But it is amusing for me when the HoL rebuts the more right-wing and anti-poor folk legislation of a government. It is one of their raisons d'être! to get the HoC to think again. Elected governments with limited mandates, i.e. less than 40% of the electorate often need checks on their rather more extreme policies. Mind you, if the HoC sends it back to the Lords unchanged for a third time, it automatically becomes law anyway. The thing is Osborne can't reliably command a majority in the HoC given the nervousness of his own backbenchers.
I'm enjoying your replies, and your insights on how the UK government works. I've learned a lot from this thread!
My father was born a British citizen (although he was eventually naturalized a US citizen), so I feel my roots are in the UK, and I consider myself an Anglophile. :-) I'm also a fan of the Queen. As an American, I don't know if I actually have the right to an opinion, but from what I know, she's a pretty amazing woman with a strong sense of duty and devotion to her country. I really think the UK is fortunate to have someone like her on the throne.
Monarchy may be a "relic" of a past time, but it's changed and evolved a lot over the years. In its current form, it seems to have been working out just fine for the UK for quite a while now. When/if it stops working for them, I have confidence that they'll do something about it. :-)
I don't know enough about any other countries to have an informed opinion. But from liliaeth's posts, it sounds like constitutional monarchy is working just fine for Belgium. In the meantime, I honestly don't feel that we yanks have any standing to tell the UK, Belgium, or any other country that they need to get rid of their monarchies. That's not our call to make.
While in this instance, perhaps, the HoL was more in support of the plebs than the HoC.
That does not change, in the slightest, that power should not be an inherited right. I can't recall if it's Jackie Chan or some other decent-level movie star, who said something like:
"I'm not leaving my money to my children. If they are successful, they will not need it. If they are not successful, I will have wasted my money." (rough paraphrase)
This queen might be a nice lady. These house of lords members might be relatively benign.
The system is the problem. "oh but it's worked so well for us"
Kinda like mass surveillance, right? I mean, hey, so long as the authorities in power are benevolent, who cares if they are constantly tapping your phone or watching your web browsing history. Who cares if they put a tap on your phone! What--these are good cops after all!
I cannot fathom how the 21st century still has monarchs. And while England is by far not the worst example, I expect more from them. I know that Saudi Arabia is a kingdom, but I don't necessarily expect them to keep pace and actually live in the 21st century (I mean, women aren't allowed to drive? C'mon!--At least the King of Jordan was on Star Trek: Voyager (he was a prince at the time!)
But seriously--there's nothing special about the blood that flows through the queens veins. The house of lords are imbued with power they did not earn. They might wield it properly or improperly, but the system, the system is fucked.
The HoL only has 92 heredity peers out of some 800. Heredities were pretty much abolished over a decade ago.
Jackie Chan may or may not be right, that depends on externalities, such as the ability of young people, for example, to earn enough in their lifetime to buy a house. This is not possible in London, where house prices are many multiples (hundreds, even) of the average wage.
As for nation-state representation, well, in an ideal world we wouldn't have nation-states, and wouldn't need representing. But we're here now. And to my mind, one system may be as bad as another in terms of morality, but when it comes to functionality...well, Her Maj has seen presidents come and go for decades. She has fewer powers than any president, but strangely just as much influence, if not more: maybe due to continuity, but maybe for her obvious personal qualities.
I'm the sort of person who is of the opinion that if it ain't broke...
A decade ago! Well, ok, but still took till 2005. The blood you carry does not matter--we agree? Bloodlines are a piss poor way of handing down power.
"if it aint broke"
It is a broken model. There's a reason she was stripped of her power, right? Take it all the way, and bring yourselves one step closer to an egalitarian model of society. Why perpetuate a broken, antiquated, outdated, ineffective and blindly nepotistic model of government?
British monarchs have been constitutional since the civil war. Parliament is sovereign, and the monarchs have been figureheads who have rubber-stamped parliament's laws. Hence, the glorious revolution, the Hapsburg monarchy replacing the Stuarts, etc. It may not suit American mythology and the supposed horror of George III's reign, but it is still true. Her Maj hasn't been "stripped" of any power: she has never really had any. Neither have many of her forebears since Charlie 1. But she has had duties and has influence.
The dictatorship of parliament, like the dictatorship of any sovereign entity, can be objectionable. You chaps have an elected monarch with far more powers than our queen, and you don't really have a democratic electoral system, and your president almost always comes from an oligarchical upper-class, often from a family which has previously held tenure. I would hardly call your system egalitarian.
As is, your polity appears to be run by business. A corporatocracy, if you like. This is neither egalitarian, nor accountable: but it does appear to be the modern way.
Of the two systems, I know which one I prefer. You have your own preferences too. It's a diverse old world, isn't it?
Surely residing in the US doesn't mean I approve of our corporate fetishistic congress.
It's again, not about political power, but about political symbolism. There's nothing egalitarian in a figurehead queen.
Why not move towards egalitarianism? Monarchy, even figure-head monarchy, is a negative thing. They are anachronistic, and by no means a massive wrong in the worldwide fight for solidarity, fraternity and liberty, it is still a small injustice and it plagues me that so many people just find it so damned wonderful.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2015-11-08 08:28 pm (UTC)But it is amusing for me when the HoL rebuts the more right-wing and anti-poor folk legislation of a government. It is one of their raisons d'être! to get the HoC to think again. Elected governments with limited mandates, i.e. less than 40% of the electorate often need checks on their rather more extreme policies. Mind you, if the HoC sends it back to the Lords unchanged for a third time, it automatically becomes law anyway. The thing is Osborne can't reliably command a majority in the HoC given the nervousness of his own backbenchers.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-09 06:03 pm (UTC)My father was born a British citizen (although he was eventually naturalized a US citizen), so I feel my roots are in the UK, and I consider myself an Anglophile. :-) I'm also a fan of the Queen. As an American, I don't know if I actually have the right to an opinion, but from what I know, she's a pretty amazing woman with a strong sense of duty and devotion to her country. I really think the UK is fortunate to have someone like her on the throne.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-10 04:22 am (UTC)Maybe this queen is a lovely lady who is devoted and feels duty to her country. That's not the point.
That's like trusting a mass surveillance state because, ya know, *this cop* is a good guy.
The system! The system is the problem. Monarchy is a relic of a time when we thought your bloodline determined your worth. We know that is wrong.*
*India and their caste system is still working on this.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-10 03:47 pm (UTC)I don't know enough about any other countries to have an informed opinion. But from liliaeth's posts, it sounds like constitutional monarchy is working just fine for Belgium. In the meantime, I honestly don't feel that we yanks have any standing to tell the UK, Belgium, or any other country that they need to get rid of their monarchies. That's not our call to make.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-10 04:27 am (UTC)That does not change, in the slightest, that power should not be an inherited right. I can't recall if it's Jackie Chan or some other decent-level movie star, who said something like:
"I'm not leaving my money to my children. If they are successful, they will not need it. If they are not successful, I will have wasted my money." (rough paraphrase)
This queen might be a nice lady. These house of lords members might be relatively benign.
The system is the problem. "oh but it's worked so well for us"
Kinda like mass surveillance, right? I mean, hey, so long as the authorities in power are benevolent, who cares if they are constantly tapping your phone or watching your web browsing history. Who cares if they put a tap on your phone! What--these are good cops after all!
I cannot fathom how the 21st century still has monarchs. And while England is by far not the worst example, I expect more from them. I know that Saudi Arabia is a kingdom, but I don't necessarily expect them to keep pace and actually live in the 21st century (I mean, women aren't allowed to drive? C'mon!--At least the King of Jordan was on Star Trek: Voyager (he was a prince at the time!)
But seriously--there's nothing special about the blood that flows through the queens veins. The house of lords are imbued with power they did not earn. They might wield it properly or improperly, but the system, the system is fucked.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-10 05:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-11-10 09:31 am (UTC)Jackie Chan may or may not be right, that depends on externalities, such as the ability of young people, for example, to earn enough in their lifetime to buy a house. This is not possible in London, where house prices are many multiples (hundreds, even) of the average wage.
As for nation-state representation, well, in an ideal world we wouldn't have nation-states, and wouldn't need representing. But we're here now. And to my mind, one system may be as bad as another in terms of morality, but when it comes to functionality...well, Her Maj has seen presidents come and go for decades. She has fewer powers than any president, but strangely just as much influence, if not more: maybe due to continuity, but maybe for her obvious personal qualities.
I'm the sort of person who is of the opinion that if it ain't broke...
no subject
Date: 2015-11-10 09:49 am (UTC)A decade ago! Well, ok, but still took till 2005. The blood you carry does not matter--we agree? Bloodlines are a piss poor way of handing down power.
"if it aint broke"
It is a broken model. There's a reason she was stripped of her power, right? Take it all the way, and bring yourselves one step closer to an egalitarian model of society. Why perpetuate a broken, antiquated, outdated, ineffective and blindly nepotistic model of government?
no subject
Date: 2015-11-10 11:59 am (UTC)The dictatorship of parliament, like the dictatorship of any sovereign entity, can be objectionable. You chaps have an elected monarch with far more powers than our queen, and you don't really have a democratic electoral system, and your president almost always comes from an oligarchical upper-class, often from a family which has previously held tenure. I would hardly call your system egalitarian.
As is, your polity appears to be run by business. A corporatocracy, if you like. This is neither egalitarian, nor accountable: but it does appear to be the modern way.
Of the two systems, I know which one I prefer. You have your own preferences too. It's a diverse old world, isn't it?
no subject
Date: 2015-11-11 08:58 am (UTC)It's again, not about political power, but about political symbolism. There's nothing egalitarian in a figurehead queen.
Why not move towards egalitarianism? Monarchy, even figure-head monarchy, is a negative thing. They are anachronistic, and by no means a massive wrong in the worldwide fight for solidarity, fraternity and liberty, it is still a small injustice and it plagues me that so many people just find it so damned wonderful.