NationStates Jolt Archive

I went over the UK government. Some questions I gotta ask.

1. Does it seem that the UK government relies too heavily on traditions that date back to the 9th century? There's still a monarchy for crying out loud.

2. Does it seem nessecary to still have a King/Queen if the Prime Minister can act in the name of the Crown?

3. Does it seem safe that the Prime Minister/King/Queen can dissolve Parliament and call for general elections when he wants to or needs to?

4. Does it seem nessecary that the Executive branch members are also MPs?

5. Does it seem safe to lack a Seperation of Powers and a system of checks and balances between three houses?

6. A unicameral legislature DOES work for Britain, apparently...no?

7. Why must every law passed by Parliament be additions to the Constitution? Why not simply have a fixed Constitution?

Just my questions. Perhaps I'm comparing their government to our American one too much. *rant mode* Our government would be so much more effective, like it was when the current Constitution was first ratified when political parties were second to the matters of individual states....when people voted in the name of their respective state and not in the name of their parties. Damn, the Founding Fathers had it right until they forgot about political parties.

-snip-
1. No. It relies on some etiquette from then, but not on actual beliefs or structures from then.
2. If there wasn't a monarchy, there would be no crown, would there?
3. Yes. In fact, that's what happened in Germany just a few days ago.

1. No. It relies on some etiquette from then, but not on actual beliefs or structures from then.
2. If there wasn't a monarchy, there would be no crown, would there?
3. Yes. In fact, that's what happened in Germany just a few days ago.
1. Mmkay
2. .....Touche
3. Hmmmm...mmkay


I'm gonna go look at porn now anyway.

LOL. The real purpose of the internet reveals itself.

I went over the UK government. Some questions I gotta ask.

1. Does it seem that the UK government relies too heavily on traditions that date back to the 9th century? There's still a monarchy for crying out loud.

2. Does it seem nessecary to still have a King/Queen if the Prime Minister can act in the name of the Crown?

3. Does it seem safe that the Prime Minister/King/Queen can dissolve Parliament and call for general elections when he wants to or needs to?

It's not neccessary, it's just fun. Ultimately, the Queen has no power. She coudn't, realistically, just sieze power. We've had legislation to stop that since the Civil War.

And if there was no crown jewels, what would burgulers steal in all those low-budget heist films?

I went over the UK government. Some questions I gotta ask.

1. Does it seem that the UK government relies too heavily on traditions that date back to the 9th century? There's still a monarchy for crying out loud.

2. Does it seem nessecary to still have a King/Queen if the Prime Minister can act in the name of the Crown?

3. Does it seem safe that the Prime Minister/King/Queen can dissolve Parliament and call for general elections when he wants to or needs to?

4. Does it seem nessecary that the Executive branch members are also MPs?

5. Does it seem safe to lack a Seperation of Powers and a system of checks and balances between three houses?

6. A unicameral legislature DOES work for Britain, apparently...no?

7. Why must every law passed by Parliament be additions to the Constitution? Why not simply have a fixed Constitution?

Just my questions. Perhaps I'm comparing their government to our American one too much. *rant mode* Our government would be so much more effective, like it was when the current Constitution was first ratified when political parties were second to the matters of individual states....when people voted in the name of their respective state and not in the name of their parties. Damn, the Founding Fathers had it right until they forgot about political parties.


1: I don't really see any traditions that have a drastic effect on the way the country is run, just a bit of pomp and ceremony from time to time. I also feel the monarch has an important political role, that of ensuring a non-political figure at the very head of government which acts as a balance.

2: See above

3: I dunno, it's only been that way for several hundred years - if you seriously think we're going to allow our democracy to be removed due to a loop hole in parliament, well that's just silly.

4: Need to look into this more, because I don't have a clue what you're saying.

5: 3 houses? You mean the house of Commons, the House of Lords, and Buckingham palace? First off, the only house with REAL power is commons, the Lords work as a safeguard nuisance to them, and the Monarchy, again, works as a safeguard to ensure the whole thing doesn't get out of hand somehow.

6: Again, dunno what you're saying here.

7: A fixed constitution is a mistake. We haven't needed one ever, and look at the silly arguments the USA has about theirs!

