No. The House of Commons does not have all the power. The House of Lords can, and does, delay passage of legislation. Just because that is not done the same way as the United States of America’s Congress does not negate the fact that it is still a power of the House of Lords.
Didn’t peruse the links, did you?
Yes, there is a difference. This may have escaped you, but the reason they have different names is because they are, in fact, different forms of government.
The UK has a monarch and a constitution and a parliament. Now, if you’re still with me, then you should be able to see that means the UK is, get this, a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliament.
As to Parliamentary Democracies, Israel has a parliament and no monarch.
I trust you see the difference. If you don’t, then this elucidation is a complete waste of time.
OK, but in terms of power, that’s pretty minimal.
I go to the links when the poster has indicated what points of his the links back up. You pointed to the existence of the HoL as a refutation of the claim that Britain’s run by democratically chosen officials. There was nothing to back up there; we all agree that the HoL exists.
It may have been awhile since my History of England course in college, but it was thorough, and seems to be accurate enough for the present debate.
The link to Parliament backs up:
That not all of the power in Parliament is vested in the House of Commons,
That not all of the offices in the UK government are democratically elected,
That the House of Lords can, and does, introduce legislation,
That the House of Lords can, and does, scrutinize legislation.
And finally, that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Monty, are you arguing that a constitutional monarchy cannot simultaneously be a democracy?
What kind of justification is that for a monarchy, ‘its cheaper than a president !’ get lost, i would rather have a more expensive ‘proper’ democracy !!!
RE: house of lords
They can not block legislation, only send it back for a second reading, there was an act passed in the 30s ( i think ) when beveridge passed a budget which wasn’t balanced and the lords tried to block it.
The sooner we send these bunch of hereditary peers and the royals packing the better !
If parliament had the balls then they would get rid of them all.
so says my right honourable dude… member for cyber space , well the part under the door …
No; I am addressing the form of government in the United Kingdom and also addressing the errors in its description by other posters.
Now, if the OP had not used the term “all” at the outset, this would be a different thread indeed!
Although I’m no moderator, it’s regularly suggested that posters don’t resort to stupid personal calling like that.
If you can’t argue coherently, don’t bother or go to the pit if you have a real issue.
I might suggest that this is a reply to the title of the thread where it’s implied, IMO, that the royal family is a costly waste of space and one of the arguments is that it’s simply a waste of money. But in the context of a head of state, they do cost money, and L-C was simply saying that they are cheaper than a president. He was refuting one part of the argument levelled against the royal family.
I was under the impression that the Lords could send legislation back more than once, and often, given the restrictions on parliamentary time, this effectively does block the legislation.
L-C will deal with you much more effectively than I could when he gets round to it…
I withdraw my remarks as directed by the right honourable poster and in my defence admit that i had one too many at the bar.
Hee hee, you Brits are funny. “right honourable” – you can’t even spell honorable correctly ;).
[sub]Actually, I must confess that on the boards, sometimes I use British spelling just because I like it better. And I usually put periods and commas after closing quotations, following the British style, because it makes more sense to me.[/sub]
I love that word, who has looked it up in Websters?:
Main Entry:1welfare
Pronunciation:*wel-*far, -*fer
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English, from the phrase wel faren to fare well
Date:14th century
1 : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity.
No worries, dude. I’m sure we’ve all come over a little unnecessary after the odd Light Ale from time to time. Probably a good idea to stick to the issues, though
Let’s rephrase the question. What is the justification for continuing to use American tax money to support the First Lady when her actual function in government is nothing? (Yes, I know the First Lady doesn’t receive a salary, but then neither does the Queen - what they both receive is administrative support to allow them to perform public duties.)
Did you know that mrs blair ( married to our pm ) is a working mum ( lawyer ) and recently got fined for buying the wrong train ticket ( she was confused ! ).
Can you imaginge the 1st lady getting on a train with a single bodyguard to go to work ?
mmm