So, England, let me get this straight...

[Dixon Carter Lee]

The House of Lords is made up of, essentially, appointed landowners with hereditary and new titles? Or was, anyway, becuase I understand much of that is changing. Still, they're appointed, and their qualification for being in such a political position to make law is that they own land?

And the House of Commons? That's an elected representative body, is that right? I'm just trying to get it all straight in my head.

I'm sure it works very equitably and fairly and all, but I just try and picture Americans agreeing to let landowners control half the Capitol. (Of course, with campaign contributions leading the way, we are, essentially, doing that with corporations.)

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Yes, but the house of Lords doesn't really wield real power. It's not like our House/Senate anyway.

 

[sexy-girl]

Yes, but the house of Lords doesn't really wield real power. It's not like our House/Senate anyway.

it does weild power infact the house of commons can't make any laws until its been to the house of lords 3 times


but dixon you're right it is changing to be honest in some circumstances it has worked well because sometimes because their not elected they don't have to worry about only appealing to the public

but then of course that makes them less accoutable

 

[Harbinger]

Dixon, I thought we started out that way, since only landowners got to vote. It's so much better now that the lawyers run congress for us.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

It was more than just landowners, though there were more stringent age, sex, race and financial limitations placed on voting rights than there are now, to be sure. And, to this day, we still have an Electoral College (not one man one vote).

Still, ALL representives were elected, even from the beginning, and not appointed by a crown (or President).

Don't get me wrong, I understand how this works for England, and I see that the crown and Parliament and making changes now to make it even more democratic -- I'm just trying to wrap it all in my head, because the whole idea seems strange to me.

 

[modest mouse]

Appointed by whom?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Da Queen. You get some land. She knights you. Gives you a title. And you get a seat in the House of Lords and get to direct the legislation of the country. Wa-la!

 

[modest mouse]

Wow, color me clueless. I had no idea the Queen still held that much power. Another reason the constant criticism of the US by Britons confounds me.

England is, far and away, the most class obsessed country in the world. Even moreso than India.

 

[bluespoke]

Wow, color me clueless. I had no idea the Queen still held that much power. Another reason the constant criticism of the US by Britons confounds me.

England is, far and away, the most class obsessed country in the world. Even moreso than India.

Oh please, the Queen holds virtually no power at all. The Lords are appointed by reccomendation from the political parties and the primeminister.

Holding or not holding land has nothing to do with such appointments.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Oh please, the Queen holds virtually no power at all. The Lords are appointed by reccomendation from the political parties and the primeminister.

Holding or not holding land has nothing to do with such appointments.

Sure it does. At least it does with the herediary titles. That's how the titles were assigned in the first place. And Queens are always "advised". She still appoints, as opposed to an electorate.

I'm still not denouncing the system. Far from it. Just looking to understand.

 

[bluespoke]

Sure it does. At least it does with the herediary titles. That's how the titles were assigned in the first place. And Queens are always "advised". She still appoints, as opposed to an electorate.

I'm still not denouncing the system. Far from it. Just looking to understand.

Hereditary Peers no longer sit in the House of Lords.

And the queen does as she is advised. If she didn't we'd have a revolution!

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Hereditary Peers no longer sit in the House of Lords.

And the queen does as she is advised. If she didn't we'd have a revolution!

WTF is Willie Wallace when ya need him.


Haggis for everybody!

 

[miles]

WTF is Willie Wallace when ya need him.


Haggis for everybody!

Fookin A, lad.

 

[p_p_man]

The House of Lords has become more political...

now that the hereditary peer is dying out.

Peers are apponted by the Prime Minister as he sees fit. If he thinks the House of Lords needs more Labour peers to get legislation throught then he will appoint them.

The House of Commons can pass laws ONLY if they are agreed by the House of Lords. The trouble with making the upper house more poltical is that we can now be lumbered with laws based on politcal philosophy. Before, the House of Lords although being populated by ostensibly aristocratic peers, was extremely fair in its deliberations.

I suppose it came from their 'noblesse oblige' and all that.



ppman

 

[MunchinMark]

Back in 1998 the Labour Party somehow abolished the right for hereditary peers (Lords who are lords because of what their great great great great grandfather did to the French) to sit in the house of Lords.

