5 ms·

Isn't Britain a Constitutional Monarchy? Did they forget that? There's still the House of Lords and the House of Commons for a reason. The monarchy and the l

Isn't Britain a Constitutional *Monarchy*? Did they forget that? There's still the House of Lords and the House of Commons for a reason. The monarchy and the landowners are still a thing and are still a ruling class.

LatteLazy 6y ago
People keep assuming it's a democracy and they're often told they are in charge, then somehow things never go their way...
- meepmorp 6y ago
  That's kind of the fault of voters, the political class, and the media, though. The Queen's practical impact on the situation is practically nil.
  - dhosek 6y ago
    Did you read the article? Apparently what is widely assumed to be a pro forma aspect of the legislative process has, in fact, been used to make substantive changes to legislature before it's even presented to parliament and this is done in a manner outside of public view.
    - thesuitonym 6y ago
      On the other hand, is this process really that different than the usual process of legislation being crafted in private by people who aren't the Queen before it's presented? It is worrying that the Queen can just say no before legislation gets off the ground, but that's true of many of the more powerful MPs, too. I'm in the US, so I'm not exactly familiar with the process on your side of the pond, but over here, we have legislation stopped before pen hits paper simply because it's clear that the current leaders will never allow a vote on it. That is a broken system, yes, but given the length of time people in those positions tend to serve (and I use that term lightly), it doesn't seem like the Queen's influence is much more. And at least her input doesn't suffer from being completely partisan. To be abundantly clear: I don't think this is right, I just don't think it's very different than any other politician impeding democracy. Kings and Queens can and have been voted out, too.
      - matthewdgreen 6y ago
        I think it’s different because the MPs are specifically elected by the public to propose (or block) legislation, and the hierarchy of Parliament is in turn determined by the votes of same elected officials. The Queen isn’t elected. By the same argument you could say that it’s fine for me to have a veto over British legislation, and I assure you that it would not be.
      - alasdair_ 6y ago
        >It is worrying that the Queen can just say no before legislation gets off the ground The commonly-held belief in the UK is that the Queen gets to do this exactly one time before she is abolished completely, on the assumption that millions of people would riot if she used her power in such a direct fashion without a truly extreme reason (like a nuke blowing up Westminster or something).
        spacedcowboy 6y ago
        Yep, and it's seen as a last bastion before a malevolent (even if elected) government invokes tyranny. She'd have to be so sure that the populace would be behind her, and willing to risk the very existence of the monarchy. It'd take stopping a really "bad" thing for her to take that risk.
    - notahacker 6y ago
      The article links to this which itemises what the three known instances were. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbie... So the Queen's advisers lobbied for a royal commission to not be possible to scrap by executive order (but it was scrapped anyway), for the royal estates to be exempt from road traffic regulation (all private land is) and some Queen's Estate representatives threatened to complain to a senior minister in a meeting with civil servants about the impact of a bill which the Queen gave assent to anyway. Over the space of half a century. If there are other instances where royal representatives were a roadblock rather than on of many special interests whose opinion they humour, the incentives for politicians to publicise them are strong. I think that's more consistent with the monarch's impact being "practically nil" than her being the reason things never go people's way. There's an argument that's more legislative discussion than the representatives of a ceremonial monarch should be participating in, but you don't pressure civil servants by threatening to tell the Chancellor you're gravely concerned if you're actually pulling the strings.
    - meepmorp 6y ago
      Royal powers went away in 1689. The Queen's role here is entirely pro forma, and she cannot alter legislation. The fact that governments have sought her approval on matters, despite not being required to do so, isn't remotely surprising. And if you didn't care about the state providing a privileged life for the royals before, why would you care now? The fact is, not enough people care enough to make it a political priority.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Royal powers went away in 1689. More to the point, virtually all royal powers can, by tradition which is as strong as fundamental law, if not as clear on how you might amend it, be used only on the advice of (which in practice means at the direction of) of various bodies of Government, mostly the Cabinet wearing different hats. The Crown just provides a bit of formal distance from the acts for the actual actors (but, being as it's been true for so long, that probably doesn't mean much in terms of practical accountability.)
  - toiletfuneral 6y ago
    If she’s useless and using up resources, I would suggest you get rid of her.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    Except she has been repeatedly caught using the situation to her advantage and she presides over the whole mess...
gowld 6y ago
This is addressed in the article.
subsubzero 6y ago
It seems like there are two groups of lords, one group has been heavily shown in the media(think Downton Abby or the aristocratic family having to sell or have tours of their estate). The other set of lords is not really shown in media and they are large landowners in London and other cities in Britain and are extremely wealthy and powerful, see the Grosvenor family - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_Westminster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_We...
- willyt 6y ago
  Not really. You don’t have to be a landowner or an aristocrat to become a lord. The ‘Downtown Abbey’ style lords, called ‘hereditary peers’ are on their way out, there’s not many left. Most peers are appointed by the government of the day supposedly as a result of doing something useful for the country as a whole. I think that certain members of the clergy become peers by default, likewise top judges, ‘The Law Lords’? Otherwise the majority of appointed peers, who are given the title of “Lord” or “Baroness” when they are appointed, are politicians that have been promoted out of the way of the young crew coming up, retired senior lawyers, judges, business people, doctors that sort of thing. Once appointed you are a Lord for the rest of your life. So the House of Lords is democratic in the sense that lords are appointed by elected politicians, but its less democratic than say the European Commission, where commissioners are also appointed by elected governments but have a fixed term of office. Which is less democratic than the Houses of Parliament, which is less democratic than a proportionally elected government like the Germans have and so on, but I digress. Basically its a continuation of the idea that the British state has had the ability to create Lords for thousands of years, but now they don’t pass the title on to their children and they dont get given a bit of land to build a castle on. I think there are probably a few hereditary peers that are actually just the great great grandchildren of very successful Victorian businessman, just because they have the title ‘Lord’ does not necessarily of aristocratic lineage dating back to William the Conquerer.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    814 hereditary peers left, half barons.
laurencerowe 6y ago
The House of Lords has included many political appointees since 'Life Peers' were created in 1958. Hereditary peers were mostly removed from the House of Lords in 1999, though a small rump of 92 remained as a motivation to decide for the long term whether it should be appointed or elected.
draw_down 6y ago
Fine with me, I just think they should just stop pretending they have a democracy.

