[EM] conquest state

[robert bristow-johnson]

Thank you for this description and analysis of the UK system.  Those of us across the pond are way too ignorant of the the systemic problems in other "democracies".In somewhat different ways, we're both sorta screwed.  Both sides of the pond.Powered by Cricket Wireless------ Original message------From: Richard LungDate: Thu, Apr 4, 2024 01:51To: EM;Cc: Subject:[EM] conquest state
    
    
    
    
    Conquest
        state
     
    For
        many years, it has been common knowledge that the executive of
        the British
        state is too powerful. But it is perhaps worth mentioning that
        this subjection
        works its way down all thru the hierarchy. Thus the government,
        meaning the
        executive, has too many members of Parliament on its payroll,
        compromising the
        independence of the legislature. And hardly any simple
        legislators are allowed
        to legislate.
    The
        classic statement of the case was in 1997, by incoming PM Tony
        Blair, who
        lectured his new intake of Labour MPs that: You are not here to
        have ideas of
        your own.
    He
        could not have said that to MPs who owed their loyalty to the
        multitude rather
        than the ministers. And that can never be with party-subservient
        election
        systems. But that is the humiliating price for MPs putting
        incumbency before
        democracy.
    This
        humiliation is conveniently passed on from MPs to their
        constituents. There are
        650 MPs in parliament, but no constituent is allowed to approach
        more than one
        of them. All 650 MPs affect the lives of every person in the
        land. But only a
        few thousand constituents in marginal constituencies can hope to
        affect an
        otherwise job for life of the odd MP.
    The
        revolt of the elites came over a century ago, about 1885, when
        the House of
        Commons became, in all but name, a House of Monopolies, under
        the single-member
        system. This wasn’t just “a very British coup”, it was a dual
        coup, whereby
        House of Commons monopolism forestalled democracy, and also the
        lower house
        asserted itself over the upper house, on the grounds of the
        democracy, it had
        just devastated. In other words, new people were in power. but
        they weren’t the
        people. It was just a case of the conquest state being under new
        management.
    “Our
        democracy” as a policy advocate recently called it, is neither
        ours nor a democracy.
        It is doubtful UK
        elections have
        ever returned even the democratic minimum of a bare majority.
        The single member
        system has nearly always returned a minority to power:  The UK is a minorocracy.
    Partisan
        electoral systems, whether two-party or multi-party systems,
        mean that MPs have
        to follow the dictates of the national party line. Constituents
        can only appeal
        to their MPs over their local problems.
    These
        should be the jobs of local government which is kept firmly in
        subservience to
        that national party line. To make up for it perhaps, local
        government has
        directly or indirectly Draconian powers of imprisonment and
        confiscation for
        the state to supersede family life, with Deprivation of
        Liberties; forced
        adoption, accompanied by the police, etc.
     Regards,
        
      
    Richard
        Lung.
      
    
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240404/dbf5899a/attachment.htm>