Should filibustering be banned.

[modeller]

At the moment filibustering is being used by an unelected house to defeat an elected government.
Should this be allowed in our democracy ? If allowed should it be restricted in any way. ?

Even within our elected house a bill can be talked out without any discussion on its merits or otherwise. Is some control also needed here. ?

These are matters that have affected all parties for years so it's not party political.

[R1Geezer]

well the governement always has the parliament act to override the lords, but that's only to be used for important items of state, like lowering the age of gay sex for example!

[Mick-Talbot]

I must say that is a surprising example R1.

[eyethenkyew]

It's a disgraceful practice which should have been banned many moons ago. What a total waste of taxpayers' money, allowing a bunch of unelected old farts to just stand there (those who are able?) and get paid for interminable waffling until the clock runs down.

[jno]

no, it shouldn't. I don't quite see how this is the same as allowing elected MPs to override unelected peers, however - I would have thought that was plenty democratic, though maybe not for Lord Geezer.

[modeller]

This raises the point what is the purpose of the Lords ? We are told the upper house is to review and revise bills presented by the government . Which may be fair enough but if they use their power purely to destroy a bill whatever its merits then they are not carrying out that function. In other words they are deliberately acting against the will of the people. W

[jno]

I was under the impression the Lords could delay but not block legislation, but I can't remember the details any more.

[modeller]

I think they can send it back three times ( I think that's the parliament act ) and then it has to go forward but by that time it may be too late to meet ,as in this case , a particular date.

[modeller]

I see that Lord Goodhart has criticsed the use ot the fillibuster. No doubt he is influenced by the fact he wants the AV part of the bill to go through but it shows there is disquiet in the upper house on the matter. This is what he had to say on the matter :
http://www.libdemvoic...buster-ban-22831.html

However I am more concerned in its use in a democratic society rather than this particular bill. .

[jake-the-peg]

Well if you do you hould probably also ban the practice of "rider bills"

That is tagging on important legislation onto other bills in order to try to limit the amount of examination they get in parliament.

That is after all exactly what this is all about with the Government trying to rush through legislation for the referendum - and by the way there's a load of boundary changes but there's no time to examine those!

[ludwig]

I've never really understood why fillibustering is allowed to exist in the first place - it's just a way of sabotaging a debating process - no different to letting off a smoke bomb in the debating chamber, forcing an evacuation.and then saying - 'oh dear we ran out of time for the debate'. Bizarre.

I'm not just talking about the UK parliament. I mean any fillibustering in any forum, anywhere.

[modeller]

jake // That is after all exactly what this is all about with the Government trying to rush through legislation for the referendum - and by the way there's a load of boundary changes but there's no time to examine those! //
They complain they haven't time to debate or examine it and then waste several days talking about cricket , the off side rule and manipulating prime numbers. The speaker should have the power to stop anyone digressing from the subjct and/or put a 10 minute time limit on it.