Study guide for Citizenship Exam released today

What boat did the pilgrims hit land in?  What do the colors on the flag symbolize?  Who said "Give me liberty or give me death"?

I hate sh*t like this because it's about mythology, not history. The Mayflower was NOT the first boat that carried colonists to the British colonies. This just furthers that mythology that New England was settled before Virginia. And Patrick Henry did not actually say "Give me liberty or give me death" in the Virginia House of Burgesses.

I don't know why we shouldn't be allowed to google? It took me all of 2 seconds. It's not like you are forced to go to the exam unprepared. You have, literally, years to study.

The reason that you should have to know this stuff to vote is because you need to understand the law in order to fully understand what candidates are saying when they talk about making changes to the law. Or you can just vote for the better looking candidate or the one who makes the best sound bytes.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." Thomas Jefferson.

I hate sh*t like this because it's about mythology, not history. The Mayflower was NOT the first boat that carried colonists to the British colonies. This just furthers that mythology that New England was settled before Virginia.

That wasn't the question. It was "What boat did the Pilgrims land on?" Who ever said the Mayflower was the first boat that carried colonists to the British colonies? I never heard that before.

The reason that you should have to know this stuff to vote is because you need to understand the law in order to fully understand what candidates are saying when they talk about making changes to the law. Or you can just vote for the better looking candidate or the one who makes the best sound bytes.

But that's not how the British system works. When you vote in a constituency, it's sometimes inflected by local concerns, but mainly you're voting for the party line, not the individual. British politics don't rely on charismatic politics like the US. This is why the news spends so much care on what a party's manifesto says because it's the informal contract of the party with the populace. In contrast, the US party platforms aren't that seriously considered.

There's another key difference between the two systems. Only the ruling party can introduce legislation. This differs from the States where the minority party can introduce bills. That's why the US politicians speak about bipartisanship, which is a concept that is ridiculous here. The other thing that matters is ruling party discipline or rebellion. The opposition parties can boo in Commons, but that's about it: they're largely irrelevant. That's why the Tories can only oppose things in the House of Lords.

That wasn't the question. It was "What boat did the Pilgrims land on?" Who ever said the Mayflower was the first boat that carried colonists to the British colonies? I never heard that before.

But that's clearly the implication. Why should it be worth mentioning except for the mythology surrounding it. I guess that the first few colonies ending up in utter disaster isn't as noteworthy.

No, seriously, I didn't google that. Ok, now I'm sweating, but I'd say that a Statutory Instrument doesn't require a vote in the Commons, while a Bill does.

Hat's off to you, m'lud!

An SI is put in place by delegated powers whereas a bill goes through both houses.

Congrats!

Rock on!

Just to add a concluding note to this thread, I've read the LitUK guide from cover to cover, and profoundly recommend it for anybody on a migration path leading to citizenship.  It's crammed full of good tidbits, and probably the best value you're going to get from the government for under £10.

I had no idea at all about the neighbour mediation service. 

Oh man.  Who knows this stuff?  I fully support having an exam to prove that you have interest and knowledge in the country/culture/history/government but I think it should be stuff that is at least useful to know.   

I do htink I knew about green and white papers, though.

I do htink I knew about green and white papers, though.

Colours again.  More relevant, in fact highly so; but more obscurely posed:

Please complete the following sequence by adding the last item:

a.  a green circle;
b.  an orange diamond;
c.  a purple square; and
d.  ?


 

oh, give us a clue!  Is this still in politics?

oh, give us a clue!  Is this still in politics?

Not politics, it's very much every-day life in England...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: sweetpeach on January 26, 2005, 11:57:32 PM

That wasn't the question. It was "What boat did the Pilgrims land on?" Who ever said the Mayflower was the first boat that carried colonists to the British colonies? I never heard that before.

Quote from Lightbulb: « Reply #34 on: January 27, 2005, 12:05:10 AM


But that's clearly the implication. Why should it be worth mentioning except for the mythology surrounding it. I guess that the first few colonies ending up in utter disaster isn't as noteworthy.


I don't see that implication at all.  It's a straightforward question. It's worth mentioning because the colony was successful. I think you are just trying to read things into it so that you can support your theory that the exam encourages the teaching of myth, rather than fact. I'm not saying that you aren't correct about that, just that the Mayflower example isn't a good one.

I have never, ever read in any book or heard anyone teach that the Mayflower was the first ship American to the colonies.  So where exactly have you heard that myth before?

But that's not how the British system works. When you vote in a constituency, it's sometimes inflected by local concerns, but mainly you're voting for the party line, not the individual.

Many political systems work that way. Lots of Americans still vote for the party line in the US as well. Even though technically they are voting for an individual, some Americans just vote for everyone in the Democratic column, or the Republican column, without knowing anything about who they are voting for. This is one of the reasons people complain when ballots aren't readable. People sometimes vote the way they hadn't intended if a candidate's name is in the "wrong" position on the ballot; that is, it's hard to tell which party they belong to.  I have seen people do this when I've gone to vote in the US: Walk up to the election worker, ask "Which column is the Democratic column?" and be told "first column on the left" or wherever it is.

 Not so much in presidential elections, maybe, but Americans vote by party when voting for the legislature, judgeships, and in local elections.  Either way, it's important to know what you are voting for--whether it's a party or a person.

In contrast, the US party platforms aren't that seriously considered.

Not true. See above. Well, I guess it depends on which indvidual does the considering. But certainly a substantial number of Americans care about the party platforms very much.

There's another key difference between the two systems. Only the ruling party can introduce legislation. This differs from the States where the minority party can introduce bills. That's why the US politicians speak about bipartisanship, which is a concept that is ridiculous here. The other thing that matters is ruling party discipline or rebellion. The opposition parties can boo in Commons, but that's about it: they're largely irrelevant. That's why the Tories can only oppose things in the House of Lords.

That just gives more support to the idea that it is important to be able to vote intelligently and sensibly and understand the rules, since the ruling party has that much more power.

In addition, the UK has no separate judicial branch, and the executive branch (monarchy) is pretty much powerless, which makes the legislature even more powerful.