I'm Curious About How The British System Works (and "Suck My PENIS Politics", an esay

[acropolis]

We always have threads talking about the US's electoral system (the stupid college thing etc.). What I want to know is about the British system.

So you have, like, a parliament and stuff. Each party gets representation according to the number of votes it gets. "cool." I would assume the majority party would have pretty much all the power(?).

So here's the question: if both major parties were pretty close in representation, wouldn't any small third party become immediately very powerful? Like if there were 1000 members, and each major party had 490 in, and there was some small party with 20, that small party would have all the power. So in theory, voting for a third party wouldn't be 'throwing your vote away", it would be controlling everything.

But I never here about any important third parties in England. So whats up?
______________________________________________
"Suck My Dick Politics"

Here's how it works. My girlfriend bitches to me that she has a headache. What is my natural response? "It has been shown in a number of university studies that semen has a pain-reducing effect on headaches surpassing tylenol, advil, and only beaten by morphine." Obviously.

Here's the logic:
If she refuses to 'take her medication,' I can just say that if she's not going to let me help her she can't has no right to continue bitching. "I win".

If she does take her meds, and her headache doesn't go away, she'll probably bitch lots, but I'll still be happy (for whatever reason). And I can always claim it didn't work because she 'wasn't into it enough.' "I win"

If she takes it, and her headache goes away (as they often do), then, obviously, "I win BIG"

So here's what you ask me.
"I am the head of a large and powerful nation. My people are bitching about how crap the economy is, but it would take someone competent to fix that and that someone is not me. So I just want to get out of this as much as possible. Acropolis, how can 'Suck My Dick Politics' work for me?"

I'm glad you asked. It's so simple even an idiot could do it. Find some law that could be passed that would give you, your family, and all your friends billions of dollars. Now, the trick is to claim that this would be a cure-all for the economic problems. Obviously only an idiot would believe that giving you money would help them, but you are now protected by 'Suck My Dick Politics' and there is nothing anybody can do to stop you from getting your tax-cut now, Mr. Bush.

[wu_trax]

i think they also have the the-winner-takes-it-all-system you use, no representive-vote (or whatever you call it in english)

[Mushroom]

proportional representation?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Mushroom
proportional representation?

yes, i think so (the way the eu-elections work if you are familar with that system)

[Pyr0 MK III]

In Britain we have the "First Past The Post" system to give its proper name.

[roadrunner_0]

yes, we DO NOT have the proportional representation system, but our biggest third party (liberal democrats) have been lobbying for years to get it introduced as it would give the smaller parties a bigger showing in parlament

[acropolis]

Originally posted by roadrunner_0
yes, we DO NOT have the proportional representation system, but our biggest third party (liberal democrats) have been lobbying for years to get it introduced as it would give the smaller parties a bigger showing in parlament

then how does it work? do you have districts like the US, or what?

I have 0 clue.

[G_frog]

Originally posted by acropolis
We always have threads talking about the US's electoral system (the stupid college thing etc.). What I want to know is about the British system.

So you have, like, a parliament and stuff. Each party gets representation according to the number of votes it gets. "cool." I would assume the majority party would have pretty much all the power(?).

The party with the largest number of seats in the house of commons is considered the majority party and forms the executive. If this majority party has a 'super-majority', i.e. >50% of seats in the parliament, then it can pass stuff on its own. This assumes all members will cooperate, which in practice doesn't happen automatically.

The party leader can basically threaten people with demotion if they don't vote his way, but doing this too much makes both the party and public hate him, so he tries to avoid it.

Then stuff has to get passed our second, unelected chamber, the house of lords - consisting of heriditary members, and members appointed by the executive (altho they remain in the chamber for life, 'hence life peers'). The lords can't block the commons indefinitely. (this set-up may change soon).

Some power, which in the US is with the elected houses (for example the budget), rests with the executive.

We do not have proportional representation in the same way as europe, we have members of parliament selected by a geographically bordered constituency (synonymous with a 'seat') directly. I don't know how constituency divisions are decided. As someone has said, actual constituency elections are first past the post.

[KaneED]

The American Collegiate vote is **** yes, but the political system isn't.

You have Checks and Balances, we don't.

