blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 25, 2025, 02:16:03 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2262437 Posts in 66607 Topics by 16991 Members
Latest Member: nolankerwin
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Community Forums
| |-+  The Lounge
| | |-+  Diamond Jubilee
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Diamond Jubilee  (Read 10464 times)
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6202



View Profile
« Reply #60 on: June 05, 2012, 07:49:41 PM »

Having an unelected Head of State might not be democratic - but it works, and it works well.

Democracy is the will of 'the people' - so it isn't necessarily a great thing when most of 'the people' are complete idiots.

You only have to look at the greatest democracy ever (no really it is) in Ancient Greece

They democratically voted to make an entire conquered nation into slaves - and they never went consecutive years where they didn't vote for war - 'the people' haven't got any better between then and now - so just how good is democracy?

I agree that democracy is flawed but I also cannot think of a better system.  I guess my issue is that I don't think that having an unelected head of state works and works well like you do.  I think it leads to the elected government in the country behaving as what Lord Hailsham described as an "elective dictatorship" and I don't think that is good for the country.  There are three parts to British Parliament.  House of Commons, House of Lords and the Monarch.  Two of them are unelected which means that whoever controls the HoC controls the country with basically no real checks or balances.

That's an interesting point of view.

By interesting obviously I mean wrong.

Whereas you say 'no real checks or balances' what you mean is no constitutionally enshrined concrete sets of checks or balances.

...
I don't think it neccesarily follows that an elected HoS would have to have massively increased political powers but the only check we have on our current government is the Queen (who, correctly, never uses her power of veto although she could and we will probably never know how close she came in 2010 to having to appoint a PM) and the House of Lords which can easily be maniplulated by government appointments.  ...

As an aside - an elected HoS would have massively increased political powers - because they would have a mandate to have them.

The Queen never uses her power of veto because she doesn't have to use it. Her political role is to advise the Prime Minister, and if something was so completely stupid that it could be veto'd she would advise them not to do it - and 999/1000 they wouldn't do it. The 1 time out of a 1000 they did - it would be so stupid that they wouldn't remain long as Prime Minister.

The House of Lords under the hereditary principle was hugely anachronistic - but it got through thousands of pieces of very dull legislation that the HoC didn't need to worry about as well as scrutinising HoC's legislation and and 100's of times a year sending it back to be re-considered and amended. The appointees who replaced the hereditaries still do this to a slightly lesser extent - but if/when they get replaced by elected Lords then they'll mainly just do what their equivalent party machinery is enforcing in the Commons - because now they'll have to start worrying about re-election and they'll need the party machinery to back them up.

Similarly an elected Head of State will either be the same party as the Commons - so everything will get passed, or the opposing party - so everything will get blocked (a simplification but get my drift)

i.e. the more democracy you get for the second chamber - the less checks and balances and accountability you end up with.

There is trading to get things done - but more or less if the same party controls the different branches of government they won't check anything because they're on the same side, and if it's the opposing party they won't check anything because they're on the opposite side.

The evidence of the Queen's role in providing checks and balances is obviously just inferred but the 1000's of pieces of legislation the House of Lords have forced to be amended over the years is material proof of it's effectiveness (at least it's effectiveness whilst it's still undemocratic)
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 07:51:59 PM by Jon MW » Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
Josedinho
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4515



View Profile
« Reply #61 on: June 05, 2012, 07:58:26 PM »

If this post comes across as rude it is only through ignorance rather than intent but.....
The whole "extra day of costs us billions" thing - is that right? I mean it is surely just rough maths based on many assumptions rather than properly calculated isn't it?
I can see how companies that have had their workforce in and had to pay extra lose out but I was talking to a few mates about it and what will happen is we'll basically do 5 days work in 3 days. In a normal week I have to do 8.30 till 5 and this week I'll do longer hours and have had 2 days off. If I got to chose I'd probably do 4 long days every week for an extra day off but I don't get that choice. I haven't had a "free" day off I've just had my hours of work moved a bit for the week.
Just wondered if this is ever taken into account or whether people just assume that either there is no work that needs catching up so productivity has been lost or that to catch up everybody gets paid more to do so.
Logged
henrik777
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2664



