American Reacts to the UK Government Explained
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Check out my Patreon for more exclusive videos and to help support the channel: / tylerreacts
Today I am reacting to an online lesson that should teach me all about the United Kingdom government and parliament. I come into this knowing very little about how the UK system of government works, and I am especially interested to see the differences and similarities between the UK democracy and the USA democracy. If you enjoy my reaction feel free to leave a like, comment, or subscribe for more videos like this!
Magna Carta is extremely common knowledge in the UK, at least on a surface level. It was essentially a bunch of nobles being unhappy with King John (same John from Robin Hood) raising taxes so high. Rather than have a civil war, the nobles forced the king to sign Magna Carta, which would essentially limit the crown's power, and put restrictions on what the king could or could not do. Before then, if you were king, you could do whatever you felt like with no legal repercussions, because you were the king.
Magna Carta is generally regarded as the original beginning of Parliament. It's probably almost as significant to British history as the Declaration of Independence is to the US.
I don't think I'd heard of Simon DeMontfort, though.
Unfortunately what isnt taught is that King John recinded it at the first opportunity. Wasnt till Henry VIII yes him that brought it back as part of his round table. Also the judiciary expanded on by his son. This history missed out the civil war though when the power from the monarch was vastly reduced after.
Magna Carta is as close to a written constitution as we have.
Not sure if I learned about it at school or if it's something I've learned about myself.
Everyone knows where the Magna Carta was signed tho.....at the bottom! (Runnymede, on the banks of the Thames.)
I've seen 2 versions of the MC - one at Lincoln Castle and one at Salisbury Cathedral.
Actually we did have a civil war, it lasted 2 years. King John had the pope annul the Magna Carta which led to the First Barons War. When King John died, his 9 year old son Henry III reinstated a stripped down version of the Magna Carta in the hopes of reuniting England. It didn't work. But a year later, the original Magna Carta’s terms became the foundation for the Lambeth Peace Treaty. It is often considered as Europe's first written constitution, even though today only 4 of its 63 clauses are still valid.
@@kandii5927 I came here to say this too 👍
Magna Carta is frequently cited by certain anti-government groups to support their arguments - however, its provisions have been superseded or replaced. The document itself no longer holds any legal significance, as its key principles exist in other forms. However, it remains historically significant.
@@captvimesI always teach the magna carta as a start to the topic of the barons war ending with the death of John and the siege of lincoln with a case study on william marshall
When we were in lockdown in March 2020 i was worried about my relative living on her own 400 miles away. I contacted her local MP to see if he could get a local charity or church to help her. He contacted her himself and did her shopping for her even buying her a bouquet of flowers. Amazing.
You should name that MP so that he can get the credit for his actions. It's great to hear of a politician that actually bothers.
@scrubbybard380To be fair, even if they acted in their own interests, they still did a good thing for someone they were elected to help. It’s when they act in their own interests and DON’T help their constituents that there’s a problem.
How good is that? Respect to that dude/dudet
@scrubbybard380 that’s very cynical! Not every elected official does things just for votes! I asked my councillor for help regarding a no fault eviction (section 21) I had to take the first property that was offered to me by the local council (U.K.) but animals weren’t allowed, my cat was 18 then, and I don’t think she’d have handled a new servant (😳) my brother in law had died and she came to me, my councillor (Russell Simpson) visited, said he’d try his best, then spoke to whomever, and she was allowed to come with me (I didn’t realise that he’d come to check that there were no cat smells in my flat) she has never been a cat who smells, even though she’ll be 19 in November! I’m so grateful to Cllr Simpson, whose ward I no longer live in but unsurprisingly, he was voted in in the last council election.
@@KenFullman MP for Lincoln, Karl McCartney. I live near Bristol. My relative in Lincoln living alone and in circumstances where she had no one close to call on and was unable to leave her flat nor was she having any luck in getting a delivery slot from any supermarket was overwhelmed by his kindness. I was gobsmacked. I thanked him on a Facebook page for Lincoln at the time but he certainly wasn't doing it to win votes as far as I'm concerned. He was the one to ask me for her details so he could personally help. I'd just asked him if he knew of any local organisation who could help.