Our British 'President' has virtually unchecked power while he is in power. THe House of Lords doesn't have a veto vote, nullifying any reason for it to reside, the whole system relies of the House of Commons and the majority of the Prime Minister.

Obviously, the Prime Minister does have a lot of power, but it's not all definate, if he loses support in his party, they'll chuck him out, but for as long as the party is in full support of the PM, then his power is endless.


We should have reform our political system and electoral system too because it's actualyl really **** and partisan with endless possibilities for huge amounts of abuse of power.

Thanks God Bush isn't PM here.

:/

[Haer]

Originally posted by G_frog
The party with the largest number of seats in the house of commons is considered the majority party and forms the executive. If this majority party has a 'super-majority', i.e. >50% of seats in the parliament, then it can pass stuff on it's own. This assumes all members will cooperate, which in practice doesn't happen automatically.

The party leader can basically threaten people with demotion if they don't vote his way, but doing this two much makes both the party and public hate him, so he tries to avoid it.

Then stuff has to get passed our second, unelected chamber, the house of lords - consisting of heriditary members, and members appointed by the executive (altho they remain in the chamber of life, 'hence life peers'). The lords can't block the commons indefinitely. (this set-up may change soon).

Some power, which in the US is with the elected houses (for example the budget), rests with the executive.

We do not have proportional representation in the same way as europe, we have members of parliament selected by a geographically bordered constituency (synonymous with a 'seat') directly. I don't know how constituency divisions are decided. As someone has said, actual constituency elections are first past the post.

There are 659 constituencies, with approximately 70,000 people in each one. Although, some exceptions are made(Certain Islands have constituences, despite as afew as 20,000 people living there). The borders of a constituencies are determined by the border commision - A supposed independat organisation(NI had problems with the protestants making sure the catholics never got any steas by changing borders).

[Haer]

Originally posted by KaneED
The American Collegiate vote is **** yes, but the political system isn't.

You have Checks and Balances, we don't.

Our British 'President' has virtually unchecked power while he is in power. THe House of Lords doesn't have a veto vote, nullifying any reason for it to reside, the whole system relies of the House of Commons and the majority of the Prime Minister.

Obviously, the Prime Minister does have a lot of power, but it's not all definate, if he loses support in his party, they'll chuck him out, but for as long as the party is in full support of the PM, then his power is endless.


We should have reform our political system and electoral system too because it's actualyl really **** and partisan with endless possibilities for huge amounts of abuse of power.

Thanks God Bush isn't PM here.

:/

Agreed, alot of the British system relies on the "goodwill" of MPs, not to abuse power, and to generally listen to recomendations by the Lords. The problem with creating "Checks and Balances", is that there is noone with the power to create any, that a following government cannot just overrule when it begins its term.

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

Originally posted by KaneED
We should have reform our political system and electoral system too because it's actualyl really **** and partisan with endless possibilities for huge amounts of abuse of power.

As in: To make the firemen stop striking and be good little boy's they are going to bring in emergancy legislation to ban striking if we go to war with Iraq, and if we don't go to war with Iraq they are going to bring in emergancy legislation to make John Prescott their boss.

I BET THEY WISHED THEY'D ACCEPTED 4% NOW!

[queball]

Originally posted by KaneED

Our British 'President' has virtually unchecked power while he is in power. THe House of Lords doesn't have a veto vote, nullifying any reason for it to reside, the whole system relies of the House of Commons and the majority of the Prime Minister.

The House of Lords can alter a bill, this has the effect of making laws more moderate.

It's good to have someone in charge; it means decisions actually get made. If your system would have no-one at all with any considerable power, how would anything get done?

[Black Dog]

It's amazing how so many of the British people who have posted in this thread don't actually have a clue what our political system involves despite living in the country.

[G_frog]

Could you be specific?

Surely posting on this topic a forum like this must involve leaving stuff out?

[Texan]

Originally posted by Black Dog
It's amazing how so many of the British people who have posted in this thread don't actually have a clue what our political system involves despite living in the country.

It does not surprise me in the slightest bit.

[meglamaniac]

The 'goodwill factor' is our major problem, since anyone who wants to stand a chance in British politics, by definition has no good will at all, or at least hides it in case the opposition see it as a weakness.
This is why the standard perception of politicians here (at least in my generation), is that you wouldn't ask one to hold you wallet while you carried your Big Mac to the table in case he ran off with it, gave half the money to Lybia and spent the other half on a prostitute.

