Britain: Dump the monarchy?

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Oh come on, you know well that the whole point of the House of Lords is to look at legislation and see whats compatiable with British law and practicalites and all that.

And if the Government thinks it is compatiable and the House of Lords doesn't?

As for disservice, well it's hard not to when i see people getting angry at Blair for all the same reasons they love Cameron.

But do you agree that politicians don't put 'remove Monarchy' in their manifesto because they wouldn't get elected? You seemed to suggest so earlier.

 

[ComradeDavo]

And if the Government thinks it is compatiable and the House of Lords doesn't? .

Then once the House Of Lords has rejected it 3 times the government can use the parliment act to send it through.

But do you agree that politicians don't put 'remove Monarchy' in their manifesto because they wouldn't get elected? You seemed to suggest so earlier.

Not nessecarily. I'm saying that they would be attacked as traitors by the right wing press which a big risk to take.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Then once the House Of Lords has rejected it 3 times the government can use the parliment act to send it through.

So then the House of Lords has no power anyway? If all they do is check legislation why does it have to be elected? I'd much prefer to have experts in the field look at the impact of the legislation rather than someone with no other expertise than getting votes.

In my view having an elected House of Lords would inevitably lead to the legislation deadlock which you proposed with the elected Head of State.

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.

Not nessecarily. I'm saying that they would be attacked as traitors by the right wing press which a big risk to take.

What do they care? If it's popular enough to get them elected, why are they bothered what the press has to say? I think they don't enter this in a manifesto because, as MT has said, it would get them elected.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

But we know who is gonna be PM when we vote for a party if they win. You vote Tory, you know if they win Cameron will be PM. I would like a clause stating that if a party changes leader mid term there should be an election. That would be democratic.

You are trivilising it. Your ignoring the fact every single other issue on which people vote. You'd think i'd vote someone is is pro-Iraq war and pro-tax cuts just because they wanted to abolish the monarchy? No. There is more than one issue when you vote. And besides, I think it's pretty much established than in private alot of Lib Dems want toget rid of the monarchy as part of wider voting reform. they just ain't dumb enough to say it and get branded traitors by papers like the Sun.

I’ll have one last go at explaining to you how I see one part of our democracy works:

If you voted Labour at the last election you knew you were effectively voting for Blair as PM.
If you voted Labour, Tory or LibDem at the last election you knew you were effectively voting for the Queen as the Head of State. Because their manifesto said so. Or implied it

And similarly, if you were an EU hater and wanted out of the EU, you would know that if you voted for the top three parties you would most certainly not be leaving the EU.
Instead you should vote for UKIP who do call for leaving the EU.
If the EU haters can have their own party, why can’t the Monarchy haters?

Yes I know there are 1001 other reasons you vote for a particular party but you have to understand by putting your cross against the LDs you are supporting the status quo as regards the Monarchy.

Of course you could wait around for the main parties to have the necessary ant-Monarchy/anti EU (whichever floats your boat) promise in their manifesto. But I suggest both sets of ‘haters’ will have a long, long wait.

And that’s democracy; a very successful one at that.

 

[ComradeDavo]

So then the House of Lords has no power anyway? If all they do is check legislation why does it have to be elected? I'd much prefer to have experts in the field look at the impact of the legislation rather than someone with no other expertise than getting votes.

In my view having an elected House of Lords would inevitably lead to the legislation deadlock which you proposed with the elected Head of State.

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.

Are you actually trying to debate with me, or just frustrate me? I never said the House Of lords doesn't have any power. We get legislation deadlocks all the time at current anyways. Your basically saying that unelected people should have significant power in the governing of this country.

What do they care? If it's popular enough to get them elected, why are they bothered what the press has to say? I think they don't enter this in a manifesto because, as MT has said, it would get them elected.

You just ignored my point that a policy which would sustain alot of attack from the right-wing press is highly risky. You yourself seemed to have been swayed by the press with your recent move towards supporting Cameron.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I’ll have one last go at explaining to you how I see one part of our democracy works:

If you voted Labour at the last election you knew you were effectively voting for Blair as PM.
If you voted Labour, Tory or LibDem at the last election you knew you were effectively voting for the Queen as the Head of State. Because their manifesto said so. Or implied it

And similarly, if you were an EU hater and wanted out of the EU, you would know that if you voted for the top three parties you would most certainly not be leaving the EU.
Instead you should vote for UKIP who do call for leaving the EU.
If the EU haters can have their own party, why can’t the Monarchy haters?

