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

[Dante Hicks]

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

Most of the posts in this thread are probably above average in terms of content (albeit by the low standards of GD). If people are going to learn something, ffs don't learn about the British political system - it's one of the least interesting and overstudied topis out there.

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
ffs don't learn about the British political system - it's one of the least interesting and overstudied topis out there.

I wasn't expecting in-depth knowledge, but the basics would have been quite nice considering the fundamental importance of the subject.

[Geeza]

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

at least they add something to the topic, it may be incorrect or mis-guided but it's far superior to "you're all wrong but I won't tell you why"

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Chrism
You've said this before twice, and I've corrected you twice before.

I don't know why, but I've got it into my head for some reason.

Oh, and why on earth are you keeping count? I'm flattered.

The point stands, no matter the exact statistic. If you calculated those 120-200 instances of the government losing the vote out of all the times votes were held in the last century, then it would be a pretty small frigging propoprtion of the total, I'd wager.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Geeza
"you're all wrong but I won't tell you why"

That's called 'Yahweism'.

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by Geeza
at least they add something to the topic, it may be incorrect or mis-guided but it's far superior to "you're all wrong but I won't tell you why"

Yes, I quite understand this, yet the ease by which people can educate themselves in this area, my own laziness and despair at the thought that I might have to show adults such basics and the fact that it would have to be quite a long post which no-one will read means I can't be bothered.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Black Dog
Yes, I quite understand this, yet the ease by which people can educate themselves in this area, my own laziness and despair at the thought that I might have to show adults such basics and the fact that it would have to be quite a long post which no-one will read means I can't be bothered.

Do we incur your dishplhleasure, mawster?

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Do we incur your dishplhleasure, mawster?

Don't go casting your good self in the 'we' category with all those layabouts.

[Geeza]

Originally posted by Black Dog
Yes, I quite understand this, yet the ease by which people can educate themselves in this area, my own laziness

Firstly you admonish others for being too lazy not to read up on the subject, then admit that you yourself 'can't be bothered' to inform us.

Secondly

Originally posted by Black Dog

the fact that it would have to be quite a long post which no-one will read

You would have at least one avid reader.

[Black Dog]

As has already been stated, electorally there are 659 constituencies from which one MP is elected with the greatest number of votes in the constituency under a "First Past the Post" system, the party with the largest number of seats won can form the government. The MP-constituency link has long been held as vital, with the Parlimanetary sessions being organised so as to allow each MP to spend time with his constituents (an altogether outdated and unrealistic practice that is now changing, yet it is true that the accountability this lends to the system is very valuable). The constituencies are created roughly on the basis of population by the Boundaries Commission, yet with regards to geographic and demographic sensibilities, hence the likelihood of the 'safe seat' is expanded.
The idea that FPTP is disproportionate in terms of votes cast to seats gained is a valid criticism, yet the British system is based upon the need for strong government, quite simply a coalition is even less democratic (since a minor party is likely to always be in government despite having little popular support) and is far less effective. The best tonic for British politics at the moment would be the revival of two-party as opposed to one-party government.

The constitution is, of course, uncodified; relying upon a mixture of statue, common law, conventions, customs, prerogative powers and even influential works of authority (such as Dicey). Central to all these are the principle that Parliament is sovereign. As a result Parliament is self-regulatory, with only delegated powers to other public authorities falling under judicial review (such as the significant powers attributed to the vast networks of Local Government). Parliament's self-regulatory system relies heavily on trust - ministerial and collective responsisibility have no clear precedent and are easily circumvented, whilst the Committee structure is interminably weak (a Minister can refuse to send a civil servant working for his department before a Select Committee). As a result of a lack of scrutiny at the heart of Parliament, together with the strength of the whipping system and party loyalty (as already mentioned), the government of the day does have exaggerated powers. In fact this can be narrowed down to the executive (Prime Minister and Cabinet).
The wholly unelected (and mostly nominated under the patronage powers of the Prime Minister) House of Lords has four main functions; due to its relaxed schedule is has a highly respected role of debate, revises legislation, scrutinises ministers (though it is more successful over Europe for example) and has the power of delay of one year of legislation. In practice the Lords is highly valuable as an institution and very influential - it's role should not be underestimated.
Finally there are the devolved Parliaments in Wales, Scotland and (on and off, the latter atm) Northern Ireland which have varying powers over legislation and administrative areas, with the exception of Wales which can only refer ideas to the Secretary of State for Wales in the Cabinet.
Obviously Parliament's supremacy has been critically undermined by the European Union, yet for several reasons such as the ability to pull out of the Union and the fact that the ECJ cannot rule an Act of Parliament to be struck down, mean the UK Parliament can still claim supremacy.

Finally, we don't have any separation of powers as such, the Lord Chancellor is head of the judiciary and a member of the legislature and executive, whilst the Law Lords sit in the Lords and are the highest court of appeal as an example. Yet in practice the doctrine is upheld, largely on trust and the advent of the Human Rights Act 1998. The latter is probably the most influential document in the entirety of our system at the moment, it has granted the courts significant powers and has already had a great impact in the dealings of public authorities.

This was rushed and tip of the iceberg stuff, but I have a lecture soon so I'm off.

[Black Dog]

One of you bitches had better read this at least.

im not.

[Geeza]

as promised...I was an avid reader.

Im sure it answers most questions about the uk system

[Bunga]

I read that, but not the rest of the thread.

I tend not to read short posts where people claim they know things. The longer, the more I believe it.

[Geeza]

Originally posted by Bunga


I tend not to read short posts where people claim they know things. The longer, the more I believe it.

Your post is short! I think you're lying! I think you did read the rest of the thread.

Im at work and bored, i hope this explains 'everything'

[Bunga]

Ahh, but I stated an opinion there: I did not try to explain how I know something most others don't. When it comes to opinion or simple clarifications of stance, then it doesn't matter to me at all.