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.
  

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.