Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    All of them are perfectly relevent.
    Not a single one of them prove anything. They are purely anecdotal.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    Not a single one of them prove anything. They are purely anecdotal.
    I disagree.
    /thread.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    I disagree.
    /thread.
    Don't be so silly, I can't help it if you are blinded by misplaced pride.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    You've repeatedly mentioned democracy as one of your reasons for removing the Queen as head of state, yet the majority of Britons support and would keep the Royal Family.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    You've repeatedly mentioned democracy as one of your reasons for removing the Queen as head of state, yet the majority of Britons support and would keep the Royal Family.
    To be brutally honest, when has that ever mattered in the TSR HoC? I doubt many Britons would have supported the incest bill, but it went ahead. I think that we should be debating the principles of the bill, and I'm taking democracy as a concept to be honest. In the perfect world we would hold a referendum (I would like that) but we can't sadly..
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    To sum a few things up about this bill:

    •This bill creates a British Constitution which will ensure the stability of the Westminster democratic system. It will, as an eternal document, protect our system better than any unelected or indeed elected head of state could do.
    •The prosperity of the Commonwealth of Nations should not be damaged by this bill.
    •The royal family is treated respectfully and fairly at all times.
    •It improves our democratic status, gets rid of the corrupt tradition of nepotism.
    •Keeps all that is best about the British political system, particularly the Westminster system which has served us so so well over the years. It is this system which inspires pride in me.
    •Makes sure that the House of Lords is still functional yet again removes the harming hereditary principle as well as the biased ‘government selection’ method.

    Please everyone bear these in mind tomorrow. I am off to bed now, and then I am at work for the whole of Saturday. I will be free to respond tomorrow night (also, please read through my responses in the thread - I think much of the ground has already been covered).
    :moon:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    To be brutally honest, when has that ever mattered in the TSR HoC? I doubt many Britons would have supported the incest bill, but it went ahead. I think that we should be debating the principles of the bill, and I'm taking democracy as a concept to be honest. In the perfect world we would hold a referendum (I would like that) but we can't sadly..
    Fair point.

    Why do we need an elected figure to fill this role? What is wrong with having an undemocratic and unelected head of state?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    Fair point.

    Why do we need an elected figure to fill this role? What is wrong with having an undemocratic and unelected head of state?
    This bill actually gets rid of the Head of State position. Effectively the Commons will operate the same except they will have a new constitution to bind them to key British principles, there will be no backwards system of deference to an unelected monarch, and we will have the elected Lords.

    I really should go to bed now :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    IMO things are better with an unwritten constitution, parliamentary supremacy and the rule of law allow the system to adapt and can be applied to differing social conditions. Not that the current arrangements for parliamentary separation of powers are satisfactory, but by politicising the Upper House the bill contradicts itself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tucker672)
    Please watch this, even if it is from 2:00 for a minute.



    I believe she is talking about you when she mentions "unthinking people".
    that is so arrogant. just cuz they're 'ageless' ideals doesn't mean they're good :rolleyes: i think it's pretty obvious humanity would be better off if religion was 'thrown aside'.

    (Original post by tucker672)


    Makes me proud to be British !!!
    I never understand being proud of a country. You were randomly born in a certain place, which is part of a geographic area arbitrarily designated as a country, and so then you can be 'proud' of everything else in this arbitrary area as if it was anything to do with you? :unsure:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    There's been some debate in our forum about this, so I thought I'd post my views from there:

    While I like a lot of the bill, I think an elected House of Lords would be a huge mistake. To argue for a non-elected second house, I make a few points:

    What purpose does a second house serve? If both houses are elected, why do we need two? In the US it serves to balance state representation against personal representation. In the UK, IMHO, the second house is to serve as a barrier to the public whim. For example in the previous fury over bankers, it'd have been easy for an elected house to put in place popular, punitive measures that wreck the economy, because the public whim doesn't understand economics. In any democratic society, the public clearly need to be in charge of the aims, the direction society is going, the morals and laws society seeks to live by, etc. However the public will never think through the hugely-complex consequences of their actions. As another example, would the more-worthy Nobel Prize winners be those chosen by the Nobel Panel or those voted for by the public? I know which I feel would be doing the better science.

