unelected few to hold this undemocratic, unrepresentative power that seems to have no end.
4. A Prime Minister gets one veto a month. This veto could be really important to stop a piece of damaging legislation from getting through. Currently to make any amendment to the Lords it would probably require use of this veto since most Lords appear adamantly against any change.
5. Some Lords (not all!) have renounced opinion from in-game, citing that many of the in-game public are un-informed. The same members of the second chamber renounced data from 2 in-forum polls (one on the current forums, one on the previous) which BOTH concluded that the majority opinion is that the House of Lords needs some kind of reform (there was not consensus on what type of reform however).
6. To sum up I think it is an elitist power-holding club that should not and cannot continue in its current form. It is detrimental and merely delays due process in its current form. There is NO REASON why the proposals of change to legislation it makes cannot be done before the discussion has ended in the commons.
Certain forum members will of course continue to unrelentingly cast aside my views and opinions citing inexperience, attention seeking, whatever else. I feel that there is a large element of bias going down, and that over aggressive defense of the Lords is putting people off entering the debate. Casting aside peoples ideas, views and opinions in public 'discussion' is a grave error. New players may well be put off contributing and giving their opinions if they think they will simply be cast aside by certain individuals who are authority figures. Especially if these opinions appear to have the backing currently of around 36 citizens on forums.
I will be petitioning congressmen to support the proposal (see forums for full wording), though ask the public for further support as it is easy to be drowned out.
*once again this is completely independent of the MDU and does not represent the views of the party.
Thanks to anyone who has supported me in the debates. I'm currently in eUSA learning about their political system. Back soon!
SOME COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC:
''
Until a few days ago I was overwhelmingly in favour of the HoL. I still think we need to keep it. But the behaviour of some of the Lords over the last few days has been so shockingly rude and dismissive of any outside opinion to make me wonder if they don't have too much power. Checks on the Government are needed and an experienced legislative body is a good thing but completely dismissing the views of so many people is incredibly short-sighted. ''
''
With the best will in the world Lords are still going to a vested interest in reform of the HoL, Lords giving the commons advice on any possible reform is fine but having a say powerful enough to veto it as asking for trouble. ''
On the subject of the public opinion poll (forums):
''
Excuses against this blooming poll are getting even more and more ridiculous ''
''
I really wasn't too bothered one way or the other about the HoL, until a group hijacked the threads and started flaming. Suddenly I am concerned about the level of maturity of some of our Lords. Do I really want all legislation to have to be agreed on by them, when they can't even hold a debate without getting petty? ''
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
*waits for the flaming* 🙂
You shouldn't have to worry about flaming Tommy. I am appalled at the behaviour of our Lords lately. I was all for HoL until I saw their conduct on the Public Discussion forum. The PD forum is there for the public to express personal opinions, and yet now they feel they have to stay away in fear of being flamed by the HoL members.
P.S. I think it is quite alright for me to group all the HoL in together based on the actions of a few Lords, considering those few Lords think it is OK to party bash and hijack threads based on the actions of one person.
I was looking for a reform, now I am looking for complete abolishment of HoL. But whilst they are still there, they will never let themselves be abolished, even if 100% of the public backed it. Why? Because no one is nearly as experienced as them so their opinions don't count!
It makes me sick.
Unfortunately, this is similar to what can happen in the RL House of Lords, with particular respects to the indefinite term of office and the nomination into the 'elite' club by the few in power.
Unlike the RL HoL however, there are no checks when it comes to legislation passing. When something is an important bill in the Commons, there is a mechanism in place whereby it is possible for the Commons to pass a bill without the HoL necessarily having a say. The House of Lords should be more like the one in RL, where they are wary of their role and act accordingly. It is not a democratically elected group and their power and attitude should reflect this. And regardless of position or experience, the goal of anyone with influence in the game and the forums should be the betterment of the nation and assisting the people. Cutting out the general public from the legislative process is not conducive to these aims.
I hate to lump in all the of House of Lords as some Lords seem well aware that their position is created out of respect rather than having 'earned the right' by sheer dint of the length of time they have spent on the game, and have my respect for that. Having said that, should they fail to gain more humility, the Commons should certainly keep in mind the power they have to make legislation with or without the Lords' approval. The Lords should be prepared to take a few steps back or risk losing their role completely.
That was a well thought out comment SKQ, and when you mention the difference with RL its certainly interesting. While we don't want or need to base everything in eRepublik on real life since there are obviously major differences 🙂 we can still learn from how certain things work I suppose.
