ext_6576 ([identity profile] mindstalk.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] swan_tower 2008-10-29 01:56 am (UTC)

Heh, I remember it being noted that more people voted for the mayor of London (Ken Livingstone at the time) than for Tony Blair.

They don't actually get to toss out a party that soon. A stable majority can cling on to power for five years; it's when the parliamentary majority falls apart that the Crown may call for new elections. OTOH, I think the party should be able to change leaders mid-stream, though it doesn't seem to happen much; I kept expecting Blair to go down, but no.

Tax bills start in the House, which can impeach; Senate gets to try impeachments, and approves judges, treaties, and Cabinet or ambassadorial appointments.

UK obviously was more bicameral, or even power-heavy at the Lords, but power's shifted away from the blatantly undemocratic body.

One tragic thing IMO about the US is that we have this untapped potential for political experiments. All the state constitutions are near clones of the federal one -- bicameral legislature (despite lacking the tension between populace and states that led to the House and Senate) and governor (though of varying power) and all. Not one imitated the mother country.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting