unit · web viewunit i. the constitution. section 1. read and study.. 1.1. look through these...

UNIT I

THE CONSTITUTION

Section 1. Read and study.

1.1. Look through these questions before reading the text.1. What is meant by “constitutional monarchy” and “parliamentary

democracy”?2. Why is the British Constitution one of the most notable features of

the British system of government?3. Why does Britain not have a written constitution? Does it need one?4. What are the sources of the British constitution?

TEXT

THE CONSTITUTION

Britain is a constitutional monarchy. That means it is a country governed by a king or queen who accepts the advice of parliament. It is also a parliamentary democracy. That is, it is a country whose government is controlled by a parliament which has been elected by the people. In other words, the basic system is not so different from anywhere else in Europe. The highest positions in the government are filled by members of the directly elected parliament. In Britain, as in many European countries, the official head of state, whether a monarch (as in Britain, the Netherlands and Denmark) or a president (as in Germany, Greece and Italy) has little real power.

However, there are features of the British system of government which make it different from that in other countries and which are not ‘modern’ at all. The most notable of these is the question of the constitution.

Britain has a constitution, but not as an authoritative document or set of rules which describes the powers and duties of government institutions and the relations between them. It is not unwritten; rather, it is uncodified. There is no single written document which can be appealed to as the highest law of the land and the final arbiter in any

4

matter of dispute. Nobody can refer to ‘Article 6’ or ‘the first amendment’ or anything like that, because nothing like that exists.

Instead, the principles and procedures by which the country is governed and from which people’s rights are derived come from a number of different sources. They have been built up, bit by bit, over the centuries. Some of them are written down in laws agreed by Parliament, some of them have been spoken and then written down (judgements made in a court) and some of them have never been written down at all. For example, there is no written law in Britain that says anything about who can be the Prime Minister or what the powers of the Prime Minister are, even though he or she is probably the most powerful person in the country. Similarly, there is no single written document which asserts people’s rights. Some rights which are commonly accepted in modern democracies (for example, the rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex or race) have been formally recognised by Parliament through legislation; but others (for example, the rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of religion or political views) have not. Nevertheless, it is understood that these latter rights are also part of the constitution.

Most written constitutions are adopted by states which are newly independent or have suffered a rupture in their evolution (e.g. France in 1958). In the case of Britain, we cannot date the system of government or set of rules as being constituted at one point in time.

The British system has been widely admired. Britain prepared written constitutions for many of the colonies when they became independent and many states, in drawing up constitution, tried to copy British features.

Sources of the British constitution1. Common law, or traditions and customs administered by the old

common law courts, e.g. freedom of expression, which have come to be accepted as constituting the law of the land.

2. Laws(a) Statutory, or parliamentary, law overrides common law and

provides a substantial written part of the constitution. It includes such measures as the Act of Union, 1707, the Bill of Rights, 1689, etc.

5

(b) Judges’ interpretations of statute law, or “judicial Review’, as it is called. Judges do not decide on the validity of laws duly passed by Parliament but on whether the law has been applied properly (e.g. in 1975, when the courts found against the Minister's of Education interpretation of his discretionary power in refusing to allow Tameside to select for secondary education)

3. Conventions are rules which, lack the force of law but have been adhered to for so long that they are regarded as binding. Examples include the resignation of the Prime Minister following defeat on a no-confidence vote in the Commons; the Sovereign’s assent to a Bill passed through Parliament.

Conventions loom large as an element in the British constitution: they are the key to its flexibility. Many essential features of the political system – e.g. ministerial responsibility, collective responsibility, occasions for a dissolution of Parliament, and constitutional monarchy are all largely the product of convention.

1.2. Give the English equivalents to the following Russian words and word-combinations:

1. занимать основные посты в правительстве2. официальный (исходящий от законной власти) документ3. статья конституции4. поправка (к конституции)5. происходить из разных источников6. отстаивать права7. подвергаться дискриминации по какому-либо признаку8. перелом, резкий поворот в развитии (государства)9. общее право10.статутное право 11.конституционные соглашения12.вотум недоверия13.королевская санкция14.роспуск Парламента

6

Section 2. Use the above given text and the glossary (2.2) to discuss the constitutional process in Britain and in your own country.

2.2. Glossary.

constitution конституция, основной закон“unwritten” constitution «неписаная конституция», в

Великобритании нет конституции в полном смысле этого слова, ее заменяют Парламентские статуты (статутное право), конституционные обычаи (соглашения) и общее (прецедентное) право

7

to adopt a constitution принять конституциюto draft (draw up) a constitution составить проект конституцииConstitutional / unconstitutional конституционный / противоречащий

духу конституции, неконституционный

democracy 1. демократия2. демократическое государство

inroads on democracy наступление (посягательство) на демократию

to set up a facade of democracy создавать видимость демократииto advance democracy to new levels

развивать демократию дальше

assaults on democratic liberties наступление на демократические свободы

a sustained attack on democracy institutions and rights

непрекращающееся наступление на демократические институты и права

to extend (restrict) democracy rights

расширить (ограничить) демократические права

Common law общее, некодифицированное право, основанное на прецеденте

statutory (statute) law статутное право, «писаный закон»; закон, принятый Парламентом

Convention(s) Конституционные соглашения (обычаи) в Великобритании

Section 3. Read the article, do task 3.2 given below the text.

8

3.1.THE MODERN SITUATION

During the last half century, the traditional confidence in the British political system has weakened. At first sight, this phenomenon seems paradoxical. After all, the general direction of public policy has been the same for several decades, suggesting stability and a high level of public confidence. Two developments may help to explain it. The first concerns the perceived style of politics. Top politicians have always had various personal advisers to help them with matters of policy and presentation (for instance by writing their speeches). But in recent years it is their public relations advisers, whose job is to make them look good in the media, who have become their closest (and therefore most powerful) advisers. To characterize this role and the importance attached to it, the word “spin doctor” has entered the British vocabulary. The second is a more serious matter. It concerns the style of

democracy and it has constitutional significan- ce. There are signs that the traditional right

of the individual to freedom from interference by the state is being eroded. The proliferation

o of CCTV cameras is one example. Another is t the national DNA database. In 2007, about 5% 5% of the population had their DNA stored on on police databases. This proportion is growin growing rapidly. A further example is the incr increased powers the authorities have to searc search people and their homes and to detain them them without charging them. Under the presen present anti-terrorist laws, a suspect can be ke kept in police custody for 42 days without charge.

These changes have not take place without protest. But it seems that fear of crime, illegal immigration and terrorism have been enough to allow them through.

There has been a long history of migration from Scotland, Wales and Ireland to England. As a result there are millions of people who live in England but who would never describe themselves as English. They

9

There are censorship laws, but they relate only to obscenity and national security. There is a law against blasphemy, but it refers only to the Christian religion. Moreover, the tendency in the second half of the twentieth century has been to apply both types of law

may have lived in England all their lives, but as far as they are concerned they are Scottish or Welsh or Irish - even if, in the last case, they are citizens of Britain and not of Eire. These people support the country of their parents or grandparents rather than England in sporting contests. They would also, given the chance, play for that country rather than England.

There is, in fact, a complicated division of loyalties among many people in Britain, and especially in England. But the same person is quite happy to support England just as passionately in a sport such as football, which the West Indies do not play. A person whose family are from Ireland but who has always lived in England would want Ireland to beat England at football but would want England to beat (for example) Italy just as much. This crossover of loyalties can work the other way as well. English people do not regard the Scottish, the Welsh or the Irish as 'foreigners' (or, at least, not as the same kind of foreigners as other foreigners!). An English commentator of a sporting event in which a Scottish, Irish or Welsh team is playing against a team from outside the British Isles tends to identify with that team as if it were English.

A wonderful example of double identity was heard on the BBC during the Eurovision Song Contest in 1992. The commentator for the BBC was Terry Wogan. Mr. Wogan is an Irishman who had become Britain's most popular television talk-show host during the 1980s. Towards the end of the programme, with the voting for the songs nearly complete, it became clear that the contest (in which European countries compete to present the best new popular song) was going to be won by either Ireland or the United Kingdom. Within a five-minute period, Mr. Wogan could be heard using the pronoun 'we' and 'us' several times; sometimes he meant the UK and sometimes he meant Ireland!Notes:

blasphemy [blæsfimi] or bad language about God or holy things – богохульство

obscenity smth offensive to accepted ideas or morality, indecent – непристойность

CCTV cameras - closed-circuit TV cameras

3.2.1. What are the main developments that may help to explain the weakening confidence in the British political system?

10

2. Why has the role of “spin doctors” become so powerful in the modern political process?3. In what kind of a society could an unwritten constitution work?4. Do you think Russia is a multicultural society? Why?5. Are there any distinct national loyalties in your country? If so, is the relationship between the 'nations' in any way similar to that between the nations in Britain? Do these loyalties cause problems in your country?

FOR YOUR INFORMATION…

The Scottish Parliament

Before the 1980s, most Scottish people, although they insisted on many differences between themselves and the English, were happy to be part of the UK. But there was always some resentment about the way their country was treated by the central government in London. From the mid 1980s onwards, opinion polls consistently showed that a majority of the Scottish population wanted either internal self-government within the UK or complete independence. A referendum finally decided the issue and in 1999, nearly 300 years after it abolished itself, the Scottish Parliament was reborn. It has considerable powers over internal Scottish affairs.

Support for the Scottish Parliament has grown since that time, and currently the Scottish National Party (SNP), which wants complete independence from the UK (but with the English monarch as the head of state too), is the largest party in the Scottish Parliament. The present arrangement puts pressures on the relationship between Scotland and England.

The existence of two parliaments in Great Britain, one for the whole of the UK and one for Scotland alone, has led to a curious situation which is known as the West Lothian question (this being the name of the British parliamentary constituency whose MP first raised it). Westminster MPs cannot vote on matters of health, education, law and order, or welfare in Scotland because Scotland has a separate parliament which decides these matters. They only decide these matters for England and Wales. But they include in their number, of course, MPs from Scotland, who are thus able to vote on matters which have nothing to do with the people they represent! At the same time, these MPs do not have a vote on matters of great concern to those people because, again, Scotland has a separate parliament for these things! The situation has caused some resentment in England.

NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY

11

The New Northern Ireland Assembly was constituted under the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998. 108 members were elected to the Assembly on the 25 June 1998 by Proportional Representation from the existing 18 Westminster constituencies. But it was only in 2007 that internal self-government, with an elected assembly and a cross-party cabinet, was firmly established. Ironically, the new “First Minister” (a Protestant) and “ Deputy First Minister” (a Catholic) were people who each came from the more extremist wings of their communities. But nothing could be more indicative of the changed climate than the fact that during the ceremony in which they took up their new positions, while these two former mortal enemies sat chatting and joking together over a cup of tea, the only trouble which police encountered was from demonstrators protesting against the Iraq war!

The Assembly has full legislative and executive authority in respect of the following matters:

AgricultureEconomic developmentEducationthe EnvironmentFinance and PersonnelHealth and Social Services

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES

The Welsh Assembly was set up in the same year as the Scottish Parliament, 1999. Its powers are much more limited than those of the Scottish body. However, in Wales too, there is growing support for greater self-government.

12

UNIT II

THE MONARCHY

Section 1. Read and study

1.1. Look through these questions before reading the text.1. What are the powers of the Queen from the evidence of written law?2. What are the real powers of the Queen?3. Why does the British Prime Minister continue to “advise” and

“request” the Queen, when everybody knows that he or she is really telling her what to do? What then, is the monarch’s role?

4. Why is it believed that the British monarchy is probably more important to the economy of the country than it is to the system of government?

5. The attitude of the British people towards their royal family has changed over the last quarter of the twentieth century. In what way has it changed, and what demonstrates that there has been a change? Why do you think this has happened?

6. Would you advise the British to get rid of their monarchy?7. Do you think your country would benefit from having a figurehead

who could perform the functions of a monarch?

TEXT

13

THE MONARCHY

The monarchy and the Commonwealth. The British people look to the Queen not only as their head of State, but also as the symbol of their nation’s unity. The monarchy is the most ancient secular institution in Britain. During the last thousand years its continuity has only once been broken (by the establishment of a republic which lasted from 1649 to 1660) and, despite interruptions in the direct line of succession, the hereditary principle upon which it was founded has always been preserved. The royal title in Britain is: ‘Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith’. The form of the royal title is varied for those other member states of the Commonwealth of which the Queen is head of State, to suit the particular circumstances of each. The Commonwealth countries where the Queen is head of State include Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, New Zealand, Solomon Islands and others. Some member states of the Commonwealth are republics or have their own monarchies.

The seat of the Monarchy is in Great Britain, while in other member nations of the Commonwealth the Queen is represented by the Governor–General, appointed by her on the advice of the ministers of the country concerned and completely independent of the British Government.

The appearance. The position of the monarch in Britain is a perfect illustration of the contradictory nature of the constitution. From the evidence of written law only, the Queen has almost absolute powers, and it all seems very undemocratic. The American constitution talks about ‘government of the people for the people by the people’. There is no law in Britain which says anything like that. If fact, there is no legal concept of ‘the people’ at all.

Every autumn, at the state opening of Parliament, Elizabeth II, who became Queen in 1952, makes a speech. In it, she says what ‘my government’ intends to do in the coming year. And indeed, it is her

14

The house of WindsorWindsor is the family

name of the royal family. The press sometimes refers to its members as ‘the Windsors’. Queen Elizabeth is only the fourth monarch with this name. This is not because a ‘new’ royal family took over the throne of Britain four reigns ago. It is because George V, Elizabeth’s grandfather, changed the family name. It was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but during the First World War it was thought better for the king not to have a German-sounding name.

government, not the people’s. As far as the law is concerned, she can choose anybody she likes to run the government for her. There are no restrictions on whom she picks as her Prime Minister. It does not have to be somebody who has been elected. The same is true for her choices of people to fill some hundred or so other ministerial positions. And if she gets fed up with her ministers, she can just dismiss them. Officially speaking, they are all ‘servants of the Crown’ (not servants of anything like ‘the country’ or ‘thepeople’). She also appears to have great power over Parliament. It is she who summons a Parliament, and she who dissolves it before a general election. Nothing that Parliament has decided can become law until she has given it the royal assent.

Similarly, it is the Queen, and not any other figure of authority, who embodies the law in the courts. In the USA, when the police take someone to court to accuse them of a crime, the court records show that ‘the people’ have accused that person. In other countries it might be ‘the state’ that makes the accusation. But in Britain it is ‘the Crown’. This is because of the legal authority of the monarch. And when an accused person is found guilty of a crime, he or she might be sent to one of ‘Her Majesty’s’ prisons.

Other countries have ‘citizens’. But in Britain people are legally described as ‘subjects’ – subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. Moreover, there is a principle of English law that the monarch can do nothing that is legally wrong. In other words, Queen Elizabeth is above the law.

15

The reality. In practice, of course, reality is very different. In fact, the Queen cannot choose anyone she likes to be Prime Minister. She has to choose someone who has the support of the majority of MPs in the House of Commons (the elected chamber of the two Houses of Parliament). This is because the law says that ‘her’ government can only collect taxes with the agreement of the Commons, so if she did not choose such a person, the government would stop functioning. In practice the person she chooses in the leader of the strongest party in the House of Commons. Similarly, it is really the Prime Minister who decides who the other government ministers are going to be (although officially the Prime Minister simply ‘advises’ the monarch who to choose).

It is the same story with Parliament. Again, the Prime Minister will talk about ‘requesting’ a dissolution of Parliament when he or she wants to hold an election, but it would normally be impossible for the monarch to refuse this ‘request’. Similarly, while, in theory, the Queen could refuse the royal assent to a bill passed by Parliament – and so stop it becoming law – no monarch has actually done so since the year 1708. Indeed, the royal assent is so automatic that the Queen doesn’t even bother to give it in person. Somebody else signs the documents for her.

In reality, the Queen has almost no power at all. When she opens Parliament each year the speech she makes has been written for her. She makes no secret of this fact. She very obviously reads out the script that has been prepared for her, word for word. If she strongly disagrees with one of the policies of the government, she might ask the government ministers to change the wording in the speech a little beforehand, but that is all. She cannot actually stop the government going ahead with any of its policies.

16

The role of the monarch. What, then, is the monarch’s role? Many opinions are offered by political and legal experts. Three roles are often mentioned. First, the monarch is the personal embodiment of the government of the country. This means that people can be as critical as they like about the real government, and can argue that it should be thrown out, without being accused of being unpatriotic. Because of the clear separation between the symbol of government (the Queen) and the actual government (the ministers, who are also MPs), changing the government does not threaten the stability of the country as a whole. Other countries without a monarch have to use something else as the symbol of the country. In the USA, for example, one of these is its flag, and to damage the flag in any way is actually a criminal offence.

Second, it is argued that the monarch could act as a final check on a government that was becoming dictatorial. If the government ever managed to pass a bill through Parliament which was obviously terribly bad and very unpopular, the monarch could refuse the royal assent and the bill would not become law. Similarly, it is possible that if a Prime Minister who had been defeated at a general election (and so no longer commanded a majority in the House of Commons) were to ask immediately for another dissolution of Parliament (so that another election could take place), the monarch could refuse the request and dismiss the Prime Minister.

Third, the monarch has a very practical role to play. By being a figurehead and representing the country, Queen Elizabeth II can perform the ceremonial duties which heads of state often have to spend their time on. This way, the real government has more time to get on with the actual job of running the country.

17

The value of monarchy. However, all these advantages are hypothetical. It cannot be proved that only a monarch can provide them. Other modern democracies manage perfectly well without one. The British monarch is probably more important to the economy of the country than it is to the system of government. Apart from this, the monarchy is very popular with the majority of the British people. The monarchy gives British people a symbol of continuity, and a harmless outlet for the expression of national pride. Even in very hard times it has never seemed likely that Britain would turn to a dictator to get it out of its troubles. The grandeur of its monarchy may have been one of the reasons for this.

Occasions such as the state opening of Parliament, the Queen’s official birthday, royal weddings, and ceremonial events such as the changing of the guard make up for the lack of colour and ceremony in most people’s daily lives. (There is no tradition of local parades as there

is in the USA, and very few traditional local festivals survive as they do in other European countries.) In addition the glamorous lives of ‘the royals’ provide a source for entertainment that often takes on the characteristics of a television soap opera. When, in 1992, it became known that Prince Charles and his wife Princes Diana were separating, even the more ‘serious’ newspapers discussed a lot more than the possible political implications. The Sunday Times published a ‘five-page royal separation special’. Since the Princes “Wills” and “Harry” grew up, most of the press has been more interested in their love lives than in the implications of their military roles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

18

The economic argumentEvery tourist brochure for

Britain in every country in the world gives great prominence to the monarchy. It is impossible to estimate exactly how much the British royal family and the events and buildings associated with the monarchy help the tourist industry, or exactly how much money they help to bring into the country. But most people working in tourism think it is an awful lot!

The future of the monarchy. For the last 250 years, the British monarchy as an institution has only rarely been a burning political issue. Only occasionally has there been debate about the existence of the monarchy itself. Few people in Britain could be described as either ‘monarchists’ or ‘anti-monarchists’, in the sense in which these terms are often used in other countries. Most people are either vaguely in favour or they just don’t care one way or the other. There is, however, a great deal of debate about what kind of monarchy Britain should have. During the last two decades of the twentieth century, there has been a general cooling of enthusiasm. The Queen herself remains popular. But the various marital problems in her family have lowered the prestige of royalty in many people’s eyes. The problem is that, since Queen Victoria’s reign, the public have been encouraged to look up to the royal family as a model of Christian family life.

The change in attitude can be seen by comparing Queen Elizabeth’s 25th anniversary as Queen with her 40th anniversary. In 1977, there were neighbourhood street parties throughout the country, most of them spontaneously and voluntarily organised. But in 1992, nothing like this took place. On 20 November 1993, a fire damaged one of the Queen’s favourite homes to the value of £ 60 million. There were expressions of public sympathy for the Queen. But when the government announced that public money was going to be paid for the repairs, the sympathy quickly turned to anger. The Queen had recently been reported to be the richest woman in the world, so people didn’t see why she shouldn’t pay for them herself.

It is, in fact, on the subject of money that ‘anti-royalist’ opinions are most often expressed. In the early nineties even some Conservative MPs, traditionally strong supporters of the monarchy, started protesting at how much the royal family was costing the country. For the whole of her long reign Elizabeth II had been exempt from taxation. But, as a response to the change in attitude, the Queen decided that she would start paying taxes on her private income. In addition, Civil List payments to some members of the royal family were stopped. (The Civil List is the money which the Queen and some of her relatives get from Parliament each year so that they can carry out their public duties).

For most people, the most notable event marking Queen Elizabeth’s 40th anniversary was a television programme about a year in

19

her life which showed revealing details of her private family life. In the following year parts of Buckingham Palace were, for the first time, opened for public visits (to raise money to help pay for the repairs to Windsor Castle). These events are perhaps an indication of the future royal style – a little less grand, a little less distant.

1.2. Give the English equivalents to the following Russian word-combinations:

1. служить прекрасной иллюстрацией противоречивого характера конституции;

2. юридическое понятие;3. олицетворять закон;4. решительно не соглашаться с политикой правительства;5. не угрожать стабильности государства в целом;6. принимать характер телевизионной «мыльной оперы»7. являться высшей инстанцией, контролирующей деятельность

правительства;8. общее охлаждение восторженного отношения;9. быть освобожденным от уплаты налогов;10.организованный спонтанно, на добровольной основе.

Section 2. Use the above-given text and the glossary (2.2) to discuss the

institution of monarchy.

2.2. Glossarythe Civil ListCivil List payments

выделяемая государством сумма на содержание королевского двора

personify олицетворятьa subject подданныйto summon the Parliament созывать Парламентto dissolve Parliament распускать Парламент

the committee dissolved комитет прекратил свое существование

an heir to the throne наследник престола

20

to succeed smb on the throne стать чьим-либо преемником на троне

a direct descendant потомок по прямой линииin the direct line of succession

прямая очередность престолонаследия

succession through the male line

право на наследование по мужской линии

to pass the Crown to smb передавать королевскую власть кому-либо

hereditary power наследственная властьcontinuity of power преемственность властиto abdicate отрекаться (от престола)

abdication1 отречение (от престола)non-partisan внепартийный, беспристрастныйto carry public/ceremonial duties

выполнять общественные или государственные функции

to give/refuse the royal assent to smth

давать (отказывать) королевское согласие (о законопроекте, проведенном через Парламент)

the Royal prerogatives права суверенаan office holder высокопоставленный чиновникthe Governor-General генерал-губернатор

1

21


The abdication crisisFor the last two centuries, the public have wanted their monarch to show their high moral standards. In 1936, Edward VIII, the uncle of the present queen, was forced to abdicate (give up the throne) because he wanted to marry a woman who had divorced two husbands. (On top of that, she wasn’t even an aristocrat – she was an American!) The government and the major churches in the country insisted that Edward could not marry her and remain king. He chose to marry her. The couple then went to live abroad. At Winston Churchill’s invitation, the Duke of Windsor (as Edward later became) served as governor of the Bahamas during World War II, and after 1945 the couple lived in Paris. Though they were counted among the social elite, not until 1967 were they invited to attend an official public ceremony with other members of the royal family.

22

UNIT III

PARLIAMENT. THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.


1.1 Look through these questions before reading text 1.1. What are the major activities of Parliament in Britain?2. What are the distinctive features of the design and layout of the

House of Commons? Can we say that the fairly informal atmosphere in the House is the result of these features?

3. In what way do MPs organise their work?4. What is the central rule of procedure in Parliament set out by standing

orders?5. When the Commons decide to vote, they don’t vote immediately.

Instead, a “division bell” rings throughout the Palace of Westminster, after which MPs have eight minutes in which to vote. Why?

6. What makes the House committees so powerful?

TEXT 1

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

The activities of Parliament in Britain are more or less the same as those of the Parliament in any western democracy. It makes new laws, gives authority for the government to raise and spend money, keeps a close eye on government activities and discusses those activities. The British Parliament is divided into two ‘houses’, and its members belong to one or other of them, although only members of the Commons are normally known as MPs (Members of Parliament). The Commons is by far the more important of the two houses.

23

The atmosphere of the House. The design and layout of the House of Commons differ from the interior of the parliament buildings in most other countries. These differences can tell us a lot about what is distinctive about the British Parliament. First, there are just two rows of benches facing each other. There is no opportunity in this layout for a reflection of all the various shades of political opinion (as there is with semi-circle). According to where they sit, MPs are seen to be either ‘for’ the government (supporting it) or against it. This physical division is emphasized by the table on the floor of the House between the two rows of benches. The Speaker’s chair, which is raised some way off the floor, is also here. From this commanding position, the Speaker chairs (that is, controls) the debates. The arrangement of the benches encourages confrontation between government and opposition.

Second, the Commons has no ‘front’, no obvious place from which an MP can address everybody there. MPs simply stand up and speak from wherever they happen to be sitting. Third, there are no desks for the MPs. The benches where they sit are exactly and only that – benches, just as in a church. This makes it physically easy for them to drift in and out of the room, which is something that they frequently do during debates. Fourth, the House is very small. In fact, there isn’t enough room for all the MPs. There are more than 650 of them, but there is seating for less than 400. A candidate at an election is said to have won ‘a seat’ in the Commons, but this ‘seat’ is imaginary. MPs do not have their ‘own’ place to sit. No names are marked on the benches. MPs just sit down wherever (on ‘their’ side of the House) they can find room.

All these features result in a fairly informal atmosphere. Individual MPs, without their own ‘territory’ (which a personal seat and desk would give them), are encouraged to co-operate. Moreover, the small size of the House, together with the lack of a podium or dais from which to address it, means that MPs do not normally speak in the way that they would at a large public rally. MPs normally speak in a conversational tone, and because they have nowhere to place their notes while speaking, they do not normally speak for very long either! It is only on particularly important occasions, when all the MPs are present, that passionate oratory is sometimes used.

The ancient habits are preserved today in the many customs and detailed rules of procedure which all new MPs find that they have to learn. The most noticeable of these is the rule that forbids MPs to

24

address one another directly or use personal names. All remarks and questions must go ‘through the Chair’. An MP who is speaking refers to or asks a question of ‘the honorable Member for Winchester’ or ‘my right honorable friend’. The MP for Winchester may be sitting directly opposite, but the MP never says ‘you’. These ancient rules were originally formulated to take the ‘heat’ out of debate and decrease the possibility that violence might break out. Today, they lend a touch of formality which balances the informal aspects of the Commons and further increases the feeling of MPs that they belong to a special group of people.

An MP’s life. Traditionally, MPs were supposed to be ordinary people giving some of their time to representing the people. This is why MPs were not even paid until the beginning of this century. Traditionally, they were supposed to be doing a public service, not making a career for themselves. In fact MPs have been paid salaries since 1911. The rate has lately been nearly twice the average industrial worker’s wage. The Leader of the Opposition receives a salary from the state funds as if he were a minister. But many MPs say that they need to have outside earnings, through journalism, work in the law courts or business, to enable them to live at the standard they expect. British MPs do not get paid very much in comparison with many of their European counterparts. Moreover, by European standards, they have incredibly poor facilities. Most MPs have to share an office and secretary with two or more other MPs.

The ideal of the talented amateur does not, of course, reflect modern reality. Politics in Britain in the last forty years has become professional. Most MPs are full-time politicians, and do another job, if at all, only part-time. But the amateur tradition is still reflected in the hours of business of the Commons. They are ‘gentleman’s hours’. The House does not sit in the morning. This is when, in traditional ideal, MPs would be doing their ordinary work or pursuing other interests outside Parliament. From Monday to Thursday, the House does not start its business until 14.30 (on Friday it starts in the morning, but then finishes in the early afternoon for the weekend). It also gives itself long holidays: four weeks at Christmas, two each at Easter and Whitsun (Pentecost)2

2 Whitsun (Pentecost) – церк. Троицын день

25

and about eleven weeks in the summer (from the beginning of August until the middle of October).

But this apparently easy life is misleading. In fact, the average modern MP spends more time at work than any other professional in the country. From Monday to Thursday, the Commons never ‘rises’ (i.e. finishes work for the day) before 22.30 and sometimes it continues sitting for several hours longer. Occasionally, it debates through most of the night.

MP’s mornings are taken up with committee work, research, preparing speeches and dealing with the problems of constituents (the people they represent). Weekends are not free for MPs either. They are expected to visit their constituencies (the areas they represent) and listen to the problems of anybody who wants to see them. It is an extremely busy life that leaves little time for pursuing another career. It does not leave MPs much time for their families either. Politicians have a higher rate of divorce than the (already high) national average.

Parliamentary business. The basic procedure for business in the Commons is a debate on a particular proposal, followed by a resolution which either accepts or rejects this proposal. Sometimes the resolution just expresses a viewpoint, but most often it is a matter of framing a new law or of approving (or not approving) government plans to raise taxes or spend money in certain ways.

Standing Orders set out the main formal rules of procedure. The central rule of procedure is that every debate must relate to a specific proposal or “motion”. Some member moves (proposes) a motion; the House debates it and finally decides whether to agree or disagree with it, When a motion has been moved, another member may propose “to amend” it, and in that case his proposal is debated. When the House has decided on the amendment it goes back to the original motion, which is now in a new form if an amendment to it has been accepted. A debate ends either (1) when every member who wants to speak has done so, or (2) at a time fixed in advance by informal agreement between the parties, or by a vote of the House (that is, by the Government without the agreement of the Opposition), or (3) when the House with the Speaker’s consent, votes that it shall end. At the end of every debate the Speaker puts the question whether or not to accept the motion that has been debated.

26

Occasionally, there is no need to take a vote, but there usually is, and at such times there is a ‘division’. That is, MPs have to vote for or against a particular proposal. They do this by walking through one of two corridors at the side of the House – one is for the “Ayes” (those who agree with the proposal) and the other is for the “Noes” (those who disagree). Eight minutes after the beginning of the division the doors leading into the lobbies are locked. The practice of allowing eight minutes before members must enter their lobbies gives enough time for them to come from any part of the Palace of Westminster. Bells ring all over the building to summon members to the chamber to vote. Members often vote without having heard a debate and perhaps without knowing exactly what is the question; they know which way to vote because whips of the parties stand outside the doors and members vote almost automatically with their parties. But the resolutions of the Commons are only part of its activities. There are also the committees. Some committees are appointed to examine particular proposals for laws, but there are also permanent committees whose job is to investigate the activities of government in a particular field. There is a Commons Select Committee for each government department, examining three aspects: spending, policies and administration. These departmental committees have a minimum of 11 members, who decide upon the line of inquiry and then gather written and oral evidence. Findings are reported to the Commons, printed, and published on the Parliament website. The government then usually has 60 days to reply to the committee's recommendations. (Other Commons Committees are involved in a range of on-going investigations, like administration of the House itself or allegations about the conduct of individual MPs.) The Committees often have to decide on whether to produce a hostile and critical report, which will simply be repudiated by the government and may cost some of their members their chances of promotion, or to trade some of their criticism away in return for minor concessions from the ministers. As elsewhere in Parliament, the result is a mixture of general compliance with a dash of independence.

1.2. Give the English equivalents to the following Russian words and word-combinations:

27

1. уполномочивать правительство собирать и расходовать государственные средства

2. профессиональный политик3. иметь какие-либо интересы (работу) вне Парламента4. избирательный округ5. вырабатывать закон6. вносить предложение7. быть отвергнутым, не принятым правительством (о докладе,

законопроекте)8. ослаблять критику в обмен на уступки со стороны министров.

1.3. Look through these questions before reading Text 2.1. What powers are allotted to the Whips in the House? How can you

account for the downgrading of the Whips' office under the present government?

2. Why do MPs nearly always vote the way their party tells them to? Do the major parties sometimes allow a "free vote" to their MPs? When?

3. What makes the government and the legislature so dissolubly fused together in the United Kingdom? What are advantages and disadvantages of this system of governing the country?

4. Describe the procedure of appointing a new speaker and the traditions connected with it.

5. What are the powers of the Speaker in the House?6. Why does the newly-appointed speaker agree to give up all party

politics for the rest of his or her life?

TEXT 2THE PARTY SYSTEM IN PARLIAMENT

Most divisions take place along party lines. MPs know that they owe their position to their party, so they nearly always vote the way that their party tells them to. They are subject to the constraints of strict party discipline. The people who make sure that MPs do this are called the Whips. Each of the two major parties has several MPs who perform this role. It is their job to inform all MPs in their party how they should vote.

28

By tradition, if the government loses a vote in Parliament on a very important matter, it has to resign. Therefore, when there is a division on such a matter, MPs are expected to go to the House and vote even if they have not been there during the debate.

The Whips act as intermediaries between the backbenchers and the frontbench of a party. They keep the party leadership informed about

backbench opinion. They are powerful people. Because they ‘have the ear’ of the party leaders, they can have an effect on which backbenchers get promoted to the front bench and which do not. For reasons such as this, ‘rebellions’ among a group of a party’s MPs (in which they vote against their party) are very rare.

Sometimes the major parties allow a ‘free vote’, when MPs vote according to their own beliefs and not according to party policy. Some quite important decisions, such as the

abolition of the death penalty and the decision to allow television cameras into the Commons, have been made in this way.

The result of the dominance of party is that Parliament has found it hard to perform the functions allotted to it. In countries such as the USA, the powers of the government and the legislature are separated. They are elected on separate occasions and are granted separate rights and responsibilities in the constitution. The legislature cannot easily remove the government, short of impeachment, nor can the government dissolve the legislature. In the UK, the government and the legislature are dissolubly fused together. They are not elected on separate occasions and they do not enjoy separate legitimacy. This has the advantage that clashes or deadlock between the government and legislature are relatively uncommon in the United Kingdom.

29

Frontbenchers and backbenchersAlthough MPs do not have their own personal seats in the Commons, there are two seating areas reserved for particular MPs. These areas are the front benches on either side of the House. These benches are where the leading members of the governing party (i.e. ministers) and the leading members of the main opposition party sit. These people are thus known as ‘frontbenchers’. MPs who do not hold a government post or a post in the shadow cabinet are known as ‘backbenchers’

Should the Government be caught out in some unethical behaviour it can usually rely on its parliamentary majority to pull it through the crisis. This was made painfully apparent in 1996 when the publication of the Scott Report into British arms sales to Iraq revealed that Conservative Government ministers had repeatedly “misled” Parliament. The failure of Parliament to force the resignations of the ministers involved was largely the results of the work of the Conservative party whips in twisting the arms of those on the Government side who might have rebelled.


The Speaker. Anybody who happened to be watching the live broadcast of

Parliament on 22 June 2009 was able to witness an extraordinary spectacle. An MP was physically dragged, apparently against his will, out of his seat on the back benches by fellow MPs and was forced to sit in the large chair in the middle of the House of Commons.

What the House of Commons was actually doing was appointing a new Speaker. The Speaker is the person who chairs and controls discussion in the House, decides which MP is going to speak next and makes sure that the rules of procedure are followed. (If they are not, the Speaker has the power to demand a public apology from an MP or even to ban an MP from the House for a number of days). It is a very important position. In fact, the Speaker is, officially the second most important ‘commoner’ (non-aristocrat) in the kingdom after the Prime Minister.

Hundreds of years ago it was the Speaker’s job to communicate the decisions of the Commons to the King (that is where the title ‘Speaker’ comes from). As the king was often very displeased with that the Commons decided this was not a pleasant task. As a result nobody wanted the job. They had to be forced to take it. These days, the position is a much safer one, but the tradition of dragging an unwilling Speaker to the chair has remained.

30

The occasion in 2009 was the first time that the Speaker (John Bercow) had been elected by an exhaustive secret ballot. The process is as follows:

MPs are given a list of candidates and place an x next to the candidate of their choice

If a candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, the question is put to the House that he or she takes the chair as Speaker

If no candidate does so, the candidate with the fewest votes, and those with less than five per cent of the vote, are eliminated

In addition, any candidate may withdraw within 10 minutes of the announcement of the result of the ballot

MPs then vote again on the reduced slate of candidates and continue doing so until one candidate receives more than half the votes.

Once a Speaker has been appointed, he or she agrees to give up all party politics for the rest of his or her life and remains in the job for as long as he or she wants it. However, the Speaker will deal with their constituents’ problems like a normal MP. Speakers still stand in general elections. They are generally unopposed by the major political parties, who will not field a candidate in the Speaker’s constituency – this includes the original party they were a member of. During a general election, Speakers do not campaign on any political issues but simply stand as “the Speaker seeking re-election”

Question TimeThis is the best attended, and usually the noisiest, part of the parliamentary day. MPs are allowed to ask questions of government ministers. Opposition MPs in particular have an opportunity to make government ministers look incompetent or perhaps dishonest.The questions and answers, however, are not spontaneous. Questions to ministers have to be “tabled” (written down and placed on the table below the Speaker’s chair) two days in advance, so that ministers have time to prepare their answers. In this way, the government can usually avoid major embarrassment. The trick, though, is to ask an unexpected “supplementary” question. After the minister has answered the tabled question, the MP who originally tabled it is allowed to ask a further question relating to the minister’s answer. In this way, it is sometimes possible for MPs to catch a minister unprepared.

31

“Question Time” has been widely copied around the world. The vast majority of television new excerpts of Parliament are taken from this period of its day. Especially common is for the news to show an excerpt from the 15 minutes each week when it is the Prime Minister’s turn to answer questions.

How a bill becomes a law.

1.4 Study the chart and say how a bill becomes a law.Before a proposal for a new law starts its progress through

Parliament, there will have been much discussion. If it is a government proposal, Green and White Papers3 will probably have been published, explaining the ideas behind the proposal. After this, lawyers draft the proposal into a bill.

Most bills begin life in the House of Commons, where they go through a number of stages.

3 Green Paper - a small book put out by the British Government containing suggestions to be talked about which may later be used in making new laws.

White Paper - an official report from the British government, usually explaining the government's ideas and plans concerning a particular subject before it suggests a new law in Parliament.

32

33

First readingThis is a formal announcement only, with no debate

Second readingThe house debates the general principles of the bill

and, in most cases, takes a vote.

Committee stageA committee of MPs examines the details of the bill and votes on amendments (changes) to parts of it.

Report stageThe House considers the amendments.

Third readingThe amended bill is debated as a whole.

The bill is sent to the House of Lords, where it goes through the same stages. (If the Lords make new

amendments, these will be considered by the Commons.)

After both Houses have reached agreement, the bill receives the royal assent and becomes an Act of

Parliament which can be applied as a part of the law.

1.5 Give the English equivalents to the following words and word-combinations.

1. зависеть от давления/подвергаться давлению партийной дисциплины

2. выступать в роли посредников между Парламентскими лидерами и рядовыми членами Парламента

3. выполнять функции, которыми наделен Парламент4. распускать законодательный орган власти5. быть неразрывно связанным 6. разногласия (конфликты) и безвыходные (тупиковые) ситуации

между правительством и законодательной ветвью власти

Section 2. Use the above-given text and the glossary (2.2) to discuss the British Parliament.

