Constitutional future of Britain

[Simon Darkshade]

One will just pop one's head up into this veritable wasp nest of republicans , and say that we are not amused. Dumping the monarchy will not change anything of the social fabric of the country, or solve any of its problems. It will only give a little more cash to the public purse that will be wasted away on something that does not directly benefit communities, given that the government is opposed to spending money in such a fashion anyway

Having a monarch and aristocracy sets us apart from the rest of the world in a way which does no real harm. Their standard of behaviour may have dropped in the younger generations, but this is endemic of society as a whole, and the tabloid press can paint a ruinous picture of anyone.

The republican movement in Australia is fairly much stuck in a rut at the moment, having not really impressed the public with its elite contempt for their will, and lacking any momentum whatsoever. In addition, the majority of the population remains in support of the current model, because it ain't broke, including the vast majority of the aging population. As for me, Her Majesty is my sovereign, and until that changes, I am loyal and respectful.

"Cromwell wasn't too bad. Save from being overly religious, he was a good statesman and soldier. He beat The Dutch, The Scottish and The Irish, for starters. Certainly made his point regarding an insitution that had gone unchallenged politically for hunderds of years, sigh"

Now this is a novel point of view. He was more than overly religious, even by the standards of the time. He was a good soldier (not that he was up against a genius) and a fair politician and statesman, but he is still remembered as a butcher in Ireland and Scotland for his genocidal policies. The fact that there was so much celebration and jubilation at his demise, and the fact they dug up his corpse and hanged it at a later date does indicate some level of public dissatisfaction with his performance. In my view, his main legacy was to ensure that any republican movement in England in the succeeding years would be viewed very dimly indeed. His point was promptly ignored and forgotten, in terms of republicanism. In terms of opposition to absolute monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings, it is not. But he was bad. Very bad.
And a regicide to boot

 

[MrPresident]

can't imagine any half-decent polling agency doing that, as it would produde a diliberately distorted picture. Opinion polls aren't some crappy door to door job nowadays, you know, there are professional polling agaencies with reliable methods.

Not that I want to appear as some pain in the ass picking on a completely irrelevant subject but.....the most successful opinion are in fact door-to-door ones. The reason they rarely used is because of the obviously high expense of such a poll.

Back to the thread's subject. I believe that the monarchy in Britain will be abolished in only a few generations time (maybe earlier). This is because of the growing republic feeling among British youth, the reclutance of the monarchy to change over the previous 50 or so years, the likely hood of a European state, The fact that the monarchy is now unnecessary (despite what people say about tourism) and possibly due to the ablitily of the royals to disgrace themselves repeatly (see Prince Philip and his comments). Personally, I see no need for a monarchy as their job can be done by a president who would be democratically elected (and Britain needs more of that). As a side note the British monarchy is more German than British.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times - Democracy results in uppity commoners and poor people who don't even have a knighthood presuming that they can think for themselves. Sheer bolshiness!











I do think that in some cases, republicanism is influenced by a certain degree of jealousy that someone else is getting more stuff and more attention (President Paul Keating comes to mind )

 

[Thorgalaeg]

It is just like a little kid losing in an arguement and starts insulting for no reason

I believe the counter-part to Spanish would be Israeli, not Jew. This would be like me addressing you as Christian, or taking my incomplete history of Spain into accountount, Catholic.

You can call me Catholic if you want, I do not feel insulted. It is necessary to have the dirty conscience to feel insulted when they call you for your name!.

 

[Wolfe Tone]

One thing that I resent about th British Monarchy is that all Democratically elected members of parliment have to swear an oath of alligence to the monarch. Around my area four Sinn Fein members were elected by the people to represent them. They however will not swear an oath as a matter of principle. They should be allowed to take their rightly won postitions and represnt their constituants to the best of their abilities.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Not that I want to appear as some pain in the ass picking on a completely irrelevant subject but.....the most successful opinion are in fact door-to-door ones. The reason they rarely used is because of the obviously high expense of such a poll.

I'm dubious about this. I always thought that telephone polling, etc delivered better results.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
One will just pop one's head up into this veritable wasp nest of republicans , and say that we are not amused. Dumping the monarchy will not change anything of the social fabric of the country, or solve any of its problems.

The monarchy doesn't uphold the social fabric, but it does reinforce it by it's very nature. It's an icon of non-progress to me.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
but it does It will only give a little more cash to the public purse that will be wasted away on something that does not directly benefit communities, given that the government is opposed to spending money in such a fashion anyway

And the monarchy does directly benefit people?

Anyway, as I've already mentioned the cash these people use to support their lavish existences is persuasive, but not a decider for me.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
The republican movement in Australia is fairly much stuck in a rut at the moment, having not really impressed the public with its elite contempt for their will, and lacking any momentum whatsoever. In addition, the majority of the population remains in support of the current model, because it ain't broke, including the vast majority of the aging population. As for me, Her Majesty is my sovereign, and until that changes, I am loyal and respectful.

You're deluding yourself with regards to the wishes of your countrymen. I am perhaps doing this to a lesser extent.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
The fact that there was so much celebration and jubilation at his demise, and the fact they dug up his corpse and hanged it at a later date does indicate some level of public dissatisfaction with his performance.

That's a rather naive point of view. History is written by the victors and all that.

Perhaps if Cromwell hadn't made such an arse out of himself domestically post-civil war, with his religion inspired non-ideas, then people would have been more favourable. Alas, 'twas not to be.

 

[knowltok3]

Can I assume by your post that they are not currently allowed to take their posts? That is disturbing. I think an oath of alliegence to the country is one thing, but to a few individuals is something else entirely.

 

[Wolfe Tone]

knowltok3 I assume your talking to me and no they are not allowed to take their seats in the House of Commons. They have however gained use of their office space in Wesminister. I believe they are still fighting.

QC's (prosecuters in legal cases) have to take an oath of allliegence to the monarch however some candiates got that decesion overturned

 

[ComradeDavo]

It is my hope that the Monarchy will be abolished and we get a 'proper' democracy here in Britain.

Apparently there are republicans in the current Labour cabinet so perhaps sometime in near future we will see steps taken towards the removal of the monarchy.

And anti-monarchists seem to be in abundance now and I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few anti-monarchist demonstrations to coincide with the jubelee (spelling?) this year. And I know that the Queen herself is visting my city Bath sometime in the year so I might even get to participate in one myself! (note: this probably won't happen)

Wolfe Tone - I agree with you that the Sinn Fein members should be allowed to take their place in the house of commons without having to swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen.

 

[knowltok3]

I agree that it is terrible that they aren't allowed to serve without an oath to the Monarchy. Not exactly democratic. This takes the case out of the realm of principle, and into one of practical. Best wishes to those who wish to remove the Monarchy from its official role in British politics. (Who'd of thought ComradeDavo and I would agree on something?)

 

[andycapp]

I'm prepared to make a right royal prophecy and say that if Prince Willy was to succeed to the throne in place of his disaster prone father (let's say Chuck decides he wants to elope with Camilla ) than the British monarchy would probably be safe for another generation.

If however, Charlie does become king as expected, I'm predicting the iminent demise of the monarchy - public opinion in these sorts of matters does not depend so much on logic as emotion.

Young Willy has goodlooks, an engaging personality and intelligence and Chuck has - big ears and a penchant for foot in mouth!

You're right Hamlet the evil Darkshade is deluding himself, he is obviously sniffing to much snuff with those royalist chaps and has failed to notice that the vast majority of Australians want to get rid of the monarchy, but can't yet agree on what to replace it with.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by andycapp
I'm prepared to make a right royal prophecy and say that if Prince Willy was to succeed to the throne in place of his disaster prone father (let's say Chuck decides he wants to elope with Camilla ) than the British monarchy would probably be safe for another generation.

If however, Charlie does become king as expected, I'm predicting the iminent demise of the monarchy - public opinion in these sorts of matters does not depend so much on logic as emotion.

Young Willy has goodlooks, an engaging personality and intelligence and Chuck has - big ears and a penchant for foot in mouth!

This is all very well and good, but for William to ascend to the throne in place of Charles, Charles would actually have to consent to it, which I can't really see happening, to be honest.

There is no legal basis for 'skipping a generation' when the present Queen dies/abdicates. To do so would - like in 1936 - require an act of parliament, with Charles consenting.

In my humble opinion, this whole debate will really come to a head when the present Queen's reign ends. Whether the monarchy will survive to even see the reign of King William is quite debatable, really.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I was right about the wasp nest, I see.

"The monarchy doesn't uphold the social fabric, but it does reinforce it by it's very nature. It's an icon of non-progress to me."

