How do Catholics vote outside the US? Especially in the UK

[Kaninchen]

is closest to the old Democrazia Cristiana?

No doubt there are some talented people around but no current political party seems to have the potential to achieve the awesome heights of corruptibility of Andreotti’s “Democrazia Cristiana” (or Craxi’s “Partito Socialista Italiano” for that matter).

 

[JohnStrachan]

She also supported legal abortion

You have just shattered my impression of Thatcher. Maybe I’m just an old traditionalist, but I find it hard to separate true conservatism from respect for human life. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[JohnStrachan]

In actual fact Boris Johnson is catholic too though of course not practicing.

The man is an enigma. There is not a moral bone in his body. How can Brits vote for such a buffon?

 

[F_Marturana]

I actually recently watched Divorce Italian Style, and there’s a short scene where the priest is giving a sermon about not being permitted to tell who to vote for “basta che sia un partito cristiano e democratico.”

 

[paperwight]

Bluebright:

In actual fact Boris Johnson is catholic too though of course not practicing.

The man is an enigma. There is not a moral bone in his body. How can Brits vote for such a buffon?

The thing is, though, that we Brits did not vote for him. We do not have a Presidential system where the candidate is voted for directly, but a parliamentary one. We vote for a party. The MPs vote for a leader for their party who then becomes the Prime Minister if their party gains a majority of votes at the next General Election.

 

[JohnStrachan]

We do not have a Presidential system where the candidate is voted for directly, but a parliamentary one.

I’m Canadian. We have the same system. But if Brits didn’t have confidence in Boris they could have voted for another candidate. They knew what they were getting when then voted Conservative.

 

[Montrose]

How can Brits vote for such a buffon?

Less of an evil than Jeremy Corbyn.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

imagine what kind of justices a President Hillary Rodham Clinton would have appointed

This may be perceived as an attack on the American system of government, but the more I read about the SCOTUS, the more I wonder whether it is the procedure for appointing federal judges that is flawed. I appreciate that many Americans, including some on these forums, are sensitive to any criticism of the United States, so allow me first to say that the American system of government has many excellent features. In the 1990s, I was largely impressed by Jonathan Freedland’s book Bring Home the Revolution.

In the UK, it was announced last week that Ben Stephens is to become a justice of the Supreme Court on 1 October following the retirement of Brian Kerr on 30 September. Stephens was chosen by a selection commission convened by the Lord Chancellor. The commission was chaired by the president of the Supreme Court. The other members included a senior judge, who in this case was Declan Morgan, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland; a representative of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, Nicola Gordon, an engineer; a representative of the Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales, Ajay Kakkar, a surgeon; and a representative of the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission, Lindsay Todd, a former partner of PricewaterhouseCoopers. The commission will have reached its decision in consultation with other senior judges: from the UK, the justices of the Supreme Court; from England and Wales, the Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, Presidents of the Queen’s Bench and Family Divisions, and Chancellor of the High Court; from Scotland, the Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice Clerk; and from Northern Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice (in this case already a member of the commission). They will also have consulted the Lord Chancellor, the first minister of Scotland, the first minister of Wales, and the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. The Lord Chancellor will then have communicated the commission’s decision to the prime minister, who in turn communicates the decision to the Queen, who makes the appointment.

As mentioned, each of the UK’s three legal jurisdictions, England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, has a commission or board for judicial appointments. The England and Wales commission also appoints some UK-wide judges. Its 15 members represent the judiciary and the legal professions as well as laypeople drawn from fields as diverse as Parliament, the Civil Service, the Church, medicine, and the arts.

The system that we have is designed to produce a judiciary appointed solely on the basis of merit. There is no such thing as a conservative judge or a liberal judge, a Tory judge or a Labour judge. We do not have to predict what kind of judges Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer would appoint or wonder who would have been appointed if Jeremy Corbyn had become prime minster.

 

[graciew]

The system that we have is designed to produce a judiciary appointed solely on the basis of merit. There is no such thing as a conservative judge or a liberal judge, a Tory judge or a Labour judge.

That makes one envious… Healthy envy I mean .
Sounds like really independent.
Does it work in practice ? Do people perceive it as fair?

 

[Pattylt]

I think it’s a better system, too. I just can’t imagine how it’d work in the US with our two party system and always at each other’s throats. Each side seems to feel the need for a victory. I think we’d wind up with some pretty mediocre justices just because they’d be the only ones agreed upon.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

He’s back and working with Michael Gove and even more dodgy characters (apparently) to try to sabotage the SNP.

I had no idea. At least he is actually Scottish and thus has a legitimate interest in Scottish issues, which is more than can be said for his cynical exploitation of Muslim voters in east London and Bradford.

like all those old ‘Living Marxism’/‘Spiked’ Trots who’ve embraced reaction and Boris Johnson.

