Attention, Lurkers...

[j2k4]

I am curious if any of you (assuming you are actually there), actually read our blathering, and if it sways you at all, at all? :huh:

Come on now, don't be shy... :)

[Chewie]

a: some of it.
b: nope. :)

[manker]

I do click on all of the threads in here because I dislike having the emboldened topic titles making the screen look untidy. However I only read the posts of people who's style I enjoy if the topic doesn't interest me, if the topic does interest me then I read the entire thread no matter who's posted in it.

For me, having my opinion swayed depends on a number of things; I am rarely influenced by a word brick or a post full of smilies, for example. Presentation is key to grabbing the attention, the content obviously comes in after that. Having said that, changing my mind about an issue because of a post in here doesn't happen that often.

As to the lurker issue, I don't think I'm really that but mostly I will not make a post if I don't care for the topic or if something approximating my opinion has already been stated. If I feel I can add a different slant to the topic then I'll post.


The above does not apply in the lounge ;)

[j2k4]

I do click on all of the threads in here because I dislike having the emboldened topic titles making the screen look untidy. ;)

So you are anal-retentive, then.

I've heard of that.

[manker]

So you are anal-retentive, then.

I've heard of that.You've only just noticed :huh:

[TheDave]

i tend to read a j2k4 post then get angry and have to listen to anarchic music :unsure:

[j2k4]

You've only just noticed :huh:

No, actually you wear it on your sleeve. :)

S'okay; I have my moments, too. ;)

[TheDave]

wearing an arse on your sleeve?

[j2k4]

i tend to read a j2k4 post then get angry and have to listen to anarchic music :unsure:

Then perhaps you might consider, rather than reading my posts, rolling them up and smoking them...

Consider them a sort of intellectual marijuana.

Just a thought. :)

[TheDave]

no, thats what you consider them

[j2k4]

no, thats what you consider them

Oh, sorry.

Thought for a moment that you were starting with me, Dave.

Back on track, then...

[manker]

No, actually you wear it on your sleeve. :)

S'okay; I have my moments, too. ;)I've been meaning to talk to you about the ellipsis ... no pressure, just whenever you have a moment ;)

[Cheese]

I lurk this section if there is nothing elsewhere to read. Swayed? No.

[clocker]

Then perhaps you might consider, rather than reading my posts, rolling them up and smoking them...

Consider them a sort of intellectual marijuana.

Just a thought. :)
Being a life-long, hardcore addict, I have tried your suggestion.

Found myself sitting for hours, listening to the Greatest Hits of Ronald Reagan and compulsively gnawing on the bones of minority babies.

Then I felt inexplicably aggressive so I invaded the neighborhood down the way, but soon tired of the battle and left them to their own devices.

Now I just feel ashamed and dirty.

Inhaling Republicanism is just not my cup 'o tea, J2.

Off to rehab for me....

[sArA]

:shifty:



and




:fear:



=



:ph34r: :cool2: :ph34r:

[vidcc]

:ph34r: :cool2: :ph34r:
for some reason that looks to me like 2 muslim women standing either side of colin powell

:unsure:

[Everose]

I try to read all of the posts in here. Sometimes opinions sway me. I would add that it is often not in the poster's intended direction, though. :D

[j2k4]

Found myself....compulsively knawing on the bones of minority babies.

Then I felt inexplicably aggressive so I invaded the neighborhood down the way, but soon tired of the battle and left them to their own devices.



It doesn't seem to have that effect on Republicans, why should it make you act that way? :huh:

[Storm]

@ clocker: ROTFLMFAO!!!!!


It doesn't seem to have that effect on Republicans, why should it make you act that way? :huh:

maybe republicans are just humans with some mutant gene :P

[clocker]

It doesn't seem to have that effect on Republicans, why should it make you act that way? :huh:
Another thinly disguised parable sails over your shaggy head, J2.

I take back my comment about your capacity for nuance in the "Sanctity of marriage" thread.

[cpt_azad]

I follow most of the threads that j2 makes (and where there's j2 there's RF :P ), his thoughts are intersting (compliment) :) i dont post anymore on these threads because simply i don't want to get involved unless it's a major issue (and i mean big).

[TheDave]

i find as my point gathers momentum other people's gather long words so i dont post here anymore. i just get very frustrated.

[Rat Faced]

I follow most of the threads that j2 makes (and where there's j2 there's RF :P ), his thoughts are intersting (compliment) :) i dont post anymore on these threads because simply i don't want to get involved unless it's a major issue (and i mean big).


No im not...

Ah bugger :(

[Rat Faced]

I am a Republican, in the true sense of the word. I say this in spite of the fact that the dictionary as a source of the meaning of words has lost any credulation on this forum.

