AHC Open Bibery

The challenge with a POD after James II's conversion to Catholicism and ascension is to...

Make it so that by modern times there is a tradition of openly bribing people in the House of Commons to pass agenda. And this open bribery is considered acceptable, and accepting a bribe for choosing policy X is treated no differently or only slightly less acceptable than an MP who supports policy X... after his election.

Bonus points if TTL Pound is worth as much or more than OTL pound and TTL British (or English plus Irish plus Scottish plus crown colonies if there is no Britain) GDP is triple or more than triple OTL counterpart.

Yes, the world discovering new technologies faster (like 30 year early solid state electronics), making the world richer, which means there is more room for a wealth Britain counts too. It doesn't have to be at the expense of the rest of the world. Try to meet the primary challenge at least.
 
Does it have to be British Parliament?

Members of Congress always seem to land cushy lobbying or consulting jobs after they leave office.

A British America autonomous parliament under the same crown as Britain counts. Congress doesn't because "seeming to land cushy jobs" is an open secret but they aren't openly being bribed. In TTL, the goal is that being noticed getting bribed isn't so bad while in OTL, probably influenced and landing a cushy job is OK unless it's outright confirmed what we all knew... it was in exchange for certain policy. In OTL Congress needs plausible deniability
 
Hmm.

So under Walpole and etc., there was definitely a fairly open practice of bribing parliamentarians. How did that end? Some combo of George III and the ARW and etc., the rising evangelicalism of Britain in the 19th C., what else?

So I think you need two things: stop whatever ended the practice, so maybe George III isn't mad, has a somewhat different personality, there is some kind of negotiated solution for the colonies. And have a brilliant ideologue, some kind of Burke or Locke type, write a brilliant defense of the franchise and parliamentary seats as property, just in time for the Industrial Revolution to kick off. It would help if the solution for the colonies is some kind of scheme that is effectively buying exemption from tax levies if you look at it right (like maybe they have to pay a certain block sum for immunity from British taxes, in return for which they get parliamentary representation. And then they openly sell their parliamentary vote to raise cash to pay their block sum, which in their legalistic colonial way, they unashamedly defend as their right to do, since their representation is a negotiated property right).

I could see some weird kind of rotten-borough/aristocrat/colonial/rich industrialist alliance for making the parliamentary vote a vendible property right, with significant backing from the Crown.

To have this system last, you need some way to incorporate first the rising middle class and then the working class. So obviously the Crown is stronger than OTL, so one option is for the Crown to intervene and be the modernizing force by granting franchise and parliamentary property rights to cities, professional associations, etc., and then later unions and workingmen's associations. And also Crown intervention to pass social welfare measures, or else ITTL the Crown has its own quite significant revenues and uses them in various social welfare schemes.

I like the sound of this gov. Funky.
 
To have this system last, you need some way to incorporate first the rising middle class and then the working class. So obviously the Crown is stronger than OTL, so one option is for the Crown to intervene and be the modernizing force by granting franchise and parliamentary property rights to cities, professional associations, etc., and then later unions and workingmen's associations. And also Crown intervention to pass social welfare measures, or else ITTL the Crown has its own quite significant revenues and uses them in various social welfare schemes.

If a strong crown is what we needs, it can happen at the time of the earliest possible POD, James II before his overthrow. During this time the crown had considerable power. Before and up to that time, the power of the crown went up and down as time past. Henry III started his first decade of "rule" probably with less influence on England that Victoria had over the British Isles! Yes Parliament or "advisors" who also had seats were ruling in his name, of course. As another post said in detail http://www.alternatehistory.com/for...cutive-monarch-deadline.424874/#post-15507886 Now after the Glorious Revolution, monarch power was a ratchet. It could stay the same (Anne I), go down due to willing delegation (Victoria) or go down when the monarch lost his marbles (George III). If you think the crown needs to be stronger than OTL George II or III's time, we probably need a "save England from an enemy that wants to eliminate England not just British dominance" level crisis or make the POD before then when the crown was stronger.

And then they openly sell their parliamentary vote to raise cash to pay their block sum, which in their legalistic colonial way, they unashamedly defend as their right to do, since their representation is a negotiated property right).

I could see some weird kind of rotten-borough/aristocrat/colonial/rich industrialist alliance for making the parliamentary vote a vendible property right, with significant backing from the Crown.

Hmmm, so philosophically a seat in the Commons is the people of the land giving you a right. And while you have your own ideas of policy, you can add them what people give to you by excising that property right. Also this ironically effectively gives colonial representation as long as there are non-voting representatives of the colonies in London to give the bribes (in OTL they had Ben Franklin Represent the 13 colonies and Florida so he was pretty clueless of anyone outside his own colony).

I like the sound of this gov. Funky.

Yeah, this is pretty cool.
 
Getting crown strength right is tricky. Too strong, and there is no need for the crown to bribe MPs, not on a long term basis that can become institutionalized. Too weak, and a parliament that openly accepts bribes is just the tool of an oligarchy, which is not likely to last through the rise of the middle and working classes. You need this weird balance.

A big feature of Victorian life was raising funds through subscription for public causes. It would be really interesting to see that play out for buying MPs.
 
Getting crown strength right is tricky. Too strong, and there is no need for the crown to bribe MPs,

I meant bribing MPs is fair game for anyone crown included. But really, if you look at Henry III's time to Victoria (probably the last monarch with any real practical influence), there were times when Parliament obstructed monarchs and forced them to back off or give an acceptable alternative. I don't think we have to worry about a "too strong" problem at all. Even at the assigned point of the earliest possible POD (James II, Catholic on the throne of a Protestant nation), it was enshrined that under normal circumstances crowns could not make new takes without parliament. It's true that too strong would mean no need to bribe MPs, but only William I and Henry II were complete autocrats.
 
Top