Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
And when a bill is passed calling on a state of emergency due to bombings etc, and for elections to be suspended?
Imagine if the Lords were elected in 97, you'd have a landslide Labour majority in the commons, and again in the Lords, with no reason not to be sympathetic to Bliar's cabinet.
You'd be stuck with a government that the people can't get rid of.
Add to that your idea of preventing the monarch dissolving government, and we the people are pretty stuffed.
I take it you've seen V for Vendetta?
Remember the part that explains how Norsefire got to power?
We had a certain member of this forum, who when given a list of policies, some good, some blatantly racist, said he saw no reason for voting for that party because of the good policies and ignored the bad ones?
The Lords have a tradition of not preventing bills which were in the manifesto from going through.
Labour (if they weren't so inept) could have used that to gain absolute control of the Lords, and therefore as long as they had a majority in the commons, they'd get bills passed.
How do you vote out a party if elections aren't being held?
|
V for Vendetta is a movie/comic, it does not serve as a good warning sign of anything in the future. 1984 is still a better example for a nightmare dictatorship government but even that is not a good example.
Many countrys have a government that all voted in and has not resulted in a totalitarian government. You have a few checks and balances but at the end of day it is rarely in the intrests of the majority for that kind of government. How American governments havent managed to do so? The Republicans have held all 3 houses of power before and did not try to abolish the 2 Term limit for Presidents and install him as a grand leader.
Why would MP's vote on such a system? They have their own agendas to prove. They wont agree to it.
The idea that a unelected body is actually the system stopping a dictatorship is crazy.