What I mean is that removing the monarchy will not suddenly lead to an upsurge in egalitarianism, nor will it alter class boundaries, nor will it change living standards, nor will it increase spending on public health, education or any number of things. Just removing the monarchy and replacing it with another elite, which is what a presidential caste and court is, WILL NOT SOLVE any of the REAL PROBLEMS of society.
To label the institution as an icon of non-progress is to suggest that it has an active role in the political and social process. The monarchy is a figurehead, and an embodiment of history. Progress only for its own sake is rather nonsensical.


"And the monarchy does directly benefit people?

Anyway, as I've already mentioned the cash these people use to support their lavish existences is persuasive, but not a decider for me."

Not all people, but it does no harm. There are a lot of people who appreciate it, and find it comforting; namely the older generations in society whose opinions and beliefs are to often written off as dementia.
What else would womens magazines write about?
You cannot prove that it does not directly benefit people.

"You're deluding yourself with regards to the wishes of your countrymen. I am perhaps doing this to a lesser extent"

If I am deluding myself by saying that republicanism is not a burning issue in my country, then I would be surprised. People just do not care about what is basically an elitist cause. The referendum, although convoluted by the model, was conclusive. The issue of republicanism is not sparking debate in the newspapers or media, or the general public. There are no demonstrations in the street. The ARM is an elitist lawyers club, in the view of many ordinary Australians.

I am not presuming to know the will of every man and woman in my nation. To do so IN ANY CASE would be folly. What I do know is the opinions of the many people I know from all facets of society. This is not delusion, I am simply saying that these people either do not really care about the republican issue, or are for keeping the present system of constitutional monarchy.

The real delusion is to believe that everyone in your country thinks like you, and that you, unless you have personal access to the means of finding out the opinions of everyone. Certainly, "most people in my circle", or "most people I mix with, and perhaps have somewhat similar lifestyles and beliefs to me".

I am not deluded. I merely assert that I would know a fair bit about my own country's political process, and the political mood. I would also assert that I would be able to discern the views of the wide variety of people who one moves among.

And Andy, I have not been taking too much snuff. I am simply asserting my opinion, and interpretation of the political situation. I invite you, Hamlet or anyone to prove that "the vast majority" want what you say.

"That's a rather naive point of view. History is written by the victors and all that.

Perhaps if Cromwell hadn't made such an arse out of himself domestically post-civil war, with his religion inspired non-ideas, then people would have been more favourable. Alas, 'twas not to be."

There is no naivity in my view of Cromwell. People did not like his rule domestically, but were cowed by his power. He was also a butcher, and is still regarded so in Ireland and Scotland. It is not a case of history being written by the victors, but a case of Cromwell being no better than any other dictator. His period is not remembered as one of liberty and happiness, but as a drab and dark time. This is the abject historical truth. People are not favourable about Cromwell because he was a murderous dictator, who replaced one kind of absolutism with one that was arguably worse, and because he made no provision for the continuance of his system. He was just another usurper king who used another title.

And I do agree on the matter of the Sinn Fein MPs.

 

[andycapp]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade

I am not deluded. I merely assert that I would know a fair bit about my own country's political process, and the political mood. I would also assert that I would be able to discern the views of the wide variety of people who one moves among.

Simon, on this issue, I think you are deluding yourself (in an appropriately evil sort of way ) that the vast majority of Australians would prefer the British monarchy to an Australian head of state.

The referendum proved three things:

1. most Australians were not happy with the constitutional model offered to them and

2. John Howard is a clever politican who was able to set-up the referendum to achieve his desired outcome

3. republicans have much work to do developing a constitutional model that will appeal to most Australians and thereby avoiding the damaging split that allowed the monarchists to defeat the referendum

The research done both before and after the referendum showed that approx 75%(+) of voters would prefer an Australian head of state.

As to your comments about the ARM, I can understand why you think they're "an elitist lawyers club" but it is worth pointing out that there are far more ordinary Aussies who belong to ARM than the high profile celebrities, lawyers and merchant bankers that they somewhat stupidly focused on during the referendum.

I won't argue that there are not issues of more pressing concern to Australians however, based on my observations, the vast majority of Australians would prefer, if given the chance, to have an Australian head of state .

