NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, I'm curious as to what the loveable, huggable Brits here think of the House of Lords. Would you reform government, if so in what ways?

My feelings are very much just "meh". They're nothing more than a rubberstamp now, although on occassion they do a reasonable job. And, sure, the Commons can override them with the Parliament Act. I think they're a very important part of the Parliamentary process, but not too important. Just right. Kind of. I'm just rambling now.

Are they going to introduce direct elections to the upper chamber of the UK Parliament or not? It was promised back in 1911, I think!

I'd reform government by getting rid of all the stupid old men who currently bumble their way through running the country and rule it myself.

The House of Lords has blocked a few of the last three government's more fuckwitted ideas (though sadly not all, or even most of them) going into law, so they may be worth indulging.

I think the point of the House of Lords is to have a house that is less sensitive to public opinion and isn't as polarized.

Aye, they're not entirely useless, and every once in a while do act as a reasonable check on our government.

I wouldn't want them to be directly elected or have any real power, we don't need a second House of Commons. I'd prefer it if they were a little more independent of the government and if things were more accountable, as there's very little preventing a Lord from doing a terrible job, but overall I'd keep them. (Provided they begged a little first ;)) They've put the skids on a few of Labour's grand schemes...

I think the point of the House of Lords is to have a house that is less sensitive to public opinion and isn't as polarized.
And whatever else you can say against the set up, it does that very well.

The best explanation for why the House of Lords should continue existing I saw on a secondary-school programme on telly late one night: it's more democratic than the Commons.

See, the members of the Commons are all intelligent, driven, motivated people, and as a result do not represent the population of the United Kingdom accurately.

Many of the Lords, on the other hand, are Lords because their great-great grandfather saved the King of the day in battle, or supported him in passing a law, or sent him a ham at Christmas or whatever, and as such are idle, or foolish, or inbred, but definitely idiots - in which regard they match the population of the UK (or most countries; this is not a categorisation of Brits but of ordinary people everywhere) much more accurately than the intelligent Members of the Commons.

(Note: This is not entirely serious :p)

I think they are good as they are. An elected second chamber would remove legitmacy for both chambers becuase if both are democratically elected then which one represents the people better? Also the powers they have over legislation may fomally seem limited but infomally they are very strong. I do agree however that their is a problem about the demographic of the house of lords at present and therefore think that the best way to deal with this is to make it so their peerages last a set period of time, at the end of which their contribution, attendence, work etc are assesed by a commitie and if that commite sees fit they can continue to work as peers.

Many of the Lords, on the other hand, are Lords because their great-great grandfather saved the King of the day in battle, or supported him in passing a law, or sent him a ham at Christmas or whatever, and as such are idle, or foolish, or inbred, but definitely idiots - in which regard they match the population of the UK (or most countries; this is not a categorisation of Brits but of ordinary people everywhere) much more accurately than the intelligent Members of the Commons.

(Note: This is not entirely serious :p)

Most of the heriditary peers are gone now.

Most of the heriditary peers are gone now.
I believe only 92 remain.

bump

I do agree however that their is a problem about the demographic of the house of lords at present and therefore think that the best way to deal with this is to make it so their peerages last a set period of time, at the end of which their contribution, attendence, work etc are assesed by a commitie and if that commite sees fit they can continue to work as peers.

That's an interesting idea, but who would staff the committee? Other Peers, Government Ministers, MPs? One thing I'd like to do is end formal party affiliation within the House, instead of Labour Peers, Tory Peers and so on we'd just have Peers. They're not exactly bristling with legislative powers anyway, let them vote as their conscience dictates.

The House of Lords has an outdated membership system, but it is better than nothing. Sadly, its power has been greatly stripped, allowing the partisan House of Commons to run amok. In order to make a powerful upper house without igniting class warfare, the House of Lords needs to be abolished and replaced by a Senate, with representation based either on population or on a per county basis, and not by class.

the House of Lords needs to be abolished and replaced by a Senate, with representation based either on population or on a per county basis, and not by class.

If you mean what I think you mean, the House of Commons already does that. (We elect local MPs who toddle off to Westminister to represent us. The party with the largest amount of MPs forms a Government)

If you mean what I think you mean, the House of Commons already does that. (We elect local MPs who toddle off to Westminister to represent us. The party with the largest amount of MPs forms a Government)
If that was the happen, the entire purpose of the Upper House would be lost even more than it is now. There would be no check.

The House of Lords has an outdated membership system, but it is better than nothing. Sadly, its power has been greatly stripped, allowing the partisan House of Commons to run amok. In order to make a powerful upper house without igniting class warfare, the House of Lords needs to be abolished and replaced by a Senate, with representation based either on population or on a per county basis, and not by class.
For the most part, membership of the Lords is not decided by class. It's rather like the US Supreme Court. A peer is made a life peer by the Monarch of the day (in reality they are chosen by the PM), and then when they die they are replaced by someone else chosen by the PM of the day. Conventionally, the PM allows the other parties in the Commons to choose some life peers, to reflect the balance of power in the Commons. There are also non-affiliated Peers, which are chosen by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

Out of the 606 members, 92 are hereditary. Two of those are there because they hold positions in Parliament. Out of the rest, 15 are elected by the whole House, and the other 75 are chosen by the other hereditary Peers.


Oh aye, and the Lords generally doesn't oppose any Bill proposed in the governments election manifesto.

If that was the happen, the entire purpose of the Upper House would be lost even more than it is now. There would be no check.
I was fairly certain that is what happens now. However, it's late and I'm tired so I'll look it up...

*seconds pass*

Yep, that's what happens now: (I fail to see how this invalidates the House of Lords)

Each Member of Parliament represents a single constituency... Each constituency returns one Member; the First-Past-the-Post electoral system, under which the candidate with a plurality of votes wins, is used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_House_of_Commons#Members_and_elections

I was fairly certain that is what happens now. However, it's late and I'm tired so I'll look it up...

*seconds pass*

Yep, that's what happens now: (I fail to see how this invalidates the House of Lords)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_House_of_Commons#Members_and_elections
I think he meant that if this was applied to the House of Lords then it would lose its check on the Commons.

Ahhhh, that would make more sense... :) (And I'd agree with him)

Alright, I'm curious as to what the loveable, huggable Brits here think of the House of Lords. Would you reform government, if so in what ways?

I am currently undecided as to whether we should hang them or shoot them.

Ahhhh, that would make more sense... :) (And I'd agree with him)
We agree then. :)

I am currently undecided as to whether we should hang them or shoot them.

Hang them.

We may need the bullet for larger game.

Hang them.

We may need the bullet for larger game.
Think of how you could market that.

I think We should Keep the the Lords as its a counterweight to the Commons
and The older Statesmen do need some where to go would be hell to pay for all thoose old folks homes if they got rid of the Lords

Alright, I'm curious as to what the loveable, huggable Brits here think of the House of Lords. Would you reform government, if so in what ways?

Although degraded now due to the removal of so many hereditary peers, the HoL is still a very important part of our political system.


Reform. Yes. Return of some powers to the Queen. Return hereditary peers and reduce the number of "life" peers. Reduce regional govenment and remove the illegal parliament in scotland.

Although degraded now due to the removal of so many hereditary peers, the HoL is still a very important part of our political system.


Reform. Yes. Return of some powers to the Queen. Return hereditary peers and reduce the number of "life" peers. Reduce regional govenment and remove the illegal parliament in scotland.
What specific powers would you give back to the monarch?

illegal parliament in scotland.

Illegal?

Could you explain?


Anyway, OT. Seeing as we are going to have a parliamentary democracy for the forseeable future I should probably give my opinion. I'm quite fond of the second mandate system. Seeing as the Commons can be dominated by a party with only a slightly larger share of the vote (FPTP skews the results a lot), there should be some equalising factor imo. The only problem though is that under the SMS, it could be argued the House of Lords has more legitimacy than the Commons.

What do you think of the House of Lords?

As long as I can be the " Duke of Beer " I am all for it .

If it had been up to me, I would have permitted to hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords - so long as they paid for their own robes - but not to vote or speak in the House of Lords, or use subsidised parliamentary facilities (except the toilets - let's be practical!). In other words, they could have turned up to add a little bit of pageantry to state occasions without actually having any real power over the rest of us.

But it wasn't up to me.

The real problem with the Lords as it currently exists is that so long as the upper house consisted primarily of hereditary peers, it made sense to gradually reduce that body's powers in favour of the powers of the democratically elected lower house.

But now that the hereditaries have been largely removed from the Lords, the old argument that the democratic should take full and total precedent over the hereditary principle is no longer particularly relevant, especially since the Lords is now appointed by our democratically elected representatives.

Since it is our elected representatives who appoint the Lords, they can't quite object that it's undemocratic for the Lords to reject legislation without undermining the principle that we elected our representatives to make decisions for us in the first place. The question is, how many decisions should they make on our behalf?

Which brings up two further arguments...

1) Should the Lords have full powers to reject legislation, or should those powers be subject to the Parliament act? My answer is that now that the hereditary element is almost gone from the Lords, the ability of the lower house to force through legislation rejected three times by the upper house should be reviewed and restricted.

2) Should the Lords be elected rather than appointed? Tricky one, this. I remain unconvinced by the arguments on both sides. So long as the appointments are made on a legally-defined basis, roughly proportional to either the number of seats held by a party in parliament or (preferably) the number of votes won in the last general election, then there's enough of a democratic principle in place to justify the continued use of appointments to the Lords, so long as the review powers of the Lords are strengthened as under point 1.

Illegal?

Could you explain?


Have you seen the Scottish Parliament building they made for themselves? I think it is fairly self-explanitory after that.

Have you seen the Scottish Parliament building they made for themselves? I think it is fairly self-explanitory after that.

Rather long story, but it goes like this.

With the Act Of Union both the English and Scottish parliaments desolved themselves and called a new parliament into being in Westminster. In normal lawmaking our parliament cannot pass a law which a future parliament cannot change - but the AoU is different because it was passed by the by two bodies to create the third.

One part of the AoU is the passing of power - in perpetuity - to Westminster. So, to be legal, the new parliament in Scotland would require a new AoU. That in turn would require Westminster to dissolve and two seperate bodies, one in England and one in Scotland, then the people of both countries could have made their choice.

Also, as the English were not allowed to vote in the referendum on devolution that is another argument against the scottish parliament being legal.

What specific powers would you give back to the monarch?

The first would be the right to refuse to enact a law. The second would be the right to desolved parliament and call for a general election.

Both are powers which would prevent a government with a parliamentry majority, but without support of the nation, to be held in check.

Rather long story, but it goes like this.

With the Act Of Union both the English and Scottish parliaments desolved themselves and called a new parliament into being in Westminster. In normal lawmaking our parliament cannot pass a law which a future parliament cannot change - but the AoU is different because it was passed by the by two bodies to create the third.

One part of the AoU is the passing of power - in perpetuity - to Westminster. So, to be legal, the new parliament in Scotland would require a new AoU. That in turn would require Westminster to dissolve and two seperate bodies, one in England and one in Scotland, then the people of both countries could have made their choice.

Also, as the English were not allowed to vote in the referendum on devolution that is another argument against the scottish parliament being legal.

Okay, I was actually talking about the atrocious building next to Hollyrood House. But whatever.

(Though I do think your argument is flawed, not least because parliament is soveriegn, not the people).

Edit: Does this mean you think the welsh assembly is legal however because they were just conquered? Also, does this make the Republic of Ireland an illegal nation?

Okay, I was actually talking about the atrocious building next to Hollyrood House. But whatever.

(Though I do think your argument is flawed, not least because parliament is soveriegn, not the people).[quote]

But that soveriegnty was given by the AoU and that prevents seperate parliaments.

You see this government could have found a work-around. What it should have doen was to have set up bodies in all four parts of the nation - following a "yes" vote from ALL parts of the nation on devolution.

One factor is that, yet again, the English taxpayer is footing part of the bill for something we neither want nor benefit from.

[quote]Edit: Does this mean you think the welsh assembly is legal however because they were just conquered? Also, does this make the Republic of Ireland an illegal nation?

The WA is slightly different, although its legality is in doubt because the referendum only took place in Wales. The real difference is that it has no tax raising powers.

Surely (if the arguement is true) someone would have pointed this out at the time and stopped devolution dead in its tracks?

It never ceases to amaze me exactly how many idiots over here will step up to the plate and defend our creaking, anti-democratic system of government.


We have a one-third democracy in the UK. No say over our head of state, no say over our upper house - a limited say over the formation of the executive.


It's time to face up to the fact that our oft-quoted 'system of checks and balances' is not fit for the 21st century.


All the problems could be ironed out in a written constitution - including how each body might be elected and how often.


Resistance to change is depressingly strong in the UK unfortunately.

[QUOTE=Lacadaemon]Okay, I was actually talking about the atrocious building next to Hollyrood House. But whatever.

(Though I do think your argument is flawed, not least because parliament is soveriegn, not the people).[quote]

But that soveriegnty was given by the AoU and that prevents seperate parliaments.

You see this government could have found a work-around. What it should have doen was to have set up bodies in all four parts of the nation - following a "yes" vote from ALL parts of the nation on devolution.

One factor is that, yet again, the English taxpayer is footing part of the bill for something we neither want nor benefit from.



The WA is slightly different, although its legality is in doubt because the referendum only took place in Wales. The real difference is that it has no tax raising powers.

I don't see why you would need a vote of the people. Parliament's soveriegnty is absolute, and there are no constitutional limitations on it per se. The AoU was passed without referendum, (if anything over the objections of the scots), and surely the Union can be dissolved likewise by the only soveriegn without recourse to plebecite. Similarly, I imagine that the Scotish Parliament is not actually soveriegn in the sense that westminster could repeal it if it wished.

In any case, if the terms of the AoU were unalterable, that would have made all reforms to parliamentry reform (at least in respect of the lords) illegal since 1707, due to article XX.

Specifically:


XX That all heritable offices, superiorities, heritable jurisdictions, offices for life, and jurisdictions for life, be reserved to the owners thereof, as rights of property, in the same manner as they are now enjoyed by the laws of Scotland, notwithstanding of this Treaty.*

I don't see why you would need a vote of the people. Parliament's soveriegnty is absolute, and there are no constitutional limitations on it per se. The AoU was passed without referendum, (if anything over the objections of the scots), and surely the Union can be dissolved likewise by the only soveriegn without recourse to plebecite. Similarly, I imagine that the Scotish Parliament is not actually soveriegn in the sense that westminster could repeal it if it wished.

In any case, if the terms of the AoU were unalterable, that would have made all reforms to parliamentry reform (at least in respect of the lords) illegal since 1707, due to article XX.

Specifically:

Ok, correctly what the AoU did was to desolve the parliaments of England and Scotland - both elected (in the manner of the time) by the people. A unified parliament was then elected to Westminster. Now that new parliament has had total law making rights since its formation.

Article 3 of the AoU says:-

III. That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be Represented by one and the same Parliament, to be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain.

That clause could allow regional government to be set up within the union, but not in just one part. You are correct in saying the Scottish Parliament could be just disbanded, and I hope that is exactly what will happen in due course.

It never ceases to amaze me exactly how many idiots over here will step up to the plate and defend our creaking, anti-democratic system of government.


We have a one-third democracy in the UK. No say over our head of state, no say over our upper house - a limited say over the formation of the executive.


It's time to face up to the fact that our oft-quoted 'system of checks and balances' is not fit for the 21st century.


All the problems could be ironed out in a written constitution - including how each body might be elected and how often.


Resistance to change is depressingly strong in the UK unfortunately.

Becasue what we have works, and in fact it works very well.

Surely (if the arguement is true) someone would have pointed this out at the time and stopped devolution dead in its tracks?

Quite a few people did - but typical of the socialists they just ignored the argument.

Becasue what we have works, and in fact it works very well.


Perhaps you'd like to expand your reasoning beyond this typical response?

Oh, wait a minute, you can't. Why not learn how to spell instead?

Perhaps you'd like to expand your reasoning beyond this typical response?

Oh, wait a minute, you can't. Why not learn how to spell instead?


Oh look - a spelling flame! Sure sign of a loser who is not worth talking to. Mind your tail in the door on your way out.

Oh look - a spelling flame! Sure sign of a loser who is not worth talking to. Mind your tail in the door on your way out.

And yet he leaves the question unanswered and instead reaches for the insult; followed by a quick exit on his part.

Excellent response sir, well done.

(clap, clap)

All the problems could be ironed out in a written constitution - including how each body might be elected and how often.

A Constitution would be a good way to start.

<snip>
You're wrong, becayse Holyrood isn't replacing Westminster as the chief legislative body for Scotland, it's been appointed by Westminster to take control of some aspects of the legislature. So it is perfectly legal, because it derives its power from Westminster, not superceding it; the power is granted by Westminster, and Westminster has the power to end the Scottish Parlaiment.