I'm delighted you quoted me, but you could you also correct my typos? 😃
which typos, think i'm being an idiot but cannot see any? 🙂
should be "Lords are still going to HAVE a vested interest in reform of the HoL" I missed the word out, and "veto it IS asking for trouble." I accidently put as instead.
Can I just say that as a newcomer to the game, I understand both sides of the argument with no real bias. This is my initial opinion:
1. The HoL in RL works extremely well, and the Lords in-game can work in a similar way. For example, when the proposal to allow certain key ministries to become available to non-congressman was voted through the HoC without any 'No' votes, it was vetoed by the Lords who noticed that the ministry of health (and the large budget this contains) were not on the list of ministries which must be congressman led. This is an example of how the Lords can be of benefit.
2. I think that as has been said, a 'Parliament Act' should be passed by the commons, restricting the number of times an act can move between the two houses. This effectively gives democracy the overall upper hand whilst providing a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority.
3. Lords should be nominated and approved by congress, thus giving the top 5 parties a say indirectly, providing they have a mandate from the public.
4. Apart from that, there isn't much in the way of reform required. All I can say is that the Lords should have a minimum voting quoracy (has to be a minimum attendence for votes to be valid). The problem isn't with the office of 'Lord' but with the Lords themselves. In RL the Lords is self-regulating, and all I can say is that if Lords act badly they should be treat in the same way as any other forum member.
well researched article: voted.
Speak truth to power my friend.
Iain Keers, you made a comment with wisdom beyond your 'years'. Welcome to the game, and do join the forums if you haven't! We always need more coherent voices like your own 🙂
Brilliant post Iain.
Its great to have a newcomer, and independent insight onto the debate.
bite me hippy
up the Lords!
Elitist power club? You gravely mistaken.
Being one of the people who wrote the original legislation I'm deeply offended.
Tommy
Have you read the legislation?
It seems as though you haven't understood it...
wrote and lost wall of text 🙁
basically the HoL is working great. The people there would mostly be in commons anyway, so in reality this opens opportunities for 15 extra people.
If you can't be bothered taking time to get it right in commons the first time then tough luck if it comes back
HoL are able to do the right thing, not the popular thing because they don't need to be elected
You can be evicted from the HoL if you don't behave appropriately.
You have to be pretty amazing to get there in the first place. (what exactly has Ronald done)
'I think it is quite alright for me to group all the HoL in together based on the actions of a few Lords, considering those few Lords think it is OK to party bash and hijack threads based on the actions of one person.'
No offence HazzN but that is a pathetic statement, it's just like Eco grouping all the Americans together, please show me a post I have made on that thread, ONE post, in fact I haven't even read that thread as I concentrate only on different areas on the forum as I don't have the time to look at everything.
So don't insult me as well when I have had nothing to do with whatever has gone on, thanks.
Iain, nice mature post, get on the forums, you have a bright erep future 🙂
Widdows, I am making a point. If it is OK for one of your Lords to hijack four threads and bash the entire MDU because of a personal dislike of Tommy, then it must be OK for me to bash the entire HoL based on his actions.
'Widdows, I am making a point. If it is OK for one of your Lords to hijack four threads and bash the entire MDU because of a personal dislike of Tommy, then it must be OK for me to bash the entire HoL based on his actions.'
It would be ok if we have condoned his actions, I most certainly haven't condoned his actions so I don't see why I should be insulted for his mistakes.
Could you link me to these threads please?
And should the entire MDU have to be insulted just because he doesn't like Tommy?
I can't be bothered to hunt out all the threads. Some are on the Public Discussions forum. Some are on the General forum.
'And should the entire MDU have to be insulted just because he doesn't like Tommy?'
I've said above that I do not condone his actions. The whole of the HoL shouldn't be insulted because of this person (guessing it's Dish) and neither should the whole of MDU be insulted because of Tommy.
So both you and Dish are wrong in my book.
Like I said, I was trying to make that point. The point was, the Lords don't like it when I group them all together, so it is wrong to do that to the MDU.
I agree, but doing what Dish is doing doesn't make you better.
Oh and there is no way I'm reading like a 15 page thread and a 5 page thread, I'll be here all weekend.
And u have geography to do!
Where did my comment go?
'And u have geography to do!'
Is that aimed at me? Cos if so you are right but I CBA to do it just like my science homework 🙁 Oh and who are you?
in response to Taytaz: it seems i have a better knowledge of the legislation that some current Lords! (see reform thread in forum) - one Lord didn't seem to know that there is limited veto for the CP for example. This is mostly due to 2 bits of contradicting legislation however.
'i have a better knowledge of the legislation that some current Lords'
Bully for you.
*Hands Tommy a medal
😛