U.S President: Donald Trump

Originally Posted by Chris

Ultimately, we could end the monarchy if we wanted to. There isn't the appetite for it however, so why bother? It would be a constitutional nightmare to sort out and the current system isn't broken, regardless of the carping of a very small number of republicans. It's by no means a given that an elected civilian presidency would be cheaper to maintain either, if that's your concern.

And what would we replace it with? An executive president like the system that gave the world Donald Trump? Or a ceremonial one that gave Ireland that bloke that looks like the Dungeon Master?

Personally I am very happy with a system that allows us to have a head of state that isn't a divisive political figure, who has impact and respect around the world which, by its hereditary nature, can be extended through her children and grandchildren.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I appreciate that the first-past-the-post system penalises smaller political parties like the Liberal Democrats, UKIP and the Green Party but it's a big leap of the imagination to classify MPs as undemocratic.

Are you for real ? Last week some MPs voted against their own constituents i.e those who voted leave, there were some MPs who voted against Article 50 being triggered : Don't insult me by saying it's a large leap in my imagination when it is so bloody obvious these MPs stuck two fingers up to democracy.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

Are you for real ? Last week some MPs voted against their own constituents i.e those who voted leave, there were some MPs who voted against Article 50 being triggered : Don't insult me by saying it's a large leap in my imagination when it is so bloody obvious these MPs stuck two fingers up to democracy.

Hi Mick, I'm for real and I'm not insulting you.
But sometimes I feel that you perceive offence from me and others when absolutely none is intended.
Last week far more MPs voted against the wishes of their constituents by voting for Article 50 than MPs who voted against Article 50 against the wishes of their constituents. And one MP threw a sickie!
But I would argue that none of the above makes MPs inherently undemocratic.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

But I would argue that none of the above makes MPs inherently undemocratic.

I disagree.

MPs who voted against their constituents for Article 50 being triggered were respecting the Majority democratic result of the referendum, those who voted against that, stuck two fingers up at that majority result, they are undemocratic because they dissed the very thing that gave them their seat in the house.

Don't mention that racist MP Abbott who threw a sickie, she is an absolute disgrace along with her ex-lover Corbyn.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

I disagree.

MPs who voted against their constituents for Article 50 being triggered were respecting the Majority democratic result of the referendum, those who voted against that, stuck two fingers up at that majority result, they are undemocratic because they dissed the very thing that gave them their seat in the house.

Don't mention that racist MP Abbott who threw a sickie, she is an absolute disgrace along with her ex-lover Corbyn.

I get where you're coming from and I appreciate your viewpoint.
It's a no-win situation for some MPs - vote against the wishes of constituents who elected you (and may not re-elect you because of your voting decision) but vote for what the majority of the country voted for. And it's highlighted even more when an MP like Sarah Olney is elected on the platform of voting against Article 50.
I guess it's down to the electoral system in the UK being based around representing constituents. I do think Parliament needs reforming as it penalises smaller parties but as it works for Labour and the Conservatives I can't see it happening.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by martyh

so who is then ?

he is the boss in deciding who speaks in the commons

Dunno, the Lord Chancellor? Hugh has said it's not the PM, perhaps he knows who is.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I do think Parliament needs reforming as it penalises smaller parties but as it works for Labour and the Conservatives I can't see it happening.

Exactly, but I would be extremely worried if the Liberal Democrats suddenly gained a lot of seats and then power, they are a divisive party and have a bad obsession with the EU, as long as they keep banging the same drum that we need to stay in the EU, they will stay as they are, insignificant.

This also highlights why people should not be so critical of the US Election process in regards to how our own election processes run, the popular vote in the US does not win the Presidency because you cannot have a few States with high population density, dictate who wins it.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

Ultimately, we could end the monarchy if we wanted to. There isn't the appetite for it however, so why bother? It would be a constitutional nightmare to sort out and the current system isn't broken, regardless of the carping of a very small number of republicans. It's by no means a given that an elected civilian presidency would be cheaper to maintain either, if that's your concern.

And what would we replace it with? An executive president like the system that gave the world Donald Trump? Or a ceremonial one that gave Ireland that bloke that looks like the Dungeon Master?

Personally I am very happy with a system that allows us to have a head of state that isn't a divisive political figure, who has impact and respect around the world which, by its hereditary nature, can be extended through her children and grandchildren.

Why would we need to replace it with anything? Not having a monarch doesn't automatically mean we must have a president. I'm not that unhappy with the current queen but it's unfortunate that her Maj sits atop a thoroughly odious class system that permenates the upper echelons of pretty much every aspect of the country

---------- Post added at 16:03 ---------- Previous post was at 16:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

Therein lies the massive hypocrisy, 3 nations leaders with atrocious human rights records with women seen in those countries as 'lesser' species. Where were those Womens resistance protesting for women's rights in China, in Qatar and Kuwait ? Where was the petition to stop their State visits ?

The Speaker, Bercow has wholly acted inappropriate, he has used a platform to gain an audience and he has undermined the Government when he is meant to act neutral at all times, he is a hypocrite and undemocratic by dissing the democratically elected leader of our most important ally.

There were loads of protests about the Chinese visit

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

There were loads of protests about the Chinese visit

Fantastic, now what happened about the Kuwait / Qatar visit?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mick

Fantastic, now what happened about the Kuwait / Qatar visit?

I don't recall, I can't imagine we'd have been that enamoured at the prospect of them visiting though, I mean would you want them turning up at your house?

You ever consider the reason why people don't want trump here is rather than hypocrisy we hold the Americans in high esteem as leaders of the world and expect better of them, they're our closest friends after all, when has anyone expected anything from the leaders of kuwait or taken their moral compass from Qatar.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mick

Fantastic, now what happened about the Kuwait / Qatar visit?

Qatar you ask
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar

its a bit vile

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You ever consider the reason why people don't want trump here is rather than hypocrisy we hold the Americans in high esteem as leaders of the world and expect better of them, they're our closest friends after all, when has anyone expected anything from the leaders of kuwait or taken their moral compass from Qatar.

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, there is no getting away from it, you cannot on the one hand, stand as a speaker, deny a visit to the house of a leader of our most important ally, when he has previously allowed other leaders with far worse records do the same.

Also, when you say people, you mean 'some people', a lot of people DO want Trump to come visit. This is the problem with large parts of the liberal entity, rather than engage in dialogue and offer the right to free speech which they often abuse to their hearts content themselves, they want to deny that same privilege to their opponents, quite frankly it is pathetic.

[papa smurf]

Bercow's backtrack? Speaker apologises after he tries to ban Donald Trump from Parliament

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...ban-Parliament

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mick

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, there is no getting away from it, you cannot on the one hand, stand as a speaker, deny a visit to the house of a leader of our most important ally, when he has previously allowed other leaders with far worse records do the same.

I don't remember passing comment on the speaker, I'm not a fan of the little guy or his ghastly wife

Also, when you say people, you mean 'some people', a lot of people DO want Trump to come visit. This is the problem with large parts of the liberal entity, rather than engage in dialogue and offer the right to free speech which they often abuse to their hearts content themselves, they want to deny that same privilege to their opponents, quite frankly it is pathetic.

No need to attempt to clarify what I said, the meaning is clear for anyone with even a basic grasp of English, I didn't say the people or all the people.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I don't remember passing comment on the speaker, I'm not a fan of the little guy or his ghastly wife




No need to attempt to clarify what I said, the meaning is clear for anyone with even a basic grasp of English, I didn't say the people or all the people.

I have the grasp of English thanks. It was not clear at all, you said, 'You ever consider the reason why people don't want trump here'. That was you encapsulating lots of people or all the people in the UK, which it certainly is not the case, if this was not your intention to quantify everyone in the UK, you certainly should have been more clear on that.