NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just in a forum discussing how to reform the House of Lords, one house of Britain's parliament which, so I've figured out, serves as their Supreme Court. (Forgive me if I'm confused about your system; I'm an American) Well, a few people were discussing how the ratio of elected members to members appointed by the lords should be and this struck me as strange.
I'd like to hear what some Britainers(sp?) have to say about the concept of nobility and royalty.

Ex: If all men are equal, should it even exist?

parliamentary systems are weak, no offense intended... they take too long to legislate, not a stong enough executive, but what do I know, I'm just an american....

also the house of lords has little or no power, go to here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom

Ex: If all men are equal, should it even exist?

All men are equal!? Blood 'ell guv, cheers for the tip!

*goes off to incite rebellion*

Well it would be the inhereted peerages that would be faded out. The appointed ones we talk about would be (well, are meant to be) put into the Lords based on merit and experience, which in theory (but everything works in theory) should provide a useful second chamber which will hold government to account. At the moment we have appointed and heriditary peers. The idea being put forward is to get rid of the hireditary peers in favour of elected and appointed members. Apparently everyone is born equal but in a constitutional monarchy, that still has a rigid class structure in place, that is can really never be true, but having a mixture of elected and appointed peers will get Britain close to that.

PS: Its Britons :) not Britainers lol

PS: Its Britons :) not Britainers lol

I thought it was britains, thats how we spell it here in the USA.....

Apparently everyone is born equal but in a constitutional monarchy, that still has a rigid class structure in place, that is can really never be true, but having a mixture of elected and appointed peers will get Britain close to that.

From what I've seen, the Britons are fairly liberal people. So why has the monarchy been tolerated for so long? :confused:

From what I've seen, the Britons are fairly liberal people. So why has the monarchy been tolerated for so long? :confused:

Because the British as a peoples are naturally conservative and its seen as better than having a President

From what I've seen, the Britons are fairly liberal people. So why has the monarchy been tolerated for so long? :confused:

tourist attraction...

I thought it was britains, thats how we spell it here in the USA.....

Thats just a weird thing about language, we are Britain yet we are Britons. American might call us Britains, some of American English is simplified

its seen as better than having a President

How so?

From what I've seen, the Britons are fairly liberal people. So why has the monarchy been tolerated for so long? :confused:Cos they bring in pots of cash. Ever been outside Buckingham Palace on a sunny weekend? I guarantee at least 50% of people there aren't British (that goes for the royals too ;) )
Plus, where Prince Philip goes, hilarity follows.

Thats just a weird thing about language, we are Britain yet we are Britons. American might call us Britains, some of American English is simplified

like i always said you guys abused your own language! lol

we should just come together and simlify it..... first off make britain stop putting the letter u in words it doesn't belong(colour!! honour!!!)

What? We arent naturally conservative nor do we consider it better than presidents, its just they have certain uses to us. Tourism gets us loads and also traditionalists wont really let us get rid of them. Its not really important to us to get rid of them, they cost us 61p. Id give that away to anyone if i was asked!

like i always said you guys abused your own language! lol

we should just come together and simlify it..... first off make britain stop putting the letter u in words it doesn't belong(colour!! honour!!!)

Ah well as an English Language student I know the complications of spelling reform. I also know why yours is reformed! This gives me great power! Oh...no it doesnt.

I would go into the complexities of English Language but I have an English Language exam tomorrow so im off to bed lol. How ironic

What? We arent naturally conservative nor do we consider it better than presidents, its just they have certain uses to us. Tourism gets us loads and also traditionalists wont really let us get rid of them. Its not really important to us to get rid of them, they cost us 61p. Id give that away to anyone if i was asked!

61 pounds per person right? ahh disclaimer: B.S. isn't really british, hes french and hes trying to undermine your opions of the british.......... I am on to you B.S.!!!!

Ah well as an English Language student I know the complications of spelling reform. I also know why yours is reformed! This gives me great power! Oh...no it doesnt.

I would go into the complexities of English Language but I have an English Language exam tomorrow so im off to bed lol. How ironic

what are you in college or high school? if you go to a university which? (I want to see if its better than mine! lol)

So why hasn't anyone tried to pull an Oliver Cromwell recently?

* Thud of an axe *

So why hasn't anyone tried to pull an Oliver Cromwell recently?

* Thud of an axe *

Was that the thud of an axe being stuck into the oak table as a gesture to inspire the mind of the common man into rising up and overthrowing his oppressers?

Please? :D

Was that the thud of an axe being stuck into the oak table as a gesture to inspire the mind of the common man into rising up and overthrowing his oppressers?

Please? :D


Whatever you say, buddy.

:p

What? We arent naturally conservative nor do we consider it better than presidents, its just they have certain uses to us. Tourism gets us loads and also traditionalists wont really let us get rid of them. Its not really important to us to get rid of them, they cost us 61p. Id give that away to anyone if i was asked!


one word. bollox.

61 pounds per person right? ahh disclaimer: B.S. isn't really british, hes french and hes trying to undermine your opions of the british.......... I am on to you B.S.!!!!

I'm fairly sure you're shitting me here but the Monarchy bring in an overall benefit to the economy and at 61 pence per person (IIRC) it's not bad.

Was that the thud of an axe being stuck into the oak table as a gesture to inspire the mind of the common man into rising up and overthrowing his oppressers?

Please? :D


shhhh they might have to kill you now.

shhhh they might have to kill you now.

Cromwell=Mass murderer or father of democracy? *cough* Murderer *cough*

britain has put so much time and effort into making the monarchy powerless that there is no reason to get rid of them. they are slightly amusing/annoying/embarrassing relics of a past age.

I like the UK system. It honors Britain's history by not "getting rid of" the monarch and the nobles, while having a democracy.

Besides, if you got rid of the Royals, that would not only hurt tourism, but put hundereds, nay thousands of honest, hardworking paparazzi and tabloid writers out of business. Have you no heart! :D

I like the UK system. It honors Britain's history by not "getting rid of" the monarch and the nobles, while having a democracy.

Not really, it allows us to pretend that we are proud of our history even though few actually bother learning it to a decent degree.

It also serves a purpose which we Brits hold dear to our hearts. Prepackaged heritage. It keeps us, as a nation, with our heads looking backwards to this supposed "golden age" in history which the monarchy supposedly represents.

Also, imo, there are far better and far more important things in British history than the royalty. But the royalty is just so blatant that it eclipses these things.

Besides, if you got rid of the Royals, that would not only hurt tourism,

Bullshit.

I can hardly believe that when tourists come back from Paris and tell their friends they went to the top of the Eiffel tower they say "Well the view was quite nice, but I can't help feeling it was spoilt by a lack of monarchy."

Tourists go to London to look at the palace, and laugh at the funny guards with big hats and try and make them laugh. Tourists still flock to Versailles and similar places. It isn't the actual royals that attract tourists. Just the artifacts that they leave to show they exist or existed.

but put hundereds, nay thousands of honest, hardworking paparazzi and tabloid writers out of business. Have you no heart! :D

Ha ha ha :D

But truefully, I don't give a shit :p

i find it curious that one poster on this thread suggests that we in the United Kingdom apply the letter 'u' when it is not needed....one might say that the Americans leave it out. Without wishing to be possessive, the very essence of the language of english is that it is from england and by definition, we have juristiction over it. Consider it a happy gift to the United States.

i find it curious that one poster on this thread suggests that we in the United Kingdom apply the letter 'u' when it is not needed....one might say that the Americans leave it out. Without wishing to be possessive, the very essence of the language of english is that it is from england and by definition, we have juristiction over it. Consider it a happy gift to the United States.

Not really. That's like saying Upper-middle class Londoners should dictate how the rest of the country speaks...

parliamentary systems are weak, no offense intended... they take too long to legislate, not a stong enough executive, but what do I know, I'm just an american....


I think this is possibly the best example ever of American ignorence. Do you know how much more efficent the British system is compared to the American? Tell me, just how many modifications to the constitution has America made over the past, say 225 years? Isnt it less than 30? The British legislation system works far faster and can react far better than the speed of the American one.

From what I've seen, the Britons are fairly liberal people. So why has the monarchy been tolerated for so long? :confused:

Because (contrary to what Americans think) it has no overriding power over our government. Every royal perogative has been given to the Prime minister, and she has no legal grounding under which she can prevent him doing anything. Why do you think the door is slammed in black rod's face at the opening of Parliament.

Not really. That's like saying Upper-middle class Londoners should dictate how the rest of the country speaks...

There is a big diffrence between spoken dialect and accents and the written word. Upper-Middle class Londoners DO determine how the rest of the country writes, because of the invention of the printing press being in London and the Dictionary's invention by (shock horror) a middle class Londoner.

There is a big diffrence between spoken dialect and accents and the written word. Upper-Middle class Londoners DO determine how the rest of the country writes,

Sorry, I was being tongue in cheek.

because of the invention of the printing press being in London

Gutenberg was from London?

and the Dictionary's invention by (shock horror) a middle class Londoner.

Lichfield is in London?

The house of lords has the power to make the house of commons re-think legislation.
A bill passed in the commons is sent to the lords for ratification (that may be the wrong word). The lords will pass it if they like it or ammend it and send it back. By batting bills back and forth like this the more extreme aspects are smothed out.
If a bill goes back and forth for too long and there is a huge majority in favour (there's that U again) of it in the commons the PM can use the parliment act to ignore the lords and pass it anyway (the recent hunting bill was passed this way). They don't like to use this power too often. It's sort of a trump card which you can only use so often without pissing off too many people.
Because judges are also members of the lords (along with archbishops and chinless, inbred idiots) they are the highest court in the land to which an appeal can be made but of course a lower court always has to give leave for an appeal to go to the higher court.
That's how I see it working. The monarchy don't really get a look in.
I don't think it's better than other systems just different.

The house of lords was originally meant to be the 'vote of history', a body designed to be as conservative as possible to try and reduce the chances of the commons going beserk and producing multitudes of stupid or ridiculous laws that would undermine the governmental system.

Well, I think we can hang a big fat "oops" on that one. At the moment the commons seems dedicated to trying to create the worlds first socially liberal totalitarian state. Sort of like 1984, except that instead of the thought police arresting you for subversion, its for having making jokes about priests.

The house of Lords is made of some heredetary titles and others which are given to people for past work in government such as former-PM margret thatcher now holds a seat in the house of Lords . the house of lords also acts as the commite which is to elect the next monarch from the ranks of the royal family rarly this is not the monarchs eldest son. the house of lords cannot barr laws from been made but can sent them back to the house of commons to be re-reviewed .

...
Gutenberg was from London?
...

Moveable type (and thus the printing press) was invented by Laurens Janszoon Koster who was Dutch.
Guttenburg was sold the idea by one of Kosters apprectices.

Sorry to be pedantic but poor old Koster has been hidden for far too long.

Of course your point is still valid :)

Thats just a weird thing about language, we are Britain yet we are Britons. American might call us Britains, some of American English is simplified
Actually, Briton is in itself a bastardized version of Breton, which comes from France. We americans just took the evolution of the language one step further.

Britain has been a 'democracy' for a long time, but hasn't changed since the Cabinet was allowed to work on its own under George I & II (With the exception of the 1911 Parliament Act).

It's good (Better than a seperate leslative & executive) but really, really outdated.

==Royal Perogative Allows the Prime Minister to use the Queen as a
Dictator in many issues without Parliament's consent.
==First-Past-The-Post Blair gets 35% of the votes, and 65 % of seats
in the House of Commons. I also don't like having single-member
constituencies where you get represented by someone you probably didn't
vote for. It also focuses on 40 key marginals while the other 500 seats
are 'safe'
==House of Lords Either a hireditary peer who gets a special seat in
Parliament just for being born rich, or a Blair crony and a yes-man. However
it's our last hope in blocking the I.D. cards bill...
==Monarchy Illegal to discuss removing the Monarchy in Parliament,
but the Monarchy is a real waste of money. Chartered flights for Prince
Andrew to play golf spring to mind. The 'real' royals (Lizzie, Philip, Harry and
William) are alright people, but we still can't choose our head of State.
==Unitary State There are huge regional differences, but the
Government is totally based in Westminster since the UK was created by
English Invasions, the Act of Union and a subsequent British Invasion.
Despite this, the governent only gives Wales a poor excuse for an
Assembily Scotland the most inefficient Parliament in Europe and
dissolves the N.I. assembily (Not really their fault, though). England
gets nothing at all. It's a maddening mess.
==No constitution The UK constitution is along the lines of 'What can I
get away with now'. The governemnt can pass bills with as little debate as
they want, and mess around with anything.
==European Union What a load of c**p.

