Quote
Give that man Half a cookie, look at that. You only get half a cookie because you got the right author but quoted the wrong book
The answer is that the two branches are "The Dignified" and "The Efficient" from Bagehot, Walter "The English Constitution"
(1867
). Bagehot didn't consider the Judiciary in his work, so it isn't covered especially, however you could assume that the Law Lords / Supreme Court would fall under The Dignified; if not the circuit and magistrate also.
The Dignified
The Monarchy
The House of Lords
The Lord Chancellor
The Speaker of the House of Commons
The Efficient
The House of Commons
First Lord of The Treasury
The Cabinet
Second Lord of The Treasury
Ministers of State
Ministers
Ministries
The Civil Service
Spaghetti if you literally attempt to apply the Montesquieu model.
Why is it weak and fusive? Unlike with the US implementation of the Montesquieu model where boundaries are pretty clear. In our model, the
Four branches: Monarchy, Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary all hold a grasp on each others throats and don't let go, with the Legislature
(Commons
) having by far the most powerful grip.
- The Commons holds the Monarchy at bay by threat of disillusionment.
- The Monarchy holds the Commons, Cabinet, First & Second Lords / the Executive by threat of dismissal.
- The Legislature holds the Executive by threat of it being subordinate to the Commons and the commons allows it to exist and can also prevent it from existing.
- The Judiciary holds the Monarchy, Executive and Legislature by threat of secondary legislations.
- The Executive holds the legislature by threat of relevancy, use of emergency power and use of Royal Prerogative
(power of the Monarchy
) as well as the threat that if the Executive misbehaves it'll bring the Legislature down with it so they
have to work it out.
- The legislature obviously holds the Judiciary by being able to pass primary legislation and undertake repeals
(but they can only do so within the bounds of secondary legislation
) it also has a stake on appointments.
- The executive similarly has a stake in judicial appointments.
- The First Lord of the Treasury holds all other ministers by the throat because he/she can dismiss them.
- The Second Lord of the Treasury holds everyone else by the throat because he/she can refuse to fund anything.
- The Cabinet
(in effect
), Commons and the Monarch
(and their own political party
) can dismiss the First Lord of the Treasury.
- The executive could easily turn around one day and say we're forcing an act to repeal the Monarchy, and if the Judiciary and the Legislature agreed... no more Monarchy.
- The Monarchy on the other hand could dismiss all of the Armed services, replace all of the officers in all of the military branches, declare war and revoke the passports of anyone in the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary
(or quite literally anyone
). He/she could also technically unilaterally replace the executive, but it would have to fall to approval by Parliament to be valid; so in practice it might have been used if say the 1984 Brighton Bombing by the IRA had worked and the entire executive branch had been assassinated, requiring an emergency government to be formed.
Total Spaghetti!
Or if you like a simplification. The Executive, Legislature and Judiciary all have chains around each others necks and if just takes one of them to pull the chain to restore democratic normality. Parliament on the other hand, holds a musket
(originally loaded in 1651
) to the head of the Monarchy to keep it in its box.
And you all thought you were crazy