I believe that great Britain should be a Republic and that any monarchy is an anachronism and should be done away with as soon as possible.

I believe that the people should govern themself, by people elected in a proper, regular and transparent manner. Anything else is simply not acceptable in this day and age.

I am a Constitutional Monarchist, and think we should give the Monarchy more power to interfere in Government, without fear of retribution by the next Government elected.

I think we've tried just about every type of Government in this country; Absolute Monarchy, Republic, Religious Dictatorship and finally settled on the best of the crappy bunch..

I do not want the Head of State to be the same person as the one in charge of the Government, it puts too much power in one persons hands.

Swearing allegiance to a Monarchy and getting paid by a Parliament, sets a nice balance against revolution.. :P

[vidcc]

What's wrong with having the British queen/king as figureheads ? they don't have any powers other than ceremonal and through tourism etc. they do bring in more money to the economy than they take out.
Having a pet Monarch doesn't hinder democracy

Perhaps there is the "why should they live in luxury ?" side of it but that's just the roll of the dice that life dealt them

[manker]

Perhaps there is the "why should they live in luxury ?" side of it but that's just the roll of the dice that life dealt themNo-one would visit the UK to see a monarch who lives in a semi in Wolverhampton :D

I quite agree tho' - while I laugh at the pomposity of the Royals, they do little harm to the democratic process so I see no reason to remove them because of democratic principles.



As to giving them more powers ... errr what! That was a little joke, I take it :ermm:

[Sid Hartha]

a) occasionally, purely for entertainment

b) not yet (I have yet to see evidence of this ever happening here).

[vidcc]

People come to see the Palaces, the Jewels, the Artwork etc.

This "they bring in more than they take out" argument is at best suspect. It is conventional wisdom, however I'd like to see the numbers on that one.

The fact of the matter is, whilst they are here one is a subject, not a citizen. That's just wrong.

Most tourists would consider it a big bonus if they actually got to see the queen.
do you feel any ACTUAL freedoms are denied you at present that you would gain should the monarchy be abolished?

Descriptive terms not counting if the actaul reality has no difference in real life affect

[Rat Faced]

@manker

No i do mean it.

What good is being able to sack the Government, if you lose the ability immediatly after using that power?

If they were allowed to actually use the power, then Thatcher wouldnt have caused as much crap as she did. In addition, Blaire wouldnt have been able to use the Royal Prorogative to take us to war etc..

At the moment, the "Powers" of the Royals are excercised by the PM... I do not like so much power ie: The Prorogatives and the Government, in one persons hands.

By giving the Royal stuff back to the Royals, Government becomes more accountable.

[j2k4]

Another thinly disguised parable sails over your shaggy head, J2.

I take back my comment about your capacity for nuance in the "Sanctity of marriage" thread.

My apologies, Clocker-I actually mistook you for someone else. :blink:

Maybe Rat, or somebody... :D

[manker]

@manker

No i do mean it.

What good is being able to sack the Government, if you lose the ability immediatly after using that power?

If they were allowed to actually use the power, then Thatcher wouldnt have caused as much crap as she did. In addition, Blaire wouldnt have been able to use the Royal Prorogative to take us to war etc..

At the moment, the "Powers" of the Royals are excercised by the PM... I do not like so much power ie: The Prorogatives and the Government, in one persons hands.

By giving the Royal stuff back to the Royals, Government becomes more accountable.I do understand that you don't like Blair having so much power but surely it is better in the hands of an elected politician rather than an unelected pensioner.

How would the Queen be able to decide when it's appropriate to use the Royal Prerogative. Would she have an unelected quango of advisors, call a referendum or something else. I know that it wouldn't be the result of a Windsor family conflab.

I am genuinely interested in this as I know basically nothing about it -- I don't think the thought had ever crossed my mind before.

[Rat Faced]

Hmm, maybe im expressing myself incorrectly...

The Royals are brought up from birth and educated to a high standard and should, in theory have an extremly high sense of Nobless Oblige (spelling?)...

Those that rise to the top in politics, irrespective of party, have only proven that they are better backstabbing bastards than the next man...

Personally, id rather trust those that were brought up from birth that they should look after their subjects and nation, than those that wish to tickle their own ego trip for power and lining their pockets.

No garantee that they would be right; but then there never is....

AND.. they are merely the balance to the Government, or should be.

They dont make/enforce laws, however should have and use the power to force an election, irrespective of the governments wishes. THIS is the most important part... the power to sack a Government that gets too big for its boots (eg Thatcher and Blaire)

[manker]

I thought the Noblesse Oblige was a term only used these days in satire.

I understand your viewpoint a little better now but I heartily disagree. I think perhaps my view of major politicians isn't as jaded as your's and that you're probably rather more cynical and distrustful of them than I am.

I can't begin to comprehend the problems of entrusting one individual with the responsibility of sacking the Government. It's just ... incomprehensible.

[Rat Faced]

There arent many Civil Servants (or indeed Public Servants) that could put their hand on their heart and say that their Minister wasnt on the fiddle one way or another....

Cynical, yes...

However, I can deal with a dishonest politician, if he stays bought... these days they dont even have the honour to do that :P

An Honest Politician is not unknown... they will never be a power though. ;)

[Maxtor2]

Politicians don't have to stab each other in the back. That's what campaigns and advisors are for.
As for royalty being better suited for governing: Bullshit (sorry, but I sometimes like to be blunt). Politics is a skill that is difficult to develop, much like military strategy, which few people actually understand. Representative governments have competition between people and parties, thus allowing voters to pick the person whom they think is best able to fulfill their term. The oscillation between parties holding the high offices is natural to representative governments; as one party executes its goals, the problems that it claimed to fix will vanish, while the problems that the other side brings up will be more obvious and seem more imminent. Thus, the other party will win the next election, and the cycle will continue.

With life-long appointments, there are quite a few problems. First, you could end up with a drooling idiot, literally, as Spain realized when its empire was crumbling. Second, there is no check-and-balance system, so the monarch could really do whatever they want. Third, the monarch will act in their self-interest, and the population of the country will get screwed over (as has happened when monarchs are in power). There are countless more problems, but I haven't considered the subject enough to notice them. "tickle their own ego trip for power and lining their pockets" is exactly what a monarch will do, as history has proven.

You probably doubt that a monarch can take control of a nation if it only has the power to force elections. Assure you, a monarch can. What would happen if the monarch forced elections each and every month? Such actions would effectively sack the government, as no citizens would know who really is in power, and citizens will not follow the orders of someone whom they don't think is in power. The only person with a consistent grasp on power would be the monarch. Thus, the citizens would turn to the monarch for stability, either trading the monarch something the king/queen wants in exchange for not holding countless elections, or giving the monarch enough power so that they don't need to hold countless elections (because the monarch would have more power than Parliament, and thus is free to do whatever he/she wants, given a bit of time). On the other hand, the population might start a revolution an kill the monarch, but it's unlikely that they would be able to reform parliament, because there is no authority to tell winners of the earlier elections that they will not have a seat in the new parliament, and no authority to administrate a new election for a longer-lasting parliament.

The above is an extreme circumstance. Another, more likely, case may be that the monarch will call new elections whenever a certain party that the monarch dislikes has bad poll numbers, and the monarch can therefore weaken the party. So, all the political parties would work to receive the monarch's favor, in order to not lose power themselves. After some time, the power that the monarch slowly consumes would allow them more control over government, and thus more control over parliament. And, with enough time and a clever, skillful monarch, parliament will be more of a puppet of the monarch than it is a representative body.

Once you give someone a bit of power over others, that power can grow. There is no education system that can convince anyone not to seek more power, not to line their own pockets, or not ignore their subjects to save their own skin. Sorry, a part of humanity cannot be educated away. Education isn't the panacea to all evil, that was a belief in the years leading up to WWI (along with the popular opinion always being right, always), and it failed miserably.

[Monkster]

yup i spend lots of time in here reading posts that are fuckin novels, ie. ^^

swayed? no, its just damn good reading. Its mildy entertaining, very informative and intellegent, and in most cases a good english lesson, which i no doubt need :)

[TheDave]

i read the first paragraph. :gheyeyerollingsmiley:

sorry to go off topic...

the other day me and my dad were talking about americans blind faith in george bush and their unwillingness to question him...

his theory is george bush=head of state so to americans it's like speaking ill of our queen to question him, unpatriotic if you will.

so having a head of state without power seems to be a very good thing for democracy as it gives the people a clear conscience to question governing powers.

i've never had the mind of an american so i don't know how true it is, but it could explain a few things :ermm:

[Rat Faced]

I am indeed, her Subject.

I also said that they should in theory have a high sense of Nobless Oblige... what has that got to do with intelligence?

I'd rather follow someone thick that is at least trying to act in my countries best interest, than someone intelligent acting in their own. This doesnt mean that the Royals dont.. just look at Charles :dry:

.... however they, in my opinion, are much more likely to.

[j2k4]

Politicians don't have to stab each other in the back. That's what campaigns and advisors are for.
As for royalty being better suited for governing: Bullshit (sorry, but I sometimes like to be blunt). Politics is a skill that is difficult to develop, much like military strategy, which few people actually understand. Representative governments have competition between people and parties, thus allowing voters to pick the person whom they think is best able to fulfill their term. The oscillation between parties holding the high offices is natural to representative governments; as one party executes its goals, the problems that it claimed to fix will vanish, while the problems that the other side brings up will be more obvious and seem more imminent. Thus, the other party will win the next election, and the cycle will continue.

With life-long appointments, there are quite a few problems. First, you could end up with a drooling idiot, literally, as Spain realized when its empire was crumbling. Second, there is no check-and-balance system, so the monarch could really do whatever they want. Third, the monarch will act in their self-interest, and the population of the country will get screwed over (as has happened when monarchs are in power). There are countless more problems, but I haven't considered the subject enough to notice them. "tickle their own ego trip for power and lining their pockets" is exactly what a monarch will do, as history has proven.

You probably doubt that a monarch can take control of a nation if it only has the power to force elections. Assure you, a monarch can. What would happen if the monarch forced elections each and every month? Such actions would effectively sack the government, as no citizens would know who really is in power, and citizens will not follow the orders of someone whom they don't think is in power. The only person with a consistent grasp on power would be the monarch. Thus, the citizens would turn to the monarch for stability, either trading the monarch something the king/queen wants in exchange for not holding countless elections, or giving the monarch enough power so that they don't need to hold countless elections (because the monarch would have more power than Parliament, and thus is free to do whatever he/she wants, given a bit of time). On the other hand, the population might start a revolution an kill the monarch, but it's unlikely that they would be able to reform parliament, because there is no authority to tell winners of the earlier elections that they will not have a seat in the new parliament, and no authority to administrate a new election for a longer-lasting parliament.

The above is an extreme circumstance. Another, more likely, case may be that the monarch will call new elections whenever a certain party that the monarch dislikes has bad poll numbers, and the monarch can therefore weaken the party. So, all the political parties would work to receive the monarch's favor, in order to not lose power themselves. After some time, the power that the monarch slowly consumes would allow them more control over government, and thus more control over parliament. And, with enough time and a clever, skillful monarch, parliament will be more of a puppet of the monarch than it is a representative body.

Once you give someone a bit of power over others, that power can grow. There is no education system that can convince anyone not to seek more power, not to line their own pockets, or not ignore their subjects to save their own skin. Sorry, a part of humanity cannot be educated away. Education isn't the panacea to all evil, that was a belief in the years leading up to WWI (along with the popular opinion always being right, always), and it failed miserably.

Yes, quite true and all that, but you've only just scratched the surface.

If actual debate ever breaks out in here, you can be on my team (if you'll have me). :D

[j2k4]

ithe other day me and my dad were talking about americans blind faith in george bush and their unwillingness to question him...

his theory is george bush=head of state so to americans it's like speaking ill of our queen to question him, unpatriotic if you will.


That's not far from the mark.

For those who agree that the basis of (insert relevant Presidential action here) is correct, there is no real recourse but to support one's president; carping is indeed allowed, but kept within limits and is informal in nature.

For these people, to publically criticize a government cause, action or policy is to weaken the president, the action, and also such resolve as exists to accomplish the stated goal.

The blindness you speak of also exists, Dave, but mostly in those who evince no political loyalty and hence do not vote as a result of their apathy. :huh:

The rest of us are merely misguided. :D

[clocker]

My arse, look at how they behave.
So far, your arse seems to be behaving acceptably, but we'll keep a close watch and let you know if it crosses the line.

[manker]

With apologies to the other entrants.Clocker has rather been thrust into position but I'm sure they will accept, at a stretch.

http://moderation.forumflash.com/style_emoticons/default/kenneth.gif

[Rat Faced]

I said I believed in Constitutional Monarchy...

This means an Elected Government would rule, we are therefore in agreement on that point.

I have also stated that i do not believe that too much power should be in one mans, or even one parties hands...

The Monarchy (or any Head of State), to me is the balance that stops a Government overstepping the mark.

Any State that lets the Head of Government also be, de facto, the Head of State.. congregates too much power in one place, whether (s)he be elected or otherwise.

This is a fact in the USA and a de facto fact here... the US President can virtually do what he likes, irrespective of the Senate or Congress via "Executive Order". The Prime Minister in the UK can do likewise with the "Royal Perogative"... this is wrong. By using these powers they are not accountable to anyone.

Saying "They can vote them out" after the bloodshed does not bring back the dead, or stop the Higher Courts being overturned, or give people back their homes...

They should be two seperate functions balancing each other.

The fact that I prefer my "Head of State" to be the Monarchy rather than another Politician is the only point in issue that i can see. The Monarchy is, in theory, above politics; Politicians live for it. Other countries have both positions filled by elections, and i can see no improvement on the system and appears to be more crap sometimes.

I quite agree that there needs to be a lot of weeding of the useless and work done to modernise the Monarchy... but i would not want to get rid of it, i'd rather Modernise it and give it some teeth.

I'd also agree that there are times when the Prince of Wales is not fit to sit on the Throne.. I hope that Charles is never King and it goes directly to William (who is a bit of a brat, but appears to care about the people)..

As I said, it needs weeding and Modernising, not demolition.

[Rat Faced]

They've all been done by the PM using the "Royal Perogative"...

If he couldnt use it, these things would have had to be voted upon in the commons and made accountable to Parliament and the UK people.

[Rat Faced]

You have to have something like the Royal Perogative or the Executive Order, otherwise a country cannot react quickly enough to some events.

Its the misuse of these powers that i object to.

ie: The concentration of too much power in one persons/parties hands.

The Head of State should be a Titular Position, with no real power other than being able to force an election and react to events threatening the nation...

Governing should be left to the Prime Minister and Parliament.. accountability, although much slower. To give the PM the powers of the Head of State too, which he currently employs.. means that he can bypass Parliament when he feels like it. Just like GW does in Washington with his Executive Orders.

Your way, is basically electing an Absolute Leader for a period of time... I dont like Absolutes.





Hope it appears in the correct thread this time... :unsure:

[Snee]

I post when I'm here I never lurk bu tid f I did I'd post.,

[hobbes]

i read the first paragraph. :gheyeyerollingsmiley:

sorry to go off topic...

the other day me and my dad were talking about americans blind faith in george bush and their unwillingness to question him...

his theory is george bush=head of state so to americans it's like speaking ill of our queen to question him, unpatriotic if you will.



:frusty: :frusty: :frusty: :frusty: :frusty: :frusty: :frusty: :frusty: :frusty: :frusty: :frusty:

Words are simply redundant in this case.

[Rat Faced]

What do you mean my way, when did I describe what my way entailed. I wanted rid of the pointless monarchy. That does not mean I would not have something else. For example an elected President (just as an example).

Ok... I was making an Inferance that you wished to get rid of the Monarchy and not replace it with something else.

If that something else has no teeth, then its as useless as the Monarchy, without the knock on effect to the economy of Tourists... granted that on foreign tours they will be embassadors of British Industry, just as the Royals are now.. I dont think that the term "President" has the same effect as "Queen" or "King".

Just look at how the society Americans and Industrialists drool when they visit there... you think that they would be so quick to crawl to a British President?

Blair doesnt have that effect, and he's popular over there :P


If it has got teeth, then why not just give the Monarchy the teeth to start with... instead of having even more Poltics involved.

It's also more expensive to have a "President"... (assuming that we prune the usless Royals, as i've suggested)

[vidcc]

dependent on how one looks at it the royals may have a more "priviledged" life as far as luxuries are concerened but who would like to swap the other aspect.... less freedom...

Look at how the debate is going about if Charles should be allowed to Marry who he wishes...would anyone of us stand for that?
The monarch has no real say in how the country is run and is skewered for daring to make public statements about it.
The house of lords should be removed, they are unelected and have influence on the way the country is run. The monarchy (in britain at least) is nothing more than a puppet that receives its instructions from "below".

[Rat Faced]

Anyone who seeks power, are the ones i would be reluctant to give it to..

That rules out all politicians :P

Besides, they shouldnt have any powers other than those i've listed anyway..

The Elected Government are, rightly, the rulers of this country.


I'd have no problems with an elected upper house by the way.

I may be Pro-Monarchy, but im not Pro-Aristocrat in general :lol:

[TheDave]

the royals dont have power yet are the face of britain for the world. surely thats good

[vidcc]

I personally would prefer an elected upper house.
no problem with that....however who would be allowed to run for that office?

If it is the same as the ordianry MP then why not just have more MPs in the "lower house"

[manker]

So basically, RF, You'd like some unelected person to have the absolute right to sack the government or lead us into action against some crisis which you perceive the government would be too slow to counteract.

Your suggestion for the person to fill this post would be the queen.

I would say that if your suggestion is to have merit that this person also needs to be elected, or otherwise to have earned the right to such an important position.

The mere notion that an unelected person who got the job because of the purest form of neputism could sack the government on a whim is ridiculous. As is that person interfering in any way with the running of this country.

[manker]

Indeed.

We have Prince Phillip insulting everyone he meets and the Queen herself discussing the annus horribulus. We have adultery, lies and in-fighting. We have conspiracy theories about the death of Princess Diana. Good public face.I think what Dave's saying is that because they have no power it is easy to write off any indiscretions. At least that's how I read it.

They may be imbeciles but they do nowt except smile and wave, that sort of thing. It probably even detracts, in the eyes of some foreigners, from the scandals and corruption that goes on within our current government.

Prince Phillip calls shoddy workmanship 'typical of Indians' - The reaction is "Yeah but they aren't running the country"

Blunket rushes thro' application for au-pair - Reaction "Meh ... did the queen really organise for Diana to die that night"

[vidcc]

That makes no sense whatsoever. Where's the logic.
what other logic do you need?

you say you want an elected "upper house" ...at present one needs a title to sit in the "h.o.L", be it birth accident or given by the PM. etc.
so i ask who you would have as eligable to run for election in this new elected upper house?
If it is the same commoners that can run for parliament then what would it achieve other than having 2 elected bodies in different rooms?
if it is not the same commoners then who and what qualification.?

[Rat Faced]

what other logic do you need?

you say you want an elected "upper house" ...at present one needs a title to sit in the "h.o.L", be it birth accident or given by the PM. etc.
so i ask who you would have as eligable to run for election in this new elected upper house?
If it is the same commoners that can run for parliament then what would it achieve other than having 2 elected bodies in different rooms?
if it is not the same commoners then who and what qualification.?

Unless they had the same constituancies, it would be unlikely to have the same numbers from the same Parties.

If it was from scratch, then there would be no reason not to have Proportional Representation from the start, so the Balance of Power would be totally different.

Added to which, their Job is different to that of the Lower House.


I have to agree with JPaul on this point...

Government should be elected, and there should be 2 Houses not one...

Edit: Both Elected... for Clarity

[vidcc]

The commons make the bils etc. and pass them onto the lords, who look at them and either send them back or "rubber stamp" them. sometimes they produce their own bills but these have to be approved by parliament etc. etc.

so who would be qualified to run for this? It's a simple question...not a statement

my point being that if it's the same "man in the street" what would be achieved?

they have a role of checking constitutional issues,

Agian if it is the same "man in the street" what would the difference be in the result from the commons? unless the upper house was mostly leaning in the opposite direction politically as the lower house.... here the US consitution is judged different ways depending on which side the view is.

Having 2 houses IMO would purely stall progress if either side had a majority in one and not the other and if both houses had the same majority, would there be purely self service political games?

Would you want sailsbury convention to still apply if the upper house was elected?


As to judicial reviews i wouldn't change that...only judges would be qualified.

I have purely asked questions about how you think and why you think something should be so.....are your views above question?

[vidcc]

If it was from scratch, then there would be no reason not to have Proportional Representation from the start, so the Balance of Power would be totally different.



how would you apply proportional representation?

if the party chooses who to place wouldn't that mean that some would be installed without "that individual" actually being elected?

[vidcc]

There is so much that is wrong with that it would be a waste of time to try to reply to it in any meaningful way.

It also does nothing to explain the logic of your original suggestion. That we have a larger commons, rather than an elected upper house.

I have already answered the question, it should be open elections to both houses.
so you have no reply...the one house is a combination

[vidcc]

Yes, what's wrong with that. It's a mix between voting for individuals and voting for a party. The extras would come from the reserve list.

It is better than power thro' accident of birth.


Perhaps better than birthrights but a party could apply an unacceptable candidate.

When i vote it is for the candidate...not the party

Edit: if an MP dies/resigns etc. should there be a bi-election or should the party he/she came from choose the replacement?

This is a question about what you think...not what happens now.

[vidcc]

What does that even mean.



so you have no reply

this means you chose not to reply with why you disagree you just chose to say it is wrong.



the one house is a combination

this means combine both houses so that they work as one....is that so hard to grasp even if you don't like it? (with certain aspects such as judicial review being seperate with qualified people)

[vidcc]

But the words you post don't mean these things, even if you think they do. It's not hard to grasp, it's just nonsense.

i said before if you get confused by anything i type i will rephrase it for you.... i will do this without the petty jpaulism (undeserved) superiority complex which is quite frankly dull.

[vidcc]

yawn....see again you have no reply to it.

edit:

perhaps it's just the old "it has spelling and punctuation errors"....... :sleep1: :sleep1:

[vidcc]

so the lords don't review commons bills? :whistling

so they don't review constitutional issues? :whistling


after you said i don't understand how it works i thought i'd check the official uk. government website to see if they do in fact work as i believe....and basically with a few extras that i didn't mention because i like to keep posts for you as simple as possible, they do.

I am ignoring the judicial side because i believe that should be seperate.

as to thinking spelling mistakes are a bonus....try a spell checker for you own.

[Rat Faced]

Apart from the Magna Carta, i can't think of a written Constitution in the UK..

The UK Constitution is theoretical and subjective.. and subject to change without notice :P

[vidcc]

constitutional issues meaning laws or civil or human rights....such as the right to not say anything when arrested (this is an example and not total and final) surely you are not going down the nit picking road rat :shifty: :D


why was the constitution select committee set up ?


it has been argued that the system needs changing because the lords are not elected, then the arguement has been used that a combination is nonsense because "that's not the way things are done"... where is the continuity?
firemen can be trained to be paramedics as well can't they?

i thought the days of "one man one job" were over.

[Rat Faced]

The Lords' job, as far as Acts of Parliament are concerned, is to pull them apart.

As I said earlier, it would be unusual for the same Balance of Power to maintain in the Upper House if it was elected.

One of my greatest fears, born out under Thatcher and Blair, is a government with a large enough Majority to do what the hell it wants to; irrespective of what the people want.

It doesnt matter which part of the political spectrum the Government comes from, to allow it to create Laws based on "Dogma" is unpardonable in my opinion.

Voting them out of office after they have done the damage is too late, especially as they have sometimes done what the opposition wanted too, but didnt have the guts to do itself or even admit they wanted it. The damage therefore doesnt ever get "Undone".

The Upper House gives another chance to amend or shoot down Acts of Parliament. If they cannot overcome all the hurdles placed before them before they become Law, they shouldnt be on the books to start with.

[vidcc]

The Lords' job, as far as Acts of Parliament are concerned, is to pull them apart.

isn't that what i said?...just using different words

As I said earlier, it would be unusual for the same Balance of Power to maintain in the Upper House if it was elected.

but not inconceivable, surely.... it happens elsewhere in the world, just look at the USA

One of my greatest fears, born out under Thatcher and Blair, is a government with a large enough Majority to do what the hell it wants to; irrespective of what the people want.
that's just an unfortunate side effect of the system..here Mr. Bush seems to think he is mandated to do whatever he wishes....how would you change it?
It doesnt matter which part of the political spectrum the Government comes from, to allow it to create Laws based on "Dogma" is unpardonable in my opinion.
Agreed, please see the above question
Voting them out of office after they have done the damage is too late, especially as they have sometimes done what the opposition wanted too, but didnt have the guts to do itself or even admit they wanted it. The damage therefore doesnt ever get "Undone".

that's where people need to get off their chairs and let their MPs know in no uncertain terms what they think.....lobby....If enough do it the message will get through

The Upper House gives another chance to amend or shoot down Acts of Parliament. If they cannot overcome all the hurdles placed before them before they become Law, they shouldnt be on the books to start with.
And again i ask why you think that it would remain effective with an elected house, seeing as it would in all likelyhood be MORE party orientated than it is now.



My point being, that if both houses have the same majority then bills will pass pretty much unchallenged, if there is an opposite majority then cross party politics will stall progress (be it good or bad), even if all the parties have equal represntation then it's possible that there still will be political games.

This is not to say that the lords don't already do this, but as it stands they are limited to delaying tactics and parliament can ultimately push through whatever it wants.

I asked about salisbury... would you change that if the upper house was elected? or would you simply elect the upper house and leave the system as it is ?

My own view would be to overhaul the whole way a bill makes its journey to passing.... allowing for amendments etc. thus giving the same end result with a more efficient system. After all politics is about compromise...unless your own worst case scenario takes effect and a majority party pushes through whatever they want.

I asked but didn't get a response re. the propotional representation, how it would be applied, as i feel that such a system is allowing the party to appoint an unelected person to a position. Along with this i asked if an MP dies/retires/resigns should the party appoint a replacement or should a bi-election be held. An opinion of what should happen is what i am looking for, not what actually does happen at present. I ask this because i vote for the candidate...not the party.


Sorry for the Quote bit.... you raised many points i wish to dig deeper into. You have a wish for change, i have a wish to know how and why you would do it.

:)

[Rat Faced]

@ JPaul

I've already said i want an elected Upper House, via Proportional Representation

@ vidcc

You have a simplistic view of PR. There are a number of different systems, many of which you can vote for candidates.

To start off your research, heres a US site: Proportional Representation (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm)

However thats just the 1st thing i looked at on Google, you'll find more systems if you look for 'em ;)

If PR was in force, neither the Left or Right would be able to force Dogmatic issues through again in the UK.

As it is, the Tories could be as much as 12% in front of Labour in the popular vote (unlikely as that will be in the near future) and still not win an overall majority. If the LD vote stayed the same, Labour could be 4% behind the Tories and win an overall majority of seats on 34% of the popular vote.

Is that fair?

I dont see PR happening in the Commons anytime soon, much as i'd like to see that, however in the event of an elected Upper House then there is a fresh canvas.

[vidcc]

rat.

My question wasn't about different systems of "PR" as they exist...it was how YOU wish it to be...seeing as my questions are about how and why you wish to change things.

I am well aware of the many ways in which it can be applied

I agree with your concerns over the popular vote but isn't it done the way it is now because each MP is supposed to represent that particular area. Personally i think it is a fair way to elect ones local representative.
Britain doesn't have a president, however if it went down that road then i believe the popular vote should elect him...not the party "seat" vote.....