The whole writing to/emailing your local MPs is 100% true. When my secondary school was fairly new there was an alleyway next to it which many students would walk through to get there and go home - but at the same time a few days of the week we would finish later in the day so, especially in winter, it would be dark outside and we soon realised that the lights in the alleyway did not work and it was pitch black through there. With the ground of the alleyway really uneven it was a complete nightmare trying to walk through. My dad came to pick me up one day simply so he could take a picture of the alleyway (it being literally a black screen) and he sent it to our local MP to get them to fix those lights before someone got hurt. The MP responded to it immediately and within a week or so the lights had been fixed.
Most MP's are good for that sort of thing.... it's apolitical and makes them look good. But try writing to them to complain about sewage dumped in the sea when they were one of the ones that voted to allow it. You'll be ignored or palmed off with some pre-scripted party political crap. For the most part they act in the interests of (a) Themselves, (b) Their political party and then finally (c) Their constituents.
@@Paul99T I never said our political system was good, in fact I agree, most politicians in this country are complete pigs and are only in their career for their own self interest and I'm not even going to pretend as if we the people have any sort of say about the big issues - and I'm aware that most MPs only pull off these smaller stunts to gain a good reputation. I was simply saying that writing to them is possible - and the MP my area had at the time was actually a really nice lady who had been an MP for decades and only stepped down a few years ago because she was retiring. I've actually met her a few times throughout school and other events and I think I speak for my area when I say that she was actually a rare good gem in the muck that is modern politics. And as for trying to do it to better her own image? Well I'm pretty sure the whole lighting situation in the alleyway my dad complained about didn't even make the local newspapers so it wasn't like she was doing it for publicity. As much as I'm aware politics is a mindfield of depression and incompetence nowadays, I just hope this small thing restores at least some hope in humanity.
@@emilyhadley9089 Yep... you can write to them. I have several times, but never once got a response from my actual MP always from one of her staff, and it's not like she has a second job or anything, her staff said she doesn't.
Yeah sometimes they get stuff done.
In the context of this video, you can write to your representatives in the US too, that doesn't mean things happen here when you do any more than it does there.
This video presents an overly 'nice' image of the realities of British democracy, that just doesn't live up to it's image in reality.
@@Paul99T Yes, it does make it out to seem a lot better than it is but at least the MP's are relatively accessible. Everyone in school at one point had the MP come and do an assembly.
Excellent, @emilyhadley9089. : o )
I'm British and live in the UK, on the most part, the Parliament works quite well, but there are some departments such as The Home Office and Immigration, which are in dire need of being scrutinised, also amazingly, bullying is common in Parliament, and unfortunately has been allowed to continue unchecked, more recently victims have spoken out about this problem in the hope it can be dealt with.
Also, politicians cannot be called out for lying at the Despatch Box during televised Prime Minister Question Time & the mainstream media reiterates these lies. SMH.
Also foreign terrorists have killed and otherwise attacked multiple MPs in recent years and muslim sectarian politics threaten our democracy and way of life.
You're confusing policy making (parliament) with delivery (bureaucrats/civil service). Democracy starts to go wrong when the civil service tries to hinder the will of the politicians.
@@jgibbs651 UK Civil Servants are unable to interfere with the will of parliament. The function of Civil Servants is to implement policies, record outcomes & to advise. Parliament can & often does over rule sound advice. Even government appointed quangos are routinely ignored as are independent experts. UK Prime Ministers sic. B. J. have been known to over rule parliament to push through policies & to lie to the Queen to prorogue parliament & thus to implement Brexit after only one an advisory referendum. That referendum was not followed by a comprehensive explanation of the outcomes which both Civil Servants & Independent experts had expected. The promised second referendum of course never materialised. This kind of behaviour harks back at least as far as Thatcher (spit) within my lifetime to which I can personally attest as I worked for local authorities & the evidence is in the minutes that I was obliged to trawl through from time to time. Cheers.