Phew!

I think this is possibly the best example ever of American ignorence. Do you know how much more efficent the British system is compared to the American? Tell me, just how many modifications to the constitution has America made over the past, say 225 years? Isnt it less than 30? The British legislation system works far faster and can react far better than the speed of the American one.
The constitution isn't designed to change often. All it does is define the major powers of federal and state governments and affirm the rights of the people. Everything else is put into place by laws, which are much more easily changed.

I think we Britons tolerate the monarchy because it doesn't do much or hold any power, as was said earlier. I'm a socialist, for example, and thus rail heavily in favour of abandoning monarchies or other non-democratic aspects of governments, but I really couldn't care less about the Monarchy.

One this the Monarchy is still able to do is dissolve Parliament in the event of a dictatorial executive making its way into Parliament with a strong majority. Of course the monarch would never do that in anything less than extreme circumstances.

One thing we'd get out of abolishing the monarchy is a new national anthem! No more embarrasingly sleep-worthy drawl of the boring national anthem. I vote we use the James Bond theme, merely for the image of the footballers and fans singing it before an international match.

One thing we'd get out of abolishing the monarchy is a new national anthem! No more embarrasingly sleep-worthy drawl of the boring national anthem. I vote we use the James Bond theme, merely for the image of the footballers and fans singing it before an international match.

I'll second that :P

Lichfield is in London?

Ahem, you havent heard of Dr Samuel Johnson?

One thing we'd get out of abolishing the monarchy is a new national anthem! No more embarrasingly sleep-worthy drawl of the boring national anthem. I vote we use the James Bond theme, merely for the image of the footballers and fans singing it before an international match.

Please get rid of the terrible dirge that is the national anthem, or at the very least allow England to vote on a second one and keep the NA for the UK as a whole, I would vote for jerusalem or fanfare for the common man (the ELP version would be cool). It is embarrasing at an Eng Cym or Eng Sco rugby match to have such a crap song, in fact lets have swing low sweet chariot.

besides the monarchy gives daily mail readers something to bitch and moan about, and there are a lot of other European states that have active monarchs as well, just they are not so up their own arses as ours (mostly the elevated state that the daily mail readers give them)

Revolt now, avoid the rush

Moveable type (and thus the printing press) was invented by Laurens Janszoon Koster who was Dutch.
Guttenburg was sold the idea by one of Kosters apprectices.

Sorry to be pedantic but poor old Koster has been hidden for far too long.

Of course your point is still valid :)

No worries. I had a feeling there was someone before Gutenberg, but wasn't sure.

Thanks :)



Ahem, you havent heard of Dr Samuel Johnson?

You mean this one? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson)

"The son of a poor bookseller, Johnson was born in Lichfield, Staffordshire"

Britain has been a 'democracy' for a long time, but hasn't changed since the Cabinet was allowed to work on its own under George I & II (With the exception of the 1911 Parliament Act).

It's good (Better than a seperate leslative & executive) but really, really outdated.

==Royal Perogative Allows the Prime Minister to use the Queen as a
Dictator in many issues without Parliament's consent.
==First-Past-The-Post Blair gets 35% of the votes, and 65 % of seats
in the House of Commons. I also don't like having single-member
constituencies where you get represented by someone you probably didn't
vote for. It also focuses on 40 key marginals while the other 500 seats
are 'safe'
==House of Lords Either a hireditary peer who gets a special seat in
Parliament just for being born rich, or a Blair crony and a yes-man. However
it's our last hope in blocking the I.D. cards bill...
==Monarchy Illegal to discuss removing the Monarchy in Parliament,
but the Monarchy is a real waste of money. Chartered flights for Prince
Andrew to play golf spring to mind. The 'real' royals (Lizzie, Philip, Harry and
William) are alright people, but we still can't choose our head of State.
==Unitary State There are huge regional differences, but the
Government is totally based in Westminster since the UK was created by
English Invasions, the Act of Union and a subsequent British Invasion.
Despite this, the governent only gives Wales a poor excuse for an
Assembily Scotland the most inefficient Parliament in Europe and
dissolves the N.I. assembily (Not really their fault, though). England
gets nothing at all. It's a maddening mess.
==No constitution The UK constitution is along the lines of 'What can I
get away with now'. The governemnt can pass bills with as little debate as
they want, and mess around with anything.
==European Union What a load of c**p.

Phew!
No right wing spin there then.
Everyones happy with first past the post when their man is PM. It was fine when Maggie was in power but now it's not?
Actually I vote Lib Dem. So I agree with you.

Blair cronies in the Lords just balance out the overwhealming number of chinless, inbred idiots who vote for the tory side without thought.
A better system may not be much better. Look at the US.

How do you see lizzie (an aging german) or Phil (a loud mouthed greek) to be "alright people". I've been snubbed by the queen and she's a bitch. So there.

The UK laws are based on president and not a constitution because it works. A thing is law because it always has been but we can change it if we want. seems fine to me. The govenrment canchange laws 'cos they got the majority in the present parliment. Don't like it. vote them out.

Europe. Good idea. Not working well at the moment but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

parliamentary systems are weak, no offense intended... they take too long to legislate, not a stong enough executive, but what do I know, I'm just an american....

If only you knew that the serious disadvantage of a parliamentary system like the one in the UK, is that the UK lacks a written inflexible constitution like France, Germany and other parliamentary systems. This causes the legislature and moreso the executive to have incredible power during times when the government has a large majority with virtually no limitations on what extensions of state power they may wish to introduce like the Anti-Terror Legislation of 2005 and the forthcoming Religeous Hatred Bill and the ID Cards legislation.
In Britain, there is no permanent bill of rights so in a sense our human rights could be violated with a simple parliamentary majority in an electoral system that does not properly recognise the political opinions of the country, i.e the First Past the Post System.

"The son of a poor bookseller, Johnson was born in Lichfield, Staffordshire"

And who did he have to get to pubish/sponser it?

