Author |
Message |
Doctor Awesome
|
Post Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:48 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:08 am Posts: 527
|
Forgive me for being thick and not knowing how my own government works (or doesn't as the case may be)
The House of Lords can reject the Commons's laws right?
So how is this bill getting passed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
angrysunbird
|
Post Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:16 pm |
|
Moderator of DOOM! |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 3736
Location: What a lovely pair of tropical Sulidae you've got there.
|
Doctor Awesome wrote: Forgive me for being thick and not knowing how my own government works (or doesn't as the case may be)
The House of Lords can reject the Commons's laws right? So how is this bill getting passed? The House of Commons has the ability to force through legislation if it gets regected a certain number of times. More importantly the clear margin in favour of changes means that it would be politically difficult for the Lords to be too obstructionist, especially as it won't do any good in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
Surgoshan
|
Post Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:56 pm |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:43 pm Posts: 7861
AOL: Surgoshan
|
Unless they do their best to stall it and it turns out public sentiment is on their side. Just because it's passed in Commons for now doesn't mean it'll keep passing... if the public is against it.
|
|
|
|
|
Simon_Jester
|
Post Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:22 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:58 am Posts: 7718
AOL: SimonJester1v1
Location: Look at me still talking when there's Science to do!
|
Surgoshan wrote: Unless they do their best to stall it and it turns out public sentiment is on their side. Just because it's passed in Commons for now doesn't mean it'll keep passing... if the public is against it. It is not likely that public sentiment will be against this. The opinions on this thread alone suggest that opposition to hereditary seats in the House of Lords is a strong feeling in Britain; support for hereditary Lords probably isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Thaklaar
|
Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:07 am |
|
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:30 pm Posts: 882
Location: Here
|
Simon_Jester wrote: It is not likely that public sentiment will be against this. The opinions on this thread alone suggest that opposition to hereditary seats in the House of Lords is a strong feeling in Britain; support for hereditary Lords probably isn't.
Hereditary peers in the House of Lords are already pretty marginal, with 92 seats versus 640 seats for Life peers and Bishops, and were already being actively phased out. Life peers and Bishops are appointed technically by the Queen, but actually only on the advice of the current Prime Minister and his government. So the situation now is more similar to the US Senate prior to 1913 when Senators were appointed by state legislatures rather than directly elected. Except instead of having six year terms, they can serve until the die (Life peers) or retire from the Church (Bishops).
|
|
|
|
|
AxelFendersson
|
Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:52 am |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 12:00 am Posts: 2523
Website: http://www.axelfendersson.co.uk/blog/
WLM: [email protected]
AOL: AxelFendersson
Location: Darkest Oxfordshire
|
What I really want to see gone are the Lords Spiritual. Having the Queen as head of the CofE is less than ideal, but the Lords play an active role in Government, and it's hight time we stopped having Bishops in it.
|
|
|
|
|
Thaklaar
|
Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:43 am |
|
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:30 pm Posts: 882
Location: Here
|
But, as they're appointed by the PM, are they really all that different from a Life Peer with a funny hat? (I'm American, I really don't know.)
|
|
|
|
|
Duke Leto
|
Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:19 am |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 1424
WLM: [email protected]
Location: Philadelphia
|
|
|
|
|
Simon_Jester
|
Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:33 am |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:58 am Posts: 7718
AOL: SimonJester1v1
Location: Look at me still talking when there's Science to do!
|
Duke Leto wrote: No Bishop No King, Axel Huh?
|
|
|
|
|
Surgoshan
|
Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:11 pm |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:43 pm Posts: 7861
AOL: Surgoshan
|
Since Britain doesn't have a king, I think bishops are less than necessary at the moment, even by that argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Thaklaar
|
Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:21 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:30 pm Posts: 882
Location: Here
|
Surgoshan wrote: Since Britain doesn't have a king, I think bishops are less than necessary at the moment, even by that argument.
Not sure what your point is. Are you questioning the role of the Lords Spiritual in Parliament or the necessity of the hierarchy in the C of E? I'm an American and a Unitarian, so I don't have a dog in this hunt. My curiosity has just been piqued.
|
|
|
|
|
Simon_Jester
|
Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:20 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:58 am Posts: 7718
AOL: SimonJester1v1
Location: Look at me still talking when there's Science to do!
|
I just don't understand the argument. It doesn't have enough verbs in it.
|
|
|
|
|
Surgoshan
|
Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:00 pm |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:43 pm Posts: 7861
AOL: Surgoshan
|
No bishop no king? Britain doesn't have a king, so the lack of bishops doesn't matter!
I think Leto was referring to the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the individual what performs the coronation. No bishop, no coronation, no crown.
|
|
|
|
|
Duke Leto
|
Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:33 pm |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 1424
WLM: [email protected]
Location: Philadelphia
|
No it's just what James I said when the puritans in parliament asked that the Lords Spiritual be removed from the House of Lords.
Turned out to be right if I recall correctly, since the long parliament expelled the Lords Spiritual before they executed Charles I.
|
|
|
|
|
Simon_Jester
|
Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:23 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:58 am Posts: 7718
AOL: SimonJester1v1
Location: Look at me still talking when there's Science to do!
|
Well, you can have an archbishop of Canterbury without giving him a seat in the Lords, can't you?
|
|
|
|
|
|