Strange bedfellows -- a tale of two parliaments
Reading the paper this morning, I was struck by a pair of legislative votes on both sides of "The Pond" (as people like to say when talking about the US and UK).
Congress yesterday voted 359 to 64 (the latter all Repubs -- for whom the bill didn't do enough to redress their arch-conservative objections) to approve Republican-proposed changes to "No child left behind" -- a law which had been introduced by the Bush Administration (George W. seen as an apostate for daring to take authority over education from the states, who haven't done it very effectively).
The UK Parliament voted 397-223 in favor of joining the anti-ISIS coalition bombing terrorists in Syria. (The RAF has been bombing them in Iraq along with the US-led coalition.)
"Apples and oranges," you say? Education and defense? Ah, but the student of politics in our two nations will see a fine display of non-partisan work in the two great deliberative bodies.
And this despite a perceived loss of the will to compromise in both political systems -- a dangerous trend in the past decade.
In the US, Repubs in both houses of Congress have deliberately refused to work with the Obama Administration for the entire time he has been President. Now, wonder of wonders, it was Repubs supporting a bill acceptable to Obama and to many Democratic Congresspersons. It is thought the Republican-led Senate will follow the lower house's lead on the bill.
In the UK, it was the Labour Party which split on an urgent national issue. Cameron's Tories went with the PM, but the pacifism-inclined leader of Labour, Jeremy Corbyn, opposed the Government. "But," according to the Washington Post, "faced wih a rebellion -- and threats of resignation -- from some of the party's most senior members, he instead opted Monday to allow Labour politicians a [rare] 'free vote.'"
ALL elected reps of the public SHOULD always be free to vote as they see fit. Party discipline is generally a very bad thing. Here's hoping we are seeing a new transAtlantic trend!
Congress yesterday voted 359 to 64 (the latter all Repubs -- for whom the bill didn't do enough to redress their arch-conservative objections) to approve Republican-proposed changes to "No child left behind" -- a law which had been introduced by the Bush Administration (George W. seen as an apostate for daring to take authority over education from the states, who haven't done it very effectively).
The UK Parliament voted 397-223 in favor of joining the anti-ISIS coalition bombing terrorists in Syria. (The RAF has been bombing them in Iraq along with the US-led coalition.)
"Apples and oranges," you say? Education and defense? Ah, but the student of politics in our two nations will see a fine display of non-partisan work in the two great deliberative bodies.
And this despite a perceived loss of the will to compromise in both political systems -- a dangerous trend in the past decade.
In the US, Repubs in both houses of Congress have deliberately refused to work with the Obama Administration for the entire time he has been President. Now, wonder of wonders, it was Repubs supporting a bill acceptable to Obama and to many Democratic Congresspersons. It is thought the Republican-led Senate will follow the lower house's lead on the bill.
In the UK, it was the Labour Party which split on an urgent national issue. Cameron's Tories went with the PM, but the pacifism-inclined leader of Labour, Jeremy Corbyn, opposed the Government. "But," according to the Washington Post, "faced wih a rebellion -- and threats of resignation -- from some of the party's most senior members, he instead opted Monday to allow Labour politicians a [rare] 'free vote.'"
ALL elected reps of the public SHOULD always be free to vote as they see fit. Party discipline is generally a very bad thing. Here's hoping we are seeing a new transAtlantic trend!