2.2 Glossary

act акт, закон, постановлениеact of Parliament Парламентский акт, закон (принятый

Палатой Общин и Палатой Лордов и получивший королевскую санкцию)

to repeal an act отменить законbench место в Парламенте, скамья

34

a front bench предназначается соответственно для членов правительства и членов "теневого кабинета"

a frontbencher "переднескамеечник" (министр или член "теневого кабинета")

back benches предназначаются для рядовых членов Парламента

a backbencher "заднескамеечник" (рядовой член Парламента)

bill билль, законопроектa parliament bill Парламентский билль (законопроект) government (sponsored) initiated bill

правительственный законопроект

a Private bill законопроект, внесенный на рассмотрение рядовым членом Парламента

reading of a bill слушание законопроектаthe bill's chances of becoming law are remote

законопроект едва ли станет законом

to draft a bill составлять законопроект

to amend (alter) a bill изменять (вносить поправки) в законопроект

to initiate (introduce, propose, sponsor, bring in) a bill

вносить законопроект на рассмотрение

to rush (push) a bill (through Parliament)

поспешно провести законопроект через Парламент

to place a bill (before the Queen) for signature

представить законопроект на подпись (королеве)

debate a bill вести дебаты по законопроекту

35

to delay (disapprove of, defeat, oppose) a bill

затягивать, задерживать; не одобрять; отклонять; воспрепятствовать законопроекту

chamber (syn. House) 1. Палата Парламента2. зал, конференц-зал

lower (upper) chamber (house)

нижняя (верхняя) Палата

elective chamber выборная Палата

a one (two) chamber parliament

одно (двух) палатный Парламент

the House of Commons (the Commons)

Палата Общин (нижняя Палата в Британском Парламенте))

the House of Lords (the Lords) Палата Лордов (верхняя Палата в Британском Парламенте)

the House (coll.) Палата Общин

to enter the House стать членом Парламента

to attend the House присутствовать на заседании Палаты

to preside the House председательствовать в палате

to obtain (gain)the majority of seats in the House (both Houses)

получать большинство мест в Палате (в обеих палатах)

to keep (make) a House обеспечит кворум

the House rose at 9 заседание палаты закончилось в 9debate дискуссия, дебаты, прения (в

Парламенте)

36

debates on bills прения по законопроектамdebates on motions прения по предложениям, внесенным

членами Парламентаthe order of speaking in a debate is arranged in advance

порядок выступления в прениях оговаривается заранее

to initiate the debate быть инициатором обсуждения данного вопроса (предложить вопрос для обсуждения)

divide (v) 1. голосовать, ставить на голосование, проводить голосование

2. разделяться при голосованииDivide! Divide! Ставьте на голосование!division голосование членов Парламента в

Палате Общинdivision bell Парламентский звонок (извещающий

членов Парламента о начале голосования)

division bell district район «Парламентского звонка» (улицы близ здания Парламента, на которых проживают некоторые его члены; в их дома, в ряд местных ресторанов проведен звонок, извещающий о начале голосования)

division lobby лобби для голосования (один из двух коридоров в Палате Общин, правое от спикера лобби предназначается для голосующих «за», левое – для голосующих «против», при выходе Парламентарием из Палаты счетчики голосов (tellers) отмечают число проголосовавших членов Палаты)

legislation 1. законодательство, законы

37

2. законопроекты, находящиеся на рассмотрении законодательного органа

to pass (endorse) government-proposed legislation

принимать (одобрять) правительственные законопроекты

legislature (syn. legislative power (branch)

1. законодательный орган2. законодательная власть

legislate осуществлять законодательную власть, издавать законы

to legislate on a wide range of matters

издавать законы по широкому кругу вопросов

to legislate against smth запретить что-либо в законодательном порядке

lobby 1. лобби, коридор для голосования2. лобби, кулуары Парламента3. (собир.) группа (представители

компаний, организаций и т.д.), “проталкивающая” законопроект.

to lobby for a proposal проталкивать предложениеto lobby (a bill) through Parliament

провести (законопроект) с помощью закулисных махинаций

to lobby MPs оказывать давление на членов Парламента

lobbyist/lobby-member лоббистmember (n) член какой-либо организации

Member of Parliament (MP)/Commons’ member

член Парламента, член Палаты Общин

a Labour (Tory) MP член Парламента от лейбористской (консервативной) партии

38

an old hand опытный член Парламентаhard-left (right) MPs крайние левые (правые) члены

Парламентаswearing in of MPs присяга членов Парламента, дается

новым составом Парламента после избрания спикера

an ex-MP бывший член Парламентаto recall an MP отзывать члена Парламентаmembership членствоan increase (decline) in membership

увеличение (сокращение) численного состава

to provide the main body of membership

составлять костяк членов

Parliament ПарламентThe British Parliament (but: - Parliament)

высший орган законодательной власти в Великобритании возник в конце 13 века

to summon Parliament/to call Parliament

созвать Парламент

to prorogue Parliament объявить перерыв в работе Парламента, не распуская его

to dissolve Parliament распускать Парламентdissolution of Parliament роспуск Парламентаthe State Opening of Parliament

торжественное открытие Парламента

Parliament is in session в Парламенте идут заседания

a hung Parliament ситуация в Парламенте, когда ни одна из представленных в нем партий не имеет необходимого большинства для формирования правительства

39

to sit in Parliament/to have a seat in Parliament

быть членом Парламента

to stand (run) for Parliament/to contest a seat in Parliament

выставить свою кандидатуру в Парламент

Parliament reassembles Парламент возобновляет свою работу после каникул

to sidestep (by-pass) Parliament

игнорировать, действовать в обход Парламента

to rob Parliament of some powers (to limit its powers)

лишать Парламент каких-либо полномочий (ограничивать его полномочия)

Parliamentary statutes (statutory law)

статуты, акты Парламента, составляющие основу британской конституционной практики

to have a parliamentary majority of (one or two (etc.) votes)

иметь большинство в Парламенте с перевесом в (один-два (и т.д.) голоса)

parliamentary recess Парламентские каникулы (перерыв в работе Парламента между сессиями)

40

reading чтение (стадия прохождения законопроекта в британском Парламенте)

the bill was rejected at the second reading

законопроект был отклонен при (во) втором чтении

the bill failed to obtain a second reading

законопроект был отклонен при первом чтении

Speaker спикерspeaker’s chair кресло спикера в Палате Общинto catch the speaker’s eye привлечь внимание спикера, получить

слово для выступления в дебатах в Палате Общин

whip парламентский партийный организатор («кнут», «хлыст»)

majority whip организатор парламентской фракции правящей партии

minority whip организатор парламентской фракции партии меньшинства

NOTESHansardThis is the name given to the daily verbatim reports of

everything that has been said in the Commons. They are published within forty-eight hours of the day they over.

The pairing systemThe pairing system is an excellent example of the habit of

cooperation among political parties in Britain. Under this system, an MP of one party is ‘paired’ with an MP of another party. When there is going to be a vote in the House of Commons, and the two MPs know that they would vote on opposite sides, neither of them bother to turn up for the vote. In this way, the difference in numbers between one side and the other is maintained, while the MPs are free to get on with other work. The system works very well. There is hardly ever any ‘cheating’.

41

UNIT IV

PARLIAMENT. THE HOUSE OF LORDS


1.1 Look through these questions before reading text 1.1. What ancient institution does the House of Lords stem from?2. What powers are vested in the House of Lords?3. What role does the "life peerage" system play in party politics? What

practice has become known as being "Kicked upstairs"?4. Why is the House of Lords sometimes regarded as a forum for public

discussion?5. Who chairs debates in the Lords? Why are their powers so limited?

TEXT 1

THE HOUSE OF LORDS

Historical background. The House of Lords is the continuation into modern times of the original Norman King's Court, to which the King summoned the great men of the land. Each was summoned individually and the right to be summoned passed to the eldest son. Later the right was associated with the grant of a specific hereditary title (lord). From time to time new peerages were conferred. Some soon became extinct through the lack of any heir, others survived through many generations.

But who are the members of the House of Lords now and how do they get there? Its name suggests that its members are aristocrats. In fact, only a very small proportion of them are there by hereditary right and even these are unlikely to be there for much longer.

The composition of the Lords began to change in 1958, when it became possible to award "life peerages" through the honours system. Entitlement to sit in the Lords does not pass to the children of life peers. The life peerage system is also used as a means of finding a place in public life for distinguished retired politicians who may no longer wish to be as busy as MPs in the Commons, but who still wish to voice their

42

opinions in a public forum. In the late 1990s four of the last five Prime Ministers, as well as about 300 past ministers and other respected politicians, accepted the offer of a life peerage. Political parties are, in fact, especially keen to send their older members who once belonged to the leadership of the party to the House of Lords. It is a way of rewarding them with prestige while at the same time getting them out of the way of the present party leaders in the Commons, where their status and reputation might otherwise create trouble for party unity. Informally, this practice has become known as being "kicked upstairs". In 1999 the number of aristocrats with the right to sit in the lords was limited to 92 (about 15% of the total members). At the same time, the numbers of life-peerage appointments was increased. As well as life peers (and the remaining hereditary peers), there is one other kind of peer in the House of Lords. These are the 26 most senior bishops of the Church of England. (By tradition the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are also given life-peerages on their retirement.) Until 2009 there was also a group of “Law Lords”, who fulfilled the Lords’ role as the final Court of Appeal in the country. But this role is now in the hands of the Supreme Court. The House of Lords has no real power and only limited influence. Although the Lords can delay a bill, they cannot stop it becoming law in the end. Its role, therefore, is a consultative one. In the Lords, bills can be discussed in more detail than the busy Commons has time for – and in this way irregularities or inconsistencies in these proposals can be avoided before they become law. In addition, the Lords act as a forum for discussion, and can sometimes bring to attention matters that the Commons has been ignoring. Most importantly of all, it is argued, the Lords can act as a check on any governments which, through their control of the Commons, are becoming too dictatorial.The Lords currently has around 740 members, and there are three different types: life-peers, bishops and elected hereditary peers.

Unlike MPs, the public do not elect the Lords. The majority are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister or of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The Lord Speaker chairs the Lords debating chamber (this duty used to be performed by the Lord Chancellor) but they have less authority than their counterpart Speaker in the Commons. This is because the Lords regulate themselves

43

and the order of business in the House. Unlike the Speaker in the House of Commons, the Lord Speaker does not:

call the House to order or rule on points of order call members to speak select amendments

The House of Lords elected Baroness Hayman as its first Lord Speaker on 4 July 2006. Lord Speakers can sit for two terms only, which last a maximum of five years each.

1.2 Give the English equivalents to the following Russian word-combinations:1. созывать, призывать кого-либо (зд. выдающихся людей страны)2. даровать титул пэра3. пресекаться (о роде)4. награждать титулом "пожизненного пэра"5. право заседать в Палате Лордов6. контролировать работу правительства7. иметь ограниченное влияние

Section 2.

2.1 Use the above-given text and the glossary to discuss the House of Lords.

2.2 GlossaryLord лорд, пэр, член Палатой Лордов

The House of LordsThe Lords

палат лордов

peer пэр, лордpeer of the realm пэр Англииa life peer пожизненный пэрa hereditary peer наследный пэрpeeress супруга пэра; ледиpeeress in her own right женщина, имеющая титул леди не

44

по мужуpeerage 1. сословие пэров, высшая знать

2. звание пэраto confer peerage on smb возводить кого-либо в звание пэраto disclaim peerage отказаться от прав на титул пэраto succeed to a peerage

counterpart

получить титул пэра по наследству

человек, занимающий аналогичный пост в другой организации, департаменте и т.п.

Section 3.3.1 Read the article, do the task (3.2) given below the text

It is often forgotten that the Lords Spiritual constitute a small but significant part of the House of Lords. Now that the government has almost removed hereditary peers from the House, it is about time they paid attention to “another offence to democratic decency”: the 26 senior Anglican clergymen who sit in the House of Lords as of right. This is a right that is not shared by any of Britain's other churchfolk, including the "established" Church of Scotland.

God's party in the Lords is an all-English affair. It is led by the archbishops of Canterbury and York, who are followed by the bishops of London, Durham and Winchester, plus 21 other "senior diocesan bishops of the Church of England". Nobody elected them, no government minister appointed them, but there they are, entrenched on the red benches, and with the right to sound off about the country's morals while topping up their stipends with House of Lords expenses (£34.50 day subsistence, £78 if they have to do an overnight).

Now we have no particular animus against Anglican bishops. They seem decent enough coves. But it does seem a bit rich that they, and only they, have the constitutional right to sit in the legislature, Presbyterians, Jews, Methodists, Baptists, Muslims and all the rest can (and occasionally do) make it on to the red benches by dint of good works and/or ecclesiastical renown. But only the Church of England's top chaps can moonlight as parliamentarians. Which is unfair and should be put right.

After New Statesman Scotland

45

3.21. Why does the author of the article call the 26 senior Anglican

clergymen who sit in the House o Lords an offence to democratic decency? Do you agree?

2. In what ways and to what extent, can different churches and religions be associated with particular geographical areas and particular social classes in your country?

3. What is the relation between religion and politics in your country?4. In Britain most people's everyday language is no longer, as it was in

previous centuries, enriched by their knowledge of the Bible. What about your country?

.

46

UNIT V

THE GOVERNMENT


1.1 Look through these questions before reading the text.1. What are the two ways in which the term “government” may be

interpreted?2. Where do all ministers come from? 3. What are the titles of the heads of the corresponding government

departments?4. Why does Great Britain still observe the tradition of having “single-

party government”? How is so-called “collective responsibility” connected with the system of “single-party government”?

5. How does the Cabinet work?6. What are the Cabinet office and Cabinet committee responsible for?7. What are the actual powers of the Prime Minister as opposed to those

of the monarch?8. A British Prime Minister has no status in law which puts him or her

above other politicians. So why are modern British PMs so powerful?

TEXT

THE GOVERNMENT

Who governs Britain? When the media talk about ‘the government’ they usually mean one of two things. The term ‘the government’ can be used to refer to all of the politicians who have been appointed by the monarch (on the advice of the Prime Minister) to help run government departments (there are several politicians in each department) or to take on various other special responsibilities, such as managing members of ‘the government’ in this sense. Although there are various ranks, each with their own titles, members of the government

47

are usually known as ‘ministers’. All ministers come from the ranks of Parliament, most of them from the House of Commons. Unlike in the USA and in some other countries in Europe, it is rare for a person from outside Parliament to become a minister.

