Lords lay into the governments illegal migration bill

maddyone

I believe that there should be no second chamber that has unelected representatives. Who exactly do these unelected people represent? Not me! So I’m not interested in their opinions on anything. When we have a properly elected second chamber, I’ll sit up and listen. Until then, I don’t care what any of them say.

Even though for the past few years they have spoken far more sense than the government?

It is totally undemocratic to have an unelected chamber. All very well some say, when they’re saying what you (or I or anyone else) agree with, but what when they say what you don’t agree with?
I cannot agree that to have an unelected chamber is acceptable in a supposedly democratic country. Whatever any of them say or indeed don’t say. There is simply no justification. I think Labour have said that they will do away with it. I certainly hope so if they win the next election.

I don't accept that the HoC with its first past the post system is democratic. If it were, we'd have more Greens and LibDems (and right-wingers) and the government wouldn't have such a big majority, so wouldn't be able to guarantee that it can pass almost all the bills it introduces.

growstuff

I don't accept that the HoC with its first past the post system is democratic. If it were, we'd have more Greens and LibDems (and right-wingers) and the government wouldn't have such a big majority, so wouldn't be able to guarantee that it can pass almost all the bills it introduces.

To be fair, it is democratic, just not your preferred model of democracy.

Casdon

growstuff

I don't accept that the HoC with its first past the post system is democratic. If it were, we'd have more Greens and LibDems (and right-wingers) and the government wouldn't have such a big majority, so wouldn't be able to guarantee that it can pass almost all the bills it introduces.

To be fair, it is democratic, just not your preferred model of democracy.

Well, no, it's not democratic. It's not representative of the whole spectrum of public opinion.

"Democracy" is IMO one of those words which are bandied about, but people don't really think through what it does mean.

First past the post must surely be a good system since so many other countries have adopted it. The list is long:
Belarus

growstuff

Casdon

growstuff

I don't accept that the HoC with its first past the post system is democratic. If it were, we'd have more Greens and LibDems (and right-wingers) and the government wouldn't have such a big majority, so wouldn't be able to guarantee that it can pass almost all the bills it introduces.

To be fair, it is democratic, just not your preferred model of democracy.

Well, no, it's not democratic. It's not representative of the whole spectrum of public opinion.

"Democracy" is IMO one of those words which are bandied about, but people don't really think through what it does mean.

I do understand what democracy means, and I do understand what a democracy based on proportional representation means compared to our current system. However, there is more than one model of democracy, and like it or not the UK is a democracy. There is no perfect model of course.
assets-learning.parliament.uk/uploads/2019/12/How-it-Works-booklet.pdf

So what do you understand by democracy? As you say, there's more than one model. What's your definition?

This debate could go on for ever growstuff, and it’s a pointless debate as there is no one answer. This was what the original meaning of the word democracy came from, there have been thousands of different interpretations since then.
www.worldhistory.org/Athenian_Democracy/

The list is a bit longer than that, Greta

For legislatures, it’s over 40 countries, including India, Canada (one house) , the USA (both houses); Kenya; many of the West Indies; and Poland.

A number of countries elect their Heads of State and sub-national assemblies with FPTP too.

It’s still a poor system though.

Casdon

This debate could go on for ever growstuff, and it’s a pointless debate as there is no one answer. This was what the original meaning of the word democracy came from, there have been thousands of different interpretations since then.
www.worldhistory.org/Athenian_Democracy/

But people still bandy the word "democracy" around as though it's a simple concept with an agreed definition.

Nobody is going to criticise people for "defending democracy" because it's seen positively, even though people don't actually agree on what they're talking about.

The Athenian version of democracy is as unsuited to the modern world as Magna Carta is as a model for universal rights.

Oreo

paddyann54

For "British" read English FleurpepperScottish values are very different .WE need immigration, people are welcome here and its rare to hear the bigotted hate rhetoric that we hear on the right wing ENGLISH media .

Plenty of bigoted hate rhetoric at a Celtic/Rangers match!

And that's on old Religious lines like the DUP versus Sein Fein.
It shows how many still live in the past when it comes to certain areas of their life.

Glad to see immigrants are welcome in Scotland but there’s still a housing crisis to fix. Not much of a welcome without housing.

In my opinion this Illegal Migration Bill is a sign of the Government's desperation. It's populist and brings shame on this country. I also believe it's unworkable. I could easily be read as Illegal Bill of Migration.

Unworkable? Why? Have you read it?

Germanshepherdsmum

Unworkable? Why? Have you read it?

😄

What would happen if someone with a boat toddled across to give the asylum seekers a lift. That would cut out these evil gangs that the Tories say is the real problem.

Whitewavemark2

What would happen if someone with a boat toddled across to give the asylum seekers a lift. That would cut out these evil gangs that the Tories say is the real problem.

Good point! So many profess to only be concerned about the exploitation by the people traffickers, in fact our own Home Secretary has said that 'stopping the boats' and the traffickers is her only motive, so, if a flotilla of volunteers went across to Calais and loaded the desperate people onto safe vessels, at no charge..........hmmm.

Before the predictable comments, please be advised that this is a hypothetical question. I do not own a boat

I read that the government will improve safe routes for genuine asylum seekers. I haven’t seen how.

Rwanda was invented - Braverman said - to deter people from using the gangs. So she could cut Rwanda out as well. Use the millions to dealing with the asylum seekers in an efficient and humane manner

Win, win

It would be aiding and abetting entry into the UK in breach of immigration controls, such entry being a criminal act under the Bill. Same as aiding and abetting any other criminal offence. Money doesn’t have to change hands.

What is your plan exactly to stop the dinghies Wwm2? No deterrent? How do you solve the problem?

Germanshepherdsmum

It would be aiding and abetting entry into the UK in breach of immigration controls, such entry being a criminal act under the Bill. Same as aiding and abetting any other criminal offence. Money doesn’t have to change hands.

Doh!! I had no idea

The whole issue can be resolved at stroke - ensure safe routes.

All issue resolved. Gangs scuppered - U.K. in control- humanity prevails.

Ah, but the Bill seeks to impose numbers on those permitted to enter via a safe route (told you I’d read it) so the gangs will still be pitching for business. Your free route would doubtless win out but it would be sad to lose you from GN either through imprisonment or at the hands of the undercut gangs. 😁

I had no idea that you had read the bill.

You will understand then how unworkable it is.