[OT] Bush vs. Gore - Was: [Sussex] Linux is capitalism, Microsoft is communism?

[Steve Dobson]

Geoff

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 08:29:58PM +0100, Geoffrey John Teale wrote:
<snip>
> I for one would support the following:
> 
>  - The removal of the monarch as the head of state (that doesn't mean I
> want us to stop having a Queen, it means she shouldn't at any level be
> involved in our system of government).
> - The abolition of the house of lords.
> - The removal of religious text and procedure from government.
> - The replacement of the "first past the post" electoral system with
> "one person one vote" on a national scale.

While I agree with you about proportional representation and the religious
text, but the others I have issues with.

1). If the Queen is not the head of state then what is the point in having
    a queen at all?  Also, who is going to be our head of state?  The PM?

    The problem with a politician as the head of state is that they are 
    not all pure.  In that case of the States was last represented by a
    man the lied under oath (or used legal contortion), and by a war
    monger.

    While the Monarchy is not perfect either, at least our Queue does
    represent 1500 years of English (and later British) history, no
    politician can represent that.  That is useful in a state visit.

2). What are you going to replace the House of Lords with?  A group of 
    (mainly) government appointed lackeys, you can't like that system judging
    from your arguments on the Supreme Court.

    The House of Lords, before the reform, was all but powerless.  Any bill
    that the Government really wanted passed could be forced through under
    the Parliament Act.  The HoLs useful role was that they could delay any
    bill giving time for a Government rethink or of the people to protest
    more causing a political rethink.

    Unless the members of the House of Lords are voted for by the people
    (in which case they can't be lords) then I would rather they were still
    under the old system.  I can remember many old PMs arguing for reform
    of their own parties bill in light of their own experience and wisdom.

    To my mind our old system, while far from perfect, had found a way to
    mix the short term but publicly accountable politician with the long
    thinking, never changing Lord of the Manor type.

Steve