Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/index.php)
-   Political Palace (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   UK Shits Bed Before US (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2492)

Misogynyst Gynecologist Mar 21, 2006 09:23 AM

UK Shits Bed Before US
 
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...049791,00.html

Quote:

The boring title of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill hides an astonishing proposal. It gives ministers power to alter any law passed by Parliament. The only limitations are that new crimes cannot be created if the penalty is greater than two years in prison and that it cannot increase taxation. But any other law can be changed, no matter how important. All ministers will have to do is propose an order, wait a few weeks and, voilà, the law is changed. For ministers the advantages are obvious: no more tedious debates in which they have to answer awkward questions. Instead of a full day’s debate on the principle of the proposal, detailed line-by-line examination in committee, a second chance at specific amendment in the Commons and a final debate and vote, ministers will have to face at most a short debate in a committee and a one-and-a-half hour debate on the floor. Frequently the Government will face less than that. No amendments will be allowed. The legislative process will be reduced to a game of take-it-or-leave-it.
Does anyone even care anymore? While this is 'across the pond', I have little doubt that it's a mirror image of what American will go through in the same extent. Why is the government undermining the rights in which their people died for?

Rock Mar 21, 2006 09:31 AM

Because, you know ...

::noonecares::

Seriously now, we've grown too lazy to even criticize our governments anymore. It might involve physical action (by protesting in the streets).

Nehmi Mar 21, 2006 09:35 AM

The government runs as though it were a democracy, but it hasn't been that way for a while now. All we have here is simply the route to make things go faster for the government. They're shedding their image of legitimacy in exchange for easier access to their power.

Besides, once you have all the power... who's going to stand up and stop you?

Monkey King Mar 21, 2006 10:32 AM

Quote:

Posted by Nehmi
Besides, once you have all the power... who's going to stand up and stop you?
Uh... the people? That's how the United States came to exist, for starters, or have they stopped teaching history entirely in schools?

The key of course, is actually giving a shit. Folks apparently were a lot less apathetic back in the 1700s. You don't actually have to put up with this kind of nonsense; all it takes is getting up off your ass and doing something about it.

What I'M surprised about is that Parliament would even be considering such a bill. From there it's only a short step towards Parliament becoming completely redundant, and I guarantee none of them wants to be out of a job, or reduced to a whole assembly of figureheads. Not that I know anything about British politics apart from Tony Blair being just as deficient as Bush, but I doubt Parliament is that in thrall of the ministers.

El Ray Fernando Mar 21, 2006 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeHah
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...049791,00.html



Does anyone even care anymore? While this is 'across the pond', I have little doubt that it's a mirror image of what American will go through in the same extent. Why is the government undermining the rights in which their people died for?

This by no means is law yet, its only a proposition. Face it this will never get passed in the UK.

With Tony Blair's majority almost being shot to pieces, there is not a hope that this would ever get passed the 2nd reading stage in the House of Commons. The man needed help from the opposition Tory party just last week to get bills pushed through because of the number of revolting MPs. Even if this does by some miracle, through a whole host of concessions does get through to the House Of Lords, that would be a roadblock right there. Being a citizen of the UK I have full faith in the House of Lords, who have not shrugged in the face of insurmountable pressure from the sleazy Labour government. The Law Lords would reject it straight away as they know this would undermine their supremacy in the English Legal System, they are old school and will never allow a challenge to their power.

These last 3 years, the Law Lords have been the biggest road block in Tony Blair's plans, especially in regards to UK policy on dealing with terror suspects,Blair was defeated on deportation of terrorists to countries where they would be tortured for information, and on the propostion to hold terrorists for 3 months without charge. The last one in particular was seen as a purely humiliating loss.

So you see he basically needs to assasinate all of the Lords and replace them with Blair ites to get this passed.

Misogynyst Gynecologist Mar 21, 2006 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Ray Fernando
This by no means is law yet, its only a proposition. Face it this will never get passed in the UK

We said the same thing about Bush being re-elected

El Ray Fernando Mar 21, 2006 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeHah
We said the same thing about Bush being re-elected

Thats totally different, besides the US has a large right wing, red neck population, and Kerry was a wuss, so nobody was shocked really when he was re-elected.

Besides you don't have the House of Lords in the US, all it takes is a 'no' from them and Tony Blair would be humiliated......again.

I reackon the bill will never actually be put forward, if Tony Blair did try it, he would probably face the biggest majority loss in English history, when it came to the vote in the Commons. His own back benchers and the oppostion parties would string him out to dry, even if he has a '3 line' party whip he would still not be able to generate enough 'aye's' to the left, and would have to relinquish his power immedeatly, as a vote of no confidence would be cast.

Misogynyst Gynecologist Mar 21, 2006 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Ray Fernando
Thats totally different, besides the US has a large right wing, red neck population, and Kerry was a wuss, so nobody was shocked really when he was re-elected.

Boy, no bias from this guy!

El Ray Fernando Mar 21, 2006 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeHah
Boy, no bias from this guy!

Hey everyone's bias, why lie?

I'm heavily bias against this bill, but I totally agree in that, I would not be surprised if Bush and the US governement tried something like this before he leaves office, the same goes for Tony Blair, but I think he will chicken out and would rather leave office without such a humiliating loss in the Commons, especially after the loans for peerage scandal.

The only thing is, I need to do a little more research on how you guys in the US scrutinse any 'proposed' primary and secondary legislation. In the UK we have the various reading stages of a Bill, and then the Law Lords. Who knows it may be good for my upcomming exams.

Fluffykitten McGrundlepuss Mar 21, 2006 03:54 PM

He's right, this would never get passed. Even with all of Tony's cronies in the House of Lords, this is basically an undermining of the entire English democratic process. Even if a miracle occurred and this got as far as the Lords, they'd shoot it down in flames. Tony already looks like he's on his last legs, this would be a final nail in the coffin and he ain't that stupid.

Watts Mar 21, 2006 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeHah
I have little doubt that it's a mirror image of what American will go through in the same extent.

Our executive branch has and is openly flaunting the power of Congress in multiple ways already. From Mccain's Torture Law which Bush "agreed" too, and then applied an executive statement saying that it did not effect the commander-in-chief. Which basically annulled the whole law. I could name more examples but it gives me a headache. :(

Furthermore there's limits to how much power the British laws can be enacted. There's no such limits on recently passed legislation like the Patriot Act. President Bush has argued that he can strip citizenship from Americans, declare them to be "terrorists", and deny them their rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Geneva Conventions. Little bit more serious.

Luckily for Bush, people are too stupid to know or understand their rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey King
Uh... the people? That's how the United States came to exist,

Not to mention the 'States is a heavily armed society. With an average of about three guns per household. Even without that factor, the government would find it impossible to maintain "order". Numbers alone would be the deciding factor.

loyalist Mar 21, 2006 08:45 PM

Quote:

Furthermore there's limits to how much power the British laws can be enacted
Keep in mind that the UK has no written consititution.

Watts Mar 21, 2006 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loyalist
Keep in mind that the UK has no written consititution.

True, but I was more or less talking about this law. Which does has limits.

Bradylama Mar 21, 2006 10:21 PM

Am I the only one who notes the irony in a House of Lords defending democratic process?

Minion Mar 21, 2006 10:35 PM

It's not like our Congress is any different from a literal House of Lords, anyway.

Watts Mar 22, 2006 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minion
It's not like our Congress is any different from a literal House of Lords, anyway.

The House of Lords seems more like the Senate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradylama
Am I the only one who notes the irony in a House of Lords defending democratic process?

Not really ironic to me. How many Senator Kennedys can you name? Senator Rockefellers? Almost the same deal.

Lord Styphon Mar 22, 2006 12:13 AM

Except for the minor difference of the Senate not being composed of titled nobility.

Watts Mar 22, 2006 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon
Except for the minor difference of the Senate not being composed of titled nobility.

My point was that Kennedys and Rockefellers come as close to American nobility as they can get.

Lord Styphon Mar 22, 2006 12:19 AM

Which doesn't change the fact that they aren't entitled to their seats by virtue of being Kennedys or Rockefellers.

Also, there has only been one Senator Rockefeller.

Robo Jesus Mar 22, 2006 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nehmi
The government runs as though it were a democracy, but it hasn't been that way for a while now.

Few governments have ever been democracies. Hell, the United States has NEVER been a democracy. It's a constitutionality. And as stupid as the law that England just passed is, the fact that it came from England doesn't surprise me in the least, as that country has never really cared about concerns like abuse of power or the personal freedoms of its citizens.

Watts Mar 22, 2006 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon
Which doesn't change the fact that they aren't entitled to their seats by virtue of being Kennedys or Rockefellers.

No it doesn't, nor am I arguing that. I was making a general comparison. Both last names wield incredible amounts of influence in politics and business. That their peers in the House of Lords hold in similar amounts.

Soluzar Mar 22, 2006 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeHah
Does anyone even care anymore? While this is 'across the pond', I have little doubt that it's a mirror image of what American will go through in the same extent. Why is the government undermining the rights in which their people died for?

I care a lot, but I'm in a minority. This thing has too much momentum for the number of people who care to stop it. My own father believes that the only reason anyone would object is because they are guilty of a crime. That doesn't make him unusual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo Jesus
As stupid as the law that England just passed is, the fact that it came from England doesn't surprise me in the least, as that country has never really cared about concerns like abuse of power or the personal freedoms of its citizens.

Too damn right. If you believe in personal freedom, that must make you a dangerous and seditious individual. Hell, the only reason anyone wants "personal freedoms" is so that they can commit crimes anyway... right? That's what most of the English seem to believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Ray Fernando
This by no means is law yet, its only a proposition. Face it this will never get passed in the UK.

I ain't saying that I don't agree with all of the points that you made in your post. However, I am saying that the chances are not as small as you think. The government's majority may have shrunk, but these kind of laws are the way the wind is blowing anyway. Both major parties would love this kind of law to be passed.

All you Americans out there reading this thread should get some kind of a laugh out of the fact that this is our supposed left-wing party. It just goes to show you that despite most people's flawed understanding of politics there are really two axes (at least) along which you need to plot the stance of a political party.

The left-wing party we have in the UK are an authoritarian left-wing party, and they are not moderate on either axis. The opposing right-wing party are only moderately polarised towards authoritarian policies, but there is no mainstream libertarian element in British politics. Ain't that a stinker?

Personally, if given the choice, I'd rather vote for a party that were moderate libertarians, and just left of centre on the progressive/conservative axis. That's just me though. I'm only one man.

Minion Mar 22, 2006 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon
Which doesn't change the fact that they aren't entitled to their seats by virtue of being Kennedys or Rockefellers.

What planet are you from? Name me a middle class senator.

Sure it's not the "offical" policy, but give me a break.

Monkey King Mar 22, 2006 09:37 AM

I was about to say the same thing. If the name "Kennedy" doesn't entitle them to a seat in the Senate or House, their money sure does. We pretty much started out as a plutocracy, which is functionally no different from rule by nobles, and it's been that way ever since. The founding fathers weren't just a bunch of guys from the colonial ghetto, you know.

Fluffykitten McGrundlepuss Mar 22, 2006 01:36 PM

Since the Lords reform bill of a few years back, peerages are no longer hereditary over here. The title passes to your kids but they don't get the right to sit in the House anymore.

Which hilariously is what led to the recent cash for peerages scandal. Opportunities to sit in the Lords come up a lot more frequently now and people are willing to "Loan" the government a load of cash for a title.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.