The Tories say..

[Jason]

The right level of tax on our finance industry is a little less than anywhere else is charging. Leave out the flags of convenience. The UK should tax a bit less than France, Germany, Switzerland, the USA, Hong Kong, etcetera.

The Queen has enormous powers which she doesn't use. She also has enormous influence. She meets every PM every week. Her duties include to be consulted, to advise and to warn. The meetings do not have minutes and quite what she says is never truly known. But there are plenty of hints that she does indeed give PMs the basis of her extensive knowldge of the secrets of the nation and the movers and shakers of the world, most of whom she has met.

 

[dong20]

The Queen in reality has no power whatsoever and quite rightly, she would never attempt and she would never be allowed to use her power of veto, for her to do so would in all likelyhood spark massive civil unrest.

In practical terms I'd largely agree with you. In absolute terms, not so much.

If the (current) Monarch deemed it necessary to refuse assent to a bill (it's not really a veto as such) - either in defence of the realm or because it was in some other way grossly defective, I doubt she would hesitate - and in all likelihood would be correct to do act. I'd imagine it would work too, at least the first time.

It's almost unheard of, (i.e. over 300 years since it last happened) - that's partly because casual abuse wouldn't be tolerated but also because it would provoke retribution by Parliament to prevent it happening again, possibly some form of constitutional crisis might well unfold into the bargain.

This could ultimately undermine the entire Monarchy, hand Parliament an ideal opportunity to award themselves de jure uncurtailed and unchecked powers - i.e. somewhat of an own goal for all concerned.

By and large, real or not, the latent threat has proven sufficient to curb the worst excesses of the lower house. IMO it's one of the (few) pluses to having an unwritten constitution.

Not quite on point but had (for instance) HM acted to prevent Blair from emarking on his recent fiasco in the Gulf, exactly how much civil unrest do you imagine would have resulted?

Or, more recently had she acted, or even hinted at action to slap the bankers around, and I mean SLAP them around - again I'd wager not very much - outside the Palace of Westminster anyway.

Such interventions would be populist for all the wrong reasons and in part for the reasons above, not in the UK's best long term interests, but I do believe such actions would, in the short term have been very popular.

HM rarely takes a stand or directs actions in public, but when she does, people tend to pay attention. Support her or not, she is the poster child for the judicious use of personal and legal authority.

Sometimes, inaction is the best form of action.:smile:

 

[dandelion]

If the (current) Monarch deemed it necessary to refuse assent to a bill (it's not really a veto as such) - either in defence of the realm or because it was in some other way grossly defective, I doubt she would hesitate - and in all likelihood would be correct to do act. I'd imagine it would work too, at least the first time.

It's almost unheard of, (i.e. over 300 years since it last happened) - that's partly because casual abuse wouldn't be tolerated but also because it would provoke retribution by Parliament to prevent it happening again, possibly some form of constitutional crisis might well unfold into the bargain.

This could ultimately undermine the entire Monarchy, hand Parliament an ideal opportunity to award themselves de jure uncurtailed and unchecked powers - i.e. somewhat of an own goal for all concerned.

Im not sure I agree. I certainly would not be marching on the streets because the Queen refused assent to just about any bill in the last parliament. Quite a few needed vetoing and most probably made no real difference whatsoever. A few might be controversial and might arouse public interest, one way or another. Certainly there would be lots of angry MPs, but if they did take any action against the Queen, they would immediately risk bringing public anger against themselves for attacking the monarch. Dont forget no recent government has had active support from more than about 1/3 of the british public. about 1/3 of registered voters never vote, I couldnt say how many arent even registered to vote, and only about 40% of those that do vote will have supported whoever won. So maybe active support of less than 1/4 of the population. A very small revolution.

The reality might be that any complaint from westminster would indeed stirr up the question of reforming the system, but it might be the commons which ended up being reformed.

The monarch suits the house of commons. If she were abolished then the sham of the prime minister ruling by exercising her powers would have to stop. Either he would have to be given those powers officially, or someone else would. Its not clear that the correct thing would be to give so much power officially into one pair of hands, indeed once people began to realise the extent they might well be shocked. So if the queen went, then we might end up with an elected president, who would not be afraid to exercise on his own discretion those powers. The prime minister would therfore be worse off.

Not quite on point but had (for instance) HM acted to prevent Blair from emarking on his recent fiasco in the Gulf, exactly how much civil unrest do you imagine would have resulted?

Certainly no more than happened because Blair went ahead. Rather I think the queen might have become a national hero.

Or, more recently had she acted, or even hinted at action to slap the bankers around, and I mean SLAP them around - again I'd wager not very much - outside the Palace of Westminster anyway.

