BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

British Political Climate

  
 
charrellz
13:55 / 12.10.04
I just realized I know very little about politics on the other side of the pond (I really hate that phrase), so rather than go to some boring official site, I thought I would go straight to the people! (I'm looking less for perfect textbook answers, and more for the way the general population looks at it)

First off: Is England trapped in the two party dilemma similar to the US, or is it pretty open there. Also, what are the big parties and the differences thereof (and WTF is a Tory anyway?)

Question the Second: What are the big issues these days? (i.e. Iraq, gay rights, economy)

Final Question(s): How often are elections for various offices? Is voter apathy nearly as bad in the UK as in the US?

After writing this, I've realized just how terrible American schools really are. All they say is "Our government borrows alot from the British," and then never say a damn thing about how or what. Or maybe I just slept through that lesson.
 
 
Brigade du jour
14:15 / 12.10.04
I'm no expert, but for sheer swiftness of reply I shan't be bested!

Okay ... we have general elections every three to five years (last was 2001, next probably next year according to those in the know (or those who think they're in the know)). We also have regional by-elections but ... I'd better let someone better informed than me explain them!

We have two main political parties, the Conservative Party (less formally known as the Tories) and the Labour Party (currently in power). The Tories traditionally lean to the right of centre (like in the US the Republicans) and Labour to the left (like the Democrats) although, as in the US the actual differences are, in practice, pretty minor. Doesn't stop them all insulting each other via ironic sniping and clever invective, though.

Other parties include the Liberal Democrats (mostly to the left of both main parties, not a serious threat to them but could well be soon), the Green Party (largely concerned with environmental issues) and the UK Independence Party (who want Britain to withdraw from the EU or at least stop ceding power to it).

The big political issues are, if you believe certain very nasty, small-minded but very popular newspapers over here, immigration (specifically 'bogus asylum-seekers'), crime (there's way too much of it and criminals aren't punished enough, apparently) and the failing National Health Service (which is free but grossly under-funded).

So, very broadly speaking, not all that different to the US, I suppose. Is that any help?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:24 / 12.10.04
First off: Is England trapped in the two party dilemma similar to the US, or is it pretty open there. Also, what are the big parties and the differences thereof (and WTF is a Tory anyway?)

Easy question first - "Tory" is a nickname for members of the Conservative party, and by extension those with Conservative leanings. We have two dominant parties, theoretically - (New) Labour and the Conservative Party, and a lesser party - the Liberal Democrats, who are made up of rebellious Labour MPs, who split off to form the Social Democratic Party, then merged with the remains of the Liberal Party that was the party of rule in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Problem is that at the moment we have a *one*-party monolemma - Labour has 407 seats, the Conservatives have 163, and the Lib Dems 55, giving Labour a near-unassailable majority. This has been the case for the last two elections, one being a landslide when Labour swept a broken-backed minority Tory government (which had been forced to rely on the votes of the Unionist parties - see below - to swing unpopular issues) out of power, and the other the failure of the Tories to pull back their losses. The Conservative Party is as a result of this in a state of near-perpetual crisis of one sort or another - they have managed to halt a succession of lame-duck leaders but their current leader, Michael Howard, is both old for a modern leader and also has a reputation for satanic evil that, surprisingly, counts against him. The Liberal Democrats are the coming thing, and have been coming for some time now, but the way seats are allocated (by simple majority in electoral wards) means that they struggle to convert broad support across the country into a representative number of seats.

After that, we have about 9 Welsh and Scottish Nationalists (who want independence from the UK), 11 Northern Irish Unionists (who most certainly *don't* want independence from the UK), 4 members of Sinn Fein (the Irish Republican Party, who have nothing against the UK, but refuse to take up their seats in a parliament *in* the UK, and would on the whole rather be in the Dáil, cheers) and a few odds and sods.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:26 / 12.10.04
Is England trapped in the two party dilemma similar to the US, or is it pretty open there. Also, what are the big parties and the differences thereof (and WTF is a Tory anyway?)

Right well we have three major parties (I'm going to be really, really basic)- Labour, Consrvative (Tory) and the Liberal Democrats. The Labour party is traditionally left wing, it's funded significantly by the Trade Unions and it's currently in power. However Tony Blair is a neo-con. He got the party in to power by moving them over to the right, while they do quite a lot of good work socially it isn't reported and he really cocked up by going in to Iraq. Labour are still more left wing than your democrats.

The Conservative party (also known as the Tory party) are the right wing party in this country. They're probably about where your democrats are on most issues, slightly isolationist but unwilling to leave Europe. They're always whining about taxes and how they're going to cut them but it doesn't work etc.

The Lib Dems are a relatively new party, last week I knew when they were founded but I've forgotten again. They're a bit more left than Labour at the moment but they won't get elected in to power because they 1)don't field candidates everywhere and 2)aren't perceived as up on things like the economy.

We also have other parties- the Green party, Respect and the UK Independence Party (UKIP) come to mind. These tend to trade on specific issues- the environment, Iraq and withdrawing from Europe. UKIP are currently stealing a lot of Tory votes but this might change in the general election because people tend to vote more tactically to ensure they get a bit of what they want.

Question the Second: What are the big issues these days? (i.e. Iraq, gay rights, economy)

Iraq is still a massive issue here, it comes up every week on political debate programmes and has done for about two years. The past three weeks have focused on the hostage situation with Ken Bigley (may he rest in peace). The economy is always floating around as an issue particularly with regards to our social services- the NHS, education etc.

Final Question(s): How often are elections for various offices? Is voter apathy nearly as bad in the UK as in the US?

We got about 50% turn out for the last local and European elections and that's high for an election that isn't general. General elections (we elect the party and not the Prime Minister by the way) usually get about 50%. Everyone has an electoral register put through the door and we add our names on to it, we don't have to actively seek it out, just add our names to the list when we're 16/17.
 
 
Nobody's girl
15:22 / 12.10.04
Here's a few more tidbits on the UK system.

Since Tony won power in 1997 after a landslide victory there have been a few reforms in our political system. The country had previously been governed mainly from the Houses of Parliament in London (where Big Ben is), but during the previous Conservative (Tory) government there had been a great deal of resentment towards this centralised government in outlying regions.

Where I live, Scotland, the Tories rarely won many seats (MP's) and as a result cared little about what happened to the people in those areas. Unpopular policies like the Poll Tax were tested in Scotland before the rest of the UK because if we didn't like it, it didn't matter to the Tory's electoral chances. Scottish nationalism and separatism became a (relatively) strong political movement in Scotland as a result of this treatment, other Labour strongholds also followed suit.

So, when Tony took the reins he devolved a lot of centralised power to a new Scottish Parliament and regional assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland with varying degrees of power. This move ensures that the next time the Tories win an election (not any time soon by the looks of it), Labour will almost certainly still have a majority in some of the regional governments. Shrewd move on Tony's part. That's not to say that the Tories wont try to scupper their power, but it'll be an interesting fight to watch.

As well as elected MP's, MSP's and Assemblymen/women we also have elected MEP's who represent us in the European Parliament. European matters have become more important since the (mainly) Euroskeptic Tories were replaced by (mainly) Eurofriendly Labour. Recently theEuropean Convention on Human Rights has become a part of UK law, much to the chagrin of the Euroskeptics who believe it undermines UK law.
Personally, I believe that it has been one of the most progressive additions to our law in it's history.

Which leads me on to Constitutions. We've never had one. Sucky huh?

Tony and his government sit in the House of Commons (horribly classist name) and are elected. However the House of Lords, our second chamber, is also in the process of reform. Previously, the Lords had aristocrats who inherited titles (unelected) which allowed them to influence elected MP's laws. Tony threw them out, replacing them with Life Peers who are people the government appoints for (supposedly) Good Works. Life Peers cannot pass on their title to their children. For example, Margaret Thatcher was "kicked upstairs" to the Lords and now holds the title "Baroness" but her children (thank god) will not be able to take over her role when she dies. Interestingly, the only Communist Lord we ever had was an inherited peer. Strange, eh?

The Lords also has Lords Spiritual, no separation of church and state here.

Also in the Lords are Law Lords, Judges who function rather like the Supreme Court. Except that you can appeal your case to the European Courts if you feel you human rights have been breached. Hence people getting pissed off about the Human Rights Convention undermining our law.

The reform of the Lords is a bit of a botch job at the moment and not quite finished. Recently at the Labour Party Conference there was talk of the "Billy Bragg Proposal" being adopted for the Lords, which makes me smile. Billy Bragg is a very sweet left-wing folk musician who likes to get involved in government.

Because we seriously lack any "check and balances" like the US Tony actually holds much more power over the state that George W Bush. Tony controls the executive, the legislative chambers and the Lord Chancellor (judiciary top job). I think the Lord Chancellor is technically separate but Tony was his pal in University, so he's only nominally separate.

I'm sure I've missed out some important stuff and muddled some other bits, but that's what I understand of the structure of our government. Contributions and disagreements are welcome
 
 
Nobody's girl
15:30 / 12.10.04
I beg your pardon, Tony was a flatmate (roomate) with the Lord Chancellor when they were both young Barristers (lawyers), not at University.
 
 
_Boboss
15:34 / 12.10.04
they were roommates when they entered the commons - backbench MPs don't get their own offices, they have to share, all the better to plot armageddon with.
 
 
_Boboss
15:35 / 12.10.04
sorry, right, lord chancellor not chancellor exch.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:56 / 12.10.04
Previously, the Lords had aristocrats who inherited titles (unelected) which allowed them to influence elected MP's laws

Just to clarify - Tony Blair did not invent life peers - the conference of a life peerage is first recorded, I think, in the 14th century. However, the Life Peerages Act 1958 allowed the Crown (that is, Queen Elizabeth, who is our head of state) to create peers for life as a recognised process. Before that, if you created a peer, you had to accept that their oldest male descendant would also have the right to sit in the House of Lords upon their death, and so on. This is, by the way, why the Tory Lords (Conservatives have a natural majority in the Lords, as they are the party of landowners, who have traditionally been nobles) passed the Parliamnet Act in 1911 (which removed their ability to veto motions passed by the commons in perpetuity) - George 5th threatened to create enough Liberal peers to pass it otherwise, which would have meant that the Tory majority in the Lords would be removed forever.

