h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Does the Queen create them?
Are they historical or pre-democratic political units?
Could a government decide its majority is insufficient and make more of them? How many are there?

Are there as many members of the House of Lords as meet its qualifications and choose to sit?

The shape and size of the constituencies is decided by the Boundary Commision abd they are constantly changing to refelct teh shift in population.

They stem from the old constituencies and pocket boroughs of the 19th C and before which were not democratic at all. However these days they try to be representative of an equalish nuimber of people however sometimes geographical constraints especially in some of the more remote areas (Highlands and Islands of Scotland for example) make this impossible.

The House of Lords is different as until recently all Hereditary Peers some of which have passed from father to son since the Norman Conquest were allowed to sit in the House of Lords. Now there are only the Life Peers and a few Hereditaries who were allowed to stay on because of their active Political life. These do not reflect the constituencies as some of the Life Peers never sat in the Commons at all. And their number is added to on an annual basis and they are only removeable by death, or an Act of Parliament if there are guilty of heinous crimes.

Fascinating! I thank you.

The whole system of parliamentary election choices is very confusing to a Yank. First-past-the-post would never 'fly' in California. It helps alot to know the merits of arguments for or against the various kinds if one knows just what particular thing they are being applied towards. Strong parties or two-party systems are considered meritorious, for some. This strikes me as odd.

(dare I even say British? Albion? Which construction applies:Japan-Japanese, China-Chinese, etc. or Peru-Peruvian, United States-UnitedStatian etc. ?)

How much 'political action' decided which Hereditaries had an 'active political life'? Does money count for this? (it sure does in America) Can their sons or daughters retain or earn this 'active political life' quality?

Does this mean that Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney (for instance) could have a say in your government? Were they required, upon being named Life Peers, to sit and demonstrate sufficient 'political activity' as the Hereditaries were required?

Who is on any particular Boundary Commission, is it selected by the government? Could the Queen decide they were gerrymandering, and to keep them honest, remove them from service? How often does the makeup of this body get changed? How often can the BC make changes to constituency?

The channel islands do not seem to be represented by any particular minister, as they are not part of the UK, per se. If the Queen were exercising her power in government, she could literally protect them as contracted, I suppose. Who ensures that no law is passed contrary to their interest? If your military swears to her and not the government, they could perform this role by ignoring those laws.

I have read somewhere that there are some 600+ constituencies. There are only 400+ in the US of A. This 600+ is an interesting number, I am thinking; because of the relative sizes of our countries, yours must be much more finely divided. The name 'pocket borough' implies to me that the constituency must be rather small indeed!

Ok I'll try and answer all of that. Even though I didn't read the article but am just a very interested and well-informed researcher on this subject.

First-past-the-post is something that I personally do not advocate especially as in the last election here the Labour Party won over 60% of the seat with just over 40 % of the actual vote. In the UK where there isn't strictly a two party System as there appears to be in the US this is a little unfair on some of the equally representative parties who have to struggle to get their seats.

How much 'political action' decided which Hereditaries had an 'active political life'?

The main parties each were allowed a number of their hereditaries to remain in the short term; the current government is looking to remove even them.

Does money count for this?

Official answer it doesn't. However major benefactors of the main parties do tend to find themselves created Life Peers, and the early hereditaries were always benefactors of the King either in Finance of Military terms, make of that what you will.

Can their sons or daughters retain or earn this 'active political life' quality? Not anymore you can. The last creation of a Hereditary Peer was Willie Whitelaw who had three daughters none of whom could inherit the title. The political parties can no longer grant hereditary peers.

Does this mean that Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney (for instance) could have a say in your government?

They are just knights of the realm, and do not have any political power at all. Of course they have a very public voice and should they chose to speak about something, for example Elton and his AIDS concerns, they would be very likely to be listened to favourably.

Were they required, upon being named Life Peers, to sit and demonstrate sufficient 'political activity' as the Hereditaries were required?

Life Peers (Which as I said above Sir Elton and Sir Paul are not) are generally active politically anyway. However there is not so much pressure on them to show political activity especially as they get old and infirm. However must Life Peerages are issued to retiring Politicians, non-parliamentary Political voices and the like so they have an interest in various subjects and will make their voice heard when they want it to be.

Who is on any particular Boundary Commission, is it selected by the government?

The Boundary Commission is appointed by the government, and therefore changes with the flavour of politics of the day when replacement s are required.

Could the Queen decide they were gerrymandering, and to keep them honest, remove them from service? How often does the makeup of this body get changed? How often can the BC make changes to constituency?

