jmg@houxk.UUCP (09/16/83)
I'm not taking the side of pro-socialists or anti-socialists but I must disagree with the statements of both liberals and conservatives on the net who say that England is a socialist country. I know its not a democracy, nor a republic, nor a pure monarchy. In my view England is an oligarchy where the power of the monarch is shared with a group of nobles through the House of Lords. Remember that the House of Lords is not an elected body but a body appointed by the monarch through knighthood. After that initial knighthood the seat in the House of Lords is passed on through heredity to the lord's progeny. As long as there is an heir the seat in the House of Lords stays in the same family. When some nasty law comes along that has been created by those commoners in the House of Commons and it seems to threaten the ruling class the House of Lords kills it with the blessings of the monarch. And to make the game even safer, a member of the nobility will occasionally renouce his title (but not his wealth) and run for a seat in the House of Commons as Churchill did. Now they've really got things tied up. But "not to worry" when the old boy becomes to old to serve in the House of Commons the monarch comes to the rescue and knights him again (as Churchill was) and the title (and seat in the House of Lords) is once again safely back in the family. Now if the Lord has a brother or a cousin who's not likely to ever become the Lord then there's no need at all for anyone to give up a seat in the House of Lords. Brother or cousin can run for the seat in the Commons. And there are always those government commissions that are set up to look into problems in the mining industry or the housing industry or the shipping industry. A member of the nobility always makes a smashing commissioner. So smashing that the government wouldn't have it any other way. And citizenship has become a sticky problem in recent years with so many people from the colonies coming into England so they devised various grades of citizenship for people based on your ethnic background and whether your father or grandfather (mother or grandmother) was born in England. Somehow I always thought the ideal of the socialist society was supposed to be free of social classes. You may be able to point to social security or nationalized railroads but these things were first implemented by Bismarck under the Kaiser, hardly the model of the socialist state!
mcdaniel@uiucdcs.UUCP (09/18/83)
#R:houxk:-7900:uiucdcs:29200019:000:6619
uiucdcs!mcdaniel Sep 17 19:38:00 1983
I have studied a little bit about Great Britain today, and I would
say that the ideas in the base note are mistaken. Herewith
my rebuttal:
/***** uiucdcs:net.politics / houxk!jmg / 12:40 pm Sep 16, 1983 */
. . . Remember that the House of Lords is not an elected body but a body
appointed by the monarch through knighthood.
[WRONG! The House of Lords are a House composed of -- surprise! -- "lords".
All lords are knights, but few knights are lords. "Knight" may be
roughly translated as "fighter" or "horseman", and "lord" as
"master of some castles and territory, usually much greater than the
average knight might hold." Some knights held a castle, but many
were supported by their lord at his castle. In short, a knight was quite
a bit less than a lord. Of course, the referents of both terms are
obsolete nowadays. In fact, Governments (see below) give out many of
the Patents of Nobility. It's a cheap way to repay a party worker.]
. . . After that initial knighthood
[sic] the seat in the House of Lords is passed on through heredity
to the lord's progeny. . . .
[Peerages -- "lorddoms", one could say -- created before 1965 are that
way. There have been NO new inheritable peerages created since then;
the only titles now created are "Life Lords," which are not inheritable.]
. . . When some nasty law comes along that has been created
by those commoners in the House of Commons and it seems to threaten the
ruling class the House of Lords kills it with the blessings of the monarch.
[How in the GODDESS's name did you come up with this?!?!?
In 190x, the House of Commons, dominated by a liberal (Liberal or Labour?)
government, passed the "People's Budget", which had what the wealthy
thought of as horribly oppressive taxes. The House of Lords had the
GALL to refuse to consent to it. This provoked a crisis: Lords weren't
supposed to refuse assent to ANYTHING. King George V reluctantly agreed
that, if Asquith's (?) government won the general election and Lords
then reiterated their disapproval, HE WOULD CREATE ENOUGH LIBERAL PEERS TO
PACK THE HOUSE OF LORDS (FACT! It's in the history books). After
Asquith's win, Lords not only agreed to the budget, but to an act
that hamstrung their powers. If they disapprove of an act: if it is
related to taxes, it is delayed in execution for one month only;
if it is a normal bill, it is delayed for one year. Commons can sit
for up to 5 years before general elections are required; the ONLY bill
that Lords can veto is a bill that would extend that time past 5 years
(such a bill would probably set up a tyranny). Since then, Lords have RARELY
disapproved of an Act of Commons. If the monarch hates a law so much,
why can't she veto it herself? She still has that privilege, you see.
Except that she has sworn not to disapprove of an act of Parliament
(in her Coronation Oath), and the last time that the royal veto was
used was by Queen Anne in 1707! Since 190x, whatever Commons passes
becomes the law. -- As for the "blessings of the monarch":
neither the Monarch Regnant nor the immediate Royal Family comment
on matters of public controversy. This is considered "unconstitutional,"
although Great Britain has no written, formal constitution.
(The crisis of 190x was called a "constitutional crisis" at
the time.)]
And to make the game even safer, a member of the nobility will
occasionally renounce his title (but not his wealth) and run for a seat in
the House of Commons as Churchill did. . . .
[You sure Churchill was a peer? A key word is "occasionally" ==
"bloody rarely." And what's wrong with running for office?
If the voters like him, why not?]
. . . Now they've really got things tied up.
But "not to worry" when the old boy becomes to old to serve in the House of
Commons the monarch comes to the rescue and knights him again (as Churchill
was) and the title (and seat in the House of Lords) is once again safely back
in the family. . . .
[Knighthood, as I've said, does not entitle one to sit in the House of
Lords. As I recall, Churchill never went back to Parliament.
Anyway, when a title is renounced, the heir gets it. The original
lord can't get it back, although it is still in the family.]
And there are always those government commissions that are set up
to look into problems in the mining industry or the housing industry or
the shipping industry. A member of the nobility always makes a smashing
commissioner. So smashing that the government wouldn't have it any other
way.
[The "government" of Great Britain is the set of ministers approved of
by the majority party in the House of Commons. Governments consist
of a few peers, but the rest (and always, now, the Prime Minister)
are members of Commons. Lords have no say in the matter. Besides,
many Lords are well-educated, experienced, and intelligent; why shouldn't they
be on a commission? Are you saying that lords should be barred
from all public offices?]
And citizenship has become a sticky problem in recent years with
so many people from the colonies coming into England so they devised various
grades of citizenship for people based on your ethnic background and whether
your father or grandfather (mother or grandmother) was born in England.
[What does this have to do with Lords?]
/* ---------- */
There is one other fact that I offer for your edification:
The will of the people, as expressed in their representatives in
Parliament, is sovereign. (Actually, the Queen-in-Parliament are
sovereign, where Parliament := Commons + Lords, but in view of
her Coronation Oath and the unwritten constitution, Commons are
sovereign.) "Sovereign Parliament," in Great Britain,
means that Parliament can pass laws on any matter, and they will come
into force. Commons could, tomorrow, pass a law abolishing the
monarchy and the House of Lords, and it would go into effect.
(Lords could delay it for at most a year. The Queen would
sign it; The Queen and The Prince of Wales have both said so,
and it would be "unconstitutional" -- and unheard-of -- if they did not.)
In fact, Commons have done so in the past -- look up "Charles I"
and "Oliver Cromwell" in an encyclopaedia. (Commons dumped
both King and Lords for around 5 years in the 1600s.)
I welcome any correction by those who know more than I. If
I seem to flame, I apologize; such was not my intent.
God save the Queen and the House of Lords!
Tim McDaniel, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, CS dept.
(UNIX mail: . . . pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcdaniel)
(CSNET: mcdaniel.uiuc@RAND-RELAY)