• Labour pledges to replace the House of Lords with an elected Senate
    58 replies, posted
I'd rather keep the Status quo as said, people with legitimate experience in fields are in Lords Even Sir Alan Sugar, but now you have to say Lord Sugar which is kind of cool in it's own right.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46381184]Maybe in a few decades you can get rid of your monarchy too.[/QUOTE] I [I]can't wait[/I] to be more like America. Screw you I'm keeping my shit.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46381184]Hell yeah! Maybe in a few decades you can get rid of your monarchy too.[/QUOTE] Many of the arguments for getting rid of the monarchy could also apply to your president you know.
[QUOTE=Deng;46381589]Many of the arguments for getting rid of the monarchy could also apply to your president you know.[/QUOTE] None that I would ever use. My main objection is that it solidifies and signifies a real inequality between the government and the people. It creates, on paper and in practice, a real, unalterable separation between The Government and The People. In a republic, while there is almost always a separation between those who make up the government and the majority of the people. But it's not inherent in the system itself. In a monarchy, nobody can ever hope to become head of state because they weren't born into a magic family with magic blood. In a republic, a black guy from a middle class family with an absent father can become the head of state.
Man, maybe this is a culture difference, but I find the idea of an ultra-elitist governing body of rich people that only admits people like them and gets to (partially) control the legislative process to be extremely...gross. Like a throwback to the old imperialist days. However, I can see why you wouldn't want to turn it into another House of Commons that reshapes the entire government every time party control changes. America isn't exactly a shining example of functional democracy right now. If it works well enough, maybe it's worth keeping.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46381667]None that I would ever use. My main objection is that it solidifies and signifies a real inequality between the government and the people. It creates, on paper and in practice, a real, unalterable separation between The Government and The People. In a republic, while there is almost always a separation between those who make up the government and the majority of the people. But it's not inherent in the system itself. In a monarchy, nobody can ever hope to become head of state because they weren't born into a magic family with magic blood. In a republic, a black guy from a middle class family with an absent father can become the head of state.[/QUOTE] In practice it doesn't really affect how things are run. Most people in Britain support the institution of the monarchy. I don't really get why its such a big deal for some people. Is the American president not a privileged position? Only rich people who went to good schools and have university degrees or connections seem to become president. What about families like the Bushes or Kennedys or Clintons? The president lives in a big fancy house, gets paid a lot of money, has everything taken care of for him by the state, and there hasn't been a single president who wasn't a democrat nor a republican for over 160 years.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46381667]None that I would ever use. My main objection is that it solidifies and signifies a real inequality between the government and the people. It creates, on paper and in practice, a real, unalterable separation between The Government and The People. In a republic, while there is almost always a separation between those who make up the government and the majority of the people. But it's not inherent in the system itself. In a monarchy, nobody can ever hope to become head of state because they weren't born into a magic family with magic blood. In a republic, a black guy from a middle class family with an absent father can become the head of state.[/QUOTE] I'm tentative about addressing your concerns, because it could likely derail, but as it stands under the current UK constitutional monarchy, the monarch only has the power to grant or deny royal assent to legislation, which puts legislation which has passed through the Commons and the Lords into the statute books and makes them law. You might argue that the monarch could refuse to grant royal assent - the risk of this, of course, is the constitutional crisis that would result in the monarch denying the will of the elected Commons. The Conservatives in the 1910s threatened to request the King to refuse royal assent to Home Rule in Ireland, but they realised the implications of such a move that could result in the abolition of the monarchy. While the de facto head of state is the monarch, the de jure head of state is the Prime Minister based on the current constitutional system. Essentially, anyone can become head of state except in name alone. [editline]...[/editline] Android's autocorrect can suck my balls, have to edit my post like 5 times.
[QUOTE=Deng;46381700]In practice it doesn't really affect how things are run. Most people in Britain support the institution of the monarchy. I don't really get why its such a big deal for some people. Is the American president not a privileged position? Only rich people who went to good schools and have university degrees or connections seem to become president. What about families like the Bushes or Kennedys or Clintons? The president lives in a big fancy house, gets paid a lot of money, has everything taken care of for him by the state, and there hasn't been a single president who wasn't a democrat nor a republican for over 160 years.[/QUOTE] -How was Obama privileged? -Why is it relevant that the president lives in a mansion? The point is that anyone could possibly live in that mansion. In England, only one family can because they are better than everyone else because they're magical. -What does a two-party system have to do with what we're talking about? Could a monarchy not have a two-party system? Or would a two-party system be good only if under a monarchy? Why the fuck did you even mention this? You seem to be just throwing out any generic criticism of the US presidency you can think of. All of your attacks only work when aimed the US government system, which you assume I support for some reason. I am talking about republican systems in general. Germany doesn't have a monarch. They don't have a two party system either and they haven't had the problems with dynastic presidencies. What can you say against Germany's republican system? [QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;46381726]I'm tentative about addressing your concerns, because it could likely derail, but as it stands under the current UK constitutional monarchy, the monarch only has the power to grant or deny royal assent to legislation, which puts legislation which has passed through the Commons and the Lords into the statute books and makes them law. You might argue that the monarch could refuse to grant royal assent - the risk of this, of course, is the constitutional crisis that would result in the monarch denying the will of the elected Commons. The Conservatives in the 1910s threatened to request the King to refuse royal assent to Home Rule in Ireland, but they realised the implications of such a move that could result in the abolition of the monarchy. While the de facto head of state is the monarch, the de jure head of state is the Prime Minister based on the current constitutional system. Essentially, anyone can become head of state except in name alone[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;46381726]except in name alone[/QUOTE] Well this is the problem I have, so you've gotten nowhere. I wouldn't want to live in a country where we have to have this display of a magical person signing the laws which my legislation passes. It's an inherent inequality.
