Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhat are you talking about?
They have the same chance as a mouse against a starving leopord.
Because. They are tied into the nineteenth and early twentieth century acceptance and expectation of "class" that the brittish system has yet to repeal.
As you know, as long as the caste system rules Brittain, there will always be hopes for the torries.
Those born to rule... wil ...[text shortened]... seating. Who knows from crap... who belongs to what class or caste?
Notice next time.
Mike
You don't 'repeal' class.
The labour party 'issues seats to their meetings based on class'? WTF is that about?
Utter gibberish.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyRubbish. Sure Britain has its fair share of inequalities but no more than most industrialised nations and almost certainly less than the US. Over the last few decades we've had a raft of leading politicians from 'the other side of the sticks' - John Major and Neil Kinnock being just a couple of high-profile examples. Compare that with the multimillion pound moguls running the Republicans and Democrats in the US and tell me it's Britain that has the problem here.
They have the same chance as a mouse against a starving leopord.
Because. They are tied into the nineteenth and early twentieth century acceptance and expectation of "class" that the brittish system has yet to repeal.
As you know, as long as the caste system rules Brittain, there will always be hopes for the torries.
Those born to rule... wil ...[text shortened]... seating. Who knows from crap... who belongs to what class or caste?
Notice next time.
Mike
There are still class divisions in the UK, but these days they are refected less by inequalities in access to power and more in a mutual lack of understanding. The fox hunting debate is a good example. The largely upper class hunting lobby feel misunderstood by the great majority who want to see fox hunting banned, but ultimately they are not going to get their way.
Rich.
I must say, I'm surprised that the Tories are still doing so badly (although not exactly devastated). In the 1980s and early 90s political dialogue in the UK was dominated by the need to keep taxes low and time and again the Tories won elections by scaring the electorate into believing that Labour would put taxes up. Then Labour got into power and did indeed put taxes up (albeit subtly), but succeeded in shifting the entire focus of the debate to the provision of high quality public services. Now the public are so nervous of a return to public service cuts that the Tories don't dare to play the tax cut card that has always been their signature. They have been very effectively neutured.
It's been a pleasant surprise to learn that the British people aren't as right wing as I'd always assumed (bearing in mind that many of Blair's more right-wing policies have also been those most heavily criticised).
Rich.
Originally posted by richhoeySurveys repeatedly show that, on average, the public has right-wing views on Europe, law and order and immigration, so I wouldn't say people are always that liberal.
I must say, I'm surprised that the Tories are still doing so badly (although not exactly devastated). In the 1980s and early 90s political dialogue in the UK was dominated by the need to keep taxes low and time and again the Tories won elections by scaring the electorate into believing that Labour would put taxes up. Then Labour got into power and did inde ...[text shortened]... any of Blair's more right-wing policies have also been those most heavily criticised).
Rich.
The Tories ought to have gained from the (entirely inevitable) accumulation of unpopular/unwise government policies and a desire for a change. However, it seems all other criticisms of Blair et al have paled into insignificance compared to Iraq, and since the Tories supported the war it's not really helping them. Had they consistently opposed the war from the start, I think 2005 would have been a real challenge for Labour.
tradition im a labour voter but when that bitch was in power there was no opposition to speak of, now we have the reverse with that anus in power. this destroys democracy from within as they can get away with anything due to party machine behind the leaders, this in turn turns voters like myself either off politics or as some to one issue partys, by this they hope to influence the major partys
The House of Lords is an anachronism, sure, and probably doesn't help Britain's image as a democracy. Tony Blair should have reformed it properly when he had the opportunity and so we're left with is an ugly hybrid that remains undemocratic, even if it is no longer dominated by inherited privelege. To be honest though, I see the first past the post system of the House of Commons as a much more significant barrier to democracy than the Lords, which in truth has very limited power.
Rich.
Originally posted by AcolyteSociety's views are a mixed bag, sure, and there's plently of very right wing opinion in there too. But I'm heartened that people are at least voting as a society these days, rather than just as a collection of individuals chasing tax cuts but ignoring the wider consequences.