As for your rant, well if people votied by region, nothing'd get done! the arguments would be worse, and lead to even more stagnation than normal. As much as a country "needs" democracy, it also needs a strong leadership if you want something done.


ALSO, the civil service is the REAL, real power in Britain, and anyone who says otherwise is... well.... wrong.

ALSO, the civil service is the REAL, real power in Britain, and anyone who says otherwise is... well.... wrong.

:cool:

It's the Sir Humphreys of this world who run our country...

nice to see an american taking an active interest in how our country works.... and not just assume that the Queen is still in charge like usual ;) :p


1. Does it seem that the UK government relies too heavily on traditions that date back to the 9th century? There's still a monarchy for crying out loud.
indeed. conservatives are, and always have been, important in UK politics - always fighting to keep the status quo and hang on to silly traditions. did you read about Black Rod and the opening of Parliament? its ridiculous lol
also don't forget that for a long time after the civil war (up until the latter Victorian times, probably), most MPs were aristocratic land owners, looking out for their own self interest. why else do landlords and property owners have so much legal power in UK law, while tennants have, until more recently, had sweet fuck all?


2. Does it seem nessecary to still have a King/Queen if the Prime Minister can act in the name of the Crown?
no.
She, and the rest of the royal family are sponges for public money - what was it they cost us? something like 62 pence each per year at the last count (not a literal 'queen tax' or whatever, but thats the net effect on taxpayers). thats 62p i'd much rather have in my pocket, thanks. and whats more they didn't work a day for what they have, and hence do not deserve it.
as for the politics of it all, rant aside, the monarch is a useful check/balance to the Prime Minister's power (in that we don't have a President like, say, France), but this role could be fulfilled just as well by a civil servant on a honest salary, not a fucking inbred bunch of wealth-hoarding elitist snobs.


3. Does it seem safe that the Prime Minister/King/Queen can dissolve Parliament and call for general elections when he wants to or needs to?
when you put it that way, no.
but in practice, the PM can't excersise total whim over this power, as abusing these powers is a sure way to loose votes. remember that the newsmedia in the UK is both highly cynical, sceptical and there's always a strong anti-the-current-government voice present, so its not like the PM could abuse these powers on the sly and hope nobody noticed or cared.
it essentially relies on the voters to be the check&balance in this case



5. Does it seem safe to lack a Seperation of Powers and a system of checks and balances between three houses?
three houses? there are only two in Westminster... that i know of :eek:
and the House of Lords is supposed to be the check and balances for the House of Commons, in that they can reject a bill before it becomes law and send it back to the Commons. however they can only do this three times before the PM can push the bill through, I think. but, once again, doing this is a sure way to loose votes & become very unpopular, and isn't done very much


7. Why must every law passed by Parliament be additions to the Constitution? Why not simply have a fixed Constitution?
i think i'll quote Jordaxia on this one: A fixed constitution is a mistake. We haven't needed one ever, and look at the silly arguments the USA has about theirs!
our legal system works just fine without a codified constitution. our consitution is also far more flexible than, for example, the US's in that you all always seem to judge a law or ammendment (or whatever) by asking whether its constitutional or not. here, we tend to judge a new law or bill (or whatever) on its own individual merits, as we have no constitution to desperatley cling to.
plus the written constitution in america is clearly a major part of your culture and history. Britain has more than enough history and (apparently) culture as it is without needing a constitution to give authority to our history


hmm i'm feeling oddly patriotic now... this is odd :confused: :p

1. Does it seem that the UK government relies too heavily on traditions that date back to the 9th century? There's still a monarchy for crying out loud.
Ninth? Where did you get that from? Anyway, The majority of Brits want the monarchy. I may not like this, but I respect the majority will here.

2. Does it seem nessecary to still have a King/Queen if the Prime Minister can act in the name of the Crown?
The 'Crown' error has been covered. If we didn't have a monarch, we'd need someone else to take their place. It's worth noting that 'Prime Minister' was originally an insult thrown at Robert Walpole; the position wasn't originally a leadership role but has evolved from there.

3. Does it seem safe that the Prime Minister/King/Queen can dissolve Parliament and call for general elections when he wants to or needs to?
I'm republican, but there really is no danger here. It's a ceremonial thang.