Yes I know there are 1001 other reasons you vote for a particular party but you have to understand by putting your cross against the LDs you are supporting the status quo as regards the Monarchy.

Of course you could wait around for the main parties to have the necessary ant-Monarchy/anti EU (whichever floats your boat) promise in their manifesto. But I suggest both sets of ‘haters’ will have a long, long wait.

And that’s democracy; a very successful one at that.

Elections are more than one issue. I'm not going not vote Lib Dem just because of some redudant point your arguing

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Are you actually trying to debate with me, or just frustrate me? I never said the House Of lords doesn't have any power. We get legislation deadlocks all the time at current anyways. Your basically saying that unelected people should have significant power in the governing of this country.

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.

You just ignored my point that a policy which would sustain alot of attack from the right-wing press is highly risky.

Risky why? Because it could mean not being elected right?

You yourself seemed to have been swayed by the press with your recent move towards supporting Cameron.

I've been swayed by the actions of our current Government to consider the policies of other parties. I don't support anyone at present.

 

[ComradeDavo]

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.

And the status quo means unelected people having considerable power in running this country.

Risky why? Because it could mean not being elected right?

Thats a simple way to put. You know it's more complicated than that. Like being made to come across as anti-British and all kinds of crap that the Sun likes to sling around.

I've been swayed by the actions of our current Government to consider the policies of other parties. I don't support anyone at present.

Well don't be blind to Cameron's attempts to be Blair.

 

[ulsterman88]

I've been swayed by the actions of our current Government to consider the policies of other parties. I don't support anyone at present.

I dont suuport anyone either they all seem so similiar at the moment, Labour and the Conservatives are particularly hard to serperate on the policies in particular. Well thats what i think anyway.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

And the status quo means unelected people having considerable power in running this country.

Dave you keep changing your mind. One minute you say the House of Lords can be by-passed, then you say they have considerable power in running the country. Which is it?

Thats a simple way to put. You know it's more complicated than that. Like being made to come across as anti-British and all kinds of crap that the Sun likes to sling around.

If The Scum didn't think people supported that point of view they wouldn't put it in their rag. If Anti-Monarchy is protrayed as Anti-British doesn't that mean that the British do associate themselves with it?

 

[ComradeDavo]

Dave you keep changing your mind. One minute you say the House of Lords can be by-passed, then you say they have considerable power in running the country. Which is it?

Don'tyou get it? IT's BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously man, c'mon. Of course it has power because it can slow legislation down and alter it and so forth, meaning that the government may have to compromoise if it wanst to get it through quickly/on time. This means it has quite alot of poweer. However, if the government is determined enough and willing to take the time, after the Lords rejecting a bill 3 times it can enact the Parliment act and bypass the Lords.

Thus, the Lords does have considerable power because time is power!

If The Scum didn't think people supported that point of view they wouldn't put it in their rag. If Anti-Monarchy is protrayed as Anti-British doesn't that mean that the British do associate themselves with it?

No. I know alot of British people who want rid of the Monarchy. What i'm saying is that the Sun influences those people who are apathetic and only pay attention to the headlines before turning to page 3.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Don'tyou get it? IT's BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously man, c'mon. Of course it has power because it can slow legislation down and alter it and so forth, meaning that the government may have to compromoise if it wanst to get it through quickly/on time. This means it has quite alot of poweer. However, if the government is determined enough and willing to take the time, after the Lords rejecting a bill 3 times it can enact the Parliment act and bypass the Lords.

Thus, the Lords does have considerable power because time is power!

I think it's about time we stopped this debate as you don't seem to grasp the point I'm making.

House of Lords (unelected) therefore < House of Commons (elected)

House of Lords (elected) therefore = House of Commons (elected)

No. I know alot of British people who want rid of the Monarchy. What i'm saying is that the Sun influences those people who are apathetic and only pay attention to the headlines before turning to page 3.

