Except for the fact that the house of lords is a lifelong appointment and people have taken cash bribes for appointments. Which is the very definition of undemocratic
That doesn't mean it's not legal. It can be undemocratic but still legal.
Re:I Face Investigation for Terrorism
by neilwilson on Wednesday October 25, 2023 @09:01AM
(#38012324)
The House of Lords has no capacity to stop legislation that the House of Commons is determined to pass. Only the capacity to delay it.
That's why an appointed chamber works. They have no mandate and no legitimacy to do anything other than suggest.
And which then stops the stalemate you get in other systems with multiple conflicting mandates.
Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, very simple and fair system! In the end society was not able to come up with anything better than a twitter poll to decide their destiny.
Re:I Face Investigation for Terrorism
by neilwilson on Wednesday October 25, 2023 @09:03AM
(#38012342)
We have to decide. It is the least bad system.
Far better we are all involved, even if just notionally, than have it handed down by self-appointed betters.
The least bad system in the worst constraints, where all people must be labelled by blood or soil of origin and moving around is a privilege. The best illusion of control engineered however
It's legal because Parliament passed the legislation. Anything Parliament passes is legal. It's the very definition of legal.
Those who don't like that need to get the relevant people elected and change the law.
It's not a difficult system. We all have a vote.
There is no legal god in the British system and we recognise no external one. It's all down to the British people and their representatives.