2018

>2018
>UK still has hereditary seats in its parliament
Explain.

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.com/news/uk-politics-21024828
youtu.be/lhtKFRnWko4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The hereditary lords produced far better legislation than the current house

my appreciation for Washington grows everything I read anything about Britain

England is the one of the few countries that doesn't have a constitution, because it can rely on its substance of traditions, you don't need it written down.
And in such a country the loss of this historical dimension, the loss of this substance of meaning is felt much worse.

The House of Lords is unironically superior to the House of Commons in every way because the system there actually forces the Lords to work together whereas in the Commons they just bicker like cunts.

I say this as a socialist as well.

Do the Lords have parties like the Commons?

Yes, but there are far more independents

Indeed. God bless America.

so does the queen do anything anymore? someone please explain the british government to me like Im a child

t. burger

Yeah - but you can't lose your peerage really by defying the party whip.

Means the Lords are a lot more independent and rebel and do cross party shit.

However they don't have a huge amount of actual power so the parties can afford to ignore them

Legislation wide what can a lord actually do?

Not many of them have partisan interests, they block bullshit legislation from the commons because they are wiser and not ideologically possessed. They are by definitions the elite and regardless of what your Social Science faggot professor tells you, elites know how shit works.

The UK does have a constitution, it's just uncodified.

The House of Lords (Upper House) used to be entirely hereditary until 1999 when Tony Blair kicked most of them out.
We now have a bizarre system whereby 90 or so seats in the house are reserved for hereditary peers and when a seat becomes vacant, an election is held among all the potential candidates to choose one of the to full fill it. So it's a tiny election where the only people eligible to vote or stand are those that have inherited titles.

Not really.

She is the living heart of the constitution and without her, the country would have to adopt some form of codified constitution and that'll never be agreed on, so her very existence serves an essential purpose.

She has a lot of ceremonial roles where she goes through the traditional motions of opening parliament, selecting a Prime Minister and signing of on legislation etc

She meets with the PM once a week so no doubt does offer advice although its up to the PM if they decide to take it.

She's been Queen long enough that if some rupture did ever occur between her and a government, I would bet she would win at this point it entirely depends on the issue.

Propose amendments, if the House of Lords agrees on the amendment then it gets sent to the Commons to be voted on. If the commons rejects the amendment, it goes back to the Lords (although only once).

codified constitutions are for brainlets

yeah, but Lizzys getting up there. What at the chances Labour lends londond in a "lets get rid of the monarchy!" altogether movement? I cant imagine they dont NOT want this, even if they dont outright say it.

Wish brazil had the american constitution including the limits on who votes

well looks like the white straight western males are the best at writing laws written by white straight western males.

Why?

The current leader of the Labour party is an open republican so... they do want it.

>The UK does have a constitution, it's just uncodified.
here we go

Our constitution is too bloated and contradicts itself, it extends governemt reponsability too much

Who do you want to limit their right to vote?

t. temer and corporate shill

Not officially, but many Peers are members of certain parties, though are not subject to the actions of the whip.

Because capability and intelligence is passed via blood and hereditary nobles have the resources and wealth to educate their offspring well

Why is that place so cramped?

Poor people
Everyone who gets government assistence

:)

>hurr durr why does the monarchy still have an aristocracy

This is what the British tell each other to reassure themselves. In reality, the Queen can veto laws and has exceptionally done so in the past, subverting democracy.

No law in Britain can be passed without the Royal Assent.

bbc.com/news/uk-politics-21024828

>subverting democracy
Parliament only governs at Her Majesty's Pleasure. There is no democracy to subvert.

>This is what the British tell each other to reassure themselves
The opposite is true.

>elites know how shit works.
Yes, they know how to import millions of subhumans and destroy the civil liberties of anybody who dares question it.

The absolute state.

The thread is about the lords who have in fact attempted to preserve civil liberties multiple times from an aggressive commons.

>he doesn't know the difference between the house of commons and the lords
Top brainlet post.

Wew lad

*imports an underclass of people to win elections*

What's that?

Literally what is wrong with this? They should all be hereditary, or, at least, they should have the same system and power they had in, say, 1770.
Democracy is fucking horrible. The masses are stupid and will vote for anyone with a silver tongue. If they are unhappy with their government, they should have the right to leave, not the right tot change that government.
Ancap monarchism will rule the world.

>The thread is about the lords who have in fact attempted to preserve civil liberties multiple times from an aggressive commons.
The absolute fucking state.

Be careful, lad. You could be arrested for that post.

They'll lose. Even with how unpopular Charles is, he'll still be king.
One, she has been, unfortunately, stripped of most of her power de facto, if not de jure.
Two, that is terrible. Her not having her rightful power, that is. Democracy is horrid.

>t. assblasted bong

And isn’t William very popular?

>Do the Lords have parties like the Commons?


Their parties are even better.

I think so, yeah.

Gerrymandering

go shitpost somewhere else, you aren't funny

Absolutel madman.

reassure myself?

fuck democracy, I bloody hope you're right.

Yes, they represent conservatism and stop the mad left.

This

The people would definitely side with her.

I don't know about this one buddy. At least not in London, where most people are staunch Republicans for some bizarre reason

That's simple, we're a meme country.

Despite what they may think London is not England and it's certainly not the whole UK. Anecdote wise, I've only met one republican in my entire life. Maybe I met more but it's not something you're open about.

youtu.be/lhtKFRnWko4

The above documentary is a good watch and I highly recommend anyone who thinks a hereditary House is a bad thing watch it. The old Lords was far superior to the current House, which while still retaining more independence than the Commons, is largely filled with party cronies and celebrities, instead of people who have a real stake in how the country is run.

It's the current year. Why do they still wear wigs?

>be ausfag
>parliament bickering too muh to pass a supply bill
>Governor-General (Queens represenrstive) dissolves parliament and holds an election
>everything works out ok
>be amerifat
>congress and president bickering
>can’t pass budget
>government has to literally shut down
>this is not a singular occurancen

The monarchy is based

You can have a Parliamentary republic without it being a monarchy, though.

See: Spain, Germany, Finland, etc.

>t. assblasted bong, still

>Spain
Spain is a monarchy.

>what is tradition, Alex?

>The UK does have a constitution, it's just uncodified.

eh its codified just not in a single document

What is Republican Spain?

there should be insurance against the general public making a mess of things

A defunct state with a different government system