Do you support the Royal Family?

Watch
This discussion is closed.
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#121
Report 16 years ago
#121
Why do people moan about Tony Blair appointing Lords? It's his right and every PM uses it to their advantage. We trust him to run the country and he has good intentions.

If we don't see a totally independently appointed chamber, I'd rather see that the 2nd chamber was scrapped altogether. It gets in the way of things!

We should start from scratch and kick of all those Tory lords as well. Its not fair that the Tories have more influence in the lords than the Commons! They have an inherant majority there!
1
thefish_uk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#122
Report 16 years ago
#122
ummm,

Who here trusts Tony Blair to run the country?

You might have in the elections two and a half years ago, but what about now?
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#123
Report 16 years ago
#123
Yes there are some things that the government have done wrong, but Labour are still more trusted than the other lot.
0
MadNatSci
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#124
Report 16 years ago
#124
(Original post by pkonline)
Why do people moan about Tony Blair appointing Lords? It's his right and every PM uses it to their advantage. We trust him to run the country and he has good intentions.

If we don't see a totally independently appointed chamber, I'd rather see that the 2nd chamber was scrapped altogether. It gets in the way of things!

We should start from scratch and kick of all those Tory lords as well. Its not fair that the Tories have more influence in the lords than the Commons! They have an inherant majority there!

I think the second chamber is hugely important and scrapping it should never be considered!! It's a safety net, it doesn't allow the prime minister, whoever they happen to be at the time, to get whatever they wish. You support Blair so I'd guess you're unlikely to be a Thatcher fan - she had a similar majority to Blair. Would you really want only one chamber so she could push through whatever she wanted? Would you want any prime minister to be able to do that? Because I wouldn't: I think, much as the Lords may 'get in the way', their decisions are often backed by a lot of the public. They're not out to get people, are they? They have no reason to.

Oh, and you know what good intentions pave
0
lala
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#125
Report 16 years ago
#125
(Original post by MadNatSci)
OK. We are never going to agree on this, and I'm not trying to be rude here! But. I am not trying to put words into your mouth. I'm trying to counter arguments before they come, just in case. Possibly unwise. I wasn't trying to insult you either - it just seems to me that jealousy is the most likely reason for people wanting so badly to get rid of the royals. The reasons generally add up to "Why should we pay any money to support them?" And to be quite honest I tend, on the whole, to agree with that because I think they're probably quite capable of supporting themselves from their estates. But I don't think we should get rid of them - that's all. So assuming we let them pay their own way, what is left as an argument for complete abolishment of the monarchy? Resentment of someone who was lucky (?) enough to be born to the throne. That's the way I see it... rather than find ways to keep them without them costing us money, people want to scrap them altogether. That's why I think they're maybe jealous.
You didn't mention Tony's lot, no. But I had, originally - as a comparison between what the Lords were and what they soon will be - and you hadn't taken this into account. So I was trying to point this out. No, it isn't fair that they have a right to sit in the House by birth, and democratically elected peers would be far fairer. But my original point was that those there by birthright would be less likely to be biased than those who were appointed, and I reiterated it to see what you said.
I think theres quite a big differenc between being jealous and being pissed off that we have this expensive anachronism in the first place! I resent the fact that we still retain a hereditary element to our government- in this case the Queen and all the other hangers on (though the Lords too but that isnt relevant to this particular point).
So even if we do find a way for them to support themselves entirely from property (and why should anyone inherit so much anyway?) there will still be the objection in principle.
I don't agree that those there by birthright will be less likely to be biased either. I can't see why this would be the case or indeed any evidence for it. Actually, before the scrapping of most of the hereditaries the Lords was generally regarded as having an inbuilt Tory majority because the background of most of them was such that they leaned very much towards the right. Now, I can deal with elected right wingers. But people who are there because of something a long dead ancestor did? How is that fair?
0
MadNatSci
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#126
Report 16 years ago
#126
(Original post by lala)
I think theres quite a big differenc between being jealous and being pissed off that we have this expensive anachronism in the first place! I resent the fact that we still retain a hereditary element to our government- in this case the Queen and all the other hangers on (though the Lords too but that isnt relevant to this particular point).
So even if we do find a way for them to support themselves entirely from property (and why should anyone inherit so much anyway?) there will still be the objection in principle.
I don't agree that those there by birthright will be less likely to be biased either. I can't see why this would be the case or indeed any evidence for it. Actually, before the scrapping of most of the hereditaries the Lords was generally regarded as having an inbuilt Tory majority because the background of most of them was such that they leaned very much towards the right. Now, I can deal with elected right wingers. But people who are there because of something a long dead ancestor did? How is that fair?
It isn't as fair as democratically elected peers, you're absolutely right, as I said before. But it seems we're unlikely to get elected peers.

