tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post8519313988309982654..comments2024-03-16T00:21:43.240+00:00Comments on Separated by a Common Language: 2015 UK-to-US Word of the Year: backbencherlynneguisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-71255404967664297332015-12-30T16:03:39.085+00:002015-12-30T16:03:39.085+00:00Autolycus
Yes I like your haka analogy — but only...Autolycus<br /><br />Yes I like your <b>haka</b> analogy — but only up to a point. Where it fails is that it ignores the roles of individuals on the front bench. It takes somebody there to make a divisive remark — or to be subject to one — for the haka behind and around him (or her) to spring into life.<br /><br />And I don't buy the antiphonal choirs. On this rare occasions when the whole house is in agreement, the <b>same</b> noise is produced on both sides — Ignoring for the time being the Scots Nats. (For American readers, they have adopted the radical new-fangled policy of handicapping.)<br /><br />Plus, most choirs are less communal in their seating, with individual; <b>stalls</b> for at least the senior choristers.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-12890015266690087682015-12-29T17:04:12.723+00:002015-12-29T17:04:12.723+00:00Dru:
The typical member of Congress (who sits in t...Dru:<br />The typical member of Congress (who sits in the House of Representatives) doesn't have much power, but does sit on various committees which hold hearings and conduct investigations. He or she (or their staff) will also spend a lot of time on fixing problems for constituents by calling up government agencies and trying to figure out why something is wrong. So really, most of his job is oversight. No, he doesn't run any government offices. If he gets appointed to an office by the President, he will resign his seat.<br />The Senate is similar, except that with only 100 Senators each one has more influence. Also, the Senate has internal rules which make it easier for the minority to clog things up, so a single Senator has more opportunity to block things. In addition, the Senate has to confirm Presidential appointments, so that is another way for a Senator to block things or get his or her way.<br />Lately there's been a lot of issues in the House of Representatives because the Republican leadership has not been able to get many of its members to go along with deals cut with the Senate to pass actual bills, particularly spending bills. This caused the resignation of the Speaker of the House a couple of months ago. Without spending bills, the government shuts down. <br />Boris: To clarify, the Vice President presides over the Senate, but can only vote in cases of a tie. So his actual legislative role is very limited.<br />Kirk Poorenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-33985738439100460682015-12-28T17:59:18.287+00:002015-12-28T17:59:18.287+00:00Ah , dear old Dennis Skinner. Rather OT but can...Ah , dear old Dennis Skinner. Rather OT but can't resist sharing this gem:<br /><br />"Half the Tory members opposite are crooks." Dennis gets asked to withdraw the remark by Speaker: "OK, half the Tory members aren't crooks.FL based Britnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-24203683094656528332015-12-28T16:42:32.349+00:002015-12-28T16:42:32.349+00:00Well, the Vice President is sort of part of Congre...Well, the Vice President is sort of part of Congress in that he presides over it (though that usually doesn't come into play much). As far as not being answerable to anyone, the president is both the head of government and head of state. Does the Queen answer to anyone? But there is that whole impeachment thing. Plus, the president can't dissolve congress or call for elections. Most of his actions must either be approved (as in appointments to agencies) or overridden (as in vetos and certain other things) by congress.Boris Zakharinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16560756640621720539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-34126122100267323022015-12-28T15:13:41.932+00:002015-12-28T15:13:41.932+00:00Off-topic, perhaps, but I don't think there...Off-topic, perhaps, but I don't think there's a specific law that says the PM or any minister must be a member of the House of Commons, just a recognition of practical reality that has become an unbreakable convention. Until it's broken.<br /><br />And I'm not sure I'd see the behaviour encouraged by the layout of the House as gladiatorial, more on occasion like competitive Maori haka.<br /><br />(PS and BTW, the layout of the benches comes from the original meeting place of the House - St Stephen's chapel in the old Palace. So you could say government and opposition are like antiphonal choirs.)Autolycushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17642868944400656922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-236981664068375242015-12-25T18:23:55.927+00:002015-12-25T18:23:55.927+00:00CORRECTION
diverse bones of opinion
