In general, it isn’t. It’s a Scottish tabloid of little repute, but in this case they may well be right. Blair is going soon, and May 9th ticks a few boxes. Ten years in charge on 2nd May, likely disastrous local elections on 3rd May, and most importantly power sharing between the DUP and Sinn Fein begins in Northern Ireland on the 8th May.
@BrainGlutton The thing is that you don’t understand how the UK system works, which is not unreasonable - I’m not that familiar with the Canadian system, and there are chunks of how the USA works that baffle me.
In 1911 George V threatened to create large numbers of Liberal peers unless the largely Conservative House of Lords passed The Parliament Act - that Act removed the ability of the H of L to block legislation.
From then on, the H of L became a body that reviewed legislation, with the introduction of Life Peers in (IIRC) the early 1960s it absorbed all sorts of people with different experience. The H of L operates on the Borg principle, people who go in there get socialized.
Removing most of the hereditary peers was a seriously bad move as it reduces the illegitimacy of the H of L. It would have been a better idea to make them all wear frilly knickers on their heads and carry Ken Dodd style tickling sticks. In a way the H of L performs some of the functions of a Court Jester.
In the past, the only time the H of L would rear up and confront the Government was when they knew the Government was wrong - and they knew the electorate agreed with them. For example they reared up against Thatcher - I can’t remember what it was about.
The more legitimate the H of L becomes, the greater the danger that it will fight the House of Commons. If even part of it were elected, then it would overturn a peculiar form of Government that has evolved over about 900 years.
You suggested Proportional Representation, while initially it looks good on paper, it has tremendous problems as it leads to coalitions - which means that the small parties who hold the balance get disproportionate influence. France suffered from it in the 4th Republic, Italy was screwed by it and Israel has problems from it.
I also intensely dislike the idea of ‘lists’, I consider my MP my representative and want the opportunity of kicking them out if I don’t like them.
Blair has done a number of things that are quite extraordinary, one of which was taking on the European Human Rights stuff which has messed up our legal system, another is the politicization of our administration.
Unlike the USA, historically our administration has been apolitical - a change of Government just meant a change of Minister. The disadvantage was that Civil Servants could thwart Ministers’ initiatives, the advantage was that things worked - well sort of. You would find the comedy series ‘Yes Minister’ very entertaining, yet it is generally believed to be very close to the truth.
Now we have loads of advisors and consultants running around, and as one would expect things don’t get done.
Setting up the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament were radical moves that were not thought out - he wanted to set up all sorts of regional assemblies, but the electorate was not interested in providing more troughs for politicians.
Blair has shown no regard for gradualism, he has torn down structures that took centuries to build. Government, like the Law, is one of those things that takes time to build up, and requires people understanding the rules - otherwise they just get confused.
Actually I reckon that Cameron is ‘keeping his powder dry’, in some ways deliberately acting like a buffoon.
I put my money on them coming out with a raft of appealing policies about eight weeks before the next election - which might be very soon.
Wouldn’t abolishing it entirely be better still, then?
OTOH, for the rest of Europe it seems to work very well indeed. And for New Zealand. I rather think Israel’s and Italy’s political instability has more to do with their political cultures than their electoral systems.
What about the mult-member-district system the LibDems proposed back in the '90s? Then you would have five MPs (in a borough five times as large as the one you vote in now).
Could you be more specific? About both, but particularly that “politicization.”
How?
What harm have they done?
Whyever not?!
Abolishing the House of Lords
- that would remove a delaying factor/check on the House of Commons
- currently the H of L acts as a form of ‘sea anchor’
Proportional Representation Ok in Europe
- they don’t have it in France, Germany’s political system is very different from ours
- personally I would prefer to copy the USA system rather than mutate our system
Multi member constituencies
- our constituencies are already quite large
- our MPs do actually do constituency work
Human Rights and Politicization
-
English law is largely based on precedent rather than ‘Rights’
-
Grafting in ‘Rights’ has created a load of confusion, it is a bit like throwing a load of Amendments into the US Constitution
-
Politicization really started with Thatcher. Unlike the USA the UK Administration is called the Civil Service and is made up of career administrators - the top ones are called ‘Mandarins’ - the reference to the way the Chinese operated is relevant. There are advantages - mainly experience and continuity, for example we can change a Government in a single day - while in the USA it is musical chairs for months.
Thwarting Ministers
- you really must get hold of a DVD of ‘Yes Minister’ - it is hillarious
Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament
- they open the door to radical changes, for example Scotland accounts for just 5m of our 60m population and there is a very real possibility that they will opt for a form of independence. To be honest most English probably don’t care, but the ramifications could be pretty dramatic. In USA it would be like Texas breaking away from the USA.
