I guess that was the "straw" that broke the camels back! hehe.

Glad to see you posting articles, can't wait to read more.

I'm fairly ignorant of foreign politics, heck even American politics....children do not leave much time for it!

The way I see it Straw made two big mistakes that were, incongruously, rather confusing. Firstly he is a great favourite of Condi's and secondly he wanted to play down any attack on Iran
So, we find him very close to Condi but reluctant to support any attack on Iran. I think Blair either ,a) wanted him away from Condi's influence or, was in disfavour with GWB over Jack's reluctance to attack Iran. Who knows how Blair thinks or whether he thinks. Straw was an experienced man on the World Scene. Margaret Beckett, competent as she is, is no Straw! Jack boy will bounce back soon as will Charles Clarke.

INtreresting conclusion.  I would have thought the shake up was to get him more in line with the opposition since he took a bath in the last elections.  Yet if you are correct, this is drawing a line in the sand.  The other way.

On reflection I think the main concern was not to be too 'tied down' either way. When your Foreign Secretary is categorically ruling out options that you might want to consider, you have a problem. The odd thing about the British prime minister is that, although officially a humble minister of the Crown ('First Lord of the Treasury'), in practice he has more power and room for manoeuvre within his own country than the President of the United States. The Royal Prerogative, meaning powers technically reserved to the Crown alone, is actually exercised by Ministers of the Crown - principally the Prime Minister - and allows for a number of things to be done without parliamentary scrutiny or approval, including declaring war and making peace.

Fascinating. And if we follow your vein, Machiavellian (sp). I kind of understood, but never fully understood the power of the PM. All in all, I prefer our convoluted way. It ain't perfect, but Bush does not rule the day.

But it does give me amusement to see other worlders lambasting us for Electing what is in effect a prophylactic leader.

I kind of understood, but never fully understood the power of the PM.

That's not surprising. The US is a nation founded on a rational basis with a constitution that was discussed, written down, debated and voted on, while the UK's constitutional arrangements are the result of a 'mysterious evolution' - rather like the difference between your cities laid out in rational grids, and our ancient warrens of cute winding streets in which tourists get lost. Most mysterious of all is how the office of 'prime minister' evolved (for example no-one can tell you for sure when the office originated.

The brief explanation is that the office came about as a peculiar side effect of Britain's attempt to unite the religious idea of a hereditary head of state annointed by God, with the secular notions of parliamentary democracy. Now, originally the monarch presided over a 'cabinet' of her/his ministers. However, right at the beginning of the 18th century, the British parliament - extremely anxious to prevent another Catholic sitting on the throne - passed a law essentially depriving the right of succession from the first fifty one(!) claimants to the crown. Claimant no. 52, being "a faithful protestant", therefore ascended the throne as King George I. Trouble was, he came form Hannover in Germany and spoke not a word of English. Furthermore he made it clear that he had no intention of ever learning it either! (which raises a laugh in terms of other debates here concerning immigrants who won't learn English)

The temporary solution to this language problem was to have the ministers take turns in chairing cabinet meetings. Eventually however, one of the ministers, the First Lord of the Treasury, came to act as a permanent chair of the cabinet meetings. He would then go to the palace to report to the monarch about what was going on in the cabinet meetings.

The idea of the monarch as being annointed by God (our Coronations are in fact national religious rites) is still taken very seriously. King George III refused to allow the passing of Catholic emancipation (giving Catholics the same civil rights as Anglicans) because he claimed that he would be breaking his sacred coronation oath (are you beginning to see a pattern here?).

As democracy evolved in the UK towards universal adult suffrage (except, of course for criminals, the insane and members of the House of Lords - including those individuals who managed to be all three!), the office of prime minister came to be exercised by the leader of the political party having a majority in parliament. This, however, is merely a convention: the office being a ministry of the Crown, the monarch can theoretically ask anyone who is able to command a majority in the Commons to come to the palace and "kiss hands".

So, yes, compared to the system in the US, ours is a strange system. Conservatives claim that it 'works' and should therefore not be lightly cast aside. An argument with a great deal of merit. Radicals say that it should be easily possible to replace it with something more rational, an argument that possibly trumps the conservative argument, but having the single demerit that it would need to be tried first - and if it didn't work it might then be too late to go back to the old arrangement (the Conservative/'Liberal' arguement in a nutshell).

History class with Russell Teacher

May I therefore be the annoying swot at the front who puts his hand up to point out to the class that Jack Straw was not sacked, he was demoted to Leader of the House.

May I therefore be the annoying swot at the front who puts his hand up to point out to the class that Jack Straw was not sacked, he was demoted to Leader of the House.

You may. Simpl[isticl]y speaking he was 'sacked' as her Brittanic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but you are quite right, he is still in government, in contrast to the truly 'sacked' former Home Secretary Charles Clarke, who refused the demotion booby prize and has returned to the back benches...

Glad to see such sterling journalistic devotion to the facts and hope (am sure) that it portends a career of exemplary integrity!

A deep bow across continents and hope all is well.

So, yes, compared to the system in the US, ours is a strange system. Conservatives claim that it 'works' and should therefore not be lightly cast aside. An argument with a great deal of merit.

I think it is time for an English constituional convention!  To finally get it right from the patchwork that apparently exists with no end in sight.

I think it is time for an English constituional convention! To finally get it right from the patchwork that apparently exists with no end in sight.

Ah yes, but if I put on my Conservative hat for a moment, I could argue if it ain't broke why fix it? (There are in fact differing opinions as to whether or not the system is 'broke'...)

More importantly, European Conservatives are highly sceptical of the very notion of getting "finally getting it right." That sounds so, well, radical or socialist ... Conservatism in Europe actually means a belief in a gradual evolution of the system in which ancestral wisdom is preserved, while necessary small scale reforms are undertaken as and when necessary. Perfection is not to be found in this world, we can only hope to get ever closer.

This is not a view to be found very often in a country that, like the Soviet Union, was founded in a single revolutionary moment and raises the interesting question of whether or not America has any 'Conservatives' at all.