|
A question for the Brits in here... (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Frankly I'm amazed any Americans know it's happening at all. Not because I think Americans are ignorant, I just don't see why it'd be remotely interesting to people in any other country. |
celebrities. fantasy. television. disney. white people. english language.
america. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
celebrities. fantasy. reality disney moment.
america. |
I already covered that, god :mad: |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
In more important discussions, what are you Brit's opinion about the referendum on May 5 :gsmile: |
Our voting system is flawed, but I don't think the proposed alternative is the way to fix it. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Our voting system is flawed, but I don't think the proposed alternative is the way to fix it. |
Do you think the AV system would be better or worse than your current system?
Also, what are your thoughts on the proposed changes to the House of Lords? |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Do you think the AV system would be better or worse than your current system? |
I honestly don't care, because I don't have any faith in any of the parties. The difference between the two systems seems to come down to which party benefits the most, and since I'm not behind any party that's immaterial to me.
No idea what's happening to the House Of Lords. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I honestly don't care, because I don't have any faith in any of the parties. The difference between the two systems seems to come down to which party benefits the most, and since I'm not behind any party that's immaterial to me.
No idea what's happening to the House Of Lords. |
Yeah. In the last election, if you had AV:
That's pretty much the only change.
Re: House of Lords -
| quote: | A national referendum on May 5th and months of parliamentary wrangling lie ahead. But if all the changes being proposed by the coalition come to fruition, British democracy could look and feel very different by the next general election, set by the coalition for May 2015.
Depending on the outcome of the referendum, that general election may be held using a new voting system: supporters of change call it the biggest shake-up since votes for women in 1928. Voters are to be asked to choose between keeping the winner-takes-all system of first-past-the-post (FPTP) and moving to the alternative-vote (AV) method, in which voters rank candidates in numbered order of preference. Under AV, if no candidate wins more than 50% of voters’ first preferences, the least popular candidate is eliminated and the second preferences of those who voted for him are distributed. The process continues, redistributing third, fourth or lower preferences until someone crosses the 50% line.
The House of Commons is also set to shrink from 650 to 600 seats, and almost every constituency will have new boundaries. With few exceptions, the seats will be more uniform, with around 76,000 voters apiece—a change that will mean many seats straddling county borders for the first time, and the merger of many small seats, notably in Wales. The next parliament might also have a fixed term of five years, ending the privilege enjoyed by British prime ministers of choosing the date (within five years) to call a general election.
Under another set of proposals due to be unveiled in May, the present House of Lords is earmarked for abolition. Its 792 serving members are to be replaced, after a transition period, by a semi-elected house (possibly called a Senate) of as few as 300 members. According to press leaks, 80% of its members would be elected by a form of proportional representation (PR)—ie, a system in which a party that polls a fifth of the votes wins roughly a fifth of the seats—for single terms of 15 years. The remaining 20% would be appointed, in an awkward trade-off between democracy and the expertise brought to Lords debates by retired military chiefs, judges, scientists and other grandees who may be unwilling to run for party-political office. The 92 remaining hereditary peers would be ejected from Parliament, as would most (but not all) of the 25 Anglican bishops and archbishops who sit in today’s House of Lords.
Many peers expect their elected successors to be much more assertive towards the House of Commons, straining old conventions that the Lords should bow before the primacy of the elected chamber. Government ministers play down the prospect of clashes, saying there is no reason why the relationship should alter. That seems a stretch. At the least the new relationship will probably have to be written down in statutory form. And then, notes Vernon Bogdanor of King’s College London, Britain would be “halfway to a written constitution”. That marks another break, this time with the tradition that Britain’s constitution exists merely in virtual form, scattered across the statute books and buttressed by precedent and convention.
Will all these changes happen? Previous attempts at bold reform have often been watered down. Ordinary voters may determine part of the answer. Plans for reforming the upper house are—like plans for AV—Liberal Democrat ambitions, and are the personal responsibility of Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader and deputy prime minister. If May 5th sees a series of defeats for the Lib Dems—notably in the AV referendum, but also in elections held the same day to local councils and devolved parliaments—Mr Clegg will need something to cheer up his party. If, on the other hand, AV is approved, furious Tory MPs may demand that the House of Lords be left alone. |
Source
COR Version:
Abolish the House of Lords for a new institution, possibly called the Senate. 300 members total. 80% of them elected by PR voting. Remaining 20% would be appointed. |
|
|
| Syntonic |
| Being that it was taxpayer funded which is fukced up, most brits attended so they didn't feeling like they were pissing their money away. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Syntonic
Being that it was taxpayer funded which is fukced up, most brits attended so they didn't feeling like they were pissing their money away. |
Er, the Royal Family payed for the wedding. The Taxpayers just payed for the police outside. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
Paid.
Besides, as I've said, the monarchy do so much for the economy by way of tourism that they more than pay for any taxes spent on them. |
|
|
| bas |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Anyways, I don't know much about Prince William, but from everything I do know he seems like he'll make a good King. Wish it would pass over his father and go right to him, but we'll see. |
I believe Charles abdicated the throne to William a while ago. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by bas
I believe Charles abdicated the throne to William a while ago. |
Negative. The latest thing I read said he had considered it, but decided against it as he, "has waited too long."
Jesus Christ, that's the second time I've done something like that in a week (re: paid). And yeah, apparently taxpayers paid about 10 million pounds for the security, but the added spending by tourists and the like is estimated at 100-600 million pounds. Quite a good investment, I'd say. |
|
|
| Syntonic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Er, the Royal Family payed for the wedding. The Taxpayers just payed for the police outside. |
I know that...but 20 million+ dollars, though. Damn
lol i've been up too long, my spelling is for right now. |
|
|
|
|
