Prev: Re: [?] Not sure how to title this, but it sure is strange... the signs of things to come? Next: Re: [FT]Building better(?) weapons

Re: NAC Politics

From: Hugh Fisher <laranzu@o...>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:42:56 +1000
Subject: Re: NAC Politics

Roger Brooks wrote:
At 1:39 PM -0400 5/7/05, Roger Books wrote:
>So is there an official way the NAC functions?  Is it a two-party
>system like the U.S.A. or the free-for-all that politics seems to be
>in the U.K.?

UK politics have been three-party for at least a century
now, although *which* three parties does change from time
to time. Seems reasonable that this would be imported to
the US (after all, the US two party system didn't work out
in the GZG timeline, did it? :-) :-) ) and the colonies.

One model would be 19th century Victorian empire, with all
the important decisions being made on Earth. The colonies
have to send lobbyists to the central government if they
want anything changed. This would create lots of single
issue parties supporting independence for various people.

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. Officially the NAC is one big happy family,
and like any family there's bickering and feuds internally,
but everyone does pull together on major issues.

>Does the reigning Monarch have any power?

Ah, now that's an interesting question. A big difference
between UK and US politics is the "unwritten" component
of UK law and government. Tradition, consensus, that's
how we've always done things. And one of these aspects
is that the monarch has, legally, a lot of power; which
they don't actually use.

(On reviewing this paragraph, I'm not so sure. Maybe
there are unwritten aspects of US law and government too
and I'm just more familiar with the UK. Anyone?)

For instance, in Australia the governer-general is the
Queens representative. Every piece of legislation enacted
by parliament has to be approved by the G-G, so in law
they can veto anything. But they never do so. The G-G
also has the power to dissolve parliament and force an
election if he/she decides the current government isn't
stable. This has only happened once, and many Australians
are still furious about it.

Since the NAC is a recent creation, and Americans are
known for their, uh, "excitability" compared to Brits,
I'd assume it starts Victorian Empire with intent to
move towards Commonwealth. Bits of North America, and
colonies, have governer-generals/viceroys who play an
active role in politics and frequently exercise their
powers. The monarch tours a lot, and also frequently
gets involved in colonial politics. (Form of good cop/
bad cop: if the viceroy is being oppressive, you appeal
to the monarch, who really cares about the people. See,
isn't this better than being independent? :-) )

Politics on Earth itself should be interesting. The
economic centre is clearly going to be in the old US
and Canada, so I can imagine a lot of unhappy British
complaining about the "North American Confederation"
running things.

I've rambled on long enough I think.


Prev: Re: [?] Not sure how to title this, but it sure is strange... the signs of things to come? Next: Re: [FT]Building better(?) weapons