Hard to see how she might do this. The royal powers over laws are in the veto, not the writing. Maybe she could have appointed a new chancellor of the exchequer and Governor of the bank of England?

Such interventions would be populist for all the wrong reasons

Im inclined to agree. I think the iraq war was stupid but also trivial. Im not belittling all the people who have been killed, but the actual reasons for going to was seem to be financial and in no way imperative. It was an entirely optional war. Not a critical issue on which to intervene, although it does come into the authority of the supreme commander of HM armed forces.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

The whole unwritten aspect of your constitution is pretty interesting. I am not sure that our now black and white political culture could deal with such an accepted, but unwritten custom. What language exactly confers her the right to veto, or it is merely that she has bequeathed her powers to the PM?

As to the taxation rates for UK finance, a slightly lower rate would be apt, but that begs the modern dilemma facing any sovereign country, when contending with regulating the corporate shell game - profits are globally fungible, whereas people are not. Some see the ability to import capital, based upon lower tax rates, as a weakness, however it can also be a sign of strength, as capital ultimately seeks it's highest rate of return. The money will stay there, as it did with Russia until that is no longer the case.

 

[dandelion]

What language exactly confers her the right to veto, or it is merely that she has bequeathed her powers to the PM?

No law comes into force until it receives royal assent, which formally is probably something about stamping it with a seal and signing it. The basic principle is that all authority is vested in the monarch, but some has been delegated to others, e.g. to parliament. As far as I know, the only way to overcome a royal refusal to sign would be impeachment. There is a technical procedure for this, but aside from getting the necessary support in the commons and lords, there would be the difficulty of public opinion. Anti- monarchists might approve, but as I said, what would you do next? As to prerrogative powers, the PM asks her if she would kindly do this or that, and she does. Naturally we dont know if she has ever refused. Who would make it public?

The monarch failing to exercise her powers as long stop isn't really the major difficulty with the british system, rather it is that parliament is very unrepresentative of the people. Nothing illustrated this more than the recent expenses fiasco. It wasn't the money, but the attitudes expressed.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

Of course Blair took up Thatcherism, he sold rather more peerages than the shopkeeper's daughter though. And the socialists in the labour ranks thought Gordon was a fellow traveller biding his time; how wrong they are. He blames the "world" for our financial near disaster when it was he who gaved in to bullying bankers to let them pursue profit at anyprice despite his advisers telling him that would be unsafe. We know Blair kow towed to the super rich because he wanted to be one of them (and of course he is now, though never done an honest days work in his life since he left law practice) but the devious Gordon: what is he getting out of it. Believing 100% in your party leader is tribalism at its most primitive.

 

[Jason]

What language exactly confers her the right to veto, or it is merely that she has bequeathed her powers to the PM?

The Coronation Oath gives power to the monarch. This is it in its entirety:

* Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ and SA and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.

* Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Queen: I will.

* Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them

Queen: All this I promise to do.

The Queen is granted powers needed to perform this oath - power to govern, make laws, administer justice and uphold the Gospel. She is head of government, judiciary, Church and armed forces. The sermon associated with the oath sets out that the coronation is following the example of Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet who annointed Solomon king. The powers of the monarch are therefore God-given and in the manner of the throne of Israel.

 

[dong20]

Im not sure I agree. I certainly would not be marching on the streets because the Queen refused assent to just about any bill in the last parliament. Quite a few needed vetoing and most probably made no real difference whatsoever. A few might be controversial and might arouse public interest, one way or another. Certainly there would be lots of angry MPs, but if they did take any action against the Queen, they would immediately risk bringing public anger against themselves for attacking the monarch. Dont forget no recent government has had active support from more than about 1/3 of the british public. about 1/3 of registered voters never vote, I couldnt say how many arent even registered to vote, and only about 40% of those that do vote will have supported whoever won. So maybe active support of less than 1/4 of the population. A very small revolution.

The reality might be that any complaint from westminster would indeed stirr up the question of reforming the system, but it might be the commons which ended up being reformed.

The monarch suits the house of commons. If she were abolished then the sham of the prime minister ruling by exercising her powers would have to stop. Either he would have to be given those powers officially, or someone else would. Its not clear that the correct thing would be to give so much power officially into one pair of hands, indeed once people began to realise the extent they might well be shocked. So if the queen went, then we might end up with an elected president, who would not be afraid to exercise on his own discretion those powers. The prime minister would therfore be worse off.


Certainly no more than happened because Blair went ahead. Rather I think the queen might have become a national hero.

Hard to see how she might do this. The royal powers over laws are in the veto, not the writing. Maybe she could have appointed a new chancellor of the exchequer and Governor of the bank of England?

