JWB Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) So after 40 years suggesting the Lords were necessary for good Governance (and to stop socialism), the Daily Mail suggests getting rid of them is a vital necessity. Edited March 22 by Stuart Galbraith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanhoe Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 55 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: So after 40 years suggesting the Lords were necessary for good Governance (and to stop socialism), the Daily Mail suggests getting rid of them is a vital necessity. To quote one of England's most famous philosophers; meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWB Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWB Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 What do those people do anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWB Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 Hmmm, I wonder.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 On 3/24/2024 at 10:56 AM, JWB said: What do those people do anyway? I thought they really had no part in the governance of the UK? Why do they still exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssnake Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 They are the Senate of the UK; would you abolish the Senate? Pretty much everyone has a two-chamber parliamentary system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 (edited) 15 hours ago, Murph said: I thought they really had no part in the governance of the UK? Why do they still exist? The question I once had my ass reamed by Bill B for pointedly asking Essentially its the same as your system, except rather than having senators do it, we have Lords. Our commons takes a vote, creates legislation, hands it to the Lords to rubbers stamp. And they usually do, except when they believe, for whatever reason, its not in the country's interest. Then they send it back, IIRC with a proposed amendment. I forget what exactly happens then, but I THINK the commons can either adopt the amendment and vote on it, or send it back as it was. I think there are about 3 goes, then the Lords are duty bound to pass it. Basically its a seatbelt on the more stupid legislation making its way into law, but as you can see from Brexit, it works less than optimally. Its also the second largest unelected chamber in the world (No1 is the PRC) which irritated the hell out of my father, and does myself. To complicate things... you CAN still have people sat in the Cabinet, whom were not elected by anybody, simply because the Prime minister either elects to make them a Lord, or they already are a Lord and sitting in the Commons. The best known example of these are Lord Halifax and the present Foreign secretary, Lord Cameron of Bumfuckshire (Alright, im too lazy to look up where he is Lord of). This means he CANT actually give a statement in the Commons, but either makes it in the Lords (where the other MP's cant go to listen) or he would have to get another MP to give the speech for him. Which is somewhat ridiculous. My own view, I like the idea of Lords sitting there for historic reasons. But there is no reason in the 21st century for it to remain an unelected chamber, and presumably, at some point it will change. Who knows, maybe it will even be in my lifetime! Edited March 26 by Stuart Galbraith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 Why not go to universal voting for everything Stuart? Total democracy. If your village votes they want your house then you give it up. That'd be fair right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 Worse still, they could vote on allowing ugly PVC windows. The horror! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 49 minutes ago, rmgill said: Why not go to universal voting for everything Stuart? Total democracy. If your village votes they want your house then you give it up. That'd be fair right? So what you are saying is, you fundamentally disagree with the premise your founding fathers had, that all men are created equal, with unalienable rights? Universal suffrage, that kind of thing? Ultimately if you believe in the rights of Lords and Kings, why dont you just live here? You dont have to vote for Trump to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 39 minutes ago, sunday said: Worse still, they could vote on allowing ugly PVC windows. The horror! Or, even vote for more Spanish territory to become British. Fairs fair right? I mean, you may as well GIVE us the Costa Del Sol, seeing as we economically support it with drunk 18 year olds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWB Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 First Randy Andy, and now Precious Harry. What is it with the Royals and sex crimes? https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2024/03/26/prince-harry-among-a-list-celebrities-named-in-30-million-sex-trafficking-lawsuit-against-sean-diddy-combs/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanhoe Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 https://modernity.news/2024/03/24/government-funded-study-claims-shakespeare-made-theatre-too-white-male-and-cisgender/ Quote A study funded by the British government to the tune of almost a million pounds claims that William Shakespeare, one of foremost the literary icons in history, has been disproportionately represented and has enabled “white, able-bodied, heterosexual, cisgender male narratives” to dominate theatre. The study, by academics at the University of Roehampton, was funded by the government’s Arts and Humanities Research Council and essentially claims that Shakespeare is not diverse enough. The Telegraph