±«Óãtv

I've just been commenting on a possible honour for Richard Dawkins actually. I agree that the honours system needs to be fair and APPEAR to be fair. Tony Blair is nervous about peerages now, in the middle of the cash for honours scandal, but he needs to address this obvious injustice immediately. Archer should be stripped of that ermine robe he's wearing in the picture and kicked out of the house of lords. That's a law-making chamber. He broke the law. Simple as that.

Don’t forget Lester Piggott was also stripped of his OBE. So the race card is a non starter.

Why should it constantly be surprising that in a nation not dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, that they are not treated equally? The phrase "all men are created equal" has been interpreted in the United States to mean equal in the eyes of the law. While to this day this may be more of a distant goal in the US than an actual fact, it is at least enshrined in the founding document of the nation, the first words in it's justificaton for existance as a nation and as a protector of that equality for the existance of government itself. All nations have their aristocracies, those with more political or econimic power than others who manage to hand it down from one generation to the next through inheritance of wealth, tradition, association, affiliation, it is nowhere more an inexorable and inextricable construct of society than in Britain. The existance of peerage itself and a royal family at its pinacle is a demonstration of this. So is the existance of an official church whose head also happens to be the ruling monarch which is no mere coincidence. English literature is obsessed with this fact and its consequences. Even the American novelist Mark Twain mocked the entire system in his story "A Connecticuit Yankee in King Arthur's Court." And of course George Bernard Shaw mocked it in Pygmalion which was the source for the Broadway musical "My Fair Lady." Does Britain have a written down constitution? Not that I'm aware of. It has instead a series of conventions and statutes which passes for one. How many Brits actually know what they say? So let's not ever be outraged or shocked at unequal in the eyes of the law in Britain, it is part and parcel of that society.

Mark- Absolutely. Britain is not a democracy... it is the pretence of a democracy since at any time a 2nd chamber full of undemocratically appointed geriatrics are able to circumvent the will of the people and that at any further time - at least in theory - a monarch can circumvent the entire process.

And British liberals have the arrogance to try and tell America about its faults. I believe Jesus once talked about pointing out a speck of dust in a neighbour's eye while a dirty great flagpole is in your own (or something like that).

I'll take Britain's flawed attempt at democracy any day over America's efforts of late. Re: the unelected George Bush.

As for the second chamber: it revises legislation and advises on developments. It's useful to that extent. I want to see it fully expected. But there's such a thing as "The Parliament Act" which means that the commons' will is always enforced even against an overwhelming vote against in the lords.

As for enelected government: the US president appoints every member of the cabinet. NONE are elected. British cabinet ministers at least have to face a public vote every four or five years.

Come on JW - your losing the plt a bit over there. Must be the weather.

James- You're not going to win a debate in which you argue that Britain's parliamentary system is superior to America's ground-up democracy. Asserting such is bad enough, but you calling George Bush "unelected" has to take the cake. Here's the newsflash: (1) Bush is in his last term. Get over it. (2) He was elected not once, but twice, as far as I'm aware. Hold on, let me check.....

.....yup, Bush is still President.

James Lee #5; not only is America's government structured entirely differently from Britain's, the entire philosophy behind it and the role of government is different. Britain's government evolved out of a prior form which Americans rebelled against and rejected. America's form of government is entirely revolutionary, nothing quite like it had ever existed before. It was the product of the greatest minds who ever sat down to collectively work out a way to create a government which will not allow one person or group to tyrannize the rest. And so far, it has usually worked...more or less.

Much has been made of the special relationship between the US and Britain, and its similarities of culture. But IMO, the dissimilarities are far far greater. ±«Óãtv's program "America Age of Empire" and its recent broadcast on "The Interview" with Sir Christopher Meyer who was Britain's ambassador to the US for over five years demonstrated that rather clearly to me. Even Sir Christopher whose knowledge of America is quite good showed it was less than profound. An interesting question which Owen Bennet Jones asked him was "Why is America so rich?" Sir Christopher said that in part it was because America had a head start. Actually, America was a Johnny come lately. Europe and other civilizations were far advanced when America was still an untamed, unexplored, largely unpopulated wilderness. The industrial revolution started in Britain, not America. Is America strong because it is powerful and rich? NO!, it's the other way around, it quickly became rich and powerful because of its inner strength. That's the real secret. In America, government's role is to stay out of people's way and only enter into their lives when it absolutely has to. It is a nation of people expected to be or become self reliant, not dependent on government. That's the legacy of a civilization which had to survive by conquering a continental sized unforgiving savage wilderness. Their strength was acquired by overcoming impossible adversity on an individual basis. That is also why among other things, America does not have an expensive social safety net....yet.

In the United State's the President's cabinet is nothing more than a committee of advisors and chief administrators of various departments to help him with the extraordinary task of carrying out the duties of the executive branch of the federal government. While they must be approved by Congress, they are not elected officials and they aren't supposed to be. The separation of powers between equal branches of legislative, executive, and judicial in the US is far greater and more unbreachable than in Britain. Apparantly so is division of powers between Federal and State governments. Further study of the structure of America's government may be instructive. America's constitution which lays it out is only a few pages long and written in plain ordinary language everyone can understand. How long was the EU's which France and Holland voted down, 400 pages?