@@MazzaEliLi7406 The CS may not interfere with the will of parliament, but that is because such a beast doesn't really exist. Members of the CS frequently drag their feet over implementation of things with which they disagree.
Your criticism of the blond bungler is justified. However, you are entirely wrong about the 2016 referendum being only "advisory": it was advertised as being a for-all-time vote and people voted in that knowledge: a second referendum was NEVER promised. But then "recollections may vary" most often when it comes to things to do with Europe. I'm old enough to have voted in the original "do we stay or go" referendum in 1975 and attended meetings where Roy Jenkins assured us that there was no question of sharing currency, open borders or political union. Politicians of all stripes lie.
A few points of clarification:
The word Government is used slightly differently in the US and the UK. In the US the word government refers to both the legislature and the executive. In the UK the word government refers only to the executive. The UK legislature is parliament. The other important difference is that in the US the legislature and the executive are completely separate, whereas in the UK the members of the executive (government) are a subset of the legislature (parliament).
Yes, every law has to be formally approved by the monarch, this is called "royal assent". However these days this is purely a formality. The last time royal assent was not given to a bill was over 300 years ago.
If no party manages to win a majority of seats in a general election, this is called a hung parliament. The largest party can form a minority government, however this makes it very difficult to pass laws, since they aren't guaranteed a majority of votes. Instead, more than one party can come together to form a "coalition" government, in order to get a majority between them. The last time there was a formal coalition was 2010-2015, however there was an informal coalition between 2017 and 2019.
If you want any further clarification feel free to ask.
True but she has used Queens Consent before.
Her Majesty refused the Blair government's aim to be allowed to carry out air raids in Iraq without Royal Assent
To take you up on the offer of answering more questions: how would you go about becoming a life peer in the House of Lords? :)
@@326Alan you have to be appointed by the Prime Minister (technically you're appointed by the monarch but not really). This tends to mean a lot of old political pals get put in there to keep a balance of politics
Not entirely true. Tony Blair a prime minister a few years ago tried to push through a bill letting the government declare war without royal assent. He was told in no uncertain terms this would not go through. So withdrew it before it became an issue. Also the Queen retains the power to open and close Parliament and she signs off on all new legislation. If she doesn't sign it it is not law! She uses these powers subtly without fuss so as not to abuse her privilege. I.E. abuse of these powers in our modern democracy would have them removed. It is sometimes named a glass cannon abused once and shattered forever.
I would recommend "Politics Unboringed" by Jay Foreman, it explains how the UK Government works from a more civilian standpoint, and through comedic methods
Have you ever seen Jay's brother perform ?
@@darthgorthaur258 do you mean mark cooler jones the guy he does map men with? never heard of him having a brother but maybe im just wrong
@@mmcgrath2510 no he means jay foreman actual brother, known as Beardyman.
The monarch is also kept informed by daily reading reports from the Government departments- sent to them in a "red box".
It is quite amazing how many the Queen got through daily, even right up to her death
I learnt about some kings and queens in history class in England and most of what I know about the British government is what I was taught by my mum, by watching the news, by books I’ve read and films and documentaries I’ve watched. You can actually watch parliamentary debates in the House of Commons online. It’s very interesting to watch as it can get quite rowdy!!
Parliament also has its own TV channel broadcast on the BBC showing debates and committee proceedings.
I only know things about the government because of my own interest in watching and reading up things. I don’t know a hell of a lot, but I try. I find it quite shocking that we have to go out of our way to learn though! Are they trying to keep us dumb?
@@mdx7460 The answer is a big fat yes!
If I remember correctly a peer is someone who holds a seat in the House of Lords
Life peer is someone who has there position for life
Hereditary peers pass there titles down there family line father to son style
I love your curiosity Tyler and the way you are trying to grasp our systems.
MP's have regular meetings in their constituency that any of their constituents can go to to bring an issue to their attention- I have actually done this, I also regularly email my MP about current issues, and she always responds. Like any system it's not perfect, but it does usually work.
That's cool! Here in the US, most of our officials hold town halls where constituents can come for a Q & A session, but some of them either don't hold any or hold closed events where only big donors or certain people get invited. :( Most of them at least try to pretend they listen to voters, whether or not they do in practice.
