Chindie Posted May 20, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted May 20, 2008 They're like wallpaper. they should be hung ? Nah, they lack substance, occasionally give the place a nice look or sometimes are a bit garish, but ultimately they're just in the background not really doing much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 zactly why we need a republic, the figure head of the country needs to be voted on seperately. Its too important a decision to be put in the hands of politicians If it is ceremonial only then OK. If the position is going to have a certain degree of power then it is far too important to leave it to the whim of the populace. Rather leave it to chance. :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World_Domination Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 I'm going RF They show us and remind us of what we are fighting for. They are there to opitumise what we hold dear. For thier subjects to gain strenght through there conduct and lead by example. A symbol of a people's civilisation and history. A monacy can lift and unite a people. In this mixed melting pot society with possible recession looming, a figure of dignity and principle for people to look up to seems needed more than ever. The problem with it is that the biological "next in line" arnt always up to it. In the past many children would of been had with different wives untill a suitible child was concived, the next in line should only be named by the predecessor not spawned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Acutally Nick, any PM is voted in remind me when exactly it was that Gordon got voted in as PM ?? and John Major ? remebr you vote for parties i this country and the party selects the leader well of course in real life it does not happen but tony I see you refuse to answer the point how you can reconcile calling yourself a democrat yet having the head of state being dertermined by birth in all this debate, reoyalists go on about figure heads, tourism etc, but no one ever an justify being a democrat and supporting the monarchy the two are incomptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 The Royal Family make no decisions on the running of the country, they leave it to the politians that have been democratically elected. You make it sound like the Royal Family are the equivilent of Robert Mugabe.. Which is simply not the case. Therefor it makes you point, well, pointless, as we can have an unelected HoS, when the descisions are made by an elected entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 boy you don;t get it or rather you refuse to accept the point (which is not a British one as such) but even in a cermonial role (which they have more power than that ) that surely an elected HofS is more democratic. Ireland's HofS is purely ceremonial isn't she and elected ? different systems out there really, executive HofS, ceremonial, mix of both but where elected it is infietnly more democratic tha what we have now. My preferred option is similar to the Irish model, the PM retains the exec powers, we have two chambers, commons and Senate with all being elected by PR (form is open to debate) all on 4 year fixed terms with the senate and HofS being elected in the 2nd year of the commons 4 year period any change of PM by a party results in an immediate commons election, except in the case of a death of a servig PM commons numbers to be reduced to 400 senate numbers to be around 50 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 commons numbers to be reduced to 400 Why? What benefit would there be in reducing the number of constituencies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 any change of PM by a party results in an immediate commons election, except in the case of a death of a servig PM Why not in that case? :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 simple, for example we have 10 in Brum, each represents just over 90,000 you could easily reduce to 6 repesenting around 150,000, cuts down running costs and to be honest you don;t need 10MPS to represent Brum notr say is it 70 for London in my plan I would devolve power anway down to local councils, meaning in theory less work for MP's anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 boy you don;t get it or rather you refuse to accept the point (which is not a British one as such) but even in a cermonial role (which they have more power than that ) that surely an elected HofS is more democratic. Ireland's HofS is purely ceremonial isn't she and elected ? different systems out there really, executive HofS, ceremonial, mix of both but where elected it is infietnly more democratic tha what we have now. My preferred option is similar to the Irish model, the PM retains the exec powers, we have two chambers, commons and Senate with all being elected by PR (form is open to debate) all on 4 year fixed terms with the senate and HofS being elected in the 2nd year of the commons 4 year period any change of PM by a party results in an immediate commons election, except in the case of a death of a servig PM commons numbers to be reduced to 400 senate numbers to be around 50 I absolutely get it Ian, I just don't agree with you and I have answered your question. You don't like the Royals, simply because they are, as you would call, Toffs. I like the Royals, everyone knows they would never invoke any of the so called power they have. They are great embassadors for the country and most of the males serve in the Armed forces and many of them have seen action. Dress it up how you like, we won't agree. But don't try and say I don't get it, as I clearly understand your viewpoint, I simply don't agree with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 simple, for example we have 10 in Brum, each represents just over 90,000 you could easily reduce to 6 repesenting around 150,000, cuts down running costs and to be honest you don;t need 10MPS to represent Brum notr say is it 70 for London in my plan I would devolve power anway down to local councils, meaning in theory less work for MP's anyway What hell has that got to do with the Royal family, this could be achieved with them in situ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 it is about completley remodlling the British consitution and oh yeah having it written down BTW if the Queen wants to be elected nothing to stop her, in fact like in Ireland I would try and ensure the Hofs is a non political figure, but difficult to do I will admit and Nick you still refuse to answer the central point, if you call yourself a democrat do you really believe a democrat can support the HofS being non elected ? the HofS is supposed to repeset us all and the only way that can be done is through elections and not birth added to this of couse the CofE would become disestablished Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Nick you still refuse to answer the central point, if you call yourself a democrat do you really believe a democrat can support the HofS being non elected ? The Royal Family make no decisions on the running of the country, they leave it to the politians that have been democratically elected. You make it sound like the Royal Family are the equivilent of Robert Mugabe.. Which is simply not the case. Therefore it makes your point, well, pointless, as we can have an unelected HoS, when the descisions are made by an elected entity. Yes I have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 it is about completley remodlling the British consitution and oh yeah having it written down You want to completely remodel the British constitution? :shock: the HofS is supposed to repeset us all and the only way that can be done is through elections and not birth Why would someone elected represent us all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted May 21, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted May 21, 2008 My preferred option is similar to the Irish model, the PM retains the exec powers, we have two chambers, commons and Senate with all being elected by PR (form is open to debate) all on 4 year fixed terms with the senate and HofS being elected in the 2nd year of the commons 4 year period I would argue that an elected upper house is pointless. The great benefit of an upper house is to provide a brake of sorts on the whims of the people (whether that brake be via required assent or through the ability to stall consideration or whatever) and should also incorporate some method of being a sort of "moving average" of the national consensus. I still maintain that direct election of the US Senate was one of the three greatest mistakes in the history of the US Constitution. Within the confines of the Westminster system, I think that the most reasonable Lords reform is to make it an all-appointed body of variable size. Every year, the government would nominate a slate of ten nominees, with a supermajority of the commons (say two-thirds) voting to approve, on an all-or-nothing basis, the slate. The Lords would serve for ten years. At the end of a single ten-year term, renewal of the appointment would require less than a majority of the Commons in favor, say 40% (alternatively stated as a 20-year appointment, with the Commons given the ability to remove a Lord after 10 years if they can get 60% support). However, this first ten-year term would be extended as necessary until the Commons approves a new slate. A two-thirds majority of the other Lords could also conceivably vote to expel one of their fellows. After service as a Lord, they would be prohibited from receiving any compensation without the assent of the current Lords, save for a standard pension for being a Lord; modifications to the pension would have to be first approved by the Commons and agreed to by the current Lords. As I see it, the restrictions on future employment limit the ability to corrupt the Lords or punish them for unpopular votes (or reward them for votes). The super-majority requirements to substantially change the composition of the Lords will by nature assure that the other parties get a voice (and indeed, the Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru, and various Northern Irish parties will probably end up with somewhat more power in this body than in the Commons... going on the current makeup of the Commons, I'd suspect that the annual slates would be roughly 4 Labour, 2 Lib Dem, 1 SNP, 1 Plaid Cymru, 1 SDLP, 1 Respect; Lib Dems, SNP, and Plaid Cymru would probably end up likewise forming coalitions for this purpose with Tory governments as well, which would effectively mean that those parties would keep their Lords for the full 20 years), while the long terms would mean that the coalitions that made the slates would not necessarily be replicated in the Lords. It would be highly unlikely that the Lords would ever not be hung; such would require a party to be in government for a decade with a consistently large percentage (at least 60%) of the Commons; how many times has that happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 They're like wallpaper. they should be hung ? they're always the wrong side of plastered? they're a-peeling? they cling on to the bitter end, before folding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 21, 2008 Moderator Share Posted May 21, 2008 They're like wallpaper. they should be hung ? they're always the wrong side of plastered? they're a-peeling? they cling on to the bitter end, before folding? The Flock is fading ................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 .... I would try and ensure the Hofs is a non political figure, but difficult to do I will admit hey, don't diss the Hoff. He has no prententions of becoming a political figure, so need need to pick on him! :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 My preferred option is similar to the Irish model, the PM retains the exec powers, we have two chambers, commons and Senate with all being elected by PR (form is open to debate) A Socialist who wants corruption. Now there's a surprise :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Acutally Nick, any PM is voted in remind me when exactly it was that Gordon got voted in as PM ?? and John Major ? Was that the John Major who won an election against all the odds and subsequently served a full term as Prime Minister? Or another one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts