On Jun 5, 11:32*am, Mihangel Goch wrote:
On Jun 5, 8:32*am, 77002 wrote:





On Jun 4, 11:36*pm, Mihangel Goch wrote:

On Jun 4, 11:14*pm, Dave Jackson wrote:

On 04/06/2012 21:36, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:
How long would a directly elected president last before being in total
disagreement with the directly elected Prime Minister. Sounds like a
recipe for disaster to me. Likewise, reforming the House of Lords and
having elected peers is heading for problems eventually.

Plenty of countries have elected Presidents who carry out the same
kind of duties as a monarch. Our nearest neighbours, Ireland, seem to
get by with such a system, as does Germany. They are titular heads of
state but have no executive power, unlike the US which elects a
'Supreme Commander'. There are many different forms of government but
unelected members should have no power at all.

So, you want all lawmakers to act with one eye on their re-election
prospects. *That is a recipe for bad legislation and corruption. *A
body that reviews laws, sans personal interest, is invaluable.

If you wish to have a
bi-cameral system then hereditary peers should have no business being
there. Some of our European partners have monarchs asheads of state,
for example, Belgium, Spain, Denmark and The Netherlands and they
perform the same ceremonial role as QE2 or the President of German
Federal Republic.

Grow up and peddle your political views on a different
platform.

That is not my definition of a 'political view'. Are you seriously
suggesting that any of the above named countries has a poor system of
government that could be improved by the addition of hereditary
peers? *Because somebody inherits an Earldom, or whatever, does not
automatically endow them with inbuilt wisdom and that they might not
have 'personal interests'. But neither does it mean that someone who
has been elected is any better. The difference is that you can get rid
of him/her if you are not satisfied. You seem to think that anyone who
disagrees with you is beyond the pale, or as you put it ...........

'Yet, you left wing killjoys do not let up. *Spiteful and jealous as
always, you are not just bad and foolish people, you are thoroughly
unpleasant people, soulless,and joyless.'

You might remember that the main point of this discussion was whether
or not 'The Flotilla' was a success. The general opinion on this forum
and 'on the street' is that it was not. No one is blaming the Queen;
hereditary peers or even this government. You have chosen to make it
political. The monarch is supposed to be above politics so why not
take that as your standard instead of denigrating other contributors
as being spiteful; jealous; bad; foolish; thoroughly unpleasant;
soulless and joyless.

Hey, I was not the guy who took this thread political. That said, I
will not sit by and let the left monoplolize.