4. Does it seem nessecary that the Executive branch members are also MPs?[/quote]
Necessary? No. Is it necessary for them not to be? No. I have no real opinion on their efficacy.

5. Does it seem safe to lack a Seperation of Powers and a system of checks and balances between three houses?
Two houses, not three. Our system is safe (and surely has some checks and balances?). As for separation of powers, the UK system actually weakens the executive relative to the US. I'd say this is a good thing. However, the first-past-the-post system is clearly a failure of democracy and allows for an overly powerful executive. It's getting worse, too, thanks to Blairite authoritarianism.

6. A unicameral legislature DOES work for Britain, apparently...no?
The UK system is bicameral, not unicameral. The devolved Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly are, however, unicameral. The whole system works... sort of.

7. Why must every law passed by Parliament be additions to the Constitution? Why not simply have a fixed Constitution?
We don't have a constitution at all, as far as I'm aware. The original US contitution is a thing of beauty, but let's not forget the umpteen amendments. Personally, I'd like a constitution, though the European Human Rights Act has papered over a lot of the holes.

I should poitn out that I'm for widespread reform of the whole shebang, but I wouldn't favour an American system.

It's not neccessary, it's just fun. Ultimately, the Queen has no power. She coudn't, realistically, just sieze power. We've had legislation to stop that since the Civil War.

Not strictly true, as the armed forces swear alligance to the queen not the government or the state. Say there was a move towards dictatorship in Britain the Queen could fesably interveen, only tradition and etiquette provent her playing a more significant role in politics. See Queen Victoria.

Yes you are comparing the British government too much with the American government. Remember the US gov system is a copy of the French system.

Yes there still is a monarchy. As an Irish person I think the monarchy is useless and is only there for a bit of entertainment, but the British Public, not every one else still want them there so that is reason enough. Tradition is a big part of British (and Irish politics...i wonder why?! :) ) politics.

Most European states have the head of government and head of state separate. It gives the ppl (well maybe not in the case of a monarchy) more control. It also allows the PM more time to focus on domestic issues rather than having tea with some visiting diplomat.

I'm not sure I agree with the PM being able to dissolve parliament. It got Northern Ireland no where.

Ya I think an executive branch and MPs are necessary, again balance of power and all that. Remember most countries think that the US President is too powerful.

All your remaining points do come down to tradition. Only the Isle of man is tri cameral. Can't remember why. House of Lords is too traditionalised. However PM question sessions in the House of Commons is highly entertaining to watch. Overall no government is perfect. And this system works best. And lets face it...at least Blair isn't a tyrant!!!

And if there was no crown jewels, what would burgulers steal in all those low-budget heist films?

The Mukkinese Battle Horn?

Remember the US gov system is a copy of the French system.

...
Erm... it isn't. The US Constitution was adopted in 1787, when France was an absolute monarchy.

The US system is a first of its kind.

The UK system is bicameral, not unicameral. The devolved Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly are, however, unicameral. The whole system works... sort of.



An example of the system 'sort of' working is the fact that the Legislative Assembly ofr NI is currently suspended (again) and the 'province' is under direct rule from Westminster.

4. Does it seem nessecary that the Executive branch members are also MPs?
Yup, as it makes them directly answerable and accountable to Parliament, and therefore to the people. See Prime Ministers Questions.

Erm... it isn't. The US Constitution was adopted in 1787, when France was an absolute monarchy.

The US system is a first of its kind.


Sorry didn't make myself clear enough. Of course you are correct, what I ment by that was the idea of the American constitution was based on the French, some of the founders were heavily influenced by certain Frech revolutionists.

1. Does it seem that the UK government relies too heavily on traditions that date back to the 9th century? There's still a monarchy for crying out loud.

You think that's scary? The Queen can still pass laws, called Orders Of The Council, without parliament's approval. And before someone says 'But that doesn't happen any more', an Order Of The Council was passed just a couple of years ago (albeit at the request of Tony Blair, but still without parliamentary approval) to overrule the decision of the Law Lords (our highest court) that Diego Garcia should be given back to its former residents.