There is a strong republican (not US) sentiment within British society especially in the liberalaterians wings of the three main parties, and they would advocate for the house of Lords being replaced with a Constituency based fully elected system and the House of Commons being a proportionally ellected house. Unfortunately some of the greater minds that are presently in the house of Lords through either peerage or patronage - I'm thinking Law Professores and excentric artists in particular - could never win a seat in a contested election, also proportional representation would allow the BNP and UKIP into parliament which would be horrific, thankfully Sien Fenn absent themselves because they feel that it would be betraying their cause to sit at Westminister. Also there should either be national parliaments for all of the seperat British Countries and Territories or for none of them but not the current hoch poch where Gibralta, London, Wales and Scotland have but England as a whole, the Falklands and most of the little islands in the indian ocean Britain owns do not. Of course Northern Ireland is a different matter altogether.

Personally I would favour a system where the Lords ellect from amongst themselves a High Lord or President who would be able to Fire an ineffective Prime Minister but not hinder his/her running of government, and the royal esttes and coffers are absorbed by the Treasury (of course a small pension for QEII and direct family for a hundred years or so would be fine). We do desperately need a written constitution and to use our impeachment laws more regularly.

No right wing spin there then.
Everyones happy with first past the post when their man is PM. It was fine when Maggie was in power but now it's not?
Actually I vote Lib Dem. So I agree with you.

Blair cronies in the Lords just balance out the overwhealming number of chinless, inbred idiots who vote for the tory side without thought.
A better system may not be much better. Look at the US.

How do you see lizzie (an aging german) or Phil (a loud mouthed greek) to be "alright people". I've been snubbed by the queen and she's a bitch. So there.

The UK laws are based on president and not a constitution because it works. A thing is law because it always has been but we can change it if we want. seems fine to me. The govenrment canchange laws 'cos they got the majority in the present parliment. Don't like it. vote them out.

Europe. Good idea. Not working well at the moment but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Actually I agree with you (and i'm actually not right-wing either! Does it really sound like that?)

As far as I knew, queenie was an Ok person. (But i'm still a republican) At least that's what my grandparents who've met her say, although theyre super-monarchist though.

Perhaps she just has mood swings :p

I just think that our system is outdated and could be run far better, as could Europe, although I think it's now too corrupt to fix without virtually replacing it. I think we definatly need PR to get rid of the two-party Labour-thatcherism or tory-thatcheism system, and have something new for a change. And we need to get rid of the Lords, too.

I'd have something like This (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1997/blueprint.html) to run the country. Seems a bit more democratic.

If only you knew that the serious disadvantage of a parliamentary system like the one in the UK, is that the UK lacks a written inflexible constitution like France, Germany and other parliamentary systems. This causes the legislature and moreso the executive to have incredible power during times when the government has a large majority with virtually no limitations on what extensions of state power they may wish to introduce like the Anti-Terror Legislation of 2005 and the forthcoming Religeous Hatred Bill and the ID Cards legislation.
In Britain, there is no permanent bill of rights so in a sense our human rights could be violated with a simple parliamentary majority in an electoral system that does not properly recognise the political opinions of the country, i.e the First Past the Post System.

That is also the great advantage of the UK system. Our Parliament isn't bound by the values of a small group of long-dead aristocrats. Our Parliament is free to do as it pleases, and our system of conventions and our 'soft' constitution have made our system much more flexible, and in many ways much more modern than the US system. The American constitution is ossified - the constitutional right to bear arms being the example that most other people find the weirdest. Your legislative system also has some very odd results because it is bound by law and not convention, as convention is much more adaptable and people are less able to abuse it, because there is no such thing as a technicality with a convention.

I'm not a fan of the legislation that Labour is beginning to bring in, and I think it is an abuse of their position, but I think that the absence of a written, binding constitution is the best think about the British system. It has done us much more good than harm over time.


The monarch works constitutionally because a system of convention over, say, who gets to be PM, works much more neatly than having a President. In any case a President is just a politician, and by having a monarch we have, in theory, an untouchable bastion against tyranny. Whether the Queen would ever refuse even the worst of laws is debatable, but even so it's nice to know that there is a position that can't be taken hold of by power-hungry types.

Btw, just to clear up the point about the House of Lords - it has two distinct and separate functions.

One is as the second chamber of the Parliament (maybe a little like the Senate), but it's powers are much less than those of the Commons, as it can't introduce legislation or block financial Bills, and can be ovveridden as stated earlier by the Parliament Act.

The other is as the highest court in the UK. In this capacity it is made up of (usually) five law Lords, who are judges that have risen through the judicial ranks. Technically they have a right to sit in the House of Lords, and technically also other Lords have the right to make judicial decisions. The latter right is never exercised, and the former only rarely (though they never vote). That is convention at work again.

As a Court they are not the same as the Supreme Court, because there is no constitution to interpret and they cannot strike down primary legislation as unconstitutional. They are simply the highest court of appeal, judging on the same issues as all the lower courts, but more definitively.

And who did he have to get to pubish/sponser it?

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/shifting_goalposts.jpg

If only you knew that the serious disadvantage of a parliamentary system like the one in the UK, is that the UK lacks a written inflexible constitution like France, Germany and other parliamentary systems. This causes the legislature and moreso the executive to have incredible power during times when the government has a large majority with virtually no limitations on what extensions of state power they may wish to introduce like the Anti-Terror Legislation of 2005 and the forthcoming Religeous Hatred Bill and the ID Cards legislation.
I would disagree there. We have a constitution (by another name) and yet it was possible to introduce all these useless post 9/11 Orwellian pseudo security laws. The constitution itself can be (and was in the past) changed, although you need a 2/3 majority (not necessarily all from your own party).

First past the post is unjust, but the alternatives are not better, maybe less unjust but they have their own problems (coalition governments are a likely result and not always the best choice).

Despite many faults and even more idiosyncracies, Britain has been a working democracy for ages, resisted totalitarian urges when it was all the rage (ok, Thatcher tried it later ;) but ultimately failed), and is therefore still IMHO a shining example of democracy.

61 pounds per person right? ahh disclaimer: B.S. isn't really british, hes french and hes trying to undermine your opions of the british.......... I am on to you B.S.!!!!
No 61p, but then we get at least that much back so it's a net gain.

Actually, Briton is in itself a bastardized version of Breton, which comes from France. We americans just took the evolution of the language one step further.
Actually the American english is less evolved than that used in the UK.