The Billy Bragg proposal mentioned above is, very roughly, to scrap the current House, made up as it is of peers, steers, and... sorry, peers, Bishops and political appointees, and replace it with a house elected in parity with the votes cast for elections to the lower house - so, if Labout gets 43% of the national vote, it gets 43% of the apppointees to the second house. Although it may raise concerns about the utility of the second house as a check or balance, there is a fair amount to be said for this, inasmuch as it will clean out some of the ancient, loathsome, homophobic nutters currently polluting the place.
 
 
charrellz
16:01 / 12.10.04
Thanks for all the great info! Just one more quick question - does the royal family have any power? It seems like everything is covered by the PM...
 
 
sleazenation
16:04 / 12.10.04
Just to clarify something Anna De L said

In this country we do actually vote for political parties - we vote for constituency MPs, literally a member of parliament for our constituency. In effect most MPs are backed by a political party of some stripe but occasionally an independant MP is elected - such as the former BBC journalist Martin Bell who was the MP for Tatten South 1997-2001. But I digress. The point being that some people vote on the basis of a party platform while others vote on the relative merits of the individual candidates.

The Liberal Democrats being the result of a merger outlined by Haus above can be viewed as either a new party or a very old party depending.

Its also probably worth remembering that we do not vote for a head of state. That role is still hereditary and belongs to Queen Elizabeth II who is also the head of the Anglican Church (see again the lack of seperation between church and state). The Prime Minister and the government opperate in the Queen's name and have to seek Royal assent on any laws that are passed as well as seeking permission to form a government or end a parliament.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
16:21 / 12.10.04
Yeah, right (the only instance I can think of where two positives make a negative).
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:23 / 13.10.04
The Prime Minister and the government opperate in the Queen's name and have to seek Royal assent on any laws that are passed as well as seeking permission to form a government or end a parliament.

Indeed. The monarch also appoints Archbishops of Caterbury, creates lords, awards honours (knighthoods, that sort of thing) and can theoretically take any military rank (up to colonel?) in order to assist the defence of the nation.

In practice, the monarch operates as a rubber stamp. Bit like Swaziland, really...
 
 
grant
19:17 / 14.10.04
OK, if there's no real constitution, then what about the Magna Carta? Doesn't it have any British descendants?
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
23:07 / 14.10.04
i hope you don't mind me cutting and pasting.

...

Uncodified constitution
In these systems, the difference between a constitution and a statute is somewhat arbitrary, usually depending on the traditional devotion of popular opinion to historical principles embodied in important past legislation. For example, several Acts of Parliament such as the Bill of Rights, Human Rights Act and, prior to the creation of Parliament, the Magna Carta are regarded as granting fundamental rights and principles which are treated as almost constitutional. However, these are in law no different to any other Act of Parliament and can be changed just as easily.

scary, huh?!?
and strangely, while I am a citizen of Europe, I am still a subject of the Queen.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
08:28 / 15.10.04
Yeah - most of Magna Carta has been superseded, I think, hasn't it? (as indeed has much of the Bill of Rights, 1689 - I don't think William III ever granted all of the articles in the first place...). There's an 'unwritten constitution', but that's really not much use to anyone (except politicians who appeal to it when it suits their purposes - usually Eurosceptics holding it up against the idea of a European Constitution).
 
 
grant
13:43 / 15.10.04
I was just curious because in civics class, we little Americans are told the story about the Magna Carta (Robin Hood! He was there!) and how it's the ancestor of our brave and noble Constitution. (They never mention the Algonquin stuff on the Constitution's mother's side, but I digress.)

I just assumed that whatever articles organize the modern parliament were on one piece of paper that revised the Magna Carta (or revised revisions of...).

Weird that they're not.
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
23:17 / 15.10.04
The separation of power is an integral part of American Politics but is less clear in British Politics primarily as one, the American model, is guaranteed in their Constitution while the British Constitution is uncodifed and therefore roles have merged between parts of government.

...

The Prime Minister is an active member of the legislative yet he is also the leading member of the executive.
Thw Lord Chancellor is a member of the cabinet and therefore of the executive as well as being head of the judiciary.
The House of Lords also has a right to vote on bills so they are part of the legislative but the Lords also contains the Law Lords who are an important part of the judiciary.
As with the PM, the members of the Cabinet are also members of the legislative who have the right, as a Member of Parliament, to vote on issues.

Some would argue that the British system is more authoritarian, but I think it is more honest.

*looks over shoulder*

There is a British organisation for constitutional change called Charter 88 who were involved in the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
 
  
Add Your Reply