JDFP
07-Mar-2010, 10:54 PM
Yeah, so there's a ton of U.K. folks on the board here, and instead of throwing politics around here in the U.S. let's look across the pond for a second to look at the British system of government for a bit.
The Bicameral U.S. Congress system is pretty straight-forward. You have the House of Representatives (435 members with so many members from each state determined by population within said state for a 2 year re-electable terms) and the Senate (100 members with 2 members from each of the 50 states, regardless of size or population, for 6 year re-electable terms). Some roles are only determined by the House (impeachment) and some by the Senate (treaties, etc.), but both bodies have important legislative roles and both have to work together in order to enact legislation.
Help educate me on this, dear Brits. The way I understand the British system is that the House of Commons pretty much has complete legislative control and that the House of Lords doesn't really have power over enacting/stopping legislative action (or am I wrong?). So, what the hell is it they (the House of Lords) do exactly? What's the point of having a body of members as part of government when they really don't have any political power whatsoever?
Ah, that gets me to the second question: The role of the Crown and Royal Family. Don't get me wrong, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II certainly has a lot of ceremonial responsibility but the Crown has no power over day to day legislation or enforcement of legal matters. Could Elizabeth actually get involved in a political matter and say, in so many proper ways, "Screw this legislation"?
Other than using up tax-payer money in a country where Unemployment is worse than the U.S. and the country is wrapped up in being a Welfare-state, isn't it a bit ridiculous to spend so much money giving into all the pomp-and-circumstance of an out-dated system within the Crown that really, ultimately, doesn't do a damn thing except re-direct tax-payer money that could help benefit citizens more? I know places like Buckingham Palace and what-not bring in a great deal of revenue from "travelers/visitors" etc. to the country, but have there been any conclusive studies showing that the benefit of the Crown actually benefits the growth of the nation as opposed to diminishing of funds, revenue that could actually go to the betterment of citizens more?
Anyway, I honestly and sincerely ask because I'm curious and this seems like a good place to ask with so many Brits around here. I don't mean to start any arguing, etc., but an inquiring American would like to know the thoughts you all have. :)
j.p.
The Bicameral U.S. Congress system is pretty straight-forward. You have the House of Representatives (435 members with so many members from each state determined by population within said state for a 2 year re-electable terms) and the Senate (100 members with 2 members from each of the 50 states, regardless of size or population, for 6 year re-electable terms). Some roles are only determined by the House (impeachment) and some by the Senate (treaties, etc.), but both bodies have important legislative roles and both have to work together in order to enact legislation.
Help educate me on this, dear Brits. The way I understand the British system is that the House of Commons pretty much has complete legislative control and that the House of Lords doesn't really have power over enacting/stopping legislative action (or am I wrong?). So, what the hell is it they (the House of Lords) do exactly? What's the point of having a body of members as part of government when they really don't have any political power whatsoever?
Ah, that gets me to the second question: The role of the Crown and Royal Family. Don't get me wrong, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II certainly has a lot of ceremonial responsibility but the Crown has no power over day to day legislation or enforcement of legal matters. Could Elizabeth actually get involved in a political matter and say, in so many proper ways, "Screw this legislation"?
Other than using up tax-payer money in a country where Unemployment is worse than the U.S. and the country is wrapped up in being a Welfare-state, isn't it a bit ridiculous to spend so much money giving into all the pomp-and-circumstance of an out-dated system within the Crown that really, ultimately, doesn't do a damn thing except re-direct tax-payer money that could help benefit citizens more? I know places like Buckingham Palace and what-not bring in a great deal of revenue from "travelers/visitors" etc. to the country, but have there been any conclusive studies showing that the benefit of the Crown actually benefits the growth of the nation as opposed to diminishing of funds, revenue that could actually go to the betterment of citizens more?
Anyway, I honestly and sincerely ask because I'm curious and this seems like a good place to ask with so many Brits around here. I don't mean to start any arguing, etc., but an inquiring American would like to know the thoughts you all have. :)
j.p.