I didn't say I specifically wanted one - just the repeal of the statute barring one. So, you're unconcerned by bishops taking their place in the House of Lords but are worried about a Catholic (elected or unelected) being head of state? A Prime Minister wanted to convert but couldn't while he was in office and if you're worrying about someone of a certain denomination becoming head of state, then perhaps Britain hasn't left the 17th century. I want to live in a secular country and you don't, apparently. If any other sensible person wants Britain to become a secular country, you can find out more and from the Humanist Society here and email your MP http://www.humanism.org.uk/campaigns/constitutional-reform/bishops-in-the-lords Laws that the Bishops have voted through recently include the right of CofE schools to opt out of sexual education and vetoing the "right to die" bill against the wishes of 82% of the electorate. Still, as long as a bead-rattler doesn't get a say, eh?
I have no time for any religious head of state. Personally I am not against an unelected upper house, if you look at the state of American politics since Obama lost the Senate to the Republicans you may understand why having two elected houses is not always good for strong government. Obama got elected on a pledge of improving Health Care as well as other fundamental changes to the American welfare system - yet he was been totally flaccid in his ability to get these changes through due to losing the upper house only two years after coming into Government. The House of Lords if done properly is a great idea. You have a house of respected and wise people who are free from the burden of politics to question any bad legislation being brought together by the lower house. In situations of mass hysteria such as the Jamie Bulger case (where the public were looking for blood) the HOL was instrumental in blocking rushed legislation to increase the maximum sentence that can be imposed on child criminals. The then home secretary Michael Howard tried to change the law, which would be applied to all severe cases of child criminality on the back of a single case - because it was politically very popular to do so. Having an unelected house who didn't have to pander to the masses stopped wrong laws being hurriedly passed - which is a good thing. The reason why the HOL does not work is the implementation of how Peers are elected. Labour got rid of hereditary peers in 1997 but then went on to completely fill the house full of lefties, to counter-act the Thatcher years of filling the house full of Torries. So rather than being free from politics it is just a chamber which evolves much more slowly than the Commons to eventually match the political thinking of the majority in Commons. An Upper house which was to do it's job properly would not have it's members installed by the incumbent government - but of course electing the house will not be any better. So **** knows how we fix it - maybe we make everyone take an IQ test and appoint the top 500 most intelligent people in the country?
Isn't that dangerously close to Plato's republic? Systems that have suggested a rule of the intelligentsia are usually dangerously elitist in the end. **** it. I say we fill the lords with Mad Mullahs just for ****s and giggles and see what crazy **** they can come up with
The HOL has had it's wings clipped so it's only really a delaying tool - intellectuals finding flaws in your legislation and sending it back for revision is not Plato's Republic. I think the biggest flaw in the idea is having the Upper house full of socially awkward Autistics.
They'd do more than rattle beads: gays and abortion would be their first targets then they would make it increasingly harder to get hold of contraception. As their power grew, divorce would be banned and offences such as adultery or indeed any sex outside of marriage, masturbation and eating meat on a Friday would be punishable by being burnt at the stake. Anyone who refused to attend chapel every sunday would be tried as a witch by ducking. Posession of that most satanic of articles, an English-language bible would off course result in days of brutal torture before being hanged and dismembered publicly. Probably.
One way of chosing who gets to sit in the House of Lords (which like Mike said has stopped many daft bills from going through) would be to choose them based on land ownership i.e. those with the most interest (land) in Britain get the gig. Seems fair.
Maybe not in your close knit circle of family/friends. But the majority of the nation. http://news.sky.com/home/royal-wedding/article/15980987 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-38332/Monarchy-given-boost-poll.html http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchp...ive/2772/ReutersIpsos-MORI-Monarchy-poll.aspx http://my.telegraph.co.uk/expat/timheald/10136445/opinion-poll-mania/
Drops to 59% for the under 35's. A few more years, a few more Poles and Chinese migrating and we'll have the Republic of England with it's good pal the Republic of Scotland
Sky, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph. Think Medro might have been especially selective when choosing these outlets as the basis of his argument. Medro is a Hun version of that fat prick Adam Boulton.
Aye, that was a strange one. Although Salmond has been up his arse so far that he's now got a part-time job as a proctologist. My mate tried to tell me yesterday that Scotland has 8% of the population but contributes 9.5% of the economy. I told it that sounded like a lot of ****e and he took the huff.
Companies like HBOS and RBS probably so mixed up between the countries that it is difficult to tell. I've no doubt that Scotland would eventually do better on it's own. All the jurisdictions within the British Isles who have tax autonomy do much better than those who don't - which is why I can still make more money paying for flights back and forth from the Isle of Man as well as renting separate accommodation than I could do earning a wage in Belfast without the overheads.
The situation faintly reeks of ridiculous. Scotland has just under 6 million people but have to compete for business with major economies because of the Union. For years I was against independence, but now I'd be all for it.....just a pity that wee glory-sniffing prick Salmond is at the forefront of it all. A choice between Salmond and Cameron.....no ****ing choice at all for me. They're both disingenuous ****ers.
Present you chaps with polls showing support for the monarchy and you yap like little school kids. 'You only used four' 'Look where there from' 'They'll soon change' Just accept it. You might not like it, but that doesn't matter a ****. They're here to stay. GSTQ
Ted Heath John Major - until Cameron and Blair got in on the act grammar school PMs were becoming the norm.
Ulster says nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