Isn't Britain a Constitutional *Monarchy*? Did they forget that? There's still the House of Lords and the House of Commons for a reason. The monarchy and the l

LatteLazy 6y ago

People keep assuming it's a democracy and they're often told they are in charge, then somehow things never go their way...

meepmorp 6y ago
That's kind of the fault of voters, the political class, and the media, though. The Queen's practical impact on the situation is practically nil.
- dhosek 6y ago
  Did you read the article? Apparently what is widely assumed to be a pro forma aspect of the legislative process has, in fact, been used to make substantive changes to legislature before it's even presented to parliament and this is done in a manner outside of public view.
  - thesuitonym 6y ago
    On the other hand, is this process really that different than the usual process of legislation being crafted in private by people who aren't the Queen before it's presented? It is worrying that the Queen can just say no before legislation gets off the ground, but that's true of many of the more powerful MPs, too. I'm in the US, so I'm not exactly familiar with the process on your side of the pond, but over here, we have legislation stopped before pen hits paper simply because it's clear that the current leaders will never allow a vote on it. That is a broken system, yes, but given the length of time people in those positions tend to serve (and I use that term lightly), it doesn't seem like the Queen's influence is much more. And at least her input doesn't suffer from being completely partisan. To be abundantly clear: I don't think this is right, I just don't think it's very different than any other politician impeding democracy. Kings and Queens can and have been voted out, too.
    - matthewdgreen 6y ago
      I think it’s different because the MPs are specifically elected by the public to propose (or block) legislation, and the hierarchy of Parliament is in turn determined by the votes of same elected officials. The Queen isn’t elected. By the same argument you could say that it’s fine for me to have a veto over British legislation, and I assure you that it would not be.
    - alasdair_ 6y ago
      >It is worrying that the Queen can just say no before legislation gets off the ground The commonly-held belief in the UK is that the Queen gets to do this exactly one time before she is abolished completely, on the assumption that millions of people would riot if she used her power in such a direct fashion without a truly extreme reason (like a nuke blowing up Westminster or something).
      - spacedcowboy 6y ago
        Yep, and it's seen as a last bastion before a malevolent (even if elected) government invokes tyranny. She'd have to be so sure that the populace would be behind her, and willing to risk the very existence of the monarchy. It'd take stopping a really "bad" thing for her to take that risk.
  - notahacker 6y ago
    The article links to this which itemises what the three known instances were. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbie... So the Queen's advisers lobbied for a royal commission to not be possible to scrap by executive order (but it was scrapped anyway), for the royal estates to be exempt from road traffic regulation (all private land is) and some Queen's Estate representatives threatened to complain to a senior minister in a meeting with civil servants about the impact of a bill which the Queen gave assent to anyway. Over the space of half a century. If there are other instances where royal representatives were a roadblock rather than on of many special interests whose opinion they humour, the incentives for politicians to publicise them are strong. I think that's more consistent with the monarch's impact being "practically nil" than her being the reason things never go people's way. There's an argument that's more legislative discussion than the representatives of a ceremonial monarch should be participating in, but you don't pressure civil servants by threatening to tell the Chancellor you're gravely concerned if you're actually pulling the strings.
  - meepmorp 6y ago
    Royal powers went away in 1689. The Queen's role here is entirely pro forma, and she cannot alter legislation. The fact that governments have sought her approval on matters, despite not being required to do so, isn't remotely surprising. And if you didn't care about the state providing a privileged life for the royals before, why would you care now? The fact is, not enough people care enough to make it a political priority.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Royal powers went away in 1689. More to the point, virtually all royal powers can, by tradition which is as strong as fundamental law, if not as clear on how you might amend it, be used only on the advice of (which in practice means at the direction of) of various bodies of Government, mostly the Cabinet wearing different hats. The Crown just provides a bit of formal distance from the acts for the actual actors (but, being as it's been true for so long, that probably doesn't mean much in terms of practical accountability.)
- toiletfuneral 6y ago
  If she’s useless and using up resources, I would suggest you get rid of her.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Except she has been repeatedly caught using the situation to her advantage and she presides over the whole mess...

gowld 6y ago

This is addressed in the article.

subsubzero 6y ago

It seems like there are two groups of lords, one group has been heavily shown in the media(think Downton Abby or the aristocratic family having to sell or have tours of their estate). The other set of lords is not really shown in media and they are large landowners in London and other cities in Britain and are extremely wealthy and powerful, see the Grosvenor family - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_Westminster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_We...

willyt 6y ago
Not really. You don’t have to be a landowner or an aristocrat to become a lord. The ‘Downtown Abbey’ style lords, called ‘hereditary peers’ are on their way out, there’s not many left. Most peers are appointed by the government of the day supposedly as a result of doing something useful for the country as a whole. I think that certain members of the clergy become peers by default, likewise top judges, ‘The Law Lords’? Otherwise the majority of appointed peers, who are given the title of “Lord” or “Baroness” when they are appointed, are politicians that have been promoted out of the way of the young crew coming up, retired senior lawyers, judges, business people, doctors that sort of thing. Once appointed you are a Lord for the rest of your life. So the House of Lords is democratic in the sense that lords are appointed by elected politicians, but its less democratic than say the European Commission, where commissioners are also appointed by elected governments but have a fixed term of office. Which is less democratic than the Houses of Parliament, which is less democratic than a proportionally elected government like the Germans have and so on, but I digress. Basically its a continuation of the idea that the British state has had the ability to create Lords for thousands of years, but now they don’t pass the title on to their children and they dont get given a bit of land to build a castle on. I think there are probably a few hereditary peers that are actually just the great great grandchildren of very successful Victorian businessman, just because they have the title ‘Lord’ does not necessarily of aristocratic lineage dating back to William the Conquerer.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  814 hereditary peers left, half barons.

laurencerowe 6y ago

The House of Lords has included many political appointees since 'Life Peers' were created in 1958. Hereditary peers were mostly removed from the House of Lords in 1999, though a small rump of 92 remained as a motivation to decide for the long term whether it should be appointed or elected.

draw_down 6y ago

Fine with me, I just think they should just stop pretending they have a democracy.