A Constitution would be a good way to start.
We have a constitution.

Long live heriditary peers, if I am ever in a position do so, I will implement a bill reverting all lords to heriditary peers, considerably better than labour's use of it as a graveyard for talented yet geriatric ministers, and furthermore it ensures the upper classes, who do incidentally pay for most of Croydon's benefits, a degree of political influence.

You're wrong, becayse Holyrood isn't replacing Westminster as the chief legislative body for Scotland, it's been appointed by Westminster to take control of some aspects of the legislature. So it is perfectly legal, because it derives its power from Westminster, not superceding it; the power is granted by Westminster, and Westminster has the power to end the Scottish Parlaiment.

You have a valid point. However, things are deeper than that. Only seperate English and Scottish bodies can renegotiate the AoU and that precludes either of us being ruled differently.

A Constitution would be a good way to start.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/asguru/generalstudies/society/27constitution/index.shtml

You see - we have one.

You have a valid point. However, things are deeper than that. Only seperate English and Scottish bodies can renegotiate the AoU and that precludes either of us being ruled differently.
Nobody renogotiated the Act of Union, Westminster simply delegated some of the powers it was granted by it to Holyrood.

Nobody renogotiated the Act of Union, Westminster simply delegated some of the powers it was granted by it to Holyrood.

But Westminster does not have the authority to do that under the AoU unless it does it equally with England. Though in point of fact I do not believe the AoU even allows it in Scotland.

But Westminster does not have the authority to do that under the AoU unless it does it equally with England. Though in point of fact I do not believe the AoU even allows it in Scotland.
The Scotland Act doesn't change the power of Westminster to legislate for Scotland. That is one of the main reasons why it is not in breach of the Act of Union; Westminster is still the fully sovereign legislature for Scotland, it has just delegated some of its powers.

We have a constitution.


Unwritten constitutions don't count

The Scotland Act doesn't change the power of Westminster to legislate for Scotland. That is one of the main reasons why it is not in breach of the Act of Union; Westminster is still the fully sovereign legislature for Scotland, it has just delegated some of its powers.

Even if we accept that, it is still illegal because it imposed on Scotland a different rule from England - something the AoU precludes.

But enough. This is NOT the subject of the thread.

Unwritten constitutions don't count
We don't have an unwritten constitution. Much of it is written.

It just isn't codified.

Even if we accept that, it is still illegal because it imposed on Scotland a different rule from England - something the AoU precludes.

It doesn't impose a "different rule from England". It didn't change the relationship between Westminster and Scotland at all. Not a single thing changed in that respect.

And on another tangent; prove that the AoU precludes Westminster delegating powers without removing its own powers.

We don't have an unwritten constitution. Much of it is written.

It just isn't codified.


That might be good enough for you but not for me.

An 'organic' constitution effectively means that, provided they play by the rules, a government with a large majority can do whatever they want. There are no rights we have as people that parliament could not take away if they collectively felt the circumstances warranted it.

Only a written constitution proclaimed by a sovereign people could guarantee that a democratic government could not violate our rights in such a way.

That might be good enough for you but not for me.

An 'organic' constitution effectively means that, provided they play by the rules, a government with a large majority can do whatever they want. There are no rights we have as people that parliament could not take away if they collectively felt the circumstances warranted it.

Only a written constitution proclaimed by a sovereign people could guarantee that a democratic government could not violate our rights in such a way.

First, the Queen is sovereign, not the people.

Second, a written constitution causes problems like those we see in the USA where a clause (the right to bear arms - for which there may have been good reason at the time) is now almost impossible to change.

I would expect any meaningful constitutional reform to remove the monarchy.

I would expect any meaningful constitutional reform to remove the monarchy.

Why?

Why?

Because it demeans us all.


And in practical terms it is an obstacle to creating a truly democratic society which should be populated by citizens, not subjects.

Because it demeans us all.

Well it certainly doesn't demean me.

And in practical terms it is an obstacle to creating a truly democratic society which should be populated by citizens, not subjects.

It makes no difference in reality. I am both a Citizen of the United Kingdom and a Subject of the Queen. Two for the price of one which can't be bad.

Well it certainly doesn't demean me.



It makes no difference in reality. I am both a Citizen of the United Kingdom and a Subject of the Queen. Two for the price of one which can't be bad.


It relegates your status in this country to below that of members of one particular extended family. They are afforded special treatment under the law and you are not - for no other reason than birth.

Whether you choose to be concerned by that, or even to recognise it, is beside the point; it is demeaning.


I do not wish to be given an additional official label which is offensive. And we pay extra for the privilege, it's not 'two for the price of one' as you put it.

It relegates your status in this country to below that of members of one particular extended family. They are afforded special treatment under the law and you are not - for no other reason than birth.

In what way are they afforded special treatment under the law?

Whether you choose to be concerned by that, or even to recognise it, is beside the point; it is demeaning.

Only if you make it so.

I do not wish to be given an additional official label which is offensive.

Then go and find somewhere else to live, most of us find no offense whatsoever.

>And we pay extra for the privilege, it's not 'two for the price of one' as you put it.[/QUOTE]

Where do you get that daft idea from?

It's pretty tasty.

http://home.debitel.net/user/maik/private/pict/House-Of-Lords-DeLuxe-Blended-W0153.jpg

You have a valid point. However, things are deeper than that. Only seperate English and Scottish bodies can renegotiate the AoU and that precludes either of us being ruled differently.

Yes and therein lies the basic paradox which flaws all arguments around the Act of Union...

Lets face it, the Act of Union is 300 years old and rather out of date....

We can't have Supreme Court because the Act of Union say that the Court of Session must remain in perpetuity, but the Scottish Court system has changed beyond recognition since then anyway..


People have tried to argue that the Act of Union invalidates the European Communities Act 1972, but lets face it, that argument was going to lose because the Act of Union is 300 years old and the EU wasn't even in contemplation then.

The whole point of our unwritten constitution is that it's comparatively easy to change, and a 300 year old act is not about to stand in the way of progress.

Not only that, but the majority of the powers exercised by the Scottish Parliament had already beed delegated to the Scottish Office which came into existence more than 100 years ago, so it's not as if it's a particularly new illegality...I'm pretty sure any right to argue against it prescribed about 80 years ago.

And as for the English paying for it...i think that you'll find that documents from the late 70s just released under the FOI act reveal that the Barnett Formula is only a token refund to Scotland of the revenue raised from North Sea oil. I am by no means a Scottish Nationalist, but it has been proven beyond doubt that their argument about Scottish Oil for the past 30 years has been 100% right. According to a government report in 1980, they predicted that an independent Scotland with North Sea Oil would become the New Switzerland while England would be forced into economic crisis. It is now apparent that the revenues from oil were 10 times that predicted in the report, so it's pretty clear that we are subsidizing you! (But I still support the UK...although I'd rather have a United Europe)

The monarch herself could not exactly be fairly tried in one of her own courts; a few years ago, for instance, she stopped a major trial with a statement amounting to little more than hearsay.


Ok evidently I have a little bit more self-respect than you


How exactly do you think the monarchy is funded?

How exactly do you think the monarchy is funded?
I think a more appropriate question here is how do you think the Monarchy is funded? You are, after all, the one who thinks it actually costs us money; the reality is very different. The Queen makes a net contribution to the treasury. And I'm not talking about tourism, I'm talking about money the Queen gives, voluntarily I believe, to the Treasury.

I think a more appropriate question here is how do you think the Monarchy is funded? You are, after all, the one who thinks it actually costs us money; the reality is very different. The Queen makes a net contribution to the treasury. And I'm not talking about tourism, I'm talking about money the Queen gives, voluntarily I believe, to the Treasury.

Ha! Prove it. I'm pretty sure that the cost to the tax payer of funding the royal estate in General is more than they pay in tax. In any case, they own all those lands by virtue purely of Inheritance. They should be lands of the British State and not of the royal family,...they've done nothing to earn the lands they exploit.

Ha! Prove it. I'm pretty sure that the cost to the tax payer of funding the royal estate in General is more than they pay in tax.
Gladly.

The Monarch surrenders the income from the Crown Estate (last year some £170m) to the Treasury and the civil list payment, which in 2003 was £9.9m, comes out of it. So the Treasury is making a net gain of somewhere in the region of £160m free money.

There is also the misconception that the civil list is the Monarchs salary. It isn't; it's the cost of security, upkeep of grounds, buildings etc, the cost of undertaking official duties.

