Is there anyway to change the system? Watch

Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#21
Report 2 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by Rakas21)
While i disagree with all your suggestions i would focus on a few things..

1) Replacing the monarch with another beurocrat would be horrid. Especially since they do no harm secondly because the monarchy is profitable and is only likely to cost us less rather than more. Finally because the Queen and Will/Kate are beloved. There is no appetite outside of fringe politics.

2) The second amendment is the most retarded thing still enacted. This is not the 1800's where the police lacked the ability to solve crimes.
Do you think we should move towards a Presidential style system with the 3 arms of Government? We get rid of the monarchy and have elections for the Houses of Lords and Commons and the Presidency.

The royal houses are sold off and converted into large communities. I heard that one Royal House in Scotland had apparently 10,000 acres of land. Buckingham Palace can be the President’s House and Windsor Castle can be their summer home.

Imagine President Corbyn and Vice President Yvette Cooper addressing the nation.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Do you think we should move towards a Presidential style system with the 3 arms of Government? We get rid of the monarchy and have elections for the Houses of Lords and Commons and the Presidency.

The royal houses are sold off and converted into large communities. I heard that one Royal House in Scotland had apparently 10,000 acres of land. Buckingham Palace can be the President’s House and Windsor Castle can be their summer home.

Imagine President Corbyn and Vice President Yvette Cooper addressing the nation.
God no, we need less politicians.

Land ownership in the UK is one thing i have issue with because it is one of the few things in which history still dictates. The Duke of York and Camrbidge University are two of the largest land owners in the UK.

That said there is nothing as radical as stealing Royal property required. Simply allow land to be leased if not used for residential or commercial purposes.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#23
Report 2 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by Rakas21)
God no, we need less politicians.

Land ownership in the UK is one thing i have issue with because it is one of the few things in which history still dictates. The Duke of York and Camrbidge University are two of the largest land owners in the UK.

That said there is nothing as radical as stealing Royal property required. Simply allow land to be leased if not used for residential or commercial purposes.
Ok, that is fair.

Surely, we should be democratic and have elections for our Head of State and Government?
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#24
Report 2 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Ok, that is fair.

Surely, we should be democratic and have elections for our Head of State and Government?
The current system has served us well for 400 years. I can think of very few modern situations in which having an elected beurocrat would have been beneficial.

Hell, imagine if we had Labour President Blair when Boris asked for proroguement.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 2 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by Rakas21)
The current system has served us well for 400 years. I can think of very few modern situations in which having an elected beurocrat would have been beneficial.

Hell, imagine if we had Labour President Blair when Boris asked for proroguement.
If Prime Minister Boris did such with President Blair, we would have been satisfied with the checks and balances. However, the argument now is that the Monarch has no right to be there nor do they have a right to get involved in politics.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#26
Report 2 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by Wired_1800)
If Prime Minister Boris did such with President Blair, we would have been satisfied with the checks and balances. However, the argument now is that the Monarch has no right to be there nor do they have a right to get involved in politics.
The point is not that the Queen cannot intervene in the political process but rather that what happened this week got nowhere near the threshold for her doing so.

Refusing to resign if a viable alternative Government can be formed would be grounds for dismissing a PM. The precedents, including her grandfather's precedent, is that creating peers to overcome House of Lords resistance needs the PM to win an election on that very issue. I suspect that if she was asked to refuse Royal Assent, she would insist that the matter was referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (there is a procedure for this) to advise her whether this was lawful.

President Blair would be in no better position and would not have 60 plus years of political neutrality to fall back on.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#27
Report 2 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by Rakas21)
God no, we need less politicians.

Land ownership in the UK is one thing i have issue with because it is one of the few things in which history still dictates. The Duke of York and Camrbidge University are two of the largest land owners in the UK.

That said there is nothing as radical as stealing Royal property required. Simply allow land to be leased if not used for residential or commercial purposes.
I don't think you mean the Duke of York. As far as I know, he owns half a chalet in Switzerland.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#28
Report 2 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by nulli tertius)
The point is not that the Queen cannot intervene in the political process but rather that what happened this week got nowhere near the threshold for her doing so.

Refusing to resign if a viable alternative Government can be formed would be grounds for dismissing a PM. The precedents, including her grandfather's precedent, is that creating peers to overcome House of Lords resistance needs the PM to win an election on that very issue. I suspect that if she was asked to refuse Royal Assent, she would insist that the matter was referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (there is a procedure for this) to advise her whether this was lawful.

