Actually, no. The Restoration Settlement (1660) put the King back in as the executive, but subject to Parliamentary control over most legislation and most especially over the pursestrings. What led to the migration of the office to its present state was a series of things, including in particular the Glorious Revolution (1688), George I’s refusal to learn English, George III’s mental state (even when sane), Victoria’s reclusiveness, and a general erosion of royal power in favor of the ministers.
As I noted above, Elizabeth II does play a small but real, if somewhat reserved and unpublicized, role in active government. She is also head of state, which means two things: (1) Something necessary in a parliamentary democracy which we totally miss the point of – someone above the political fray who provides continuity as Governments fall and are reconstituted, a source of powers she may not herself wield but which are received formally from her and which she could in theory withhold in dire circumstance; (2) The person responsible for the formal ceremonial acts of government, relieving the ministers of this element of state. Where Mr. Bush must go dedicate a new nucular power plant, Mr. Blair will not; instead, the Queen or Prince Charles or another royal will do it.
Of course there were some details to be cleared up, but since Charles I was beheaded the “sovereign” has never been quite the same. This was amply demonstrated when Edward the whatever was forced out for his instance on marrying Mrs. Simpson. Henry VIII would never have stood for that.
The execution of Charles I must have been a monumental event. After all, the king was God’s chosen instrument for ruling and those who beheaded him must have had a few sleepless nights.
Our present system has grown lopsided. As originally conceived King, Lords and Commons formed three corners of a virtuous triangle with powers that balanced each other. The King’s theoretical omnipotence was circumscribed by his need for money, which only the Commons could vote him. The Lords represented the hereditary aristocracy and the Established Church. With the Crown reduced to a cipher, and the Church no longer interested in politics, and the Lords emasculated, the will of the Commons has come to be overly mighty. This might not be matter if the Government did not control the Commons so absolutely, using the ‘back us or sack us’ threat implicit in a confidence motion. Unlike in the UN Congress, losing the vote on a major Bill is usually a government-breaker, so this nuclear option is rarely used by the government’s friends, and the government’s enemies seldom have the numbers to achieve it
Long story short from my POV
The House of Commons and the Prime Minister are the law makers and decision makers in Albion.
That is now how it works.
The House of Lords is toothless as it now it is because of the eradication of herditery peers and the inclusion of a gamut of New Labour lovvies.
Admittedly the House of Lords is in and of it self was an anachronism.
The same could be said for the Head of State who was ordained by God :dubious:
However, considering the House of Commons can drag us into two wars and unilaterally ban anything and all things at its will. It is rightfully the seat of power for the British public.
The fact they are a bunch of publically elected twats is here nor there.
In defference to that point, I also thank God that the Queen is the Head of State.
So her family were the lucky ones, like countless Lottery millionaires who stumped up a quid and were made instantly rich.
However the Queen has a duty which is sadly lost on the PM and the Commons.
While Blair can drive a nation to war, cause untold human suffering, skip over domestic issues and allow his wife to shove her face in the trough of money making jaunts. Queeny can’t comment on any of this.
Her job description is A-Political, a position she has held for over 50 years.
I thank her for it, and I thank God that our Head of State is not dictated by who is the most canny huckster in the political network.
Not if the party manages an appear to the Court of European Rights
@PolyCarp The British Constitution is generally known as ‘an unwritten constitution’ - that is by the British. I agree that the word could mean something else in USA English - thinking about it, it probably does.
@Cerowyn I would not dismiss such a rumour out of hand, it may or may not be true
When I was reading comparative government, that’s the term we used too, and strangely enough, with the same meaning over here. In general, we use the same words to mean the same things as your countrymen who base their statements on factual data and analysis rather than sneering prejudice.
Ok, so you also studied comparative government - and it is not a linguistic SNAFU
probably the problem is that I studied it in the UK and you in the USA
My take on the situation is that the American colonies were expensive and a bit of a nuisance. The Southern states were fine as we could trade with them, but the Northern states were not particularly interesting - put crudely they had little to sell. Canada was a different kettle of fish - for some obscure reason people liked beaver hats.
There was little difference between the British and the Americans.
As usual the French were being a nuisance, a French poster would say that the British were being a nuisance.
Sending over Hessian mercenaries was probably a spectacularly bad idea, and exposing anyone to guerilla tactics was not that smart. Britain was only interested in two things, the first was trade and the second was not getting shafted by France (while being thoroughly unpleasant to France).
The loss of America to the Americans was no big deal.
Loss to France would have been annoying.
Moving on to the British Constitution versus the USA Constitution, the similarities are interesting - the President mimics a monarch and the two Houses mimic our two houses. Recalling an essay I wrote about 30 years ago, ‘the main problem with a hereditory monarchy is that of an idiot in the family’
the USA avoided that problem - well maybe
the UK system mutated
I totally dispute your assertion that Elizabeth II has any influence over the government of the UK. There is no way in which she can review the volume of legislation that goes through - it is physically impossible. While she has her weekly chats with the Prime Minister, she can’t stick up a finger and say ‘go swivel’ - and the leaks on her real views are almost impossible to detect.
However, if I have any understanding of her views, over the last ten years many things that she has signed off have been against her understanding of what will work.
I hope that I have never lectured you, or anyone else, on how the USA works - and I would consider it a courtesy if you refrained from lecturing British Dopers on something that is complicated and currently a sensitive topic.
You would find it interesting to listen to a BBC series called ‘This Sceptred Isle’ which you could find on Ebay or Amazon - a British view of the past might interest you. Take that as a benign recommendation.
But isn’t the PM also an MP? I thought the way a parliamentary democracy works is that the party that wins a majority gets to choose the PM and all the other ministers from among its own ranks, and they go on being MPs as well, sort of like congressional committee chairpersons in the U.S. If no party has a clear majority then there has to be a coalition, and negotions take place as to which party gets which ministries.
Or is the Prime Minister’s office really separate and distinct from his or her membership in Parliament?
When the Republicans took over the U.S. House in 1994, I was interested to note how in Der Spiegel, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and all the Republican committee chairs were portrayed almost as ministers in a “shadow government”.
The PM is selected by the largest party, but after that the Cabinet is selected by the PM. The PM remains an ordinary MP - first among equals - but it isn’t necessary for a Cabinet member to be an MP, although they mostly are. Occasionally a Cabinet member is a member of the House of Lords.
ETA I think one Cabinet position - Lord Chancellor, basically the head of the judiciary - is always a member of the Lords.
‘Ministry’ is a rather old-fashioned (but not incorrect) term for the government. About the only place I see it used now is at the commencement of each volume of ‘Hansard’
Not technically true. The PM is the MP who can command a majority in the House of Commons. It would be entirely possible for a small party A to tell a big party B that they would not serve under its leader but would under the leader of mutually
compatible party C.
Nowadays the Law Lords are appointed judges and are not drawn from the House of Lords itself. So the court HoL is not really the same thing as the government HoL at all.