I have as much clue about US politics as you have about our system, but over here politics isn't really about deciding how to run the country best. It's about one huge bitching match that can last for weeks over a single white paper.
Let me outline a pretty standard example.
Lets say a senior politician in Labour (the 'ruling' party at the moment, especially since they have more than 50% of the house) puts forward a Bill to be passed. The sequence might go like this:
Bill introduced
Bill sneered at by the Conservatives
Conservatives sneered at by Labour, with reference to past occasions where Conservatives have ****ed a similar idea up
Liberal Democrats say that they think it's an ok idea but could do with a few changes
Everyone sneers at the Liberal Democrats for sitting on the fence
Bill ammended
Labour backbenchers sneer at Labour frontbenchers for caving in to the Conservatives
Labour frontbenchers threaten the backbenchers.
Conservatives call for a public enquiry into something surrounding the Bill
Repeat above steps a few times
Bill passed to the House of Lords
House of Lords (being mainly Conservative hereditary peers, although this is supposed to be changing) blocks it, as everyone expects
Bill passed back to House of Commons
Repeat entire sequence until
a) Labour give up
b) The Lords give up and let it through
c) The Lords run out of chances to block it (they're only allowed to block it 7 times or something dumb) and it goes through by default
The Queen signs it (if it's a law).

Yes, believe it or not, the Queen still has to sign things even though she really has no power to refuse.
And you wonder why some REALLY DUMB ideas get through...
Of course, missing from the above is the inevitable alegations of sleaze/selling weapons to someone/media revalations about an MP's finances/all 3 of those, which generally goes with the course of things.

This is why the RIPA is going to go through despite most of the population hating it, simply because once a party has control they can do whatever the hell they like.
Worse than that, it's incredibly hard to undo something another administration has done - that usually involves at least 2 years of yet more public enquiries and investigations.
Dear oh dear oh dear...

[Haer]

Originally posted by meglamaniac
The 'goodwill factor' is our major problem, since anyone who wants to stand a chance in British politics, by definition has no good will at all, or at least hides it in case the opposition see it as a weakness.
This is why the standard perception of politicians here (at least in my generation), is that you wouldn't ask one to hold you wallet while you carried your Big Mac to the table in case he ran off with it, gave half the money to Lybia and spent the other half on a prostitute.

I have as much clue about US politics as you have about our system, but over here politics isn't really about deciding how to run the country best. It's about one huge bitching match that can last for weeks over a single white paper.
Let me outline a pretty standard example.
Lets say a senior politician in Labour (the 'ruling' party at the moment, especially since they have more than 50% of the house) puts forward a Bill to be passed. The sequence might go like this:
Bill introduced
Bill sneered at by the Conservatives
Conservatives sneered at by Labour, with reference to past occasions where Conservatives have ****ed a similar idea up
Liberal Democrats say that they think it's an ok idea but could do with a few changes
Everyone sneers at the Liberal Democrats for sitting on the fence
Bill ammended
Labour backbenchers sneer at Labour frontbenchers for caving in to the Conservatives
Labour frontbenchers threaten the backbenchers.
Conservatives call for a public enquiry into something surrounding the Bill
Repeat above steps a few times
Bill passed to the House of Lords
House of Lords (being mainly Conservative hereditary peers, although this is supposed to be changing) blocks it, as everyone expects
Bill passed back to House of Commons
Repeat entire sequence until
a) Labour give up
b) The Lords give up and let it through
c) The Lords run out of chances to block it (they're only allowed to block it 7 times or something dumb) and it goes through by default
The Queen signs it (if it's a law).

Yes, believe it or not, the Queen still has to sign things even though she really has no power to refuse.
And you wonder why some REALLY DUMB ideas get through...
Of course, missing from the above is the inevitable alegations of sleaze/selling weapons to someone/media revalations about an MP's finances/all 3 of those, which generally goes with the course of things.

This is why the RIPA is going to go through despite most of the population hating it, simply because once a party has control they can do whatever the hell they like.
Worse than that, it's incredibly hard to undo something another administration has done - that usually involves at least 2 years of yet more public enquiries and investigations.
Dear oh dear oh dear...