reports that the overseer of the study, Andy Kesson, complains that “masculinity and nationalism were crucial motivating factors in the rise of Shakespeare as the arbiter of literary greatness” adding that “[w]e need to be much, much more suspicious of Shakespeare’s place in contemporary theatre”. White, able-bodied, heterosexual, cisgender British males are the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 (edited) Well considering there is nothing explicitly in any shakespearean play that demands it be played by WASP's (In fact he wrote the first play explicitly FOR a Black man, as well as one for a Jew), then once again, it looks like another million pounds spaffed up the wall and they got a report written by Chat GPT in peeved LBGT Black Feminist mode. Edited March 26 by Stuart Galbraith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wobbly Head Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 (edited) To be fair Shakespeare was very pro transgender in his day all the female parts in his plays were played by men. The main reason people still watch Shakespeare plays is because he wrote plays people actually wanted to watch. In five hundred years I doubt people will be quoting lines from the Marvel's movie. Edited March 26 by Wobbly Head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 18 minutes ago, Wobbly Head said: To be fair Shakespeare was very pro transgender in his day all the female parts in his plays were played by men. The main reason people still watch Shakespeare plays is because he wrote plays people actually wanted to watch. In five hundred years I doubt people will be quoting lines from the Marvel's movie. Probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 (edited) 2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: So what you are saying is, you fundamentally disagree with the premise your founding fathers had, that all men are created equal, with unalienable rights? Universal suffrage, that kind of thing? Answer my question please. Also, no, I quite agree with the founding fathers. I also know that if 3 people can vote the 4th person's house is now theirs that you have an inhernent problem. Theodore Roosevelt made a speech about this pointing to the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. AND they do, at the state level where, rightly so, under our democratic republican system, most things that affect people SHOULD be happening at the state level. It should not be up to a Senator from say Massachusetts to place a $500,000 earmark for solar panels for a community center in Marthas Vineyard that the rest of the nation is then beholden to pay for. 2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Ultimately if you believe in the rights of Lords and Kings, why dont you just live here? You dont have to vote for Trump to get it. We have a republic sir, not a democracy. The point of the system was to have a union of states with the states having power upon the federal government and the federal government having some degree of power over the states, really about the issues between the states. Considering you can't see the problems you had with the EU it's no wonder you can't see the need for the distiction between states authority and limited power of the federal govenrment. And considering it took you lot getting to the Great War to give all men the right to vote, you really haven't much of a peg leg to stand on. Edited March 26 by rmgill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 54 minutes ago, rmgill said: Answer my question please. Oh, the irony. did you ever actually answer a question on this site on any political topic, or did you just respond at best "Socratically" and at worst with some evasive bullshit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 1 hour ago, rmgill said: Answer my question please. Also, no, I quite agree with the founding fathers. I also know that if 3 people can vote the 4th person's house is now theirs that you have an inhernent problem. Theodore Roosevelt made a speech about this pointing to the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. AND they do, at the state level where, rightly so, under our democratic republican system, most things that affect people SHOULD be happening at the state level. It should not be up to a Senator from say Massachusetts to place a $500,000 earmark for solar panels for a community center in Marthas Vineyard that the rest of the nation is then beholden to pay for. We have a republic sir, not a democracy. The point of the system was to have a union of states with the states having power upon the federal government and the federal government having some degree of power over the states, really about the issues between the states. Considering you can't see the problems you had with the EU it's no wonder you can't see the need for the distiction between states authority and limited power of the federal govenrment. And considering it took you lot getting to the Great War to give all men the right to vote, you really haven't much of a peg leg to stand on. No, you are always asking other people questions. Answer one of mine for once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 (edited) 1 hour ago, rmgill said: Also, no, I quite agree with the founding fathers. DB and Stuart. Do I need to explain what this simple statement means? Or are you going to accuse me of not answering the question when I CLEARLY did so? For two blokes accusing me of being evasive that's a rather clear example of disingenuous arguments on your part. Does the UK's eye care comport to it's reputation for dental work? Edited March 26 by rmgill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now