[QUOTE=Deng;46381700]In practice it doesn't really affect how things are run. Most people in Britain support the institution of the monarchy. I don't really get why its such a big deal for some people. Is the American president not a privileged position? Only rich people who went to good schools and have university degrees or connections seem to become president. What about families like the Bushes or Kennedys or Clintons? The president lives in a big fancy house, gets paid a lot of money, has everything taken care of for him by the state, and there hasn't been a single president who wasn't a democrat nor a republican for over 160 years.[/QUOTE] actually the president pays for all the servant staff and all the amenities such as cooked meals out of his own pocket, the upkeep of the building is paid for by congress, and the security is paid for by the secret service. so no he's not privilaged by the state, he's getting ripped off for having to pay for all his meals from a 5 star chef, the only "free" meals the president gets is the occasional diplomatic feasts [editline]1st November 2014[/editline] now every president since clinton has released a book ghost-written while in office to make tons of cash like obama's first book which documented his first term successes and by that, the first year of his first term since it came out then
I'd rather the Lords stay as they are. While not democratic, they also don't have to worry about elections or opinion polls. Thus, can get on with doing what (in their opinion anyway) is right, rather than popular.
Tbh I don't mind the idea of an appointed upper chamber as long as that chamber is not as powerful as the elected chamber. Like, it would be a nightmare if the appointed chamber had the same power as say the Australian Senate or federal US Senate. At the most the appointed chamber should be like half of the size as the elected chamber and be able to force a joint sitting of both chambers for a bill with each vote being equal (as was the case of a joint sitting in the Australian parliament in the 70s when the Senate repeatedly refused supply).
Yeah, let's not be more like America, thanks. It's a moot point regardless, as if anyone's gonna vote Miliband into power. Might as well just set the country on fire.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46381801]-How was Obama privileged?[/quote] Well he's wealthy, had a good education, and isn't too black either. [quote]-Why is it relevant that the president lives in a mansion? The point is that anyone could possibly live in that mansion.[/quote] As long as you have a degree in law from harvard. [quote]I am talking about republican systems in general.[/quote] But your views of government are very much based on an american outlook. The constant reference to the royal family as "magical" is perplexing too, because people in Britain don't see them as magical. The fact is that not every society has to conform to being a republic, because the monarchy operates within a democracy. If British people wanted it gone, it would be gone by now.
Watch it be FPTP because of Labour's huge advantage under that system.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46381801]Well this is the problem I have, so you've gotten nowhere. I wouldn't want to live in a country where we have to have this display of a magical person signing the laws which my legislation passes. It's an inherent inequality.[/QUOTE] The monarch currently serves to institute the will of the people, though. As the monarch has, and always will, make law of the legislation proposed by the Commons and amended by the expertise of the Lords, it ensures that the will of the people is carried out. [url]http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/commons/coms-royal-assent/[/url]
[QUOTE=lazyguy;46383234]Watch it be FPTP because of Labour's huge advantage under that system.[/QUOTE] There's nothing intrinsic to FPTP which gives Labour an advantage, the boundaries however are massively rigged in their favour. They have lots of really small constituencies where the turnout is very low while the Conservatives have mostly large constituencies where the turnout is very high, this means that the Conservatives have to have a much higher percentage of the popular vote to win a Majority than Labour.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;46383234]Watch it be FPTP because of Labour's huge advantage under that system.[/QUOTE] The electorates are based on the English, Scottish etc regions. It would probably be a proportional system like in the Australian Senate. (Preferential-proportional vote where the electorates are the entire states).
I actually have more faith in the house of lords to protect civil liberties and junk bullshit laws, than I do in MP's. If we're going to replace them, do it properly. Bring in industry professionals from many fields so they can scrutinise legislation that affects their field.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46381677]Man, maybe this is a culture difference, but I find the idea of an ultra-elitist governing body of rich people that only admits people like them and gets to (partially) control the legislative process to be extremely...gross. Like a throwback to the old imperialist days. However, I can see why you wouldn't want to turn it into another House of Commons that reshapes the entire government every time party control changes. America isn't exactly a shining example of functional democracy right now. If it works well enough, maybe it's worth keeping.[/QUOTE] If they worked their asses off I suppose they deserve a little recognition at least Having an easily deadlocked political system is no good. Look at US or even Italy
[QUOTE=download;46380346]I think this is a good idea. Hereditary seats are very archaic and certainly not democratic.[/QUOTE] Democracy is not some kind od universal good. If my knowledge of the house of lords is correct, democracy would completly ruin it.
