By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - To my fellow UK/Englanders. We have a 4th option.... Absolute Monarchy.

your idea scares me.

i'd have to reform the Roundheads and kill off the monarchy (for good this time)



Atari 2600, Sega Mega Drive, Game Boy, Game Boy Advanced, N64, Playstation, Xbox, PSP Phat, PSP 3000, and PS3 60gb (upgraded to 320gb), NDS

Linux Ubuntu user

Favourite game: Killzone 3

Around the Network
Rath said:
SciFiBoy said:
Rath said:
SciFiBoy said:
no, infact I think we should do away with the monarchy alltogether.

Oh the monarchy is a fantastic tradition though, plus Elizabeth has been pretty much the perfect constitutional monarch, regal but not meddling.

 

Your upper house does need reform though, too much power too little reponsibility to the people.

meh, I find them annoying and useless, this is a democracy, they arent needed.

the Lords needs to be replaced with an elected second chamber imo.

Only problem is that electing an upper chamber would challenge the primacy of the house of commons. If they are both elected with their own mandates then the upper house would have a right to block laws in the lower house, essentially it would revoke the unwritten Salisbury Convention.

Plus, why elect two houses?

We elect our upper house in Australia and it works well enough. Besides, outside of independents most of the senators fall into party lines. It makes perfect sense to me to vote in both the lower and upper house. Hell it makes sense to not have the Queen as our head of state. And if I ever get the chance I'll certainly be voting against the monarchy.



FaRmLaNd said:
Rath said:
SciFiBoy said:
Rath said:
SciFiBoy said:
no, infact I think we should do away with the monarchy alltogether.

Oh the monarchy is a fantastic tradition though, plus Elizabeth has been pretty much the perfect constitutional monarch, regal but not meddling.

 

Your upper house does need reform though, too much power too little reponsibility to the people.

meh, I find them annoying and useless, this is a democracy, they arent needed.

the Lords needs to be replaced with an elected second chamber imo.

Only problem is that electing an upper chamber would challenge the primacy of the house of commons. If they are both elected with their own mandates then the upper house would have a right to block laws in the lower house, essentially it would revoke the unwritten Salisbury Convention.

Plus, why elect two houses?

We elect our upper house in Australia and it works well enough. Besides, outside of independents most of the senators fall into party lines. It makes perfect sense to me to vote in both the lower and upper house. Hell it makes sense to not have the Queen as our head of state. And if I ever get the chance I'll certainly be voting against the monarchy.

What is the advantage of two elected houses over one elected house?



Rath said:
FaRmLaNd said:
Rath said:
SciFiBoy said:
Rath said:
SciFiBoy said:
no, infact I think we should do away with the monarchy alltogether.

Oh the monarchy is a fantastic tradition though, plus Elizabeth has been pretty much the perfect constitutional monarch, regal but not meddling.

 

Your upper house does need reform though, too much power too little reponsibility to the people.

meh, I find them annoying and useless, this is a democracy, they arent needed.

the Lords needs to be replaced with an elected second chamber imo.

Only problem is that electing an upper chamber would challenge the primacy of the house of commons. If they are both elected with their own mandates then the upper house would have a right to block laws in the lower house, essentially it would revoke the unwritten Salisbury Convention.

Plus, why elect two houses?

We elect our upper house in Australia and it works well enough. Besides, outside of independents most of the senators fall into party lines. It makes perfect sense to me to vote in both the lower and upper house. Hell it makes sense to not have the Queen as our head of state. And if I ever get the chance I'll certainly be voting against the monarchy.

What is the advantage of two elected houses over one elected house?

Well the main one is that the people get to actually you know, vote them in? I thought that'd be important.
Beyond that then there isn't much of a difference. But I can tell you that it certainly doesn't weaken the power of the lower house, I mean the leader of the country is still the PM and the vast majority of legislation is still introduced by the lower house. The upper house can reject bills and make amendments, but thats the whole point of having an upper house (and a democracy), because it promotes discussion. Being able to push through legislation really quickly isn't always a good thing.

Of course the downside is that if the paty is in power in both then its essentially a senate that votes yes to most everything. But no system is perfect. My main point is, if the senate here can function when being elected then I don't see the need to have an unelected house of lords. I'd rather personally to vote for my own candidate then not.



I'm not sure where I read this, but i thought it said that the monarchy (if anything) actually makes a profit to the uk taxpayer?!



Around the Network

Someone posted that on this forum ages ago. I remember reading it.

To be honest it doesn't surprise me, I'm sure all the pomp and circumstance of the monarchy brings in a lot of tourests etc.



@Farmland
Yes, but I read it in a newspaper ages ago i think



Scruff7 said:
your idea scares me.

i'd have to reform the Roundheads and kill off the monarchy (for good this time)


....and how did that work out for everybody?

Oh that's right, Cromwell made himself a monarch and banned Christmas.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

SciFiBoy said:
Rath said:
SciFiBoy said:
no, infact I think we should do away with the monarchy alltogether.

Oh the monarchy is a fantastic tradition though, plus Elizabeth has been pretty much the perfect constitutional monarch, regal but not meddling.

 

Your upper house does need reform though, too much power too little reponsibility to the people.

meh, I find them annoying and useless, this is a democracy, they arent needed.

the Lords needs to be replaced with an elected second chamber imo.


Democracy is over rated. It's your precious democracy that can allow for the BNP to win and remove British citizens from their own country. Your precious democracy can also allow 51% of the population to kill the other 49%.

A set of unchangeable rules that are above politics and above the whim of the people is all that is needed, we could call them a constitition or a bill of rights.

All we need is somebody above politics who only looks out for us to make sure these rules remain unbroken.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Pyro as Bill said:
SciFiBoy said:
Rath said:
SciFiBoy said:
no, infact I think we should do away with the monarchy alltogether.

Oh the monarchy is a fantastic tradition though, plus Elizabeth has been pretty much the perfect constitutional monarch, regal but not meddling.

 

Your upper house does need reform though, too much power too little reponsibility to the people.

meh, I find them annoying and useless, this is a democracy, they arent needed.

the Lords needs to be replaced with an elected second chamber imo.


Democracy is over rated. It's your precious democracy that can allow for the BNP to win and remove British citizens from their own country. Your precious democracy can also allow 51% of the population to kill the other 49%.

A set of unchangeable rules that are above politics and above the whim of the people is all that is needed, we could call them a constitition or a bill of rights.

All we need is somebody above politics who only looks out for us to make sure these rules remain unbroken.

We have a constitution, we just have the power to change it.

Having no power to change it...now, that is an interesting idea.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective