Attention, Lurkers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

What does that even mean.

---

Quote:

---

so you have no reply

---

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

Quote:

---

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

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.

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

edit:

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

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.

:)

@ 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

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.

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.....