[QUOTE=Flapadar;46383647]I actually have more faith in the house of lords to protect civil liberties and junk bullshit laws, than I do in MP's. If we're going to replace them, do it properly. Bring in industry professionals from many fields so they can scrutinise legislation that affects their field.[/QUOTE] Yes, let's improve our political system by shooting it in the chest! How the fuck would it be a good idea to bring in industry professionals when I can pretty much guarantee they'll pass every law they can that makes their life more profitable?
[QUOTE=bravehat;46384749]Yes, let's improve our political system by shooting it in the chest! How the fuck would it be a good idea to bring in industry professionals when I can pretty much guarantee they'll pass every law they can that makes their life more profitable?[/QUOTE] Who is better to scrutinise internet legislation than people whose work is internet based? Right now we've got a bunch of tossers trying to legislate things they don't even understand ( prime example : recent UK internet surveillance bill MP's suggested using MAC addresses to uniquely identify people over the internet) I'm not saying 'let them make laws' - I'm saying get them to critique and improve ones already in the process of being made
I always just assumed house of lords was an elected senate and they just kept the name. You learn something new everyday I guess
[QUOTE=bravehat;46384749]Yes, let's improve our political system by shooting it in the chest! How the fuck would it be a good idea to bring in industry professionals when I can pretty much guarantee they'll pass every law they can that makes their life more profitable?[/QUOTE] So you're saying we should just have politicians who don't know jack shit about different fields of industry such as medicine, science, telecomms, etc. make all the decisions?
[QUOTE=Flapadar;46384786]Who is better to scrutinise internet legislation than people whose work is internet based? Right now we've got a bunch of tossers trying to legislate things they don't even understand ( prime example : recent UK internet surveillance bill MP's suggested using MAC addresses to uniquely identify people over the internet) I'm not saying 'let them make laws' - I'm saying get them to critique and improve ones already in the process of being made[/QUOTE] The problem isn't that we don't have industry representatives in government, it's that the government doesn't give a fuck about what any of them say. Address that and there's no need to rip apart the House of Lords which is hilariously saving us from most of these shit dick laws and open our political system to blatant industry manipulation. [editline]1st November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=thelurker1234;46384819]So you're saying we should just have politicians who don't know jack shit about different fields of industry such as medicine, science, telecomms, etc. make all the decisions?[/QUOTE] Frankly I'd rather we lived in a technocracy but we don't get what we want, and we're never ever ever gonna be rid of politicians in the near future, finally I'd rather keep the House of Lords because as mentioned before, it's composed of people who tend to already know their shit.
[QUOTE=Flapadar;46384786]Who is better to scrutinise internet legislation than people whose work is internet based? Right now we've got a bunch of tossers trying to legislate things they don't even understand ( prime example : recent UK internet surveillance bill MP's suggested using MAC addresses to uniquely identify people over the internet) I'm not saying 'let them make laws' - I'm saying get them to critique and improve ones already in the process of being made[/QUOTE] Who is better to scrutinise fossil fuels legislation than people whose work is in coal? Who is better to scrutinise financial legislation than people whose work is in finance? Sounds like a neoliberal's wet dream. [editline]2nd November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=thelurker1234;46384819]So you're saying we should just have politicians who don't know jack shit about different fields of industry such as medicine, science, telecomms, etc. make all the decisions?[/QUOTE] This is false. Politicians don't necessarily know jack shit about different industries, many work in such industries before becoming politicians, and they don't make all the decisions because normally they would consult with stakeholders while crafting legislation. And then you have Ministers who not only learn about the field of the Ministry which they lead, but they are advised by experts with many years of experience within the Ministry. Oh wait I forgot you're in the US with a terrible presidential system where the executive who actually runs the show wants to do one thing, but the legislature wants to do something else.
Labour will do anything for the vote.
[QUOTE=Killergam;46386842]Labour will do anything for the vote.[/QUOTE] The ironic thing is that either most people don't care or if they do care they're against it.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46386687]This is false. Politicians don't necessarily know jack shit about different industries, many work in such industries before becoming politicians, and they don't make all the decisions because normally they would consult with stakeholders while crafting legislation. And then you have Ministers who not only learn about the field of the Ministry which they lead, but they are advised by experts with many years of experience within the Ministry. Oh wait I forgot you're in the US with a terrible presidential system where the executive who actually runs the show wants to do one thing, but the legislature wants to do something else.[/QUOTE] Most UK politicians are career politicians who have literally no idea about most fields. The extent of most of their knowledge stems from what they can find on Google 10 minutes before the bill is discussed, understanding none of it. You can say my idea's a neoliberal's wet dream but you can't exactly claim the current system produces legislation that doesn't cause industry professionals to choke on their coffee.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.