I guess the objection in principle is the reason why no-one will ever agree - I don't have a problem with them inheriting all those estates any more than I have a problem with ordinary people inheriting houses from their parents (assuming of course that the house can be kept after the godawful inheritance tax is paid - oh and remember 40% of £3.2billion is rather a lot of money, which I assume Charles will be paying when his mother dies). And I quite like having a Queen. What can you do?!
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#127
Report 16 years ago
#127
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.
0
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#128
Report 16 years ago
#128
(Original post by pkonline)
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.
And who appoints the civil servants?
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#129
Report 16 years ago
#129
(Original post by 2776)
And who appoints the civil servants?
Politicians.
0
MadNatSci
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#130
Report 16 years ago
#130
(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.

Everyone sane wants to ban it? Have you BEEN to the countryside? And do you know of a more humane way of keeping the foxes down? I used to be against hunting until I considered that one. There is no other feasible way - if you simply get the farmers to shoot them and they miss the fox dies in agony, all the other ways are quite simply far too expensive for the farmers to be able to afford them. Not that this is a thread about foxhunting

And I don't believe there is such a thing as 'independently appointed' - I would feel much happier if they were elected.
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#131
Report 16 years ago
#131
If it was totally elected then there would be problems between the two houses. Also how many people would bother to vote?

I didn't mean to call people in the countryside insane . The fact is that the country and the Commons overwhelmingly support the ban. Yes a minority like to hunt foxes for pleasure, but I think thats wrong. So do a lot of people. IMO there's somthing wrong with someone who sees hunting as a 'sport'. It's sickening that people enjoy this kinda stuff.
0
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#132
Report 16 years ago
#132
I mean surely the Lords have no power at all.. I thought it was like after 3 House of Commons votes the House of Lords cannot block teh motion.
0
MadNatSci
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#133
Report 16 years ago
#133
(Original post by pkonline)
If it was totally elected then there would be problems between the two houses. Also how many people would bother to vote?

I didn't mean to call people in the countryside insane . The fact is that the country and the Commons overwhelmingly support the ban. Yes a minority like to hunt foxes for pleasure, but I think thats wrong. So do a lot of people. IMO there's somthing wrong with someone who sees hunting as a 'sport'. It's sickening that people enjoy this kinda stuff.

A minority like to do it for pleasure. The majority of those who support it do so because foxes are, unfortunately, a pest and need to be kept down. It's a necessity. Townspeople don't seem to realise that - maybe they've never seen what a fox will do to livestock. And farmers' livelihoods.

Hare coursing on the other hand - now THAT should have died a death aeons ago because there's no need for it whatsoever!

Back to the Lords - there will always be problems, but elections are a fairer way to do it. I just don't like Blair having so much control - after all, he appoints the 'independent commission' who appoint the peers.
0
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#134
Report 16 years ago
#134
(Original post by MadNatSci)
Hare coursing on the other hand - now THAT should have died a death aeons ago because there's no need for it whatsoever!

.
Hare coursing is illegal (me thinks)
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#135
Report 16 years ago
#135
I object to the fact that people enjoy going round, wearing silly clothing, killing animals, in the name of sport. Then they try and justify it on humane grounds. There should be a better way of reducing fox populations, and if not they should find one.

Is it that you just don't like Blair? If it were another politician would mind?
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#136
Report 16 years ago
#136
(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.
A lot are not "cronies, ex civil servants, ex-politicians or hereditary"

Lord Winston, Lord Lloyd-Webber, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Adebowale, Lord Irvine has a working-class background.

I actually support the Lords being fully appointed, but with no hereditaries.
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#137
Report 16 years ago
#137
(Original post by pkonline)
Politicians.
No, the civil service appoints civil servants.
0
LPK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#138
Report 16 years ago
#138
(Original post by Nafisa)
I think we should all plot to overthrow the royal family...agree?
i do

im having the palace!!
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#139
Report 16 years ago
#139
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
No, the civil service appoints civil servants.
The civil service are the worst. They always pat each other on the back for doing jack-all.
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#140
Report 16 years ago
#140
(Original post by pkonline)
The civil service are the worst. They always pat each other on the back for doing jack-all.
If by 'jack-all' you mean running the country...
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 (46)
8.23%
Confident (73)
13.06%
Indifferent (77)
13.77%
Unsure (147)
26.3%
Worried (216)
38.64%

Watched Threads

View All
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