Lords can block it for one year, and is not mainly hereditary peers(Only 92, of about 1000 are hereditary, it is however mainly conservative).

Theres also the supposed Commitees, designed to be a check on Government power - Which do nothing of the sort.

Question time(AKA who can make the best joke about the opposition), and much of our uncodified constition being either common law, or merely a convention.

[G_frog]

parliamentary debates have been reduced to cheap point scoring, but the forum of discussion has moved into the media.

[meglamaniac]

In other words, it's a mess.

imo we should gut the whole system and start again - that's not saying we should change everything, just that some aspects need altering. A good start would be to have a WRITTEN constitution.

Obviously this is never going to happen, since none of the iddiots would ever agree for long enough for it to go through.
Also, controversial issues like that scare politicians, and they (like certain sea creatures) have a tendancy to hide behind a cloud of ink when scared.

[acropolis]

k i think i get the idea. i wish we had some independent NI for our districts. right now the party in power decides how the districts should look, and so basically they shape them however will give them the most seats. chicago sends long strings of inner city districts way out into the countryside to disenfranchise people hundreds of miles away. it is uber ****ed up.

but other than that our system seems decent.

Originally posted by meglamaniac
In other words, it's a mess.

imo we should gut the whole system and start again - that's not saying we should change everything, just that some aspects need altering. A good start would be to have a WRITTEN constitution.

Obviously this is never going to happen, since none of the iddiots would ever agree for long enough for it to go through.
Also, controversial issues like that scare politicians, and they (like certain sea creatures) have a tendancy to hide behind a cloud of ink when scared.

but what about the magna charta? why do they make us all memorize when it was made in school if it doesn't count for anything?

for a major system change for you guys, what happens when the queen croaks? you aren't seriously going to crown that useless ****stab of a prince are you?

overall i definitely like the US system; the separation of powers is a great thing. but the way our leaders get elected is just awful and antidemocratic.

were i to start my 'perfect government,' it would basically run on the concept of the three branches we have now backed by a constitution and a bill of rights (with minor changes like congress replaced by direct democracy etc.).

[Haer]

The problem with making a written constition is that noone has the power to make something which cannot be unmade by a later government. Tbh, as far as a constitution goes, ours is too flexible - But the US one is too rigid, we need to find a middle ground.

[Black Dog]

G_frog - I was mainly referring to other people but under the House of Lords Act 1999 all bar 92 of the hereditary peers have been removed.

This was noticed by Haer, who is by far the most knowledgeable person on this subject to have posted here. And yes, I do know what I'm talking about having studied the British constitution and administrative system through A-level and two years of degree so far.

As for a written constitution some of you might get part of your wish (though I disagree with it) through the European Union which is quite likely to adopt a Bill of Rights within the next decade.

[G_frog]

My understanding of the importance of the magna carta was that it was the first time the king was bound by the law - quite a big leap when you think he was supposed to have divine authority.

Even if the americans had kept their constitution intact and could agree what it meant, i'm not sure that would fix what i regard to be their main current problems (unless the current administration really is aiming for a police state, which i don't think is a supportable suggestion as yet).

Originally posted by Black Dog

Heh, I didn't think you were referring to me. As it happens i did mention both types of peers but i left out the numbers because i thought it inessential, esp. as they might change again soon.

I also disagree with a written constitution after listening to half an hour of ranting about common law by one steven barrett.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
It's good to have someone in charge; it means decisions actually get made. If your system would have no-one at all with any considerable power, how would anything get done?

Whenever I was at school, we were always told that the PR system was evil because it stopped countries having strong governments.

However, they failed to notice that not everyone wants a government with no checks and balances that is bound by nothing (not common law precedents, not the EU) and can make any damned law. All with a minority of the vote.

The main problem(s) with the British system are :
i) Wasted votes (no PR, etc). There are dozens and dozens of constituencies where there is no point campaigning since it will always be a safe Labour/Tory/whatever seat.
ii) Undemocratic representation in parliament (because of First Past the Post)
iii) Local government has absolutley no legislative power (they have money to spend, but effectively have to spend it on what central government tells them to). The state is absurdly centralised.

The Lords thing is pretty much irrelevent now though.

Oh and capitalism, injustice, etc, etc. The main problem is that the essence of the British state is obedience to the monarch, respect authority and tradition, zero conception of freedom and equality. You know it's time to worry when a bunch of judges and clergy are the "liberal voice" of Britain.

