Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #16 
Well, that makes everything alright then. Now can we please have no further discussion of Libya on a thread concerned with the British House of Lords, reform thereof.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #17 
By-elections of hereditary members of the House of Lords will be abolished:
http://presstories.com/2020/03/13/house-of-lords-attempts-to-eliminate-ridiculous-hereditary-by-elections-of-peers/

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,851
Reply with quote  #18 
That's just what we need: more of a role for the Life Peers. We'd do better with abolishing them. It's not the Hereditary Peers who are the problem in the current Lords, but the ex-politicians and cronies.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #19 
Let's hope this stupid piece of mischief fails, just as previous attempts have.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
That's just what we need: more of a role for the Life Peers. We'd do better with abolishing them. It's not the Hereditary Peers who are the problem in the current Lords, but the ex-politicians and cronies.

Respected retired politicians, such as former prime ministers, deserve to become life peers. Former presidents of Italy are members of the Senate of Italy for life. 
Royallover

Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #21 
That's not a good thing it just cheapens what it means to be a peer and they infect the rest with their liberalism.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,851
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

Respected retired politicians, such as former prime ministers, deserve to become life peers. Former presidents of Italy are members of the Senate of Italy for life. 


Ah, Italy, that pinnacle of human governance. We have had over two decades of trialling a House of Lords dominated by the Life Peers. It hasn't gone well. We aren't just talking about former Prime Ministers, but all sorts of failed politicians, cronies, and apparatchiks. Your points predictably show a lack of understanding of the actual British experience.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #23 
Life peerages are a joke. Spain still awards hereditary peerages to a variety of people, both inside and outside of politics, but it has greater prestige and dignity.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV
Life peerages are a joke. Spain still awards hereditary peerages to a variety of people, both inside and outside of politics, but it has greater prestige and dignity.

The hereditary peers of Spain fortunately aren't members of the Senate of Spain. The Senate of Spain is democratically elected. Spain is a modern democracy, unlike Britain. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #25 
It's actually partly elected and partly appointed, the choice in the latter case being made by local legislative assemblies. Britain should indeed gaze in awe at Spain's unbroken record of democratic governance, stretching back all the way to 1978. We only properly got started in the 17th century, a very poor effort in comparison.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
It's actually partly elected and partly appointed, the choice in the latter case being made by local legislative assemblies. Britain should indeed gaze in awe at Spain's unbroken record of democratic governance, stretching back all the way to 1978. We only properly got started in the 17th century, a very poor effort in comparison.

Britain hasn't been a democracy since the 17th century. The British working class wasn't enfranchised before 1867. Spain is currently more democratic than Britain, because all members of the Cortes (parliament) of Spain are democratically elected. Indirect elections are democratic.
I'm a staunch supporter of equality before the law. Legal privileges of nobility are incompatible with equality before the law. Granting legal privileges to the royal family isn't comparable to granting legal privileges to the nobility, because granting legal privileges to a single family doesn't establish a rigidly hierarchical society. The king is a unifying national symbol, but the peers aren't unifying national symbols.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,851
Reply with quote  #27 
I think anyone would struggle to say with a straight face that Spain is better governed than Britain, which is surely what matters most. It isn't necessarily rigidly hierarchical to have one branch of government that includes those representing the landed aristocracy.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #28 
I'm a staunch opponent of this troll continuing to trouble the forum. I did say 'got started'. I did not say 'since'.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #29 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I think anyone would struggle to say with a straight face that Spain is better governed than Britain, which is surely what matters most. It isn't necessarily rigidly hierarchical to have one branch of government that includes those representing the landed aristocracy.

The nobility being granted any legal privileges is unacceptable to me, even if it doesn't harm the society, because the principle of the nobles and the commoners having equal rights must be upheld without any exceptions. The Weimar Constitution abolished all legal privileges of the German nobility without any exceptions. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #30 
And we all know how the Weimar Republic ended up, don't we. Well, all of us but one, perhaps. Turning again to Spain, since the end of the Napoleonic Wars it has been a constitutional monarchy, an absolute monarchy, a constitutional monarchy again, an absolute monarchy again, a constitutional monarchy again, a different constitutional monarchy, a republic, a constitutional monarchy again, a dictatorship under a monarchy, a republic again, a dictatorship and a constitutional monarchy again. During the same period Britain has been a constitutional monarchy. I might have missed out or muddled up a phase or two with Spain, pretty sure I got them all in the right order for Britain. During those two centuries Spain had four (4) civil wars. And during those two centuries Britain had no (0) civil wars. From an objective point of view, which of the two countries would you say provides a better example of governance?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.