A Conversation for The British Parliamentary System
jimbohina Started conversation Aug 5, 2001
dose anyone realy care? house of lords is more like a circus. people all dresed up in makeup and wigs. if any of them actualy cared about what they were doing there would be less people falling asleap in the place.
actualy it is probably a good thing that the queen dosn't exersize her power because she would probably make a mess of it ultimat power ultimatly corupts. well she couldnt do any worse than the poloticians. but if she dosnt want any power why dose she live in a big house, sorry several big houses? why dose she have two birthdays both with big procetions and 21 gun saluts? why dose she keep her mother soaked in gin?
how much do we actualt spend on the 'royal' family. not just money but time and space. all the papers yesterday had 'charles nearly died' he got knocked out and with paramedics surounding him he was les lightly to die than the fasion for cloaths. it wasn't until page 5 they actualy mentiond real people actualy dieing. and the far east mas killings was on page 11.
kind of shows you where peoples proritys lay.
Raziel Posted Nov 9, 2001
Yes the House of Lords is important especially know we have a Government with an overwhelming majority. This means that when bills and acts get passed in the House of Commons (Which they will do as there is a majority government) the House of Lords is the only place which can stop these Bills and Acts from recieving Lords approval. This means that the bills and acts have to go back to the House of Commons for further debate. This happens 3 times, during which it raises public awareness of the bill or act that is trying to be passed, the mood of the public will affect if the Government in what the bill is. (The last bill to be bounced back and raise public awareness was the fox hunting bill)
You're saying that the Royals cost us?
I take it therefore that you are unfammiliar with the fact that they are the single biggest tourism moneyspinner we have, earning this country hundreds of millions of pounds each year.
Stuart Posted Aug 6, 2002
It seems to me that the preoccupation with democracy is leading us down a dangerous path. Democracy is not the be all and end all of Government. Democracy, just like any other form of government, left to its own devices will succumb to excesses.
Let me give you an analogy. Copper is a very soft, pliable metal with very little uses except as an electrical conductor. It tends to corrode at the merest whiff of moister. Tin has similar properties although it is more resistant to corrosion. It used to be used to make tin cans, but tin cans are now made of aluminium because tin is too expensive. Other than that, tin by itself has little use. It to is a soft metal. However, mix a little tin with copper (about 10%) and you have bronze - a hard durable metal with many uses. It can lay at the bottom of the sea for centuries without any corrosion. Add a little phosphor (1%) and you have a metal that is so hard that it is used in bearings. (Phosphor Bronze). Add it bit of zinc (2%) and it is strong enough to make guns out of (Gun Metal). Add varying quantities of lead and you get the unique characteristics of bells. So it can be seen, a pretty mundane metal like copper, when mixed with small quantities of other metals can take on characteristics with little similarity to its constituent parts.
Government is pretty much the same. Democracy by itself is weak and useless. It is open to abuse. Adolf Hitler’s rise to power is an example of what unfettered Democracy can lead to. America’s brand of Democracy is another example. Because there is no place for Plutocracy in their constitution, it is gravitating towards a Plutocracy of its own accord. If you take Democracy as the basis of government, add a little Plutocracy and a dash of Monarchy and you end up with something that is strong, durable and resistant to corruption and abuse, just like bronze.
Finally, consider this, who would you sooner have as head of state, a career politician who got to the top by lying and cheating and for his own personal gain, or someone who governs out of a sense of duty and has enough wealth they are beyond corruption.
Stuart Posted Aug 6, 2002
Exactly. If every public institution gave us the same Return on Investment as the Monarchy does we would be in a far better financial position than we are now.
Key: Complain about this post