>>
|
No. 1373
[Edit]
>>1371
>The Upper House of the UK is superior in that it is not actually made up of politicians
even though the hereditary peers don't control a majority, there's still a lot left to be desired by a primarily appointed seat. for one, Lords aren't dismissed as often as MPs, creating a far lower level of accountability and competition - which is why they're always prattling on about nonsense issues none of the rest of the country cares about, if you turn on the tv.
> If the upper and lower house are both politicians then they are both subject to the same issue that any democratic body is
there's nothing wrong with a technocratic upper house, but that's decidedly not what the House of Lords is. it's largely a showroom for aristocrats and celebrities, the only people in there who have a clue about anything are the law lords.
>The British system for head of government is better as well. It means that you don't end up with a Donald Trump, riling up the masses and appealing to the lowest common denominator and then forcing the party to accept that sate of affairs and live with it or die. It's what has killed the republican party
The British executive branch is complex to keep track of and subject to immense change - I would say that ever since the union of England and Scotland we couldn't clearly point to a singular executive office holder. in the early 1700s, the monarch was still theoretically supreme, but the Bill of Rights and the precedent set by the Commonwealth suggested that there was really more of a doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, and it was well understood that parliament could, if it felt like, exercise executive power. then in the latter half of the 1700s and early 1800s, executive power drained further from the monarch as the right to crown land was ceded also to parliament, and around this time too the practice of the "First Minister" started, beginning a precedent that would share more and more executive power with this office. By the Victorian Age and the latter 1800s, ministers of the crown had separated somewhat from their parliamentary peers, forming the Privy Council. the Privy Council is probably the closest thing Britain has ever had to the executive powers of the United States, in fact since it also included for a time the powers that would later be given to the House of Lords and then the Supreme Court, it could be said to be even more powerful. here the precedent was set that the monarch exercised her powers with the advice of her Council only. power continued to solidify more and more in the hands of the Cabinet on the Privy Council until the first world war, when the real sleight-of-hand occured, as it were. here the government seized unprecedented emergency powers, and in order to exercise them freely, the Privy Council now operated much more independently from the monarch, and much more under the direction of the Prime Minister. sometime between then and the end of WW2, the Privy Council was phased out, but the executive powers remained properly in the hands of the Cabinet, and the wars had established the Prime Minister's position as head of that hierarchy. where before the Privy Council merely advised the Queen on how to use her powers, now "advice" means that she is legally obligated to use her powers as advised, when advised. So all in all I'd say that the Glorious Revolution inadvertantly abolished the effective power of the monarchy. As for the Republican party, well, the Founding Father's intentions, at least as I understand it, was that the office of the Presidency would not be reliant on parties. the party system generally is a bit of a perversion of the Anglo-Saxon principles of government. Having said that, I'm not sure if the defeat of the Republicans is necessarily all bad, it may lead to the rise of a more suitable alternative to the Democrats.
>Britain is the home of the Mall... Well the real mall, the good kind of mall, some German or other invented the US kind(and he regretted doing so). The British consumer culture was perfectly healthy. Any issue was more to do with the fact the the US was so large and the economy could expand so much rather than any problem with British shopping centres.
British shopping has since adopted the US model, since it is more efficient. healthy consumer culture is a whole different matter, but I think that has more to do with the human response to more efficiency - something the Brits will know all about from their experience with smog. the cost of building factories within reach of commuting workers was that industrial cities across the country were caked in black, a lot of it had to be physically cleansed under Atlee.
>Having a Lizard Queen is good, the only problem is she doesn't have enough power.
this statement feels like it belies a particular kind of person. if my guess it right, then I'd like to point out that the last time a Monarch tried to truly put their weight behind something was when Queen Victoria supported the Chartist movement.
>>1372
>You say that Europeans have been observing lighter skin tones than others since antiquity but remember, Europeans don't all have the same skin tone. Much of the time this observing was actually a Greek or Roman fellow commenting on how pale the fellows up north are.
therein partially lies the stupidity of "anti-dnc" posters, yes. it's obvious to anyone that there are many, many competing definitions of "white", and that there are fairly few clear distinctions.
|