Modern British Politics
Created | Updated May 6, 2003
The original fealty to a king in England was to a man chosen by the other principal men of the kingdom. These were Earls or Lords in a system instituted by the Romans who took over control of the country under Julius Caesar and finally Claudius.
In those days the Roman Empire used to use the government style of the country conquered; substituting political leaders of their own choice for the original. So that rather than have a man in charge of a region who was related to the inhabitants, the ruler would be a man of proven loyalty to Rome.
It was customary for people all over the western world to take service in their army in the hope of this sort of political settlement on retirement. Thus the idea of colonial powers was born.
Interestingly the princes chosen for the eastern regions were from the Germanic states of the Angles and of Saxony. Civil wars prior to the French invasion of 1066 left the inhabitants of eastern England with the dubious ancestry they claim to this very day.
The point is that kingship requires obedience from all. As a choice between anarchy and despotism it is generally agreed that the rule of law is the better.
It is true to say though, that the present Queen would not be in office had the Duke of Normandy not stolen the crown several years back. The responsibility was not an easy one though and if they did a poor job in the goode olde daies; they were often removed violently. The present family was “restored” in the 17th century with the provision that no real power is theirs. The office is called a titular one. That is, one in title alone.
However politics is a tricky thing and that “firm” has been around the block a time or two.
There are two sides to the House of Commons which is where laws are passed as Bills presented to the House of Lords who determine if they are workable. Most laws passed in the early months in office do so as election promises and need to have a lot of clarifications written into them. It is the business of the House of Lords point difficulties out. They can either send it back rejected or work on it or (rarely) pass it first time. If what they do to it meets with approval and the house of commons agrees to it; the Act becomes a statute. http://www.parliament.uk/works/newlaw.cfm
The House of Lords does still contain some inherited positions but even they have faced an election of sorts. The house rule is that the seats in the House are equally divided to both sides of the government. This is based on the premise that its members; having spent a lifetime in politics, the judiciary or commerce; can present balanced views on what acts are passed by the House of Commons -the actual workshop of government.
It then goes to the courts of law and “precedents” are set up in Crown Courts. Crown Courts are where serious criminal charges are dealt with and the Queen is responsible for choosing their judges from senior lawyers who put themselves up for office. It is incredibly tedious work but the perks are good and you get to wear women’s clothing in public more often than if you went into the church. A rota of pairs of sniveling ninnies pander to you and all. (The danger of getting interested in any case you “hear” is that you might become too “involved” to be impartial.)
The precedents set by these perverts can be overruled by superior courts and finally the House of Lords (It may even go to the international courts.). If the government doesn't like it they can pass another law about it.
The laws having passed through changes in the upper house have their final road test in courts of law. The actual government of Britain is decided bits at a time as they are tested by its interpreters -people who bring test cases. People like me and my neighbours. A final nice touch is that serious cases are all free to those who can not afford council.
Choosing sides:
You can sit on any side of the House of Commons you wish to. In Italy and Israel the whole house sits on the same side. This is called a coalition government. It is almost totally ineffective and the other branches of government get to do what they like to a large extent. (This is why the police have lost control of crime in Italy and the military get up to some hideous crimes against humanity in Israel.)
Every 4 years, (unless the Prime Minister resigns over some tiff or other and his colleagues can’t or won’t replace him) -or they lose too many "members" to maintain a majority (people dying or resigning after some scandal or other) there has to be an election.
You get one chance to vote for someone to represent your constituency; which is a region half the size of Manchester say or a county in Wales. I think each MP represents about 70,000 voters; less than half of whom bother to vote, so if just over 25,000 vote for you you're in. (Less if there are three standing for parliament and there usually are -sometimes more.) Put it this way if 4 people stand in a hotly contested seat and all pull similar numbers of voters where the turn out is 40%; the man elected represents somewhere about 7,000 people, who have no control over what he says and does until the next election.
“The Chamber is actually quite small as there is only room for 437 MPs to sit down when there are 659 MPs in total.” http://www.parliament.uk/index.cfm
If any man can get enough of these election winners together to form a majority then he can ask the Queen to open Parliament and he will be her Prime Minister. What always happens is that the three main parties and some smaller ones (Nazis and IRA for example) arrange to support their men in the "constituencies." Every town has drinking clubs run by these parties and they get together to choose the ones who can hold the most beer to run for power. If he gets in, the shenanigans starts and they all choose sides.
"Independents" can sit where they like. If the party leaders like his politics they can ask him to join them, he then says "What's it worth?" like you do and if the party leader gets enough (he needs to have something like 330 to form a clear majority) he can form a government. Anyone can stand for government. You need a deposit to cover costs; it used to be £150 but Mrs. T put it up to thwart “The Monster Raving Loony Party” -who nobody ever voted for until she'd been in office a while. (Then after decades of losing their deposits people started voting for them.)
“At some point they had tried to stop anybody who wanted to talk sense from standing by raising the deposit from 150 set in 1910 to 500. It didn't stop them. At the 1987 General Election there were again at least 12 candidates under various silly names."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=raving+monster+loony+party&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=off&selm=3768A3AB.C899658F%40lightblue.com&rnum=2
Another independent was a news reporter Martin Bell who stood against the MP who held "the 5th safest Tory seat" until 1997 He got so many votes the MP "lost his deposit." The story behind that I believe, was a matter of “being paid to ask questions” which in a rather jaded scandal wracked government, was seen by most as a perk. Interviews with the ex MP and his wife since then have shown them to be nice, middle class, responsible and charming citizens.
A lot of political debating is engineered by people who want to sell newspapers.
After the Election.
If you change your mind about whose side you're on, you can "cross the floor." Some will do that out of principle. Winston Churchill never had any of those so he crossed to the other side of the house to stay in power.
Tony Blair got in with a good majority, so he never had to bother with any of that juggling. Margaret Thatcher had the same luck but she bribed the Labour voters by selling them council houses cheap.
(She went on to sell everything else and wouldn't listen to reason. She sold BP (Britain’s biggest oil company) to Kuwait -at a loss. The same with power companies. She wasn't allowed to sell the Crown Jewels so she left in a bit of a snit.)
Since all ballots are filled in by hand there is no Americaneering of the results. All parties are limited by how much they can spend on elections and access to radio and TV channels is free and equal.
If only it all worked!
Northern Ireland.
I believe that should the pro IRA lobby gain enough seats, they can move for a referendum where the whole of Ulster can vote to go or stay in the union. I should have thought that that is a remarkably balanced use of democratic processes by anyone's standards. But that doesn’t seem to stop some people getting worked up about the results.
This devolution has already been instituted in Scotland and to a lesser extent in Wales. How that will turn out in decades to come is way beyond anyone to tell. Scotland has been agitating for a move to full independence for many years. Wales with a far higher population of English "immigrants" has a milder view on that.
"If you didn't believe in Satan, history would not make sense." I wonder who said that. Will Durant I think.
