Do you support the Royal Family?

Watch
This discussion is closed.
curryADD
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#201
Report 16 years ago
#201
(Original post by happysunshine)
How is that narrow-minded? Everything included is correct.
its vienna.....she always is a BIT puzzeling
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#202
Report 16 years ago
#202
(Original post by pkonline)
But there is a point to which the Lords can moan about legislation. Take for example fox hunting. Everyone sane wants to ban it, it was voted on in the Commons, but the Lords keep holding it up. They impede democracy.

I'd definately rate the Lords highly if it was independently appointed. But at present, it can't expect to be able to do this kinda stuff when most are either cronies, ex civil servants, ex-politicians or hereditary.
Who are you to pass judgement on who is sane, Labour has a huge majority in the House of Commons so it could basically pass anything it wanted to, even look at the contreversial two tier health system, that scraped through despite a huge rebellion by Labour backbenchers. All the Lords can do is impede, they are unable to create legislation, they can only suggest amendments and their position is important as they can look in detail at problems within bills for which there is little time in the HoC. They do not impede democracy as for a start we do not have democracy, or only once every four years or so, the public does not take decisions, a few highly charismatic individuals do, mob rule? Most of the problems that people state with the HoL, eg them not being elected makes them good at their position as they do not have to worry about elections. It also prevents a government from being able to do anything they want as the monarch has to help them create new peers in order to gain a majority and these individuals help to slow down and in greater detail examine what will directly affect us.
0
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#203
Report 16 years ago
#203
Interesting thread when we turn to the Lords.

Firstly, let's clarify. Are we talking about an appointed upper chamber or an elected upper chamber?

It is a matter of fact that the Lords is largely appointed and the majority of seats in the House of Lords are held by lifetime peers. As a matter of fact there remain only 92 hereditary peers sitting in the Lords.

Who appoints these folks? Well,

The House of Lords Appointments Commission for starters.

This unelected quango was set up by the Government as part of its plan to modernise the House of Lords. It is supposed to be independent of Government but given that its staff are civil servants, who are either members of the Cabinet Office or on loan to it from other Government departments or agencies this I'd think is questionable.

So, what does this mean? For all practical purpose it means that the government of the day can recommend to ERII who should hold a seat in the upper house, either through the Commission itself or by other means (ie recommendation direct from PM in honors lists etc)

Does this appointed solution sound healthy to you? An second chamber appointed by the PM? Doesn't sound that great to me!

So, what's the other solution? Erm........you guessed it.......an elected upper chamber. Any point to it?

Well, if you think about it, there's absolutely no point at all as under an elected system the makeup of the Lords would surely mirror the makeup of the commons and the Lords themselves would just become a rubber stamp formality for any new legislation coming from the commons.

In many ways therefore, the hereditary system has served us well and for hundreds of years has provided independent checks and balances to some of the ludicrous legislation that vomits forth from the Commons.

Rarely, has the Lords been out of sync with the electorate. Surprisingly in fact, the Lords has often seemed more in tune with the man on the Clapham omnibus than our elected representitives in the Commons.

And when they are out of sync? So what? Legislation can be forced through by a neat little number called the Parliament Act 1925 which permits the Commons to overule the Lords.

So, if an appointed Lords is open to cronyism, and an elected one only mirrors the elected commons, and we object to hereditary peers because it's "snot fair" what other avenues are open to us?

Howard
1
YouKnewThat!
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#204
Report 16 years ago
#204
Yesterday, one of the Queen's dogs was attacked by one of Princess Anne's dogs, and they had to put it down. Oh dear!

P.S. Don't really support the Royal Family- just occaisionally gawp at what boring events occur in their oh-so-rosy lives. :cool:
2
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#205
Report 16 years ago
#205
(Original post by Howard)
So, if an appointed Lords is open to cronyism, and an elected one only mirrors the elected commons, and we object to hereditary peers because it's "snot fair" what other avenues are open to us?
Great post

I would suggest having an elected upper house using proportional representation rather than first past the post - that way the problems in both election systems are ironed out by each other and in theory every vote counts. In fact you could simply use the results from a single election to populate both houses (which might put an end to tactical voting).

It would be more interesting than either of the other 2 options.
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#206
Report 16 years ago
#206
(Original post by Howard)
Interesting thread when we turn to the Lords.
Excellant post.

