Attention, Lurkers...

[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.