| Welcome to Squees Lair. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Eating in the Britainlands.; What? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 23 2012, 01:36 PM (6,952 Views) | |
| Grey | Mar 28 2012, 03:38 PM Post #141 |
![]()
|
Yes. |
![]() |
|
| hjk561 | Mar 28 2012, 03:39 PM Post #142 |
|
He rules
|
Whats wrong with the House of Lords? A certain Henry comes to my mind too. Lets trade! |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Mar 28 2012, 03:41 PM Post #143 |
![]()
|
Touche I guess any old sod can be a Lord in this day and age. Edited by Grey, Mar 28 2012, 03:41 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| hjk561 | Mar 28 2012, 03:43 PM Post #144 |
|
He rules
|
Only if they have the required expertise and are approved by an appointments committee
|
![]() |
|
| Grey | Mar 28 2012, 03:46 PM Post #145 |
![]()
|
Like I said, any old sod. |
![]() |
|
| Dantos4 | Mar 28 2012, 03:46 PM Post #146 |
![]()
|
Okay so a politician puts forward a new law which would benefit everybody and improve freedom of speech. I'm obviously shortening the whole process, but safe to say: It gets passed in the house of 'commons', then to these house of Lords. These people have been granted a Lordship for doing one thing or another, or have inherited it (does that count?), and get to vote. In a democracy where everybody is equal, what right to these guys have to vote on something that everybody else has already passed? That's my problem with the house of lords. I say, let the people vote. It's a little more utilitarian, but at least everybody gets a say. EDIT: "There are currently 26 Lords Spiritual, who sit in the Lords by virtue of their ecclesiastical role in the established Church of England.[4] The Lords Temporal make up the rest of the membership; of these, the majority are life peers who are appointed by the Monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister, or on the advice of the House of Lords Appointments Commission." - from wikipedia. Do you see how easily that can be exploited? If they're appointed by the Prime minister or Church... then anything he wants stopped, can be stopped. Same applies for the Church. Nobody should have the opportunity to have puppets. Full democracy or no democracy I say! Edited by Dantos4, Mar 28 2012, 03:49 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Grey | Mar 28 2012, 03:53 PM Post #147 |
![]()
|
That's right, the "church of England" is still a controlling factor in your government. Sucks to be you |
![]() |
|
| hjk561 | Mar 28 2012, 03:55 PM Post #148 |
|
He rules
|
I cant say i agree with you there. An elected House of Lords would be rather a large waste of time. One reason is that you would fill a chamber previously full of experts in their field and full of experience with politicians that, at the end of the day, are allied to their party (unlike a large number of lords) and are concerned about winning votes at the end of the day. And they do have expertise in their ares. If the HoL was simply a puppet, then why has it continually blocked the government on tons of legislature?
Edited by hjk561, Mar 28 2012, 04:02 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Grey | Mar 28 2012, 03:56 PM Post #149 |
![]()
|
At least you don't have our Republicans. |
![]() |
|
| Dantos4 | Mar 28 2012, 03:56 PM Post #150 |
![]()
|
Indeed it does. And let's not forget who the head of the Church of England is... ![]() I don't see why they can't just have people suggest/vote up new policies. People don't seem to have the problem of voting in to save "singer X" on X-Factor. Maybe if the media (linking the two topics here :P) wasn't so "celeb" focussed: All that "SCANDAL: Kim Kardashian seen holding hands with Man" and was more "John from Shrewsbury - Spend Council tax on road repairs, not politician wages", then people might be more interested in the idea. EDIT:
Not an elected house of lords. Just no house of lords at all. Maybe it's a bit utilitarian but surely the people deserve a vote on anything. A house of lords guy who makes most of his money from oil or banking is going to be FAR less likely to vote for something which will negatively impact him or herself. Edited by Dantos4, Mar 28 2012, 03:59 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |






3:21 AM Jul 11