The Queen only signs in the changes. The BC changes with each Government, I think, I'm not sure on that, either that or it is appointed when a change is deemed necessary. Changes are usually small, occasionally 3 become 2 or vice versa, and occur quite often there are usually some changes at each election.

The channel islands are a separate entity, there are the only part of the original Ducky of Normandy, which William the Conqueror blended with the English Crown, that the Monarch still has authority over. They maintain their own system of government on each of the 4 main Islands, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark, the fifth Herm is, I believe, under the control of Guernsey. These government here, and in the Isle of Man, pass the laws that are exercised on the Islands. They are slightly different from the mainland in a variety of ways but they can co-exist, probably similar to Federal and State Laws in the US. They are protected by our armed forces, however they were unportectable during World War II and were the only part of the UK to be occupied by the Germans.


There are 659 constituencies. These are not divided on County level obviously. The average size of a constituency is approx. 70,000 electors. The term 'pocket boroughs' refers to the old practise before universal suffrage of the principle land owner being able to pay off the electorate to vote for his man, i.e. the Borough was in his Pocket is does not relate to the size of the constituency, however some of the Urban constituencies are very closely confined, but some of the Rural ones are very widely dispersed.

Juicy stuff! Once again, I thank you, kind Demon.

Just how much was one's franchise worth, in the money of the day, in any particular (now extinct) pocket borough? Would it buy you a loaf of bread, or perhaps a month's rent?

In some political units of America, the cost in advertising/campaigning has started exceed $1 US per vote, which we consider scandalous. Some of the most egregious spending has reached as high as $9 US per vote, here in California.

We've got some looney churches here that easily have 70,000 members who live near each other: a scary thought indeed!

dont mean to butt in here or anything but just to give some helpful info on the bc. it is a semi autonomous non governmental group, but here its gets more complex. although it is supposed to independant of the government, many of its members are government appointed, reducing the it ability to fully provide a fair playing field during elections, as the commision has been known in the past to create constituency boundaries that it believes will give the best possible advantage to standing government of the time. further to this the government also has the power the accept or reject the findings of the commision depending on what it deems will provide itself with the greatest advantage. the queen although theoritcally could intervene on any policy decision including this one, it would highly unlikley as it would create a constitunal crisis and would more than likely result in the monarch being removed.

"monarch being removed" brrrrr!

It's been mentioned several times that while the queen *could* do something, that she chooses not to. I'd truly want a queen, if my country's parliamentary politics matched yours, and so I never understood this.

It really isn't a choice on her part, is it?

What was the public's reaction to Prince Charles' comments on ugly modernistic architecture, then?

the subject monarchal power or the erosion of it, can be traced back tto the English civil war in 1642. this was a war between the parliamentarians and the royalists, over who had the power of legislation over England. King Charles had revoked many powers from parliament and was passing laws himself. this resulted in the civil war which was won by the parliamentry forces, and king charles was executed. oliver cromwell became the new leader and called himself the defender of the realm, although not a king things were just as bad , as he amounted to be what would we call a dictator, even going as far as cancelling christmas.king charles' son charles II was eventually restored to the throne, but by then all of his constitutional powers had passed to parliament, with the monarch from that point on only really having ceremonial and theoretical power. this was reinforced by the parliament act of 1908 which placed all legislatory power in the hands of the house of commons and stripped poweres from the house of lords, the body that had trditionally been loyal to the monarchy. so as you can see the monarch would find it very difficult to intervene in any policy area. as for prince charles' comments, nobody really takes the royal family seriously in this country any more except for the conservative voting upper classes. the junior royals and especially prince phillip the queens husband are seen as national embarresments, although they do still appeal to many americans for some reason i cant really comprehend.

This article starts with the statement that the monarch has a lot of power in principle. What you have just written implies that you strongly disagree with this. Am I missing something?

You have piqued my interest in your House of Lords, and so I have started a separate conversation under this topic.

We like your royals in general, precisely because they are not OUR royals.

I would never interfere with the self-regulation of the British people, and so my opinions on your royals are merely personal ones. I like the idea of royal power in your country, because you and Demon have made it seem strongly like your government is unicameral.

Within my own experience of my own local governments, where there hasn't been any recourse or overlayering or overlapping of power, I have been left in the cold, or I have seen gross injustice. San Jose CA, where I grew up, had 7 councilmembers, each with about 100,000 people, and you could get much more done talking to your individual coucilmember then, than you can here in Los Angeles, which has twenty or so members over 3 millions. I am thinking that your 600 member body is a much harder nut to crack than any particular individual, or a multi-chamber government that can be sicced upon itself without revolution.