The monarch herself could not exactly be fairly tried in one of her own courts; a few years ago, for instance, she stopped a major trial with a statement amounting to little more than hearsay.


Ok evidently I have a little bit more self-respect than you


How exactly do you think the monarchy is funded?

The monarchy is not funded, though the exchequer do give them a small amount of their own money.

Oh! I see, you are one of the uneducated who thinks the tax payer foots the bill. Sorry to have to put you right. I quite from Hansard (2nd Nov 1993) when the then Prime Minister John Major said:-

I can see that my hon. Friend may well have a future ahead of him in the Inland Revenue department examining Her Majesty's tax returns. The underlying point he makes is entirely right as it is certainly true that the hereditary revenues from the Crown estates by far exceed official expenditure in support of the Head of State. I think that that is a point which is understood by my hon. Friend and by many others, but not perhaps by everyone.

Another comment in the same debate :-

In addition to what the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said, may I question the omission from what has been read by the Prime Minister and in the accompanying documents and the lack of any mention of income from the Crown property which the Queen voluntarily hands to the Treasury each year? The figure set out on page 16 of the Consolidated Fund accounts amounts to £71 million. On page 17, there are other figures which probably amount to the sum total which has just been mentioned by the hon. Member for Teignbridge. Does the Prime Minister agree that that has been an excellent bargain for the taxpayer for the whole of the Queen's reign?

This £71 million is from the estates the crown (under George III, I think, though I could be wrong) agreed to hand over the income from in return for the civil list. The value of that civil list has now fallen to <£8million in 2000) so you will see the incredible amount by which the Queen actually PAYS US.

So, now you know, we get money from the crown not the other way round. Add to that the number of visitors the crown attracts to the UK every years and we really are quids in.

And as for the English paying for it...i think that you'll find that documents from the late 70s just released under the FOI act reveal that the Barnett Formula is only a token refund to Scotland of the revenue raised from North Sea oil. I am by no means a Scottish Nationalist, but it has been proven beyond doubt that their argument about Scottish Oil for the past 30 years has been 100% right. According to a government report in 1980, they predicted that an independent Scotland with North Sea Oil would become the New Switzerland while England would be forced into economic crisis. It is now apparent that the revenues from oil were 10 times that predicted in the report, so it's pretty clear that we are subsidizing you! (But I still support the UK...although I'd rather have a United Europe)

What total rubbish. North Sea Oil was allocated, by international agreement, based on the coastlines of the countries bordering the North Sea. Scotland's allocation is far smaller than Englands because their qualifying coastline is smaller.

The monarchy is not funded, though the exchequer do give them a small amount of their own money.

Oh! I see, you are one of the uneducated who thinks the tax payer foots the bill. Sorry to have to put you right. I quite from Hansard (2nd Nov 1993) when the then Prime Minister John Major said:-



Another comment in the same debate :-



This £71 million is from the estates the crown (under George III, I think, though I could be wrong) agreed to hand over the income from in return for the civil list. The value of that civil list has now fallen to <£8million in 2000) so you will see the incredible amount by which the Queen actually PAYS US.

So, now you know, we get money from the crown not the other way round. Add to that the number of visitors the crown attracts to the UK every years and we really are quids in.




Once again a monarchist reaches for the same two arguments.

The Crown Estates are essentially the property of the nation. They are formally the property of the 'Crown' as opposed to being the property of Elizabeth Windsor. As such it is not reasonable to argue that the cost of maintaining the monarchy is reimbursed from the Crown Estates, given that in political reality they are already the property of the state. Are we to assume that in the advent of a republic they would all be handed back into the private ownership of the Windsor family? No, in all actuality, no.


The monarchy cannot be assumed to generate tourist income in its own right - this is an oft-quoted, never-proven assertion. Rather, it is what our monarchist past has generated (which incidentally should be celebrated and promoted) that attracts visitors. The Palace of Versailles attracts far more visitors than any British Royal palace and yet France is a modern republic.


In any case, the monetary arguments for getting rid of the monarchy are relatively minor considerations. The civil list is a pitful amount in context, yet it is still an insulting gesture.

The real issue is democracy, the extent of which you evidently seem to think should be tempered by a bit of blue-blood oversight and a room full of hereditary leglislators so the rest of us can 'remember our place'.

How pathetic.

Once again a monarchist reaches for the same two arguments.

The Crown Estates are essentially the property of the nation. They are formally the property of the 'Crown' as opposed to being the property of Elizabeth Windsor. As such it is not reasonable to argue that the cost of maintaining the monarchy is reimbursed from the Crown Estates, given that in political reality they are already the property of the state. Are we to assume that in the advent of a republic they would all be handed back into the private ownership of the Windsor family? No, in all actuality, no.

You seem to mix "crown" property and "state/nation/public" property. There is no such mix. The crown estates are the legal property of the royal familily.


The monarchy cannot be assumed to generate tourist income in its own right - this is an oft-quoted, never-proven assertion. Rather, it is what our monarchist past has generated (which incidentally should be celebrated and promoted) that attracts visitors. The Palace of Versailles attracts far more visitors than any British Royal palace and yet France is a modern republic.

You only have to see the millions that turn out for a state occassion to see you claim proved wrong.


In any case, the monetary arguments for getting rid of the monarchy are relatively minor considerations. The civil list is a pitful amount in context, yet it is still an insulting gesture.

Insulting, yes I agree it is insulting. We should be giving the royal family much more for the work they do.

The real issue is democracy, the extent of which you evidently seem to think should be tempered by a bit of blue-blood oversight and a room full of hereditary leglislators so the rest of us can 'remember our place'.

How pathetic.

You are if you really believe that we would be better off under a republic.

What total rubbish. North Sea Oil was allocated, by international agreement, based on the coastlines of the countries bordering the North Sea. Scotland's allocation is far smaller than Englands because their qualifying coastline is smaller.

That's total bollocks. Obviously you have no idea about international law, since neither Scotland or England are states for the purposes of international law and the North Sea allocation is to the UK only. The Sea borders of Scotland and England are delimited by UKK law only.

And in any case I think that you'll find that I was referring to an official government report release last month under the Freedom of Information Act....

IT MIGHT well have been Scotland's oil. The revelation in The Herald yesterday of the startling economic benefits North Sea oil revenues could have brought to an independent Scotland has justifiably caused an uproar in nationalist circles. Who knows what effect this information would have had on the general elections of 1974, and subsequent polls, if it had been in the public domain. But it is safe to assume that the analysis, in a paperwritten by DrGavin McCrone before the February 1974 vote, would have strengthened the SNP's hand at that and later polls, possibly to the point of putting the party in a position to sue for independence on the back of a popular mandate, had its contents been widely known.


As it was, it tookmore than one year for the paper to be circulated among a small circle of Labour ministers and Whitehall - and no further. It was apparently part of Dr McCrone's response to a request from Westminster, which was preparing the ground for devolution. Labour, which was in power, was also growing increasingly concerned about the surge in SNP popularity on the back of the "It's Scotland's Oil" slogan.

The paper, which had the prosaic title The Economics of Nationalism Revisited, was anything but dull in content. Released to the SNP under freedom of information legislation, it said that Scotland would fare much better as an independent country in control of North Sea oil than even the SNP had claimed. Scotland would be awash with cash. With economic prosperity would come political clout on the European stage. At one point, Dr McCrone devastatingly concluded:

"For the first time since the Act of Union was passed [in 1707], it can now be credibly argued that Scotland's economic advantage lies in its repeal."

The purpose of the paper was to show that ministers and officials had to come up with convincing policies to address Scotland's deep-seated economic problems and, in the process, "take the wind out of the SNP's sails".

DrMcCrone was clearly not averse to pushing the boundaries of civil service impartiality, but it is his analysis of an independent Scotland's prosperity thanks to oil that is making waves some 30 years on. It is just a pity it has taken so long for that analysis to inform the debate.

It is possible to understand why ministers chose to keep the document secret. We expect, perhaps naively, politics to be conducted in a mature way.

That means giving the electorate access to as much information and analysis as possible which emanates from the corridors of power. Political pragmatism is no reason for treating information that should be in the public domain as a state secret. Politics is demeaned, and politicians demean themselves, when that happens.

Another imponderable: howwould the British political landscape look today if freedom of information had been in place 30 years ago and the public had been armed with the thoughts of Dr McCrone? Knowledge can be power.

It was wrong to keep Dr McCrone's report secret.

Editorial from - The Herald (United Kingdom): Westminster's guilty secret Would truth about oil wealth have changed history?
Herald and the Sunday Herald, The (Glasgow, Scotland)
September 13, 2005

OH LOOK, there's more....

Oil 'would have fuelled independence boom'
Times, The (London, England)
October 3, 2005

Estimated printed pages: 1

A PREVIOUSLY secret document which stated how North Sea oil might enable an independent Scotland to prosper is among papers released today.


The advice by the economist Gavin McCrone and prepared for ministers in 1974 said that an independent Scotland could be transformed by oil revenues and become a leading power in Europe.

Scottish Nationalists obtained a copy of the document last month which they claim showed that Labour and Conservative ministers in the 1970s were "conspiring to deny" Scots their "rightful" wealth.

The paper, The Economics of Nationalism Re-examined, said that the significance of North Sea oil finds remained "in large measure disguised from the Scottish public". It said that "all that was wrong" with estimates by the SNP that North Sea oil could yield a revenue of Pounds 800 million by 1980 was that "it is far too low".

Dr McCrone, now a professor, said that the economy of an independent Scotland, properly managed, would "tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree". "Its currency would become the hardest in Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian kroner," he wrote. "Just as deposed monarchs and African leaders have in the past used the Swiss franc as a haven of security...the Scottish banks could expect to find themselves inundated with a speculative inflow of foreign funds.

"Thus for the first time since the Act Of Union was passed, it can now be credibly argued that Scotland's economic advantage lies in its repeal."
Section: Home news
Page: Scotland 19

(c) Times Newspapers Limited 2005
Record Number: 916226312

Shall I continue?

What on earth do people have against the monarchy? In Britain black, asian, oriental and all other ethnic entities are afforded priveliged, nigh on invulnerable status pertaining to the law, and at least the Royal Family are steeped in the tradition and history of Britain, not that of Booga Booga land.

You seem to mix "crown" property and "state/nation/public" property. There is no such mix. The crown estates are the legal property of the royal familily.




You only have to see the millions that turn out for a state occassion to see you claim proved wrong.




Insulting, yes I agree it is insulting. We should be giving the royal family much more for the work they do.



You are if you really believe that we would be better off under a republic.


Yet again, rather than address my arguments you seem to think all is required is to submit pithy comments of your own.


How exactly are the Crown Estates still the personal property of the Royal Family? They are associated with the office of the head of state, i.e. the Crown, but they are essentially now property of the state. They were exchanged in return for civil list payments, remember?


I'm talking about the overall tourist economy, not the once in a while opportunity for you to go out flag waving. A large crowd at a royal event proves nothing in this regard; frankly, bringing it up as an argument illustrates how little understanding you really seem to have.


And yet, I'm still waiting for any defence of your anti-democratic instincts.

Yet again, rather than address my arguments you seem to think all is required is to submit pithy comments of your own.

Funny, looks like I addressed all your arguments.

How exactly are the Crown Estates still the personal property of the Royal Family? They are associated with the office of the head of state, i.e. the Crown, but they are essentially now property of the state. They were exchanged in return for civil list payments, remember?

Well now, turn back the clocks. We have property owned by the Royal Family of the time. Their property - not ours. IIRC it was George III who ran into cashflow problems and, rather than sell off property, a deal was done with the government of the time to lease the lands now known as the Crown Estates to the government in return for what has become known as the Civil List payments.

So, if the government of this day wanted to abolish the Civil List then the lands (and the right to earn the income therefrom) would have to be returned to the Royal Family. Of course, as the government profit greatly from the income from the Royal Estates they would be very stupid to entertain such an idea.

Remember we are talking about THEIR property, not yours, not mine, not the government's/state's - THEIR property.

I'm talking about the overall tourist economy, not the once in a while opportunity for you to go out flag waving. A large crowd at a royal event proves nothing in this regard; frankly, bringing it up as an argument illustrates how little understanding you really seem to have. [quote]

I can remember, though I must admit I cannot find a reference on the Web, a survey conducted of American tourists two or three years ago by the London Tourist Board. This put a figure of 20% on the percentage of American tourist money that was attracted as a direct result of the Royal Family.

A living Royal Family if frar more valuable to this country than the palaces and history that surrounds them. We are very lucky to have them and long my they continue to help us prosper.

[quote]And yet, I'm still waiting for any defence of your anti-democratic instincts.

No defence needed. The monarch increases and safeguards democracy in the UK and it is certainly preferable the the corrupt forms of republic government represented by the likes of the USA, France or Italy.

The first would be the right to refuse to enact a law. The second would be the right to desolved parliament and call for a general election.

Both are powers which would prevent a government with a parliamentry majority, but without support of the nation, to be held in check.


The Queen already has these powers, she doesn't use the first one very often as it is oposing the will of the people usually. But she has refused a law before, one was about the governments ability to declare war without consulting the monarch, this ment that the final decision for the declaration of war would be decided by parliment rather than her. The second power she uses all the time, the government does not have the power to dissolve parliament only the Queen does (technically at the full five year term this happens automatically) . So for every election the Prime minister has to ask the Queen kindly to dissolve parliment.

It is possible for parliment to have a term beyound 5 years but this can only be done by the house of commons voting a bill on it, then the house of lords has to agree (this is the only case where the commons can not overrule the Lords) and then the Monarch has to agree.

That's an interesting idea, but who would staff the committee? Other Peers, Government Ministers, MPs?

Civil servants, its their job to be independent

That might be good enough for you but not for me.

An 'organic' constitution effectively means that, provided they play by the rules, a government with a large majority can do whatever they want. There are no rights we have as people that parliament could not take away if they collectively felt the circumstances warranted it.

Only a written constitution proclaimed by a sovereign people could guarantee that a democratic government could not violate our rights in such a way.

Parliament doesn't have the power to pass a consitution, nor does it have the power to authorize a process to pass a consitution. It is a fundamental principle of English constitutional law that parliament cannot bind its sucessors.

(Also the Parliament, and not the people, is soveriegn in the UK. In practice because of the reduction of powers in 1911 and 1949 of the lords, this in effect means that the commons is the supreme legal authority.)

Funny, looks like I addressed all your arguments.



Well now, turn back the clocks. We have property owned by the Royal Family of the time. Their property - not ours. IIRC it was George III who ran into cashflow problems and, rather than sell off property, a deal was done with the government of the time to lease the lands now known as the Crown Estates to the government in return for what has become known as the Civil List payments.

So, if the government of this day wanted to abolish the Civil List then the lands (and the right to earn the income therefrom) would have to be returned to the Royal Family. Of course, as the government profit greatly from the income from the Royal Estates they would be very stupid to entertain such an idea.

Remember we are talking about THEIR property, not yours, not mine, not the government's/state's - THEIR property.


I can remember, though I must admit I cannot find a reference on the Web, a survey conducted of American tourists two or three years ago by the London Tourist Board. This put a figure of 20% on the percentage of American tourist money that was attracted as a direct result of the Royal Family.

A living Royal Family if frar more valuable to this country than the palaces and history that surrounds them. We are very lucky to have them and long my they continue to help us prosper.



No defence needed. The monarch increases and safeguards democracy in the UK and it is certainly preferable the the corrupt forms of republic government represented by the likes of the USA, France or Italy.


Oh dear.

Unlike you I am interested in the present (and possibly the future) rather than the past.

In 2005, The Crown Estate is a non-ministerial department of the Government, run on commercial lines. It is not, for the final time, the personal property of the Royal Family. It is held, 'In the name of the Crown' but there is absolutely no possibility that the Queen or anyone else could take it back into their personal control. It is perhaps better for you to pay attention to political reality rather than the machinations of the 18th Century.

You can have a bonus point for using capitals in your statement, i.e. the equivalent of shouting in an argument, well done.


No website to cut and paste from? Never mind; why not just pluck a statistic from mid air?


I was wondering how long it would take you to resort to the 'foreign republic-bashing' argument. I'm sure you don't really believe that the UK is any less corrupt than the United States or France (although I'll give you Italy) -
I doubt even you could be that naive.


However poorly a republican head of state may perform, we still have regular opportunites to remove them from office. With a Monarch there is no such right, even if they prove themselves totally unfit in the manner of our own Prince of Wales.

I would get rid of this pesky Parlimentary system that gives the people power.

I say Devine Rule!

Parliament doesn't have the power to pass a consitution, nor does it have the power to authorize a process to pass a consitution. It is a fundamental principle of English constitutional law that parliament cannot bind its sucessors.

(Also the Parliament, and not the people, is soveriegn in the UK. In practice because of the reduction of powers in 1911 and 1949 of the lords, this in effect means that the commons is the supreme legal authority.)


I have no argument with what you've said, but this is precisely why we need constitutional reform.

I have no argument with what you've said, but this is precisely why we need constitutional reform.

I am honestly agnostic on the issue. I don't see how it could be achieved in any meaningful way without the dissolution of parliament and its wholesale replacement with something else, however. (Even then, what's to stop a new parliament reconvening at some point and changing everything back, unlikely though that may be).

Oh dear.

Unlike you I am interested in the present (and possibly the future) rather than the past.

We cannot ignore the past.

In 2005, The Crown Estate is a non-ministerial department of the Government, run on commercial lines. It is not, for the final time, the personal property of the Royal Family. It is held, 'In the name of the Crown' but there is absolutely no possibility that the Queen or anyone else could take it back into their personal control. It is perhaps better for you to pay attention to political reality rather than the machinations of the 18th Century.

You are correct in how it is now run, and how it will be for the foreseeable future. But that doesn't change the simple fact that IF the civil list was to be abolished then the Royal Family would have a legal right to have the estate back.

You can have a bonus point for using capitals in your statement, i.e. the equivalent of shouting in an argument, well done.

In the English language the use of capitals draws attention to the word - nothing more.

No website to cut and paste from? Never mind; why not just pluck a statistic from mid air?

No, just from memory.

I was wondering how long it would take you to resort to the 'foreign republic-bashing' argument. I'm sure you don't really believe that the UK is any less corrupt than the United States or France (although I'll give you Italy) - I doubt even you could be that naive. [quote]

Far less corrupt.

[quote]However poorly a republican head of state may perform, we still have regular opportunites to remove them from office. With a Monarch there is no such right, even if they prove themselves totally unfit in the manner of our own Prince of Wales.

Hohohohohoho!!! In the monarchy we have people who train all their lives to do the job - and do it very well.

We cannot ignore the past.



You are correct in how it is now run, and how it will be for the foreseeable future. But that doesn't change the simple fact that IF the civil list was to be abolished then the Royal Family would have a legal right to have the estate back.



In the English language the use of capitals draws attention to the word - nothing more.



No, just from memory.

[quote]I was wondering how long it would take you to resort to the 'foreign republic-bashing' argument. I'm sure you don't really believe that the UK is any less corrupt than the United States or France (although I'll give you Italy) - I doubt even you could be that naive. [quote]

Far less corrupt.



Hohohohohoho!!! In the monarchy we have people who train all their lives to do the job - and do it very well.


As I suggested a couple of posts ago, that legal right may well exist but it is utterly inconceivable that it would be allowed to happen. Monarchists are well aware of this unfortunate reality which is why they seek to maintain the status quo. Members of the royal family are on to a good thing and they know it - although presently public opinion is broadly in their favour, this is not as strong a foundation as would be preferred by themselves and their obsequious supporters.


No, using capitals in a text document where they are not appropriate is a sign of desperation. If your rhetoric was good enough or you were confident enough in your argument you wouldn't need to use them.


British society is less open, rather than less corrupt, than, for example, the US. Why was there no British equivalent of an Eliot Spitzer crusade? Because representatives of the government and business got together behind closed doors and collectively decided that there was no need for one. However, this is part of a wider argument. I am not suggesting that a British republic would necessarily be much better in these terms, nor have I ever. You can persist in a fantasy that the (magical?) monarchy acts to help safeguard against corrupt politics & business if you wish.


Training is no substitute for intellect or talent. The Queen has been a perfectly competent head of state in most respects but can we be so confident about her offspring?

For example, the monarch is supposed to remain 'above politics' but the current heir Prince Charles opens his ill-informed mouth about such matters with depressing frequency. Are we to suppose that upon being crowned he would suddenly mend his ways? In any case, his impartiality is already under question, let alone his intelligence or ability to deal with adversity.

And suppose tragic circumstances let Prince William or his idiot brother ascede to the throne in their twenties? Would that be acceptable to you; given they will have received almost none of this 'training' you laughably refer to?

This is, of course, my central argument, that hereditary politcal powers of any kind cannot be justified, whether it be the House of Lords or the Head of State.

I am honestly agnostic on the issue. I don't see how it could be achieved in any meaningful way without the dissolution of parliament and its wholesale replacement with something else, however. (Even then, what's to stop a new parliament reconvening at some point and changing everything back, unlikely though that may be).

I agree, this is the only way it could be achieved. I don't want rid of the House of Lords or the Monarchy simply for its own sake, and it is important to do things properly and take sufficient time over it. Most importantly, the consent of the population would be required.

A written constitution and definition of the balance of powers would be the only way to even try to prevent sabotage by subsequent governments.

Still, I doubt anything will happen in my lifetime. There is far too broad an entrenched interest in letting things remain as they are.

I would get rid of this pesky Parlimentary system that gives the people power.

I say Devine Rule!

I'm with him, a queen with absolute power may not be exceptional as a ruler, but she would be a damn sight better than Blair, Brown or any other labour minister.

I'm with him, a queen with absolute power may not be exceptional as a ruler, but she would be a damn sight better than Blair, Brown or any other labour minister.


And a Tory would be acceptable?

As I suggested a couple of posts ago, that legal right may well exist but it is utterly inconceivable that it would be allowed to happen. Monarchists are well aware of this unfortunate reality which is why they seek to maintain the status quo. Members of the royal family are on to a good thing and they know it - although presently public opinion is broadly in their favour, this is not as strong a foundation as would be preferred by themselves and their obsequious supporters.

Oh! Are they? The royal familygive to the country far more than they receive.

No, using capitals in a text document where they are not appropriate is a sign of desperation. If your rhetoric was good enough or you were confident enough in your argument you wouldn't need to use them.

I refer you to my previous answer.


British society is less open, rather than less corrupt, than, for example, the US. Why was there no British equivalent of an Eliot Spitzer crusade? Because representatives of the government and business got together behind closed doors and collectively decided that there was no need for one.

Do you have any evidence that their verdict was wrong?

However, this is part of a wider argument. I am not suggesting that a British republic would necessarily be much better in these terms, nor have I ever. You can persist in a fantasy that the (magical?) monarchy acts to help safeguard against corrupt politics & business if you wish.

I will, because I happen to believe it is true.

Training is no substitute for intellect or talent. The Queen has been a perfectly competent head of state in most respects but can we be so confident about her offspring?

Yes.

For example, the monarch is supposed to remain 'above politics' but the current heir Prince Charles opens his ill-informed mouth about such matters with depressing frequency. Are we to suppose that upon being crowned he would suddenly mend his ways? In any case, his impartiality is already under question, let alone his intelligence or ability to deal with adversity.

One thing Prince Charles could never be called is "ill-informed".

And suppose tragic circumstances let Prince William or his idiot brother ascede to the throne in their twenties? Would that be acceptable to you; given they will have received almost none of this 'training' you laughably refer to?

Since the late George VI came to the thrown all royal children have been trained for the job - just in case.

This is, of course, my central argument, that hereditary politcal powers of any kind cannot be justified, whet[her it be the House of Lords or the Head of State.

It is justified because it works.

I'm an American citizen. Do I have to think about the House of Lords? Because I really would rather think about something else.

Oh, I see. Some UK people obviously spend a lot of time thinking about the US government, and some actually call voters on the phone over here, and relay their concerns.

Well, I think the people of the UK are more than capable of sorting out what they should do or not do with the House of Lords, and can do it without my input.

Besides, if I gave my input on the matter, they probably wouldn't like it.

Oh! Are they? The royal familygive to the country far more than they receive.



I refer you to my previous answer.




Do you have any evidence that their verdict was wrong?



I will, because I happen to believe it is true.



Yes.



One thing Prince Charles could never be called is "ill-informed".



Since the late George VI came to the thrown all royal children have been trained for the job - just in case.



It is justified because it works.








Please remember that to gain any credit you are supposed to present an argument, not just an assertion.

In addition, you need to be able to respond with something which is relevant not just something which is related.


For example, 'Do you have any evidence that their verdict was wrong?', this has no bearing on the point being made. What I am taking issue with is that decision-making behind closed doors may present a distorted view of how corrupt a society actually is. Apologies for not making this obvious enough for you.



'It is justified because it works' Hmm, what a sensible notion, perhaps that could be your motto. Why, you could use that kind of intelligent reasoning to justify.... erm, anything?



And don't get embarrassed about the capitals thing, just learn from it and move on.


You'll notice that I've largely avoided responding to exactly what you've written (there's not really much point), frustrating isn't it?

Please remember that to gain any credit you are supposed to present an argument, not just an assertion.

In addition, you need to be able to respond with something which is relevant not just something which is related.


For example, 'Do you have any evidence that their verdict was wrong?', this has no bearing on the point being made. What I am taking issue with is that decision-making behind closed doors may present a distorted view of how corrupt a society actually is. Apologies for not making this obvious enough for you.

Well first, you still have to answer the question "Do you have any evidence that their verdict was wrong?" But to that i would also add the question "why do you believe it was 'behind closed doors'?"

You see, very little really happens behind closed doors in the UK, and even things that do are still recorded.

'It is justified because it works' Hmm, what a sensible notion, perhaps that could be your motto. Why, you could use that kind of intelligent reasoning to justify.... erm, anything?

The old addage "if it ain't broke then don't fix it" does have a lot of truth in it.

And don't get embarrassed about the capitals thing, just learn from it and move on.

I have nothing to be embarrassed about.

You'll notice that I've largely avoided responding to exactly what you've written (there's not really much point), frustrating isn't it?

Not the basis for debate.

Not the basis for debate.


And on that note, we finally agree.

Well now, turn back the clocks. We have property owned by the Royal Family of the time. Their property - not ours. IIRC it was George III who ran into cashflow problems and, rather than sell off property, a deal was done with the government of the time to lease the lands now known as the Crown Estates to the government in return for what has become known as the Civil List payments.

So, if the government of this day wanted to abolish the Civil List then the lands (and the right to earn the income therefrom) would have to be returned to the Royal Family. Of course, as the government profit greatly from the income from the Royal Estates they would be very stupid to entertain such an idea.

Remember we are talking about THEIR property, not yours, not mine, not the government's/state's - THEIR property.


You're missing the point there I'm afraid Benchley...

Yes, it was George III's property. BECAUSE of his role as the Crown. You see, it wasn't his property that he bought, it was his property in his role as the Crown, as the state. But the modern state has evolved so that the Monarch is no longer the Leviathan, the embodiment of the state. The state is now the monsterous machine of Whitehall.

You see originally, we had a feudal system and ALL the land in the country belonged to the monarch, unless the monarch chose to either grant that land out to Noblemen, or chose to feu it out to the middle classes. Any land that was not otherwise dealt with belonged to the State; AKA the Crown which vested in the Monarch. Therefore all Crown lands are a result of the function of the feudal system (and the few that they actually bought were purchased later on with taxes from the people or with profits from land owned due to the feudal system)

The problem is, the feudal system of property was only gradually evolved out of towards a more capitalist system, and not totally done away with effectively. Thus you have strange vestiges of the system like 'Crown Lands' and strange paradoxes like the Monarch leasing "his" Crown lands, which are effectively State land, back to the State. You have the vestiges of the old system dealing with the new, modern state. Bizarre.

Since we have long ago evolved past the feudal system ( in Scotland we managed to abolish it completely long ago...last October....but the system effectively stopped about 200 years ago) the anomalies from the system should be remedied. I believe in England you still operate 99 year leases of land, rather than outright ownership. It's unbelievable. This notion of 'The Crown' should be totally replaced with the modern State to remove confusion for over-excited monarchists, and this anachronistic notion of property totally done away with in England as well as Scotland.

You seem to mix "crown" property and "state/nation/public" property. There is no such mix. The crown estates are the legal property of the royal familily.


Just so you don't try and use this one on me...Correct, there is no such mix...there is indeed a difference between "Crown Land" and land which is Property of the State. Although it has to be said, this is not a very clear distinction, since modern departments of state can own land both in their own right, as land of the state, and as the Crown, if they are performing a function which is a Crown Function, under a Royal Prerogative. There is also some cross-over between "Crown Estates" and land owned by the Royal family, but again, this is a vestige of the Feudal System and the fact that in the past the terms Monarch, Crown and State were synonymous, whereas now there is only slight overlap between the terms Monarch and Crown and between the terms Crown and State.

So you see, originally, because the monarch was the 'Leviathan', the embodiment of the State, "Crown Property" meant property owned by the State. It was only when the modern Liberal Democratic State developed in the last 200 years that the terms Crown and State became separable. But the desire of the monarchy to maintain their wealth and power meant that instead of all crown lands passing to the Modern State, they remained in the hands of 'the Crown' in a bid to appease monarchists and avoid Civil conflict.

Clearly, you are fighting a losing battle against Valdania anyway, but I just thought I should add my piece.


And I see you've gone silent on the Scottish Oil front. :) :rolleyes:

Ah yes, got to love government cover ups and the Freedom of Information Act.

Parliament doesn't have the power to pass a consitution, nor does it have the power to authorize a process to pass a consitution. It is a fundamental principle of English constitutional law that parliament cannot bind its sucessors.

(Also the Parliament, and not the people, is soveriegn in the UK. In practice because of the reduction of powers in 1911 and 1949 of the lords, this in effect means that the commons is the supreme legal authority.)

That's subject to debate. Parliament can bind itself in form (as in the Parliamentary Acts), but probably not in substance. For example, the Human Rights Act can be changed normally, but it would be possible for parliament to ascribe special circumstances for it to be changed. For example, they could add a clause that states that 'this Act can only be altered with a 75% majority in the Commons or on approval by national referendum of the people" Or words to that effect.

A constitution could theoretically be created this way. Parliament could still change it, it would just be bound as to the form or method it uses to change it, which is basically how all constitutions work.

Parliament can also govern it's own structure. For example, it legislated for annual parliaments and it legislated for the term of office to be reduced from 7 years to 5 years. And it legislate the Parliamentary Acts and the House of Lords Reform and so forth, so there is no reason why it cannot abolish itself and start with a new constitution.

Damn Dicey and his idiotic doctrines!

British society is less open, rather than less corrupt, than, for example, the US. Why was there no British equivalent of an Eliot Spitzer crusade? Because representatives of the government and business got together behind closed doors and collectively decided that there was no need for one. However, this is part of a wider argument. I am not suggesting that a British republic would necessarily be much better in these terms, nor have I ever. You can persist in a fantasy that the (magical?) monarchy acts to help safeguard against corrupt politics & business if you wish.

Training is no substitute for intellect or talent. The Queen has been a perfectly competent head of state in most respects but can we be so confident about her offspring?

For example, the monarch is supposed to remain 'above politics' but the current heir Prince Charles opens his ill-informed mouth about such matters with depressing frequency. Are we to suppose that upon being crowned he would suddenly mend his ways? In any case, his impartiality is already under question, let alone his intelligence or ability to deal with adversity.

And suppose tragic circumstances let Prince William or his idiot brother ascede to the throne in their twenties? Would that be acceptable to you; given they will have received almost none of this 'training' you laughably refer to?

This is, of course, my central argument, that hereditary politcal powers of any kind cannot be justified, whether it be the House of Lords or the Head of State.


Hear, hear!

Clearly some people have never seen Yes, Minister!

And why should we allow people with talent and intelligence to run the state when we could have some half-wit inbred running the country. Obviously years in University and years of experience in the Civil Service or business count for nothing in running a country compared with years of privilege and sheltering from reality. Yes, being born with a silver spoon is clearly the best form of "training available"

And as for being above politics....no one is above politics. Especially not the Royal family. They clearly have a vested interest in the status quo and having things run a certain way. As Marx says "...your jurisprudence is but the will of the ruling class put down as law" or words to that effect.

You're missing the point there I'm afraid Benchley...

Yes, it was George III's property. BECAUSE of his role as the Crown. You see, it wasn't his property that he bought, it was his property in his role as the Crown, as the state. But the modern state has evolved so that the Monarch is no longer the Leviathan, the embodiment of the state. The state is now the monsterous machine of Whitehall.

Sorry, can't let you get away with that. The property was (and still is) the property of the Queen. Her personal property, inherited from her ancestors.

You see originally, we had a feudal system and ALL the land in the country belonged to the monarch, unless the monarch chose to either grant that land out to Noblemen, or chose to feu it out to the middle classes. Any land that was not otherwise dealt with belonged to the State; AKA the Crown which vested in the Monarch. Therefore all Crown lands are a result of the function of the feudal system (and the few that they actually bought were purchased later on with taxes from the people or with profits from land owned due to the feudal system)

Nevertheless, in English law, the estates are still the personal property of the Queen.

