Constitutional future of Britain

[MrPresident]

If the abolition of the monarchy is achieved then the future political system for Britain is very hard to predict. I agree that the system of parliament with a weak president is likely because the fact that parliament with be very unlikely to give some of its powers to a president. However, as you said, the increasingly movement towards a president-style prime minister shows a clear desire in some quarters for a strong leading figure for government.

I agree with you that a prime minister does base their position of the support of their colleagues but you have to remember that the prime minister appoints these colleagues. With the exemption of Mr Brown there is no-one in the present government who Mr Blair could not sack from his cabinet. I think your idea that there should be more free votes is up there with no-one going hungry in the world, it is a good idea in the theory but thats where it ends. I also agree that the lords do vote more with their consciences. However they owe their appointment to a certain party (or leader) and if in doubt will side with them. Also a Prime Minister would hardly make a peer of someone who would oppose his/her legislation.

First of all I am not contradicting myself. A completely elected house of Lords could be make so it wouldn't become a rubber stamp for governments. Its members could be given fixed terms lengths and its numbers would be a lot smaller than of the house of commons. This would mean that the members would be elected more for who they are and what they believe rather than the party they belong too. How can the commons be a check on the executive? The majoity in the commons becomes the executive and so anything the executive wants to do can be passed by the legislation.

A problem Britain has is that it does not have either a strong second house or a supreme court to acts as checks on the executive. Therefore governments can get through more of their legislation without any opposition (which may be good for some things but not for marginally legislation).

The fact that America gets hardly anything passed could be to do with the completely contrasting points of view created by having a country the size of a continent. A law that would be good for New Hampshire may not be for, say, New Mexico. This is the same problem see in "Euroland".

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by MrPresident
If the abolition of the monarchy is achieved then the future political system for Britain is very hard to predict.

I would beg to differ, indeed it's very easy to predict. With so many working republican examples on our doorstep, what's the big problem?

Originally posted by MrPresident
I agree that the system of parliament with a weak president is likely because the fact that parliament with be very unlikely to give some of its powers to a president.

Who's saying we should give any powers to any future president anhyway? - Like I said, almost all republicans are content with the continental model with The President mainly being a figurehead and constitutional manager, nothing more.

Originally posted by MrPresident
However, as you said, the increasingly movement towards a president-style prime minister shows a clear desire in some quarters for a strong leading figure for government.

I said that prime minister's style's had beomce increasingly presidential. This does not equate to Blair being some sort of latter-day Stalin, however.

Originally posted by MrPresident
I agree with you that a prime minister does base their position of the support of their colleagues but you have to remember that the prime minister appoints these colleagues.

Why does he have people Like Prescott, Short, etc in the government, when they clearly don't do him any favours?

Two reasons:

-PM's should live by the maxim "Keep your friends clsoe and your enemies closer". If these people aren't kept in the government, then they're left to prowl about on the back benches causing trouble - Take Heseltine under Thatcher, for example.

-Keeping different sections of the party in The cabinet keeps it "placated". (Theoretically).

As you can see, PM's don't have full control in who they have to keep on/appoint to the cabinet. They have to appoint people strategically to some extent. hence, the PM can't 'hire and fire' whoever they like.

Originally posted by MrPresident
With the exemption of Mr Brown there is no-one in the present government who Mr Blair could not sack from his cabinet.

Tosh, if you'll pardon my French.

If he fired Prescott, Short etc, he would have a full scale left rebellion on his hands. Probably both in parliament and the wider party. 'Old' Labour support at the next election would plunge to dangerous levels, as traditional supporters desert the party in droves and go to The Socialist alliance or The Lib Dems.

Straw, Blunkett, going would leave a large gap in his senior supporters, aside from the fac that they are gifted political individuals.

If he sacked even half of his cabinet colleagues, he would be left with a gaping hole in his cabinet. Granted, he has thousands of made to measure Blairites to shove in their place, but people have grown to know these people. It's one of his great advantages over the Tories, that he has senior people who are actually known to the public.

In short, you're wrong.

Originally posted by MrPresident
think your idea that there should be more free votes is up there with no-one going hungry in the world, it is a good idea in the theory but thats where it ends.

And your idea on completely abolishing whips isn't?

Originally posted by MrPresident
I also agree that the lords do vote more with their consciences. However they owe their appointment to a certain party (or leader) and if in doubt will side with them

This isn't strictly true.

Firstly, The power to appoint is no longer in the power of the Prime Minister, and the House of Lords appointments commission now appoints peers.

