House o lords

[Silverfish]

Kieron. I'd like to point out that your house of lords is by far the greatest representation of class repression today. Really, a house of parliment whose places are hereditary?? Or even worse, have to be appointed by the queen.
(I can't really talk, what with that shameful Australian Republic referendum...)
And I'm fairly sure there arn't any female members. Equality. Huh???
Anyway, at least britain's politicains act with dignity, and don't go on and on about how its a human right to own a gun...

[WebSeed]

I agree with come of the things youv'e said Silverfish but let's get a few facts straight :-

1) Wer'e getting rid of the House of Lords, along with all the heredetry peers very soon. Even with a House of Lords in place, parliment is still free to pass through any laws they want (although, admittidly the damn HOC can delay things <b>a lot</b>).

2) There are many woman in parliment, we even had a woman Prime Minister about 10 years ago. They are still very much the minority though (this is changing).

3) I'm not sure what you mean about class repression. If you mean that the working class are under represented in parliment then I have to agree, although with Labour in power this situation has also improved.

4) The Queen does suck, but as youv'e already pointed out, you had the chance to get rid of her but blew it (you are Australian right?)

5) Yep, America is definitly screwed up in some respects - like the gun laws, social system etc.

[Kieron]

Now in Britain, we <I>technically</I> haven't got a bicameral (two-chamber) democracy, because our Head of State (the Queen) and our upper chamber (the House of Lords) aren't elected. But the Lords have next to no powers, and they're on their way out (we feel the same way about them as you would, if you had a peer chamber making decisions about your country). The Queen can veto any decision, but she'd have to be very popular for it to work (because if she wasn't popular and she tried it, we'd have her out too :) ).

So what does that leave us with? A single party (elected by us), in the House of Commons, running the country. The Prime Minister (basically the one in charge) is just the leader of whichever party is currently elected - he's never from a different party.

This is a simple, clean system so we put up with the anachronisms of the Lords and the Monarchy, since they don't count for much anyway.

So the Lords aren't really <I>repressing</I> us, are they?

FYI, the last thing the Lords had the courage to veto was the changing of elections from USA/UK-style one (electoral college-based or constituency-based) to European style (proportional), which are fairer for many reasons (I could explain if you want...). How petty of them. And, as it turns out, we'll be having European-style elections by 2005. :)

Oh, and the sovereign (Monarch) doesn't choose the peers (Lords), she just ratifies the Prime Minister's choices.

In the US, there is a full bicameral democracy. Both chambers plus the Head of State (the President) are elected. This means that you can have a President, Senate and HoR all of different parties, or of a combination of different parties. So basically, nothing gets done, because three different parties are trying to make opposing decisions about how to run the country all at once. How messy.

(rant mode cancel :) )

The Queen is the Head of State of Australia, too, so technically <I>you</I> don't have a true democracy either. But I don't know how the Australian system works below that (are you Australian? It looks like you are...) Do you have constituencies - i.e. you vote for a candidate to be your area's MP - or do you just vote for a party? Do you vote for one chamber or two?

[Edited by Kieron on 08-11-2000 at 23:26]

[Kieron]

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with the Queen. She's a perfectly nice, respectable lady who is excellent at what she does (public relations!) and gives lots of money to charities etc. If we didn't have her, we'd have some slimy politician as HoS (like America... ugh!).

[Silverfish]

Yes, I am australian, and fairly pissed about it. Kieron, you're right, australia isn't really a democracy; because it clings to the idea of a monarch. Recently we had a repuplic referendum, and it was defeated by a combination of political mi-information and outrights lies. Since australia wanted a system where anyone can become a president (much like the american system where technically any citizen can become a head of state, even though most canditates assosciate tehmselves with a party so as to have campaign money) they voted against the more sensible model, which basicly had the politicians electing a canditate that all parties agreed upon.
Anyway, that pissed off a lot of people because the absence of support for that system was interperted as an absence of support for the republic, and we'll be luck to see another referendum within the next 10 or 15 years..

[Kieron]

:rolleyes: Well I stick to my opinion. There's nothing wrong with the Queen. If you Australians aren't careful you could end up like the US. Imagine having someone so awful as head of your state. Everyone knows Aussie politicians are the worst ( :) ).

[Kieron]

But you didn't tell me, how does it work in Australia? Are there two houses (like a reps/commons and a senate/lords)?

[Atresica]

But I don't know how powerful the britain queen is, ours is more ment to be at official happenings. She does not have much to say, but her oppions are a secret.