A moment at Agincourt.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

In 1415, on October the 25th, a cold, tired and hungry army of English soldiers were making for the coast of France in an attempt to reach Calais, a town still in English hands.

Imagine their dismay when they found the route home was blocked by a large French army, five times more numerous than themselves. The English were mainly on foot, and the French had brought along their elite troops - the well armed and armoured knights of the royal court.

As the French knights on their proud chargers drew up, with the sun glinting on their armour and the resplendent banners of these proud aristocrats, they made a complete contrast to the drab, miserable and shivering wretches on the English side. Who were these common men who dared to even think that they could match the proud and noble French aristocracy in battle?

Yet, as the French knights came forward at a trot, the English stood firm and notched their arrows in their bows. When the knights moved into a canter, the archers raised and took aim. When the knights levelled their lances and the trumpeters sounded the charge, the archers loosed their long bowsbows, sending a cloud of arrows on their way.

At under 300 yards, the bodkin tipped arrows could pierce plate armour, and an archer of the day could fire 12 shots a minute and have the last arrow in the air before the first had hit the ground. Arrows rained down upon the French at an alarming rate and threw them into confusion.

Henry V, the leader of the English Army, had chosen his ground well, beween two woods that guarded his flanks, and the French cavalry were charging into a narrowing front towards the English line. The French knights were annihilated, and the name of Agincourt became renowned as a victory against all odds - a desperate stand like the Alamo, but with the defenders victorious against the overwhelming numbers against them.

Yet, what did the common man in England gain from this 'great victory'?
The truth was that the English were driven out of France in the end, for a single battle does not always win a war. And the 'English' king was only in France in the first place because his ancestors came from here and he had therefore some personal interest in French politics and the lands his fathers held there.

For the English archers, and their descendents like me, there was little to be gained from that battle in faraway France, except the insiring legend of a few men who triumphed against unbelievable great odds. A bit like the Alamo, but with the English winning.

And now, let us fast forward to England of the 21st century. It is a land still ruled by a system dreamed up in bygone days. In England, indeed, in Modern Britain, consisting of England, Scotland and Wales, the leader of a party the wins a General Election is invited to form a government, and becomes the Queen's Prime Minister.

I understand that the Americans have a different system and I would love to know how it works, but in the UK - the United Kingdom , as we sometimes call it, the political parties choose their leaders, and we vote for our MPs, who form the Parliamentary party. So, if you want David Cameron the be PM , for instance, you vote for the MP who belongs to his party.

I understand, though, that Americans have what they call 'Primaries' to decide their presidential candidates directly. I wonder how that works and wether Americans think it a good thing. But in the UK, politicians choose their party leaders, and we chose those who will form the Government by voting for the various parties.

The problem is that we have many different parties now, so it isn't just a two horse race anymore. Tony Blair's Labour party got elected on just 35% of the vote - this is hardly a Mandate From the People. I therefore believe that Britain needs a system of Proportional Representation. If you get 35% of the vote, you should only get 35% of the seats in the Commons.

This present government, headed by Conserviative David Cameron, was forced to hold a referendum by the Liberal leader Nick Clegg, as the price of his support, because cameron did not win outright. But instead of making it a free choice about PR , it was watered down to a vote about AV - Alternative Voting. A 'No' vote would be trumpeted as a victory for First Past The Post.
Yet, although this was not what they wanted, many minor parties and even MPs from the traditional parties went for the alternative. They see AV as a stepping stone to greater things.

And so it was that they found themselves up against the Big Corporations and the Business interests like Rupert Murdoch, whose newspapers pushed the anti AV line vigourously.They were up against a campiagn that could pour millions into advertising campaigns and a Press that was blatently and openly on the other side , with a few notable exceptions. The last opinion poll put it at 2 to 1 in favour of FPTP. As someone who voted Yes, I felt as if we were once again at Agincourt.

But the turn out was low. The Average Brit is not a political animal, and all the passion and the commitment seemed to be coming from the Yes vote. We may win a victory against all odds - but the Conservatives, who lied about the voting machines, who invoked the BNP as another scare tactic, has already said they will appeal if they don't get the answer they wanted. The British people will have to fight again and again if we are to get the system that is fair to us instead of the one that works for our masters.

But we, the English people, have always had to fight hard against overwhelming odds. The result of the referendum will be in on Friday. Cameron's cohorts are not in for an easy ride. In spite of all the Tory lies and spin , we have nowgot a foothold in the Commons and will not rest until we have pushed FPTP into the dustbin of history and closed the lid down.

Comments

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

a desperate stand like the Alamo, but with the defenders victorious against the overwhelming numbers against them

They were defendents of what, again? Of their position of invaders? What were a bunch of English doing in France, in the first place?

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

They were on vacation from the horrible English weather, and in search of better food (which is basically 'any' food other than fish and chips).

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Apparently, the 'English' king was only in France in the first place because his ancestors came from here and he had therefore some personal interest in French politics and the lands his fathers held there.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Technically speaking the Angevin Empire predated the re-establishment of an independent England, so long as that Empire survived England was a province of Greater Anjou. ;P

[tridus.livejournal.com]

They were "defenders" in the sense that in this battle they were holding territory and the French army was trying to take it (ie: the ground they were standing on).

In the larger war, no they weren't defenders. But it's the battle that became legendary, not the war.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

well, they were agressors , I suppose, being in someone else's country at the time, but they were holding a line between two woods at a place called Agincourt when the French king tried to drive them back.

Henry v was a descendent of a French Queen, and the French got all sexist and said that as it was only the female line, that he had no claim to the French throne as well as the English one at the same time.

So, they made a law (google ' Salic Law' if you want all the details) and said that he could not be king of France, so there.

Henry did what any self respecting bloke of the era did and invaded France because he was bored. Oh, he also allowed the French king to buy him off, went and married the French kings daughter to seal the bargain and retired to write his memoirs.

then William Shakespeare, looking for a decent plot for an upcoming play, tweaked a few details in retelling the story, but everyone loves the lines he gave to Sir Laurence Olivier - it is one of the best loved and most parodied speeches in the English language "Today is St Crispins Day..."

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

> The problem is that we have many different parties now, so it isn't just a two horse race anymore.

Sounds more like an advantage. :-)

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Not always. We have the same system in Canada and while I'm not sure of the political leanings of the UK parties, the main problem here is we have one right leaning party but several left leaning ones and this splits the liberal vote.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Oh - it offers more choice to the voter - but the election system does not support that choice, instead it squashes it.

Say you like one main party, but feeel like a more radical alternative -
for instance, you like Conservatives , but feel we ought to pull up the drawbridge and get out of europe altogether, go back to how it was in the 1950s...
or maybe you liked the Labour Party, but it just wasn't Green enough for you...
well, the minor parties may get your vote, but the big guys will only have to stay a few votes in front of their main rival and they win outright.

We don't elect people with the most votes any more - just the biggest faction . Blair won on 35 % last time. We really needs a system that doesn't punish people for expressing a preference. However, the traditional parties do well under the present system so they don't want change.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I hope AV wins, it's not the most fair form of election but it's fairer than FPTP. If we had AV in America we would've had a Gore presidency.

Also, Turkish Bows were way better than English Longbows.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

No, we'd have whoever it was that followed Bush after his second term.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

As someone with an interest in Archery myself, I would say that the Turks and Mongols had bows that could be fired from Horseback - and that is really cool.

And they could shoot a lighter arrow a greater distance, but I think I am correct in saying that the armour penetration of the infantry longbow had a deadlier effect at greater distance - unless the enemies of the Byzantians were using something else - for Byzantian foot archers regularly held their mounted counterparts off.

I will do some research here ...

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I say cool story bro. And cool intro. The moral from the story is that the British political/party system has been designed in such a way as to not allow a direct choice of the people, because there are powerful interests of the elite being invested there, and almost no underdogs and "accidental" candidates could be given access to the political process, and for a reason. It takes huge and continuous efforts coming up from the grassroots level to change that, and the coming vote that you're talking about is a good step. But hold no illusions that the England that you're hoping for would come to reality in any shape or form any time soon. Not in your lifetime, anyway. Sad but true. But still, stand your ground. Good luck with kicking out this shameful FPTP practice.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

It is a fact that Britain has some pretty cool history that most brits have never even heard of.

But just like the French had Joan of Arc, the british people down the years have had people who came up and challenged the sytem.

I have just been watching the news and it seems like we have had our ideas kicked into the long grass yet again.

But like we were defeated at Tollpuddle and at Peterloo, we still came back and fought on. We shall fight on after today, and eventually win another victory, but not in my lifetime will we see another chance like this, I fear.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Here in the US we get to choose between two clones sporting different ties. We then get surprised when their policies differ by no more than the thickness of a RCH. Third parties don't stand a chance. I have no idea which system is better.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

That's true, especially when you consider how Obama extended most of Bush's policies while he used to talk a very different talk before being elected.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

> Modern Britain, consisting of England, Scotland and Wales

I thought Northern Ireland was part of Britain...

[adcott.livejournal.com]

Technically, no.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Well, primaries wouldn't work in England. Basically, American candidates tend to vary a lot more wildly from the party platform than candidates in Parliamentary democracies. This is because of the primary system. Instead of voting for the party, of course, we vote for the person - each and every time, from the primary to the final election. This is how you get "blue dog" Democrats voting against Democratic leadership on spending and abortion, without getting kicked out of the party. I imagine a back-bench coalition of the ruling party in the UK, voting against the majority's budget, would not go over well. Here, we try to appease people when they do that.

