http://www.economist.com/node/21525911A BRITON in America notices something about comparative politics. Britain’s House of Commons reeks of conflict. The rival parties glare at one another from opposite benches. Debates are barbed and sometimes vicious—especially during the gladiatorial spectacle of prime minister’s questions. America’s Congress is different. Members of the House of Representatives sit shoulder-to-shoulder in the shape of a horseshoe. Debates, such as they are, are marked by an exaggerated decorum. The casual observer might easily conclude that America has the more consensual form of politics and Britain the more adversarial.
As the bitter fights that have scarred the first half of Barack Obama’s presidency show, nothing could be further from the truth. Compared with the total war that is American politics, the British version is sport (amateur sport at that: the $1 billion that Mr Obama is said to be seeking for his re-election campaign would pay for an entire British general election 20 times over).
After they heap scorn and vitriol upon one another in the debating chamber, members of the British Parliament retire companionably together to the bars and tea rooms of the Palace of Westminster. Friendships across party lines are easy, because the next election is generally years away (Parliament sits now for a fixed term of five years) and most politicians spend plenty of time in their taxpayer-subsidised homes in London. Besides, the present ideological quarrels between Tories, Labourites and Liberal Democrats pale into insignificance next to America’s. No party dares to threaten the National Health Service, for example, or propose dramatic changes in tax rates. Above all, British politicians accept the rules of a simple game: the ruling party governs (occasionally in coalition) while the opposition bides its time.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
