| Lolcislaw said: Again House of Lords hardly have any revision power over government , they just go through the bills, looking to make them more coherent. Again whats good about HoL is lack of politicisation of this chamber, people put their expertise and experience into practice above interests of groups they represent, political parties and lobbyists. Only form of scrutiny they have is a option of delaying bills for a year before they come into power, they cannot veto nor alter what House of Commons decides (which is usually what Government decides). Plus Hereditary peers are pretty much gone. Going back to Monarchy, yes i think thats the point of it, having a uniting national figure that serves purely as a representative head of state without political power, to leave political decisions in Hands of polticians that represent their Constituents, Business Interests, lobby groups. Head of State should unite all people not just those that have voted for him or those that have similar interests. Monarchy is similar to what Germans, Italians have with their presidents being elected by national assemblies, people with a lot of experience , not politicians but figures. Having both strong President and Prime Minister with PArliament only creates political problems. British System works well, so why change it? |
the lords can block bills that go through the house of commons though.
you say lack of politicisation, but thats bs, all people in government have views and agendas, its niave to assume otherwise, why do you think there are Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem lords?
you really think say Peter Mandelson has no agenda?
why not just make the PM head of state? from what youre saying doing so makes no difference to how the system works now, except that we save £40M+ a year.
there is no such thing as a person with unanamous support, otherwise i wouldnt be here would i?