I’ve never quite worked out what Spiked really stands for and have concluded that its ideology could probably best be described as misanthrope. I gather that Barbara Hewson hasn’t written for Spiked since early 2017. The question is, did she realise that Spiked was too awful even for her or did Spiked realise that she was too awful even for it?

True, and I see these churches too, but this phenomenon is somewhat specific to areas of London with large African and West Indian populations. They can probably also be found in parts of the West Mindlands and possibly Manchester and a handful of other urban areas, but much of the UK is almost entirely white.

 

[ATraveller]

The system that we have is designed to produce a judiciary appointed solely on the basis of merit.

Based on my understanding, the UK judiciary is generally subordinate to Parliament. Independent from government and parliamentary interference but its rulings on constitutional matters can be cancelled by parliament. And I believe the UK Supreme Court is a relatively new institution.
Edit:
(Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia)

the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was formally established on 1 October 2009
It assumed the judicial functions of the House of Lords, which had been exercised by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (commonly called “Law Lords”), the 12 judges appointed as members of the House of Lords to carry out its judicial business as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Its jurisdiction over devolution matters had previously been exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

(Parliamentary sovereignty - Wikipedia)

Parliamentary sovereignty (also called parliamentary supremacy or legislative supremacy ) is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. It holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies. It also holds that the legislative body may change or repeal any previous legislation and so it is not bound by written law (in some cases, even a constitution or by precedent.

In some countries, parliamentary sovereignty may be contrasted with separation of powers, which limits the legislature’s scope often to general law-making, and judicial review, where laws passed by the legislature may be declared invalid in certain circumstances.

Many states have sovereign legislatures, including the United Kingdom, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Barbados, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Israel, and the Solomon Islands.

I think America’s polarized politics is due to the fact SCOTUS rulings are permanent whereas in the UK, parliament can change rulings that are unpopular. So there’s a mad scramble in the US to impose or prevent rulings that can fundamentally change the country.

 

[new-kirishitan]

I must ask the priest of my former parish in England to find out. But I would assume he and his fellow priests would have voted for the Tories, because the Labours, the Lib Dems, and most other parties are quite left-wing, and their values would have conflicted with Catholic values. Our former deacon, now a priest, used to work for the Home Office, so he would be able to provide a good answer as well. While I believe most members of the clergy would have voted for the Tories, I would not be surprised to find lots of cradle Catholics voting for the leftist parties.

 

[Inquisitor85]

Strictly speaking the judiciary is independent and for the most part is seen as that. The odd decision incurs the wrath of the rabble rousers like The S*n and the Daily Fail, the latter had its infamous “Enemies of the People” headline, given in response to the High Courts quite correct ruling that the PM did not have the perogative to activate A50 of the Lisbon Treaty and it had to be put to Parliament.

As for why people voted for Boris Johnson, that can be put into a three word slogan from his unelected special advisor Dominic “Untouchable” Cummings, ‘Get Brexit Done’. Much like how DJT got elected in the US.

 

[graciew]

I appreciate you answered, but I cannot get what you are trying to say. I am sorry…I’ m not familiar with what you are mentioning.
Would you say they are fair and perceived as fair?
Or are there serious doubts generally shared?
If you want… it did call my attention in a positive way that it seems to be independent from political factions

 

[Inquisitor85]

Generally they are perceived as fair, the above was an unusually divise case when emotions were running sky high regarding the Brexit referendum. Occasionally a sentence may be unduly lenient or harsh and may be sent to the Home Secretary for review, its front page news when that happens though.

As rule though, no one much gives the judiciary much thought, they’re definitely not as politicised as they are in the US. For my money that gives them them independence.

 

[graciew]

Thank you very much for explaining.
So very glad for you.
It must bring a lot of peace.

 

[Inquisitor85]

Well it stops the interminable arguments about having a liberal/conservative/whatever judge on the bench.

 

[Kaninchen]

its ideology could probably best be described as misanthrope.

It’s just one variation of the ‘phoenix from the ashes’ theme that’s been running through a lot of radical right thought over the past couple of decades, in order to change anything, you have to change everything.

 

[PickyPicky]

It must bring a lot of peace.

Appointment by commission does have disadvantages, of course. It can result in the governing class just perpetuating itself. But the disadvantages are, in my opinion, outweighed by the benefit of keeping party politics out of places, like the courtroom, where they have no place, or allowing organisations (like the BBC, for example) to work at arms length from Government.

Since we are in this place, it may be of interest to know that bishops of the Church of England are also chosen by commission.