Oh yes. In a century's time she'd make a fine Liberal Democrat spokesman.
Why don't we ask the Honourable Lady her views on universtiy fees?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Why don't we ask the Honourable Lady her views on universtiy fees?
Why don't we ask the Honourable Lady her views on universtiy fees?
I actually asked her that a few pages ago! She was clever enough not to answer.
You most certainly did.
Uhm yeah. I said that the only liberal about the NLP is that they were pro-free market. But that the rest of their party program are conservative.
And the Monarch vs. the elected government struggle is also a prime example of this. At least the president is elected by the parliament, but the monarch is not, and nothing suggest that he will be impartial. If we believe history we will see that they are indeed meddling in affairs of the government and trying to enforce their visions.
The answer is to get rid of the president post as a whole,mand base our system upon the one in USA.
The most recent example I can think of of a monarch meddling in politics more than perhaps usual would probably be William IV dismissing Lord Melbourne – in 1834.
Forgive me, Frau Howard – I thought the US had a very powerful president?
I truly don't get where you get the idea that the United States of America, a country with an impossibly powerful president, represents a system which does not include the post of president.
That's exactly why a president cannot be trusted to be impartial; because he's elected by parliament he is by definition a political figure! On the other hand, a constitutional monarch is by definition impartial because he is not a political figure. Who is logically more likely to intervene in politics, A party politician elected by parliament or a constitutional figurehead?
I'm not sure you understand how the American system works...
And then again the King of Prussia and the Upper House during the constitunial draft after the fornation of the North German Federation. And of course our last Kaiser.
Yes, but our chancellor will function as our equaliant to their President. Our President is nothing like the US President. We have in fact two of them
Make no sense as I have pointed out many times. The High Court will function as the organ that can dismiss laws if they are unconstitunial, and the Chancellor and his cabinet are the executive branch.
And then again the King of Prussia and the Upper House during the constitunial draft after the fornation of the North German Federation. And of course our last Kaiser.
Yes, but our chancellor will function as our equaliant to their President. Our President is nothing like the US President. We have in fact two of them
Our Chancellor is a Head of Government (Prime Minister), while Presidents are per definition Heads of State.
Of course, a President elected by parliament would never do something so bold as to intervene directly in our nation's democracy! :rofl:
It represent a system where you got three seperate powers! The juridical, the legaslative and the executive one. In Germany we have two executive branches and two juridical ones. The Chancellor would be the executive one (or we could name the post President, but that doesn't matter) both in effect and law, and should be seperated from the legaslative government. That is what I speak of, three seperate power branches, and not 3 of them and a Head of State that is a mix between executive and juridical one.
Never said anything against it Tanzhang
I have said I am against the post in it's current form. And the monarchs intervened thenselves, so this is just going in circles. You're discussing against yourself, as only you support a similar figurehead wher I support thatthis current form is cast aside.
Yes, and I want the Chancellor to be the Head of State and be seperated from the legaslative power. That is we're discussing two differnt forms of govenment
((To quote the man who will later be born as Stephen Morrissey "America is not the World".
))Many other nations have three separate branches of government. The United Kingdom, for example, with their Westminster system.
Never said anything against it Tanzhang
Howard, I'm asking you directly, liberal to liberal: which is more likely to intervene in our nation's politics on a regular basis, a party politician elected by parliament or a constitutional monarch from outside politics?
Somehow I get the impression you don't quite know our present system, which does know a seperation of executive and legislative powers - albeit that most laws are proposed by the executive branch, as it is in most (all?) modern societies. The president has no formal juridical powers beyond the presidential pardon, as far as I am aware. And I can't recall any president actually pardoning any one in our history.
((To quote the man who will later be born as Stephen Morrissey "America is not the World".
Many other nations have three separate branches of government. The United Kingdom, for example, with their Westminster system.
Yes. But they have the monarch and the upper house. Both of them which are greatly influencing the politics and vetoing laws. I want a system with clear definitions, and not some de-facto executive branches, and then a de-jure one etc etc.
Like Hindenburg dismissing the Republican government?
I just want to eliminate the extra set of government post, and to only have three branches: Juridical, legaslative and executive powers.
I disagree that the House of Lords is influencing politics at all outside of the vetoing of proposed bills (not technically laws.) Let us not forget that Herr Bolivar - no friend to monarchism, as you'll recall - was a strong proponent of a hereditary upper house on the grounds that it would be more impartial than an elected one. Imagine a situation where one party controls the upper house and another the lower! The government would grind to a halt!
The monarch does not influence politics. Members of the House of Lords can't even vote in Parliamentary elections, because they have to look at everything coming from the Commons! You can't get much more detatched from politics than that.