[lil'babykitten]

I doubt this is discussed much in the US but it would be interesting to here everyone's views on this.

Although the UK has always regarded itself as having a separation of powers, until recently this was hardly the case. The executive is (and still will be) drawn from the legislature and the Lord Chancellor who oversaw the Judiciary was a member of the executive who had a seat in the cabinet. The latter is apparently changing.

* The Lord Chancellor after hundreds of years is now being abolished.

* A Department of Constitutional Affairs is being set up to be headed by Lord Falconer-who has never been elected and is there because Blair and him were once flat-mates(!)

*A Supreme Court (exactly like the federal one in the US) to replace the Hosue of Lords (which is the lower chamber of the legislature)

* An independent body to appoint judges- though there are no details on how it's members would be chosen.

Though I think this has the potential to make the political system in the UK more democratic, the lack of detail and the reluctance (or so it would seem) of Blair to explain these reforms in detail makes me wonder.

If the appointments process becomes political then I think this would seriously damage the Judicial system. Not to mention that these are major constitutional changes that were informally announced at about 6:00pm on a Thursday evening.

Thoughts anyone?

[chris v]

Any change in the system that replaces elected officials with appointed officials should be vigorously opposed. Is the house of lords currently elected in Britain, or are those seats still inherited?

CV

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by chris v:
Any change in the system that replaces elected officials with appointed officials should be vigorously opposed. Is the house of lords currently elected in Britain, or are those seats still inherited?

CV

I agree. The replacement of elected officials with appointed officials is exactly what these reforms boil down to- and so should be explained. However although there are many calls for an explanation from all sides they do not specifially place this as the reason for doing so, rather the fact that they were made without any consultation with other party leaders or even the Queen. Although this is important I don't think this is at the heart of the issue.

Regarding the House of Lords, this was also the center of debate earlier this year. I think most hereditary peers were thrown out. A vote in the House of Commons on how the Lords should be chosen was inconclusive. The vote gave a number of options for percentages ranging from having completely appointed members to completely elected members. All votes returned NO to every option. Now this issue has died away, i think the majority of them are now appointed whilst the government wonders how to tackle this issue, they say it is still open for reform but I doubt anything will happen before the next general election.

[christ]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
...the Hosue of Lords (which is the lower chamber of the legislature)...

The House of Lords is (as yet) the Upper Chamber.

[nonhuman]

As far as positions like judges and justicies, appointment actually seems to be better than election, especially when they are appointed for life as they are in the US. In such a system, even though the appointments may be political, the actual justices rarely if ever act with political motives. Why should they? It's not like they actually need the continuing support of the people who appointed them, they'll continue to hold their office regardless of how one party or the other feels about them. In a system like the US Supreme Court, you generally find that the people in the appointed positions really do try and do their job properly and honestly.

[MacGorilla]

England doesn't have a constutution, does it? I thbought it was all tradition and law.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
England doesn't have a constutution, does it? I thbought it was all tradition and law.

The tradition and law forms up something much like an unwritten constitution.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by christ:
The House of Lords is (as yet) the Upper Chamber.

Hehehe, it might as well be the lower chamber, it doesn't do anything significant if you compare it to the Commons.
But yes, you are officially correct. My mistake.

[Theo Croal]

We do have a constitution, an uncodified one, meaning that it is not confined to one single document, the opposite of the american bill of rights which is codified - confined to one single document

[Chongo]

AHHH Zombies!