Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Pseudoscience-is-malarkey on 14/04/2022 13:02:31
-
I struggle with this.
-
No. If I have elected a good representative, I'm happy for her to stay in post as long as she is prepared to do so. But since most MPs now think their job is to represent the party, not the electorate, the world would be a better place if they burned in hell.
-
the world would be a better place if they burned in hell.
They possibly do; but only after they have done the damage in this world so that's not good enough.
It would be better if there was a simple mechanism for getting them sacked when they fail to deliver.
For example, we could have got rid of Boris ages ago.
-
There should be a limit to which party gets to rule, the USA seems to be a never ending succession of politicians who are elected on the promise of reversing the previous administrations actions, it is a wonder anything ever gets done.
-
Problem with the USA and other dictatorships is the existence of a president with overriding discretion on all sorts of matters and no democratic accountability. Doesn't matter whether he is elected or kills his way to the top, the entire country (and any he chooses to invade) is subject to his ignorance, incompetence and perverse whims.
Sadly the UK has moved towards a de facto unelected presidency since the loathsome Thatcher appointed arselickers to the Cabinet, but at least the Head of State is removed from the taint of politics and personal greed, and has the wit to seek good advice.
-
but at least the Head of State is removed from the taint of politics and personal greed, and has the wit to seek good advice.
Unfortunately, the govt ignores her.
You may recall the current heap of **** lying to her about illegally proroguing parliament to prevent discussion of their antidemocratic policies.
-
There is no record of BJ telling the truth about anything, AFAIK. Problem is that the Press won't hold him to account for lying to Parliament. Even Channel 4 News has been banging on about his being fined for breaking the law (stand up anyone who hasn't had a speeding ticket) but ignoring the fact that he repeatedly lied to Parliament about it.
My grandmother used to say "you can trust a thief but not a liar".
-
Problem with the USA and other dictatorships
My country is not a dictatorship.
-
Lucky you. But anyone who lived in Trumpia knows what happens when you give absolute power to a corrupt and incompetent president.
-
Lucky you. But anyone who lived in Trumpia knows what happens when you give absolute power to a corrupt and incompetent president.
I know you are trying to make a point, but stating clear falsehoods like, the president of the USA has absolute power, will tend to make people dismiss your opinion.
-
but stating clear falsehoods like, the president of the USA has absolute power,
Nobody stated that.
Trumpians can extrapolate.
-
Being that the UK still has a monarchy, a brit can hardly pass judgment on the failings of our democracy.
-
Being that the UK still has a monarchy, a brit can hardly pass judgment on the failings of our democracy.
What do you think the Queen actually does?
-
What the monarch does is to act as head of state without the taint of politics and all the loathsome paraphenalia of modern electioneering. (S)he has no need to appeal to xenophobia, greed, or any of the other vices of the electorate.
-
What the monarch does is to act as head of state
So, she appears on stamps and banknotes.
PiM seems to think she writes the laws.
-
So, she appears on stamps and banknotes.
Thus denoting the state in which said currency is legal tender, and implying all the laws rules and customs appurtenant to that state, including the authority of the military to defend that state with lethal force. What more do you need in a head of state?
-
So, she appears on stamps and banknotes.
Thus denoting the state in which said currency is legal tender, and implying all the laws rules and customs appurtenant to that state, including the authority of the military to defend that state with lethal force. What more do you need in a head of state?
The point remains , PiM seems to think she makes laws.
-
Being that the UK still has a monarchy, a brit can hardly pass judgment on the failings of our democracy.
Unfortunately your merry go round is almost entirely founded in British values experience and history.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Coke
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
-
The point remains , PiM seems to think she makes laws.
Unlike Conservative members of Parliament, she has to obey the laws that Parliament makes*. Which is why she is a better representative of the British people than any elected president could be.
*With one exception. All public roads are legally "The Queen's Highway" so she doesn't need a vehicle registration plate on her own cars! And unlike the criminals and incompetents elected to high office in the USA, she doesn't need a military motorcade to travel between home and work.
-
You Brits elected a man named BJ...
-
Being that the UK still has a monarchy, a brit can hardly pass judgment on the failings of our democracy.
What do you think the Queen actually does?
Waves.
-
You Brits elected a man named BJ...
we always elect someone. This one happened to be initialed BJ.
-
The prime minister is not elected, and is not head of state, nor CinC of the armed forces.
He/she is (usually) a constituency member of parliament (i.e. elected by and to represent only the citizens of one town or district), who has been chosen by the paid-up members of his/her party to lead the party in the House of Commons.
The monarch invites whoever he/she is advised can command a majority in the Commons, to form a government in his/her name. The term "prime minister" dates back only to the 1800s, was probably invented by a newspaper, and has no constitutional significance. The UK is governed by the monarch, advised by ministers (which is why he/she has to sign all legislation with "le roi/la reine le veult" before it becomes law) and the office of PM means nothing more than the chairman and spokesman of the ministers.
Sadly, few journalists understand this, and such ignorance is rife.
Blow Job or whatever its name is, was effectively elected by 80,000 members of the Conservative party (there are only 160,000 paid up and eligible to vote), not by the public.
The enormous advantage of this civilised system is an orderly transfer of power any time a minister is found in flagrante delicto or otherwise displeases his party, or after an election that alters the majority in the Commons. No riots, claims about stolen elections, blocking executive orders, or questionable appointments to the Supreme Court. The transfer is immediate and signified only by a royal handshake. No ridiculous oaths and ceremonies: "honoured to serve" is all that needs to be said, in private.
-
The UK is governed by the monarch, advised by ministers (which is why he/she has to sign all legislation with "le roi/la reine le veult" before it becomes law)
The trouble is that she always does sign it.
-
The trouble is that she always does sign it.
I think there should be term limits on the monarchy. Like every 20 years or so a new family gets to be royalty. Have it like a lottery.
-
The trouble is that she always does sign it.
Not always. It's a murky business because the Powers that Be have to maintain the appearance of democracy as mandated by Oliver Cromwell, in that Parliament must be seen to be supreme in matters of legislation, but there are plenty of wellfounded rumors of instances where the monarch, on behalf of the entire population, suggested some delay, watering-down or modification of a proposed Act.
Either way, it's a damn sight more civilised than having a bankrupt liar issue random executive orders to please the National Rifle Association or whoever has their hand up his backside at the time.
-
I think there should be term limits on the monarchy. Like every 20 years or so a new family gets to be royalty. Have it like a lottery.
Worth studying the training schedule for the next monarch. I'd be fairly happy to have my kids represent the country at ceremonial affairs, or chair important charities, but I'm sure everyone can think of at least one family they'd prefer not to be represented by, or have their mitts on Oxfam's petty cash.
On the other hand a senate chosen by lottery would be a Very Good Thing. The House of Lords has limited powers of introduction and modification but can scrutinise and delay egregious legislative proposals, and submitting all Bills to 600 ordinary Joes would be very refreshing. It currently includes a (sadly diminishing) number of genuine experts - professors, generals, movers and shakers of industry and the like - who can talk candidly without fear of having to face party discipline or election. How we can bolster that sector is also worth considering.