Tally-ho!

After some seven years of so of wrangling, it appears that Parliament — Commons, in fact — will outright and permanently ban fox hunting (with hounds — and also, I believe, stag hunting and haring) today. Even in the short time I’ve been here, the issue has raged back and forth across the press. The House of Lords has rejected the Commons proposals twice — pushing, instead, for licensed hunting — which means that the Commons can invoke the Parliament Act, which means they can push their bill through in override of the Lords.

Beyond the humanitarian/animal cruelty issues, there’s lots of talk about the economic impact on folk who work in the fox hunting (hound hunting, more specifically) industry. And this is seen as a flash-point issue between the British equivalents of red/blue states: cities vs countryside, each with different priorities, cultures, and values (and disdain for each other).

Part of what’s fascinating about this whole thing, aside from it being something of a watershed event in the UK, is how indicative it is of a fundamental difference between the British and American systems of government. The British government is much more monolithic, encompassing everything that the US, in turn, divides between state and federal governments. Hunting regulations argued, and enforced, by Congress? That would clearly be a state issue, but here it’s just Parliament that decides.

There’s a further “efficiency” involved, too. In the US, on the federal level, there’s a wide array of checks and balances. The president has his own agenda, which doesn’t always match up with that of Congress (even with of the same party); the two houses of Congress are much more equal in power (while Lords is more of a weak brake on Commons); and in the US, the court system provides a broad, strong array of checks on governmental action, based on an explicit Constitution. Add in a further constitutional division of responsibilities between the Feds and the States, and it’s much more difficult for the government to do something sweepingly intrusive. Not impossible by any means, and that cuts both for good and ill, but certainly more difficult.

(It’s slightly more complicated than that. Blair has strongly backed the hunting ban, but doesn’t want it to take place for a year or more, so that general elections can take place without that issue as a backdrop; he may or may not get that. And Britain’s ties to the EU are beginning to add a further brake, in its own way; the pro-hunting folks are looking at legally attacking the Commons bill based on human rights issues, apparently because it’s being done without any provision for the economic impact on those in the countryside who work in that industry.)

That “efficiency” does cut both ways, allowing the government to do Good and Evil much more easily . For example, the Health Minister has announced plans to basically ban smoking in all workplaces, and in all restaurants and pubs that have their own kitchens (about 80% of all pubs). Something that would be nearly impossible — due to constitutional issues, among others — in the States is likely to pass muster here with only a lot of grumbling and some possible electoral fall-out.

(Under the devolution of the Scottish government from the UK generally, the Scottish Health Minister is pushing through regulations even more firm, banning smoking in all public places. The similarly structured Irish government put something through about a year ago.)

Now, as a non-smoker, I can hardly object too strongly to the response, as smoking in restaurants and pubs will be wonderful to not have around me. Still, it makes one wonder what else the government can similarly impose. There’s a lot of talk about healthy food initiatives — at the moment just in labeling (something goofy that would label “good” food with green labels, and “bad” food with red labels), but, conceivably, one can easily imagine certain foods being banned, or otherwise regulated and restricted. Which, again, would be much more difficult for the US federal government to do. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Now, to be sure, the UK is much smaller than the US, size-wise and in population. But as much as there have been times when I wished the US federal government could just wave its hands and make things happen, it’s clear, seeing how things work here in the UK, that would mean any number of federal whims, good and bad, would be much easier to implement — and, to some degree, would distract from more important strategic matters. It does make me strangely grateful for the system I live underneath — even if it is occasionally irksome.