After some searching, these titles seemed like the best picks (refer to "Recently Viewed Items" menu on the lower left):

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0745...rvi_4/202-2120800-9409462

"Introduction to British Politics," by Dearlove is rated as by far the best seller of the group in the UK. Second would be "Politics and Governance in the UK," by Moran

Any input on these, or other good titles, would be appreciated.

What am I missing?

Social security stands a good chance of going bankrupt. Even if it doesn't, payments are headed down, while requirements are headed up.

Most companies do not require detailed accounting of their pension funding. Of those that due, independent investigators found that the vast majority were "dramatically underfunded." The latest craze in Corporate America is terminating pension coverage.

Health-care costs/premiums continue to skyrocket. Children are living at home longer (age 30!); while seniors are moving back in with their kids. All this is almost entirely the result of rising health-care costs and declining retirement benefits, say the experts.

The average household savings sate in America is at a historical low. The figure is a key indicator of long-term economic stability/resilience.

But privatizing Social Security benefits is a bad idea.

Says who?

The term "Tory Sleaze" certainly caught on, didn't it? Good story, bb, I was able to follow though to some useful articles. There was one article from the Independent dated 04 May 2005 which stated the following very surprising information:

"The spin that has characterised the Blair administration has gone beyond mere political game-playing into a much more serious cumulative erosion of British democracy and civil liberties - and unlike the US we have no written constitution to fall back on. We rely entirely on our unwritten constitutional traditions, precedents and above all the honesty, integrity and probity of our politicians and public servants. That is why trust matters."

What forms the basis of your legal code of law? How are binding legal precedents (case law) established, then?

The words "above all [we rely upon] the honesty, integrity ... public servants." Frankly, the average American would ask in all sincerity, as I do: The author of this article isn't really serious about the trust issue, is he?

Btw, it would have been much more considerate of you Brits if you didn't have so many political parties playing the "What's my name, now game." Then, of course, there is a full complement of characters to go with each party and each government.

I must declare: Foul, sir!

Yes, the more I read, the clearer this theme becomes. It also partially helps to explain some of the "dignified charm" which you Brits possess.

Has the book, "The English Constitution," by Walter Bagehot, 1867 been rewritten/updated that you are aware. Some of his observations of the American system are quite pertinent.

Although your system of goverance is called the "Westminster system of democratic goverance," as an outsider observor this structural definition is not really as useful as an ideological description. While "New Labour" proclaims to be Democratic Socialist, I agree with Wikipedia that it is really a Social Democracy platform. In fact, this definition seems to best describe the basic tenents of your government quite nicely (or so it appears to me). Let me quote:

"Social democracy is a political ideology that ... emphasises a program of gradual legislative reform of the capitalist system in order to make it more equitable and humane, while the theoretical end goal of building a socialist society is either completely forgotten or redefined in a pro-capitalist way.

"The term social democracy can also refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate. … [It] defines social democracy as an ideal form of representative democracy, that may solve the problems found in a liberal democracy. The SI emphasizes the following principles:

"Firstly, freedom - not only individual liberties [freedoms to], but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power.

"Secondly, equality and social justice - not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities.

"Finally, solidarity - unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality."

Would you agree, bb?



As they say here in the States: 'Mo power to you, bro'! Or, more to my own liking: Nice work, my friend. Grass roots campaigns can be highly rewarding - if they succeed. Unfortunately, they can also completely deplete you in the process. I congratulate you for both your efforts and your success.


This is a complete and utter impossiblity in our representative style democracy. Hell, it is almost impossible to see a third participant in an election debate; and never a fourth.

Our government is set up in such a way that the single citizen has absolutely no way to have a direct voice in the decision making process except at the local (city) level. And even that is a farce.


Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer discussing as a vehicle to learn, with the purpose of sharing perceptions and experiences that result in achieving that ever illusive "common consensus."

Besides, the last time I got involved in politics it was during the late '60s. Full of adolescent ideological enthusiasm, in a short time I was able to break into the "inner circle" of student government at the college which I was currently enrolled. At someone's suggestion I went to a meeting of the SDS.

The speaker opened the meeting with the following words: "We support the overthrow of the government of the United States by all means, peaceful and violent. We actively support all groups which share this aim including the John Birch Society, the Black Pathers, the Klu Klux Klan ...

... at which point I calmly stood up and walked out. Within 3 days I had enlisted in the U.S. Army.

I'm afraid that I prefer the values of a warrior to those of a politician, although the whole lifestyle thing ....

The only thing that surprises me about Hamas' election victory is that everybody else is so surprised.

On the on hand you had Fatah, which was basicaly Yasser Arafat, has not been able to recover from his death and appears to have no clear idiology. They suffer from corruption and nepotism, and they are seen as capitulating to Israel (partly because they needed to in order for any form of Palstinian government to function).

On the other you have Hamas, which has shown that its idiology is stronger than any one man, as witnessed by the numerous assasinations of its leaders by Israel. It has continued to wage a querrilla war against occupying forces, whilst at the same time providing succour to Palestians in refugee camps.

Now given those choices who would you vote for?

Let us be careful with our language here as to what we actually mean by Palestine. Any Palestinian authority only exists and functions to the degree that Israel allows it to. With regard to any anrchy it is interesting to note how inital violence following the elections were between Hanmas and Fatah supporters, but it has subtly shifted to Fatah supports against their political elite. How things progress will be interesting particurly when it come to the Palestinain Security Forces.

One initial problem, to me at least, appears to be the vacuum created by the Bush Administration, whose initial responses appear to have be shock, awe, embarassment and a total lack of policy, thus allowing the pundits a field day. It become a greater problem if policy is formed based on popular thought that has in turn been formed based on the out pourings of the pundits.

Form here on in I must state that views expressed are not necessarily reflective of mine own

Hmmm not a fantistic deal.
First, what terrorist suicide bombings? These are legitimate querrilla attacks against a State which came about in no small part through terrorism, that is occupying land in defiance of UN resolutions. When are you going get rid of the Israeli regime? After all you invaded Iraq for failure to comply with UN resolutions. These are not civilians we attack but occupiers.

Second, why should we? This is our land, and was our land before you gave it to the Israelis. If you want the jew to have a home land why not give them some of yours after all the USA is big enough, why not let them have New York there plenty of Jews there already.

Finally: You claim that we have been getting away with murder, but our people have died at the rate of two to one for every Israeli. What state, we have no state, or lands and movements are occupied and controlled by Israelis, even those lands which were left to us after the formation Israel are not our own. International law is a two way street, and we have the right which we are right now exercising to retailate against the agressor Israel who is occupying our lands in defiance of International resolutions.