American English is 'worse' than British English basically because the early settlers couldn't spell properly, so 'simple' spellings tended to be the order of the day.

parliamentary systems are weak, no offense intended... they take too long to legislate, not a stong enough executive, but what do I know, I'm just an american....

also the house of lords has little or no power, go to here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom

The House of Lords has little powers meaning the House of Commons can legislate easily so long as its majority don't rebel, which they never do because of the party line. No checks and balances either.

The House of Lords should be an elected second chamber. Instead it's going to be made up of appointments by the government. Not sure if they want it as a Supreme Court. There are EU courts for that anyways. They should find out what function they want the House of Lords to have before debating how it'll be elected, or appointed.

That is also the great advantage of the UK system. Our Parliament isn't bound by the values of a small group of long-dead aristocrats. Our Parliament is free to do as it pleases, and our system of conventions and our 'soft' constitution have made our system much more flexible, and in many ways much more modern than the US system. The American constitution is ossified - the constitutional right to bear arms being the example that most other people find the weirdest. Your legislative system also has some very odd results because it is bound by law and not convention, as convention is much more adaptable and people are less able to abuse it, because there is no such thing as a technicality with a convention.

I'm not a fan of the legislation that Labour is beginning to bring in, and I think it is an abuse of their position, but I think that the absence of a written, binding constitution is the best think about the British system. It has done us much more good than harm over time.


The monarch works constitutionally because a system of convention over, say, who gets to be PM, works much more neatly than having a President. In any case a President is just a politician, and by having a monarch we have, in theory, an untouchable bastion against tyranny. Whether the Queen would ever refuse even the worst of laws is debatable, but even so it's nice to know that there is a position that can't be taken hold of by power-hungry types.

I am not saying the system is without its merits. All systems have their merits.

What I am saying is that the fact that a political party can abuse the system so easily to increase its power as a government and that the people have no formal enshrined human and civil rights that are INVIOLABLE is absolutely unacceptable and that some form of reform of the system is necessary.

The fact that the alternatives to first-past-the-post have serious problems does not reduce the undemocratic nature of the system.

The House of Lords has little powers meaning the House of Commons can legislate easily so long as its majority don't rebel, which they never do because of the party line. No checks and balances either.

The House of Lords should be an elected second chamber. Instead it's going to be made up of appointments by the government. Not sure if they want it as a Supreme Court. There are EU courts for that anyways. They should find out what function they want the House of Lords to have before debating how it'll be elected, or appointed.


The house of lords current functions as the UK supreme court....

well... kinda.


It's more accurate to say that some highly experienced former judges who are now Lords collectively form a group known as 'The Law Lords', and THEY are the supreme court... only a Law Lord may vote on a judicial matter.

From the currently available Law Lords, they normally pick three or five of them to make a majority ruling on any important issues.

The only time a case will reach the Law Lords is if a question of the interpretation of Law is involved, they do not hold a trial of any sort, simply interpret or even create the Law, which is then passed down to the Trial Courts.

The house of lords current functions as the UK supreme court....

well... kinda.


It's more accurate to say that some highly experienced former judges who are now Lords collectively form a group known as 'The Law Lords', and THEY are the supreme court... only a Law Lord may vote on a judicial matter.

From the currently available Law Lords, they normally pick three or five of them to make a majority ruling on any important issues.

The only time a case will reach the Law Lords is if a question of the interpretation of Law is involved, they do not hold a trial of any sort, simply interpret or even create the Law, which is then passed down to the Trial Courts.
And are far less subject to political pressure than alot of 'more democratic' (read corrupt) systems.

Thats just a weird thing about language, we are Britain yet we are Britons. American might call us Britains, some of American English is simplified

Duno about you, but I thought the britons mostly got killed off along with the picts by anglo-saxons, danes and scots.

I always thought Brit was used.

In regards to the House of Lords, its power has been significantly marginalised and can no longer defend our civil liberties, as is one of its main role these days, by the parliament act and the Salisbury doctrine whereby the Commons can force through repressive legislation like the house arrest of terror suspects without charge or trial if it has been one repeatedly in a Commons vote (once again composed in an undemocratic manner) or is in the governing parties manifesto which theoretically has a mandate (though one would doubt whether 31% of the vote is a popular mandate).

Duno about you, but I thought the britons mostly got killed off along with the picts by anglo-saxons, danes and scots.

I always thought Brit was used.
No killing off done, just a big melting pot! No one ever really took over the place they just came, settled down, merged with the locals and changed them a bit, then the next lot came along and they were taken in and the culture took what it liked and discarded what it didn't.

Lichfield is in London?

I think he means the first English Dictionary.

Dr. Samuel Johnson apparently made a famous one in the 18th century.

No killing off done, just a big melting pot! No one ever really took over the place they just came, settled down, merged with the locals and changed them a bit, then the next lot came along and they were taken in and the culture took what it liked and discarded what it didn't.

I think that could be disputed. But then I'm no historian.

Didn't the Anglo-Saxon chronicles have records on this sort of thing?

I think that could be disputed. But then I'm no historian.

Didn't the Anglo-Saxon chronicles have records on this sort of thing?
Loads of Druids were killed off but they were not a people, they were a religious group. When the Danes came they were successful because they came and dominated then joined the local populance, taking on many of the traditions and culture. And as they did not get every where their culture did not dominate. The same was true for most invaders. The Normans came over but Norman Britain was alot different from Norman France, and the rest of France for that matter.
The British culture and languge is an amalgum of all that came before.

One thing we'd get out of abolishing the monarchy is a new national anthem! No more embarrasingly sleep-worthy drawl of the boring national anthem. I vote we use the James Bond theme, merely for the image of the footballers and fans singing it before an international match.

England is the only country to sing Britans national anthem, it sucks. So depressing.

England is the only country to sing Britans national anthem, it sucks. So depressing.
Yes, if Scotland do not sing the national anthem then I want Engalnd to be able to sing Jerusalem.

I was just in a forum discussing how to reform the House of Lords, one house of Britain's parliament which, so I've figured out, serves as their Supreme Court.

Umm... no.

A FEW members of the House of Lords acts as the High Court. These are lawyers though, Judges who sit in the Lords rather than Lords who sit as Judges.

