Samsung Galaxy S9 review
which means that the Chief Justice of the constitutional court will assume presidential authority for the time being.
The USA are stating it is not a coup because if it was a coup then they are legally required to stop supplying aid.
Is it a coup or a rebellion?
"Not if you believe that people should have a right to self-determination when it comes to being governed."
This has been discussed before. Very few Muslim countries, especially in Middle East ( I exclude Malaysia and Indonesia) have demonstrated a strong appetite for western democracy. Our "Best friends" in Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia show few signs of moving that way; Egypt seems typical of what can happen. Tribal rule prevails in many such places whatever we may wish.
Not if you believe that people should have a right to self-determination when it comes to being governed. Our system, the one you speak of in such scathing terms, is far from perfect, but look around the world and see how lots of other countries are governed, and you might realise that we're very lucky.
I am 'lucky' to live in a country that ignores the wishes of it's people and gives power to a bunch of people who were either born in to a titled family or were handed a title by a system that rewards who you know. A old boys/girls club which is an anathema in the twenty first century. We have had over the last few parliaments false election promises to reform this antiquated body yet it remains and increases in size year on year.
Nobody has imposed our system of government on us
So the House of Lords is not an imposition?
The leaders of Western countries don't decide what form their democracies shall take - the voters do, based on policies which are presented to them, come election time.
So election promises are not broken as a matter of routine here?
The old adage rings true,if "democracy worked they would ban it".
How can people keep stating democracy, because what is the definition of democracy?.
I believe the dictionary terms are something like "government by the people".
Yet every election time, whether that's a national or local, very few people bother to vote, and that's shown in the turn-out records.
Mainly I suspect is that they (the non-voters) are totally fed-up with politics and the politicians who usually get elected. Brushing aside the expenses scandal, and a few prison terms.
It's only the party faithful that can fully be relied on, whether we like it or not. And that's probably called a democracy?.
What now? should be we mind our own buisness and not start talk about aid/intervention/arming anyone etc.
Mind our own business.
Chronos the 2nd
"I am 'lucky' to live in a country that ignores the wishes of it's people and gives power to a bunch of people who were either born in to a titled family or were handed a title by a system that rewards who you know."
If the people of Britain felt strongly enough that the House of Lords should be abolished it would happen. The truth is that the bicameral system has historically worked well in this country, despite what its opponents say. If we were to have a unicameral system the power of the House of Commons would be considerably increased, and no doubt people like you would complain about that.
A fully elected second house would be packed with professional politicians, rather than the mix of experienced people we have now. People like Alan Sugar, for instance, would be unlikely to seek election. The country would also have to bear the considerable cost of additional elections. The House of Commons would lose its supremacy, and that would create all kinds of problems.
"So the House of Lords is not an imposition?"
No more so than is the Monarchy. The British people are accustomed to both, and both have their advantages. People all around the world envy our Constitutional system.
"So election promises are not broken as a matter of routine here?"
They are broken in every country that has an electoral system; the people of Britain aren't stupid - they know this, and it's partly why we need a strong opposition. It's how democracy works.
I think you're ranting out of prejudice without fully understanding the subject. I invite you to describe your preferred system of government - one that would work better.
If the people of Britain felt strongly enough that the House of Lords should be abolished it would happen.
And pigs might fly,
A fully elected second house would be packed with professional politicians, rather than the mix of experienced people we have now.
So it is not being stuffed with political placemen/women with Life Peerages for donating money to political parties or failed/former MPs, who use House as little more than a country club claiming vast sums in expenses quite often illegitimately.
I do agree a second chamber has a lot of advantages. They can moderate the first house, making sure nothing too extreme or radical is put into law. They uphold the constitution by ensuring any bills they see are amended or blocked if they go against basic rights.
On the other hand, by not being elected the Lords is less accountable - in some circumstances they can prevent legislation being passed, even if that legislation was introduced by the elected government with the support of the people. This makes the Lords not particularly democratic.
One last think I really do not like to have my opinion classed as a rant by you. I am entitled,as you are, to an opinion even though I might express mine a little more forcefully. Your attitude is both arrogant and pompous where for some reason you believe that because you have the title, Forum Editor, your views are more valid than any other contributors here. It might come as a shock they are not.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.