The other meaning of the term ‘the government’ is more limited. It refers only to the most powerful of these politicians, namely the Prime Minister and the other members of the cabinet. There are usually about twenty people in the cabinet (thought there are no rules about this). Most of them are the heads of the government departments.

Most heads of government departments have the title ‘Secretary of State’ (as in, for example, ‘Secretary of State for the Environment’). The minister in charge of Britain’s relations with the outside world is known to everybody as the ‘Foreign Secretary’. The one in charge of law and order inside the country is the ‘Home Secretary’. Their departments are called the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office respectively (the words ‘exterior’ and ‘interior’ are not used). The words ‘secretary’ and ‘office’ reflect the history of government in Britain, in which government departments were one time part of the domestic arrangements of the monarch. Another important person is the ‘Chancellor of the Exchequer’, who is the head of the Treasury (in other words, a sort of Minister of Finance).

Normally all members of the government belong to the same political party. Britain has had a total of only twenty-one years of coalition governments (1915-1922 and 1931-1945). Even when, for brief periods in the 1970s, no single party had a majority of seats in the House of Commons, no coalition was formed. There was a ‘minority government’ instead. But in 2010 as the result of the general election on May 6th the first coalition government in 65 years was formed – the first-ever Conservative – Liberal Democrat government.

The habit of single-party government has helped to establish the tradition known as collective responsibility. That is, every member of the government, however junior, shares the responsibility for every policy made by the government. This is true even if, as is often the case, he or she did not play any part in making it. Of course, individual government members may hold different opinions, but they are expected to keep these private. By convention, no member of the government can criticise government policy in public. Any member who does so must resign.

48

The cabinet. Obviously, no government wants an important member of its party to start criticising it. This would lead to divisions in the party. Therefore, the leading politicians in the governing party usually become members of the cabinet, where they are tied to government policy by the convention of collective responsibility.

The cabinet meets once a week and takes decisions about new policies, the implementation of existing policies and the running of the various government departments. Because all government members must be seen to agree, exactly who says what at these meetings is a closely guarded secret.

The final responsibility of ministers is to Parliament. The knowledge that any departmental action may be reported to and examined in Parliament discourages the taking of arbitrary and ill-considered decisions. On assuming office ministers must resign directorships in private and public companies, and must order their affairs so that there is no conflict between public duties and private interests.

The Prime Minister. The position of a British Prime Minister (PM) is in direct contrast to that of the monarch. Although the Queen appears to have a great deal of power, in reality she has very little. The PM, on the other hand, appears not to have much power but in reality has a very great deal indeed. The Queen is, in practice, obliged to give the job of Prime Minster to the person who can command a majority in the House of Commons. This normally means the leader of the party with the largest number of MPs.

From one point of view, the PM is no more than the foremost of Her Majesty’s political servants. The traditional phrase describes him or her as primus inter pares (Latin for ‘first among equals’). But in fact the other ministers are not nearly as powerful. There are several reasons for this. First, the monarch’s powers of patronage (the power to appoint people to all kinds of jobs and to confer honours on people) are, by convention, actually the PM’s powers of patronage. The fiction is that the Queen appoints people to government jobs ‘on the advice of the Prime Minister’. But what actually happens is that the PM simply decides. Everybody knows this. The media do not even make the pretence that the PM has successfully persuaded the Queen to make a particular appointment, they simply state that he or she has made an appointment.

49

The strength of the PM’s power of patronage is apparent from the modern phenomenon known as the ‘cabinet reshuffle’. For the past thirty years it has been the habit of the PM to change his or her cabinet quite frequently (at least once every two years). A few cabinet members are dropped, and a few new members are brought in, but mostly the exiting members are shuffled around, like a pack of cards, each getting a new department to look after.

The second reason for a modern PM’s dominance over other ministers is the power of the PM’s public image. The mass media has tended to make politics a matter of personalities. The details of policies are hard to understand. An individual, constantly appearing on the television and in the newspapers, is much easier to identify with. Everybody in the country can recognise the Prime Minister, while many cannot put a name to the faces of the other ministers. As a result the PM can, if the need arises, go ‘over the heads’ of the other ministers and appeal directly to the public.

Third, all ministers except the PM are kept busy looking after their government departments. They don’t have time to think about and discuss government policy as a whole. But the PM does, and cabinet committees usually report directly to him or her, not to the cabinet as a whole. As a result, the PM knows more about what is going on that the other ministers do. Because there is not enough time for the cabinet to discuss most matters, a choice has to be made about what will be discussed. And it is the PM who makes that choice. Matters that are not discussed can, in effect, be decided by the PM.

The new coalition government. There are two broad challenges for the new government led by David Cameron, the Tory leader, and Nick Clegg, his Lib Dem deputy. The first is fiscal. The broad policy outlines are clear – and pretty good. Supply-side education reform, the strongest policy in the Tory manifesto, is to go ahead, with the desirable addition of the Lib Dem commitment to put quite a lot of extra money into teaching poor children. Moving benefit recipients from welfare to work, is sound Tory (and indeed Labour) policy, will also be pursued.

More divisive will be the new government’s second challenge: political reform. Among the novelties is Britain’s first fixed-term Parliament, thanks to the non-aggression pact between the two parties. It will run for five years unless enough MPs vote for dissolution. A more important issue is the first-past-the-post electoral system, which

50

regularly denies the Lib Dems and smaller parties a share of parliamentary seats commensurate with their share of the vote. Mr. Cameron, over the shrieks of most of his party, has promised a referendum on introducing an alternative-vote (AV) system allowing voters to rank candidates by preference. It was the price of coalition.

Many say that the coalition could break down before the five years expire. Though all 57 Lib Dem MPs approved it, many will oppose the government on individual issues or abstain from voting, and a few may walk altogether. On the Tory side, right-wingers will resist each compromise. A cabinet containing disgruntled folk from both parties will be a nightmare to run. Mr. Cameron and Mr. Clegg may get on well together, but their man-management skills will be sorely tested by their own party members.

NOTE:Supply-side – (of economic ideas) favouring the producers of

goods and services, e.g. by law taxes, so that they will find it easy to increase supplies.


The cabinetThe history of the cabinet is a good example of the

tendency to secrecy in British politics. It started in the eighteenth century as an informal grouping of important ministers and officials of the royal household. It had no formal recognition. Officially speaking, the government was run by the Privy Council, a body of a hundred or more people (including those belonging to ‘the cabinet’). directly responsible to the monarch (but not to each other). Over the years, the cabinet gradually took over effective power. The Privy Council is now a merely ceremonial organisation with no power. Among others, it includes all the present ministers and the most important past ministers.

In the last fifty years, there have been unofficial ‘inner cabinets’ (comprising the Prime Minister and a few other important ministers). It is thought that it is here, and in cabinet committees, that much of the real decision-making takes place.

51

No. 10 Downing StreetThe cabinet meets here and the cabinet office work

here. The PM lives above the shop on the top floor.The Chancellor of the Exchequer lives next door, at

No. 11, and the Government Chief Whip at No. 12.The PM also has an official country residence to

the west of London, called “Chequers”.

CountiesCounties are the oldest divisions of the country in

England and Wales. They are still used today for local government purposes, although a few have been ‘invented’ this century (e.g. Humberside) and others have no function in government but are still used for other purposes. Many counties have ‘shire’ in their name (e.g. Hertfordshire, Hampshire, Leicestershire). ‘Shires’ is what the counties were originally called.

Boroughs Boroughs were originally towns that had grown

large and important enough to be given their own government, free of control by the county. These days, the name is used for local government purposes only in London, but many towns still proudly describe themselves as Royal Boroughs.

ParishesParishes were originally villages centred on a local

church. They became a unit of local government in the nineteenth century. Today they are the smallest unit of local government in England.

The name ‘parish’ is still used in the organisation of the main Christian churches in England.

1.2 Give the English equivalents to the following Russian word-combinations

1. в отличие от США и некоторых стран Европы2. делить ответственность за всю политику, проводимую

правительством3. придерживаться различных взглядов4. не разглашать свое личное мнение5. препятствовать принятию случайных и непродуманных решений

52

6. перестановки в правительстве7. обращаться прямо к народу, минуя министров8. пакт о ненападении9. проголосовать за роспуск парламента

Section 2. Use the above-given text and the glossary (2.1) to speak about

the British Government.

2.1 Glossaryto run a government department

управлять работой министерства

Secretary of State министрHome Secretary министр внутренних делthe Home Office министерство внутренних делForeign Secretary министр иностранных делthe Foreign and Commonwealth Office

министерство иностранных дел

Chancellor of the Exchequer министр финансовThe Treasury министерство финансовcollective responsibility коллективная ответственность

power of patronage привилегия назначения на должностьcabinet reshuffle перестановка кадров в кабинете;

перераспределение должностей в кабинете

civil service государственная служба

to pass a vote of no confidence/an adverse vote in the government

вынести вотум недоверия правительству

to appear (regularly) on Cabinet agenda

(регулярно) вноситься в повестку дня кабинета

53

election defeat поражение на выборах

Section 3.

3.1 Read the article, do the task (3.2) given below the text.

THE CIVIL SERVICE

Considering how complex modern states are, there are not really very many people in a British ‘government’ (as defined above). Unlike some other countries (the USA for example), not even the most senior administrative jobs change hands when a new government comes to power. The day-to-day running of the government and the implementation of its policy continue in the hands of the same people that were there with the previous government – the top rank of the civil service. Governments come and go, but the civil service remains. It is no accident that the most senior civil servant in a government department has the title of ‘Permanent Secretary’.

Unlike politicians, civil servants, even of the highest rank, are unknown to the larger public. There are probably less than 10,000 people in the country who, if you asked them, could give you the names of the present secretary to the cabinet (who runs the cabinet office) or the present head of the home civil service; still fewer know the names of more than one of the present permanent secretaries.

For those who belong to it, the British civil service is a career. Its most senior positions are usually filled by people who have been working in it for twenty years or more. These people get a high salary (higher than that of their ministers), have absolute job security (unlike their ministers) and stand a good chance of being awarded an official honour. By comparison, ministers, even those who have been in the same department for several years, are still new to the job. Moreover, civil servants know the secrets of the previous government which the present minister is unaware of.

For all these reasons, it is often possible for top civil servants to exercise quite a lot of control over their ministers, and it is sometimes said that it is they, and not their ministers, who really govern the country. There is undoubtedly some truth in this opinion. Indeed, an interesting case in early 1994 suggests that civil servants now expect to

54

have a degree of control. At this time, the association which represents the country’s top civil servants made an official complaint that four government ministers ‘verbally abused’ their civil service adviser and generally treated them ‘with contempt’. It was the first time that such complaint had been made. It seemed that the unprecedentedly long period of government by the same party (the Conservative) had shifted the traditional balance of power.

However, the British civil service has a (largely) deserved reputations for absolute political impartiality. Many ministers have remarked on the struggle for power between them and their top civil servants, but very few have ever complained of any political bias. Top civil servants know that their power depends on their staying out of ‘politics’ and on their being absolutely loyal to their present minister.

Modern criticism of the civil service does not question its loyalty but its efficiency. Despite reforms, the top rank of the civil service is still largely made up of people from the same narrow section of society – people who have been to public school and then on to Oxford or Cambridge, where they studied subjects such as history or classical languages. The criticism is therefore that the civil service does not have enough expertise in matters such as economics or technology, and that it lives too much in its own closed world, cut off from the concerns of most people in society. In the late twentieth century, ministers try to overcome these perceived deficiencies by appointing experts from outside the civil service to work on various projects and by having their own political advisers working alongside (or, some would say, in competition with) their civil servants.3.2 1. What makes the civil service in the structure of the British

Government unique?2. Why is it said that sometimes it is the top civil servants and not the

ministers, who really govern the country?3. Why does modern criticism of the civil service question not their

loyalty but their efficiency?4. What particular sections of society do civil servants come from?

55

UNIT VI

LAW AND THE COURTS

Section 1. Read and study.

1.1 Look through these questions before reading text 1.1. Which parts of Great Britain share a single system of courts?2. What is meant by “precedent”?3. What are the two branches into which the legal profession is divided?

What has made the long established system of dividing these two types of lawyer more relaxed?

4. What are the two main types of courts in Great Britain?5. Who are Justices of the Peace? Are there any unpaid “amateur” legal

officers similar to Justices of the Peace in your country?6. What cases do the magistrates’ courts try?7. What are the functions of the judge?8. What is the role of the jury? Why do you think the defence has the

right to the last speech at the trial before the judge sums up the evidence for the jury?

9. What is the highest court in Great Britain?

TEXT 1

LAW AND THE COURTS

Although the United Kingdom is a unitary state, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, all have their own legal systems, with considerable differences in law, organisation and practice. However a large volume of modern legislation applies throughout the United Kingdom.

56

The System of Justice. The system of justice in England and Wales, in both civil and criminal cases, is (as it is in North America) an adversarial system. In formal terms it is not the business of any court to find out “the truth”. Its job is simply to decide “yes” or “no” to a particular proposition (in criminal cases, that a certain person is guilty of a certain crime) after it has heard arguments and evidence from both sides (in criminal cases these sides are known as the defence and the prosecution).

There is a common distinction between criminal law and civil law, but there is no criminal code or civil code. The law as a whole consists partly of statutes, or Acts of Parliament, and partly of common law which is made up of past decisions of judges (if the matter is not regulated by statutes) in accordance with custom and reason. Thus, a large part of the civil law is not contained in statutes at all but made up of a mass of precedents, previous court decisions, interpreted in authoritative legal text books.

The personnel of the law. The courts of the UK are the Queen’s Courts, since the Crown is the historic source of all judicial power.

Judges are normally appointed from practising barristers. Lay magistrates in England and Wales need no legal qualification but are trained to give them sufficient knowledge of the law. The legal profession is divided into two branches: barristers and solicitors. Barristers are known collectively as “the Bar”, and collectively and individually as “counsel”. Solicitors undertake legal business for individual and corporate clients, while barristers advise on legal problems submitted though solicitors and present cases in the higher courts.

But in the years around the turn of the century, the rules dividing the roles of these two types of lawyer were relaxed. It became permissible both for members of the public to approach barristers directly without going through a solicitor first, and also for solicitors to present cases in some higher courts, without hiring the services of a barrister. As a result, the two kinds of lawyer came into competition with each other for the first time. Now, in the popular image barristers are in some sense “senior” to solicitors, more highly educated and so, perhaps, “better”. Unlike solicitors they are mostly self-employed and have a prestige similar to that of doctors. They belong to one of the four

57

Inns of Court, ancient institutions resembling Oxbridge colleges. And it is mostly barristers from whose ranks judges are appointed.

58

Courts in England and Wales. There are two main kinds of courts, and, respectively, two kinds of judicial officers. Very serious offences such as murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery are tried only by the Crown Court presided over by a judge sitting with a jury. The least serious offences and the vast majority of criminal cases – are tried by unpaid lay magistrates sitting without a jury. Magistrates’ courts are one example of the importance of amateurism in British public life. Magistrates, who are also known as Justices of the Peace (JPs), are not trained lawyers. They are just ordinary people of good reputation who have been appointed to the job by a local committee. They do not get a salary or a fee for their work (though they get paid expenses). Inevitably, they tend to come from the wealthier sections of society and, in times past, their prejudices were very obvious. They were especially harsh, for instance, on people found guilty of poaching (hunting animals on private land), even though these people sometimes had to poach in order to put food on their families’ tables. These days efforts are made to recruit JPs from as broad a section of society as possible.

Even serious criminal cases are first heard in a magistrates’ court. However, in these cases, the JPs only need to decide the there is a prima facie case against the accused (in other words, that it is possible that he or she is guilty). If they do, they then refer the case to a Crown Court, where a professional lawyer acts as a judge. Unlike most other countries in the world, the decision regarding guilt or innocence is not taken by the judge but by a jury. Juries consist of 12 (in Scotland sometimes 15) people selected at random from the list of voters. In order to reach a verdict, there must be agreement among at least ten of them. If this does not happen, the judge has to declare a mistrial and the case must start all over again with a different jury. The duty of the judge during a trial is to act as the referee while the prosecution and defence put their cases across. It is also the judge’s job to impose a punishment (known as “pronouncing sentence”) on those found guilty. A convicted person may appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal in London either to have the conviction quashed (i.e. the jury’s previous verdict is overruled and they are pronounced “not guilty”) or to have the sentence reduced.

59

The final appeal. The highest court of all in Britain used to be the House of Lords. But this long-established system was considered an anachronism an also a contradiction of the principle of the separation of powers (which states that the people who make the laws and those who decide whether they have been broken should not be the same people). Since 2009, the highest court in the UK has been the Supreme Court, presided over by twelve independently appointed judges, known as Justices of the Supreme Court. The 12 former Law Lords in the House of Lords are the first justices of the Supreme Court and are disqualified from sitting or voting in the House of Lords. When they retire from the Supreme Court they can return to the House of Lords as full members but newly-appointed Justices of the Supreme Court will not have seats in the House of Lords. The Supreme Court hears matters on important points of law, mostly civil cases. It also hears some criminal cases of great public importance (except those in Scotland, where the High Court of Justiciary is the highest criminal court).

Recent reforms, including the creation of the Ministry of Justice and the election of a Lord Speaker for the House of Lords, have significantly altered the role of Lord Chancellor who is no longer the head of the judiciary and there is no requirement for the Lord Chancellor to be a member of the House of Lords. But the role has not disappeared – it has merely been amalgamated with that of Secretary of State for Justice. Jack Straw MP is currently Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, leading on policy for courts, prisons, probation and constitutional affairs. He also performs ceremonial duties as Lord Chancellor at State Opening of Parliament.


Trial by Jury

In Britain, it is a centuries old practice that anybody accused of a serious crime has the right to be tried by “12 good men and

60

true”, as the saying goes (though of course nowadays women are allowed to be good and true as well!). But modern British governments and some legal experts have sometimes expressed doubts about the jury system.

One reason for these may be that juries so often find the defendant “not guilty” after remaining stable at around 32% for decades, acquittal rates in the 1990s shot up to 43% (perhaps because juries are less reverential towards police officers, lawyers and judges than they used to be).

But there are more serious reasons for doubts. Modern cases often involve a mass of technical information that an ordinary person cannot be expected to understand. Making this problem worse, it is argued, is the fact that juries are often unrepresentative. It is the duty of every citizen to be available for jury service, but few people want to do it. It means spending weeks, sometimes longer, stuck in a court room listening to frequently boring evidence, instead of getting on with your normal life. And though you get paid expenses, you do not actually earn a fee. So people often try to escape jury service by providing special reasons why they cannot do it. Naturally, it is the more intelligent people who are more successful in these attempts. In 2001, a graffito was found in the toilets of the Central Criminal Court in London (the Old Bailey) which read “I’m being tried by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury service”.

Nevertheless, the jury system remains as a central principle of the law in Britain and, like the absence of identity cards, is widely regarded as a symbol of British freedoms.

The sentence of this court is…If it is someone’s first offence, and the crime is a small one,

even a guilty person is often unconditionally discharged and can go free without punishment.

The next step up the ladder is a conditional discharge and/or a suspended sentence. In both cases, this means that the guilty person is set free. But if he or she commits another crime within a stated time, the first crime will be taken into account (and any suspended sentence will be imposed). He or she may also be put on probation, which means that regular meetings with a social worker must take place.

A very common form punishment for minor offences is a fine, which means that the guilty person has to pay a sum of money.

Another possibility is that the convicted person is sentenced to a certain number of hours of community service.

61

Wherever possible, magistrates and judges try not to imprison people. This costs the state money, the country’s prisons are already overcrowded and prisons have a reputation for being “schools for crime”.

As in the rest of Europe, there is no death penalty in Britain. It was abolished in 1969. For murderers there is an obligatory life sentence.

1.2 Give the English equivalents to the following Russian word combinations:

1. система соперничества между защитой и обвинением2. уголовный / гражданский кодекс 3. юридическое образование4. на рубеже веков 5. обращаться к адвокату напрямую 6. непредумышленное убийство 7. набирать мировых судей из самых разных слоев населения 8. выбирать наугад из списка избирателей 9. выносить приговор 10. объявить судебное разбирательство недействительным11. считаться анахронизмом 12. потерять право заседать в Палате Лордов 13. значительно изменить функции Лорда Канцлера14. объединить функции

1.3 Now that you have acquainted yourselves with the British system of law and courts, give your own opinion on the following problems:

1. Many people in Britain argue that imprisonment is an ineffective and expensive form of punishment. Do you agree with this view?

2. What alternative forms of punishment in use in Britain do you think are better, if any? Which of them can be introduced in your country (if they don’t yet exist)?

3. What are the main differences between the legal systems in Great Britain and your country? What do you see as the strengths and the weaknesses of both systems?

Section 2.

62

Use the above given text and the glossary (2.2) for reference to 2.1 Glossary

adversary/adversarial system система соперничества в суде между защитой и обвинением

to appeal against a sentence обжаловать приговорto make/to reject an appeal подать/отклонить апелляциюbail судебный залог

to save one’s bail (=to surrender to one’s bail)

явиться в суд в назначенный срок (об отпущенном под залог)

to release smb on bail (to bail smb out)

освободить под залог

the bar барьер, отделяющий судей; суд в полном составе

prisoner at the bar подсудимый

to be behind the bars быть в тюрьме, за решеткойthe Bar адвокатура, коллегия адвокатовto be at the Bar быть адвокатом (барристером)to go (to be called) to the Bar

быть принятым в адвокатское сословие, стать адвокатом (барристером)

to be called for the Bar быть назначенным королевским адвокатом

to read for the Bar

to take silk

готовиться к адвокатуре

стать королевским адвокатомsolicitor судебный поверенный,

профессиональный юрист, готовящий дело к рассмотрению в суде

case судебное дело

63

to examine/hear/decide/close a case

расследовать/слушать/решать/прекращать дело

charge обвинениеon a charge of по обвинениюto withdraw a charge (разг.to drop the charges)

снять обвинение

to charge smb with smth

обвинять, предъявлять обвинение

code кодекс, свод законовcriminal code уголовный кодексcivil code гражданский кодекс

conviction обвинительный приговорto convict smb признать виновным‘convict

to acquit smb

acquittal

осужденный, заключенныйоправдать кого-либо, признать невиновным

оправдательный приговор

court суд, состав суда, заседание суда court of appeal апелляционный судHigh Court of Justice Высокий суд (суд первой инстанции

по гражданским делам с юрисдикцией на территории всей Великобритании)

county court суд графстваCrown court суд Короны (уголовное отделение

высокого суда)Magistrates’ court магистратский суд

64

The Justice of the Peace (JP) мировой судьяThe Supreme Court Верховный судOld Bailey то же, что Central Criminal Court (по

названию улицы, где он находится)to defend защищать в суде

the defense защита, сторона защиты на судебном процессе

defense counsel, defense lawyer

защитник, адвокат

defendant подсудимый, ответчикthe dock скамья подсудимых

to be in the dock находиться на скамье подсудимыхevidence доказательства, улики,

свидетельские показанияto give evidence давать показания в судеcircumstantial evidence косвенные улики

guilty виновный (прилаг.)to find smb guilty/not guilty

признавать/не признавать кого-либо виновным/невиновным

to plead guilty/not guilty

признавать/не признавать себя виновным

judgment приговор, решение судаto pass judgement on smb

выносить приговор кому-либо

jury присяжные, суд присяжныхto serve/sit on a jury быть членом суда присяжныхjuror присяжныйforeman of the jury старшина присяжных

law закон, право, юриспруденция

65

the common law общее право

prosecution судебное преследованиеthe prosecution обвинение; сторона, предъявляющая

искto prosecute smb привлечь к судебной

ответственностиplaintiff / claimantrespondent (the respondent party)

истецответчик

remand возвращение арестованного под стражу

a person on remand подследственный, находящийся в тюрьме

sentence мера наказания, приговорto pass sentence on smb вынести приговор

trial судебный процесс, судебное разбирательство

to be/to go on trial предстать перед судомto put smb on trial отдать под судto hold a trial проводить судебный процессtry smb for smth судить за что-либо

to declare a mistrial объявить судебное разбирательство недействительным

verdict приговор, решение присяжныхto return/bring in/reach a verdict

вынести решение, приговор

a verdict of Guilty/Not Guilty

обвинительный/оправдательный приговор

witness свидетель, давать показания в судеwitness for the свидетель обвинения/защиты

66

prosecution/the defenseto call a witness вызывать свидетелейto cross-examine a witness

подвергать свидетеля подробному или перекрестному допросу

Section 3.

3.1 Read the text, do the task (3.2) given below the text.

THE LEGAL PROFESSION

There are two distinct kinds of lawyers in Britain. One of these is a solicitor. Everybody who needs a lawyer has to go to one of these. They handle most legal matters for their clients, including the drawing up of documents (such as wills, divorce papers and contracts), communicating with other parties, and presenting their clients’ cases in magistrates’ courts. However, only since 1994 have solicitors been allowed to present cases in higher courts. If the trial is to be heard in one of these, the solicitor normally hires the services of the other kind of lawyer – a barrister. The main function of barristers is to present cases in court. They also offer expert legal opinions when asked.

The training of the two kinds of lawyer is very different. All solicitors have to pass the Law Society exam. They study for this exam while ‘articled’ to established firms of solicitors where they do much of the everyday junior work until they are qualified. After their exams, new solicitors have to secure a two-year training contract with a firm of solicitors to complete their qualification.

Barristers have to attend one of the four Inns of Court in London. These ancient institutions are modeled somewhat on Oxbridge colleges. For example, although there are some lectures, the only attendance requirement is to eat dinner there on a certain number of evenings each term. After four years, the trainee barristers then sit exams. If they pass, they are ‘called to the bar’ and are recognized as barristers. However, they are still not allowed to present a case in a crown court. They can only do this after several more years of association with a senior

67

barrister, after which the most able of them apply to ‘take silk’. Those whose applications are accepted can put the letter QC (Queen’s Counsel) after their names.

Neither kind of lawyer needs a university qualification. The vast majority of barristers and most solicitors do in fact go to university, but they do not necessarily study law there. This arrangement is typically British.

The different styles of training reflect the different worlds that the two kinds of lawyer live in, and also the different skills that they develop. Solicitors have to deal with the realities of the everyday world and its problems. Most of their work is done away from the courts. They often become experts in the details of particular areas of the law. Barristers, on the other hand, live a more rarefied existence. For one thing, they tend to come from the upper strata of society. Furthermore, their protection from everyday realities is increased by certain legal rules. For, example, they are not supposed to talk to any of their clients, or to their client’s witnesses, except in the presence of the solicitor who has hired them. They are experts on general principles of the law rather than on details, and they acquire the special skill of eloquence in public speaking. When they present a case in court, they, like judges, put on the archaic gown and wig which, it is supposed, emphasize the impersonal majesty of the law.

