Queen distressed by Blair legacy

[Osem]

Few things the Queen could do would be as reckless and stupid as New Labour have proved to be.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

I did say in the UK.

But I am not saying she cannot do it legally, I am saying it would be the most reckless and stupid thing she could do. It would make a mockery out of our political system and it would endanger the idea of the monarcy, giving a massive boost to those who would the UK to turn into a Republic.

You really think a unelected Queen/King should be able to dismiss governments? Bearing in mind that you cant control it so she could just as well dismiss a government you like as one you dont?

Of course an unelected monarch should be able to dismiss their goverment!
My god man! Do you really think there should be no stops or checks in goverment to stop Britain becoming a dictatorship?

Look at what could happen if Bliar got his way with his reforms.
Imagine if Labour had been able to seed a majority of members of the Lords sympathetic to him.
With a majority in the commons, they'd have been able to do whatever they liked.
Now imagine if Bliar had aspirations of dictatorship, the majority in the commons would have seen it through, the majority in the Lords would have seen it through (just look at the crazy laws they've managed to get through anyway), are you really happy that there shouldn't be some he couldn't control in the way to prevent anything too drastic, such as removing the right to vote Bliar out?

[Michael Winner] Calm down, It's only a democracy [/Michael Winner]

Of course an unelected monarch should be able to dismiss their goverment!
My god man! Do you really think there should be no stops or checks in goverment to stop Britain becoming a dictatorship?

My god dude! How is a unelected monarch being able to dismiss governments at will not a step towards a dictatorship?

Majoritys do not mean they pass whatever their leader wants as Blair as seen multiple times. MP's will not vote to make a dictatorship. Not only that, but your doomsday stituation still needs a lot of ifs and buts. America has checks and balances and every one of them are elected houses. They do fine, Every part of our government should be elected, such as the Lords.

[Xaccers]

Germany had too, and look what happened.
Zimbabwe did as well, and South Africa, not forgeting Saddam's Iraq.
It can happen anywhere and without a safety valve they can be impossible to remove from power.

With electable Lords you run the risk that you have with MP's, who are only interested in getting back into power the next time elections come round, rather than doing what is required of them for the interest of the Nation.

America does far from fine, Regan used to have to hold his nose while signing bills simply because of the way their system works in order to get things through he had to add items to bills that he knew would be harmful for the country or undo what he was trying to do.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

Every part of our government should be elected, such as the Lords.

The only part of government that has had any credibility for years is the Lords and yet we keep hearing calls from untrustworthy, incompetent, corrupt MP's to abolish it and run it along their lines, please, they should sort their own house out before they start dictating to others

[Xaccers]

Since Labour came to power, the Lords have done a better job of keeping loonie laws under control, and representing what the public want, than the goverment have.
No wonder Bliar wants rid of them!
Ironically, due to his ineptitude, it has resulted in the most rebellious house of Lords for a very long time (thank goodness!)

[Osem]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The only part of government that has had any credibility for years is the Lords and yet we keep hearing calls from untrustworthy, incompetent, corrupt MP's to abolish it and run it along their lines, please, they should sort their own house out before they start dictating to others

Yep - there's been plenty of sleaze, corruption and ineptitude involving elected members over recent years. Sadly, being an elected politician is no guarantee of integrity or ability.

---------- Post added at 10:27 ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

My god dude! How is a unelected monarch being able to dismiss governments at will not a step towards a dictatorship?

How long has the Monarch had such powers? Not much sign of any dictatorships (well except in Bliar's cabinet).

And the Lords, who are not held to account come a election are not open to corruption?

---------- Post added at 10:51 ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Since Labour came to power, the Lords have done a better job of keeping loonie laws under control, and representing what the public want, than the goverment have.
No wonder Bliar wants rid of them!
Ironically, due to his ineptitude, it has resulted in the most rebellious house of Lords for a very long time (thank goodness!)

Maybe the Lords are rebellious because they knew Blair was after them? They do not want reform. Comfy lifetime jobs were they are hard to remove. They have the power to make life very difficult for anyone who endangers that.

[Xaccers]

Actually they've been rebellious on legitimate issues, such as poorly thoughtout/written bills, look at the RIP act, the fox hunting act, the VCR bill, the bill to force all motorbikes to be registered and have number plates, even if they were built in 1908 and have sat in a museum for the past 50 years or are in pieces in your garage!
This government is appauling when it comes to writing laws, thankfully we have the Lords to hold them to account for it.
We also have the parliment act to hold the Lords to account if they decide to try and prevent bills necessary (banning fox hunting isn't necessary) for the future of the Nation from going through.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

And the Lords, who are not held to account come a election are not open to corruption?

Err they are held accountable, stripped of their peerages in some cases, jailed in others etc

---------- Post added at 11:31 ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Actually they've been rebellious on legitimate issues, such as poorly thoughtout/written bills, look at the RIP act, the fox hunting act, the VCR bill, the bill to force all motorbikes to be registered and have number plates, even if they were built in 1908 and have sat in a museum for the past 50 years or are in pieces in your garage!
This government is appauling when it comes to writing laws, thankfully we have the Lords to hold them to account for it.
We also have the parliment act to hold the Lords to account if they decide to try and prevent bills necessary (banning fox hunting isn't necessary) for the future of the Nation from going through.

Exactly, why they would want to wreck something that works perfectly well and is against the majority of the publics wishes is beyond me, another example of New Labour arrogance, telling the plebs that they know what's best for us

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Err they are held accountable, stripped of their peerages in some cases, jailed in others etc

Hmm, when was the last time a member of the commons was held accountable say for lying to the house and taking us to war on false information?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Hmm, when was the last time a member of the commons was held accountable say for lying to the house and taking us to war on false information?

and when was the last time a member of government, who was shown to more incompetent, corrupt and buffoonish than his peer's was sacked and stayed sacked, surely if they have amply shown their inadequacy’s in one position that is evidence enough, what has changed them in the couple of months it normally takes for them to be brought back in a different role?

[Xaccers]

It's Labour's yoyo ministerial policy
Run by yoyo's, for yoyo's, in the style of yoyo's

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

and when was the last time a member of government, who was shown to more incompetent, corrupt and buffoonish than his peer's was sacked and stayed sacked, surely if they have amply shown their inadequacy’s in one position that is evidence enough, what has changed them in the couple of months it normally takes for them to be brought back in a different role?

2 years vote them out. An option not their for the lords.