President Blair would be in no better position and would not have 60 plus years of political neutrality to fall back on.
You have made excellent points, but shouldn't we have a democratically elected President make such a decision?
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#29
Report 2 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by Wired_1800)
You have made excellent points, but shouldn't we have a democratically elected President make such a decision?
Anyone who is elected; let us say Michael Higgins or Frank-Walter Steinmeier, is still a political figure. He has a "side".
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#30
Report 2 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Anyone who is elected; let us say Michael Higgins or Frank-Walter Steinmeier, is still a political figure. He has a "side".
They were elected though. Is the Queen elected? When was the election and what is her manifesto for the country.

I like the monarchy, but I am interested in understanding the alternative.
Last edited by Wired_1800; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Alt Tankie
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#31
Report 2 weeks ago
#31
(Original post by Rakas21)
While i disagree with all your suggestions i would focus on a few things..

1) Replacing the monarch with another beurocrat would be horrid. Especially since they do no harm secondly because the monarchy is profitable and is only likely to cost us less rather than more. Finally because the Queen and Will/Kate are beloved. There is no appetite outside of fringe politics.

2) The second amendment is the most retarded thing still enacted. This is not the 1800's where the police lacked the ability to solve crimes.
1 : A bureaucrat is better than a celebrity, which is all they are now. The only reason to support the monarchy is entirely misplaced sentiment. Monarchy will at every conceivable chance serve to save their own skin rather than act for the national interest.

2: what has the second amendment got to do with the police solving crimes???

its there primarily to

A: Protect its populace from a tyrannical government

B: Allow it’s populace to function as a militia

C: Allows responsible individual citizens the right to greater protection.

And it does a good job on all three counts though of course the government wants to take them away for their own good of course...
0
reply
Alt Tankie
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#32
Report 2 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by Rakas21)
imagine if we had Labour President Blair when Boris asked for proroguement.
Then he would almost certainly be voted out at the next election in what five years time. Now imagine you had a dodgy royal in power for thirty years, how is that better?

A Democratically elected and unpopular Blair over undemocratic and unpopular Prince Andrew any day.
Last edited by Alt Tankie; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#33
Report 2 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by Anonymous774)
Hi all, before I start let me just say I don't get into politics that much so go easy on me.

I think people will agree with me when I say that the current government is a mess. There's no clear leadership, so neither side can do the thing they want and we seem to be stuck in a limbo of no progress.

I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to restructure the way the government works. Such as changing the first pass the post voting system for a start.

I haven't really thought about what major changes could be made to prevent the UK from entering limbo again in the future. Does anyone else have any ideas?

Again I apologise if I said something stupid, I don't usually discuss politics.
First change - introduce a financial transaction tax

Second change - nationalise the land and create a written constitution.

Third change - abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an Ombudsman's Office that vets all legislation.

Fourth change - a parliament elected from constituencies that return 2 or 3 members (who cannot join the executive until they renounce their seat) and which selects a prime minister from time served MP's or a time-served member of a recognised profession.

Fifth change - an executive composed of time-served MP's or time-served members of a recognised profession selected by the prime minister.

Sixth change - a President (4votes) elected by the polity, senior vice- President (2votes) and junior vice-president (1vote) elected by parliament from time-served MP's or a time-served member of a recognised profession (the president would be Head of State and run the country in the absence of a Prime Minister selected by parliament or if less than 50% of the polity vote (parliament scrutinising presidential governance as it would prime ministerial).

Seventh change - Extend remit of NS&I Bank to be the sole issuer of new money as the domestic central bank in charge of the consolidated fund (government receipts) the international banks become banks of deposit and the BoE the point of contact between them and the national economy.
Last edited by landscape2014; 2 weeks ago
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#34
Report 2 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by Alt Tankie)
So you’re against democracy then? I. Any think of any good reason to keep unelected politicians in the upper chamber and 2 reasons to make it so, namely getting rid of the corrupt and unpopular no hopers that tow the party line.
Yes but then again so are you...
This institution is simply dead. Danny dyer May as well be our next monarch. They no longer serve any purpose and are basically now state funded celebrities with undue influence. Also look at Prince Andrew and how dodgy he is with his dealing with Epstein etc. That man is protected because he is royalty. And that is wrong. I think when the queen goes it should be rolled out even though I like William and Kate.
Simply put you are wrong, the institution is still wildly popular and you are in a minority opinion
It isnt illegal to have a bad choice in friends...
Because I support in particular the first and second amendment and whilst no constitution is perfect I think it is better than having not having one like us .
We do have one, albeit an unwritten one.
I disagree. If we can find the money to fund pointless wars for Israel or Bailing out the banks we can make buy mass infrastructure spending. But I do think we should cut back spending on some things. It will of course be a big shock to our economy but as our economy is unsustainable anyway and also immoral then it’s something that needs to happen. Sometimes when you’ve walked the wrong path it’s better to go back and start again.
touche

Good!
Google, Facebook and Amazon for instance all operate within the U.K and the first two have flagrantly interfered in elections around the globe and are de facto a quasi corporate dictatorship.
I would rather like to see the yank reaction to this aha
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#35
Report 2 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by Alt Tankie)
1 : A bureaucrat is better than a celebrity, which is all they are now. The only reason to support the monarchy is entirely misplaced sentiment. Monarchy will at every conceivable chance serve to save their own skin rather than act for the national interest.

2: what has the second amendment got to do with the police solving crimes???

its there primarily to

A: Protect its populace from a tyrannical government

B: Allow it’s populace to function as a militia

C: Allows responsible individual citizens the right to greater protection.

And it does a good job on all three counts though of course the government wants to take them away for their own good of course...
And politicians don’t serve their own interests.

The fact that you think an armed conflict with government would be a good thing is alarming, Who defines tyranny. The only reason the US believes that is because federal government literally went to war to impose itself on the confederate states. This is the UK, a unitary state with only two seriously contested regions and We are the federal government imposing its will in this case.

The second point is downright terrifying.
0
reply
Alt Tankie
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#36
Report 2 weeks ago
#36
(Original post by Napp)
Yes but then again so are you...

Simply put you are wrong, the institution is still wildly popular and you are in a minority opinion
It isnt illegal to have a bad choice in friends...

We do have one, albeit an unwritten one.
No I’m not, I am pro democracy I just don’t support it as a pretext for western intervention. The only thing I value more than democracy is self determination which if you don’t have that then you don’t really have democracy but a plutocracy.

How is am I wrong, I didn’t dispute that it’s popular but they’re popular in the way Justin Bieber is popular and thats not necessarily a good thing.

Prince Andrew has a history of making bad friends, bad decisions and being st the wrong place at the wrong time. If history’s taught me one thing it’s that coincidences are incredibly rare.
0
reply
Alt Tankie
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#37
Report 2 weeks ago
#37
(Original post by Rakas21)
And politicians don’t serve their own interests.

The fact that you think an armed conflict with government would be a good thing is alarming, Who defines tyranny. The only reason the US believes that is because federal government literally went to war to impose itself on the confederate states. This is the UK, a unitary state with only two seriously contested regions and We are the federal government imposing its will in this case.

The second point is downright terrifying.
1: of course some politicians serve their own interests. You get some good bad politicians and some good royals. I’m not disputing that. I’m saying that at least you have some ways of removing the bad politicians. Eg we have recently recalled a number of MPs who have lost their seats due to their behaviour.

2: I think if the government became tyrannical then absolutely we should rise up against it. Who defines tyranny?

Well the people who are being oppressed do. In any case I think you are employing tactical nihilism here.

Lol. You say that as Boris is about to (rightly) shut down parliament and attempt to veto parliament and haul Scotland out of the EU.

The west has a long and proud history of militia and armed citizenry kept alive in the US and Switzerland. As a brexiteer Tory I’m surprised you’re so aghast at this
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#38
Report 2 weeks ago
#38
(Original post by landscape2014)
First change - introduce a financial transaction tax

Second change - nationalise the land and create a written constitution.

Third change - abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an Ombudsman's Office that vets all legislation.

Fourth change - a parliament elected from constituencies that return 2 or 3 members (who cannot join the executive until they renounce their seat) and which selects a prime minister from time served MP's or a time-served member of a recognised profession.

Fifth change - an executive composed of time-served MP's or time-served members of a recognised profession selected by the prime minister.

Sixth change - a President (4votes) elected by the polity, senior vice- President (2votes) and junior vice-president (1vote) elected by parliament from time-served MP's or a time-served member of a recognised profession (the president would be Head of State and run the country in the absence of a Prime Minister selected by parliament or if less than 50% of the polity vote (parliament scrutinising presidential governance as it would prime ministerial).

