What is the best form of Government? - Page 3 - Political Forum

joep182 · #21 (**permalink**) 10-23-2007, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

That's interesting. I don't know jack about the Spanish monarchy. Didn't even know they had one. I also didn't know that the English queen was "powerful." I was under the impression that ever since the so-called Glorious Revolution hundreds of years ago, the monarchy in Britain was hobbled. What can the Queen of Britain do that you would say that she is "powerful?"

WEB

i just lifted these from wiki

The refusal to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister. This was last reputedly considered in 1910 (but George V later changed his mind) [citation needed];

To appoint a Prime Minister of her own choosing. This was last done in Britain in 1963 when Elizabeth II appointed Sir Alec Douglas-Home as Prime Minister.

The dismissal of a Prime Minister and his Government on the Monarch's own authority. This was last done in Britain in 1834 by King William IV; and

The refusal of the Royal Assent, last exercised in 1708 by Queen Anne when she withheld Royal Assent from the Scottish Militia Bill 1708

The refusal of the "Queen's Consent," where direct monarchical assent is required for a bill affecting, directly or by implication, the prerogative, hereditary revenues—including ultimus haeres, treasure trove, and bona vacantia—or the personal property or interests of the Crown to be heard in Parliament. In 1999, Queen Elizabeth II, acting on the advice of the government, refused to signify her consent to the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill, which sought to transfer from the monarch to Parliament the power to authorize military strikes against Iraq.

Brother Oz · #22 (**permalink**) 10-23-2007, 10:02 AM

The Queen has power over the calling and dissolution of parliament, and of the appointment of Prime Ministers. She is also head of the Military, and has the power to declare and conduct wars.
She can veto any law, but in practice only vetoes laws that relate to her own powers.
She is also Head of the Church.
She has no tax-raising powers though, which means she cannot really operate independently.
From the Glorious Revolution onwards, Monarchs' power was really only two things: appointing Prime Ministers, and vetoing bills related to their own areas of power.
However, the Queen discovered that she really wasn't much good at choosing Prime Ministers, as she was manipulated by politicians (she was quite young at this point). Also, the collapse of the Liberal Party meant that parliamentary politics were much simpler: either Labour won, and they chose their own leaders, or the Conservatives won. In 1963 she chose a Tory leader, after a big scandal under the old one involving a prostitute, but he didn't really do very well. After that, the Tories elected their own leaders.
Because now one or the other party has a majority, there is no practical choice other than the leader of the biggest party, so she always chooses them.

My Heart is a Molotov · #23 (**permalink**) 10-23-2007, 11:17 AM

Anarchism IS Democracy, unless they mean a Democratic Republic like we gots here in the US of A.

My Heart is a Molotov · #24 (**permalink**) 10-23-2007, 11:18 AM

Oh yeah, and I want a Fascist Absolutist Dictatorship.

Slartibartfas · #25 (**permalink**) 10-23-2007, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by My Heart is a Molotov

Oh yeah, and I want a Fascist Absolutist Dictatorship.

Are you sure?
We had one just 60 years ago... I could not recommend it...

Brother Oz · #26 (**permalink**) 10-23-2007, 04:21 PM

Quote:

No, she isn't.

She's head of the Church of England (which obviously only covers England), but I was actually referring to her area of power (officially) being religion.
I'm afraid that I've been writing these comments while doing the Civil War in my History lectures, so I'm coming at it from the period of 17th century systems. I have to keep remembering all the changes since the Glorious Revolution. Such as, for example, the de-establishment of the Welsh and Irish Churches.

Quote:

but the Prime Minister is the leader of the largest party, she can do sod all about that.

Officially, the Prime Minister is who she chooses, and it doesn't have to be the leader of the biggest party. It's just that if she chose someone else, they wouldn't have a majority, and so would lose. Remember that our parliamentary system is not actually designed for parties at all, it's designed to comprise of 600-odd independent MPs. In the 19th century, the Monarch would quite often just choose the person they liked most, but this didn't work well, so that person would normally lose, most MPs would support someone else, and the Monarch would have to appoint them.
This is why Alec Douglas-Home was PM, not Butler, because the Queen chose him.

Dollor · #27 (**permalink**) 10-24-2007, 03:25 AM

Here would be a options for Working Class Government.

Brother Oz · #28 (**permalink**) 10-24-2007, 08:56 AM

What precisely do you mean by that? What would be the difference between that and a Democracy?

I also ought to point out something about Republicanism.
It actually has two meanings, Slarti is using one, the rest of you another.
The classical system of Republicanism, as originated in Rome, and then found later in the Italian City-States, is a system whereby all "citizens" (not necessarily everyone who actually lives there) are heavily involved in the political process, but decisions are not simply taken in a voting system. There are clear limits of power.
Because it was a different system to Monarchy, over time the word became also a word for non-Monarchical government.
The founders of America didn't want a Monarchy, but they also didn't want a Democracy, so they turned to the only other system really known, a Republic. Republics are actually designed for city-states, like Rome, Florence, etc, so they had to change stuff to make it fit.
So, in America, a Republic is now seen as a system where powers are separated and the government clearly limited in certain ways. However, in Europe, a Republic means a state that doesn't have a Monarch.

Slartibartfas · #29 (**permalink**) 10-24-2007, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Oz

What precisely do you mean by that? What would be the difference between that and a Democracy?

I also ought to point out something about Republicanism.
It actually has two meanings, Slarti is using one, the rest of you another.
The classical system of Republicanism, as originated in Rome, and then found later in the Italian City-States, is a system whereby all "citizens" (not necessarily everyone who actually lives there) are heavily involved in the political process, but decisions are not simply taken in a voting system. There are clear limits of power.
Because it was a different system to Monarchy, over time the word became also a word for non-Monarchical government.
The founders of America didn't want a Monarchy, but they also didn't want a Democracy, so they turned to the only other system really known, a Republic. Republics are actually designed for city-states, like Rome, Florence, etc, so they had to change stuff to make it fit.
So, in America, a Republic is now seen as a system where powers are separated and the government clearly limited in certain ways. However, in Europe, a Republic means a state that doesn't have a Monarch.

Indeed, this word seems to mean two quite different things on both sides of the great pond.

But the "Republic" American style is also a democracy, isn't it? A "Republic" European style can be everything as long as there is no monarch.

Brother Oz · #30 (**permalink**) 10-24-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

But the "Republic" American style is also a democracy, isn't it? A "Republic" European style can be everything as long as there is no monarch.

Classically, Republic and Democracy were not the same thing. The modern American system is a kind of mix of a Republic and a Democracy. And there are many countries that claim to be Democratic Republics.