So does anyone like their system of government?

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Another example! A government minister Grant Shapps comes on the radio to proclaim the massive increase in affordable houses being built in the last six months.

Except.....it isnt really true. Yes, there has been a massive increase but thats because in the previous six months they only built 500. This time they managed 15,000, but this compares to the estimate from shelter that we need 100,000 a year. In the the six months prior to the derisory 500, the figures were comparable to the 15,000 achieved in the most recent period and the gap was caused by the government ending one scheme and starting another.

So in reality government minister claims credit for cancelling 15,000 house builds and for building only 1/3 the number of houses needed. How can anyone expect to be respected when they claim a dismal failure as a great achievement?
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
No, I don't like it at all, I believe we should be a democracy not a monarcy.

The constitutional monarch guarantees our democracy - Magna Carta and all that. Without a monarch we would probably at some time or other have joined the nations of Europe in a flirtation with dictatorship.

The most enduring democracies are also monarchies.
 

Bardox

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Posts
2,234
Media
38
Likes
551
Points
198
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
This might make someone upset, but I have to ask. Does the royal family actually have any real power any more or are they just symbolic. Does the royal family decide what laws are inacted or who the UK trades goods with or where the military is deployed? Other than spending massive amounts of tax payer money on public displays the rest of the world makes jokes about, what do they actually do in the government? I know that in theory their powers are vast, but in practice I have never heard of them intervening in political matters. Not trying to be rude or anything, just... what do they do?
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The UK Royal Family is FAR cheaper than any presidential system. And the Jubilee was not funded by public money. It is very hard to estimate what they bring in through tourism but I don't think there can be any doubt that the UK gets a profit from monarchy.

The Royals have a public role - frequently as ambassadors for the UK, frequently linked with charities. In many parts of the world they can offer far more than any elected politician precisely because nations respect the institution of monarchy.

The Queen functions as a guarantor of the UK system. In theory her powers are enormous. They are rarely used, but are sometimes used. 30 years ago a law was passed by Royal Order, ie WITHOUT debate in parliament - the "Requisitioning of Ships Order" which enabled the navy to pinch civilian ships for the Falklands War. The idea was that a parliamentary debate would be too slow and too public in times of war. The Queen appoints the Prime Minister - an important role when there is an election without a clear outcome, as 2010. The armed forces answer to the Queen, not the PM - an important check against a PM turning into a dictator. Ditto the judges. The Queen never directly interferes in politics but she does sometimes let it be known that an action would embarass the palace, in which case it doesn't happen. She is repository of the nations secrets having met with the PM every week for 60 years. She "defends the Faith" both as head of the Church of England and increasingly as a guarantor of freedom of religion.

The Queen also links the many realms for which she is head of state and the Commonwealth. Her visit to Ireland did more to repair Anglo-Irish relations than the visists of countless politicians.

The role of King is set out in the Bible and directly referenced in the Coronation Oath. The British monarchy develops the English view that the king is like Solomon and (like Solomon) is annointed by the priest of God and by public acclamation, by Zadok and Nathan. The doctrine of Divine Right is no longer part of the UK system, but annointing still is. As such the Queen is God's temporal ruler in her domains. Few people would put it in these terms, yet millions should their respect and even devotion for the most popular head of state of any nation. God save the Queen!
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Reform of the house of Lords is again in the news.

A conservative right now is on the radio trying to explain why we do not want an elected second chamber. Apparently it will undermine democracy if the Lords is not appointed. She said we want democracy in the house of commons but not elsewhere. If we have an elected lords it will undermine the house of commons.

Whew....talk about someone scared for her job! The commons believes that if another part of government is elected then people might start to question the legitimacy of the house of commons to rule? What is the commons doing wrong that anyone might question its competence?

She claimed that even though Lords reform was in the manifestos of every political party, voters did not vote for it. Funny how politicians usually say exactly the opposite. Anything which was tucked away in tiny letters on the back page where no one noticed it at all, was in their manifesto and so every person in the country supports it.

And all those foreign countries with two elected chambers in their governments....why they are all making an awful mistake and have governments which do not work! She pretty much just said so. Was unimpressed by the correlation between countries with single chamber governments and failed states.

Did anyone mention the plan is to elect these people for 15 years? Elect a retiring member of the commons to the Lords for 15 years aged about 70 already....and it still sounds like a job for life just like now.

The only good thing is the pay will stay the same as now, £300 per day you actually attend. Now theres a lesson for the commons to follow, they should halve their pay too. Perhaps that's the bit they dont like.
 

AllHazzardi

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Posts
338
Media
76
Likes
18
Points
163
Location
Palm Springs, California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I think the example most modern governments have set has leaned towards the fact that Governments given limited resources, having a bin of funds to work with, when pressed to action are forced to neglect opinion gathering. A politician constantly in the arenas of politics is not there talking to the people they represent.