Im inclined to agree. I think the iraq war was stupid but also trivial. Im not belittling all the people who have been killed, but the actual reasons for going to was seem to be financial and in no way imperative. It was an entirely optional war. Not a critical issue on which to intervene, although it does come into the authority of the supreme commander of HM armed forces.

I think you entirely misread (or at least misunderstood) my post. You may want to go back, re-read it and try again because what you wrote in your post - while making sense its own right - isn't an especially appropriate response to my own.

Alternatively, I may have misread and ...

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

The sermon associated with the oath sets out that the coronation is following the example of Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet who annointed Solomon king. The powers of the monarch are therefore God-given and in the manner of the throne of Israel.

Fascinating. I can see why the House of Lords is still hereditary. In context, that sort of nepotism is nothing by comparison.

On another note, I was impressed by Nick Clegg in the debates. I knew nothing about him, but he conducted himself well, although he does not seem to have much record to run on, other than "not being those guys." Still his viability as a candidate could be a game changer.

 

[dandelion]

And the socialists in the labour ranks thought Gordon was a fellow traveller biding his time; how wrong they are. He blames the "world" for our financial near disaster when it was he who gaved in to bullying bankers to let them pursue profit at anyprice despite his advisers telling him that would be unsafe.

You have a short memory? Hindsight is very handy, but at the time He was not criticised for freeing up the financial system, rather applauded. Which is also to miss the point that it was in fact american banks operating american rules which destroyed the UK economy.

 

[Jason]

Iwhat you wrote in your post - while making sense its own right - isn't an especially appropriate response to my own.

Catches me out every time. It's the Dandelion style of argument. :wink:

 

[dandelion]

Fascinating. I can see why the House of Lords is still hereditary. In context, that sort of nepotism is nothing by comparison.

Im not convinced by Jasons comment about coronation oaths. As I recall it, the coronation ceremony was a victorian invention for the purpose of putting on a good show. Im more inclined to the 'the king is dead, long live the king' more immediate transfer of power. There is an act of parliament about the powers of the king, and indeed how you get rid of one, which was part of the bargain when we invited the first of the current line back.

As to the house of lords, no it is not hereditary. There are two kinds of lords. Traditional hereditary ones and life peers, whose titles are not hereditary. life peers were invented to put political appointees into the house of lords. The last labour government removed the voting rights of hereditary lords, except for 100 or so which they can elect from amongst their number to represent them. So the majority of members who can vote are political appointees, selected by the parties from amongst their supporters to represent them. Its a retirement home for members of the commons. Now isnt that democratic?

Funnily enough their lordships (collectively) refused to accept the commons proposals (supported by both labour and conservative, I think) to make the house entirely appointed. The commons (both main parties) refused to countenance an elected house of lords. Mainly because their main weapon against the logical argument that a second house ought to have some actual power is that it isnt elected. Personally I reckon a hereditary house is more representative of me than one apponted by the politcal parties themselves. Labours deathbed conversion to the idea of electing the lords is exactly that. If they had wanted a proportionately elected house we would have one now. Instead they stalled for time (well, Blair did). Electing the lords is one domino more towards cutting the commons down to size and reforming it.

On another note, I was impressed by Nick Clegg in the debates. I knew nothing about him, but he conducted himself well, although he does not seem to have much record to run on, other than "not being those guys." Still his viability as a candidate could be a game changer.

At the moment he is very popular, precisely because normally the liberals get ignored and he has had the sudden publicity of sharing a platform with the representatives of the parties which have supplied the prime minister since the rise of the labour party displaced the liberals from power quite some time ago. Given him a sudden dose of credibility. Difficult problem for the other two: include him and he gets a boost. Exclude him and it makes it ever more obvious there is no real choice between the other two. The paradox is that should the liberals become too popular and start winning votes, this could in fact increase the number of seats won by one or other of the two main ones, and thereby make a clear win by someone else more likely. Currently the libs have more MPs than for decades. Its a very interesting election.

 

[dandelion]

Originally Posted by dong20 http://www.lpsg.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
what you wrote in your post - while making sense its own right - isn't an especially appropriate response to my own.

Catches me out every time. It's the Dandelion style of argument. :wink:

Lateral thinking is all about finding solutions by refusing to accept the implicit but false bounding conditions.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

What is wrong with having a change from the duopoly. Choice is something the British can't handle, they like what they get.

 

[Jason]

What is wrong with having a change from the duopoly. Choice is something the British can't handle, they like what they get.

The three credit ratings agencies have "leaked" that if we get a hung parliament they will downgrade us. What is wrong with having a change is that anything other than a clear win by a single party will result in an economic crash.

 

[dandelion]

Why? the policies of all three parties are so alike as to make no difference. Why should a government made from any combination of the three upset money markets?

 

[Jason]

Why? the policies of all three parties are so alike as to make no difference. Why should a government made from any combination of the three upset money markets?

Ask the credit reference agencies.

I could speculate on why. But it really doesn't matter why. It will upset them. And as Greece discovered it is S&P, M and F who have the real power. Not electorates, not governments.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

And as Greece discovered it is S&P, M and F who have the real power. Not electorates, not governments.

Sad innit?

The whole House of Lords, with some seats hereditary, and others appointed as life peers, is a really foreign concept to me (Thanks for the explanation Dandy.). I can't imagine what has taken so long to reform that institution, but if you don't have to give up your power chit, why would you?

One thing I really enjoy in your system is the debate over the Dispatch Box. That's just soooo much better than the monologues our guys perform to an empty chamber. It's no wonder corporations right our laws, as no one in Congress listens to each other, nor reads the legislation. If there were forced to debate one another, despite the sometimes playground like responses from the peanut gallery (HOL esp. with Cameron in the Box), it would bring our rather, dysfunctional in its own right democracy, full circle.

I have no doubt the UK will ultimately rebound, but the spending clearly has to be brought under control, whomever wins/forms a coalition. Even with the credit rating agencies wielding too much power - this needs to be quelled globally - currently the UK deficit is largely self-funded, which as Japan found, can continue for decades.

 

[Drifterwood]

Why? the policies of all three parties are so alike as to make no difference. Why should a government made from any combination of the three upset money markets?

Personally, I think that this is the crucial question.

The answer is I think wrapped up with the whole increase on NI. Labour has this unfortunate legacy of disliking business and wealth creators. Their instinctive reaction when times are tough (historical usually caused by them) is to take more money off wealth creators and business.

To me, this is fundamentally to miss the point. Love them or loathe them it is the wealth creators who do just that and businesses who pay people. They might like to think that people have a right to a job, but the reality is very different.

You have to create an environment in which solid wealth creation flourishes. I am afraid that Labour has never achieved this, and that quite simply is why the money markets don't like them. I am also afraid, as I said in a previous post, that one of the consequences of not throwing Labour out, will be a huge hike in our bond rates. I honestly feel that voting for Labour will cost every family/person in the UK dearly. That seems the pragmatic reality to me.

 

[dandelion]

The answer is I think wrapped up with the whole increase on NI. Labour has this unfortunate legacy of disliking business and wealth creators. Their instinctive reaction when times are tough (historical usually caused by them) is to take more money off wealth creators and business.

The instinctive reaction of anyone when times are tough is to take money from those who have it. Where else can you get it?

The reality is that the conservtive policy on NI is very little different to that of labour. NI is about 11% paid by employers and 13% paid by employees. Labour want to put it up 1%, the conservatives want to leave it the same. This topic has died down a bit now, but when it was active I saw a number of businessmen interviewed who said 1% difference was neither here nor there. The conservatives are not proposing to scrap it, which might be significant. Its a gesture which is very unlikely to go any further. If anything, in a couple of years they will be saying, 'sorry, but we need the money..'

To me, this is fundamentally to miss the point. Love them or loathe them it is the wealth creators who do just that and businesses who pay people. They might like to think that people have a right to a job, but the reality is very different.

To me. this is to miss the point. Taxes have to come from those who have money. Everyone agrees taxes are essential to pay for government services, which are essential. It is not a question of whether, but of how much. This is a very small difference we are arguing about.

You have to create an environment in which solid wealth creation flourishes. I am afraid that Labour has never achieved this, and that quite simply is why the money markets don't like them.

In general, yes, labour would choose to tax and spend more. In general, voters approve of this, as has been demonstrated many times in recent years and as is demonstrated by the conservatives effectively having changed their own policies in line with labour from their previous position. It was universally agreed that labour was doing very well in the wealth generation scheme before the world bank crash which was not caused by them or their policies. You could just as well say it was caused by traditional conservative policies, because just as conservatives have moved towards the traditional labour position on spending, so labour has moved towards the traditional conservative position on free markets, which is what caused this mess. Free markets are very dangerous to everyones wealth.

I am also afraid, as I said in a previous post, that one of the consequences of not throwing Labour out, will be a huge hike in our bond rates.

News reports on this seem rather mixed. Pro-conservatives seem to think keeping labour or any coalition containing labour will lead to disastrous rises in rates. Quite why this should be if we just keep on with what we have had for 13 years is unclear, or why a change to a party with identical policies should make a difference. The telegraph here, Hung Parliament: markets say 'so what?' – Telegraph Blogs presents some evidence that markets couldnt care less about whether we have a hung parliament.