UK Govt to restrict online porn access

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I think a lot of people stopped listening to UK politicians a long time ago. Gone is the age when our politicians actually stood for something and came from a background that gave them an underpinning on the reality of what the average person actually lives in.

Now it's people graduating from elite colleges, becoming a special advisor for a parliamentarian or a local councillor and just climbing the greasy ladder.

Very few of them are connected to reality.

Your country is technicaly speaking still a theocracy with a monarch "appointed by god" .
So technicaly speaking it wouldn`t even have the right to be a EU member.
British democracy didn`t come to exist through a revolution or a brutal change in society through war, as it did in almoust every other European country. Instead, english democracy evolved out of a class of nobles and rich people gradualy giving more and more rights to the lower classes of society to ensure that they do not revolt, like in the rest of Europe. I am certain that this has a major impact on how democracy in the UK works today. Just how in France the impact of the former monarchy and it`s nobility on France`s todays republic is that it has a powerfull and extremly big central goverment, or how in Germany the history of the small states shows it`s impact in todays democracy through the individual states having more political powers of selfdetermination to act more independently from the central federal goverment.

Alot of things look weird there from my perspective, for example the lack of a constitution. And some things just look outright undemocratic and horrible, like the extrem political power of the tabloid media and the fact that having a private dinner with the prime minister can get you a decision made by the goverment which will stand in your favor.

*Off topic

Strengths and weaknesses in all cases, as with everything in the realm of politics and political decision making.

I would disagree about the power of the monarch. In reality she has no power except ceremonial ones, except maybe on matters of where she goes and what money is spent on her travel. The Church of England however still has a lot of power through the lords spiritual and the overseeing of state ceremonies however. I and many Britons have a bone to pick over that and continue to do so.

The Duchy for Charles however is a different matter, and I think he's a great reason for republicanism in the UK.

I would both agree and disagree regarding the evolution of power making in England and the wider UK. Certainly the original parliamentary process was more just a puppet of the monarch and a way for the nobility to gain entry to royal court And oversee their lands through a more centralised process.

However the British parliament actually had many advantages over its European counterparts, specifically when it come to controlling the powers of the monarch. It was parliament for example that was responsible for raising funds for armies, meaning that, unlike say France where the king could simply summon his nobles to create an armed milita from their lands, the king had to ask parliament first both for the funds and ultimately the men, which they could refuse (and often did so).

And it was also possible, even back in medieval and early post-medieval times, for common men to rise to high levels within both the royal court and Westminster. One famous example was Thomas Cromwell who was Henry VIII's first/cheif minister. A common man, the son of a blacksmith and publican, who rose to be responsible for one of most important pieces of legislation in the entire western world, the assertion of royal supremacy (over the papacy and over its lands). Of course, Cromwell simply manipulated parliament to do as he wanted, but it was an example of the parliamentary process in its infancy exerting decision making over the monarch, even if it was just lip service to the monarchy's needs.

In more contemporary times the socialist movements of the late Victorian times in revolt to the dire conditions for workers spawned by the industrial revolution led to the labour movement, which was very much an example of people becoming directly responsible for electing members to the commons. Unionism revolutionised British politics in the early 20th century by breaking up the old liberal/conservative hegemony, and took away powers from the old nobility and put it in the hands of normal people. This perpetuated after WWII and the advent of the universal welfare system.

Long story short the issue was that the highly efficient and quick decision making processes that the UK parliament affords (thanks to its lack of written constitution, good or bad) means its relatively easy for people to rise through the ranks of the main parties if they're afforded time by the elite, even if they're incompetent fools.

But then again, nepotism and corrupt influences aren't unique to Westminster, neither is lobbying MPs or ministers. It happens in Germany, France, the UK and every other democratic parliament. It's just part of the parliamentary process, good or bad.

But I do agree, the UK parliament has been more about evolution than revolution. This can be a positive or a negative thing, and can be a sign of its weakness of resisting change, or a positive of its ability to endure through centuries.