which means that the Chief Justice of the constitutional court will assume presidential authority for the time being.
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.
"And pigs might fly,"
Not much of a response, is it?
I repeat, if enough people seriously wanted the House of Lords to be abolished, it would happen.
"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."
For more than a decade that has been the classic response of people who rely on ranting aimlessly, rather than putting a well-reasoned argument. Their ramblings are challenged, and they resort to the personal insult - it's almost predictable. My views are certainly no more valid than anyone else's, but I'm prepared to argue my case cogently, rather than just banging away blindly, as you are.
What you haven't done, despite me asking nicely, is to set out a workable system of democratic government that you believe would serve us all better than the one we have. I'm not holding my breath, because I suspect that - like many people - you don't have an answer. You simply want to complain about the status quo. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you understand that ranting is exactly what it is. We all do it from time to time, the difference is that most of us don't resort to personal insult when challenged.
"For more than a decade that has been the classic response of people who rely on ranting aimlessly, rather than putting a well-reasoned argument. Their ramblings are challenged, and they resort to personal insult - it's almost predictable. My views are certainly no more than anyone else's, but I'm prepared to argue my case cogently, rather than just banging away blindly, as you are"
Now perhaps in fear of being chastised or treated like a school child, I feel that the above statement brings actual reality to what as happened on many occasions to various people. Forum Editor, if people tend to challenge you, then you often accuse them of rambling on or not understanding the point, as would seem you have done above once again. But have you ever considered that you might have the very same faults as others you accuse, because at times it would appear not.
You have often accused me, very robustly of 'not understanding' 'getting things wrong' 'not having the facts' 'talking rubbish' 'being stupid''rambling on''being aimless' and the personal insults, and that's what they are, can get extremely offensive, tiresome, selfish and boring.
Forum Editor - I rest my case.
That "Religion and Politics do not mix" is an old saying which has been proved again and again to be correct throughout history
the recent Egyptian experience has certainly not changed this
to be fair to them they had no way to know this and largely voted based on what they were told to in the Mosque`s
it did not take too long for most of them to realise they had done things wrongly but did not have the luxury of time to prevent what is an imminent economic disaster
a very large portion of their GDP around half was disappearing very rapidly with the tourists as they head elsewhere
Back to the subject of Egypt, I notice reports are coming out of Egypt about friendly fire from the military killing a few people?.
There's even a well known 'war' correspondent who received a few buckshot wounds, and he may have now left the country!.
I suppose it all comes down to it being the Middle East, and some people are still living in the dark ages, while others are very much 21st century?.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.