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

So, George Osborne (British politics money guy) and Ed Balls (he's a real person honest) and some other British politicians have a disagreement (it could happen) and so they shut down large parts of the national infrastructure stuff.

That couldn't possibly happen, obviously, but just to be the devil's apricot for a bit, if it did, would it cause civilised people throughout the world to wonder how a major power could behave in such a staggeringly childish fashion?

You're right, under the British system it couldn't possibly happen - it just doesn't work that way, and I must say, I pity any country where it could happen.


Geggs

1974, arguably

I have no idea why the subject vanished. Here it is, back again

It is said that there is more democracy in the American than in the British political system, so I guess that's the reason. It is strange how the richest & most powerful nation in the world can be running such a massive public debt ... maybe it has something to do with the costs of maintaining such a large army, navy, airforce etc?: http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/

said by whom?

It's one of the first things a politics student learns - so any introductory text on political theory.

•The President is directly elected, the UK Prime Minister is not
•Senators are elected for 6 years, Peers in the House or Lords are APPOINTED for LIFE
•You get three votes at the Federal level, President, Senate and House, in the UK you get one
•All ministerial, military, judicial and civil appointments in the US must get the explicit consent of the Senate, explicit Parliamentary consent isn't needed in the UK.
•In the UK Parliament is sovereign, in the US the PEOPLE are sovereign. Parliament can change anything in the UK constitution.
•There are midterm elections every 2 years to hold the government to account, we get one every 5 years.
•There is a huge amount of power devolved to state and local governments.

But in practice it is questioned due to the influence of money.

well, as a politics student I can't argue with that - but I've never seen it said that there is more democracy in the US than the UK system. so if you can point me to someone who said it...

>> as a politics student I can't argue with that <<

Excellent. I'll leave the rest as an exercise for those interested.

In the U.K. the Prime Minister is expected to answer to Parliament directly, and can, in turn, take them to task directly. That's something I wish the U.S. would do.

Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. It's messy in the U.S. Egypt is trying it, and has messed up even worse. Ben Franklin, when asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had given the American people, said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

So, a republic with democratically elected officials and some appointed ones. There's a microcosm effect at work, too, though. People come to the U.S. from all over the world. If they have problems, they carry them with them. In places like New York and Los Angeles, municipal and county services have to be provided with provisions for more than 100 different languages, as residents must understand what the government wants them to do.

Does London have that many languages to cope with?

The title keeps disappearing. I think it's because some idiot initially put it in quotation marks.

Assuming this is referring to the situation in those there United States of America I would hazard a guess that the Government hasn't shut down but is continuing to ladle large sums of cash into its ever open maw. Only the offices manned by government employees set up to support the public are being shut down. World of difference. As it always has been.

In answer to Paulh - yes
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/census-data-shows-100-different-languages-spoken-in-almost-every-london-borough-8472483.html

Most local government divisions in London provide paper notices in about ten standard languages (how to claim benefits etc).

Regardless of Stone Aart making a pillock of himself on yet another thread that I find interesting...

It is an unbelievable state of affairs that the foremost power in the Western World has, effectively, no control over its own Governmental processes. It's beyond belief that some Representatives are allowed to blockade a fundamental decision on the basis of something almost entirely irrelevant. I'd like to think it would be career suicide for those Representatives who blockaded the bill, but - then again - I've met some American voters...

From what I've heard of Obama so far on the issue, he'd absolutely love to take the Lower House to task on this matter. The impression is of a progressive politician being shackled by the history he has to deal with.

This is a low point for the heavily-edited document laughably known as the US Constitution.

B

>> Regardless of Stone Aart making a pillock of himself on yet another thread that I find interesting... <<

Typical mu beta as we get to the heart of the character

Could you please explain what that is supposed to mean, rather than making unfounded generalisations?

B

Your idea of a debate on a side issue is to terminate it with an assertion of an unargued generalisation. But nowt to worry I won't be bothering yee & others with comments for much longer. Please continue & apologies to all for the bover.

I don't even know how to respond to that because I haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. But fare thee well; I doubt thee will be missed.

(By the way, 'ye' is [probably inaccurate] Middle English for 'the', not 'you')

B

StoneAart I'll miss you