Surveys repeatedly show that, on average, the public has right-wing views on Europe, law and order and immigration, so I wouldn't say people are always that liberal.
The Tories ought to have gained from the (entirely inevitable) accumulation of unpopular/unwise government policies and a desire for a change. However, it seems all other criticisms of Blai ...[text shortened]... tently opposed the war from the start, I think 2005 would have been a real challenge for Labour.
I also think the last few years have been a useful demonstration that it is possible to raise (at least to a small degree) the taxation burden but retain a vibrant economy.
Rich.
Originally posted by richhoeyI was always opposed to the idea of inherited power in the house of lords. Particularly when the democratically elected house of commons was blocked from passing laws, etc. by them.
The House of Lords is an anachronism, sure, and probably doesn't help Britain's image as a democracy. Tony Blair should have reformed it properly when he had the opportunity and so we're left with is an ugly hybrid that remains undemocratic, even if it is no longer dominated by inherited privelege. To be honest though, I see the first past the post syste ...[text shortened]... significant barrier to democracy than the Lords, which in truth has very limited power.
Rich.
But the current reform is, if anything, worse!
Instead of a load of aristos automatically getting a seat, we have a bunch of hand picked cronies and "donors".
Does anybody know the reason for having a second house? I thought the idea was that they could act as a check on the commons, limiting excess, etc. But from what I've heard of other countries like US and France, the upper house is pretty toothless anyway.
Originally posted by VargSecond houses are just there to stop the first house from doing anything too wacky it might regret later, by slowing things down a bit in a 'don't be too hasty' kind of way. Therein lies the problem, because if second houses are elected they get bored of not actually having anything to do and try to be just like the first house. Hence deadlock. But I'm not saying the current solution is ideal either.
I was always opposed to the idea of inherited power in the house of lords. Particularly when the democratically elected house of commons was blocked from passing laws, etc. by them.
But the current reform is, if anything, worse!
Instead of a load of aristos automatically getting a seat, we have a bunch of hand picked cronies and "donors".
Does anybody kn ...[text shortened]... t I've heard of other countries like US and France, the upper house is pretty toothless anyway.
Rich.
FWIW the U.S.'s second house (Senate) is anything but toothless. I understand the reason for having a second house, that being said I'm not too familiar with how the House of Lords works/is selected and what the proposals are. One thing I have noticed is that it's a divisive issue in the house where party affiliation is being thrown out.
Originally posted by stammerSure, I was aware of that, but in the US both houses are elected and so it's pretty much arbitrary which is the first and which is the second. And when the houses have been controlled by different parties, there has been deadlock has there not?
FWIW the U.S.'s second house (Senate) is anything but toothless. I understand the reason for having a second house, that being said I'm not too familiar with how the House of Lords works/is selected and what the proposals are. One thing I have noticed is that it's a divisive issue in the house where party affiliation is being thrown out.
I'm not arguing against democratising institutions like the House of Lords - just pointing out the drawbacks.
Rich.
We could have a system where peers are elected for life, but then we'd have to do them in batches, eg once every five years, rather than having elections every time one of them died. The election format would be similar to EU elections, except that there'd be one big constituency for the whole country. That would make the Lords a bit different from the Commons.
Originally posted by AcolyteThat would be one option, or we could use proportional representation for the Lords, which would also create variety. The real problem though isn't to do with similarity - it's to do with the authority you automatically gain when you have a democratic mandate. You'd have to make sure the Lords was incompatible with a successful career in politics (perhaps by keeping it very much part-time) because otherwise you'd have two sets of ruthless and ambitious politicians, both claiming a democratic mandate, and both trying to flex their muscles.
We could have a system where peers are elected for life, but then we'd have to do them in batches, eg once every five years, rather than having elections every time one of them died. The election format would be similar to EU elections, except that there'd be one big constituency for the whole country. That would make the Lords a bit different from the Commons.
Rich.