The problem is, the feudal system of property was only gradually evolved out of towards a more capitalist system, and not totally done away with effectively. Thus you have strange vestiges of the system like 'Crown Lands' and strange paradoxes like the Monarch leasing "his" Crown lands, which are effectively State land, back to the State. You have the vestiges of the old system dealing with the new, modern state. Bizarre.

Since we have long ago evolved past the feudal system ( in Scotland we managed to abolish it completely long ago...last October....but the system effectively stopped about 200 years ago) the anomalies from the system should be remedied. I believe in England you still operate 99 year leases of land, rather than outright ownership. It's unbelievable.

Yes, leasehold is still around though it has deminished in recent years since the government gave people the right to buy their freehold. These days it most often applies to multi-dwelling properties like blocks of flats.

This notion of 'The Crown' should be totally replaced with the modern State to remove confusion for over-excited monarchists, and this anachronistic notion of property totally done away with in England as well as Scotland.

Maybe, maybe not. But if the government were to attempt to "nationalize" the crown estates then the Royal Family would be entitled to compensation for having their personal property taken from them.

It costs 60p a year to have a royal family and I think its kind off nice, you know once there gone, there gone forever....

It costs 60p a year to have a royal family and I think its kind off nice, you know once there gone, there gone forever....

it costs us nothing, in fact it would cost us more if they were not there.

It costs 60p a year to have a royal family and I think its kind off nice, you know once there gone, there gone forever....

Assuming they weren't all executed, they're no reason why the monarchy couldn't be restored - it's happened before.

Anyway, the money doesn't really have much to do with it. Both sides of the argument are on slightly less than solid ground when it comes to finances.

Ultimately, people get the government and representation they deserve and the current system reflects the apathy and general resistance to change that is prevalent in the UK as much as anything else.

Some people would like the chance to elect their head of state, others would crawl across broken glass to stick flags in the Queen's shit. Most people probably don't care either way.

Sorry, can't let you get away with that. The property was (and still is) the property of the Queen. Her personal property, inherited from her ancestors.

No really, they are the property of the Crown, not the personal property of the Monarch. Very few properties actually belong to the Monarchy as personal property, although it is certainly not clear which is which, due to the reasons I have set out several times above.

Maybe, maybe not. But if the government were to attempt to "nationalize" the crown estates then the Royal Family would be entitled to compensation for having their personal property taken from them.

Debatable. Under Art 1 Prot 1 of the ECHR, possibly, but there would be a long dispute about what is the property of the Crown and what is the personal property of the monarch, and there is a good chance that a large margin of appreciation would be given to the State, especially as it is likely to be seen as "necessary in a democratic society"

No really, they are the property of the Crown, not the personal property of the Monarch. Very few properties actually belong to the Monarchy as personal property, although it is certainly not clear which is which, due to the reasons I have set out several times above.

The property of the "crown" is the property of the royal family.

The exact legal definition by the latest act (1961) is "The Crown Estate is part of the hereditary possessions of the Sovereign in right of the Crown"

What this means is that it is the personal property of the Monarch with all the rights thereto - except one. She cannot leave the Crown Estates to just anyone, it always passes to the new Monarch and if the Queen was to step down then she would pass ownership to the new monarch.

Debatable. Under Art 1 Prot 1 of the ECHR, possibly, but there would be a long dispute about what is the property of the Crown and what is the personal property of the monarch, and there is a good chance that a large margin of appreciation would be given to the State, especially as it is likely to be seen as "necessary in a democratic society"

English law would recognize the right of the Queen to be compensated for the lose of her property.

She cannot leave the Crown Estates to just anyone, it always passes to the new Monarch and if the Queen was to step down then she would pass ownership to the new monarch.

Yes, exactly, because it is the property of the "Crown" and not the personal property of the monarch themselves. Thank you! Jeez, it's like pulling teeth.



English law would recognize the right of the Queen to be compensated for the lose of her property.

Because English Law is always having to deal with removing monarchs? Well established precedents and whatnot...

I think you'll find that parliament would have to create a law specifically about the process. And in that case, they would have to consider the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol 1.

I think you'll find that parliament would have to create a law specifically about the process. And in that case, they would have to consider the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol 1.

No they wouldn't. When they got rid of the queen, the law they passed would be newer than any enabling legislation for ECHR, so it would supercede it. Anyway, provided they only took the crown property and left the queen what was nominally hers, I don't think compensation would be needed. (Crown property not being alienable and therefore having a market value of zero).

Just out of interest Brenchley, and seeing as we've hit a brick wall with everything else, where do you stand on the disestablishment issue?

I'm assuming, after seeing a few of your posts on religious matters, that you would favour the removal of the 'Lords Spiritual' from the House of Lords and an end to the Monarch being designated the Supreme Head of the CofE?


But then again who knows?

And a Tory would be acceptable?

Well quite. I would galdly accept Nicholas Soames as monarcg, or Boris Johnson, just not anyn fellow from the left, or the modern.

Well quite. I would galdly accept Nicholas Soames as monarcg, or Boris Johnson, just not anyn fellow from the left, or the modern.


Thanks for that


'the modern'..... ha ha

Thanks for that


'the modern'..... ha ha

And you would, of course, have Blair as a monarch.

And you would, of course, have Blair as a monarch.


Well done, cretin.


What exactly is your definition of 'the modern'? I've got a suspicion but I'd like to see you confirm it.

Well done, cretin.


What exactly is your definition of 'the modern'? I've got a suspicion but I'd like to see you confirm it.

New Labour, Liberal Democrat, anything that seeks to destroy old England.

New Labour, Liberal Democrat, anything that seeks to destroy old England.

Which "old England"?

the 19th century, Victorian, "Britannia rules" old England, or the George Bernard Shaw "democratic socialism" era of the 1920-1950 period?

Or the rule of Elizabeth I?

Which "old England"?

the 19th century, Victorian, "Britannia rules" old England, or the George Bernard Shaw "democratic socialism" era of the 1920-1950 period?

Or the rule of Elizabeth I?

The generic England that ruled the empire, the Engand thatis characterised as pompous, eccentric and self interested, and the England that Labour so seeks to replace with "multiculturalism".

Yes, exactly, because it is the property of the "Crown" and not the personal property of the monarch themselves. Thank you! Jeez, it's like pulling teeth.

Nononononoooo! It is currently the personal property of Her Magesty Queen Elizabeth the 2nd.

Because English Law is always having to deal with removing monarchs? Well established precedents and whatnot...

I think you'll find that parliament would have to create a law specifically about the process. And in that case, they would have to consider the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol 1.

I doubt they would need to look to European law, British law already protected the rights in question.

Just out of interest Brenchley, and seeing as we've hit a brick wall with everything else, where do you stand on the disestablishment issue?

I'm assuming, after seeing a few of your posts on religious matters, that you would favour the removal of the 'Lords Spiritual' from the House of Lords and an end to the Monarch being designated the Supreme Head of the CofE?


But then again who knows?

I certainly would like to see the CofE removed from any official function in the UK.

Restore Hereditary lords keep then queen burn Blair at the stake and keep the CofE, thats my view anyway

Restore Hereditary lords keep then queen burn Blair at the stake and keep the CofE, thats my view anyway

Finally, another true Brit! Thank the lord!:)

Finally, another true Brit! Thank the lord!:)

Dont worry there are many of us out there still

No they wouldn't. When they got rid of the queen, the law they passed would be newer than any enabling legislation for ECHR, so it would supercede it. Anyway, provided they only took the crown property and left the queen what was nominally hers, I don't think compensation would be needed. (Crown property not being alienable and therefore having a market value of zero).


First of all, the UK is bound by it's obligations in international law under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 to act in a manner compliant with the obligations therein. Therefore, notwithstanding similar domestic legislation, if the Government enacted legislation which was not compliant with Article 1 of Protocol 1 it would be subject to Action at the European Court of Human Rights.


Secondly, the S3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires that all legislation be interpreted in light of the Convention Rights, so any such legislation would have to be read to give as much recognition as possible to these rights. This can only be superceded if the subsequent legislation specifically states that it is not to be read in line with S3 HRA.

Thirdly, S6 of the HRA 1998 requires that all Public Authorities act in a manner which is compliant with the Convention Rights, and this would give grounds for an action. (Although it does not include parliament, any bodies to which parliament delegated the task of claiming the property would be open to action)

For examples of recent legislation falling foul of the Human Rights Act see - A v Secretary of State for the Home Department from the House of Lords in December where the recent Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 was found to breach Article 5.