When we refer to government we usually mean the executive branch, the prime minister and other ministers. The Monarch is Head of State; our judicial branch is now the UK Supreme Court, it used to be the House of Lords, there are 12 judges on it and they are selected by an appointment panel; they are not political appointees in the way they are in the USA. Just as our electoral boundaries are drawn up by a commission not by politicians.
There are also very strict laws on political donations, corporate lobbying, and election spending. We don’t have commercials for parties in the way you have in the USA. Instead parties are given five minute broadcasts at election time, the number of these each party gets is dependent on their likely votes. Also don’t be fooled by the five year term. It’s possible and is happening now that the Prime Minister can be replaced at any time. MPs can be made to resign if they breach the rules. Five years mean that they have time to actually do something before they have to start campaigning again. (Btw it used to be 7 years, because of shifting events we often have early elections too, as in 2017 and 2019)
Manifestos are a thing, usually quite dull, but they do exist.
No “filibuster” either.
It’s normal for you to be able to make an appointment to be able to meet and discuss an issue affecting you with them. They’re our representatives and work for us.
In 1974 we had two general elections, in February and October!
I even wrote to speaker Berkow on Parliamentary behaviour of some members behaviour in the house and received a hand written formal letter in reply.
@@liamloxley1222 Exactly. Glad he's gone though one of the underlings for the new Speaker is on a feminist ego trip at times.
The house of commons is literally the house of the people- with MPs etc. The house of lords means those with a title (Baron, Earl, etc). I've always just understood it as parliament formulates the laws and when approved in parliament is then passed through the house of lords who can veto those laws. edit: The government is an elected party of parliament with parliament being the makeup of different political parties
This is true....I had an issue with a decision that was made by a specific government department that would have a direct negative impact on my self and felt strongly that I wanted my voice my concerns and reasons about why I thought the decision was unjust or wrong. So I made an appointment with my local constituent member of parliament at his home and voiced my objections and my opinions with my reasons to him to why I disagreed with the decision the department had made. He then sent all that to the senior MP representing that department in the houses of parliament and that senior MP wrote back to me straight away agreeing that I indeed had a valid point of concern about the decision that was made and he had contacted the relevant people within that department to overturn their decision with immediate effect based on my arguments put forward. To be able to get my voice and opinions heard and passed up the chain to the 2nd highest person it could go to behind the actual prime minister just shows that we have a system that shows we can have our voices and opinions heard without someone just chucking in the bin like Tyler says he feel like happens a lot in America most of the time. I've got to add though, it was the most official looking and fancy letter I've ever had sent to me.....thick quality watermarked paper...and thick envelope marked with the governmental portcullis symbol and even officially red waxed sealed....it made me feel important anyway
As a Labour party member I attend meetings every two months where members in my constituency can hold our MP to account in terms of her voting down party/manifesto lines and how she is representing our community. Every year the various branches in the constituency review her performance and decide whether we would like her to carry on being the Labour candidate for our constituency if a general election were to be called.
Who is your mp? Out of interest
@@jackbeswick4662 Yvonne Fovargue
@@docsmellyfella What do you make of Simons thus far?
@@matthewatkinson9161 Unfortunately I have not had the chance to meet him in person yet due to me not being able to make meetings due to work, however the feedback I have had from others who have met him is positive. I will reserve judgement until I meet him myself.
I went on a guided tour of parliament, both houses. It was absolutely fascinating finding out how democracy works in the UK. One of the best tours I’ve done.
I did the tour as well. Well worth it, and you can stand at the dispatch box where the Prime Minister stands. My one complaint was the prices in the cafe are shocking. I paid £1.60 for a can of Coke, and that was five years ago.
when a person in the UK is born it’s basically like this info is just built into their brain as soon as they emerge
On speaking with your MP, most MPs (all I think) hold a weekly surgery, where any constituent can meet them (mostly by appointment, though not always) to discuss any issue the constituent has with government departments or other official body. The MP may then contact officials to clarify or sort out the issues, the MP will then repot back to the constituent. This can be very effective in clearing red tape and 'not my problem' type issues or high light issue in a particular area.
I’ve done it twice, both times I was helped.
Yes, I spoke to my MP a few months back for help with the passport office who were being useless and not sending my passport back and he helped sort things out for me 🙂 Can't remember where I heard it, that MPs love it when they help their constituents to the point where they're own political beliefs are at odds with the great service they've received from their MP.
@@fayesouthall6604 Me too, once or twice. They definitely were helpful.
This was a good basic video covering the U.K. Parliament. The most powerful part of The government over here, is that they get to control parliamentary time. They get to decide what bills get “government time” - there is time for opposition bills and debates, and the same is true for “private member bills” - but the vast majority of the power comes from controlling time and what parliament will actually debate. Great video.
Bills can be assigned parliamentary time as well if submitted by a member of the public to the official website, and it gets enough votes.
@@danwic this is true, but you need at least 100,000 signatures, and even then they are only considered for debate - the government can still say no.
We in America seem to forget that our history did not begin in 1776. That was simply a branch point. Before that, our history was very much British history.
The "history" lesson is very well known in every Commonwealth country, although nowadays it probably isn't as well taught in schools.
In Canada we also have the parliamentary system , as do most commonwealth countries, we have the House of Commons, but instead of a House of Lords we have a Senate. Unlike the American Senate, in which Senators are voted for. Our senators are appointed to the position, and are representative of the provinces and territories. The Queen is our Monarch and Head of State, as she cannot be present for many official duties we have a Governor General, who is the Queen’s representative.
We in the UK probably should go to a Senate than House of Lords, we’re getting a bit cheesed off with them lately.
The monarchy for signing off new laws is good safety net to have in place, no government or what not can make any laws they like without final approval.
@@insoft_uk Yes, we are the same regarding assent. The Governor General gives assent. No matter what, I do prefer the Parliamentary system better than the American system, which is way more complicated and unnecessarily so.
Yeah, no Lords in Australia either, it's also called the senate.
We also have the same system (but no monarch, instead a president who is supposed to be non political but the current one is turning out not to be) and we have a senate which is appointed by the government in power.
@@insoft_uk The H of L are now mostly life peers, which is about the same as Canadian senators who are madatorialy retired at 75.
I would think many people know about Magna Carta, even if they don't know when it was signed or who by, and probably many don't understand the significance of it. I think even fewer will know about Simon De Montfort.
I'm in the UK, I was at school in the 80s and 90s. We were not taught anything about how UK politics works or its history.
Everyone is taught the history of Parliament through out school - wether they remember it is another thing! I think most people have a vague idea that long ago people got fed up of the ruling monarch acting like a dictator so wars were fought and now we vote for things and the monarch just oversees it. The trouble is we have a lot of history so most major events are briefly skipped over in class. Where as in the US history lessons can focus more on "recent events" such as the story of the founding fathers and civil wars etc etc....
I wonder if the power of the Monarch in the UK has been tested of late. In Australia, the Governor General who represents the Queen, actually removed our Prime Minister from office in the 1970s, so she is still very much the boss if she wants to flex her authority here. Luckily intervention has mainly been restricted to this event so far.
Recent events - 1777, 1865,? Nice. Silly, but nice.
@@mrd4785 I believe in 1974 the then government was refused permission to dissolve parliament and call another general election because one had just been held and it was thought that it was too soon to call another [almost immediately after the first] The P.M. was forced to attempt to govern for several months as a minority government [iirc] until permission was finally given [about 6, months after the initial general election October 1974].
@@neilgriffiths6427 compared to UK history, that is recent
Michael your history may be ok, but you spell whether with a H
I studied King John in my history degree. I was surprised by the amount of people I spoke to who didn't know who he was. And they're Brits! I think it completely depends on if you're taught about it in school, or if the curriculum changed while you were studying.
Come on, every school boy knows (or at least used to)
Where was the Magna Carta signed
At the bottom
Lakland John was a right royal tarter till he made his sign on the Magna Carta, ink seal table runnymeade green annoi domini 1215. Learned at primary school as part of a poem.
Maybe more will know now following the success of Horrible Histories.
@@andrewgarner2224You are so right!!
a couple of things - 1) The party manifesto is not binding - although there would be a major problem if a government was elected which then ignored their manifesto and changed direction completetely.
2) The House of Lords is effectively appointed - Hereditary peers (which are only a small number) are there simply due to luck of their birth - many of them do bring some real world experience to the role. Life Peers are appointed by the government mainly for their expertise and experience. New batches of life peers are made each general election (by the outgoing government) and occassionally in the New Years Honours list : There is a significant movement in the UK to make the house of Lords elected.
3) Minority and coalition governments do happen (the last coalition was in 2014) but they aren't common.
4) The house of Lords can only amend legislation, they can't create it, and if the houses of lords and commons don't agree on a law the commons have the last word.
5) The government propose a budget every year, which normally is only changes to taxes, and changes to government spending plans, and since the government have a majority the budget is almost always agreed. There is no risk of a government shutdown in the UK - tax money keeps coming in and previous payments keep going out when the budget isn't agreed.
We call the Prime Minister and Cabinet the "Government"; but the rest of the MPs ( Membets of Parliament) of any party feel their job is to scrutinise what the Government is doing.
We're in a bit of a mess with the House of Lords at the moment. Until recently it consisted mostly of every hereditary noble in the land! There are still a few places for hereditary peers. (Peer = noble.) Nowadays the parties recommend people to be created 'life peers', I.e. nobles who can't pass on their titles to their descendants, and these are usually selected for their expertise. Surprisingly, the Archbishops of the Church of England, and the most senior Bishop's of the Church of England, also sit, as the 'Lords Spiritual'.
This is not very satisfactory, and we're trying to work out how to change how the House of Lords is selected. What improves the situation is that since 1911, if the Lords throw out a Bill passed by the Commons, the Lords can't block it again if the Commons pass it again in the next Parliamentary session. The Lords can't block a Money Bill at all. There is also a convention that the Lords don't block a proposal written down in the manifesto of the winning party in a General Election.
Not what I call the prime minister!
Most of the life Peers bought their seats. A perfect example of the undemocratic system in the UK.
Exactly - a Cabinet Government which is scrutinised by Committees made up of the ordinary MPs
The government isn't just the PM & the cabinet - there are also around one hundred "junior ministers" who are part of the government, with less prominent roles than the cabinet ministers. Generally there are a lot more MPs who are members of the governing party but not part of the government itself, referred to as "back-benchers".
I think because England or the UK has such a huge history we are taught so much more in school as youngsters about the Empire and the rest of the world, Americans are only taught about US history
To Americans, America is the world.
They do have a ‘world history’ class but they generally learn way less history than we do because of the way it’s structured, for us it’s an ongoing weekly lesson in the UK (up until 15 and then it’s optional), in the US the way I understand it they may have a whole year of school at a time where they learn no history
England is a constituent part of the U.K., just as California is a constituent part of the USA!
In the 80s early 90s I was taught pretty well by my teacher's and parents. Now my boys never we're taught in school. I had to teach my children myself. America is lost and I hope we wake up.
Not to mention Native American history is American history and they learned even less about that. They talk to our children like these people don't exist anymore. Like Ohio it's self is a Native American word. The word Ohio came Iroquois tribe it means beautiful river. The state of Kansas came from Kansas tribe, Utah, Alaska, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Michigan, Texas, Missouri, Tennessee, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Connecticut, are all named after tribes, or native words. 27 states are named after tribes or native words. America most of our ideas from Native American's.
I think one of the biggest differentiators in the outcomes of our democracies is the extent to which money is allowed into the process. Uk election campaigns are capped at around 150k I believe and therefore corporate lobbying is not the most powerful policy influencer. For sure that still happens in the UK but not to the same extent as the US where public benefit in policy making seems to be quite low on the list of priorities.
Individualism has its good points but due to various cultural factors a lot of politicians (and voters) somehow decided that anything that benefits the public is somehow "communism" and thus "anti-American". Never mind that the Founders, slaveholding elitists that some of them were, at least recognized the concept of the common good and took steps to ensure it(albeit from their perspective of "good").
On the point about making laws, there are generally a few types of bills -
1. Policies a new government had in their manifesto. They can get these through the Commons easily because of their majority, and generally the Lords by an informal, unwritten convention dating back to the People's budget in 1909/10 (Liberal Commons wanted to do socialism, Conservative Lords said no, King Edward VII said "Lords, chill"), more formally established by the Salisbury Convention post 1945 when a hereditary Conservative Lord was like "ok lads, people have voted for a Labour landslide, we gotta let them do their manifesto otherwise they'll get rid of the Lords altogether".
2. Opposition day bills - these are designed to fail but create headlines e.g. "declare war on Russia" government votes against, newspapers say "government fails to support Ukraine", or something like "bunnies are cute, abolish nuclear weapons" government says no, newspapers say "government hates cute bunnies".
3. Non partisan - a lot of what happens in parliament is repeating and replacing, updating, amending etc. existing legislation. A lot of this comes from civil servants but still needs to be passed by parliament. Some of it comes from think tanks, academics, policy groups, advisors, consultations, trade associations, trade unions, business lobbies, campaign groups etc.
4. Special issue e.g. Sarah's law, bills put forward by campaigning groups. Sarah's law basically says if you're dating someone you can ask the police if that person has a police record of domestic abuse (even if they've never been convicted). These tend to receive more mature debate especially in the Lords to properly scrutinise the effect it would have on public safety, human rights, criminal justice procedure in proper detail with less interesting, news headline grabbing argument.
5. The big ones - e.g. Brexit that causes loads of arguments and constitutional crises. These are the funnest.
When Margaret Thatcher came to power I was at an all girls school. It was inspiring to see two female leaders, both Queen & PM. At the time of the Queen's coronation, a young Margaret Thatcher wrote in a newspaper celebrating the event. She said one day we may have a female Chancellor of the Exchequer (even she never thought PM, and certainly not herself). Anyway, she said one day there may be a female CoE, and if they made mistakes they wouldn't be the first to do so. Sadly female PMs get helf to a different standard than their male counterparts. We've had male PMs who have decemated industry, or been willing to stand back when Hitler's power was increasing, others 'sexing up' dossiers on weapons of mass destruction, etc. They are never shown the same vitriol that she, Theresa May, or even very short term Liz Truss have been.
Politicians are held to account more in the UK than the US, where your only recourse really is more elections, so I can understand why you’d want shorter terms. You can get rid of an MP before their term is up. It’s also much easier to remove a Prime Minister from office than a US President, we don’t have to go through the impeachment process. Maybe something to look into in future
Pretty much no longer true. No one is held to account anymore. The current government have undermined many of the conventions and checks and balances which used to make our system work.
Now that I completely agree with 💯👍
Ergo Boris Johnson.
Yes,it would be certainly interesting to see the US President and government heads of departments in front of congress for questions every week ,I see very little accountability in the US system of government apart from elections
@@alanvanallen7762 Yes, it's time they serve us instead of us serving them!!
The Manifesto is what we judge a government on. After 5 years we have a document saying what they promised to do and we have the record of what they have actually done during their 5 years.
If the two don't match up we might think twice about voting for that parties candidate to represent our constituency during the next election.
Well our president is elected every 4 years and our representatives are elected every 2 years and our senators are elected every 6 years so we can't do that here. So basically we have elections every year because then you have state elections too and local government as well.
One thing that wasn't covered much was what MPs do in their constituency. You can make an appointment (some even have open drop in clinics) with your MP either to discuss a political issue or to ask for their support in holding public agencies to account on a personal matter. For example, many years ago my aunt was having difficulty in getting the Child Support Agency to look into fraudulent financial statements submitted by her former partner. She took the evidence to her MP and he contacted the agency on her behalf to make sure her case was looked at again and the evidence she had gathered was properly considered - without her having to go to the massive expense of civil legal proceedings. When working for a homelessness charity, clients who were getting past from pillar to post with housing or benefit applications were also encouraged to speak to a local MP when other avenues dried up. You don't even need to be a citizen, migrants and asylum seekers can also ask for support.
