Britain: Dump the monarchy?

[PrinceOfLeigh]

And I made that assumption where?

Here:

Thats because that point isn't valid because you don't understand what the House Of Lords actually does and the importance it has and how this country is effected by it, and how unelected peers have an important say in what legislation is and isn't enacted and the timescale in which that occurs.

I didn't think pleas to authority were your style to be honest Dave.

Anyone that has say over legislation should be elected.

To hell with the Constitutional conflicts that would arise?

 

[ComradeDavo]

Here:

I didn't think pleas to authority were your style to be honest Dave.

To hell with the Constitutional conflicts that would arise?

I was refering to the fact that you like to ignore the fact that something can have alot of power yet still be bypassed.

And 'constitutional conflicts'? Thats an excuse i've heard alot from people arguing against change.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

And 'constitutional conflicts'? Thats an excuse i've heard alot from people arguing against change.

Perhaps because those arguing for it haven't given any answers.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Perhaps because those arguing for it haven't given any answers.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you haven't been given one.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you haven't been given one.

"It just will" and "it always has" aren't answers.

 

[ComradeDavo]

"It just will" and "it always has" aren't answers.

The power of the Lords is curtailed by law. As the Commons propose laws, and would never give the Lords more power, this thus means the Lords will by default remian as the 'second' chamber.

 

[Mise]

Or, "if it ain't broke".

What is so horrific about that in real terms? What effective change has any recent Royal made without consent of the elected Parliament?

I prefer to leave the situation as it is. The elected Commons have all the power, as they are elected, the Lords merely recommend changes and the Head of State waves at tourists.

I don't see what is so terrible about that system that it needs overhauling into something which could have numerous consitutional conflicts.

I'm saying that the current status quo is favourable to having a fully elected House of Lords and Head of State without considering what Constitutional power each of those elements may have.

PoL, don't act as if you haven't simply been giving "it just will" and "it always has" answers. As out of context as these quotes may have been taken, all you've done in this thread is give a posteriori answers; there's no a priori reason why the current system is better than any other.

Put it this way: if you were to start this country again from scratch, would you still include an unelected second chamber?*

I'll agree that our current system works well for us. But it's exactly because "it always has", and "it just will".



* - Personally, I'd go for something like the French Senate, but without the Rural bias, not because it seems to work the best (perhaps it doesn't, I don't know), but because it seems the most logical (the final make-up is still largely dependent on the will of the people, but you limit the electorate to those "in the know", as it were).

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

God save the queen

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

PoL, don't act as if you haven't simply been giving "it just will" and "it always has" answers. As out of context as these quotes may have been taken, all you've done in this thread is give a posteriori answers; there's no a priori reason why the current system is better than any other.

Put it this way: if you were to start this country again from scratch, would you still include an unelected second chamber?*

Fair enough.

In relation to the Head of State I don’t believe there is any need for change. An unelected Head of State isn’t a problem for me since they have no real power anyway. I don’t believe that the Monarchy doesn’t have the support of a vast amount of the populace because if it didn’t, as MT has said, a party would have utilised that fact to get themselves elected. Whilst both the Lib Dems and Tory’s have dabbled in reducing the Queen’s power, none have risked recommending outright abolision because they know that they wouldn’t get elected. Again.

The other positive factor of having an unelected Head of State is that the power of Parliament isn’t questioned. Read any book written in relation to the UK Constitution and they will all tell you that the Monarchy hasn’t used her Prerogative against the wishes of Parliament for so long simply because she doesn’t have a mandate to do so. An elected Head of State may well claim such a mandate. Why should a Head of State give Assent to a Bill they don’t agree with when they have received equal, or more, votes than the Government?

I don’t say that the current system in relation to the House of Lords is perfect, or isn’t in need of reform. What I’m saying is that elections are necessarily the answer. Again the matter relates to the mandate that the House of Commons and House of Lords have. The House of Commons, quite rightly, can push through any legislation it chooses because the House of Lords doesn’t have the power to question the elected commons. If the House of Lords is elected, again, why should the Commons have the power to override the Lords if both are elected? As those commenting on the Wakeham Report state:

Those who fear that a House of Lords with increased authority will challenge the status of the Commons and cause constitutional conflict - or "gridlock" as the Americans call it when the Senate and the Congress disagree

In my view if we are to reform the House of Lords, it should be appointed by some form of cross party commission. The reason for this being as Lord Steel states:

The great strength of the Lords is that it contains not just a bunch of experienced retired MPs but a whole raft of individuals with specialist knowledge and experience from the worlds of commerce, medicine, the services, the civil service, academia, the unions - the list is endless - none of whom would be likely to be available to stand for election.

The House of Lords should be there to ensure that the Bills which are placed for Royal Assent are technically and efficiently drafted to fit whatever purpose it was proposed for. I don’t believe that the House of Lords will be able to maintain that expertise by being elected.

 

[Mozza]

Don't depose the Monarchy, but it should be changed so idiots like Charles get passed up in succession.

I generally oppose the monarchy, though I do feel it's a minor issue as they have no power other than that of influence (which they would retain if they were removed from "office" as the royalists that allow themselves to be influenced would still view them as the monarchy even if the nation did not officially recognise the title). If we must have a monarch I think Charles would be fantastic, he's supposed to be a figurehead and he would be the first monarch since Victoria willing to speak his mind and not to be scared of upsetting people. This is the kind of person I want to be represented by, if I must be represented by someone other thanb myself, not a smiling friend-to-everyone politician who's scared to say what needs saying. With the right Prime Minister (and I can come up with no likely candidates at present for that role) King Charles III could be part of a very effective diplomatic double act.