And Andy, I have not been taking too much snuff. I am simply asserting my opinion, and interpretation of the political situation. I invite you, Hamlet or anyone to prove that "the vast majority" want what you say.

If by "prove" you mean with statistics, quotes, links etc, I will have a look around and see what I can drag up - give me a bit of time.

And Simon, of course you are entitled to your own opinion (one that I have much respect for) although your interpretation does suprise me, given the amount of analysis that preceded and followed the referendum.

Btw next time you're in Melbourne look me up at the Melbourne Club and we will do snuff with the chaps - I'm sure they will be in right royal agreement with you about the monarchy. Just remember to powder your wig - the club has standards.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

One knows they have standards; one gets reciprocal membership from the Drones Club and the Filthy Rich Society I have a wig, properly powdered with moon dust, for every day of the week, and two for Thursdays.

I guess my point is that the issue is rather burnt out here at the moment, and it does not have the same profile or urgency. What I am trying to communicate is not a forthright conviction that the majority of Australians are monarchists, but that the vast majority do not feel that the issue is pressing or important. Also, a lot of elderly people I know disapprove of any sort of change.

Maybe later down the line, it may come again. To me and my contemporaries, both aristocrats and slaves , it is not a matter of concern. The ARM failed to keep the attention up on the issue.

Another thing that does concern me slightly is who would get in as a popularly elected president - a sportsman/woman, Dick Smith etc. This would fairly much be farcical. Not to say the GGs have been any good- A Lions supporter, Sir John "Wan" Kerr, Bill Deane etc, etc.
Nor does the notion of an "elder statesman" getting the role enamour itself to me, which is what ol' Mal Fraser is trying to set himself up for now, methinks .

Frankly, none of the options are any good, so until I see a model that is workable, respectable, and not a laughing stock for the rest of the world, then I think that it is a non-issue.

Of course there is one option for president that would be most seemly -me. But that would just be the beginning of a slippery slope to fascism, daily human sacrifice, cavorting druids, death by stoning and dung for dinner In other words, not for about 15 years, then the electorate will be ready for such...pastimes.

 

[MrPresident]

First of all I thought this poll was about the constitutional future of Britain and not Australia. Even so I will venture my opinion on the latter. To me (an Englishman) it seems slighty disturbing that the Australians do not have an Australian as their head of state. I know the same could be said about the Scots, Welsh etc. The head of state is the representation of that country to the rest of the world. It is the person who can stand up and say that I speak for that country. For a country to have a foreign head of state seems to me to defend that purpose.

As for the argument that the removing the monarchy will not solve the problems of that country, well I have a problem with it. Take Britain for example, if the monarchy is removed then there will have to be some kind of president and in all likely hood it will be a strong executive (on the American model). This is particularly important in Britain because our current political situation is hugely damaged by the power of party whips. MPs usually do not have a chance to vote for they think is best for their constituents but what the party leadership wants. If there is a strong president then parliament will be mainly left to approve new laws. Although in theory the president will be head of their party there will also be a head of parliament for the majority party. So if their views clash then hopefully the power of the party whips will be neutralised and MPs will finally have a free vote. So in conclusion the removing of the head of state and the changing of the political landscape may have a little effect of how problems of society are solved.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
What I mean is that removing the monarchy will not suddenly lead to an upsurge in egalitarianism, nor will it alter class boundaries, nor will it change living standards, nor will it increase spending on public health, education or any number of things. Just removing the monarchy and replacing it with another elite, which is what a presidential caste and court is, WILL NOT SOLVE any of the REAL PROBLEMS of society.

Granted. However, it does represent an outdated system of governance, feudal structure, hereditary privilage etc.

We got rid of hereditary peers because they presented the same image. Hopefully one day the monarchy will go the same way as they did.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
To label the institution as an icon of non-progress is to suggest that it has an active role in the political and social process. The monarchy is a figurehead, and an embodiment of history. Progress only for its own sake is rather nonsensical.

People should be able to choose who is their head of state, and the monarchy does not allow for that. That is non-progress, as is it's continual presence.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Not all people, but it does no harm. There are a lot of people who appreciate it, and find it comforting; namely the older generations in society whose opinions and beliefs are to often written off as dementia.
What else would womens magazines write about?

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
You cannot prove that it does not directly benefit people.

'He who suggests must prove', hence you have to prove that it does, not me proving otherwise.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
If I am deluding myself, etc, etc.