You think that's scary? The Queen can still pass laws, called Orders Of The Council, without parliament's approval. And before someone says 'But that doesn't happen any more', an Order Of The Council was passed just a couple of years ago (albeit at the request of Tony Blair, but still without parliamentary approval) to overrule the decision of the Law Lords (our highest court) that Diego Garcia should be given back to its former residents.
Exactly, it was at the request of the Prime Minister.

In theory the Monarchy has all these powers, but in practice they are excercised by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet...who come from, and are answerable to, a democratically elected Parliament.

In theory the Monarchy has all these powers, but in practice they are excercised by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet...who come from, and are answerable to, a democratically elected Parliament.

So the parliament can introduce legislation to repeal this law. But surely in a supposed democracy it can't be right that the Prime Minister can bypass parliament to get the law on the statute book in the first place? It's the parliament that represents the people, the Prime Minister exists purely for practical reasons (that's the difference between parliamentary and presidential democracy).

So the parliament can introduce legislation to repeal this law. But surely in a supposed democracy it can't be right that the Prime Minister can bypass parliament to get the law on the statute book in the first place? It's the parliament that represents the people, the Prime Minister exists purely for practical reasons (that's the difference between parliamentary and presidential democracy).
In most cases Orders in Council are provided for in each piece of legislation in the form of Statutory Instruments. So when Parliament passes an Bill it will contain provisions for the relevent Minister to make Orders in Council in accordance with the legislation.

For example, while the Northern Ireland Assembly is suspended, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland passed legislation for Northern Ireland by Order in Council...effectively he rules Northern Ireland by decree.

Orders in Council made under the Royal Prerogative (as opposed to Statutory Instruments) can be overruled by an Act of Parliament. These cannot be used to overrule Judicial decisions within the UK (i.e. affecting the UK itself), which is why the Diego Garcia Order was legal.

You think that's scary? The Queen can still pass laws, called Orders Of The Council, without parliament's approval. And before someone says 'But that doesn't happen any more', an Order Of The Council was passed just a couple of years ago (albeit at the request of Tony Blair, but still without parliamentary approval) to overrule the decision of the Law Lords (our highest court) that Diego Garcia should be given back to its former residents.
God, I forgot about that. Absolute disgrace.

Not that plenty of people haven't already answered these, but I just gotta have my say, you know? Just lurve the sound of my own voice... :D

I went over the UK government. Some questions I gotta ask.

1. Does it seem that the UK government relies too heavily on traditions that date back to the 9th century? There's still a monarchy for crying out loud.There's no rule that says a country can't have a monarch and still be progressive. Assuming so is just lazy.

2. Does it seem nessecary to still have a King/Queen if the Prime Minister can act in the name of the Crown?If the Prime Minister is to act in the name of the Crown then there's got to be a Crown for him to act in the name of.

But the point here is that it is the Prime Minister and the elected government that govern the country. The Crown is a ceremonial and legal representation of the country as a whole.

3. Does it seem safe that the Prime Minister/King/Queen can dissolve Parliament and call for general elections when he wants to or needs to?This power is used only as part of the legal process of elections, wherein Parliament is dissolved by the monarch in readiness for the election of a new Parliament. The common assumption, that the monarch has some latent power to remove democratic rule and assume sole control of the country, is a misunderstanding. In reality, national law would prevent this.

On the other hand, I might well ask if it seems safe that a US president can overrule the Senate and appoint what should have been an elected representative, as George Bush did with his new UN Ambassador?

4. Does it seem nessecary that the Executive branch members are also MPs?If by MPs you mean elected representatives, I would ask why not?

5. Does it seem safe to lack a Seperation of Powers and a system of checks and balances between three houses?Do we lack such things?

6. A unicameral legislature DOES work for Britain, apparently...no?If that's what we've got, then apparently so.

7. Why must every law passed by Parliament be additions to the Constitution? Why not simply have a fixed Constitution?We haven't got a Constitution as such. We've got a body of laws and principles that form something approximating a Constitution. And it's always been versatile and flexible, capable of being adapted when necessary - just as yours has. When everyone talks about something being contained in the "Somethingth Amendment", I think 'fixed' is a little too strong a word.

Just my questions. Perhaps I'm comparing their government to our American one too much.Definitely.