[inf]

Originally posted by meglamaniac
The 'goodwill factor' is our major problem, since anyone who wants to stand a chance in British politics, by definition has no good will at all, or at least hides it in case the opposition see it as a weakness.
This is why the standard perception of politicians here (at least in my generation), is that you wouldn't ask one to hold you wallet while you carried your Big Mac to the table in case he ran off with it, gave half the money to Lybia and spent the other half on a prostitute.

I have as much clue about US politics as you have about our system, but over here politics isn't really about deciding how to run the country best. It's about one huge bitching match that can last for weeks over a single white paper.
Let me outline a pretty standard example.
Lets say a senior politician in Labour (the 'ruling' party at the moment, especially since they have more than 50% of the house) puts forward a Bill to be passed. The sequence might go like this:
Bill introduced
Bill sneered at by the Conservatives
Conservatives sneered at by Labour, with reference to past occasions where Conservatives have ****ed a similar idea up
Liberal Democrats say that they think it's an ok idea but could do with a few changes
Everyone sneers at the Liberal Democrats for sitting on the fence
Bill ammended
Labour backbenchers sneer at Labour frontbenchers for caving in to the Conservatives
Labour frontbenchers threaten the backbenchers.
Conservatives call for a public enquiry into something surrounding the Bill
Repeat above steps a few times
Bill passed to the House of Lords
House of Lords (being mainly Conservative hereditary peers, although this is supposed to be changing) blocks it, as everyone expects
Bill passed back to House of Commons
Repeat entire sequence until
a) Labour give up
b) The Lords give up and let it through
c) The Lords run out of chances to block it (they're only allowed to block it 7 times or something dumb) and it goes through by default
The Queen signs it (if it's a law).

Yes, believe it or not, the Queen still has to sign things even though she really has no power to refuse.
And you wonder why some REALLY DUMB ideas get through...
Of course, missing from the above is the inevitable alegations of sleaze/selling weapons to someone/media revalations about an MP's finances/all 3 of those, which generally goes with the course of things.

This is why the RIPA is going to go through despite most of the population hating it, simply because once a party has control they can do whatever the hell they like.
Worse than that, it's incredibly hard to undo something another administration has done - that usually involves at least 2 years of yet more public enquiries and investigations.
Dear oh dear oh dear...

The government could just use the parliment act to force the bill through the house of lords.

[wu_trax]

i like centralism (to some extend). in the us federalism seems to work, but here it failed completly
politicians talk about reforms on our system of social security for 20 years now, and nothing happened yet, because the two main parties can always block each others attempts.

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by G_frog
Heh, I didn't think you were referring to me. As it happens i did mention both types of peers but i left out the numbers because i thought it inessential, esp. as they might change again soon.

I guessed you might have done that, but it's rare I ever get the chance to 'correct' one of your posts seeing as usually I'm not remotely qualified to do so, so forgive me for jumping at the chance.

Though to be honest, it's unlikely the composition of the Lords will change that soon. The disparities between the government's White Paper and the Wakeham Report have still to be ironed out and are quite significant. Plus Blair's already achieved his aim of making his party seem reformist and a modernising force by making long-overdue but quite simple changes to the Parliamentary structure.

Originally posted by G_frog
I also disagree with a written constitution after listening to half an hour of ranting about common law by one steven barrett.

Heh. I think in half an hour of ranting from mr.barrett he could convince anyone of anything. The courts should be trembling as we speak.

[Chrism]

Originally posted by acropolis
then how does it work? do you have districts like the US, or what?

I have 0 clue.

659 constituencies, 1 member elected from each, that member being the person recieving the most votes thought not neccesarily an overall majority.

[Red]

Originally posted by Chrism
659 constituencies, 1 member elected from each, that member being the person recieving the most votes thought not neccesarily an overall majority.

That's funny in the way that theoretically you could get all the seats with next to no votes, as long as all your competitors would get even less in all constituencies.

[Azof]

Originally posted by Red
That's funny in the way that theoretically you could get all the seats with next to no votes, as long as all your competitors would get even less in all constituencies.

Or you can get no votes (that's right 0) and bribe the people who actually vote. :eek:

[Deffeh]

PR is a joke.

Example : The Scottish Parliment.

[Tzencath]

each city gets a vote to have a member of a party representing them, that person then is a member of parliment.
the party with the most citys is in power.
so you only need to get control of 1 city to go into parliment.
the party with the second highest amount of citys becomes the shadow cabinet, their job is to take the piss out of the government.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Tzencath
each city gets a vote to have a member of a party representing them, that person then is a member of parliment.

If that were true the MP representing London (a city) would need about about 2 million votes and would have about 6 million constituents.

[Jammers]

Originally posted by Tzencath

the party with the most citys is in power.

Technically (if we go back to the ideals this nation of ours is based on) its up to the Queen to decide who's in power.

Divine right of Kings (and Queens) > "democracy"

[NibNub]

The House of Lords can block a bill twice - they can theoretically block it a third time but this would cause a constitutiuonal crises & probably lead to another Civil war ending with the execution of the Queen (hooray!!) - the system is based on precedent whereby MP's have the ability to rock the boat but in practice dont. It also leads to some bizarre rules - i.e if an MP puts on a top hot and shouts "i spy strangers" the debate is immediately suspended (used in the 80's). ffs

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by NibNub
The House of Lords can block a bill twice

As far as I can remember, they only have this power if the bill concerned doesn't involve finance/the budget.

[NibNub]

Probably right - i dredged that up from 10 years ago and i'm p1ssed

[Chrism]

Originally posted by NibNub
It also leads to some bizarre rules - i.e if an MP puts on a top hot and shouts "i spy strangers" the debate is immediately suspended (used in the 80's). ffs

These are two different concepts, and you're incorrect on both of them.

I Spy Strangers is used to expel 'strangers' (i.e. non Members of Officers of the House) from the chamber, and is often used simply to waste time, as a vote has to be taken. It can very rarely be used to stop a debate, by having members not vote so that less than 40 vote and the house becomes inquorate. This was used this week actually, but will very rarely be able to be pulled off. In this case it was because a lot of them had buggered off home early. A government or the opposition could normally easily rustle up 40 members during the eight minutes of a division.

A person making a point of order during a division until recently had to wear a hat in order to do so to attract the attention of the Speaker. That rule was removed about 3 years ago, and members now simplly may move close to the chair and make their point.

[Mong]

An example:

- Constituency 1:
Labour: 30,000 votes
Conservative: 25,000 votes
Liberal: 20,000 votes

- Constituency 2:
Labour: 25,000 votes
Conservative: 15,000 votes
Liberal: 20,000 votes

- Constituency 3:
Labour: 10,000 votes
Conservative: 25,000 votes
Liberal: 20,000 votes

Labour get 2 seats, Conservatives 1, Libs 0.

- Totals:
Labour: 65,000 votes
Conservative: 65,000 votes
Liberal: 60,000 votes

So they get roughly a third each, so should get 1 vote each?

Well yes... but no.

You see, the key is that MPs look after the constituency (and they do, despite what the gutter press say). So they are representing the majority of their constituency.

Now... the suggestion is to reduce the number of constituencies, by about half. Then have two votes. One for your local MP, and one for the party you vote for. What happens then, is that the "local MP" thing works in the same way. But then each party gets a vote "weighting" based on a national PropR system.

For example in the above, Labour would get 2 MPs, Conservatives 1, Libs 0. But the "float" (it's suggested a 200ish vote float) gets split between them according to PropR. So what what would happen (for example).

Nationally:

Labour: MPs - 300 (52%) + 68 (34.25%) = 218 (44.5%)
Cons: MPs - 180 (31%) + 68 (34.25%) = 158 (32%)
Lib: MPs - 100 (17%) + 63 (31.5%) = 113 (23%)

(Based on 630 Seats, it's actually about 660)

Now of course this isn't true PropR. But countries with this (Italy is a prime example) tend to have short terms and instability. But this does go some way towards correcting the current problem. Of course, the Libs are still down 10% and Labour up 10% but it's better than being down 17% and up 18% !

M.

[wu_trax]

whatever you do, do never start with federalism, its just a bad idea (at least if its done as poorly as here in germany)

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Mong

Now of course this isn't true PropR. But countries with this (Italy is a prime example) tend to have short terms and instability.