I couldn'...CORRECTION<br /><br /><i>diverse bones of opinion</i><br /><br />I couldn't remember what this was before the spellchecker got its hand on it. Now I see: it was:<br /><br /><i>diverse <b>bodies</b> of opinion</i>David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-40267274248130865652015-12-25T08:56:47.821+00:002015-12-25T08:56:47.821+00:00Douglas-Home was a bit a cheat, in terms of bendin...Douglas-Home was a bit a cheat, in terms of bending the law to breaking point at least, and pilloried for it at the time. <br /><br />I'd forgotten Lord Carrington and relied on dinner party conversation, which is always the best guide to British Constitutional Law!Eloisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00645110245532917138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-55398843310063976732015-12-24T22:27:05.203+00:002015-12-24T22:27:05.203+00:00Eloise: In fact the law absolutely requires at lea...Eloise: In fact the law absolutely requires at least the PM is an MP and I think it does for the Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary too (the "four great offices of state") as they make a lot of important announcements and they're expected to do so in the House of Commons first.<br /><br />Not quite. A PM has to be an MP or on the way (look up Sir Alec Douglas-Home or note that after an election no one is an MP until Parliament has assembled and they have taken the oath.<br /><br />But Lord Carrington was Foreign Secretary (1979-82) so it's allowed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04394336486931981027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-65195732096837161682015-12-24T18:02:28.008+00:002015-12-24T18:02:28.008+00:00The sword thing leaves visible marks. There is sti...The sword thing leaves visible marks. There is still a set of pegs for honourable members to hang their swords — I seem to remember they're used for something else now, but they're still available for swords. And there are <b>sword lines</b> two sword-lengths apart on either side of the house. Quite possibly the <b>sword line</b> was the original <b>red line</b> which your opponent must not cross.<br /><br />The adversarial nature of the House of Commons can't be exaggerated. It's often criticised as 'a bear pit', but I prefer the metaphor of an arena for the display of two teams of gladiators.<br /><br />The <i>front bench</i> doesn't include the whole of the front row. It's the central stretch, the most visible place in the theatrical spotlight, so to speak. On one side the Government gladiators do battle, attempting to dominate the House when they speak on their area of responsibility. On the other side the Opposition gladiators battle to do the same. Different ministers may be sitting on this front line on different days and for different debates. They are there either because the debate is on their area of responsibility or to show support for a junior or a particular colleague — possible for reasons that are more to do with the internal politics of their Party. The people on the Opposition Front Bench will choose (or be chosen) to be there for identical reasons. <br /><br />Opposition figures are said to <i>'shadow'</i> Government figures, but it's much more adversarial than that. Each specialises in out-debating a particular Government figure, so he or she must build up specialist expertise, even though they have no actual responsibility. They are organised in a Cabinet with <i>'cabinet responsibility'</i> because that's the way Government is organised. It's the way diverse bones of opinion are forged into a more effective unity. Once the Cabinet (or Shadow Cabinet) has agreed on a policy, individuals who disagree must go along with the decision, or else resign.<br /><br />Yes, the progression to <i>front bench</i> represents a step up the party hierarchy. But that's because the theatricality of the chamber reserves front spots for the star performers.<br /><br />One notable exception to all this is 'backbencher' Dennis Skinner, who has reserved for himself a seat <b>on the front row</b>, but across the aisle from the 'front bench'. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3091093/Labour-firebrand-Dennis-Skinner-WINS-fight-SNP-Commons-seat-nationalists-accused-bullying-83-year-old.html" rel="nofollow">This link</a> shows his distinctive debating style, with visuals on where he sits and an account of his battle with the new Scottish Nationalist Party MP's, who tried to usurp it.<br /><br />[Yes, ministers and shadow misters do important stuff which isn't theatrical and gladiatorial. But that's not what the layout of the Chamber is designed for.]David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-18448447734028397362015-12-24T17:49:40.913+00:002015-12-24T17:49:40.913+00:00I think most people in the UK and the US do not fu...I think most people in the UK and the US do not fully appreciate quite how fundamentally different the political system in the other country is. To us, it's very odd that most of the time, no one in either the Senate or the House of Representatives seems to have any real power at all. They're elected, but what do they do when they get there? It looks as though they just pass laws but have nothing to do with making them work. It's also very odd to our eyes that the President does not appear to be answerable to anyone. There's nothing comparable to the weekly Prime Minister's Question Time. Also the recurrent sudden temporary shut-downs of government over money seem very a very strange way of doing things.<br /><br />To those who have grown up in it, presumably it is all obvious and straightforward.<br /><br />Doubtless there are things about our system that are equally incomprehensible in the opposite direction.Druhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04695126646028596371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-80817123726875326322015-12-24T09:12:44.356+00:002015-12-24T09:12:44.356+00:00The UK and US systems are quite different. In the ...The UK and US systems are quite different. In the US POTUS appoints the various ministers who are then outside the core political system of senators and representatives (at least sort of - Hilary Clinton was a senator before she became Secretary of State but she quit to become Secretary of State to Obama for example), in the UK the ministers and the PM are almost all elected MPs (there are a few ministers who are always members of the House of Lords, as that's part of our legislature too and rarely some of the lesser posts can go to a lord, under Tony Blair, Lord Sugar was a minister for Business for example) but generally they are MPs as they have to be held to account by the elected House of Commons. <br /><br />In fact the law absolutely requires at least the PM is an MP and I think it does for the Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary too (the "four great offices of state") as they make a lot of important announcements and they're expected to do so in the House of Commons first.<br /><br />Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is, constitutionally expected to be able to pick up the reins of the government if the current government fails, or loses and election. As such, they have people in position to take over each of the ministerial positions, ready to step into power if they are called to do so. However, they have no actual power. No one seems quite sure where the name comes from but it's not actually sinister.<br /><br />But front bencher and backbencher is absolutely clear once you see how the HOC is organised, yes.<br /><br />There are other fun facts, like the distance between the front benches is just long enough that in the times when people went armed, you couldn't lunge and reach your opponent, you had to step first, giving your opponent time to react. And they say modern politics is too rowdy!Eloisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00645110245532917138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-17359777844396703422015-12-24T05:32:50.363+00:002015-12-24T05:32:50.363+00:00Shadow cabinet sounds strangely sinister to me, al...Shadow cabinet sounds strangely sinister to me, also, and I haven't the time to look it up this week I'm afraid, being sadly behind with Christmas prep. amongst other things. It makes me think of the shadowy world of spies and unofficial pullers of strings who are the real power behind things -- Holmes's brother in the new BBC version of Sherlock who seems to be something high up and possibly unmentionable in government who possibly orders covert assassinations comes to mind. I take it that it's something far less dramatic. (Sigh. All the best terms are.)<br /><br />I, like Dick, have never run across this in the American media. I think I have heard it in this blog before, and possibly elsewhere, but only in British contexts. I always took it to mean politicians without much real power -- that's a bit hard to explain, but there are the ones that either due to their committee assignments, or just due to their own personal charisma, have made a name for themselves, and people pay attention to them; you can tell they are up and coming and maybe headed for national office, someone to keep and eye on, and they are sort of power brokers. And then there are the ones that you know are going nowhere, and the only way they are going to get anything done is to compromise with other people or find someone else who agrees with them to throw their weight behind them. The latter are the ones I'd think of as backbenchers.<br /><br />I suspect that this is totally wrong from the British point of view. All of it.<br /><br />I also suspect that some of this mixup in meaning may come from that (at least in America) if a coach pulls you out of a game (in any team sport I can think of) you're said to be benched. This may be for misconduct, injury, or just because you're not a very good player. I have a feeling that "backbencher" just sort of subconsciously equates with "benched" since we don't really know the meaning and the whole thing gets conflated together.<br /><br />I never really understood why they were literally called backbenchers until the other day when the news was showing Cameron calling on Parliament to reconsider support of the coalition attacking ISIS, though -- it very clearly showed everyone sitting on benches. And (as they say) the penny dropped.....Dark Star in the Morninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04312003791405491874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-16258841232063534562015-12-23T15:46:38.368+00:002015-12-23T15:46:38.368+00:00I'm not sure which way round (I suspect from t...I'm not sure which way round (I suspect from the Shadow Cabinet) we use it when you follow some to learn how to do their job too - you shadow them. In theory the cabinet and the government can be replaced at the drop of a hat (e.g. a vote of no confidence) and the shadow cabinet step in to fill their shoes, or after a general election.<br /><br />In practise, there's nearly always someone who failed to get re-elected to the cabinet or shadow cabinet but not in any of the really high profile posts, they're so safe they are said to be in seats where they weigh the votes, although in fact they still count them all by hand.Eloisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00645110245532917138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-27666960172831861002015-12-23T15:27:39.820+00:002015-12-23T15:27:39.820+00:00It doesn't mean anything, but as a fairly regu...It doesn't mean anything, but as a fairly regular reader of the <i>New York Times</i> I can't say this word has entered my consciousness.<br /><br />Still, it was instructive to read the UK definition of the word and learn that the front benches are reserved for MPs who hold cabinet positions. I also had to look up "shadow minister" to find out (finally) what it means ... it's a strangely sinister term for something so prosaic!Dick Hartzellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07065924271517452841noreply@blogger.com