Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Chat Forums » Political Opinions and Opinionated Posts




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:48 pm 
Offline
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?

Top 
   
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:16 pm 
Moderator of DOOM!
Moderator of DOOM!
User avatar
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.

Top 
   
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:56 pm 
User avatar
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.

Top 
   
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:22 pm 
Offline
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.

Top 
   
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:07 am 
Offline
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).

Top 
   
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:52 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 12:00 am
Posts: 2523
Website: http://www.axelfendersson.co.uk/blog/
WLM: axelfendersson@bluebottle.com
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.

Top 
   
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:43 am 
Offline
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.)

Top 
   
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:19 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1424
WLM: johnfoelster@hotmail.com
Location: Philadelphia
No Bishop No King, Axel

Top 
   
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:33 am 
Offline
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?

Top 
   
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:11 pm 
User avatar
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.

Top 
   
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:21 pm 
Offline
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.

Top 
   
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:20 pm 
Offline
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.

Top 
   
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:00 pm 
User avatar
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.

Top 
   
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:33 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1424
WLM: johnfoelster@hotmail.com
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.

Top 
   
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:23 pm 
Offline
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?

Top 
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ] 

Board index » Chat Forums » Political Opinions and Opinionated Posts


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: