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

Letting it slide is the same as not rocking the boat.

Pretty much most of the UK government rules as I understand them is that they do it in the Queen's name. They are after all, the Queen's government. She has to agree to them taking control after each election.

Now, I agree that it's pretty much all in name only, but she does still retain the ability to over rule any decision.

in effect she *has* to agree to them forming a government

When it comes to signing off on parliament , is not pretty much in name only, it is in name only. It is just tradition, 'ceremonial'.

Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

People often refer to the UK having an 'unwritten constitution' but that's not strictly true. It may not exist in a single text, like in the USA or Germany, but large parts of it are written down, much of it in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law. Therefore, the UK constitution is often described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified'. (Uncodified means that the UK does not have a single, written constitution.)

As the monarchy is constitutional, the monarch is limited to non-partisan functions such as bestowing honours and appointing the Prime Minister. The monarch is by tradition Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces. Though the ultimate formal executive authority over the government of the United Kingdom is still by and through the monarch's royal prerogative, these powers may only be used according to laws enacted in Parliament, and, in practice, within the constraints of convention and precedent.

There are two advantages to having a monarch; firstly we do not have to put up with another layer of greasy money grubbing politicians scrabbling for the presidency and secondly, in the event of a dictatorial coup by some group of politicians, the monarchy remains as a figure head for the rallying of opposition without the danger of being called traitors.

And before anyone suggests that the words 'greasy money grubbing' could be applied to the Royal Family at least they provide a great source of income from tourists.

Not sure how many tourists would be lining up to watch the changing of the whore outside Silvio Berlusconi's Palace

A wonderful and enlightening post pebblederook!

excellent post Pebblederook

*simpost*

something Pastey and I agree on

Thank you pebble for using a combination of knowledge and proper words to say what was approximately inside the stew that passes for my mind.

So, now we know how the UK works, going back to the original question of could they behave in a childish manner?

Yes, just watch Prime Minister's Question Time. Ever since they started televising it, it's turned into sound bites and point scoring. I'm mot sure politics is even involved anymore.

That wasn't actually the original question, but who cares? Answering questions other the one asked is at the heart of politics throughout the world.

Another thing to bear in mind is the House of Lords. At the moment around a third of the Lords are independent (cross benchers) with no party affiliation so it is impossible to have a situation such as that in the US where one House is ruled by Party A and the other ruled by Party B. If the desire of some people is met and we have a directly elected second chamber, then expect to see the same petty party politics here too. If both chambers were to belong to one party, that party could railroad through some pretty unpleasant legislation, as Labour tried to do with their 90 day detention plans.

"At the moment" being the key words though.



~*~just watch Prime Minister's Question Time. Ever since they started televising it, it's turned into sound bites and point scoring. I'm not sure politics is even involved anymore.~*~

How do you know it wasn't like that before?

it used to be on the radio before that, didn't it?

Since the advent of televised Parliament, though, apparently MPs have started doughnutting the front bench speakers, to look as though more MPs are there than there are in reality.

"doughnutting" ?

i don't doubt you, Mrs G, but a teeny weeny explanation might reassure me - ?

Aah: - space - duff - space - duff - space - duff -

?

doughnutting - when there is someone speaking and the other MPs in their party sit around him (in a doughnut shape with the speaker in the middle) so that it looks as though there are a lot of MPs present.

What a disappointment. I had in mind the English doughnut and a vision of the honourable member for Waffling being pumped full of strawberry jam

... while the populace are pumped full of things less savoury ...

Trust me, my vision involved a procedure that would not be a culinary treat. Having written that I realise that probably half the government would regard it as a treat.

Would anyone dare dougnut Eric Pickles?