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

Part of me thinks that people wouldn't stand for it in this day and age... part of me suspects that life might go on pretty much as before... and a tiny bit is shouting that benevolent despotism might be a big improvement (given that a lot of good and necessary measures never get mentioned by elected officials as the road lobby, the Murdoch press, etc, would crucify anyone who did).

The 'would you elect Tony Blair' objection doesn't cut much ice with me. Just because (for example) it's theoretically possible for Peter Stringfellow to get elected to Parliament and become Prime Minister, doesn't make the idea of an elected parliament a bad one. If someone's that onjectionable then they probably wouldn't get elected in the first place.

(Awix avoids looking in the direction of France while writing the previous post)

One thing that as always bothered me is that the British people have no say who is prime minister he/she is not elected by the people but by the party.

That's cos in theory all the MPs have a say in what happens. (don't mention the whips, of course)

What about France? M. Le Pen was (fairly massively) defeated. That's a pro-me, point, surely?

There are a couple of holes in the UK system: the way the governing party gets to choose the election date (which allowed both Thatch and Lionel to go to the country at times when their poll ratings were high), and the way the (once again) ruling party can - theoretically -change its leader (the PM!) simply in order to stay electable, without consulting the people (as happened in 1990).

In France the choice was allegedly betwee a crook and a nasty nasty man. Basically you wouldn't really want either of them if there was a choice.

Democracy's a terrible system, but it's still supposedly the best one.

And let's not forget that if the French president is a crook or a nasty nasty man, the French can get shot of him at the next election. If a raving maniac or irresponsible meddler ascends to the British throne, we're stuck with them for as long as they're breathing.

Yes but at least we'll have a relatively powerless raving meddler.

"Democracy is the worst system, except for all of the others"

Paraphrases on stun!

If the monarch wanted to they could cause the elected government an awful lot of trouble: witholding royal assent, interfering in national politics, wilfully dissolving parliament willy-nilly. Just cos the Queen doesn't use her power doesn't mean she doesn't have any.

They'd probably say 'no' if she tried anything too stupid. It's all in the mind.

The moment someone says 'no' to the monarch's use of their powers the whole British state grinds to a halt. Plus, you've just made the PM an elected dictator. That's what comes of not having a written constitution.

Bleugh. I don't even like politics, mostly I just let it run. I'll get involved when it gets bad enough that I care. (that sounds very apathetic, but tough)

I quit.

Sorry.

Did you know that England is the only country in Europe not to have its own government.

Is this gonna be a joke re europe or does house of commons not do anything?

I think TL's point will be that the Houses of Parliament govern the whole of the UK, not specifically England. Scotland Wales and Ireland all have dedicated regional assemblies but not England. No doubt the West Lothian question is gonna get namechecked again...

We do have the local councils,then the house of commons,the house of lord,the queen then euro MPs but unlike Scotland ireland and wales we don't have are own parliament don't you think that we need that sixth line of red tape to hold things up even more.

Not sure that's *quite* how the chain of command runs, but an English national assembly would be entirely logical given the existence of similar bodies in the other countries of the UK. The H of P would never stand for it, of course...

Bleugh.