Seventh change - Extend remit of NS&I Bank to be the sole issuer of new money as the domestic central bank in charge of the consolidated fund (government receipts) the international banks become banks of deposit and the BoE the point of contact between them and the national economy.
Jeremy Paxman recently asked ’Why are our politicians so crap? He asked the wrong question. Our politicians may be crap but he should have asked ‘Why is our political system, financial system and system of land ownership so crap? We have never lived in a representative democratic country FPTP sees to that, it creates winners and losers not representative parliamentarians (to do that constituencies have to return 2 or 3 representatives to express the main political complexions of a constituency) who should be equipped with the voting power their electoral support determines not just one vote in the chamber of the HoC so the votes that are cast have value. The wildly disproportionate taxation system that the 99% (who pay 50% of the tax take on usage of £1.1 Trillion) labour under, compared with the 1% and corporates (who pay 50% of the tax take on usage of £247 Trillion) defies justification. The fact that 0.6% of the population hold 70% of the UK puts us on a par with banana republics. There’s no point in changing our politicians if the systems they operate within are corrupt and corrupting they like any human elevated to a position of authority will make the system work and be rewarded for it. They serve the 1%’s purpose - of staying the 1%.
Last edited by landscape2014; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 week ago
#39
(Original post by landscape2014)
First change - introduce a financial transaction tax

Second change - nationalise the land and create a written constitution.

Third change - abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an Ombudsman's Office that vets all legislation.

Fourth change - a parliament elected from constituencies that return 2 or 3 members (who cannot join the executive until they renounce their seat) and which selects a prime minister from time served MP's or a time-served member of a recognised profession.

Fifth change - an executive composed of time-served MP's or time-served members of a recognised profession selected by the prime minister.

Sixth change - a President (4votes) elected by the polity, senior vice- President (2votes) and junior vice-president (1vote) elected by parliament from time-served MP's or a time-served member of a recognised profession (the president would be Head of State and run the country in the absence of a Prime Minister selected by parliament or if less than 50% of the polity vote (parliament scrutinising presidential governance as it would prime ministerial).

Seventh change - Extend remit of NS&I Bank to be the sole issuer of new money as the domestic central bank in charge of the consolidated fund (government receipts) the international banks become banks of deposit and the BoE the point of contact between them and the national economy.
First change - introduce a financial transaction tax (FTT), which is a big ask seeing as the bulk of the HoC are paid up members of the establishment who a quite content to acquiesce in a tax system that ‘soaks’ their constituents in order to subsidise the 1% and national and international corporations to the tune of £400 Billion p.a. A flat 0.32% on all transactions in GBP recorded at the BoE would net the government’s consolidated fund £800 Billion p.a. (equivalent to the entire tax take) of which the 99% would have to contribute £ 3.2 Billion (instead of £400 Billion).
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 week ago
#40
Natural agency involves unthinking processes whereas human agency refers to the capacity of an individual to act independently and make free choices. It is the ability of human beings to make choices and to impose those choices on the animate and inanimate world that sets them apart from both those worlds, they are however constrained by both and by societal structures, those factors (such as social class, religion, gender, ethnicity, customs, etc) which influence and limit the choices individuals can actually contemplate.

Those who benefit from the status quo are predisposed to persuade their peers that it is better to leave things as they are rather than risk the uncertainty of changes that discard settled and accepted procedures, inevitably the pursuit of principles whose adoption threaten the overthrow of established abuses or interfere with exclusive customs will suffer prejudice and opposition from the beneficiaries of those systems or custom abuses the purpose of which is to disproportionately favour privileged participants; it is a primitive human trait to seek privilege and defend it once acquired. The status quo is comfortable, the social pecking order well-established, the familiar gives a sense of security even to those whose material condition has changed little despite huge increases in total national wealth.

Those who populate the mass media support or criticise personalities from the political space who preside over a growing inequality in wealth between the makers and the takers but studiously avoid examination of the political, monetary and ownership systems within which they operate. Their sycophantic/forensic questioning of politicians is of little use to audiences who for the most part do not have knowledge of the corrupt and corrupting systems that we and politicians are embedded in; systems that we are all taught to accept from the moment we can read.
Last edited by landscape2014; 1 week ago
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (201)
23.96%
Pop (208)
24.79%
Jazz (33)
3.93%
Classical (46)
5.48%
Hip-Hop (162)
19.31%
Electronic (57)
6.79%
Indie (132)
15.73%

Watched Threads

View All