It is exclusively from the ranks of barristers that judges are appointed. Once they have been appointed, it is almost impossible for them to be dismissed. The only way that this can be done is by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and this is something that has never happened. Moreover, their retiring age is later than in most other occupations. They also get very high salaries. These things are considered necessary in order to ensure their independence from interference, by the state or any other party.

Although judges are well paid their current earnings are less than those which successful barristers can make. An established barrister may accept appointment as a full-time judge, even at some sacrifice of current income, for any of a combination of reasons: higher status, easier life, the prospect of a pension when he retires.

However, the result of their background and their absolute security in their jobs is that, although they are often people of great learning and intelligence, some judges appear to have difficulty understanding the

68

problems and circumstances of ordinary people, and to be out of step with general public opinion. The judgements and opinions that they give in court sometimes make the headlines because they are so spectacularly out of date. (The inability of some of them to comprehend the meaning of racial equality is one example. A senior Old Bailey judge in the 1980s once referred to black people as ‘nig-nogs’4 and to some Asians involved in a case as ‘murderous Sikhs’.)

3.21. The difference in training that the two kinds of lawyer (barristers and

solicitors) get. What do these different styles of training reflect?2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a judge's office?

4 nig-nog - B.E., taboo, a black person (considered extremelyoffensive)

69

UNIT VII

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS


1.1 Look through these questions before reading text 1.1. What is the historical background of the system of Parliamentary

Elections in Great Britain?2. How many constituencies is Great Britain divided into? What does

the number of constituencies depend on?3. Who is eligible to vote in a general election in Great Britain?4. Who is not entitled to vote in parliamentary elections.5. Who is disqualified from standing for election to Parliament?6. Is it necessary to belong to a political party to be a candidate?7. How often do general elections take place? Who takes the decision

on when to hold a general election?8. Why is the majority system of voting adopted in Great Britain

called the "First-Past-the-Post" system?9. State the advantages and disadvantages of the current voting

system as its opponents and proponents see them?

TEXT 1

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORAL SYSTEM IN BRITAIN

The System. Unlike in any other country in the world, the system of political representation that is used in Britain evolved before national issues became more important to people than local ones. In theory, the House of Commons is simply a gathering of people who each represent a particular place in the kingdom. Originally, it was not the concern of anybody in government as to how each representative was chosen. That was a matter for each town or country to decide for itself. Not until the

70

nineteenth century were laws passed about how election were to be conducted.

This system was in place before the development of modern political parties. These days, of course, nearly everybody votes for a candidate because he or she belongs to a particular party. But the tradition remains that an MP is first and foremost a representative of a particular locality. The result of this tradition is that the electoral system is remarkably simple. It works like this. The country is divided into a number of geographical areas of roughly equal population (about 90 000) known as constituencies. Britain is divided into about 650 parliamentary constituencies, the voter living within the area select one person to serve as a member of the House of Commons. Constituency boundaries are approved by Parliament following reviews by the four Parliamentary Boundary Commissions.

At the 2010 election, there were 659 constituencies and 659 MPs were elected. It was called a general election, and of course control of the government depended on it, but in formal terms it was just 659 separate elections going on at the same time.

Voters. British citizens may vote provided they are aged 18 or over and are not legally barred from voting. Subject to the same conditions, citizens of other Commonwealth countries and the Irish Republic who are resident in Britain may also vote at parliamentary election. All voters must be on the electoral register. This is compiled every year for each constituency separately. People who have moved house and have not had time to get their names on the electoral register of their new constituency can arrange to vote by post. Nobody, however, is obliged to vote. Voting is by secret ballot. It is also voluntary. On average about 75 per cent of the electorate votes.

The following people are not entitled to vote in parliamentary elections: peers, and peeresses in their own right, who are members of the

House of Lords; foreign nationals, other than the citizens of the Irish Republic resident

in Britain; people kept in hospital under mental health legislation; people convicted within the previous five years of corrupt or illegal

election practices.

71

Candidates. Any person aged 21 or over who is a British citizen, or citizen of another Commonwealth country or the Irish Republic, may stand for election to parliament, providing they are not disqualified. Those disqualified include: people who are bankrupt; people sentenced to more than one year of imprisonment; clergy of the Church of England, Church of Scotland and the Roman

Catholic Church; A range of public servants, specified by law. They include judges,

civil servants, some local government officers, full-time members of the armed forces and police officers.

Candidates do not have to live in the constituencies for which they stand. However candidates who are on the electoral register in the constituencies for which they are standing may vote in their own constituencies.

Candidates must be nominated on official nomination papers, giving full name and home address. The nomination paper must be signed by ten electors.

After the date of an election has been fixed, people who want to be candidates in a constituency have to deposit £500 with the Returning Officer (the person responsible for the conduct of the election in each constituency). They get this money back if they get 5% of the voters or more. The local associations of the major parties will have already chosen their candidates and will pay the deposits for them. However, it is not necessary to belong to a party to be a candidate. Until 2001, there was no law which regulated political parties. There was just a law which allowed candidates to give a “political description” of themselves on the ballot paper. However, this was open to abuse. (For example, one candidate in a previous election had described himself a “Literal Democrat” and it is thought that some people voted for him in the belief that he was the Liberal Democrat candidate.) So part of the job of the Electoral Commission, which was created in 2001, is to register party names.

However, parties can call themselves anything at all as long as it does not cause confusion. Among the 115 parties contesting the 2005 election were Rock ‘N’ Roll Loony Party; Death Dungeons & Taxes; Glasnost; Church of the Militant Elvis Party; Personality AND Rational Thinking? Yes! Party; Telepathic Partnership.

72

General election. General elections, for all seats in the House of Commons, take place at least every five years. In practice, elections are usually held before the end of the five-year term. In exceptional circumstances, such as during the two world wars (1914-1918 and 1939-1945), the life of a Parliament has been extended beyond the five-year term.

The decision on when to hold a general election is made by the Prime Minister. The procedure involves the Queen, acting on the prime Minister’s advice, dissolving Parliament and calling a new Parliament. Formal Writs of Election are normally issued on the same day. The Prime Minister usually announces the dissolution of parliament and explains the reasons for holding the election. Voting takes place within 17 days of dissolution of parliament and explains the reasons for holding the election. Voting takes place within 17 days of dissolution, not including Saturdays and Sundays and public holidays: therefore, election campaigns last for three to four weeks.

The System of Voting. The simple majority system of voting is used in parliamentary elections in Britain. This means that the candidate with the largest number of votes in each constituency is elected, although he or she may not necessarily have received more than half the votes cast. There is no preferential voting (if a voter chooses more than one candidate, that ballot paper is ‘spoiled’ and is not counted); there is no counting of the proportion of votes for each party (all votes cast for losing candidates are simply ignored).

In the first place it has been increasingly questioned whether the electoral system provides an accurate reflection of political preferences. The system penalises at a national level those parties whose vote is inefficiently distributed across the country. Since smaller parties have never enjoyed such efficiently distributed support as the Conservative and Labour parties have, they seldom matter. In fact, the system is known as the "first-past-the-post" system (an allusion to horse-racing). The existing electoral system has attracted so much criticism that all the major parties have proposed some form of electoral reform. Labour has proposed a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote (AV) system for elections to the Commons.

Under the AV system, voters rank candidates in order of preference. The winning candidate must have 50% of the votes so the votes for lower-placed candidates are distributed in succession until one

73

candidate has more than 50%. The AV system, as well as the First-Past-the-Post voting system, is a majoritarian one. The table illustrating how AV works is given below.

Alternative Vote (AV)SummaryVoters fill in a ballot paper by marking their ballot paper 1, 2, 3 etc

against their most preferred individual candidates in a single member seat. Winning candidates must get more than 50% of the votes as the second and later preferences of the least successful candidates are counted in turn.

ExampleThree parties stand for election – Party A, Party B and Party C. At

the polling booth, voters list each party in order of preference. On election day, 120 people turn out to cast their vote. The votes are counted and tallied as follows (third preferences have been omitted for the sake of simplicity):

42 voters 17 voters 10 voters 51 voters1st preference Party B Party A Party A Party C2nd preference Party A Party B Party C Party A

The first preferences are counted and the results are:Party A = 27, Party B = 42, Party C = 51No candidate has the 61 votes needed to win an outright majority.

Party A has the fewest votes, so is eliminated. The votes of those who put Party A as their first preference are then redistributed to their second preference nominations. In this example, 17 votes are transferred to Party B and 10 votes are transferred to Party C. After this process, the new result is:

Party B = 59, Party C = 61Winning candidates have to get more than 50% of the votes under

the AV system. So the Party C candidate is returned to Parliament.The proposal to introduce AV was rejected by the electorate in

the nationwide alternative vote referendum held on 5 May 2011. However, the Alternative Vote is used to elect the majority of chairs of select committees in the House of Commons. The AV is also used

74

for the election of the Lord Speaker and by-elections for hereditary peers.


Arguments used in support of First-Past-the-Post It's simple to understand and thus doesn't cost much to administer. It doesn't take very long to count all the votes and work out who's won,

meaning results can be declared a handful of hours after polls close. The voter can clearly express a view on which party they think should form

the next government. It tends to produce a two-party system, which in turn tends to produce

single-party governments, which don't have to rely on support from other parties to pass legislation.

People are often fearful of change and slow to adapt.Arguments used against FPTP

Representatives can get elected on tiny amounts of public support. In 2005, for example, George Galloway polled the votes of only 18.4 per cent of his constituents, yet ended up in the House of Commons. Only three MPs elected in 2005 secured the votes of more than 40 per cent of their constituents.

FPTP in effect wastes huge numbers of votes, as votes cast in a constituency for losing candidates, or for the winning candidate above the level they need to win that seat, count for nothing. In 2005, 70 per cent of votes were wasted in this way – that's over 19 million ballots.

1.2 Give the English equivalents to the following words and word combinations:

75

1. объявить себя кандидатом на выборы в одном из избирательных округов

2. быть не допущенными до голосования3. быть включенным (состоять в) список избирателей4. избираться от какого-либо округа5. устанавливать дату выборов6. проводить всеобщие выборы7. предложить проведение референдума по…8. быть избранным в Парламент

76

TEXT 2

Section 2Look through these questions before reading text 2.

2.11. Who is responsible for the administration of elections?2. What are the functions of election agents?3. Do British elections differ from what they have in the U.S.?4. What is canvassing?5. What are the main events of the polling day?6. Why is the period after voting called a television extravaganza?7. Why do by-elections appear to be so important in party politics?8. What inspired considerable public interest in the 2010 campaign?

ELECTORAL CAMPAIGN

Administration of elections. In each constituency a returning officer, usually a senior local government officer, administer the election. He or she arranges for notices of election to appear in public places and for all electors to receive a poll card giving details of the voting arrangements. Returning officers also make the necessary arrangements for voting on polling day, including setting up polling stations and providing staff to run them.

Election agents. Each parliamentary candidate must appoint an election agent. Although candidates may serve as their own agents, this is not usual. Agents are responsible for running the campaign, for controlling expenses in line with the legal restrictions on election campaign expenditure. If they are paid for their services, this must be included within the amount allowed for campaign purposes. Some agents are full-time salaried officials who act as party organizers in one or more constituencies in the period between elections.

British elections are comparatively quiet affairs. There is no tradition of large rallies or parades as there is in the USA. However, because of the intense coverage by the media, it would be very difficult

77

to be in Britain at the time of a campaign and not realize that an election was about to take place. The 2010 campaign was the first to feature direct head-to-head televised debates between the leaders of the three largest UK parties. These debates changed the nature of the campaign and inspired considerable public interest in the campaign.

Local newspapers give coverage to the candidates; the candidates themselves hold meetings; party supporters stick up posters in their windows; local party workers spend their time canvassing.

Canvassing. Canvassers go from door to door, calling on as many houses as possible and asking people how they intend to vote. They rarely make any attempt to change people’s minds, but if voters are identified as ‘undecided’, the party candidate might later attempt to pay a visit.

If it looks as if these people are not going to bother to vote, party workers might call on them to remind them to do so. Canvassing is an awful lot of work for very little benefit. It is a kind of election ritual.

The amount of money that candidates are allowed to spend on their campaigns is strictly limited. They have to submit detailed accounts of their expenses for inspection.

But the reality is that all these activities and regulations do not usually make much difference. Nearly everybody votes for a candidate on the basis of the party which he or she represents, not because of his or her individual qualities or political opinions. Few people attend candidates’ meetings; most people do not read local newspapers. In any case, the size of constituencies means that candidates cannot meet most voters, however energetically they go from door to door.

It is at a national level that the real campaign takes place. The parties spend millions of pounds advertising on hoardings and in newspapers. By agreement, they do not buy time on television as they do in the USA. Instead, they are each given a number of strictly timed ‘party political broadcasts’. Each party also holds a daily televised news conference. All of this puts the emphasis on the national party personalities rather than on local candidates. Only in the ‘marginals’5 – might the qualities of an individual candidate, affect the outcome.

Party money. There is no law which regulates political parties, so

5 Most of Britain's constituencies are called "safe seats". This means that one or the other of the main parties has traditionally enjoyed overwhelming support in elections for the seat concerned.

78

there is no legal limit to the amount of money that national parties can spend on election campaigns. Nor is any money given to the parties by the state for their campaigns. (These are two more ways in which the British system differs from that in most other western countries.)

Furthermore, there is no law which obliges parties to say where they get their money too. This last point is a matter of heated debate among the parties. The Conservatives get a lot of their money from large single donations by individuals, sometimes from people outside Britain. The other parties would like to pass a law which forced parties to reveal the sources of large donations and which forbade donations from foreigners.

Polling day. On polling day (the day of the election), voters go to polling stations and are each given a single piece of paper (the ballot paper) with the names of the candidates for that constituency (only) on it. Each voter then puts a cross next to the name of one candidate. After the polls have closed, the ballot papers are counted. The candidate with the largest number of crosses next to his or her name is the winner and becomes the MP for the constituency.

General elections always take place on a Thursday. They are not public holidays. People have to work in the normal way, so polling stations are open from seven in the morning till ten at night to give everybody the opportunity to vote. The only people who get a holiday are schoolchildren whose schools are being used as polling stations.

Voting takes place in booths which are screened to maintain secrecy.

After the polls close, the marked ballot papers are taken to a central place in the constituency and counted. The Returning Officer then makes a public announcement of the votes cast for each candidate and declares the winner to be the MP for the constituency. This declaration is one of the few occasions during the election process when shouting and cheering may be heard.

Election night. The period after voting has become a television extravaganza. Both BBC and ITV start their programs as soon as voting finishes. With millions watching, they continue right through the night. Certain features of these ‘election special’, such as the

79

The swingometerThis is a device used by

television presenters on election night. It indicates the percentage change of support from one party to another party since the previous election – the ‘swing’.

‘swingometer’ have entered popular folklore.

The first excitement of the night is the race to declare. It is a matter of local pride for some constituencies to be first to announce their result. Doing so will guarantee that the cameras will be there to witness the event. If the count has gone smoothly, this usually occurs at just after 11.00 p.m., experts (with the help of computers) will be making predictions about the composition of the newly elected House of Commons. Psephology (the study of voting habits) has become very sophisticated in Britain so that, although the experts never get it exactly right, they can get pretty close.

By two in the morning at least half of the constituencies will have to declared their results and, unless the election is a very close one (as, for example, in 1974 and 1992), the experts on the television will now be able to predict with confidence which party will have a majority in the House of Commons, and therefore which party leader is going to be the Prime Minister.

Some constituencies, however, are not able to declare their results until well into Friday afternoon. This is either because they are very rural, and so it takes a long time to bring all the ballot papers together, of because the race has been so close that one or more ‘recounts’ have been necessary. The phenomenon of recounts is a clear demonstration of the ironies of the British system. In most constituencies it would not make any difference to the result if several thousand ballot papers were lost. But in a few, the result depends on a handful of votes. In these cases, candidates are entitled to demand as many recounts as they want until the result is beyond doubt. The record number of recounts is seven (and the record margin of victory is just one vote!).

By-elections. Whenever a sitting MP can no longer fulfil his or her duties, there has to be a special new election in the constituency which he or she represents. (There is no system of ready substitutes.) There are called by-elections and can take place at any time.

80

Individual constituencies can be placed at certain points along the swingometer to show how much swing is necessary to change the party affiliation of their MPs. The swingometer was first made popular by professor Robert McKenzie on the BBC’s coverage of the 1964 election. Over the years, it has become more colourful and more complicated. Most people enjoy it but say they are confused by it!

A by-election provides the parties with an opportunity to find a seat in Parliament for one of their important people. If a sitting MP dies, the opportunity presents itself; if not, an MP of the same party must be persuaded to resign.

The way an MP resigns offers a fascinating example of the importance attached to tradition. It is considered wrong for an MP simply to resign; MPs represent their constituents and have no right to deprive them of this representation. So the MP who wishes to resign applies for the post of ‘Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds’. This is a job with no duties and no salary. Technically, however, it is ‘an office of profit under the Crown’ (i.e. a job given by the monarch with rewards attached to it). According to ancient practice, a person cannot be both an MP and hold a post of this nature at the same time because Parliament must be independent of the monarch. (This is why high ranking civil servants and army officers are not allowed to be MPs.) As a result, the holder of this ancient post is automatically disqualified from the House of Commons and the by-election can go ahead.

2.2 Give the English equivalents to the following Russian words and word combinations:

1. руководить проведением выборов;2. организовывать (открывать) избирательные участки;3. следить, чтобы расходы на кампанию не выходили за рамки,

установленные законодательством;4. широкое освещение (выборов) в печати (СМИ);5. предоставлять подробные отчеты о расходах (на кампанию);6. день выборов;7. закрытые кабины для тайного голосования;8. сделать объявление о количестве голосов, отданных на каждого

кандидата;9. объявить победителя, ставшего членом Палаты Общин от

данного округа;10.почти равное распределение голосов на выборах;11.телефеерия во время выборов;12.быть показателем популярности (непопулярности)

правительства на настоящий момент

81

Section 3. Use the above-given texts and the glossary (3.1) to speak about the

British Electoral System. Now that you have acquainted yourselves with the present-day system of voting in Great Britain answer and discuss the following questions.

1. In what ways is political campaigning in your country different from that in Britain?

2. What is the level of public interest in learning about election results in your country? Does it reflect the general level of enthusiasm about, and interest in politics?

82

Glossary

ballot paper бюллетень для голосованияsecret ballot тайное голосование

borough город, приравненный к избирательному округу

canvassing предвыборная агитация на дому у избирателей; сбор голосов перед выборами

constituency избирательный округ

83

safe constituency избирательный округ, большинство избирателей, в котором традиционно отдают свои голоса за кандидатов одной из двух основных партий

marginal constituency избирательный округ, в котором нет традиционной единодушной поддержки одной из двух главных партий, и поэтому результаты выборов обычно непредсказуемы

count подсчет голосов избирателейrecount пересчет голосовelection (to) выборы (в)

general election всеобщие выборыby-election дополнительные выборыelection agent организатор избирательной кампанииto win/lose an election победить/проиграть на выборахelection campaign избирательная кампанияto fight the election вести борьбу на выборахto fix an election организовать выборы

elect (v) smb to избирать кого-либо вelect smb Prime-minister избирать кого-либо

премьер-министромelector избирательelectoral address обращение к избирателямelection address обращение к избирателямelectoral issue проблема, решение которой

предлагается кандидатами или партиями в ходя избирательной кампании

electoral law закон о выборах, избирательный закон

84

electoral register список избирателейelectorate контингент избирателей,

совокупность избирателей, поддерживающих определенного кандидата, определенную политику или партию

election agent организатор предвыборной кампании кандидата

to be eligible to vote иметь право участвовать в выборахmanifesto предвыборная платформа партии,

предвыборная декларацияnominee (n) кандидат на выборахnominate smb (as a candidate)

выставлять кандидатуру на выборах

nomination официальное выставление кандидата на выборах

opinion poll опрос общественного мненияto take polls проводить опрос общественного

мненияpolling day день голосования

polling station место голосования, пункт голосованияto put up (one’s name for Parliament)

выставлять свою кандидатуру, вносить кандидатуру в списки для голосования

to return smb to Parliament избирать кого-либо в Парламентreturning officer должностное лицо, ответственное за

организацию выборовelection returns результаты выборовto stand for parliamentary elections

участвовать в выборах, выставлять свою кандидатуру

85

to vote by proxy голосовать по доверенностиto vote by post голосовать по почте

put to the vote ставить на голосованиеvoter избирательvoting (n) 1. голосование

2. выборыpreferential voting система голосования, при которой

избиратель отмечает цифрами против фамилий кандидатов, в каком порядке он за них голосует

turnout явка избирателей на выборыturnout of …%


A GUIDE TO BRITISH POLITICAL PARTIES

Conservative

History: developed from the group of MPs know as the Tories in the early nineteenth century and still often known informally by that name (especially in newspapers, because it takes up less space!).

Traditional outlook: right of centre; stands for hierarchical authority and minimal government interference in the economy; likes to reduce income tax; gives high priority to national defense and internal law and order.

Since 1979: aggressive reform of education, welfare, housing and many public services designed to increase consumer-choice and/or to introduce ‘market economics’ into their operation.

Organization: leader has relatively great degree of freedom to direct policy.

Leader: David Cameron. Voters: the richer sections of society, plus a large minority of the

working classes. Money: mostly donations from business people.

86

Labour

History: formed at the beginning of the twentieth century from an alliance of trade unionists and intellectuals. First government in 1923.

Traditional outlook: left of centre; stands for equality, for the weaker people in society and for more government involvement in the economy; more concerned to provide full social services than to keep income tax low.

Since 1979: opposition to Conservative reforms, although has accepted many of these by now; recently, emphasis on community ethics and looser links with trade unions

Organization: in theory, policies have to be approved by annual conference; in practice, leader has more power than this implies.

Leader : Ed Miliband. Voters: working class, plus a small middle-class intelligentsia. Money: more than half form trade unions.

Liberal Democrats

History: formed in the late 1980s from a union of the Liberals (who developed from the Whigs of the early nineteenth century) and the Social Democrats (a breakaway group of Labour politicians).

Policies: regarded as in the centre or slightly left of centre; has always been strongly in favor of the EU; places more emphasis on the environment than other parties; believes in giving greater powers to local government and in reform of the electoral system.

Leader : Nick Clegg. Voters: from all classes, but more from the middle class. Money: private donations (much poorer than the big two)

Nationalist parties

Both Plaid Cymru (‘party of Wales’ in the Welsh language) and the SNP (Scottish National Party) fight for devolution of governmental powers. They won separate parliaments for their countries and many of their members, especially in the SNP, are willing to consider total independence from the UK. Both parties have

87

usually had a few MPs in the second half of the twentieth century, but well under half of the total number of MPs from their respective countries.

Parties in Northern Ireland

Parties here normally represent either the Protestant or the Catholic communities. There is one large comparatively moderate party on each side (the Protestant Ulster Unionists and the Catholic Social Democratic and Labour Party) and one or more other parties of more extreme views on each side (for example, the Protestant Democratic Unionists and the Catholic Sinn Fein). There is one party which asks for support form both communities – the Alliance party.

Other parties

There are numerous very small parties, such as the Green Party, which is supported by environmentalists. There is a small party which was formerly the Communist party, and a number of other left-wing parties, and also an extreme right-wing party which is fairly openly racist (by most definitions of that word). It was previously called the National Front but since the 1980s has been called the British National Party (BNP).

88

READER

89

MARGARET THATCHER

from "The Downing Street Years"

CLOTHES

In my case, preparation for the election involved more than politics. I also had to be dressed for the occasion. I had already commissioned from Aquascutum6 suits, jackets and skirts – "working clothes" for the campaign.

I took a close interest in clothes, as most women do: but it was also extremely important that the impression I gave was right for the political occasion. In Opposition I had worn clothes from various suppliers. And if I had had any doubts about the importance of getting these matters very carefully organised, they were dissipated by the arrival of an outfit ordered for the Opening of Parliament in 1979. It was a beautiful sapphire blue suit with a matching hat. I had no time for a fitting and as I put it on with just a few minutes in hand I found to my horror that it neither fitted nor suited me and had to rush away to change into something else. It was a lesson not to order from a sketch, which can disguise unwanted bulges that are too painfully obvious to the real customer.

From the time of my arrival in Downing Street, Crawfie7 helped me choose my wardrobe. Together we would discuss style, colour and cloth. Everything had to do duty on many occasions so tailored suits seemed right. (They also have the advantage of gently passing by the waist). The most exciting outfits were perhaps those suits I had made – in black or dark blue – for the Lord Mayor's Banquet. On foreign visits, it was, of course, particularly important to be appropriately dressed. We always paid attention to the colours of the national flag when deciding on what I should wear. The biggest change, however, was the new style I adopted when I visited the Soviet Union in the spring of 1987, for which I wore a black coat with shoulder pads, that Crawfie had seen in

61 Aquascutum [,ækw'skju:tm] - an expensive clothing shop in London72 Crawfie – Mrs. Thatcher's private secretary

90

the Aquascutum window, and a marvellous fox fur hat. (Aquascutum have provided me with most of my suits ever since).

With the televising of the House of Commons after November 1989 new considerations arose. Stripes and checks looked attractive and cheerful in the flesh but they could dazzle the television viewer. One day when I had just not had enough time to change before going to the House, I continued to wear a black and white check suit. Afterwards a parliamentary colleague who had seen me on television told me, "what you said was all right, but looked awful". I learned my lesson. People watching television would also notice whether I had worn the same suit on successive occasions and even wrote in about it. So from now on Crawfie always kept a note of what I wore each week for Prime Minister's Questions. Out of these notes a diary emerged and each outfit received its own name, usually denoting the occasion it was first worn. The pages read something like a travel diary: Paris Opera, Washington Pink, Reagan Navy, Toronto Turquoise, Tokyo Blue, Kremlin Silver, Peking Black and last but not least English Garden. But now my mind was on the forthcoming campaign, it was time to lay out my navy and white check suit, to be known as "Election'87".

Use the following questions and assignments in the discussion of the excerpt.

1. Describe the way Mrs. Thatcher learned her lesson how she should dress as a political leader.

2. Do you think that the manner of choosing and wearing clothes is an important factor in building-up the public image of a political leader?

91

unit · web viewunit i. the constitution. section 1. read and study.. 1.1. look through these...

Documents