Did George Bush steal the election and the Presidency with it? In my view, in 2000 he did. It took a conspiracy of all three branches of government in Florida, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court to do it. I think something like it happened once before, possibly in the election of Rutherford B. Hayes in the late 19th century. But the election in 2004 was entirely fair. Kerry lost both the electoral vote and the popular vote (which doesn't count in America's system) and his loss in the popular vote was by a fairly wide margin.

Judging from the number of Brits who emigrate to other nations, 10% according to a recent ±«Óãtv report (the data were presented in a way which masks the true number of native born Brits who emigrated according to ±«Óãtv because the numbers are counterbalanced by immigrants) there are many who don't agree that Britain is still the land of hope and glory. To them it has become a "pless-ed blot."

Let's not rerun the debate about Bush's questional election in 2000. A comparative study of UK and US democracy and freedom would be an interesting debate though. Maybe we should have a new post on it?

Re 7 Mark wrote: "Did George Bush steal the election and the Presidency with it? It took a conspiracy of all three branches of government in Florida, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court to do it. "

Wow, trying to persuade the Brits that the USA's form of government is superior while holding a 'conspiracy' belief like that seems like an exercise in ......

And here, poor me, just thought it was something to do with the precision and accuracy with which votes can be counted with a fairly ancient abacus-like system.

This Bush guy must be some sort of a Diving Being to get away with something like that!

Peace,
Maureen

ps: I've met Clinton - and he is DIVINE!

John: The US president's veto power is a reality. The UK Queen's veto power is a constitutional fiction. She would never challenge legislation. If she did, the monarchy would be over. The US president regularly overrules the will of congress. That's a fine democracy. I prefer a system where Tony Blair loses votes in parliament.

David (Oxford) #8
One difference between a Parliamentary Democracy as Britain has and America's Federal Republic is that there (seems to me) is no separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches in a Parliamentary democracy, the Prime minister is a member of Parliament and always in the majority party. Another is that when the Parliament votes against the Prime Minister, the government falls and new elections must be held. Britain's elections are not held on a regularly scheduled basis therefore as America's are.

Maureen McNeill
In a conspiracy to seize power in most other forms of government, the result would likely have been a military dictatorship or a revolution or civil war. We've had other dark chapters in American government such as Watergate, Teapot Dome during Warren G. Harding's administration, the corrupt administraton of Ulysses S. Grant and we've managed to survive them all. We survived this too as contemptable as it was. It's a relatively sturdy system but it can be broken...As President Kennedy found out during the Cuban missile crisis.

Maureen says she's met Clinton and he's "divine". That tells me everything I need to know.

Dr. David Green #10
Upon looking at your statement, it struck me that I think it isn't quite what you said. It is the congress which can ultimately overrule the President. The old saying is "The Congress proposes, the President disposes." Bills introduced in Congress (anyone can introduce a bill but a monetary appropriations bill must be introduced in the House of Representatives)and passed by both houses can be vetoed by the President which says in effect he refuses to sign it into law. But the Congress can override the President's veto with a two thirds majority and enact the bill into law anyway. The President as the cheif of the executive branch is required to enforce it even if he doesn't like it or agree with it. If the President flagrantly disregards Congresses' specific directives as in the Iran-contra affair, there is the possibility of impeachment. In some cases, as in Nixon's refusal to turn over self incriminating evidence to the Congressional committee conducting the watergate investigation and responding to their subpoena, a constitutional crisis could be precipitated. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Nixon was required to turn over the documents including the infamous tapes. What would have happened had he still refused?

Mark, tanks for your comments. It's nice to meet someone with some knowledge about these things. A couple of replies:

1. Separation of powers is an important principle, and the government's recent decision to create a department of constitutional affairs and replace the Lord Chancellor in the Lords with a Lord Speaker is a step in that direction. There are other important checks and balances in the UK system which place a role similar to separation of powers (i.e., in checking the power of the esecutive). E.g., the committee system in parliament; the requirement of the PM to answer questions in parliament every week in person; etc.

2. Vetos. Your point here is essentially that the US president can only,ultimately, be defeated by a two thirds majority in congress. The UK's PM can be defeated by a simple majority in the commons. It happens, and frequently leads to a new PM.

3. Impeachment. The Clinton affair shows how well that works in practice.

4. We could also talk about America's seeming inability to actually run a general election. It's county-based voting system may be part of that problem. In any case, UK elections are generally better organised.

5. The benefit of the UK system, in my view, is its tragedy to you, which is that we elect a government rather than a president. Curiously, that's because the US framers maintained some of the spirit of monarchy in the creation of the office of president (they even offered to make George Washington King of the United States). Ironically, Britain has dumped more and more of the power of the monarchy. I'm for removing monarchy altogether, while maintaining a parliamentary democracy.

6. Freedom: we haven't really talked about this yet, but I would argue that "freedom" is in a healthier state in the UK. Some Americans talk as if America is the only free country. A key test of a democracy is how it delivers and protects freedom.

David (Oxford)
A few comments about your reply;

1.Prime Minister's Question Time is a joke. This is not true political discourse, it's theater. "Owda! Owda! We'd all like to hear what the Prime Minister has to say. Mr. Smith."
"Question number twenty-six Mr. Speaker" "I refer my right honorable friend to the reply I gave some moments ago." Who says Americans and English speak the same language. It's as opaque to me as...as...as... cricket! :>)

2 Vetoes; in order for a bill to even get to the president for signage, it has to pass both houses of Congress by at least a simple majority in each, then go to a committee which reconciles differences in the House and Senate versions (such as pork barrel amendments which were tacked on during debate), and then get's passed again by both houses. And now with some bills, the rules call for a super majority in the Senate which is I think 60 votes or more out of 100. I think foreign treaties require a 2/3 majority in the Senate.

3. Impeachment. The trial was not only a farce which was unjustified, had no chance of success, and wasted a lot of the taxpayer's time and money, it diverted the government from its important business. That's Washington for you, impeachment games today, Osama Bin Laden and 9-11 tomorrow. Sometimes I think it's a wonder we still even have a country at all.

4. I'd have to generally agree. Considering that the number of votes for president is now over 100,000,000 there is a great deal of opportunity for abuse and fraud. America has had a long history of it. One campaign slogan back in the 1900s had it "vote early and vote often." It was said that Kennedy was elected by Chicago's dead. Ballot rigging even in presidential elections is hardly unheard of. In reality, had the count been fair, Nixon probably would have been the winner in 1960.

5. As I said in an earlier post, not only are the structures of government entirely different, the philosophies behind the purpose of government are not the same either as I see it.

6. This is a very complicated issue. Having lived in another country myself for a couple of years, it dawned on me that often a direct comparison isn't valid especially if the issues are taken out of cultural context. Given a choice, I'd guess few Americans would choose to trade systems with Britain and I suspect most Brits would feel the same about their system.

As someone who has lived and worked in both the United States and the United Kingdom, I find that I have more freedom in the USA - and that isn't by chance. But there are a few clarifications I have to offer:

(1) David (Oxford) could be talking about some kind of positive freedom ('I am free to feel good about myself' rather than 'I am free from coercion of X, Y or Z'). I define freedom by how limited government is from infringement of my rights. In the United States, it's clearly more limited -- deliberatly more limited --and therefore I am more free.

(2) It's misleading sometimes to talk of the United States as though it's one jurisdiction. There are 50 states, all with their own laws on most issues that affect freedom. The further West one travels within the continental U.S., for example, the more 'libertarian' (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) the legislature generally becomes. In Arizona, for example, there is relatively high freedom in being gay, owning firearms, building houses, owning businesses, paying taxes, riding motorcycles.

(3) A founding document like the U.S. Constitution can only lead to a more free society than one that evolves without it. As a result, it is generally more understood here that it is morally better to keep the government at arm's length than to allow it carte blanche. Anyone who does not understand the various political philosophies involving the legitimate role of government is not able to properly define 'freedom' as it relates to the U.S. and U.K.

John Wright #16
3. an important inalienable right, the right to the pursuit of happiness is the right to pursue and keep money and the things it can buy. The enemy of that right is taxes. The power to tax is the power to destroy. People are least productive where they have the fewest property rights. In socialist nations, there is very little productive activity of real value. Europe is not quite as bad as the Soviet Union was but it's not very good. The government needs a lot of money for their social safety net and a vast bureaucracy to run it. You'd have to be nuts to invest in a business in France or Germany. I think the UK is on the cusp, it could go either way. But my hunch is that they will go the way of quasi socialist Europe. When they convert from pounds to Euros, you'll know the game is over and Britain will finally have capitulated to Berlin (and Paris and Brussels.) Ironic, in the end what they fought all of World War II to protect, their sovereignty and independence, they will willingly surrender 65 years later without firing a single shot. So much for learning history and its lessons.

Mark ref. #17- I'm glad we understand each other. Everything you say is absolutely correct and a better understanding of these basic economic principles would serve the UK - and the poor of the UK - better than a century of 'social democracy'.

John Wright;
I'm sure you've head the old line; "nobody's life or property is safe while the legislature is in session."

This week Angela Merkel who is president of the EU for six months and coincidentally head of the G8 will be visiting Washington DC to try to cook up some kind of deal between the US and the EU. When I heard this, it struck me that what she's really looking for is a lifeline which Europe (and China) will need during the next downturn in the US economy. With so many trade disputes between the US and Europe and anti-European sentiments running so high in the US it's hard to imagine she'll come away with much more than a handshake and a photo op. She's going to want the US to coordinate its laws with the EU's. What a joke, half of Congress would like to send Europe a messge in a bomb. The US sees the world through very different eyes than Europe does. Britain which thinks it has one foot in each world...they're crosseyed :>)