This point is wholly moot. Politicians do care about this issue, particularly Republican ones. Whether it is a great concern of the nation or no, they do genuinely feel strongly with regards to this, whilst the general population does not. They are the ones who have the will and the means to carry this through, and they will, sometime in the future in the form of another referenda on the issue.

If your theory had any value, then care to explain why was there a referendum in the first place? Simple, politicans cared enough about the isue to set one in motion. It will happen again. Hopefully with a question that presents an acceptable republican model to the majority of Australians.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
The real delusion is to believe that everyone in your country thinks like you,

I have already admited that this is so.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
There is no naivity in my view of Cromwell. People did not like his rule domestically, etc

Cromwell made a foul up at home, simply put.

The pratice of the butchery of The Irish in particular, along with other groups in the isles was not established by him, and it was not discontiued when his reign ended.

If he had retained, perhaps even expanded parliamentary power, and not allowed his religious beliefs to invade upon domestic policies, had a better feeling for the mood of the nation, then he would have done a lot better. Unfortunately, he was one of those types of men who believed that what he was doing was 'right'.

I would like to believe that people held unethical military practices high upon their list of concerns, however I doubt it. Those were the days of the execution of any battlefield prisoners etc. Although civilian butchering is obviously in a different league, morality concerning such matters was radically different than it is today.

He could have done a lot of good, however he choose to squander that oppurtunity upon enforcing his own views upon everyone else.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
And I do agree on the matter of the Sinn Fein MPs.

As do I. People should be made to swear to uphold the law, not to swear allegiance to an individual. I would say the constitution, but alas, we don't really have one.

Originally posted by MrPresident
To me (an Englishman) it seems slighty disturbing that the Australians do not have an Australian as their head of state.

Likewise.

Originally posted by MrPresident
Take Britain for example, if the monarchy is removed then there will have to be some kind of president and in all likely hood it will be a strong executive (on the American model).

Now, now, we are deviating from reality here. I know of no republicans or republican organisation in Britain that advocates fashioning any would-be republic along the lines of the American model. There seems to be a consesus amongst us that any future republic should be a French, or European style system. If you know differently, then please say.

Originally posted by MrPresident
This is particularly important in Britain because our current political situation is hugely damaged by the power of party whips. MPs usually do not have a chance to vote for they think is best for their constituents but what the party leadership wants.

Granted, in part, although I'd probably be in that camp that believes whips are a necessary evil. Sorry, although I am very sympathetic to your point on this.

Originally posted by MrPresident
If there is a strong president then parliament will be mainly left to approve new laws. Although in theory the president will be head of their party there will also be a head of parliament for the majority party. So if their views clash

See above.

 

[knowltok3]

Of course there is one option for president that would be most seemly -me. But that would just be the beginning of a slippery slope to fascism, daily human sacrifice, cavorting druids, death by stoning and dung for dinner In other words, not for about 15 years, then the electorate will be ready for such...pastimes.

Slippery slope? To me that indicates a gradual decline, not the pulling headlong towards the cliff. We all know that those policies you mention would not be instituted gradually, but as soon as you could muscle them through. Once under your boot the land would never recover, and there would be no early period of possible redemption for the nation. Don't try and delude us that your corruption of the avenues of power would be slow or slide down any type of slope.

:rocket3:


All that said, if it happens, will you need a minister of finance and covorting druids?

 

[MrPresident]

the matter of the Sinn Fein MPs

Okay let me clear something up to everyone. If you become a member of paliament then you don't have to swear alliengence to the monarchy (this is shown by the fact that there are promient republican MPs). You do, however, have to swear an oath to the United Kingdom and parliament. Sinn Fein MPs refuse to do this as they do not believe in the UK. My personally opinion is that they should be allowed to take their seats because this is a democracy and they were elected.

What else would womens magazines write about?

What are you talking about, just womens magazines? Surely if the monarchy was abolition then a lot of the world's media would suffer, especially newspapers such as The Sun and The Daily Star (sorry for any people who don't know these papers but they write a lot about anything to do with the monarchy).

