Political Dynasties

[Silent Hunter]

Discuss.

US examples: Bushes, Kennedys.
UK example: Benns, Churchills.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How many political dynasties have M.P's in the Commons right now?

There's at least two in the Cabinet (Hilary Benn, Hillary Armstrong)

[ATFFL]

How many political dynasties have M.P's in the Commons right now?

There's at least two in the Cabinet (Hilary Benn, Hillary Armstrong)

Wait a minute here.  Your 2 active dynasties have members named Hilary in Parliament?  The Clinton dynasty (forming) has a hilary in Congress.

The Hilarys are taking over! 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How many political dynasties have M.P's in the Commons right now?

There's at least two in the Cabinet (Hilary Benn, Hillary Armstrong)

Wait a minute here.  Your 2 active dynasties have members named Hilary in Parliament?  The Clinton dynasty (forming) has a hilary in Congress.

The Hilarys are taking over! 

 
     Hillary                  Hilary

[Brambila]

I don't see a problem with political dynasties.

[John Dibble]

Some are good, some are bad. Like any type of dynasty, you do run the risk of corruption in later generations though. If power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and whatnot. I think the founding fathers would say bad, because it is somewhat like an aristocracy, though in our system it's an aristocracy we can vote away.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some are good, some are bad. Like any type of dynasty, you do run the risk of corruption in later generations though.

Say what you like about the Benn's, they aren't crooked

[??????????]

Some are good, some are bad. Like any type of dynasty, you do run the risk of corruption in later generations though. If power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and whatnot. I think the founding fathers would say bad, because it is somewhat like an aristocracy, though in our system it's an aristocracy we can vote away.

Many of the founding fathers were from dynasties.

[ATFFL]

How many political dynasties have M.P's in the Commons right now?

There's at least two in the Cabinet (Hilary Benn, Hillary Armstrong)

Wait a minute here.  Your 2 active dynasties have members named Hilary in Parliament?  The Clinton dynasty (forming) has a hilary in Congress.

The Hilarys are taking over! 

 
     Hillary                  Hilary

So?  Just because it is an egalitarian conquest does not mmean it should not be stopped.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

mmean

Was that deliberate?
'cos if it was you should have put "Shtopped" instead of stopped...

[ATFFL]

mmean

Was that deliberate?
'cos if it was you should have put "Shtopped" instead of stopped...

It was a happy accident I left.

[John Dibble]

Some are good, some are bad. Like any type of dynasty, you do run the risk of corruption in later generations though. If power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and whatnot. I think the founding fathers would say bad, because it is somewhat like an aristocracy, though in our system it's an aristocracy we can vote away.

Many of the founding fathers were from dynasties.

True, but they probably never thought about it much. If asked the question, they might have given an answer contrary to their own situations.

[??????????]

Some are good, some are bad. Like any type of dynasty, you do run the risk of corruption in later generations though. If power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and whatnot. I think the founding fathers would say bad, because it is somewhat like an aristocracy, though in our system it's an aristocracy we can vote away.

Many of the founding fathers were from dynasties.

True, but they probably never thought about it much. If asked the question, they might have given an answer contrary to their own situations.

Because they believed they were the only ones entitled to hold office. They believed the poor would never be capable of holding public office.

[John Dibble]

Some are good, some are bad. Like any type of dynasty, you do run the risk of corruption in later generations though. If power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and whatnot. I think the founding fathers would say bad, because it is somewhat like an aristocracy, though in our system it's an aristocracy we can vote away.

Many of the founding fathers were from dynasties.

True, but they probably never thought about it much. If asked the question, they might have given an answer contrary to their own situations.

Because they believed they were the only ones entitled to hold office. They believed the poor would never be capable of holding public office.

Care to back that up?

[??????????]

Some are good, some are bad. Like any type of dynasty, you do run the risk of corruption in later generations though. If power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and whatnot. I think the founding fathers would say bad, because it is somewhat like an aristocracy, though in our system it's an aristocracy we can vote away.

Many of the founding fathers were from dynasties.

True, but they probably never thought about it much. If asked the question, they might have given an answer contrary to their own situations.

Because they believed they were the only ones entitled to hold office. They believed the poor would never be capable of holding public office.

Care to back that up?

Only white landowning males over 21 years of age were capable of voting prior to 1804.

[John Dibble]

Some are good, some are bad. Like any type of dynasty, you do run the risk of corruption in later generations though. If power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and whatnot. I think the founding fathers would say bad, because it is somewhat like an aristocracy, though in our system it's an aristocracy we can vote away.

Many of the founding fathers were from dynasties.

True, but they probably never thought about it much. If asked the question, they might have given an answer contrary to their own situations.

Because they believed they were the only ones entitled to hold office. They believed the poor would never be capable of holding public office.

Care to back that up?

Only white landowning males over 21 years of age were capable of voting prior to 1804.

Touche

[The Duke]

Usually bad.  A lot of unqualified people get political careers because their daddy touched them on the head and named them their successor.

[12th Doctor]

Depneds on the dynasty.  I know that sounds like a cop out answer, but it is true.

[badnarikin04]

The worst things about dynasties is that they do give a sense of monarchy and complete morons get elected just because of their name.

I think you can think of an example for the latter. If not, here's a clue. His middle initial is W.

[Hatman 🍁]

Both our Premier and our Prime Minister come from political families.

Paul Martin's (our PM) father was a long time MP and unsuccesful Liberal leadership candidate.

Dalton McGuinty's (Ontario's Premier and my MPP)  father was our MPP before him, and his brother is my MP!

Come to think of it our mayor is in a political family too, although I'm not sure how they are all related.

[Gabu]

I don't personally like political dynasties as I feel that they allow lesser qualified people get elected purely because of their last names, but it would be decidedly undemocratic not to allow them to exist; the precedent that would be set by not allowing them would be much worse.

[DA]

I think it's better that someone vote based on relations to other leaders than based on who, "has the hotter daughter."

[Silent Hunter]

There's more in the UK. The Cryers (late father, mother and son all Labour MPs) and Nicholas Soames is the grandson of Winston Churchill, whose father was a Lord.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's more in the UK. The Cryers (late father, mother and son all Labour MPs) and Nicholas Soames is the grandson of Winston Churchill, whose father was a Lord.

Until very recently there was another dynasty with an M.P: Peter Mandleson is Morrison's grandson.

And there's also the Martin's: Mr Speaker's son is the Labour MSP for the same Glasgow seat as Mr Speaker