We have no supreme court. That would be our Monarch (who, incidently, chairs the House of Lords either in person or by Proxy. The Thone is in the HoLs.)

Personally I think the HoL is great. The abillity to knock back rubbish bills by silly elected (thus public opinion dominated Commoners) is needed; some of our finest, more intellegent and most British minds sit in the Lords and they do an awful lot of work.

Those wanting the Lords elected one way (by PR for example) and the Commons elected another (perhaps FPTP or by MTV) would simply set up 2 democratic bodies against each other and would reach deadlock. That wouldn't work. We don't have a state system so having a 'democratic' upper house wouldn't work.

Americans have, as George Galloway, MP, showed, an awful lot to learn about democracy.

(Let no one slag of the non-existance of the British Consitution for allowing crap bills in; the Americans have 2 democratic houses and a constitution, they still elected Bush twice and allowed the Patriot Act and things like the Iraq war to happen! There are morons in every country, lucky more in American than in Britain.)

Yes, if Scotland do not sing the national anthem then I want Engalnd to be able to sing Jerusalem.

I like Jerusalem, but some people get assey with it. I also think "I Vow To Thee My Country" is good.

The British culture and languge is an amalgum of all that came before.


:rolleyes: Our language is an amalgum of all that came before? that's just not true. There's pretty much nothing from the Celtic languages in English, and the same is true for pre-Celtic influences in Welsh... There was never any "melting pot".

What? We arent naturally conservative nor do we consider it better than presidents, its just they have certain uses to us. Tourism gets us loads and also traditionalists wont really let us get rid of them. Its not really important to us to get rid of them, they cost us 61p. Id give that away to anyone if i was asked!

i disagree about how the monarchy brings in money. people probably dont think, "well i was going to go the bahamas, but britain has some inbred people who dont work, so ill go their instead." everyone complains about how people on the dole do nothing for anyone, but at least they dont fly round in helicoptors on account of their ancestors having slaughtered their way into the history books. wouldnt you rather your 61p went into, say, healthcare or something?

and your right about the conervativism bit. how can you be naturally conservative? a conservative gene? that would be a powerfull arguement for deseigner babies, i feel.

I like Jerusalem, but some people get assey with it. I also think "I Vow To Thee My Country" is good.

Or, of course, there's Elgar's "Pomp And Cicumstance, Second Movement".

Also known as Land Of Hope And Glory.

I like Britain as it is - Monarchy is good and British and besides, we got rid of it once and it didn't quite work so we brought it back.

Personally I think the HoL is great. The abillity to knock back rubbish bills by silly elected (thus public opinion dominated Commoners) is needed; some of our finest, more intellegent and most British minds sit in the Lords and they do an awful lot of work.

Also, if the HoL had more power, then we might have avoided that awful ban on hunting (do the townies realize that we have to use traps, a more painful method, to get rid of the foxes now? "Aw, da sweet ikkle foxies" they say. What about our Chickens?)

What was I trying to say again? Oh yeah, tradition = good.

And Brits can spell.

Also, if the HoL had more power, then we might have avoided that awful ban on hunting (do the townies realize that we have to use traps, a more painful method, to get rid of the foxes now? "Aw, da sweet ikkle foxies" they say. What about our Chickens?)

The ban is on hunting with dogs.

Shoot the vulpine vermin.

I like Britain as it is - Monarchy is good and British and besides, we got rid of it once and it didn't quite work so we brought it back.



Also, if the HoL had more power, then we might have avoided that awful ban on hunting (do the townies realize that we have to use traps, a more painful method, to get rid of the foxes now? "Aw, da sweet ikkle foxies" they say. What about our Chickens?)

What was I trying to say again? Oh yeah, tradition = good.

And Brits can spell.

tradition = bad

One thing to note about the UK parlimentary system particuarly for those on the outside looking in is the majour difference between theory and practice

For example, the queen i think can dissolve parliment (not totally sure about that just an example) and yet if she ever did (assuming thier was no support for it) we would VERY rapidly become a repiblic

The same applies to the house of lords, mostly they act as a restraning mechanisums - UKs terrorist laws as a good (ish) example, every time they try to exseresie TOO much power or a too disconected from public opinion they have a little bit of their power plucked away

a moden example would be hunting bills a more ancient one labour/liberal finacial bill at the turn of the 19th centruary

To add a query to this thread, if you don't like some of current features what would you replace them with?

1) No wirtten consitituion, no we don't have on thier are advnatages to that (speed of change) but thier are also problems, but what do you do about it?

If you wrote one how would you get agreement?

how would you marry up the massive contradictions you would get?

what about the huge number of legal challanges that would soon appera - look at the effect of the european human writes legeslation

2) Un elected 2nd chamber - hum ok i tend to think something needs doing about this but what?,

dissolve it? - no restraing on pariliment

ellect it? - so now we have two elected houses whats the point in that - unless you could make them represent different levels of the country (in terms of size)

post people to it? - invite cries of cornyisum and risk making it a rubber stamp

jury system it (i.e. pick people at random from pop) - difficulut as you can never gaurntee an even spread of people

3) Monarchy

dimsolish it?

difficult to argue against i tend to find, the PM has all the power, but you do need a figure head and it had better be non powerfull or things get convoulted

replace with presdient?

liable to make polotics VERY complicated and how would the presedent gain power?, and if it had none why would anyone want the job? (celebraty status aside)

4) first past the post

PR? - trikcy here has a tendancy to lead to rather shaky colaition goverments if done badly - but would allow a broader spread of parties in

- also tricky for the devolved areas wales/scotalnd etc would have only a tiny representation

modify FPP? - into what increase the numbers? by reducing consitchancy size?

increase consitchanchy size? so that each local area collects its votes and then does a local form of PR? so x labour x consertative and so on

So what would people say is the best solution to our problems?

For myself i tend to favour, no written constitution, a jury style house of lords, keeping a figure head (i.e. monarchy) powerless, and a local level PR style system

other peoples ideas?

p.s. sorry for spelling but thats the best i can do (no access to spellchecker at the mo)

If only you knew that the serious disadvantage of a parliamentary system like the one in the UK, is that the UK lacks a written inflexible constitution like France, Germany and other parliamentary systems. This causes the legislature and moreso the executive to have incredible power during times when the government has a large majority with virtually no limitations on what extensions of state power they may wish to introduce like the Anti-Terror Legislation of 2005 and the forthcoming Religeous Hatred Bill and the ID Cards legislation.
In Britain, there is no permanent bill of rights so in a sense our human rights could be violated with a simple parliamentary majority in an electoral system that does not properly recognise the political opinions of the country, i.e the First Past the Post System.

