I have spent a good part of this year working on a new edition of one of my books, The British Polity. It is text on British politics written for an international, primarily an American, audience. It is published in the States.
It includes a glossary of terms. Some of these are terms specific to the UK, such as Black Rod. Others are terms that may mean one thing in the UK but have another meaning elsewhere. At Westminster, for example, ´to table´something is a positive action, the start of a process. In the US Congress, ´to table´a bill means to kill it off.
I would be interested if readers can think of any political terms that we use that are distinctive. The glossary is already fairly substantial, but there is always room for additions. And if anyone comes up with anything I use, there may be a mention in the book as a reward….
Distinctive, that’s hard. Guillotines, 10 min rule bills. Most terms you can quickly think of exist in both though the meanings can be different (conservative liberal etc).
How about ‘ping pong’? There’s also ‘the other place’, the various forms of address for MPs and Lords…
I’d very much like to read your book, as I’ve always been curious how the British system can be explained to Americans. I wonder if they’ll be horrified or delighted…
“Ways and Means” and the position of the Chairman of Ways and Means is quite different. It in many ways reflects the difference between the UK and American systems, as I am sure The Right Hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst would testify.
Not so much a political term, but the word ‘oversight’ appears now to have two meanings in the UK, one good, one bad…
I personally find this infection of English by American intensely annoying, movie being a prime example, as there is the danger that one cannot be sure which meaning is being ascribed to a particular word.
I have watched various debates in the United States Congress, and am very impressed by the passion and elan of Senator Bernie Sanders.
I find your style of writing appealing although I am not able to claim that I have read your books. I think that the words “Speaker”, “endorse” and “order” or words which can be quite confusing from varied sides of the Atlantic. I also wonder if you would consider a paragraph of introduction regarding time management rules in all four houses. For there are pairings by upper and lower houses and by legislative entity which can make things difficult to follow. Beyond that of course Americans buying your book may know a bit about Law Lords but that is a bit confusing for journalists often enough. In the Senate in the US we have the simple majority, the sixty of 100 to prevent a philibuster and the supermajority for overriding vetoes and other matters specified. I think that of the four pertinent houses in many ways Commons and the Senate are proceduraly most alien to one another. The majority party or coallition in Commons hopes to be absolute while it lasts whereas the Senate in a real sense operates for years at a time with uncertainty as to how many votes will constitute an effective majority on a given issue. The Senate and Lords both attempt a deliberate pace but in the Senate raising funds for elections means that for the last thirty years little of the deliberation is verbal and joinedon the floor.
I do not mean to write an essay but there really are large obstacles to mutual understanding as to the process of law-making. Should that be understood there are vast differences in the mechanisms of administering law. Is a “committee” really the same thing or only an analogous thing when it comes down to really grasping the function of a British or US legislative tasked group?
Good luck with all your efforts to promote some kind of understanding. Knowledge remains worthwhile and clarity of perception makes it possible to have a more meaningful exchange.
Thanks for the suggestions. Clearly, my cunning plan to get readers to rush out and buy up copies of the previous edition have failed miserably.
I should mention that I do cover in the text some of the terms that get used in British politics. The role of the Speaker, for example, is covered. The book covers the whole range of the political system and is not confined to Parliament. Indeed, Parliament is not dealt with until Chapter 12 (out of sixteen chapters).
The suggestions you make are extremely pertinent. I have already sent the typescript of the new edition, but I may still insert one or two new entries in the Glossary. I must confess that I see the value of all the terms mentioned – I especially like Adrian Kidney’s suggestion of ‘ping pong’. I will now reflect on all the suggestions. Thanks again.