Representation doesn't seem to change parliament's basic character. Apparently the house of commons dates to 1295?
-
-
Replying to @Alrenous
and universal adult male suffrage dates to 1918. Why say it wouldn't change the character? I think I'm totally missing your point
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @anomalyuk
If you're passing a bill of rights it's fundamentally a modern democracy. Mill was justifying stuff that was already happening.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Alrenous @anomalyuk
Parliaments everywhere have the same pathologies. Expanding the franchise doesn't change them, merely exacerbates them.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Alrenous
"Bill of Rights" was a bilateral deal between generally powerful people in the country and a Dutchman who showed up with an army.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @anomalyuk
"restates—certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people, as represented in Parliament."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Alrenous @anomalyuk
So who today would call it representative? The massively whig editors of La Wik, for one.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Alrenous
They like to imply democracy has a longer history than it does: less than 5% of adult males had a vote.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @anomalyuk
And that is apparently that is plenty for achieving all demotist pathologies.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Alrenous
It lasted longer than any full-suffrage democracy ever has. Still, England never recovered fully from the Civil War, I admit that.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I interpret the pre-Civil War "Medieval English Structure" in http://anomalyuk.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/constitutions.html … .
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.