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

I'm not sure whether talking about the election (May, June or July) will fall foul of the site moderators, but it's an important subject and one that I always find very interesting. Also, getting people involved in the debate is vital; we don't want to end up with a Gore/Bush situation do we?

So...

Is this year going to be the one where political parties must spend more time fighting apathy than each other? Is there a significant difference between the main players? And does voting change anything?

It might well get moderated as the BBC cannot be seen to be biased in favour of one party or another. As far as the date it seems june 7th (according to the headlines I saw this morning).

1) We're not here to express the views of the BBC and
2) If we were, the BBC would appear to be a schizophrenic unless we all express the same view - which we won't of course, otherwise there'd be nothing to discuss.

Check out the links given in the journal on moderation in Mark Moxon's page ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/U13 ). These point to the guidelines issued by the BBC, especially the one that deals with online issues.

My comment was and I still feel (even more so after reading those guidelines) that a forum like this will be watched very closely by the editors/moderators.

Glad to see you about Sal.

As a colonial bumpkin, I cannot offer much input into a discussion of British politics - but I am interested in hearing more about it.
I even have a few questions. For starters:

Do these 'british' (ie:Tony Blair et al) elections include all of England, Wales and Northern Ireland...? - and now that Scotland has its own parliament - do they still send reps to London in these?

How ..at a time of such change (the EU) and social upset (F&M) can the population be apathetic? Surely there are some real issues here.

And on a broader different issue: I get the impression the EU's rules, laws and new Charter of Rights will impact big time on life in every European nation.Does each EU member country elect reps to the Luxembourg assembly or are they simply appointed by the national governments - like ambassadors? And if so, what call is there for a more democratic means?

Ok 33, it doesn't make much sense but I guess we're saddled with it. I think the best way to move forward with discussions like this is just to carry on and if they moderate, they moderate. If we find it impossible to have a chat about perfectly legitimate issues - issues that are important to us, in fact, well we'll just have to find somewhere else to talk. That would be a shame but if adults in a democratic country are forbidden to talk about politics when there's a general election on the horizon then we're in the wrong place.

I agree, the guidelines do look rather confusing, I thought I'd better point them out now rather than later (after something happens).
Just continuing with the conversation would probably be the best idea.

Hi JWF, glad you've got a name again!

The question you raise is something of a sore point in England. Scottish and Welsh MPs attend Westminster and may vote on English issues. English MPs may not, however, have a say in Scottish or Welsh matters which are debated in their respective assemblies.

As for the EU (don't get me started) we elect MEPs on a regional basis to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Unfortunately this is little more than just a talking shop and most of the power resides at present with the Commission in Brussels. This is indeed made up of commissioners appointed as a matter of patronage by the national governments.

That EU factoid sends shivers down my spine (even if both my grandmothers trace their ancestory to German Protestant refugees the rest of me is a healthy UK mix) but perhaps we can get into the EU thing elsewhere.

Please, for now, just clarify the MPs from Scotland issue for me.
Is the Scot's parliament only made up of those elected to the Brit parliament from Scotland? They act like a committee of the English parliament, to deal with Scottish issues and membership is limited to MPs elected from Scotland. Or is there a separate Scot's Parliament including these Scottish MPs and other elected Scots?
This is all fairly new to me and it never got much coverage here in the new world except the odd time Sean Connnery had a photo op.
Wales too now y'say?

The Scottish Parliament is a separate entity, with its own elections. Membership of both Holyrood and the House of Commons is not mutually exclusive, though, so a number of people manage to sit in both.

Wales has an assembly, but it has fewer powers than the Scottish Parliament; it is not empowered to raise taxes, and does not have the same law-making power (Wales being under English law since the twelfth century, whilst Scottish law remains independent).

Early New Labour plans for English Regional Assemblies seem to have been quietly dropped.

I take it Holyrood is the Scottish Parliament that sits in Edinborough and if I understand you rightly the members are elected separately from British elections. So a person already sitting in the British House can run and be elected in Scotland as well. And vice versa presumably. Two paychecks!
Is the Scottish 'parliament' subject to the English House of Lords or do they have their own senior 'senate' - or just subject to the throne (via the British Commons).
Gad! Were they seriously thinking of breaking the country up into several regional governments. We call them provinces in Canada but they have had most of their powers eroded and usurped by the Federal Government which controls all the taxes and financial dispersements to 'equalise' wealth from 'have' to 'have not' provinces. Since the ban on sealing has caused the fish stocks to disappear, the Atlantic Provinces are now 'have nots'. But enough about us let's get back to the British elections....
What are the issues? Ok..., now what should the issues really be?

The real issue is that the UK is totally broken, because we haven't paid for the running repairs it needed over the last 15 years or so and nobody is prepared to fix it.
Of course, the politicians wil want to talk about the strength of the economy and keeping the pound safe from the scourge of the Euro. Here's a thought - did the oddballs who are making so much noise about the retention of the pound fight decimalisation with the same fervour?

I don't know much about euro but I can't see why you would possibly want it. Having the aust dollar at 49c US isn't much fun when travelling and today the chairman of the Stock Exchange said replacing Australia's dollar with the US dollar may be the answer to our currency problems. Hang on to those pounds people!

also, so what parrferris is saying is that Scotland has a constitutional monarchy? Or not? Its a little hard to follow.

No - Scotland has its own parliament (or regional assembly) but this parliament does not have tax raising powers and is therefore not independent. This is the same for the Welsh assembly and the Northern Ireland parliament at Stormont.

The Queen is queen of Scotland and England due to the act of union, and one of the major constitutional barriers to greater regional independence is this special status.

England is the only country in the UK that doesn't have its own parliament - that at Westminster being for the entire UK. That said, it does tend to have an English/London bias.

Which is in itself quite strange considering not a single one of the leaders of the main parties (Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats) hail from south of Leeds!

Not a major point but a thought none the less.

So if scotland wanted to become a constitutional monarchy tomorrow, are they allowed to hold referendums?

oh my god I can't believe I just said that, and with my own country recently holding one that is unacceptable. So

*ahem* Referenda?

No - full Scotish independence, with or without a monarchy, would require an act of the UK parliament (or a successful rebellion).
That is a major reason why the SNP (Scottish national party) are still in existence.

Does this annoy the scottish people? Or are they not worried/happy with the situation?

On possibility of being moderated: Provided we state that these are our own personal views and no-one starts on, I'm a member of the Monster Raving Looney Party and their manifesto is blah, we should be fine. We are allowed to talk, provided all sides get an airing. To my mind.
On Scotland: Scotland has a devolved parliament, which is allowed to discuss, and pass laws on "local" issues, just like a Canadian provincial government, a US state government or a German regional Bundes whatsit. They look after education, health etc. and have the power to vary income tax. Wales has a similar, but not so powerful setup, Northern Ireland ditto (although it is complicated by the political situation over there). The problem comes, because England does not have an equivalent body. Thus, Westminster, acts like a Federal Government, for Scotland, N. Ireland and Wales, discussing defence, taxes, etc. Yet, when it comes to English local issues, these are discussed by the same body, which includes MPs from all four parts of the UK. It was originally envisaged that England would get regional assemblies (Yorkshire, The West Country, London etc.) and indeed it got a London devolved assembly, but the polls said Labour would lose a referendum on this issue in the English regions, so they quietly dropped it. Hence, the current problem is what to do with all these Scots, Welsh and Irish MP's when Devon hospitals are being discussed. (Strangley I've never heard anyone ask what the London MP's are going to do.) This is all known as the West Lothian Question, it originally being asked in the Seventies by Tam Dayell (sp?), MP for West Lothian.
Any of the regions are perfectly entitled to hold a referendum on independence, but there is not a popular will for it at the mo' so no politician will try it.

Ooo, that was quite a bit