Quite frankly, in too much of a hurry things cost way more than they should, so with that in mind, from the getgo all governments of today are running on insufficient funds from the get-go to pay for information income(opinion and public attitude being gathered and made relevant to action) information fluidation(getting decisions made quickly) and information outgo(sending final orders out to the national body) all at optimum efficiency in an equal and balanced way at the rate people want to develop without running a deficit somewhere....


Add that most of them end up run by corrupt dictator-like individuals, we may as well be installing world-dominating faultily functioning AIs into the cabinets. Or they're just rich people who actually had enough money to spend and borrow and spend who have no real world humanistic directional understanding- They only understand waving a carrot to move a horse, and not communicating with the horse and asking it to go here or there.

Really good leaders come from good followers- to say the least, the best leadership is bread in the lower levels where things are tougher. But sometimes they go astray too, so...

What astounds me is that governments can spend billions of dollars on all of this when most of what they end up doing was common sense to begin with! Shoot, any free money you may find these days is common cents, and common sense can be gained from anywhere and any direction you look, so that may as well be considered free too. Add that it takes all of a split second to make a snap judgement- minor inaccuracies and errors can easily be accounted for- that's what the system exists to do. Doing what makes sense to a wise individual is usually not a bad way to go, it shouldn't take 2 years to make a decision to make a change 2 years down the road.

And honestly I think it's because we lacked the good sense at the time to make a firm GRAY AREA- middle ground, neutral zone, "No Holds Barred" "Relatively Safe and Contained War in the form of Combats and Battles" sort of deal. I mean, with every state having 2 senators- There's no reason one can't be Democrat or Republican... and the other is Independent.... Even so much as a randomly selected normal person. They're supposed to work together anyway.... In the least, we wouldn't be acting like computers with a Binary System going R, D, D, R, R, D, R, D, R, D, R, R, R...... When we could be going RI, DI, DI, RI, IR, RI, DI, or you know... putting a little humanity into things. The general rule of thumb with governments is that they operate best as a representational hierarchy- One based on a few based on a bunch based on a council based on a caucus based on a neighborhood......Really, you could say they operate best "Naturally"- this really just means a selection within accordance to the availability.

This should really never be a limited selection in any way- but for sake of the way the system is set up, requires political know-how to get in- doesn't matter where that political knowhow is inevitably sourced from, just that those understandings are present. Most paperwork is done by cronies these days anyway- even the looking up of the necessary legal terminology. We could really alleviate that by using legal terminology in the abstract(summary, simplest form possible), with an along-side common or "al ley" or "ley al" or "lay al"- average everyday person words. As then all the legal-mumbo-jumbo-side-stuff wouldn't take quite so much time- the idea is to understand both, just like any good sample of the population- a representative sample.... representing as a representative re presenting the present pre-sent preset principles put forth by the present population partaking and being a party to the professional political agenda putting plans in place and parlaying for their production.... quite possibly preferring process puts problems into the possibilities of political progress rather than unending procession of processing processes to pick placements and people from solely the powers that be people or people putting their persons forth plotting on planning or plodding along pulled back and put down and sludged by the problematically political political system present today....Sorry for all the pitter patter on p words, perhaps a poignant point to that ponder-some recurrance, but for now I've no desire to explain that one again...

Personally I think we really need to revise our "collective logic system" and how it gathers the opinions of the masses and relays it to the chosen representatives- we still want humans in those positions, eheh... just to keep it human. But the ability to gather and garner the opinion of the general population is, relative to capability of planning and presenting those plans to get them enacted and capability of action, SORELY lacking today.

I mean it's really simple to say that a representative should be represent the public- to do that we don't just grab from one bin- we grab from all of them, that's just being a good statistician talking, and the senate should be able to both include understanding of working the system(the in-game mentality) and even so much as the fantastic dreaming idealist(the out-game mentality). Old Traditions and New Potentials, and what not.....

Idunno, it's not that I don't like the way we do things- we just know so much more about how things work in general that getting the political system working much better would basically be a walk in the park... and I mean that. I guess you could say that's a world-wide compliment, but too bad only <1% will ever see it, hah!.ioi.!.oio.! Methinks that old beast of a mechanic needs a wee bit of oiling and maybe an upgrade, don't you guys? :eek:
 

Ryan10

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Posts
581
Media
89
Likes
2,832
Points
323
Location
England (United Kingdom)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
, but I have to ask. Does the royal family actually have any real power any more or are they just symbolic.

Yes, the Queen is the Head Of State and has total control of the country which I find ridiculous in 2012.

, Does the royal family decide what laws are inacted or who the UK trades goods with or where the military is deployed?

The Government decide first but the Queen has last say on everything. She could demand a proposed law isn't brought in if she wanted to and there's nothing anyone could do about it.
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
My system of government is the sbat does whatever the hell he feels like tocracy. Gets me pretty good results.