Miscellaneous things

[undyingking]

This interested me:

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County... The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony...Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling.

Hmm. Good luck to them I guess, but it does seem a kind of crazy way of going about it. I'm not sure that drawing attention to a legal system's absurdities really does shame it into improvement. But maybe Washington is different.

I am in DIY mode at the moment. Not a natural state of being for me, but there's such a lot that wants doing around this house. I just now fitted a curtain rail in the office, which normally is nothng much -- but this is a small dormer window so the rail had to be bent into a tight U-shape. Cue much swearing and wrestling, but it's up now, and hopefully T will make some curtains shortly. Then people who have to crash in there will no longer have to stick sheets of cardboard up at the windows!

More significantly though, the cellar staircase is nearing the crunch point. I've got as far as measuring up, designing and asking for quotes for the replacement stairs. Frankly I'm slightly daunted by this job. Particularly as most of the work will have to be done from within the cellar, and once you demolish the old stairs, there's no easy way of getting back out until you've finished building the new ones. Hopefully there'll be no point at which a ladder can't be deployed, but if I'm wrong about that, I'll have to swiftly lose about two stone in weight to fit through the coal hatch.

On an unrelated note, there's been a bit of talk lately about the future of the House of Lords, and Jack Straw's funky new plan for the next stage of reforming it. I guess not many people in the real world care very much about this sort of thing, compared to eg. the abysmal horrors of having to possibly pay more road tax, but I do: I find it offensive that our laws are still being passed and vetoed by a bunch of people whose ancestors let the King sh*g their wives, the hereditary peers. Most of them have gone now, but there are still quite a few left. Why?? The only explanation I've heard for them not having the boot already is that they wouldn't like it. Well, tough.

The bigger group now of course are those who bought places by funding the political parties, the life peers. Clearly some life peers are appointed on perceived merit rate rthan depth of pocket, but there's enoufgh of the others to somewhat discredit the institution. I've seena  couple of arguments advanced for why we should still keep some kind of life peer system whereby at least some people are appointed to the upper house rather than elected. (1) That way, you can ensure that some of the members are competent and skilled, rather than just vote-grubbing placemen; (2) If they were all elected, that would undermine the authority of the House of Commons.

Now for a start, these two arguments are contradictory. If all-elected members aren't good enough to run the upper house, then why should the all-elected House of Commons be seen as any better? Leaving that aside, though:

1. Elected politicans are not saints, for sure, and often not even decent people. Maybe you do believe, like Plato, that a bunch of wise philosopher-kings would do a better job of running the country than the rabble who tend to get elected. But if really you're opposed to the whole idea of democracy, that's a different argument I think. I don't think it's intellectually respectable to be a little bit anti-democratic -- in favour of it in some places but not others. Either you want to throw the whole system out, or else the upper house has as much claim to be democratically composed as the lower house does. It is better I think if it's not all the same sort of people as the Commons, and there's all sorts of options for different democratic bases for electing it that would achieve that aim.
2. Why shouldn't it have equal authority to the Commons, if it's composed in as democratic a way (possibly more so)? I can see that the Commons itself might not like that, but that doesn't affect the principle. Plenty of other places have bicameral legislature without bickering over which of the two is more important. It seems to me purely a question of adjusting procedure.

Anyway, that's probaly enough rambling, those of you who got this far without falling asleep. Have a good day!

Comments

[caffeine-fairy.livejournal.com]

I find the Defence of Marriage Alliance little short of terrifying

require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;” </>

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Well, that's the point really: they're trying to show how absurdly extreme are the implications of the court ruling they're protesting about.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Though having an "unrecognised" marriage could end up being quite fashionable in counter-culture circles, much as ASBOs are here.

[dr-bob.livejournal.com]

I think there are a lot of strengths in having a House of Lords that is partly non-party political. My preference would be to have a part elected (by PR), part selected house, where the selected section is based on professional expertise that would be of value to scrutinising legistlation. So the Law Sciety might get 5 seats; the Royal Society might get 5, The BMA or GMC might select 5, UK sport might select some and so on. There could even be a place for a small group of hereditary peers. The House of Commons could then change the seats given to different organisations, and the selections could be staggered over longish terms to give continuity to Lords.