*rant mode* Our government would be so much more effective, like it was when the current Constitution was first ratified when political parties were second to the matters of individual states....when people voted in the name of their respective state and not in the name of their parties. Damn, the Founding Fathers had it right until they forgot about political parties.And here comparison is fair. The idea of parties to me seems contradictory to the principles of democracy, and an inherent limitation on the public's ability to control the running of their country. The abolition of the party system and the election of individuals standing on behalf of their local electorate seems much more appropriate. But then, as you see, I don't claim to be an expert in politics - just a citizen with opinions.

:D, ahh, thanks people. Now I actually know British reasoning behind this government. It's pretty interesting.

My brain was pretty fried last night so the question where I referred as there being 3 British Houses, I meant something completely different. But I don't need to ask the new question now.

Thanks *tips hat*

1. Does it seem that the UK government relies too heavily on traditions that date back to the 9th century? There's still a monarchy for crying out loud.

Hmm yes its also still legal to hang anyone found flying the Jolly Roger in British waters, to be honest its not really relavant.

2. Does it seem nessecary to still have a King/Queen if the Prime Minister can act in the name of the Crown?

In my opinion (although you'll find many who disagree) no. Although I'm noit sure if its a matter of still rather than a matter of what would you replace it with.

3. Does it seem safe that the Prime Minister/King/Queen can dissolve Parliament and call for general elections when he wants to or needs to?

Again largely ceremonial powers, technically the Queen could do this, but imagine the outcry, it wouldnt happen.

4. Does it seem nessecary that the Executive branch members are also MPs?

Interesting one, I think that question can simply be reversed since the American system was based on a book witten by a frenchman about the British system, except that either he got it wrong or it was interpreted wrongly thus, why you have your executive separate from the house of representatives, again in my opinion this makes the executive far less accountable to the electorate. In the UK Tony Blair is an MP like all the rest, he was voted in my the people of Sedgefield which is his constituancy, because of this any other MP has the right to question him about any of his policies indeed there is a weekly PMs question time in the commons where any MP can put questions to the PM on any topic, this sort of thing never happens in the US and is perhaps why US presidents and politicions in general are relativly poor debators (see George Galloway in Congress a few months ago)

5. Does it seem safe to lack a Seperation of Powers and a system of checks and balances between three houses?

See above.

6. A unicameral legislature DOES work for Britain, apparently...no?

There is the commons and the Lords, the Lords have relativly few powers and the house itself is becoming more and more democratic (see abolishing of hereditary peers)

7. Why must every law passed by Parliament be additions to the Constitution? Why not simply have a fixed Constitution?

Because you end up with the insane situation where gun control cannot be introduced because of a clause on a 200 year old document despite the fact that society has changed massivly in the time between

1. Because the UK has followed the evolutionary mode of process not the revolutionary. There are several coutries in Europe that are constitutional monarcies, it is not that rare of a system.

2. ? Why would there be the Crown if there was the monarchy? I am not a fan of monarchy, but it is supposed to be good for tourism.

3. I don't see the problem. I don't think that the Queen or King can do it without the consent of Parliament now. It is not odd that a Prime Minster or President can dissolve Parliament. In France, the President may dissolve the National Assembly (last time it happened 1997, worked against President Chirac). In Germany, it can happen as well, Chancellor Schöder intentionally lost a vote of confindence and the German president has annonced elections for September as he was asked to. It is not a bad thing if something happens that brings the legitmacy of the government into question, I think that sometimes it is only thing that is correct to do in such situations.

4. No, it is not necessary but it helps legitmacy. The PM and the cabinet are elected officals means to many that they are more accountable. In France, people have complained that the new PM has never been elected before, just a bureaucrat that has been appointed by the President. Though people seem less annoyed now that they think he is doing a good job.

5. The House of Commons does have great powers, but the House of Lords does have some powers. If you have too many checks and balances between governmental institutions, you have a powerless and conflicted government. Though many people dislike Blair, I don't think that many are worried that he is going become a dictator.

6. Yes and no. The House of Lords can prevent laws if they believe them too extreme and offer changes or just block the law.

7. Why does the UK need a fixed constitution? It makes the country more adaptable than most. It is not like the US constitution where is hard to get things into the constitution or remove the bad laws. The UK system is probably what is best for the UK, though I would be happier if the Welsh Assembly had some more powers. Each country has its own needs when it comes to the type of government that is best.