That means that the peers who do sit in the upper chamber are life peers, they don't pass it on to their sons. This was supposed to be much more modern and free thinking.

Life peers are mostly politicians who have retired from the hustle and bustle of getting elected and they are made peers on the recomendation of whichever political party has the majority at the time.

And that means that the people who are supposed to safeguard the country against the worst excesses of party politics were all put there by political parties. How wonderfully modern and liberating. It give party politics more power than ever, basically.

Personally, I rather liked the old system. If the upper house, which has to agree with the bills that the lower house (full of elected members of political parties) isn't made up of politicians, I would feel safer. Birth is indifferent to political affiliation. So it's pretty random in what kind of person gets to sit in the House of Lords. OK, normally rich people, but not always, many aristocratic families have fallen on hard times, which is why old family homes belong to the national trust.

To me, that random selection by birth is second only to my ideal situation. That would be a Lords in which the people are selected in a sort of jury duty style. Of course that would mean the parties of the Commons agreeing to give up power.

And that's going to happen.

The Queen incidentally has a sort of veto on any prospective law, but she has never used it, although it might be necessary now that we have lost the saftey net of a politically indifferent Lords selection process.

 

[Problem Child]

So basically, you have one house (Lords) whose members are appointed for life, and basically has full veto power over the elected house (commons).

Is that about right?

 

[MunchinMark]

That's right. Although in special circumstances the lower chamber (House of Commons) can force a bill through against the wishes of the Lords. Normally it has to pass through both Houses 3 times without any changes. That is Commons to Lords to Commons to Lords to Commons to Lords. Then to the Palace. And it's a law.

Any change, no matter how minor and it has to start all over again.

It's so convoluted because it was derived by suspicious bastards. I approve thoroughly.

PP Man would probably add that the European Parliament and the European Court of Human Rights- which can overturn laws in the EU are also involved in legislature, but I don't know how they fit into the mechanism.

 

[Problem Child]

That's right.

Thanks Mark.

lol...I never want to hear an Brit bitch about the U.S. supreme court or electoral college again.

 

[Spinaroonie]

You forgot one thing

Tony Blair sucks.

 

[Rooster]

Well how often do you hold elections .... and how's the PM elected?

..... I remember Margret Thatcher {sp?} being in office for ....well hell forever

That and where does your Ministries fall in line i.e. Ministry of Defense? ... or in the UK .. Defence

 

[modest mouse]

I will personally fix the English political system if they get the hell out of Ireland.

 

[MunchinMark]

General Elections- choosing MPs- are held roughly every 6 years. Though never exactly, the PM has some leeway to move it forward or back. The party with the most seats has it's leader as Prime Minister and the Prime Minister appoints the cabinet ministers (exchequer, education secretary, defence secretary, Home secretary, Foreign Secretary etc. the heads of the civil service departments). Tony Blair has been shifting Cabinet ministers around so much it is sometimes hard to tell who to blame.

Margaret Thatcher led the Conservative party to 2 election victories and retired at the next.

There are local elections too, these are more frequent and decide the constitution of borough councils. They are also party political and local elections tend to be looked at as indicators of public approval.

Ministeries are Civil Service run under the guidance of a single cabinet minister.

And why not criticise the Supreme Court? I have never said that our system was perfect, indeed I have often said otherwise. I've just given criticism of my own country's political organisation. You can too if you like. I'll respond to your criticisms a lot fairer than many of your countymen repsond to our criticisms of yours.

 

[MunchinMark]

Leave Northern Ireland? And abandon a voting majority to a bunch of terrorists? Why would any democratic state consider such a thing?

 

[modest mouse]

There is no such thing as Northern Ireland.

Its a majority because they were planted there by the British. Thats like the US planting ten million people in British Columbia, then claiming it wants us there due to voting majority.

***

Mark, nice to have your perspective when too often the lone British vox is that of ppman.

 

[Problem Child]

And why not criticise the Supreme Court? I have never said that our system was perfect, indeed I have often said otherwise. I've just given criticism of my own country's political organisation. You can too if you like. I'll respond to your criticisms a lot fairer than many of your countymen repsond to our criticisms of yours.

My dear man, it was said in jest. I don't deign to limit anyone's freedom of speech and you know damn well there are posters quite biased and overly protective of their own countries way of doing things on both *coughppmancough* sides of the pond.

Right then...