But then I also heard a quote about it - If you ask 300 MPs what their idea for House of Lords reform is, you get 300 different answers.

[brixtonbrood.livejournal.com]

Oh, I thought I was the only person who'd ever thought of this version - I rather like it - you could even keep in a couple of bishops. Horrific horsetrading to decide who gets what though - I don't think any government would ever voluntarily introduce a reform with so much potential to piss off so many people.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

No government will introduce any reform at all unless it has to. It may come down to which version pisses off the fewest, or the least powerful, people.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I don't agree with that at all. If these people reckon themselves sufficiently able that they ought to be allowed to decide on our laws, they should be prepared to put themselves forward for our democratic approval or rejection.

I find the idea that anyone should be granted rulership over us on the nod, just because of their professional or other background, profoundly abhorrent.

It's crazy that people should be happy to slaughter Iraqis in droves so as to force democracy upon them, but then are too cynical about what it might bring to contemplate using it here.

[dr-bob.livejournal.com]

But on the flip side, politically appointed peers end up weighting the second house towards political parties that hold power. Whereas an elected house that mimics the Commons would be completely pointless. One of the real advantages of the Lords is that it contains politically independent (in party terms) individuals that are capable of scrutinising legislation on its merits. To lose that would be a bad thing, and to design a system that allows a government control of both houses would be potentially dangerous, in terms of economic stability and freedom.

I'm not advocating an elite group of people being granted rulership - merely some balance against ignorance and stupidity exercised by an elected government.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

But on the flip side, politically appointed peers end up weighting the second house towards political parties that hold power.

Sure -- I don't think any kind of appointment system is defensible.

Whereas an elected house that mimics the Commons would be completely pointless.

But an elected house that doesn't mimic the Commons would be excellent, and to my mind ideal. Is the US Senate pointless? They certainly don't think so.

One of the real advantages of the Lords is that it contains politically independent (in party terms) individuals that are capable of scrutinising legislation on its merits.

I don't think though that that can only be achieved by appointing them.

To lose that would be a bad thing, and to design a system that allows a government control of both houses would be potentially dangerous, in terms of economic stability and freedom.

We've had government control of both of the current houses for most of the last few centuries, whenever the Tories have been in charge -- as they have always (until the recent reforms) had a majority in the Lords. But it seems tome that you are saying here "Elected politicians can't be trusted to run the country" -- which is a fair enough position, but one that is fundamentally opposed to democracy, and as I said above I think that's a different argument.

I'm not advocating an elite group of people being granted rulership - merely some balance against ignorance and stupidity exercised by an elected government.

There doesn't seem much point having an elected government at all, if its every decision is to be subject to veto by a bunch of interest-group appointees! Surely simpler just to let them take charge altogether, and we can forget about the whole crazy dream of elected representatives governing on behalf of the popular will.

[dr-bob.livejournal.com]

Is the US Senate pointless?

I believe it is pretty close to pointless. Or the House of Representatives is. A democratic second chamber is at its most useless in a two party system. At least with multiparty PR there will rarely be a political party that dominates the chamber. However, innovative policy is threatened by party pettiness, in a way that's not true of a partly politically neutral chamber.

I'm not advocating appointing people to the chamber - but offering certain groups the ability to select (democratically or otherwise) some members. There could as easily be regional representatives, NGO representatives, media representatives etc. The government/Commons only chooses the types of expertise or representations the house requires. And for limited terms.

I guess I'm saying that 'checks and balances should exist to ensure that the elected politicians are not running the country irresponsibly.' If I could think of alternative scrutinising mechanisms, then fine. My concern is with getting the devil out of the detail - something politicians often screw up.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

I suppose this is the difference, then: I don't think anyone should have authority over elected politicians in that way, apart from the legal system and the people who elected them. (Or, some other body also mass-elected specifically for that purpose.)

Of course elected politicians make stupid decisions from time to time, which need to be overturned -- but the appropriate mechanism for overturning them is by voting them out and voting in someone who'll do something different. It's not ideal, but it's about taking the rough with the smooth. The potential problems of having any sort of the "the great and the good" body overruling elected politicans are far worse. As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others that have been tried.