There seems to be a consesus amongst us that any future republic should be a French

Okay I admit what I am going to say is going to say a little prejudice but it is the truth. The British public would never accept anything from the French(and vice versa - see the BSE export legal case). Anything the current system in Britain has a strong President it is just that they are called a Prime Minister. If you say that the cabinet has more power than in America then consider the fact that the Prime Minister appoints them and so appoints people who will agree with him/she (most of the time, with the exception of Gordon Brown).

whips are a necessary evil

I am tempted to agree with you because in different circumstances the power of the whips could be acceptable. However I think that would require an independent (whip-free) second house to keep a watchful eye over the house of commons. Sadly we have a second house that is not a elected (and in the future if Blair gets his way will only have a few elected peers) and in most situations passes government legislature straight away, except when it is to due with hunting and the consent for homosexual sex (read into that what you will). In America however the power of the whips is limited by the fact that the elected individuals are elected because of who they are and what they believe rather than which party they belong to.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by MrPresident
The British public would never accept anything from the French(and vice versa - see the BSE export legal case).

This is silliness. The American system of government is rather unique in the way it structures government around the president, with few other similar examples, Russia perhaps being one. The majority of republics are structured around a European, PM + President model. Whether you like this or no, it would be the most likely route any future British Republic would take.

Originally posted by MrPresident
Anything the current system in Britain has a strong President it is just that they are called a Prime Minister. If you say that the cabinet has more power than in America then consider the fact that the Prime Minister appoints them and so appoints people who will agree with him/she (most of the time, with the exception of Gordon Brown).

I reject your accusation that we practically have presidential government now. Recent Prime Minister's styles have become increasingly presidential, Thatcher and Blair being the notable examples. However this does not equate to having presidential government.

As we see by the downfall of Thatcher, ("Treachery. Treachery with a smile on it's face." as the Lady herself describes the incident as. ) whether a PM likes it or no, they have to have the backing of their cabinet colleaques or their future will be bleak. Her allienation of succesive minsters such as Howe, Lawson etc eventuall reached a head with this.

If Blair lost, say Brown and Prescott tommorow, and the two of them were left to prowl the back benches, then how stable would his position be?

PM's can be out-voted, dismissed and generally chucked out in a way that the US President cannot - Look at the number of Presidents that have been impeached - relatively few. The President is not part of the legislature, is directly elected, hence has more legitimacy (Theoretically), and essentially is The Executive, with his/her secretaries of departments in more of an advisory role. PM's don't have those reassurances.

Essentially, PM's still rely upon their support from their senior colleagues for their political future. Any large disagreements within cabinet won't go away, no matter who you appoint or dismiss. In effect, cabinet government still exists, although it may appear not to.

Originally posted by MrPresident
I am tempted to agree with you because in different circumstances the power of the whips could be acceptable.

I think a lot more free votes on certain issues would be a good way of resolving this, however I don't agree that whips should be totally abolished.

Originally posted by MrPresident
However I think that would require an independent (whip-free) second house to keep a watchful eye over the house of commons.

Whips generally aren't used as muich in the lords as in the commons. Generally peers vote according more to their consciences than their party lines.

Originally posted by MrPresident
Sadly we have a second house that is not a elected (and in the future if Blair gets his way will only have a few elected peers)

You seem to be contradicitng yourself here.

If we had a completely elected Lords, then it has the potential to be a complete rubber stamp, or a total block upon legislation, possibly more so than it is often now.

This would all depend upon when it was elected. If it was elected around the same time as general elections, it would most likely end up being a rubber stamp: basically a second commons.

If it was elected mid-term, then it could have the possibility of blocking legilsaion more so than it does currently. Voters are notorious for making protest votes in elections mid-term- Look at The outcome of The European and council elections. about the only electoral sucesses the Tory's had.

Additionally, if The Lords was fully elected, it may claim the same powers as the Commons has. Why should it only be allowed to delay and revise legislation is it has the same legitimacy as the commons has?

In all fairness, you really need to take more time to consider this. You seem to want a Lords that is a check on the government, but not one in the shape of a Tory majority in the lords.

Originally posted by MrPresident
and in most situations passes government legislature straight away, except when it is to due with hunting and the consent for homosexual sex (read into that what you will).

This is untrue. The lords has proved itself, rightly or wrongly to be a greater check on the executive than The commons, with it often taking point at bad, rushed, or poor legislation. The bill on terrorism, for example.

Originally posted by MrPresident
In America however the power of the whips is limited by the fact that the elected individuals are elected because of who they are and what they believe rather than which party they belong to.

Yes, and bugger all in the way of legislation gets passed, too as a result.