To add to it, if you look at Lord Strathclyde, he has progressed through the Lords, and I believe he is now Shadow Leader of the Lords. However, he is an hereditary, so when they go, so will he. However, I think the Lords should be fully appointed, but with more non-political Lords ie. those who have not been affiliated with political parties. A deciding factor for this might be those who have achieved something significant, or have spent time on worthy causes, such as Lord Adebowale. It is difficult to find a fiar appointing procedure, any PM will want a majority in the Lords, but there are some who are officially neutral. I believe the upper house needs more of these.
0
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#207
Report 16 years ago
#207
Yes, that's PR might be a nice idea!
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#208
Report 16 years ago
#208
(Original post by Howard)
Yes, that's PR might be a nice idea!
I don't like the idea of an elected Lords, maybe it's something to do with the prestige of the title but I think you should earn it.
0
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#209
Report 16 years ago
#209
Another idea. Non political apointees.

Can't help wondering what exactly would qualify someone like Esther Ransem (who "does a lot of work for charidy") to be a part of the legislative process.

Howard
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#210
Report 16 years ago
#210
(Original post by Pencil Queen)
Great post

I would suggest having an elected upper house using proportional representation rather than first past the post - that way the problems in both election systems are ironed out by each other and in theory every vote counts. In fact you could simply use the results from a single election to populate both houses (which might put an end to tactical voting).

It would be more interesting than either of the other 2 options.
I too would be in favour of getting some extreme views into the HoL like the Greens and the BNP, who under PR I will give my vote just to see the fun and games in the HoL. What a wonderful Idea.
0
curryADD
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#211
Report 16 years ago
#211
(Original post by Howard)
Another idea. Non political apointees.

Can't help wondering what exactly would qualify someone like Esther Ransem (who "does a lot of work for charidy") to be a part of the legislative process.

Howard
esther ransem needs to learn how to spell her own name.....*grumbles about other esters with h's in their name*
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#212
Report 16 years ago
#212
(Original post by JSM)
I too would be in favour of getting some extreme views into the HoL like the Greens and the BNP, who under PR I will give my vote just to see the fun and games in the HoL. What a wonderful Idea.
Is that sarcasm? I'd love to be able to vote Green - there are never any candidates in my constituency.
0
curryADD
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#213
Report 16 years ago
#213
(Original post by Pencil Queen)
Is that sarcasm? I'd love to be able to vote Green - there are never any candidates in my constituency.
ok, thats nice, would you like to buy a tshirt that says "vote green for a change"?
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#214
Report 16 years ago
#214
(Original post by curryADD)
ok, thats nice, would you like to buy a tshirt that says "vote green for a change"?
That depends - is it made from fair trade non bleached organic cotton?
0
TK
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#215
Report 16 years ago
#215
(Original post by Nafisa)
Who Here Actually Supports The Royal Family ....
he he ! the royal family suck! ne1 wanna help me sabotage the queens's crappy speach tomorrow?
2
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#216
Report 16 years ago
#216
(Original post by Pencil Queen)
That depends - is it made from fair trade non bleached organic cotton?
It's made from mud and twigs.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#217
Report 16 years ago
#217
if you smoke green, vote green

actually dont because look at what a mess they have made of Oxford
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#218
Report 16 years ago
#218
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
It's made from mud and twigs.
hehehe
Sounds great - I'll put in my compost bin
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#219
Report 16 years ago
#219
(Original post by curryADD)
vienna how is that narrow minded? but what hes saying isnt true...its one of the ony ways there are
well lets start with,

i) wearing silly clothing. - firstly, thats the traditional hunt dress. its a problem for you? people enjoy keeping to the dress code.this is 'silly' because there dont wear that in East London? secondly, many, if not the majority of hunts, are comprised of foot spectators who are nothing more than the average rambler.


the ignorant and narrow-minded point could be maintained here, but let us press on....


ii) justifying it on humane grounds - the code of practice accepts that hunting with dogs is not always as humane as we may like but is certainly not as barbaric as many portray. hunters justify fox hunting as a pastime, livelihood and necessary mechanism of the rural community.

iii) better way of reducing fox populations - a recent government study highlighted the need for fox hunting as the best and most necessary tool in maintaing fox populations aswell as the threat to the rural community and civil disobedience that an interdiction would bring.

iv) they should find one - theyve looked, there isnt.

perhaps what gets me is the fact that there is no question of the civil liberties of the minority who enjoy hunting and its indirect benefits to this country....that is narrow-minded and ignorant.
0
thefish_uk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#220
Report 16 years ago
#220
(Original post by Tinykates)
he he ! the royal family suck! ne1 wanna help me sabotage the queens's crappy speach tomorrow?
Does anybody have a radio scrambling device?

And Vienna, I should have voted for you on "UKL's most political member" but I didn't I voted for Edders for some reason. I voted you most controversial though.

And you're like... in France, but you know more about British current affairs than some of us do!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling ahead of results day?

Very Confident (15)
8.62%
Confident (23)
13.22%
Indifferent (30)
17.24%
Unsure (47)
27.01%
Worried (59)
33.91%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed