Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:15 pmPhiljia wrote:The Lords are planning to filibuster the bill if it passes.
If they do, they'll be stripped of their last vestiges of power.
If they do, they'll be stripped of their last vestiges of power.
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
UK Politics Thread X: Boris' Big Bonkers Brexit Bash
Page 321 of 498
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:15 pmIf they do, they'll be stripped of their last vestiges of power.
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:19 pmPhiljia wrote:Boris Johnson: "I don't want an election, the public don't want an election, but this House has left no other option"
Parliament: https://youtu.be/_EfW9znJYjw?t=133
He talks a lot about elections for someone who doesn't want an election.
A unicameral parliament would be an utter constitutional disaster. Our Prime Ministers already hold greater power than most heads of government; any Prime Minister able to command a majority in the Commons would, in absence of an upper house, have virtually no restrictions on their power.
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:19 pmmay's deal passing would be terrible. don't get me wrong, it would be absolutely hilarious 10/10 MV4 redemption arc like if you cry every time get 'em telt hen, but it would be also be terrible.
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:21 pmSouseiseki wrote:may's deal passing would be terrible. don't get me wrong, it would be absolutely hilarious 10/10 MV4 redemption arc like if you cry every time get 'em telt hen, but it would be also be terrible.
It's not a good deal but it is better than anything Boris will come up with.
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:23 pmPhiljia wrote:Souseiseki wrote:may's deal passing would be terrible. don't get me wrong, it would be absolutely hilarious 10/10 MV4 redemption arc like if you cry every time get 'em telt hen, but it would be also be terrible.
It's not a good deal but it is better than anything Boris will come up with.
Boris doesn't want a deal really.
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:25 pmOld Tyrannia wrote:Philjia wrote:Boris Johnson: "I don't want an election, the public don't want an election, but this House has left no other option"
Parliament: https://youtu.be/_EfW9znJYjw?t=133
He talks a lot about elections for someone who doesn't want an election.Salandriagado wrote:
If they do, they'll be stripped of their last vestiges of power.
A unicameral parliament would be an utter constitutional disaster. Our Prime Ministers already hold greater power than most heads of government; any Prime Minister able to command a majority in the Commons would, in absence of an upper house, have virtually no restrictions on their power.
I didn't say that it's good, just that it's inevitable: every time the Lords exercise their powers on something significant, they get weakened.
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:26 pmWhat Boris wants is to crash the economy so he can sell the public services off to his mates at knockdown prices, which is what Brexit is really about.
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:26 pmOld Tyrannia wrote:Philjia wrote:Boris Johnson: "I don't want an election, the public don't want an election, but this House has left no other option"
Parliament: https://youtu.be/_EfW9znJYjw?t=133
He talks a lot about elections for someone who doesn't want an election.Salandriagado wrote:
If they do, they'll be stripped of their last vestiges of power.
A unicameral parliament would be an utter constitutional disaster. Our Prime Ministers already hold greater power than most heads of government; any Prime Minister able to command a majority in the Commons would, in absence of an upper house, have virtually no restrictions on their power.
Well, what about doing what Canada does and have a Senate? It could even be partially appointed.
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:27 pmThe election motion will be voted on at 9:20PM and will almost certainly fail.
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:28 pm
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:29 pmShrillland wrote:Old Tyrannia wrote:He talks a lot about elections for someone who doesn't want an election.
A unicameral parliament would be an utter constitutional disaster. Our Prime Ministers already hold greater power than most heads of government; any Prime Minister able to command a majority in the Commons would, in absence of an upper house, have virtually no restrictions on their power.
Well, what about doing what Canada does and have a Senate? It could even be partially appointed.
The lords should remain at least partially appointed, and a significant portion of the appointed seats should be reserved for experts in a diverse range of fields.
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:30 pmPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:31 pmShrillland wrote:Old Tyrannia wrote:He talks a lot about elections for someone who doesn't want an election.
A unicameral parliament would be an utter constitutional disaster. Our Prime Ministers already hold greater power than most heads of government; any Prime Minister able to command a majority in the Commons would, in absence of an upper house, have virtually no restrictions on their power.
Well, what about doing what Canada does and have a Senate? It could even be partially appointed.
The Canadian Senate is basically a copy of our House of Lords, except without the hereditary peers or Lords Spiritual (whose influence is fairly marginal in the House of Lords anyway) and with a limited number of members. The latter would probably be a sensible reform, but renaming the house as "the Senate," introducing elected members or doing away with the remaining hereditary contingent and Lords Spiritual are all changes I would oppose.
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:35 pmReserving seats for 'experts' sounds like technocracy to me. No thanks.
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:40 pmPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:41 pmHaving multiple levels of pure representative democracy is redundant, having one level of representative democracy is too open to abuse of power, having appointments be purely party political makes it redundant, and having hereditary peers is insane. The purpose of the Lords is to scrutinise legislation, and thus should contain individuals with technical knowledge pertaining to said bills. Having it be, say, 2/3rds to 3/4s elected at the same time would eliminate any risk of unelected technocracy taking full control.
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:43 pmPhiljia wrote:Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Reserving seats for 'experts' sounds like technocracy to me. No thanks.
Having multiple levels of pure representative democracy is redundant, having one level of representative democracy is too open to abuse of power, having appointments be purely party political makes it redundant, and having hereditary peers is insane. The purpose of the Lords is to scrutinise legislation, and thus should contain individuals with technical knowledge pertaining to said bills. Having it be, say, 2/3rds to 3/4s elected at the same time would eliminate any risk of unelected technocracy taking full control.
Why not get rid of it, and have bills go from the commons to a direct referendum?
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:43 pmI should be Prime Minister, I think.
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:45 pmSouseiseki wrote:The Nihilistic view wrote:
Given the ruthlessness of purpose so far my money is on it being intentional.
it's almost definitely intentional. the bastards just passed an amendment to fuck with the opposition through the sneaky loophole of "not bothering to count opposing votes" and they're going to get away with it.l
It makes a change to have somebody in charge of the house who knows what they are doing for a change. It's quite exciting.
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:46 pm
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:47 pmGreater vakolicci haven wrote:Philjia wrote:Having multiple levels of pure representative democracy is redundant, having one level of representative democracy is too open to abuse of power, having appointments be purely party political makes it redundant, and having hereditary peers is insane. The purpose of the Lords is to scrutinise legislation, and thus should contain individuals with technical knowledge pertaining to said bills. Having it be, say, 2/3rds to 3/4s elected at the same time would eliminate any risk of unelected technocracy taking full control.
Why not get rid of it, and have bills go from the commons to a direct referendum?
Because that's absurdly impractical.
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:47 pmMunkcestrian Republic wrote:I should be Prime Minister, I think.
of the UK or Northumbria?
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:47 pmThe Nihilistic view wrote:Souseiseki wrote:
it's almost definitely intentional. the bastards just passed an amendment to fuck with the opposition through the sneaky loophole of "not bothering to count opposing votes" and they're going to get away with it.l
It makes a change to have somebody in charge of the house who knows what they are doing for a change. It's quite exciting.
i mean it's blatant undemocratic horseshit that should be literally illegal and only exists because of our outdated system but if you want to praise that as well then you do you
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:47 pmPhiljia wrote:The election motion will be voted on at 9:20PM and will almost certainly fail.
So did the other bill pass?
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 12:48 pm