    Now, I see you've declared a purpose for a second house. However any elected house will serve one purpose - whatever the electorate wants. You can't tell the electorate to vote for people to uphold the constitution or any such, as they'll vote how they please.

    IMHO, the only feasible solution is to have an unelected House of Lords, a house of our best and brightest who've had a range of highly distinguished experience. Looking at the RL HoL you see how valuable it is - it's made up 1/3 of crossbenchers and even those in parties require a good argument to vote for something. Whereas in the Commons politics is the key, in the Lords you have to convince bright people that something is a good idea.

    This isn't to say it doesn't need reform. By all means remove the hereditary peers for one, and add some public involvement through public nomination of characters. But ensure that the HoL reflects a wide range of very bright people with varied, distinguished backgrounds who can analyse and make informed decisions on very difficult topics.

    Democracy is necessary in politics to guide us, ensure that policy does what the people want and to gain consensus and representation for all. However there's a reason that no industry, no company and no organisation that doesn't have to uses it - it's not very good at choosing the best people, getting people with the right skills, knowledge and experience, and it is prone to specific psychological biases. So while we need it to be front and centre in politics, we also need non-democratic checks and balances to stop the public whim running riot.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    There's been some debate in our forum about this, so I thought I'd post my views from there:

    While I like a lot of the bill, I think an elected House of Lords would be a huge mistake. To argue for a non-elected second house, I make a few points:

    What purpose does a second house serve? If both houses are elected, why do we need two? In the US it serves to balance state representation against personal representation. In the UK, IMHO, the second house is to serve as a barrier to the public whim. For example in the previous fury over bankers, it'd have been easy for an elected house to put in place popular, punitive measures that wreck the economy, because the public whim doesn't understand economics. In any democratic society, the public clearly need to be in charge of the aims, the direction society is going, the morals and laws society seeks to live by, etc. However the public will never think through the hugely-complex consequences of their actions. As another example, would the more-worthy Nobel Prize winners be those chosen by the Nobel Panel or those voted for by the public? I know which I feel would be doing the better science.

    Now, I see you've declared a purpose for a second house. However any elected house will serve one purpose - whatever the electorate wants. You can't tell the electorate to vote for people to uphold the constitution or any such, as they'll vote how they please.

    IMHO, the only feasible solution is to have an unelected House of Lords, a house of our best and brightest who've had a range of highly distinguished experience. Looking at the RL HoL you see how valuable it is - it's made up 1/3 of crossbenchers and even those in parties require a good argument to vote for something. Whereas in the Commons politics is the key, in the Lords you have to convince bright people that something is a good idea.

    This isn't to say it doesn't need reform. By all means remove the hereditary peers for one, and add some public involvement through public nomination of characters. But ensure that the HoL reflects a wide range of very bright people with varied, distinguished backgrounds who can analyse and make informed decisions on very difficult topics.

    Democracy is necessary in politics to guide us, ensure that policy does what the people want and to gain consensus and representation for all. However there's a reason that no industry, no company and no organisation that doesn't have to uses it - it's not very good at choosing the best people, getting people with the right skills, knowledge and experience, and it is prone to specific psychological biases. So while we need it to be front and centre in politics, we also need non-democratic checks and balances to stop the public whim running riot.
    Ok I'm going to try and address this point using the process of selection which is set out in the bill. However I'd like to let you (and everyone else) know that my main aim is to stop the British political system being inherently "unfair" and try and base it as much as possible on merit. For that reason I would seriously consider changing the HoL selection system as outlined in the bill, as long as it retained the principle of merit. So for instance, getting more public involvement and perhaps elevating certain distinguished 'intelligent people' could well be a good system as you suggest. I'll have to think this through carefully in time for the second reading.

    But for now, in terms of how this system would work effectively I don't think that all of your criticisms are necessary valid.

    First it is important to remember that my proposal is democracy in perhaps its most 'limited' form. Just to copy and paste the relevant section of the bill:

    (2) The House of Lords is to serve as a democratically elected scrutiny chamber, with its relation to the House of Commons to be codified in the British Constitution (section 3). The primary function of the House of Lords will be to protect the Constitution and to lend expertise to the development of British law.

    Ok, so basically the British constitution will be set up and part of the job of the HoL will be to protect this constitution. This means that immediately there is a barrier to 'mob rule' in that the HoL will have a duty to protect the key rights of the citizen... but moving on because this isn't totally satisfactory even in my own opinion...

    (3) Lords Elections are to be held every seven years, with 200 ‘super-constituencies’ (formed from 3 or 4 local constituencies, depending on population size) each electing a Lord to the house through the Alternative Vote system.

    The longer seven year terms should mean that the Lords are protected from 'knee jerk' and short term political pressures. They will be able to see the bigger picture better than a commons MP who has at most a 4-5 year term and the potential of an election being called at any time.

    (4) To qualify to be elected as a Lord a candidate must fulfil the following conditions:

    (i) Must be at least thirty years of age.

    I.e., at least thirty years of age so that they aren't fresh out of uni or whatever. However this may be too low, I think it could be a good idea to elevate this to 35 or 40 years of age. I am hoping that by installing an age restriction there could be a certain amount of 'wisdom' held by the lords and experience of the outside world. Lords won't be drawn from the commons, so we aren't looking at career politicians here.

    (ii) Must be a citizen of the Commonwealth of Britain.

    (iii) Must have evidence of achievement and/or other merits as to be decided. Such evidence must be signed and approved by at least twelve local notables.

    This is the big bit. People who do not have meritable attributes (i.e., a speciality in energy resources, or a former headteacher or whatever) will not even stand a chance of being able to join the HoL. This means that the idea of the public being able to "vote how they please." doesn't necessarily matter, as they will be voting for their favourite out of a elite group of individuals. All of them will be sufficiently qualified so we aren't going to see some racist imbecile coming in here. Therefore in essence this bill changes how we select these top notch peers, not who we recruit specifically. It literally just gets rid of the dodgy hereditary peers and the government bias in their own selections.

    (5) Lords may be affiliated to a registered political party, but may not be whipped.

    Again this speaks for itself. These bright lords must have independence from pressure groups. Perhaps it would even be possible to say that a lord must not be affiliated to a party at all, I may add this in.
    In a sense then the public won't be able to elect 'whoever they want' because this person will have to be sufficiently qualified to even stand. They will therefore (in theory) be voting for the best out of the best, and once these people get to sit in the HoL they will be obliged to protect the constitution and protected by the seven year term and absence of a whip.

    I hope all of this makes sense.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Point of order Mr Speaker, but isn't it considered bad pratice for an MP to be neg repped on bill debates
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    Point of order Mr Speaker, but isn't it considered bad pratice for an MP to be neg repped on bill debates
    Not really. There are no rules against negging anyone for anything.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Not really. There are no rules against negging anyone for anything.
    oh, it's just that I read another thread and the speaker from before you said it wasn't against the rules but it was in poor taste.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    oh, it's just that I read another thread and the speaker from before you said it wasn't against the rules but it was in poor taste.
    I've always said its pure taste to neg someone for any opinion. Still, there isn't much that can be done about it. I've been negged for stupid things (for example I've been negged several times for being a lib dem, back when the lib dem symbol was my avatar) as have most people, but there's little that can be done about it. Have a moan if you wish, but at the end of the day its little blocks of colour on an internet forum.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    oh, it's just that I read another thread and the speaker from before you said it wasn't against the rules but it was in poor taste.
    Who negative repped you?
    Offline

    8
    No! No! No!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I dunno if it has been asked, but should this bill pass, what will the new opening statement of bills be?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    Who negative repped you?
    Dunno, you maybe? Could be one of the Socialists. Dayne?

    http://www.kingtastyshirts.com/?e=67...eaca97b3e19189

    Can you click on the link and watch the video please to get me a free T-Shirt
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 18, 2010
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.