Queen distressed by Blair legacy

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

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

You think more elections are the answer to voter apathy? What happens if a Lord and an MP have differing views on the same policy, how much would it undermine the elected MP to have an elected Lord muscling in on constituency matters.

[Osem]

Just been listening to the candidates for Deputy PM whining on about stuff and promising all sorts. The same old claptrap about how they'll be different, engage with the public, be accountable, solve problems, remedy the failings of the past.

They wonder why the public are apathetic - possibly because we've heard it all too many times before from the same old faces.

The only time these people ever listen to the public is when they need votes!

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You think more elections are the answer to voter apathy? What happens if a Lord and an MP have differing views on the same policy, how much would it undermine the elected MP to have an elected Lord muscling in on constituency matters.

I never talked about voter apathy which is really a different topic.

Why do we need to use the same system as MPs for voting in lords? Drastically cut down the amount of lords needed and have 1 lord over multiple areas. So each lord will have around 3/4 mps in their area. The lord would be the representive of the area for national issues while the MP would be local (and national). MP's will have more time on local issues this way and we could cut down on the number of lords we need.

---------- Post added at 14:13 ---------- Previous post was at 14:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Just been listening to the candidates for Deputy PM whining on about stuff and promising all sorts. The same old claptrap about how they'll be different, engage with the public, be accountable, solve problems, remedy the failings of the past.

They wonder why the public are apathetic - possibly because we've heard it all too many times before from the same old faces.

The only time these people ever listen to the public is when they need votes!

Its hard to judge what people want until votes. What the public wants is different to what the papers or what the polls say people want. Certianly a government should not govern based on those. The public vote in a government to then make choices for them, if the public dont like it then vote them out in 4 years.

[Osem]

It's not about what people want, it's about politicians consistently misleading the public and making manifesto pledges they subsequently don't deliver on. The prospect of an election in 4-5 years time is not much consolation to someone who discovers they've been conned.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

I never talked about voter apathy which is really a different topic.

Why do we need to use the same system as MPs for voting in lords? Drastically cut down the amount of lords needed and have 1 lord over multiple areas.

If you are proposing more elections, then it's important to consider the peoples current apathy towards voting

Cut down the number of Lords and you dilute the expertise available, also if they have to worry about being elected every couple of years they'd have less time to scrutinise bills

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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?

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.

The Queen does in theory hold the right to dissolve Parliament and as head of the armed forces does in theory have the ability to back it up...However as far as I can see she (and her recent predecessors) have had no call to do so..The right conditions have not been pertaining to such an action.

Whatever we may think of the policies of recent governments, none of them have been really undemocratic even when we had such close hung Parliamentary votes under Major.However if we ever get a truly hung Parliament I'm sure the Monarch will act to sort matters out by inviting whomever gets the agreement of other parties to make up the government or to go back to the electorate to get a majority.

So in fact she does have power but doesn't see any need to use it leaving it to common sense on our part as a democracy to exercise that democracy.

[jem]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

The Queen does in theory hold the right to dissolve Parliament and as head of the armed forces does in theory have the ability to back it up...However as far as I can see she (and her recent predecessors) have had no call to do so..The right conditions have not been pertaining to such an action.

Whatever we may think of the policies of recent governments, none of them have been really undemocratic even when we had such close hung Parliamentary votes under Major.However if we ever get a truly hung Parliament I'm sure the Monarch will act to sort matters out by inviting whomever gets the agreement of other parties to make up the government or to go back to the electorate to get a majority.

So in fact she does have power but doesn't see any need to use it leaving it to common sense on our part as a democracy to exercise that democracy.

Indeed, in theory at least the Queen can dismiss the individual members of the governement (they are after all members of Her Majesty's Government) and literally appoint anyone she likes in their place. She can also disolve Parliament. But the crucial matter is that Parliament; by law; controls the finances of the country and only Parliament in conjunction with the Monarchy can make or change laws. So no Parliament, no taxes, no taxes, no money to run the country

So although the Queen can choose whoever she wants to be the govenment, unless they can command a majority in Parliament, which effectively means the Commons - directly elected by the people, in practice the Monarch's ability to interfere with the running of the country is severely limited.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

V for Vendetta (the movie not the graphic novel) is a fantastic warning sign for how facists can get into power using fear, and oppression.
Bliar filled his cabinet not with competent ministers, but with his friends and supporters. If someone is willing to put friendship and personal support above the needs of the nation, than it's not that further a step to believe that someone can get to power and fill their cabinet with likeminded individuals who wish to remain in power.
1984 is an example of what can occur under communism, but the details of how it came to power is sketchy at best.

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

Many more countries have had an fully elected government and ended up under a dictator which the people cannot remove without bloodshed.

Originally Posted by Damien

Why would MP's vote on such a system? They have their own agendas to prove. They wont agree to it.

Currently there is the whip system, which can make MP's vote for something which is against their principles or their own agenda simply to remain in their jobs. To go against a party whip can mean political suicide.
With a leader hell bent on domination, political suicide can turn into actual suicide (or that's the way it's made to look).

Originally Posted by Damien

The idea that a unelected body is actually the system stopping a dictatorship is crazy.

It's crazy to have people who have to worry about campaining for elections, making back room promises (look at Tony's Cronies for those) in order to stay in power and reliant on the leader of the government for their position to be in a position to hold that leader to account.
Its crazy to ignore voter apathy and expect reliable turnouts for even more elections.

We have the commons to make the laws, the Lords to scrutinise the laws, and the monarch to enact the laws.

Originally Posted by jem

Indeed, in theory at least the Queen can dismiss the individual members of the governement (they are after all members of Her Majesty's Government) and literally appoint anyone she likes in their place. She can also disolve Parliament. But the crucial matter is that Parliament; by law; controls the finances of the country and only Parliament in conjunction with the Monarchy can make or change laws. So no Parliament, no taxes, no taxes, no money to run the country

So although the Queen can choose whoever she wants to be the govenment, unless they can command a majority in Parliament, which effectively means the Commons - directly elected by the people, in practice the Monarch's ability to interfere with the running of the country is severely limited.

Well the situation has not yet arisen in which a monarch might choose to exercise their rights..doesn't mean they don't exist and as for how far reaching they are..well that depends on the people of the country to decide.

[dreko07]

Heres a question... can the queen vote?

Originally Posted by dreko07

Heres a question... can the queen vote?

The Queen can vote, but in practice it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote in an election.
ParliamentFAQ

[dreko07]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

The Queen can vote, but in practice it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote in an election.
ParliamentFAQ

intresting, I think she'd be a liberal myself, maybe green party.

Originally Posted by dreko07

intresting, I think she'd be a liberal myself, maybe green party.

UKIP?