D
Deleted member 1
Guest
How are those regions decided?
I assume some attempt at equalizing population but then I also assume some political attempts to steer those gridlines towards a population favoring one party.
Society Putin has decided to "run" for President again
- Thread starter member 3289
- Start date
-
- Tags
- president
How are those regions decided?
I assume some attempt at equalizing population but then I also assume some political attempts to steer those gridlines towards a population favoring one party.
I've just looked it up, as I didn't know myself. Firstly a constituency can not represent more than 5% of the population or be an area greater than 13,000 sq KM. Then theres a bunch of things to consider like local government boundaries.
By direct democracy I assume you mean having 2 votes, one for the local MP and other for who you want to be in government?
When Brits vote, as a rule of thumb they do so more for the party they want in power, not who they want locally (see Robbies post). For example, even if I thought my MP was total shit, I still would probably vote him in the next election because ultimately I want the current government out.
Boundary Commissions.
@Coast is correct.Boundary commissions (United Kingdom) - Wikipedia
Yes and yes.
How can I stand in an election?
The House of Lords can only return a bill passed by the Commons twice, on the third time it passes automatically. Assuming it was in their manifesto upon which they ran.
We were all so hopeful just 3 years ago.
Is royal assent not still required?
Technically, yes, but it's a rubber stamping process these days. If they ever tried to turn down a bill then Parliament could just pass a bill abolishing the monarchy(they should do this).
Last edited:
I'm not sure they could pass a bill like that even if they wanted to (and I really wish they would). Aside from the logistical issues which would be an absolute nightmare and honestly make it impractical. How would a bill abolishing the monarchy receive royal assent?
I really wish Canada would get rid of the senate and the monarchy and become a constitutional republic like a grown up country.
It would be interested to see what would happen if the government tried. The queen could demand a meeting with the PM, pull out the royal shotgun and blow his/her head clean off ones shoulders - and get away with it since shes immune to prosecution. Or she could order the army the execute the traitors, who are technically under the command of the Queen, not the government.
Parliament pays their wages.
That's a very incorrect oversimplification.
Monarchy is the best form of government, and the revolution is the worst thing to ever happen.
M
member 3289
Guest
Lizzie gonna send you to the dungeons or the Australian penal colony if she read this...
Yeah, I love having the laws of my country made by people completely unaccountable to anyone.
Lizzie so old she don't know how to turn on one of them com-pu-ters.
A lifelong ruler will want the best for his progeny.
and the problem is when they don't consider the peasants to be their progeny.
Most kings have needed the approval of the people.
Most kings weren't protected by armies while their subjects were unarmed.
Or is it the queen that pays Parliament?
HM Revenue and Customs is a non-ministerial department.
HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs) was established by the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act (CRCA) 2005, which gives the legal powers and responsibilities of the department to Commissioners appointed by the Queen.
I'm not really a fan of the Royal family myself. The royals clearly are not like the royals from a couple of hundred years ago where they had absolute power, they still seem to have a fuck load of power though. It's never used though which makes people think they are there for ceremonial purposes.
The thing is, if the queen wanted to get involved in shit, at the very least its going to make things very awkward for the government. She still holds a lot of influence.
One other little thing, its probably meaningless but I'll put it out there. All MP's must take an oath before they are allowed to take their seat in Parliament.
I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
Members who object to swearing the oath are permitted to make a solemn affirmation under the terms of the Oaths Act 1978:
I... do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.
The above oath is not optional, they can take it under protest, but they must still take it.
Also the following positions require an oath to the Queen.
- First Lord of the Treasury (currently held ex officio by the Prime Minister)
- Second Lord of the Treasury (currently held ex officio by the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
- Lord Chancellor
- Lord President of the Council
- Lord Privy Seal
- Secretaries of State
- President of the Board of Trade
- Lord Steward
- Lord Chamberlain
- Earl Marshal
- Master of the Horse
- Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
- Paymaster General
- Keeper of the Great Seal of Scotland (since 1999 held ex officio by the First Minister of Scotland)
- Keeper of the Privy Seal of Scotland
- Lord Clerk Register
- Advocate General for Scotland
- Lord Justice Clerk
- First Minister of Wales (since the Government of Wales Act 2006 came into force in May 2007)
I guess any government that seeks to remove the Monarch would be guilty of treason. No government will ever attempt to remove the Monarch unless they had overwhelming public support to do so, essentially it would mean a revolution. Since 76% of people in the UK like the Monarch, a revolution is highly unlikely for the foreseeable future and certainly not as long as Queen Elizabeth II rules.
Last edited: