RE: NAC Politics

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, R. Bryett wrote:

> >>>> Another would be late 19th century with Dominions, like Canada,
> Australia, and New Zealand used to be and Scotland and Wales are now
moving
> towards, with their own assemblies and parties. <<<<
>
> Politically speaking "Australia" was not a Dominion or anything else
in the
> 19th century. Australia didn't become a nation, and part of the
British
> Empire, until 1901. Before that there were just the colonies New South
> Wales, Victoria, Queensland etc. with varying degrees of autonomy and
> various different representative bodies.

Likewise "Canada" prior to 1867.

The American 1.5 party system is a bit of an anomaly WRT other
democracies, which tend to be more free-wheeling.

Consider Canada. Our current opposition - called the Conservatives - are
mostly a party that didn't exist 20 years ago, combined with the
shattered
remenants (and the name) of the party that founded this country, but
which
went, in 1992, from a majority government down to having only 2 seats in
the
 Commons... (Commons = Congress, for Americans...)

Given that Brits run the NAC - more or less - and it's a very, very
geographically (astrographically?) spread out outfit, I'd expect more
diverse politics. Besides, it's more interesting...

Brian.
www.warbard.ca