Italy definitely has the biggest problem with government in all of western europe (disclaimer: may or may not be true).

Anyway, I demand that at least someone comment on the essay if only to say that I should keep my day job.

[Marilyn Manson]

As people have said, there are constituencies of around each, and those constituencies each elect one member by way of awarding whichever candidate gets the most votes the seat (Not the majority of the votes.) to the lower house. There are 659 in total, and the party with a majority forms the government. There are basically never any instances of coalitions - the unproportional nature of the system ensures against them.

The second chamber is appointed by a commitee.

Originally posted by G_frog
The party with the largest number of seats in the house of commons is considered the majority party and forms the executive. If this majority party has a 'super-majority', i.e. >50% of seats in the parliament, then it can pass stuff on its own. This assumes all members will cooperate, which in practice doesn't happen automatically.

The party leader can basically threaten people with demotion if they don't vote his way, but doing this too much makes both the party and public hate him, so he tries to avoid it.

That tends towards putting it in something of a more democratic light than what actually happens. With whipping and the electoral system, coalitions are a basic impossiblity, and whipping is harsh. The number of times a government lost a vote in the House of Commons last century could be counted on one hand. People also forget that The PM has a fair number of his party under some kind of very direct loyalty to him via mnisterial posts. I forget how man yon the labour benches occupy some kind of ministerial position exactly, but it's high - there are plenty of junior ministers, private ecretaries, etc.

This is one of the main problems with the system, and where "Elective dictaorship" and all that gubbins comes from. The government is given, basically, license to pass any law it wants without fear of failure, and likely only minor revisions from The Lords and Standing Commitiees.

Originally posted by G_frog
Then stuff has to get passed our second, unelected chamber, the house of lords - consisting of heriditary members, and members appointed by the executive (altho they remain in the chamber for life, 'hence life peers').

There are very few hereditary members (92) , and they'll probably be given the chop soon enough.

Originally posted by G_frog
The lords can't block the commons indefinitely. (this set-up may change soon).

In what direction?

Originally posted by G_frog
Some power, which in the US is with the elected houses (for example the budget), rests with the executive.

Most power rests with The Executive.

Originally posted by G_frog
We do not have proportional representation in the same way as europe,

Actually, just to be crafty, most of the non-Westminster elections are via a form of PR, or have an element of it in them. (This is why labour had to form coalitions after the Welsh and Scottish elections.)

Originally posted by G_frog
I don't know how constituency divisions are decided.

There's a Commission (I think it's called The Boundaries Commission) which reviews costinuency boundaries every five years or so.

Constituencies are forumlated so that they have a roughly equal population.

Originally posted by KaneED
THe House of Lords doesn't have a veto vote, nullifying any reason for it to reside,

Hey, The Lords can be a fairly effective reviser of legislation - either through blocking it or proposing revision.

Originally posted by Haer
with approximately 70,000 people in each one.

It can vary tremedously, although it is supposed to be based on an 'electoral quota', so in theory they're supposed to have a roughly equal amount, but it can go from 22,000 to 100,000.

Originally posted by Haer
Theres also the supposed Commitees, designed to be a check on Government power - Which do nothing of the sort.

Now hold on. The Select Commitees are probably the most effective form of scrutiny on the government there is. They are also fairly effective at it. They don't how power to force government to do something, so they aren't designed to be a check on it's power anyway.

Originally posted by Tzencath
each city gets a vote to have a member of a party representing them, that person then is a member of parliment.
the party with the most citys is in power.
so you only need to get control of 1 city to go into parliment.
the party with the second highest amount of citys becomes the shadow cabinet, their job is to take the piss out of the government.

That is all as wrong as wrong can be.


Oh, and Italy got rid of the old system that caused all that instability, last time I looked. I'm not sure what they have now, much less care, but they definetley reformed the system, and all those instances of governments coming and going as quickly as hell is now pretty much a feature of the past.

[treelo]

its simple(ish)

first past the post means that whoever has the largest number of votes wins. this doesnt mean that they have the majority of the public behind them.

there are 3 main parts of the system: legislature, executive, judiciary. each one deals with a different section of governing. in the US there is a distinct separation of these powers, whereas in the UK there are sections which overlap. for example the PM is a member of the executive and the legislature. the lord chancellor is a member of all 3.

the 2nd chamber (house of lords) can block legislation but only for a certain amount of time (10 years i think) and it cannot revise, merely review legislation.

thats about all i remember from my a-level politics course

[Chrism]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
The number of times a government lost a vote in the House of Commons last century could be counted on one hand.