Also, peers aren't simply appointed by their own party - new peers have to be from a range of political backgrounds, not the party that is currently in power.

Originally posted by MrPresident
Also a Prime Minister would hardly make a peer of someone who would oppose his/her legislation.

See above.

Originally posted by MrPresident
First of all I am not contradicting myself. A completely elected house of Lords could be make so it wouldn't become a rubber stamp for governments. Its members could be given fixed terms lengths and its numbers would be a lot smaller than of the house of commons.

This doesn't solve my original point on the importance of when they would be elected.

Originally posted by MrPresident
This would mean that the members would be elected more for who they are and what they believe rather than the party they belong too.

How?

Originally posted by MrPresident
How can the commons be a check on the executive? The majoity in the commons becomes the executive and so anything the executive wants to do can be passed by the legislation.

I didn't actually say that it did.

The executive is technically The Cabinet, hence it's not a certainty.

Also, in the cases of small majorities, the opposition can defeat bills when only a very small number of the government's MP's oppose it.

Originally posted by MrPresident
A problem Britain has is that it does not have either a strong second house or a supreme court to acts as checks on the executive. Therefore governments can get through more of their legislation without any opposition (which may be good for some things but not for marginally legislation).

Agreed, mostly.

Originally posted by MrPresident
The fact that America gets hardly anything passed could be to do with the completely contrasting points of view created by having a country the size of a continent. A law that would be good for New Hampshire may not be for, say, New Mexico. This is the same problem see in "Euroland".

I was pointing to the fact that under the American system you can have (And frequently do) an executive (president) from one party and a legislature from another, and there's a potential for the same thing if we have A fully elected HoL: The Lords being occupied by one party, and the commons being occupied by another.

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by MrPresident
The fact that America gets hardly anything passed could be to do with the completely contrasting points of view created by having a country the size of a continent. A law that would be good for New Hampshire may not be for, say, New Mexico. This is the same problem see in "Euroland".

I think the problem is that the Federal government tries to do too much. There are many reasons for the State governments and pasing laws to effect the region within their control is one of them. The problem that comes up is that the Consititution of the US guarantees that if it isn't illegal in one state that you would have the same immunity in all other states.

As to the subject of England and the monarchy. I say get rid of them and use the money for something more responsible.

 

[MrPresident]

I would beg to differ, indeed it's very easy to predict. With so many working republican examples on our doorstep, what's the big problem?

A Republican government of one country is not the same as another. Would you say America and Germany have the same government. I was not suggesting that Britain was to become a dictatorship under Blair but it is hard to predict what type of Republican government Britain would become.

Who's saying we should give any powers to any future president anhyway? - Like I said, almost all republicans are content with the continental model with The President mainly being a figurehead and constitutional manager, nothing more.

The problem I have with a weak president is that many people will say what is the point in changing from a monarchy. You seem to suggest that Britain is closer to Europe in its type of government, I would argue it is closer to America and so more likely to have a strong President.

Why does he have people Like Prescott, Short, etc in the government, when they clearly don't do him any favours?

I agree that Prescott and Short are there to placate certain sections but they are not rivals to Blair. If he wanted to get rid of them then he could do it. Again I was say that Mr Brown is the only potential rival to Blair. Straw and Blunkett are possibly future leaders but they are no where near ready to take on Blair. Sacking half of your cabinet is a bit extreme don't you think?

And your idea on completely abolishing whips isn't?

Abolishing whips and more free votes are one and the same thing.

The power to appoint is no longer in the power of the Prime Minister

That is a very navive view on things. Even though the PM doesn't have actually power to choose peers don't you think he could have a lot influence on the choices? I guarentee you that the next lot of appointment will have more Labour supporters than Tory and Lib Dem put together.

If someone trying to be elected is very well known to the electorate then they are more likely to vote more them than their party. Take for example Kenneth Clarke, his electorate may vote for him if they are pro-Europe despite the offical anti-Europe stance of the tories. This is because people know Kenneth Clark and his famous pro-Europe views.

I was pointing to the fact that under the American system you can have (And frequently do) an executive (president) from one party and a legislature from another, and there's a potential for the same thing if we have A fully elected HoL: The Lords being occupied by one party, and the commons being occupied by another.

I don't see a problem in this. Sure it will be harder for the executive to pass its legislation but is that such a bad thing. It will mean that they would be forced to compromise and take into account the views of other parties. If a piece of legislation was popular enough the opposition would be fools to oppose it.