VIRII said:
What I am saying is that hereditary peers do not owe any grace and favours to any political party and tend to vote freely whereas grace and favours Lords chosen specifically for their kinship with the current PM are utterly pointless as they are not free thinkers.
Again you suggest that choosing representatives by hereditary means is not politically correct in your mind but do not offer a better system. In cutting off your nose to spite your face you achieve nothing. Your gripe is about how they are selected as opposed to how well they function.
They are appointed for life. The Prime Minister can't remove peerages. What evidence or reasoning do you have for this supposed sycophancy?
My gripe is both with how they are selected and function...you can't divide the two either. How they are selected will affect their functioning.
Please explain how I will "cut off my nose to spite my face". The hereditary peers were a joke. Have we lost anything by getting rid of them? The second chamber is more effective than ever.
Do you honestly think that a group of unrepresentative people with little political or legal experience are the best people to review our proposed laws? Are they well-equipped to scrutinise and challenge the excesses of the executive? Half of them were so uninterested that they never bothered to turn up, or when they did, fell asleep! Did having an inbuilt bias towards one political party over another make for good government? If hereditary peers meant that Labour laws had a much easier time, would you still be so keen on them?
I could understand if you were to debate with me over the merits of an appointed versus elected second chamber, but can you list even one advantage of having hereditary peers in the Lords?
VIRII said:
I prefer that to kow-towing, bowing and scraping to every tinpot PM around the world apologising for our colonial past and all that PC garbage.
I saw some pictures recently comparing Mrs Blairs reaction to how she greets other foreign dignitaries be they elected or hereditary or chieftan of an African plains tribe.
With the Queen she is upright, erect and almost looks down her nose, with ANYONE else she is a snivelling grovelling toady. Who the hell is she anyway, she is nothing and no-one, just married to a primeminister. I can't think of any previous partner to a PM who goes so far out of his or her way to be a celeb.
But no let's have more fo the sickening free holidays for the PM and his family, let's have more free flights, 2 jags for his mates and every other freebie and payrise they can muster.
If our elected Govt had an ounce of the level of Duty and commitment to this country that the Queen shows we'd be a far prouder nation. As for blowing money were you not aware that Blair just threw our EU rebate away for free. It'll get him a nice job later though in the European Parliament won't it. I can't see the Royals ever selling us out like that.
Hah. I won't disagree with you over the comparison between "First Lady" Blair and the Queen.
We're fortunate that Elizabeth does her job well, unfortunately I don't see the rest of them as being nearly as competent. This is the problem with the monarchy as an institution. At least if we elected a Head of State, we could change them if they no longer represent the country well.
VIRII said:
That notion only exists in your mind. You would just chuck out something that has served this country so well for so long because of your insecurities?
Even Cromwell wouldn't go as far as you.
Can we not have an argument without getting personal? Your language is loaded with jibes and manipulation of my words.
I don't have insecurities about the Royal Family. I wouldn't just chuck something out on a whim. Are we not carefully discussing the merits now?
As for serving this country so well for so long, who can say how we'd have done had we abolished the Royals a thousand years ago.
Do you really disagree that Royals are treated with a deference and respect that most of them do not deserve? One is expected to curtsey or bow when meeting them and refer to them by their titles. They are given powers and authority which they did not acquire by merit. Why is this? What have they done or achieved to warrant this other than be born into the family of Windsor?
