"stated that 'certain amendments to the revised act need not necesarily be subjected to he parliamentary process, and may be taken into law without discussion, simply by the action of the signature of the home secretary'...do you like that? The home secretary doesn't have to ask or discuss or arbitrate or deal with anybody except his own reflection, before he can make any more firearms restrictions or laws that he feels like...."
You find this technique everywhere for regulating "minor points". Itâ??s called legislative delegation (from the legislator to the government).
Tac, you have much bigger problems in the UK than legislative delegation!
Just to let our US friends know how democracy is understood in the UK read what comes next. Tac, correct me where Iâ??m wrong (things may have changed in the meantime).
Youâ??ve probably all heard of the "Lord Chancellor", sounds like one of these folkloric outdated monarchy thing, like the change of the guard at Buckingham. Not at all, this person is the head of the UK Supreme Court (House of Lords, and probably also the Privy Council which rules on the rest of the Common Wealth), he sits in the upper House of Parliament, and is the minister of justice appointed by the Prime Minister himself (and works under his supervision). You think this is bad for the separation of power? Just hold on.
The Lower House of Parliament counts about 600 elected MPs of which one can find up to 100 members of the Government (sic!) who approve their own bills! (As if you put 100 people of the Bush administration to actually sit and vote in the House of Representatives. Do you think there may be any chance theyâ??d criticise the government?)
You think this is weird? Hold on.
The government always needs the "support" of a majority of MPs, so youâ??ll always have either a majority of conservatives or labours depending on the governmentâ??s colour. Strangely enough no party has ever obtained more that 45% of the electorateâ??s votes since WWII. How come you get in Parliament a 70% or more majority for one party? This is called the 1-round majority election system with one elect/area. This means that if on election day a candidates make 15% of the votes but the remaining 85% are spread amongst the remaining candidates which individually make less than 15%, then the candidate with the 15% represents the 100% of the voters. Great no?
But thatâ??s not all. You may think that the majority of the Parliament could actually control the governmentâ??s actions (like in the US where congressmen do not necessarily vote with their party), after all there are about 500 MPs which vote in this body and which are NOT members of the government. Well think again... In the UK (because of the 1 round majority system with one elect/area) it is virtually impossible to get elected unless you represent one of the large parties (people have only one opportunity to elect a poor single person, thus they vote either conservative or labour or possibly liberal, which are the ones who are likely to get elected). So far no problem. Really? Who do you think designates whoâ??s going to run for Parliament in a given area? Bingo: the executive body of each Party, meaning the Prime Minister as the majority leader. Now, as an MP, do you want to keep your job? Then vote the way the PM tells you to in case you want to be on the PMâ??s list for the next elections. (Itâ??s a little bit as if a company hired s.o. to control s.o. else, but this s.o. else decides whether the first person stays or gets fired.)
Great (Britain) isnâ??t it?
The UK system has nothing to do with democracy, but everything to do with the governmentâ??s stability.
Tac, legislative delegation is the least of your problems. Your problem is that you have no Parliament that works and no one else can do the job!
|