So there are many apathetic people who, given the right stimulus, would vote to save the Monarchy?

 

[ComradeDavo]

I think it's about time we stopped this debate as you don't seem to grasp the point I'm making.

House of Lords (unelected) therefore < House of Commons (elected)

House of Lords (elected) therefore = House of Commons (elected)

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.

The House Of Lords job would not change if it was elected.

So there are many apathetic people who, given the right stimulus, would vote to save the Monarchy?

I suspect so, yes. Which is a bad thing which I believe needs to change. Weneed to stamp out political apathy in this country and get people caring about what happens.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

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 know exactly what the House of Lords does and I wager that my degree states that I know a great deal more about it than you.

The House Of Lords job would not change if it was elected.

Of course it would change. Perhaps not now, perhaps not in 20 years, but over time why should an elected House of Lords play second fiddle to the House of Commons when they have an equal mandate.

If you have any other reply than "it just will" or "because it always has done" I'll consider continuing the debate with you.

I suspect so, yes. Which is a bad thing which I believe needs to change. Weneed to stamp out political apathy in this country and get people caring about what happens.

In which case the Monarchy is there by the will of the people?

 

[ComradeDavo]

I know exactly what the House of Lords does and I wager that my degree states that I know a great deal more about it than you.

No need to get snobby.

Of course it would change. Perhaps not now, perhaps not in 20 years, but over time why should an elected House of Lords play second fiddle to the House of Commons when they have an equal mandate.

If you have any other reply than "it just will" or "because it always has done" I'll consider continuing the debate with you.

The whole purpose of the House Of Lords is to play 'second fiddle'. Personally, I wouldn't mind just abolishing it, but failing to abolish it i'd rather have elected members than selected members given the role it plays in legislation being passed.

In which case the Monarchy is there by the will of the people?

'Lack of will' more like.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

No need to get snobby.

Then don't make the assumption that because I don't study the policies of the Political Parties that I don't understand how Constitutional Law operates.

The whole purpose of the House Of Lords is to play 'second fiddle'.

I agree, which is exactly why there has been no need for it to be elected. It's power is less than that of the elected House of Commons. That, I believe, would change over time if both Houses were elected.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

@CD
You seem to think that all you need is a PR vote to select a House of Commons with no HofL if you can help (or if you do have one, it will be identical in makeup to the Commons).
This PR vote will also mean the leader of the winning party will be the PM/President/Head of State all rolled into one.

You do know that this is effectively an elected Dictator?

And the first thing Dictator Thatcher or Blair would have done would have been to pass a law abolishing the 5 year law for a new election and today we would be calling Thatcher “President-for-life”.

It shows you have little idea what part the Lords plays in our democracy and not the foggiest ides what part the Queen plays in it either.

You let petty hatreds blind you and it shows you do not even know what the word democracy means. It does not simply mean ‘PR’.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Then don't make the assumption that because I don't study the policies of the Political Parties that I don't understand how Constitutional Law operates.

And I made that assumption where?

I agree, which is exactly why there has been no need for it to be elected. It's power is less than that of the elected House of Commons. That, I believe, would change over time if both Houses were elected.

Anyone that has say over legislation should be elected.

 

[ComradeDavo]

@CD
You seem to think that all you need is a PR vote to select a House of Commons with no HofL if you can help (or if you do have one, it will be identical in makeup to the Commons).
This PR vote will also mean the leader of the winning party will be the PM/President/Head of State all rolled into one.

You do know that this is effectively an elected Dictator?

And the first thing Dictator Thatcher or Blair would have done would have been to pass a law abolishing the 5 year law for a new election and today we would be calling Thatcher “President-for-life”.

It shows you have little idea what part the Lords plays in our democracy and not the foggiest ides what part the Queen plays in it either.

You let petty hatreds blind you and it shows you do not even know what the word democracy means. It does not simply mean ‘PR’.

Petty hatred? An attack on my support for PR? Saying I support dictatorships? Why, you are excelling yourself today.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Petty hatred? An attack on my support for PR? Saying I support dictatorships? Why, you are excelling yourself today.

Why, thank you, good sir