4 ms·

The purpose of a life peerage is status. If it confers negative status, then it's no problem to rename the House of Lords as the Senate and call them Senators,

The purpose of a life peerage is status. If it confers negative status, then it's no problem to rename the House of Lords as the Senate and call them Senators, a la Canada, instead of Baronesses. This is the case regardless of whether the opportunity is taken to restrict the prime minister's rights to choose his (soon, presumably, her) own public advisors on legislation.

notahacker 4y ago
But it doesn't confer "negative status". The solution to Americans jumping to the wrong conclusions about British institutions is for Americans to stop jumping to the wrong conclusions about British institutions, not for Brits to rename them along American lines. (And I say that as someone who would quite happily see the House of Lords replaced for reasons which have nothing to do with American understanding of it) Anyway, it seems like the clickbait here is "British" and the article would have taken exactly the same angle if her title was Senator.
- likeclockwork 4y ago
  Americans fought a war to keep British nobles out of their business. Whoever they may be over there, they're nobody here.
  - thinkingemote 4y ago
    This is the bait. It works to get people clicking and engaging with the content. Click bait won't go away because it continues to work as seen in this thread.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    And yet they're living rent free in the heads of Americans more interested in the British title of the founder of one of the organisations that co-sponsored the bill than the San Francisco based organization that was the other co-sponsor, or indeed what the bill actually says...
  - bloqs 4y ago
    Sigh. This is exactly the immediate emotional response this article is designed to provoke because the US doesn't understand the difference between a title that is inherited or a modern reward title for exemplary work in a field (like Sir Elton John)
    - jakupovic 4y ago
      We understand it very well and still don't want it. Your explanation doesn't make any sense, let UK politicians stay politicking UK.
      - petesergeant 4y ago
        She's not a politician, though. The central point remains, which is had the original headline said "Why is a prominent British film-maker Drafting [etc]" then nobody would have bothered clicking through. It's the allusion to posh British aristocracy in silly hats that's the disingenuity at the heart.
        stevenicr 4y ago
        I am seeing the side several are trying to point out, and sure, it's fine to educate on the issue or title inherited / given and what have you. However I must disagree with "Why is a prominent British film-maker"... nobody would click.. At least for me, and I assume many others in the US - Seeing: British X about Censorship - is a thing.. just like when we see British comedians talk about gun rights or British news people talk about Y thing. When it things in the Bill of Rights or similar documents, we are going to take influence differently than if it was British person X talks about Tea or Ships or something.
      - orf 4y ago
        > We understand it very well that the person in question is not a politician and has a peerage for their work in film and for childrens rights > However I am against this because we should let UK politicians stay politicking in the UK!!! That’s hilarious, you said you understand it very well then immediately made it clear you don’t understand it very well.
  - Veen 4y ago
    That makes no sense. If a person is an expert or has earned influence in a particular field, they don't lose that because they are awarded a life peerage. (And Americans in fact fought a war because they didn't want to pay taxes to fund their own defense)
- Mindwipe 4y ago
  > Anyway, it seems like the clickbait here is "British" and the article would have taken exactly the same angle if her title was Senator. Would it? Senators are elected and have democratic legitimacy, which Life Peers do not.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    Many Senates, including the original in Rome, are appointees with little or no democratic legitimacy and the person I responded to literally suggested a title swap. And I'm not sure the democratic legitimacy of the role she was appointed to in the UK has much to do with her entirely separate organization's involvement in petitioning elected politicians in California. If you want to argue for improving the UK legislative approval process by reforming its second chamber I'm all in favour, but that has nothing to do with 'OMG! British Baronesses! In our country' tone of the article.

notahacker 4y ago

But it doesn't confer "negative status". The solution to Americans jumping to the wrong conclusions about British institutions is for Americans to stop jumping to the wrong conclusions about British institutions, not for Brits to rename them along American lines. (And I say that as someone who would quite happily see the House of Lords replaced for reasons which have nothing to do with American understanding of it) Anyway, it seems like the clickbait here is "British" and the article would have taken exactly the same angle if her title was Senator.

likeclockwork 4y ago
Americans fought a war to keep British nobles out of their business. Whoever they may be over there, they're nobody here.
- thinkingemote 4y ago
  This is the bait. It works to get people clicking and engaging with the content. Click bait won't go away because it continues to work as seen in this thread.
- notahacker 4y ago
  And yet they're living rent free in the heads of Americans more interested in the British title of the founder of one of the organisations that co-sponsored the bill than the San Francisco based organization that was the other co-sponsor, or indeed what the bill actually says...
- bloqs 4y ago
  Sigh. This is exactly the immediate emotional response this article is designed to provoke because the US doesn't understand the difference between a title that is inherited or a modern reward title for exemplary work in a field (like Sir Elton John)
  - jakupovic 4y ago
    We understand it very well and still don't want it. Your explanation doesn't make any sense, let UK politicians stay politicking UK.
    - petesergeant 4y ago
      She's not a politician, though. The central point remains, which is had the original headline said "Why is a prominent British film-maker Drafting [etc]" then nobody would have bothered clicking through. It's the allusion to posh British aristocracy in silly hats that's the disingenuity at the heart.
      - stevenicr 4y ago
        I am seeing the side several are trying to point out, and sure, it's fine to educate on the issue or title inherited / given and what have you. However I must disagree with "Why is a prominent British film-maker"... nobody would click.. At least for me, and I assume many others in the US - Seeing: British X about Censorship - is a thing.. just like when we see British comedians talk about gun rights or British news people talk about Y thing. When it things in the Bill of Rights or similar documents, we are going to take influence differently than if it was British person X talks about Tea or Ships or something.
    - orf 4y ago
      > We understand it very well that the person in question is not a politician and has a peerage for their work in film and for childrens rights > However I am against this because we should let UK politicians stay politicking in the UK!!! That’s hilarious, you said you understand it very well then immediately made it clear you don’t understand it very well.
- Veen 4y ago
  That makes no sense. If a person is an expert or has earned influence in a particular field, they don't lose that because they are awarded a life peerage. (And Americans in fact fought a war because they didn't want to pay taxes to fund their own defense)
Mindwipe 4y ago
> Anyway, it seems like the clickbait here is "British" and the article would have taken exactly the same angle if her title was Senator. Would it? Senators are elected and have democratic legitimacy, which Life Peers do not.
- notahacker 4y ago
  Many Senates, including the original in Rome, are appointees with little or no democratic legitimacy and the person I responded to literally suggested a title swap. And I'm not sure the democratic legitimacy of the role she was appointed to in the UK has much to do with her entirely separate organization's involvement in petitioning elected politicians in California. If you want to argue for improving the UK legislative approval process by reforming its second chamber I'm all in favour, but that has nothing to do with 'OMG! British Baronesses! In our country' tone of the article.