ianrobo1 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 the oe who took over and got three years before an election whoch somehow he won, more due to a Kinnock fear factor than to do ith himself. But his majority was so small he was wounded and fatally hurt by the euro sceptics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Sooooo Ian, do you conceed I have answered your question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I suppose so because you are saying somehow it is democratic to have an HofS placed there because of the virtue of birth and no other value, that is not democratic so thus you are no democrat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Nope, I agree with the current system, which is purely Democratic, the people in power are elected! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 to say the Queen has no power is frankly a ludricous statement she has the power of patronage which is actually greater than some of the PM's power and she does have real power to block bills, disolve parliament yes she has not used them but the power is there for anyone to use and who is to say it won't be strip them of this and what is the point anyway apart from a freak show ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 FFS Ian... does the Queen actually have a say in how the country is run? I mean, even the House of Lords is filled with Labour annointed Lords... Cough "Cash for peerages" Cough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 to say the Queen has no power is frankly a ludricous statement It's not though Ian. Power that cannot be wielded or executed is, quite simply, an impotent power. It's vacuous power. It's not there, in reality. To claim it is is a little disingenuous. the monarchy has, in practice, no power whatsoever over the way in which this country is governed/run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 again Jon you have to question that yes no direct influence but with all the patronage that goes around them and what they can give out they can influence, we do not have a purely ceremonial HofS thing is the power is not the issue, in any position of public profile that position should be elected, whether it is the queen or chairman of the health trust or indeed I am open to electing say chief constables the royalists on here still have no answered how it can be right in modern times for someone to be in a position of some power and defintely influence by virtue of brith and circumstances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 thing is the power is not the issue, in any position of public profile that position should be elected, whether it is the queen or chairman of the health trust or indeed I am open to electing say chief constables Judges? Magistrates? NHS Trust chairmen? Headmasters/Headmistresses? Pop stars? Sports supremos? Where do we stop with all this electoral bollocks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 21, 2008 Moderator Share Posted May 21, 2008 Judges? Magistrates? NHS Trust chairmen? Headmasters/Headmistresses? Pop stars? Sports supremos? Where do we stop with all this electoral bollocks? Making that lot hereditary would not be a wise move, though would it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 thats true snowy at some point you decide where it stops but we need far more defo NHS trust chairman and similar positions in education I have said before a lot more power has to be devolved, the whole country needs to be shook up starting from the HofS all the way down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 For those saying"the queen has no real power" I would ask them to remember the removal of Prime minister Gough Whitlam from the Australian Govt. The governor John Kerr used what are called reserve powers in the name of the head of state."the Queen" to remove an elected official.It was a disgraceful act. She has the same powers here. Personally its the simple principal of the people choosing their head of state that I find unarguably just.Meritocracy over aristocracy .Democracy over plutocratic monarchy. No amount of sycophantic royalist drivel will ever convince me otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 whilst teh powers are there they can be used, maybe not soon, maybe never but they are there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Judges? Magistrates? NHS Trust chairmen? Headmasters/Headmistresses? Pop stars? Sports supremos? Where do we stop with all this electoral bollocks? Making that lot hereditary would not be a wise move, though would it. Certainly not. Wasn't the point of my post. The point was about 'electing' people rather than those most suitable for the job doing it. I know this is going slightly off topic but I would hate the idea of someone who is supposed to be a specialist in a particular profession having to 'be popular' and pander to populism. If I want to know about the law/medicine/education/astrophysics, &c. then I'll ask an expert and not the audience. :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 thats true in some positions you have to appoint but NHS chairman, even ellis was one, which should say it all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthNottsVillain Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Royal Family. The thought of a President Bliar or a President Bottler sends a cold shiver down my spine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 then you wouldn't vote for them would you ? I would only have an elected figure head though with NO poltical power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthNottsVillain Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Agreed Ian. I could go with the Irish model but if we were saddled with the American one it'd be a recipe for disaster. (Although Bliar thought he was President didn't he. :x ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Judges? Magistrates? NHS Trust chairmen? Headmasters/Headmistresses? Pop stars? Sports supremos? Where do we stop with all this electoral bollocks? Making that lot hereditary would not be a wise move, though would it. Certainly not. Wasn't the point of my post. The point was about 'electing' people rather than those most suitable for the job doing it. I know this is going slightly off topic but I would hate the idea of someone who is supposed to be a specialist in a particular profession having to 'be popular' and pander to populism. If I want to know about the law/medicine/education/astrophysics, &c. then I'll ask an expert and not the audience. :winkold: Another person used this argument about "elected politicians"....Adolph Hitler. :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 no NNV, as I stated, the Irish model is the one I would follow, their presidents are very well respected because they have no political links Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts