UK's System of Government

[Holdfast]

Sorry to resurrect the thread after a few days, but I've been absent from the BBS for a few days and wanted to respond:

Proportional Representation would lessen the effective power of the Commons, by creating the need for frequent unstable coalitions.

I'm not convinced of this. There's nothing inherently unstable about coalitions, and those who claim that there is have generally drawn their examples and evidence from political cultures that are quite different from Britain's.... It seems to me that, in British history, coalition government has been just as common and just as stable as its single-party counterpart.

I do take the general point you're making and you're certainly right that British coalitions have generally been more effective than coalitions in other parts of the word... but is it worth taking the risk that this will hold in the future?

What would really be gained by a shift to PR? FPTP is not particularly undemocratic, and any form of representative democracy is inherently quite a bit less democratic than a direct democracy. On an entirely arbitary ranking where 0 is absolute tyranny and 10 is full direct democracy, I'd pitch the UK's FPTP sytem at about 7 and a hypothetical UK PR-squared system at about a 7.5. Is the relatively marginal increase in democracy worth the risk of unstable government? At the same time, there's a fair argument to say that 10 (direct democracy) would be unwanted, so how can one say for sure that 7.5 would be preferable in terms of running a country than 7. I guess this is the fundamental world-view of a conservative like myself in that I find it more appealing to optimise the status quo rather than alter the status quo in search of perfection but at the cost of risk.

Representative Democracy is really all about letting the general population feel they have enough of a say that they don't start a revolution, while not making them think about it much, which they also dislike. That's best achieved by stable governments and minimal constitutional upheaval, I'd say.

Well, I wouldn't use the same cynical argument you used there, but I do think it's about letting the general population have a say without the threat of a tyranny of the majority where they use democracy to oppress the minority.

My argument is only cynical on the surface. I think it's quite an optimistic perspective - it assumes the population is actually happiest when they don't have to think too much and do too much themselves. I think that's a correct assumption. That's why I think representative democracy is the best system - not because it's the best theoretical way of governing a country, but because it's the best way of making the public happy and able to get on with their lives. Which is what a governmental system SHOULD be about.

I admire Charles and his outspokenness and look forward to the day when he takes the crown. Camilla is also rightfully entitled to be his Queen whether the Diana cult likes it or not, but in deference to them appears to be unlikely to take that title.

I agree that Camilla has the right to become Queen-consort, but -- and, mind you, this is just one American's POV on things, but -- it seems to me that Charles will really need to learn to stop expressing his opinions in public. The role of the Monarch is to be the living symbol of national unity, and that imposes a duty to be non-partisan -- to leave politics to the politicians.

While I often find Charles' various political mumblings self-contradictory, while he's just a Prince, he's allowed to say them and I don't mind much. Once he's King though, yes, absolutely, it would cause constitutional chaos if he carried on talking politics.

 

[Goliath]

I guess this is the fundamental world-view of a conservative like myself in that I find it more appealing to optimise the status quo rather than alter the status quo in search of perfection but at the cost of risk.

"No, Mrs. Thatcher! You mustn't introduce sweeping free-market reforms! It's much better to optimise the status quo!"

 

[Holdfast]

I guess this is the fundamental world-view of a conservative like myself in that I find it more appealing to optimise the status quo rather than alter the status quo in search of perfection but at the cost of risk.

"No, Mrs. Thatcher! You mustn't introduce sweeping free-market reforms! It's much better to optimise the status quo!"

A status quo I like, I mean.

(hey, this is a discussion on governmental systems, it doesn't have to be based on reason, only faith.)