A few questions regarding your government . . .

Jeez...how long have you got???

OK a few basic answers:-

1) We are known 'officially' I suppose as "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", being England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

2) Our parliamentary system is what is known as a 'bi-cameral legislature', ie. two houses of parliament where laws are debated and made.

3) In the States your lower house is the House of Representatives and your upper House is the Senate - both of which are elected. The equivalent lower House in the UK is the House of Commons, which is elected, and the House of Lords, which is not.

4) All members of the government must be members of either of the two Houses of parliament.

5) Unlike the US constitution, ours is unwritten with government in large part by convention. One of these conventions is that the prime minister is always a member of the House of Commons rather than the Lords.

6) On the question of UK government, Blair has introduced what is known as devolution which means that both Wales and Scotland have their own parliaments.

7) However the picture is complex because whereas Scotland have their own legal system (and therefore a different school system, court system and a different procedures for purchasing properties, etc.), Wales doesn't.

8) Furthermore, despite the fact that Wales and Scotland elect their own 'local' members of parliament, they also send MPs to Westminster - the site of our national parliament I mentioned above. This is seen as politically expedient for Labour because the core of their parliamentary support in the House of Commons is concentrated in large part in Scotland and parts of Wales.

Phew...hope that answers some of your queries!

Regards,

Jon

Bloody good question Judd.

It's answered some of mine and I live here.

'Great Britain' is the name of the island (I wonder if there was a time when Ireland was Little Britain?) Anyway it's the largest of the British Isles.

Wales was subsumed into England in the 1200s by violence, although it was arguably self-defence. Scotland became part of the 'United Kingdom' in the early 1600s due to a lack of available English Kings. The resulting James 2 is best known for his 'Version'. It's been downhill since.

Paul

When devolution (in Scotland anyway) is going to get interesting is when there is a party other than labour in control of the UK parliament but a labour controlled government in the Scottish assembly.

At present labour (and their lib-dem lapdogs) in Scotland just do what they're told by London, but if we've got a Tory UK government it'll be a very different story as it's unlikely the Tories will ever be more than a bit-part player in Scottish politics.

Try N. France for starters, innit.

Fritz Von Petit Francais

Its not ours anyway its the queens
Mart the subject

Jon, you forgot our other name - the British Isles, which covers ..er.. the british isles

"Your government" is the organ through which our dearly beloved leader, Toneee B Liar, can lord it over his personal kingdom - otherwise (and currently) known as the United Kingdom but given his Toniness's want to be subsumed within the organ known as the EU.

quote:

Originally posted by Jez Quigley:
Jon, you forgot our other name - the British Isles, which covers ..er.. the british isles

Quite right, Jez, or alternatively "Great Britain", or simply "Britain"!

Jon

Not Little Britian???

uggghhhh.

sounds like a headache if you ask me.

Now ask them about the Magna Charta.

And the star chamber...

Three cheers for the revolution eh. Hip Hip

According to the Danish Radio News (in danish) the "deeply unpopular" leader of the opposition doesn't stand a cat in hells chance of ever seing the inside of No10 this side of the third millenium even with a hurricane-force following wind. (or words to that effect)

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
According to the Danish Radio News (in danish) the "deeply unpopular" leader of the opposition doesn't stand a cat in hells chance of ever seing the inside of No10 this side of the third millenium even with a hurricane-force following wind. (or words to that effect)

If only that were true Nime.

The left (and I do still include Labour in this) in Britain is deeply divided. - Mainly because of the war in Iraq, but also with things like top up fees, foundation hospitals and so on . What this means is that many people who voted labour last time will not be voting for them this time. They will vote Lib Dem, Green etc. I've spoken to many friends who are going to do this - I wouldn't be surprised if Labour lose both seats here in Norwich.

What this means in practice is that Labour will lose seats not the Tories - there may be some local UKIP drift from them, but it's not going to be large. The danger is that Howard will become PM on May 5th, not by popular support, but by dissatisfaction with the present administration.



Stephen

Governments lose elections, oppositions never win them

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
The danger is that Howard will become PM on May 5th

There is absolutely no danger that Howard will be PM on May 5th, but even in the exceptionally unlikely situation that he did I doubt he'd be any worse than the prick who currently has the job.

I'd expect labour to lose some seats, but not to the extent that they lose their majority. Even if they were to lose their majority it wouldn't matter because the disgusting turncoat Lib-Dems would do what they've done in Scotland and form a government with labour just so they can get a little taste of power.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve G:

There is absolutely no danger that Howard will be PM on May 5th,

I don't think you can be so sure. Left-wing labour people are really upset with Blair and willing to express that by voting elsewhere.

quote:

but even in the exceptionally unlikely situation that he did I doubt he'd be any worse than the prick who currently has the job.

It's not just Howard we'd be getting. If you think that the Tories are 'just the same' as Labour, even with Blair, you're mistaken.

Stephen

In about 15 minutes time I'm going to enjoy watching the comedy of what possibly may be the last Prime Minister's Question time under this format, then I'll visit a local Council estate and distribute fruit to the poor and hungry.

Fritz Von It's great to see the real character of some forum members finally sprouting, makes me realise how lucky I myself are, innit

I don't understand this bit baout forming a government between two parties. Are you saying that if party A wins 45%, party B wins 40% and party C wins 15%, parties B and C can join forces and elect a PM even though Party A won the election (and therefore, ought to be able to elect a PM)?

Judd

Judd,

It really depends on the electoral system being used. Here in the UK, our national Parliamentary elections have always been run under a system known as 'first past the post'. Under this system the UK is divided up into roughly 650 parliamentary constituencies, each of which consists of a population normally the size of a small town - anything 40,000 to 80,000 people. Each of these consituencies elects a Member of Parliament to represent them in the House of Commons at Westminster, and basically, a candidate who gets the most votes wins the election, regardless of how many other candidates are standing.

The party that gets to form a government is the one with the most Members of Parliament. Now, under the first past the post system, historically the results of these elections are usually decisive, such that the party forming the government has more MPs than all the other parties in the House of Commons put together. This is then known as an 'absolute majority', and allows the governing party the power to pass legislation on the back of their numerically superior parliamentary support.

The problem with the 'first past the post system' is that the percentage representation of the parties in parliament rarely reflects the percentage vote across the country. This is a common complaint of 'third parties' like the Lib Dems who might achieve anything up to 25% of the vote but end up with only 50 MPs. It also means that the two main parties, Labour and Conservative, are usually able to gain power on the back of 39-40% of the popular vote!

Of course, proportional representation would involve a completely different system, and completely different types of constituency...but that's a whole other can of worms and you'd be a masochist of you really wanna go there!

Cheers,

Jon

The coalition government in Scotland was formed by the largest party in the polls and the one in 4th position.

The largest party, labour, got 34.6% of the vote and 50 seats. The lib-dems got 15.4% of the vote and 17 seats.

quote:

I don't understand this bit baout forming a government between two parties. Are you saying that if party A wins 45%, party B wins 40% and party C wins 15%, parties B and C can join forces and elect a PM even though Party A won the election (and therefore, ought to be able to elect a PM)?

Building on what JonR said, if party A wins 45% of the SEATS in the House of Commons, Party B 40% of the seats and party C 15%, then we have a "Hung Parliament", ie no one party has an absolute majority.

In the above example, ANY TWO of the parties could agree to join forces and form a government.

Cheers

Don