[Biggles]

As the Scottish Parliament is elected by PR we have now have some experience of the process. By and large, I am content. There are a number of parties represented in the Parliament including Greens and Independants. I think this is good for the democratic process. It certainly has the bigger parties looking over their shoulders.

The Scottish Parliament looks after Law, Energy (except nuclear) , Health, Education, Social Services, Roads and Transport etc., in fact just about everything except Defence and Foreign Office stuff.

Admittedly 5 out of the 6 parties are left of centre, but that is more a reflection of Scottish society than PR.

I have no strong views regarding the need for an upper house. We only have a single layer of Government and it seems to work ok.

The Monarchy is bit of living (mostly) history. It is fun, but I wouldn't want it to play any role in Scottish politics other than the purely ceremonial (and that kept to the minimum).

I think PR could work ok for the UK as a whole. It would, however, put an end to huuuuge majorities. ;)

[Rat Faced]

rat.

My question wasn't about different systems of "PR" as they exist...it was how YOU wish it to be...seeing as my questions are about how and why you wish to change things.

I am well aware of the many ways in which it can be applied

I agree with your concerns over the popular vote but isn't it done the way it is now because each MP is supposed to represent that particular area. Personally i think it is a fair way to elect ones local representative.
Britain doesn't have a president, however if it went down that road then i believe the popular vote should elect him...not the party "seat" vote.....

Ah, but I vote for a Party...

These days I dont know any of the candidates, and even when I was active I only knew the Labour Parties.

Granted, if I knew the candidate, I would probably vote for him rather than for a Party... in the UK, this rarely happens.

[Rat Faced]

vidcc knows this...

I'm sure this little spat was for the benefit of our non-UK members ;)

[hobbes]

Ah, but I vote for a Party...


This is why I was a bit baffled by all the ballyho about Bush winning his second term. You know, that thread where people not old enough to vote apologised to the world or the headline that called Americans idiots.

And The Daves' uninformed post that Americans had blind faith in Bush and followed him without question. I had no idea people could be so clueless. I must admit that I was quite concerned after reading the post he made about his conversation with his dad. Were they just talking phish or did they actually believe the lies they were telling each other.

Kerry lost by not convincing the swing voters that he was going to make a difference. Bush won by default.

Why the world thought we were stupid and brainwashed is bewildering to me. With Bushs' party, people with jobs keep more of their money, story end.

I have the luxury to vote my heart (Kerry), most vote with their wallets.

[Maxtor2]

Hobbes, I couldn't really support Kerry, for a few reasons. The main one, however, was John Edwards. Edwards, in my opinion, didn't have the slightest idea what he was doing. He wanted to contest the vote in Ohio for as long as possible, rather than give a concession speech, even though the recounts would do notable harm to the nation. Additionally, he didn't have an answer ready for one of the most important questions for determining a president; if the time comes, will the president save himself or the country? If Edwards didn't have an answer ready, then that means he entered the race (and got quite far) knowing that he wasn't ready for the office of vice-president. And, if he accepted an office that he knew he was not capable of filling, he is already looking after himself rather than the country. Please notice that I'm using president and vice-president interchangeably, as they are supposed to be interchangeable.
To me, such is unacceptable. I still hate Edwards, though I am starting to see Kerry in a better light. I think he's started to shape up after his loss; he delivered a nice concession speech (as did Michael Moore; that speech at the People's Choice awards was not a victory speech for the award, it was a concession speech over politics), he appeared to do some work in the election in Palestine, and the loss should give him some humility (and probably needed experience). If Kerry moves to the center a bit and develops a praiseworthy foreign policy strategy (with some realist political theory in it), then he would make a great candidate.

One very ironic thing is that Bush actually kept most of his campaign promises from 2000. A few years ago, people were chanting "if anyone keeps his campaign promises, I'd be happy to vote for him", and then approximately half of those people decided to vote against Bush. I will enjoy looking back on this in ten years.

[thewizeard]

I am curious if any of you (assuming you are actually there), actually read our blathering, and if it sways you at all, at all? :huh:

Come on now, don't be shy... :)

:sleeping: ... Err..err, uhm no, I mean yes of course we.. I mean I do!

Actually could you rephrase the question? :)

[Rat Faced]

Hobbes,

British and US politics are different... as I said, I never find out about a candidate, so im forced to vote for a Partis manifesto.

I did say that if i knew a candidate, then i would probably vote that way, and not via Party.

Indeed, the fact that Blair is in charge of the Labour Party has made me change the party i've voted for since I was 18... i cannot support the person.

I did vote for him for his 1st term.. before I knew what he was like.

Does that make sense? :blink:


In the USA, there is a lot more learnt about the Candidate. In the UK, its the Party Manifesto...