In Britain, there is no permanent bill of rights

*Cough* Human Rights Act 1998 *Cough*

OK, it's not permanent yet, but it has begun to enter the Common Law, and the longer it continues in force, the greater it's permanent effect to the precedent of the Common Law, it could also come to be seen as an almost constitutional law which cannot be significantly changed and certainly not repealed without a referendum, like the European Communities Act 1972. Just because we don't have a written constitution, it doesn't mean that these things aren't protected. It would be political suicide for a government to do anything to these laws without serious consultation.

Laws are only given as much significance as politics allows them and a written constitution can be changed, or indeed ignored, quite easily if the political climate so allows. Written constitutions are not inherently stable - for example, have a look at France and the transition between the 4th and 5th Republics in the 1950s. Many post-colonial states were left with constitutions by the retreating constitutional powers which were not suited to them and, as a result were totally ignored - Burkino Faso for example, totally abandoned the written constitution left to them by France, as they hated the French and the system was not adapted to their way of life. It is mainly the system of politics which determines the content of the constitutional framework that will be accepted, rather than the other way around.


NB, just in case no one else has made this point. People should be clear that the House of Lords as a parliamentary body is not the same as the House of Lords as a judicial body. Only the 12 (?) Law Lords sit on the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. These are legal professionals selected from the top ranks of High Court judges, Appeal Court judges and the Bar, not your standard, random peers.

tradition = bad

Not automatically.

In the same way that Tradition =/= Good.

I can think of many traditions that aren't good. I can also think of a few neutral and good ones.


I think he means the first English Dictionary.

Dr. Samuel Johnson apparently made a famous one in the 18th century.

And where was Dr. Johnson from?

(Drumroll please)

Lichfield in Staffordshire ;)

In regards to the House of Lords, its power has been significantly marginalised and can no longer defend our civil liberties, as is one of its main role these days, by the parliament act and the Salisbury doctrine whereby the Commons can force through repressive legislation like the house arrest of terror suspects without charge or trial if it has been one repeatedly in a Commons vote (once again composed in an undemocratic manner) or is in the governing parties manifesto which theoretically has a mandate (though one would doubt whether 31% of the vote is a popular mandate).

It feels weird to be defending the British system (yet again!), but you're not entirely accurate there. The HofL can alter legislation and pass it back to the HofC. Under the Parliament Act of 1911, the legislation from the Commons will be assented to by the queen, after having visited the Lords three times, and under the Parliament Act 1949, will be assented to after having twice visited the Lords. HOWEVER, these acts have only been used something like 3 times, so to say that the government is consistently "forcing through" legislation is slightly misleading. It is also notable that the powers conferred to the Home Secretary under the Terrorism Act 2005 were greatly reduced due to pressure from both Commons backbenchers and the House of Lords.

Actually I agree with you (and i'm actually not right-wing either! Does it really sound like that?)

As far as I knew, queenie was an Ok person. (But i'm still a republican) At least that's what my grandparents who've met her say, although theyre super-monarchist though.

Perhaps she just has mood swings :p

I just think that our system is outdated and could be run far better, as could Europe, although I think it's now too corrupt to fix without virtually replacing it. I think we definatly need PR to get rid of the two-party Labour-thatcherism or tory-thatcheism system, and have something new for a change. And we need to get rid of the Lords, too.

I'd have something like This (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1997/blueprint.html) to run the country. Seems a bit more democratic.
Then we probably actually agree on most things.
Sorry, I'm not too sharp in the morning.

Then we probably actually agree on most things.
Sorry, I'm not too sharp in the morning.

I usually can't think properly before dinner either :p

Actually the American english is less evolved than that used in the UK.
No it's not. Evolution is defined as changing to adapt to the environment. British english is largely unchanged when you get right down to it. On the other hand American english has separated itself in many ways and has technically spawned quite a few dialects. Ergo, it evolved beyond British english.

Ergo, it evolved beyond British english.

Which has been developing longer? And also, what logic is there in saying that a language adapts to its enviroment. So basicly because of the enviroment of America somehow words were on occation needed to be spelt more phonetically and slang altered. Obviously British language has adapted to its enviroment, its just a difrent kind of adaption since the American one is an adaption of both place time and cultureal changes, where as British English has only had to contend with time and cultural enviroments changing. Britain hasn't moved anywhere so the language hasn't changed as much as American English. American English may have had to change more but its in no way "beyond" British English.

On the electoral system, PR is as bad as FPTP. Italy went through about 50 governments in as many years under it.

The AV+ system vaguely touted by Labour would be superior (basically part of Commons elected by FPTP, part by PR).

No it's not. Evolution is defined as changing to adapt to the environment. British english is largely unchanged when you get right down to it. On the other hand American english has separated itself in many ways and has technically spawned quite a few dialects. Ergo, it evolved beyond British english.

Actually that's not really true. In English, as in many languages, the place of the language's origin is where the language has changed the most. For example, in American English you still use "Fall" for Autumn. This was used in British English about 200 years ago, but isn't any more. Diaper is another example - in British English we now use "nappy", but 200 years ago we would have used the word diaper as well. There are hundreds of examples like this. And as for dialects... Try and understand a person with a thick Scots accent, and you'll see that British English is much, MUCH more divergant than you give it credit for. The general rule in language is that the closer you get to a language or language family's place of origin, the more divergent it is. This is true in English as it is with any other language.

Our parliamentary system worked quite well this time didnt it? We didnt let the disorganised opposition in, but we showed Tony Blair whos boss. :D

Our parliamentary system worked quite well this time didnt it? We didnt let the disorganised opposition in, but we showed Tony Blair whos boss. :D

Blair's still going to get his way over I.D. cards and tracker devices in cars though. We don't have any constiotutional right to privacy and no PR to let the Lib Dems in who'd block it.

The Irish SDLP and DUP/UUP have seats in Parliament. I wonder how they'd vote...

And as for it working well, blair gets 32% vote and 55% seats. No way fair.

Because (contrary to what Americans think) it has no overriding power over our government. Every royal perogative has been given to the Prime minister, and she has no legal grounding under which she can prevent him doing anything. Why do you think the door is slammed in black rod's face at the opening of Parliament.

Actually believe it or not she does have power - there has been no piece of legislation where the monarch has given powers to Parliament since the 1688 Bill of Rights. A monarch has not blocked a Bill since 1707 (Queen Anne) but they are still entitled to do so. Much of the power has simply become a stamp on what the Prime Minister and Parliament want.

However tradition and growing democracy mean that it would be simply unacceptable for the Queen to use those powers any more. If she did, it would create a rallying cry for republicans to abolish her. The Queen is supposed to be apolitical which means that she can't really use her powers without showing that she favours one political party. She is obviously Conservative (about every monarch always has been, apart from George IV) but she cannot show that.

The House of Lords has little powers meaning the House of Commons can legislate easily so long as its majority don't rebel, which they never do because of the party line. No checks and balances either.

The House of Lords should be an elected second chamber. Instead it's going to be made up of appointments by the government. Not sure if they want it as a Supreme Court. There are EU courts for that anyways. They should find out what function they want the House of Lords to have before debating how it'll be elected, or appointed.

1) Although the House of Lords officially has no power, it is not the case pratically. The Commons very rarely use the Parliament Act so usually if the Lords block something, it gets modified or remains blocked.

2) I am in favour for our current Lords. Its not made up of scheming politicans who have to think about their popularity constantly.

The british economy thrives on the Royals, it always has, however bloody, incestuous and inbred they may be. If there were no royals, the pound, which is perhaps the single more stable currency on the planet, could not exist. Also, who will overthrow a family that has the power to take any piece of land they want?

I find the remark about the un-needed "U's" in British language, pathetically stupid. We are after all, seperate countries, and you speak English, not American, the statistic is that by 2012, more than half of the world will speak ENGLISH, not American.

The british economy thrives on the Royals, it always has, however bloody, incestuous and inbred they may be. If there were no royals, the pound, which is perhaps the single more stable currency on the planet, could not exist. Also, who will overthrow a family that has the power to take any piece of land they want?

I find the remark about the un-needed "U's" in British language, pathetically stupid. We are after all, seperate countries, and you speak English, not American, the statistic is that by 2012, more than half of the world will speak ENGLISH, not American.

Spanish, not english

Actually, Briton is in itself a bastardized version of Breton, which comes from France. We americans just took the evolution of the language one step further.

But English comes from the Angles(as well as the Saxons and Jutes) who, while originally coming from Holland, Denmark and Northern Germany, had decendants with a very distinct language from that of their Germanic bretheren. Americans, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis, Newfies and everyone else who has a distinct version of it, owes it to England. ;)

Rule Britannia! But spanish? I might aswell move there, we kicked their spanish asses & gave those french surrender monkeys a good kicking too. While Britain's parlimentary system does need some reform (I'm talking about giving the power back to the under classes as now the House of Commons is populated by upper middle class toffs), I wouldn't want them to take on the American system as it seems to have become corrupt (a former Washington adviser quits his job and takes a on a new one with an oil company, coincidence?) and it's let the Republicans become to powerful, so that they now have pretty much control over the Senate & the Supreme Court. Personally as a Brit, I was backing George Galloway but then again its going to take his party a long time before they can compete with Labour or Conservative, or even shift the Liberal Democrats from the third place position.
Democracy is just confusing---- :headbang:

Try and understand a person with a thick Scots accent, and you'll see that British English is much, MUCH more divergant than you give it credit for.

Scots is a distinct language from English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots

Scotish English is a distinct dialect from British English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_English

Scottish Gaelic is also a distinct language from Gaelic as spoken in Eire.

Yes, it is divergant. ;)

No it's not. Evolution is defined as changing to adapt to the environment. British english is largely unchanged when you get right down to it. On the other hand American english has separated itself in many ways and has technically spawned quite a few dialects. Ergo, it evolved beyond British english.
Which is why the Uk use many French Spelling of words and dropped the use of Z and replaced it with S in many cases. The US still uses old versions of spelling. English has and will always change but it will always be English!

Spanish, not english
Try landing a plane in India speaking spanish, or Russia, or Japan. International pilot.....must speak English.

like i always said you guys abused your own language! lol

we should just come together and simlify it..... first off make britain stop putting the letter u in words it doesn't belong(colour!! honour!!!)

I don't know about you, but I actually modify the sound of the second o due to the adjacent u. So no, it does belong there.

Now, if the US will bring its chemical names in line with the civilised world... you know make so-called 'Aluminum' tie in with all the -ium elements like it should...

And as to the Queen, who's popped up a few times... she's useful as she is. Not too powerful, so she's never in conflict with Parliament. Most of the time she just sits there getting in the papers. However, in the event of Parliament trying to pass a stupid law that's not popular with the public - which they could easily do, provided they could get support from the Lords - she has that power to stop it. In fact, she's probably prevented various governments getting more out of hand just because they /know/ their stuff won't get past her.

As for a President, what would we do with one? The PM and Parliament do a fairly good job at running things, sticking another elected official into the mix'll just mess things up. So we keep the Monarchy. They can go around keeping peace by acting like bumbling, humourous fools (hello, Prince Phillip), while the PM sorts out all the real diplomacy. And there's some indication that they know they're doing that - some quotes from Phillip indicate that he knows perfectly well that people find him hilarious, and that he just does it for fun. (I mean, come on, he used the word dentopedology, 'the art of putting one's foot in one's mouth', and said he has been 'proficient in it for many years'. How much more obvious can you /get/?)

Actually that's not really true. In English, as in many languages, the place of the language's origin is where the language has changed the most. For example, in American English you still use "Fall" for Autumn. This was used in British English about 200 years ago, but isn't any more. Diaper is another example - in British English we now use "nappy", but 200 years ago we would have used the word diaper as well. There are hundreds of examples like this. And as for dialects... Try and understand a person with a thick Scots accent, and you'll see that British English is much, MUCH more divergant than you give it credit for. The general rule in language is that the closer you get to a language or language family's place of origin, the more divergent it is. This is true in English as it is with any other language. And further East, the languages are even more different...