The queen still has theoretical power over the parliament - it is her parliament, she opens it each year with a speech outlining the government's planned legislation. The queen must grant her Royal Assent to any laws that are passed, and when a party wins an election its leader will approach the queen to ask her if they can form the next government. But in practice she is not free to exercise these powers, it is part of Britain's *unwritten* constitution.

Another example of the lack of power of both the monarchy and the house of lords was the passing of the 1832 Great Reform Bill, which reformed the voting franchise and pocket and rotten boroughs. The country was in favour of this reform, and returned a government which would pass the legislation, but the Tory house of lords and the king were opposed to it. Eventually, however, the king was forced to concede that if the Bill were not passed this time, he would create enough Whig peers to enable it to pass, and the legislation went through.

By the way, I don't claim to be an expert on any of this stuff, it's just things I picked up in school and since then.

I am not looking for expertise. I find that I simply don't know enough about how things really work to do an effective search on the web, and it also appears that many things are merely the 'done thing' and not discussed at all.

For your reply, and all other helpful folks on this thread, I thank you heartily. If I appear Socratic, it is not meant personally.

As for as I'm aware the last time a monarch challenged the parliamentary system was Edward VIII and we all know how that turned out.

Victoria did actually exercise some power but the hands, especially in not always taking the advise of her advisors or Prime Ministers. However since then the hands of British Monarchs have been considerable tied tighter by more and more legislation. We've only had one heir to the throne make a speech in the Hoouse of Lords since 1936 and that is the current Prince of Wales but that caused so much controversy that 'the establishment' are being a little bit weary about his ascending to the throne. Hoping behind closed doors that the Queen last's as long as her mother and Charles doesn't survive much longer than any of the last two kings who died on the throne. Which should give them a St. Andrews Graduate on the throne who doens't go on about Architecture.

what i meant by monarchal power was the power the had formely and the ttheoritical and not real power the are able to exercise today, the information on pocket boroughs is also very crucial as it also erradicated many of the corrupt practices allowed the elite to buy their way into power, and thus reducing the landed elites power and therefore the traditional supporters of the monarchs power in parliament. when it comes to discussing british politics it is extremely difficult in that all institutions are open to many different interpretations, which i have tried to keep as simple as possible without entering to much acedemic debate on the subject which is always open to criticism as it can always only be seen as theory, due to the lack of constitution and no real entrenched laws. as to when i commented that the royal family where popular in america but not here, i was simply making a statement of my personal disdane for the royals and implying that they are only popular in places that dont have to put up with them on a daily basis and pay for the privelege of watching their frolicks on every news bulletin. although i i have a university degree in politics much like demon i do not claim to be an expert i am just offering my opinion on the issue, and it is important to remember there are no straight facts in british politics, just theories and interpretations of how the system works andand the potential variables involved in passing legislation.

Just thought I'd let Sea Change know (if you're still around, it's been over a year since someone last posted to this thread!) that the last time that the Queen excercised any sort of power was in the 1970's. The PM of the time called a General Election and lost (though he still managed to get the most seats, it wasn't enough for a majority in the Commons). He then subsequently failed to form a stable coalition and asked the Queen if he could call a new General Election. She refused to give Royal Assent (or something, she refused anyway) and another man came along, formed a coalition and became PM!
Boring a know, but just thought I'd mention it.
Oberon2001
PS, I heard this off someone else (I wasn't even born back then!) so naturally they could've been wrong. If someone could back up/shoot this down, then it would be much appreciated.

I'm still around! You can look at my 'My Space' and see I've got lots of recent conversations. If you are politically inclined, you can see my roast of the American Government entry in Peer Review, and my protracted dialogue with Happy Dude about the shortcomings of the entries for the UK.

It is interesting to learn that, in this case, a PM attempted to involve the monarch, instead of the reverse, or the obverse.

Yes, it would seem weird nowadays if this happened, but the Queen could still technically do it. TB might complain though (or emigrate to America, here's hoping... no offence, it's just I don't like the little ).
Oberon2001
PS, after posting last time I went to your Personal Space. Some quite good entries you've done.

I am much too lazy to make any entries. I went and searched my nickname and didn't find anyone else using it. Are you sure you visited *my* Personal Space?

Yes, I did. It was when i posted my first message so I must've got you mixed up with someone else (). I did check you're journal entry and I *think* I dipped into one of your conversations.... Hmmm...
Oberon2001