Re: Hunting is banned!

From: Old Codger (oldcodger_at_anyoldwhere.net)
Date: 11/27/04 

Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:14:22 -0000

Rooney wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:23:45 -0000, "Old Codger"
> <oldcodger@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Hunting
>> was not, imo, an appropriate subject on which to deploy the
>> parliament act.
>>
>> --
>
> Surely the act is appropriate *any* time the Lords twice reject what
> the Commons decide?

IMO no. The purpose of the second chamber is to provide some balance
against a government getting too extreme or out of line. The main idea is
to make a government think again. If the second chamber cannot seriously
check the commons and, except in very exceptional circumstances, prevent
excesses there is no point in having it. Overriding the second chamber
should be very much the exception and only when absolutely essential. IMO
the hunting bill was a long way from being an essential piece of
legislation. The previous use of the parliament act was to get a bill
passed allowing alleged war criminals to be prosecuted in this country, John
Major's government I think. Whilst that looks a more valid use, I doubt if
that was really an essential piece of legislation at that time. 

-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people 
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hunting is banned!
    ... >was not, imo, an appropriate subject on which to deploy the parliament act. ... Surely the act is appropriate *any* time the Lords twice reject what ... the Commons decide? ...
    (sci.agriculture.poultry)
  • Re: OT: Vick
    ... Vinnie S. wrote: ... in the same category, IMO. ... I said I didn't like hunting either. ... I just don't understand the thrill of shooting another living creature. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)