You've said this before twice, and I've corrected you twice before. Governments have lost 123 votes in the last century. Even that fails to take into account motions that the government has urged a line on, but has failed to impose a whip. Including them, it'd be well over 200.

[Chrism]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
There's a Commission (I think it's called The Boundaries Commission) which reviews costinuency boundaries every five years or so.

There are also 4 different Boundary Commissions, one for each nation.

[Chrism]

I'd also like to point out I caught a glimpse of the Parliamentary television feed before, and I was shocked by two things I realised. Not only did I agree with a member of the SNP over something, but I actually realised that Yvette Cooper is actually quite hot. I'm a bad, bad man...

[MrMilli]

Originally posted by meglamaniac
The 'goodwill factor' is our major problem, since anyone who wants to stand a chance in British politics, by definition has no good will at all, or at least hides it in case the opposition see it as a weakness.
This is why the standard perception of politicians here (at least in my generation), is that you wouldn't ask one to hold you wallet while you carried your Big Mac to the table in case he ran off with it, gave half the money to Lybia and spent the other half on a prostitute.

I have as much clue about US politics as you have about our system, but over here politics isn't really about deciding how to run the country best. It's about one huge bitching match that can last for weeks over a single white paper.
Let me outline a pretty standard example.
Lets say a senior politician in Labour (the 'ruling' party at the moment, especially since they have more than 50% of the house) puts forward a Bill to be passed. The sequence might go like this:
Bill introduced
Bill sneered at by the Conservatives
Conservatives sneered at by Labour, with reference to past occasions where Conservatives have ****ed a similar idea up
Liberal Democrats say that they think it's an ok idea but could do with a few changes
Everyone sneers at the Liberal Democrats for sitting on the fence
Bill ammended
Labour backbenchers sneer at Labour frontbenchers for caving in to the Conservatives
Labour frontbenchers threaten the backbenchers.
Conservatives call for a public enquiry into something surrounding the Bill
Repeat above steps a few times
Bill passed to the House of Lords
House of Lords (being mainly Conservative hereditary peers, although this is supposed to be changing) blocks it, as everyone expects
Bill passed back to House of Commons
Repeat entire sequence until
a) Labour give up
b) The Lords give up and let it through
c) The Lords run out of chances to block it (they're only allowed to block it 7 times or something dumb) and it goes through by default
The Queen signs it (if it's a law).

Yes, believe it or not, the Queen still has to sign things even though she really has no power to refuse.
And you wonder why some REALLY DUMB ideas get through...
Of course, missing from the above is the inevitable alegations of sleaze/selling weapons to someone/media revalations about an MP's finances/all 3 of those, which generally goes with the course of things.

This is why the RIPA is going to go through despite most of the population hating it, simply because once a party has control they can do whatever the hell they like.
Worse than that, it's incredibly hard to undo something another administration has done - that usually involves at least 2 years of yet more public enquiries and investigations.
Dear oh dear oh dear...

Apart from the inaccuracies mentioned, this is pretty much spot on.
If X party politician came up with a way to cure world hunger and bring about world peace, then Y party politician would still bitch and complain about it, because one side thinks they could score some points.
I wouldn't trust politicians as far as I could throw them, and john prescott looks like a heavy bloke.
Its not that I'm against the Government, but I really think some changes need to be brought about.
Essentially you have a couple of hundred people sat about, getting paid far more than those who do *FAR* worthier jobs, debating about which parties.... *cough* statistics are bigger.
All supported, by that backbone of the society, those who have too much time and money on their hands and have self appointed themselves champions of moral justice.


So
Its not that our Government is "Better" than the US form of Government as they are both ****ed up representations of a noble concept, its just when our government wastes millions, its a blamed on the conservatives, when your government wastes millions, someone just gets out their wallet

[Black Dog]

Go and learn something. With few exceptions you are all quite saddening.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Black Dog
Go and learn something. With few exceptions you are all quite saddening.

As I have found an exception, I am clearly deserving of praise.

Originally posted by MrMilli
john prescott looks like a heavy bloke.