In summary, the British Constitution is something that has evolved over a long period of time - by making radical changes Blair has set off all sorts of conflicting forces, and we don’t know how things will land up.
I’ll echo the recommendation of Yes, Minister, and add its successor, Yes, Prime Minister.
Including federalism? That’s was Blair was trying to set up, wasn’t it – a federal system with England divided into semi-autonomous regions, plus equally autonomus Wales, Scotland and NI?
Why do you say that like it was a bad thing?
In the U.S. we cherish our Bill of Rights, we can hardly imagine the Constitution without it.
Adminstratively the UK actually is quite Federal, what happens is that central Government grabs about 90% of the tax take, local Government grabs 10% and gets another 30% handed out to them to run most of the services we actually use.
We have regional authorities, some of which are called County Councils, supposedly they are elected - but realistically they are are anonymous bureacracies.
For some strange reason, people don’t much like or trust those authorities. They hide behind central government rather like the way in which the UK government hides behind European directives.
My view is that we prefer to get all our eggs in one basket - and periodically trash them and replace them - normally after they have begun to stink.
As for grafting in European Human Rights, would you like them grafted into the USA Bill of Rights ?
From what I can see, the USA has steered well clear of that superficially tempting option.
I rather think that would be redundant in the case of the U.S. – but not in the case of the UK.
I rather think that you do not know whereof you talk
-
graft the ‘Uman Rites’ into the USA constitution and that idiot who wrote ‘Taking Rights Seriously’ would yelp (that’s it is it the Dworkin dork)
-
we are getting shafted - mixing laws just don’t work.
Look, what’s in this “'Uman Rights” package you speak of, that is not already protected rights under American law?
Probably plenty, all sorts of vague nice sounding things, but how would you like people being able to appeal above the Supreme Court to a non USA entity ?
Here is a bit on it:
*The current incarnation of the court was instituted on November 1, 1998, replacing the then existing enforcement mechanisms, which included the European Commission of Human Rights (created in 1954) and the previous, limited Court of Human Rights, which was created in 1950.
The new court was the result of the ratification of Protocol 11, an amendment to the Convention, which was ratified in November 1998. Judges were subsequently elected by the Council of Europe, and the court was opened approximately one year later.*
It is not actually European, and it is not actually something that is part of the European Community - although membership of the EC means that one is stuck with it.
I’d love it!
You mean cooking Bush and Rumsfeld’s goose - something to be said for that
- but it needs to be set against ‘The Law of Unexpected Consequences’
‘Supposedly elected’… 
"On 3 May 2007 district and borough councils in East Sussex will be holding elections. For full details visit their websites:
Eastbourne Borough Council
Hastings Borough Council
Lewes District Council
Rother District Council
Wealden District Council
Registering to vote
How to register to vote in local and national elections."
"Information regarding elections and electoral history in Cornwall.
Recent elections
Most recent full council elections
Electoral history
Electoral Review 2003-2005
Your elected representatives
How to make sure you have a vote
Administration of elections in Cornwall"
http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=380
"Share of vote %
Party %
Labour 38.97%
Conservative 32.70%
Liberal Democrat 16.97%
Independent 7.63%
Green 2.94%
British National 0.23%
Ashfield Independents 0.21%
no party 0.20%
UK Independence 0.11%
Veritas 0.03%
Turnout
Votes cast 476024
Turnout 58.91% "
http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/home/your_council/elections/electionresults.htm
As for being ‘anonymous’… :rolleyes:
"Find your county councillor
Each councillor has a web page including their contact details, their biography and the topics they are interested in. Find your county councillor by using the search box or the map below.
Alternatively, see our list in alphabetical order of surname – A–Z of councillors"
“There are currently 50 Councillors at Cherwell District Council representing 28 Wards. Within this section of the website you will be able to find out information about your local Councillor, perhaps contact them at one of their surgeries or come along to a Council meeting to ask a question.”
@Glee Out of curiousity do you feel you have any control over your County Council or Local Council ?
Some examples of “getting shafted” include … ?
Just one for starters.
Two Libyan guys, known to be dangerous, no right to be in the UK, not enough to jail them - but we can’t ‘export’ them because it might be dangerous for them.
If “dangerous” means the Libyan government might arrest/torture/execute them, that does not sound like an unreasonable decision.
I have a vote (which from previous posts you don’t seem to believe :eek: ).
I know several Councillors (colleagues at my School) and have discussed issues with them.
I have used many Council services such as recycling, planning permission, cemetery burial, retirement care homes etc.
The Council recently completed a bypass which has cut lorry traffic dramatically in town.
Which method of Government do you prefer?