Denmark

CFLarsen said:
But you can't use the definition you use in the US if you want a correct assessment of how it is in Denmark.

Well, you are wrong, then. Government and state are two different things in Denmark.
Click to expand...

I understand that and don't disagree with it, but to me, not only can I use 'government' to describe both but I can interchange those terms in this case and people would understand me.
 
Grammatron said:
I understand that and don't disagree with it, but to me, not only can I use 'government' to describe both but I can interchange those terms in this case and people would understand me.
Click to expand...
Not if you want to accurately describe the political system in Denmark.
 
To either shed some light, or muddy the waters, in the UK we have the Government, and the government.
The Government are Ministers of the the crown, including the Prime Minister, the cabinet, junior ministers and the whips office. The government is the machinery of administration including the permanent civil service, and (by some definitions) the crown, the government is synonymous with the state, the Government is not. As we have a politically neutral, professional and permanent civil service, it is often necessary to distinguish between a government post and a Government post. Someone appointed to a government posts should not work to give the Government political advantage and should be free from undue political pressure.

For once I can see where CFL is coming from.
For once I can act
 
brodski said:
To either shed some light, or muddy the waters, in the UK we have the Government, and the government.
The Government are Ministers of the the crown, including the Prime Minister, the cabinet, junior ministers and the whips office. The government is the machinery of administration including the permanent civil service, and (by some definitions) the crown, the government is synonymous with the state, the Government is not. As we have a politically neutral, professional and permanent civil service, it is often necessary to distinguish between a government post and a Government post. Someone appointed to a government posts should not work to give the Government political advantage and should be free from undue political pressure.

For once I can see where CFL is coming from.
For once I can act
Click to expand...

But if we go by CFL's use it's 'government' and not 'Government' so we are back to him disagreeing.
 
Grammatron said:
But if we go by CFL's use it's 'government' and not 'Government' so we are back to him disagreeing.
Click to expand...
Distinguishing between Government and government is a technical nicety which is lost on most of the population of the UK (let's face it it's a pretty stupid way to distinguish between two closely linked groups which our constitution depends so much in keeping separate ) so I'm not surprised that CFL either does not know of the differentiation, or had chosen to use the term state where government would be more appropriate, and dropped the capitalization from Government.
But then what do I know, I don't even think it likely that GWB wants to feed atheists to lions. ;)
 
brodski said:
To either shed some light, or muddy the waters, in the UK we have the Government, and the government.
The Government are Ministers of the the crown, including the Prime Minister, the cabinet, junior ministers and the whips office. The government is the machinery of administration including the permanent civil service, and (by some definitions) the crown, the government is synonymous with the state, the Government is not. As we have a politically neutral, professional and permanent civil service, it is often necessary to distinguish between a government post and a Government post. Someone appointed to a government posts should not work to give the Government political advantage and should be free from undue political pressure.

For once I can see where CFL is coming from.
For once I can act
Click to expand...

Well in theory, our government bureaucracy is supposed to be free from undue political pressure too, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone naive enough to think it actually is. I have no idea how true that would be in either the UK or Denmark.
 
brodski said:
Distinguishing between Government and government is a technical nicety which is lost on most of the population of the UK (let's face it it's a pretty stupid way to distinguish between two closely linked groups which our constitution depends so much in keeping separate ) so I'm not surprised that CFL either does not know of the differentiation, or had chosen to use the term state where government would be more appropriate, and dropped the capitalization from Government.
But then what do I know, I don't even think it likely that GWB wants to feed atheists to lions. ;)
Click to expand...
We don't use the term "government" to describe the state. We also use "the public sector" ("Det offentlige") to describe the state.

The government - regering - has just one meaning: The PM and his ministers.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
Well in theory, our government bureaucracy is supposed to be free from undue political pressure too, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone naive enough to think it actually is. I have no idea how true that would be in either the UK or Denmark.
Click to expand...
define undue? ;)
But the UK's Civil Service does have a very strong identity, many officials feel very strongly about political neutrality, and it's not too easy for the Government to remove senior officials. The US cabinet system seems to give political appointees much more influence over your bureaucracy than ours, which is probably why CFL was so keen to draw the distinction between a state (or government) appointment and a Government appointment.
 
CFLarsen said:
What constitution?
Click to expand...

My Western Civilizations professor would always tell his class on the first day that he would give an automatic A in the class to anyone who read the British Constitution in its entirety.

Figuring out that he was tricking you netted you nothing, though.
 
CFLarsen said:
What constitution?
Click to expand...
Just because a constitution is not codified that does not mean that it does not exist. The UKs constitution is a set of documents, pretty much starting from the Magna Carta, and includes other documents such as the Bill of Rights, the Act of Union and various other Acts and Treaties. Getting 2 UK constitutional lawyers or historians to agree exact which documents are part of this uncodified constitution can be very tricky.
 
CFLarsen said:
We don't use the term "government" to describe the state. We also use "the public sector" ("Det offentlige") to describe the state.

The government - regering - has just one meaning: The PM and his ministers.
Click to expand...
The public sector is actually defined slightly differently in the UK, the NHS and state schools are within the public sector, but would not usually be considered to be part of the Government or the government.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
My Western Civilizations professor would always tell his class on the first day that he would give an automatic A in the class to anyone who read the British Constitution in its entirety.

Figuring out that he was tricking you netted you nothing, though.
Click to expand...

brodski said:
Just because a constitution is not codified that does not mean that it does not exist. The UKs constitution is a set of documents, pretty much starting from the Magna Carta, and includes other documents such as the Bill of Rights, the Act of Union and various other Acts and Treaties. Getting 2 UK constitutional lawyers or historians to agree exact which documents are part of this uncodified constitution can be very tricky.
Click to expand...

Why don't you two slug it out? :)
 
brodski said:
The public sector is actually defined slightly differently in the UK, the NHS and state schools are within the public sector, but would not usually be considered to be part of the Government or the government.
Click to expand...
...which we would call the "State" or "Public sector".
 
CFLarsen said:
Why don't you two slug it out? :)
Click to expand...


No slugging out at all. What Brodski just described was the trick my professor was pulling, in short to read the British Consitution in its entirety would require reading several centuries worth of documents and common law. That ought to be worth an A. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom