Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I would err on the side of being strongly against anything that involves putting more power in the hands of old people.

[Leafsnail]

Jury system.

[lordcooper]

Jury system.

Hell no.  You might as well just roll some dice.

[Owlbread]

But dear MSH, what is British politics but a story of power being in the hands of old people?

We're a society with a rampant fetish for old, esteemed people. People who have been around a long time. People who are "experienced", sometimes we even call them "national treasures". That kind of thinking has seeped into every group of public figures from TV presenters to artists to politicians. We conveniently ignore the fact that quite often these venerable, esteemed public figures that everyone can remember since they were kids actually have nothing valuable to say, or at least, nothing more valuable than a younger person.

But in the UK all you need to do in politics is stick around long enough, ideally in Westminster, so that you can become a Lord. It's not like you'd retire or something as you might do over in the states, oh my no. Instead you actually become a member of our Upper House, a reward for just existing long enough. Then we can never get rid of you. Ever. Not until you die. John Prescott's a lord now, so was Margaret Thatcher (Baroness). It's like you become a venerable figure for good, impossible to remove. No matter how worthless your opinions may be in comparison to other people, all that matters is that you've... been there long enough. Being a member of a successful party also helps.

I suppose given that we take pride in the longevity of the Queen and her extended family none of this should be surprising.

[XXSockXX]

How about a sort of Council of Elders? Recognized elder statesmen (and at least one Elder Stateswoman, after 2017) as well as a number of representatives elected by the universities (because I like that idea, and it ensures a left-wing bias) form a senate, which can block legislation iff it decides to do so with a two-thirds majority.
The idea might need some work, but it still seems better than our current Bundestag...




(Also, I don't think Sinn and Lucke are representative of academia, especially because they're both economists - academia in general has a strong liberal/progressive slant.)

Sinn and Lucke are both economics professors, which makes them academics. I gave them as examples for their outspoken but contrasting political views.
I wouldn't bet too much on the academic left wing bias. Academics are certainly more progressive in general, but in economics, law or historic sciences you'll also find some quite conservative ones.

You'd replace the parliament (Bundestag) with such a thing? I thought we were talking about the upper chamber. (Bundesrat, or for English speakers "federal blockade council"  )

Recognized elder statesmen do play their roles in the background. As for the "elected by the universities" part, I don't like it because it's not democratic. I also spent time enough at university to doubt that either students or university personal are especially qualified to make important political decisions. (Neither is everybody else, but that way it evens itself out).


BTW, the guy who made Spinal Tap was in the House of Lords, that doesn't sound that bad to me.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Jury system.

Hell no.  You might as well just roll some dice.

There is a certain story about English jurors, naivete, and experts that would fit well as a response here, but I can't remember what it is called.

[Owlbread]

I understand the need for checks and balances but I feel that could be fulfilled through a comprehensive, strong constitution and bill of rights. I don't really think an upper house is really all that necessary.

[lordcooper]

I understand the need for checks and balances but I feel that could be fulfilled through a comprehensive, strong constitution and bill of rights. I don't really think an upper house is really all that necessary.

The trouble with constitutions is that they're either easy to change (and therefore meaningless) or difficult to change (and therefore a major hindrance to social progress).

[Descan]

I still think a party proportional senate along with a district-representative house, and the leader of the senate-majority party being the Prime Minister, with the senate-bound party members being voted for in a primary, is a good idea.

Even better would be if reps/senators/elected officials were only allowed 1 term, or only allowed non-consecutive terms, so they would not be able to use time/money in office campaigning and were instead forced to do the job they were elected to do. :I

[Owlbread]

Ideally nothing should be in it that would become such a hindrance in the future. I think though we could get by through some basic rights like:

"Parliament shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Or perhaps some rights orientated around the idea of "privacy" and protecting us from spying.

I still think a party proportional senate along with a district-representative house, and the leader of the senate-majority party being the Prime Minister, with the senate-bound party members being voted for in a primary, is a good idea.

Even better would be if reps/senators/elected officials were only allowed 1 term, or only allowed non-consecutive terms, so they would not be able to use time/money in office campaigning and were instead forced to do the job they were elected to do. :I

Would this district-representative house also be elected on party lines or as individuals?

[Descan]

Preferably individuals. I wouldn't go so far as to -ban- representatives from being party members, but it wouldn't be part of the system.

The idea being "I want this party/ideology in control of the government (senate), and I want this fellow/fellette here to speak for my neighbours and I in the government(house)."

[Owlbread]

If I was Lord Protector of Scotland, I would write into the constitution that if another country spies on our people that will be seen as a declaration of war. Negotiations must then take place immediately to stop this nonsense.

[lordcooper]

If I was Lord Protector of Scotland, I would write into the constitution that if another country spies on our people that will be seen as a declaration of war. Negotiations must then take place immediately to stop this nonsense.

Are there many countries who would view Scotland as a legitimate military threat?

[Owlbread]

It's not that we would actually invade someone, it's more that we would view it as a declaration of war so that we would have to negotiate and solve the issue quickly before it escalates into a terrible diplomatic incident. You know, a lot of blustering, politicians in suits and such shouting at each-other from across the hall in the European Parliament or across the negotiating table. That sort of thing. Though officially we'd be "at war", nothing would really happen, although it would make life difficult for trade between our countries.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If I was Lord Protector of Scotland, I would write into the constitution that if another country spies on our people that will be seen as a declaration of war. Negotiations must then take place immediately to stop this nonsense.

Within five minutes, America is being invaded by Scottish forces.

Don't worry, I've been keeping tabs on Owlbread's Fifth Column for years now.