7 ms·
It's definitely an article with a massive Tory slant. It doesn't really say why "it was no longer deemed possible for a member of the House of Lords to be prime
by toyg 3y ago
It's definitely an article with a massive Tory slant. It doesn't really say why "it was no longer deemed possible for a member of the House of Lords to be prime minister" - because the political winds had been turned by Labour after Churchill, forcing modernity upon Westminster. And it treats Tony Benn as a footnote, when he was arguably the strongest proponent of such arguments even before his father died.
Hogg and Douglas-Home simply rode the coat-tails of a great man for base self-interest, and effectively reneged their commitments a few years later.
- gadders 3y agoWhich great man is that?
- toyg 3y agoTony Benn, one of the best PMs Britain never got.
- gadders 3y agoNo. The only thing he was ever right on was Britain leaving the EU. He was a far Left agitator whose only policy position was "do the opposite of the USA".
- toyg 3y agoYou clearly have a limited knowledge of his experience, largely from his latter years. He was actually a pretty centrist element in Labour, until his experience as Postmaster General, Minister of Technology (delivering the Concorde), and other cabinet positions, made it clear to him how fundamentally undemocratic the British system was (and is). He then moved leftwards, and on many causes history proved him right - Iraq and Afghanistan to name a few, but also the need for abolition of the Lords, which continues to be plain to anyone who wants to see.
- robertlagrant 3y agoTory slant how? Cash for honours was a Labour scandal.
- toyg 3y agoThe Tories engaged in similar practices, before and after that scandal. Literally every Tory treasurer ascends to the Lords, together with lots of party donors, and Boris Johnson even got in his chum Lebedev despite opposition from the security apparatus. That's why that scandal is never mentioned nowadays: because things got even worse after 2010.