Printable View
Public support is the bare minimum you expect in any democracy. In this case, you wouldn't even care what women thought about the issue because they wouldn't be able to vote in future elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
The House of Lords "no" is utterly pointless. The assumption is the Conservative Party is behind this proposal and has a majority.
Oh, like they did with the Brexit bill? Yeah, that worked sooooo great. Not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
If the policy wasn't in the Tory manifesto, which is likely given that otherwise it would have required women to vote to give away their own suffrage, the House of Lords can delay the bill for up to a year. plenty of time to allow for legal challenges and parliamentary rebellions and so on. There's also the serious possibility that the monarch would just outright refuse to sign the bill, precipitating even more of a constitutional crisis than there already was because the government was trying to disenfranchise 50% of the country on a whim.
Really, the scenario is so outlandish it's hard to predict what would actually happen.
What reason would the Lords have had to vote down Brexit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Please, if they were not even able to get a rather minor addition onto the Brexit bill, what chance would they have with a more serious veto?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
The next election is a good 4 years away. A year's wait wouldn't be a problem. Legal challenges will fail because of parliamentary supremacy. We're assuming the Party supports this policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
So the only thing that could serve as a check would be the Queen's signature. Good luck with that.
This would be one of the few kinds of legislation that may actually be subject to judicial review because it may violate some aspect of the ECHR.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Rand wouldn't be in favor of the ECHR having jurisdiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
And for those who think the woman example is unrealistic: you can change it to revoking the vote from all naturalized citizens.
I'd think that the Commons would refuse to back a government that proposed that causing the government to fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Also that the British public would eject such a government if it came to it.
Really it's a ridiculous suggestion.
I mentioned the Supreme Court being a check. You've also forgotten the main check, the people. Parliament represents the people, if Parliament stops representing people we elect a new one. It's called democracy and I'm rather fond of it. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
If the government carries on like this, the next election is going to be a lot less than 4 years away. The words 'confidence' 'no' and 'vote of' would be uttered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Assuming the Human Rights Act has been repealed and that the ECHR is therefore no longer applicable it's going to be replaced with something similar.Quote:
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Rand wouldn't be in favor of the ECHR having jurisdiction..
I don't really think that any less unrealistic.Quote:
And for those who think the woman example is unrealistic: you can change it to revoking the vote from all naturalized citizens.
Really, Loki, if your standard for checks and balances is 'if enough people magically agree that we should do this one egregious thing then you can't stop egregious thing happening' then no government in the world has checks and balances. If the Republicans just somehow had the required majorities in the house and senate and controlled enough state legislature then could they be stopped from amending the constitution to roll back civil rights or do some other Republican bullshit?
Look at your own mess. Checks and balances are barely functioning because one party controls both the executive and legislature, and the legislature are unwilling to fully hold the executive to account for fairly mundane political reasons. Separation of powers, it turns out, is not magic because politicians from different branches of government aren't hermetically sealed away from other and the rest of the country.
Indeed putting your faith into "systems" to protect your rights rather than vigilance to defend them doesn't work.
The standard for check and balances is if the government went nuts, who would be able to stop them. It's not a check if it's based on everyone acting properly. Again, parliamentary supremacy is the very antithesis to checks and balances. There is literally no other democratic system that has fewer checks and balances.
And how many other democracies have our track record of evolving success?
You still didn't learn that boasting of your wonderful ancient system will only end in people pointing out that for most of that history the 'success' didn't go much further than a select group of white men in Great Britain having a say? While at the same time, very often with extreme violence, alll other subjects of your empire were kept from equality? Randy, Randy, Randy....Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Because I don't see the relevance. Sams for any other Nation hence the word evolving.
Campaigning.bas been suspended due to last night's attack in Manchester.
Who's willing to take bets that this will hasten the UK's conversion into Orwell's Paradise?
Not going to happen, we've been bombed up by a better class of bastard before.
No, that's not the same for every nation; your's in particular ruled an empire in which most of the subjects didn't even amount to second class citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Which other Empires didn't do that? Where the Spaniards more enlightened than the Brits? Who are you contrasting us with?
OK, name an example of a country where you could stop the government going nuts even if everyone was acting improperly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Anyway. Loki's belief in the magical powers of placing potentially corrupt politicians on a different place on the org. chart of government and Hazir's, uh, unique view of history aside:
Labour has closed the gap to 10 points. This is largely being attributed to public reaction the parties manifestos, because the conservatives decided to fill theirs with spiteful nonsense. Labour seem to be a little more optimistic, but a) 10 points is still a very large lead and b) polls tend to underestimate the Tories c) It is likely that the Conservatives took this opportunity of a weak Labour leader to get away with some more unpopular policies, knowing they'd be elected anyway, a decent Labour leader would have had a real shot at this election even without that: a priceless opportunity wasted because certain members of the Labour party decided they'd rather play leftier than thou than govern.
And yet your grandiose CCTV did nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It's the first bomb in 12 years, though not for the want of trying - and already there has been an arrest made of an accomplice (since the perp himself is dead).
You're denying the vast majority of the subjects of the British Empire did not even have the hope of having a say in how they were governed by London? Democracy and civil rights aren't real if they only exist for a tiny minority. The ones who are off on their history here are the people who try to sell plutocracy under the guise of British democracy as a shining example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
No nation anywhere in the world met modern standards of democracy all throughout it's history. Even if you discount the Empire, Britain wouldn't have been called a democracy in today's world until right up until after World War I, because of restrictions on who could vote. That was also not the point Randblade was making, but I wouldn't expect you to see that past the enormous collection of chips you carry on your shoulder.
Anyway, if you want to list the numerous hypocrisies of the British why don't you, rather than constantly shitting up the election thread, go and start a new one? I look forward to not reading it.
Presumably he's referring to the ability of the judiciary to block unconstitutional laws even when the executive branch and the legislature have gone "nuts". Should be clear from context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
You can just change the constitution. And the highest judges in the land are all political appointees. And a judge is just as likely to be human garbage as a politician, just look at Jeff Sessions. Or they can be corrupted and/or threatened. A judge can quite literally say 'this is constitutional, actually' when it isn't, especially if the would-be dictator is clever enough to make their power grabs sufficiently ambiguous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Oh, and this is definitely an appropriate and normal response to a tragedy. So well done with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I believe if you give yourself some time to think through this you'll realize that you're being somewhat misleading here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I have found a major error in your reasoning, but I decline to specify what it actually is.