We end up with a very individualist examination of policies and viewpoints, and the individual judgment of the the specific candidate is often as important (or more - see the "3AM phone call" ad salvos exchanged b/t Obama and Clinton in the primary race) as their policy stances.

Personally, I prefer parliamentary models, because it places additional scrutiny on the actual policies, and reduces the impact of personal charisma (Americans have a disturbing tendency to simply vote for the taller guy).

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

What you neglect to point out is that a varying current in the primary winding of a transformer creates a varying magnetic field through its secondary winding.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

You have to leave certain things out - but I wiill try to adress this issue when I get a political handle on it.

if you find one, plz let me know...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And yet the French won that war despite such spectacular victories on the part of the English. Funny how that worked, innit? You can win the splendid battles but if you can't occupy what you've won, you lose every time. It was the first example of the Vo Nyguen Giap school of war.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

And yet the French won that war despite such spectacular victories on the part of the English.

That's because the French had a secret weapon; an insane 15-year school-girl, which is obviously the most terrifying thing known to man.

But because she was a tomboy the Catholics executed her. They can be like that sometimes.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"I understand, though, that Americans have what they call 'Primaries' to decide their presidential candidates directly."

Sort of.

Technically the parties are not even a part of the American Electoral process, at least not in national elections.

We always vote for the person, not the party (there are a couple of states where this is different in statewide elections) but the parties grew up as an adjunct to the official election system.

In theory ANYONE can run for any office they want as long as they meet a few basic criteria, no party needed.In practice this is very difficult to do without a very organized party in place because of ballot access laws.

That is obviously we need *some* kind of limit on whose names can appear on the ballot or we'd have hundreds of names for each office. The solution that has been implemented here is that in each state you need to achieve certain milestones to prove that you are a legitimate candidate in order for your name to appear on the ballot in that state, typically these involve either being the candidate of a recognized party who has reached certain minimum vote counts in recent elections or getting a certain number of people to sign a petition for your name to appear on the ballot.

So if you are a Republican or Democrat and they name you the candidate for that office your name appears. In a few states there are 3rd parties who have received enough votes to automatically qualify. Outside of that however if you want to get on the ballot you need to go through the petition drive which is a long grueling and expensive process.

The only role of the primaries is as a method for the parties to choose their candidates and these are an important distinction between your system and ours because it means the party membership can and frequently does overrule the party leadership. For example without the primary system Barack Obama would not be the President today, Hillary Clinton probably would.

Another major difference between our systems is that as a defacto 2 party system the coalition building efforts occur prior to the election with each major party already being a coalition of several groups whose interests are only partially related at best and in some cases directly opposed to each other. For example currently in the Republican coalition you have both the Religious Right which wants to impose a theocracy lite on the country and the mainstream libertarians who want a minimalist government not powerful to impose much of anything on the people. This tends to create a lot of tension within the parties however because of the nature of the electoral process here the coalitions change very slowly over time with the last major changes occurring during the 70's and 80's when the religious right joined the Republican Party bringing most of the Southern States with them and then later in the 80's with the emergence of the NeoCons who supported a more capitalist (not necessarily free market however) economy that the Republicans already supported and a more activist foreign policy stance that was traditionally the realm of the Democrats.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Thanks ever so. I was hoping that someone would spell out the details so that people on both sides of the pond could see what was actually going on.

Of course, every political party with more than 3 ppl in it is a coalition - there is a left wing and a right wing to the Tory Party as well as Labour, and the Greens.

It is argued in the UK that coalitions produce "horse trading and dodgy back room deals" - highly perjorative language for the process whereby people sit down and talk seriously like grown ups and come to some sort of sensible workable compromise.

Where you have an outright winner with an overwhelming majority, you tend to get grandstanding , and the hurling of personal insults at people, and I don't think this is good for democracy.

[3fgburner.livejournal.com]

Deo gracias Anglia, Rede pro Victoria.

Which, by the way, scans to the "Banana Boat Song".

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

I would love to know how that trabslates, actually ...

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

An opinion (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/85917.html?thread=4355229#t4355229) about parties, the political system (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/85917.html?thread=4355485#t4355485), and something more (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/809550.html).

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

the bit about politics being run by peps with good genes, good connections and good wallets oughta be DQed if it isn't already.
thanks for all three peices.

[caerfrli.livejournal.com]

what the average Englishman got out of Agincourt was the reputation of being a great archer

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

speaking as an Average Englishman myself, I would rather have Trial by Jury, the right to join a trade union , a vote for working men and votes for women -and STV too, given the choice.

We never fought for those at Agincourt, but we did fight and get most of them , all apart from STV , which we are still fighting for now.