View Profile
« Reply #62 on: June 05, 2012, 08:02:44 PM »

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/End_the_disgrace_of_slave_labour_at_the_Queens_jubilee/?wgjLcbb

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04/jubilee-pageant-unemployed

Unemployed bussed in to steward river pageant
Coachloads of jobless people brought in to work unpaid on river pageant as part of Work Programme

Call for inquiry into use of unpaid jobseekers as jubilee stewards

Shiv Malik
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 June 2012 22.29 BST


Some of those hired as stewards had to spend the night before the pageant sleeping under London Bridge.
A group of long-term unemployed jobseekers were bussed into London to work as unpaid stewards during the diamond jubilee celebrations and told to sleep under London Bridge before working on the river pageant.

Up to 30 jobseekers and another 50 people on apprentice wages were taken to London by coach from Bristol, Bath and Plymouth as part of the government's Work Programme.

Two jobseekers, who did not want to be identified in case they lost their benefits, said they had to camp under London Bridge the night before the pageant. They told the Guardian they had to change into security gear in public, had no access to toilets for 24 hours, and were taken to a swampy campsite outside London after working a 14-hour shift in the pouring rain on the banks of the Thames on Sunday.

One young worker said she was on duty between London Bridge and Tower Bridge during the £12m river spectacle of a 1,000-boat flotilla and members of the Royal family sail by . She said that the security firm Close Protection UK, which won a stewarding contract for the jubilee events, gave her a plastic see-through poncho and a high-visibility jacket for protection against the rain.

Close Protection UK confirmed that it was using up to 30 unpaid staff and 50 apprentices, who were paid £2.80 an hour, for the three-day event in London. A spokesman said the unpaid work was a trial for paid roles at the Olympics, which it had also won a contract to staff. Unpaid staff were expected to work two days out of the three-day holiday.

The firm said it had spent considerable resources on training and equipment that stewards could keep and that the experience was voluntary and did not affect jobseekers keeping their benefits.

The woman said that people were picked up at Bristol at 11pm on Saturday and arrived in London at 3am on Sunday. "We all got off the coach and we were stranded on the side of the road for 20 minutes until they came back and told us all to follow them," she said. "We followed them under London Bridge and that's where they told us to camp out for the night … It was raining and freezing."

A 30-year-old steward told the Guardian that the conditions under the bridge were "cold and wet and we were told to get our head down [to sleep]". He said that it was impossible to pitch a tent because of the concrete floor.

The woman said they were woken at 5.30am and supplied with boots, combat trousers and polo shirts. She said: "They had told the ladies we were getting ready in a minibus around the corner and I went to the minibus and they had failed to open it so it was locked. I waited around to find someone to unlock it, and all of the other girls were coming down trying to get ready and no one was bothering to come down to unlock [it], so some of us, including me, were getting undressed in public in the freezing cold and rain." The men are understood to have changed under the bridge.

The female steward said that after the royal pageant, the group travelled by tube to a campsite in Theydon Bois, Essex, where some had to pitch their tents in the dark.

She said: "London was supposed to be a nice experience, but they left us in the rain. They couldn't give a crap … No one is supposed to be treated like that, [working] for free. I don't want to be treated where I have to sleep under a bridge and wait for food." The male steward said: "It was the worst experience I've ever had. I've had many a job, and many a bad job, but this one was the worst."

Both stewards said they were originally told they would be paid. But when they got to the coach on Saturday night, they said, they were told that the work would be unpaid and that if they did not accept it they would not be considered for well-paid work at the Olympics.

Molly Prince, managing director of Close Protection UK, said in a statement: "We take the welfare of our staff and apprentices very seriously indeed.

"The staff travelling to the jubilee are completing their training and being assessed on the job for NVQ Level 2 in spectator safety after having completed all the knowledge requirements in the classroom and some previous work experience. It is essential that they are assessed in a live work environment in order to complete their chosen qualifications.

"The nature of festival and event work is such that we often travel sleeping on coaches through the night with an early morning pre-event start – it is the nature of the business … It's hard work and not for the faint-hearted.

"We had staff travel from several locations and some arrived earlier than others at the meeting point, which I believe was London Bridge, which was why some had to hang around. This is an unfortunate set of circumstances but not lack of care on the part of CPUK."

The company said it had spent up to £220 on sponsoring security training licences for each participant and that boots and combat trousers cost more than £100.

The charity Tomorrow's People, which set up the placements at Close Protection under the work programme, said it would review the situation, but stressed that unpaid work was valuable and made people more employable. Tomorrow's People is one of eight youth charities that were supported in the Guardian and Observer's Christmas appeal last year.

Abi Levitt, director of development services at the charity, said: "We have been unable to verify the accuracy of the situation with either the people on work experience or the business concerned.

"We will undertake a review of the situation as matter of urgency. Tomorrow's People believes strongly in the value of work experience in helping people to build the skills, confidence and CV they need to get and keep a job and we have an exemplary record going back nearly 30 years for our work with the long-term unemployed."

Sandy
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 08:04:57 PM by henrik777 » Logged
AndrewT
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15483



View Profile WWW
« Reply #63 on: June 05, 2012, 08:07:16 PM »

Also, bear in mind that in the past 40 years or so, on every single occasion where the HoC and HoL have clashed and sent a piece of legislation back and forth between themselves (bar one - the anti-hunting bill), it has been the HoL which has had the viewpoint which was more in tune with the opinion of the public at the time (ie, the 'undemocratic' house which more accurately reflected the views of the people).

The system is really not as broken as some people seem to think it is.
Logged
Honeybadger
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1920



View Profile WWW
« Reply #64 on: June 05, 2012, 11:16:47 PM »

The thing is, even if the current queen does an ok job of being Head of State, representing our country, and talking to the PM at their meetings (I'm not saying she does or she doesn't btw)... well why should she be given this important job over others who might do even better than her? She didn't have an interview, has not proved that she is the best person for the job, and is not at all accountable. I bet Lil'Dave would do a much better job than she does.
Logged
TRIP5
If you can't say someting nice, at least try to be funny...
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1364



View Profile
« Reply #65 on: June 06, 2012, 02:44:07 AM »

Queen > 60 years

It's a good summer to be British

#Jubilee #Olympics #Rain

xx
Logged

TKP FOR APAT!!!
Acidmouse
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7624



View Profile
« Reply #66 on: June 06, 2012, 11:44:33 AM »

Most tilting thing ever over the past 4 days..

Not the fact I had to attend the local church celebrations and hob nob with the priests Sad or go to a street party right after, or the fact my house is getting rewired so we had to stay at my parents BUT the fact that twitter was filled with people complaining about the concert on TV yet feeling the need to whine about it for 8hrs straight and let everyone know via multiple tweets about each act.....I didn't watch it for a reason...
Logged
BangBang
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1111



View Profile
« Reply #67 on: June 07, 2012, 06:12:13 AM »

The boat pageant must have been the single dullest thing ever broadcast on television.

Boats, going down a river, for 4 hours.

That was it.

Never have so many TV presenters said so little, over and over again, for so long.

Well it was hardly going to be Wrestlemania was it... *Shakeshead*

Logged

"Look! There's a rhythmic ceremonial ritual coming up" ... Dr. Emmett Brown

https://twitter.com/#!/Steven_Sethi
https://www.instagram.com/stevensethi/?hl=en
snoopy1239
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 33034



View Profile WWW
« Reply #68 on: June 08, 2012, 10:21:39 AM »

The boat pageant must have been the single dullest thing ever broadcast on television.

Boats, going down a river, for 4 hours.

That was it.

Never have so many TV presenters said so little, over and over again, for so long.

Well it was hardly going to be Wrestlemania was it... *Shakeshead*



If Barlow suplexed Charles it would have been much better.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.307 seconds with 20 queries.