As elected representatives MPs can, and usually do, get better access and more immediate responses from public bodies who are accountable to government. And obviously, they can more easily access other MPs and committees where they need to lobby on behalf of a constituent.
This is as big a part of their role as what they do within the chamber, committees or even the cabinet.
Even the prime minister has to hold meetings with his or her constituents and take responsibility for helping ensure they get the responses and support from public bodies that they are entitled to.
Yeah, you can generally find where your local MP or candidate lives. My local Libdem candidate, Ryk Downes, is quite well-known where he lives, so you can always drop by for a chat!
Yes, (at least technically) every citizen can go into the House of Commons and 'summon' their MP using a green card which is brought to them, and explains what you want to talk about. Naturally they may well not be present, be busy, or just refuse to speak to you! However lobby groups can attend in larger groups, and all summon their MPs at the same time. This will typically result in at least a few MPs coming our to the lobby and listening to your point!
If you actually do write to your local MP generally you tend to get a boiler plate reply from their secratary/admin team saying that they have read your letter and have taken it into account and that's about it....
Same in the US, although occasionally an elected official feels strongly enough about a particular issue that their staff is directed to make sure the official is informed any time someone contacts their office about that issue, and then in that case, some action or at least a more personal response might happen.
In the UK any MP, even the Primeminister can be "recalled" by their constituency. This forces a by-election that runs a constituency wide election for that MP. If the new MP alters the balance of power with the government loosing their majority it can unseat the government and force a general election. If a government becomes a minority, it tends to go out looking for other parties to shore up their majority, doing deals on their policies to regain a majority through coalition - this is very rare, although due to BREXIT it's happened recently, David Cameron prior to BREXIT also headed a coalition with the liberal democrats, before of course him stepping down because he lost the BREXIT reforendum and refuse to enact its outcome despite pledging to do so. This is one of those times the monarch can actually step in and force a general election too if they feel the government is no longer representing the people.
I have contact my MP a few times, they always respond and believe it or not just getting them involved can change a mindset if an agency that's being bloody-minded... It's not an immediate fix, but once they write or contact someone they sudden stop playing off the rule book. This is also true with local government as senior councillors can alter an intransigent officious or non-compliant jobs-worth who refuses to even engage over an issue. Again it's not perfect but getting a third-party involved makes a big difference sometimes.
heck that's what happened in Malaysia too xD
No, there are only 3 circumstances when an MP can be recalled:
a) if they have been suspended from the House of Commons for at least 10 days following a Committee of Standards report.
b) Convicted and sentenced of an offence and ordered to be imprisoned (a sentence of over 12 months is an automatic recall)
c) convicted of an offence under section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, (making false or misleading Parliamentary allowance claims).
@@arwelp The Recall of MPs Act 2015 (c. 25) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that makes provision for constituents to be able to recall their Member of Parliament (MP) and call a by-election. It received royal assent on 26 March 2015 after being introduced on 11 September 2014.
Suspensions imposed by the Independent Expert Panel (established 2020) originally could not trigger recall. This "loophole" was effectively closed by an amendment passed in October 2021.
Before this. The Representation of the People Act 1981 disqualifies any person in jail for more than a year from being an MP, and thus automatically ejects an MP so jailed. MPs involved in scandals or convicted of lesser crimes could be expelled from their party and pressured to resign, but there was no mechanism to force the exit of an MP prior to a general election.
A government rarely lasts 5 years, the "fixed term parliament act" merely sets that as the *upper* limit. But that's not the only way it can end, the current government can call an election whenever they choose (which they try to calculate for when they best think they'll win re-election), or anyone in parliament (which consists of the government + the opposition) can call a "vote of no confidence". If such a vote passes, then an election must also be called.
Also, the role of the monarch is basically rubber-stamp approval. If a monarch ever vetoed a law that had passed both houses then it would be considered a constitutional crisis and the last time they would ever do so.
In answer to Tyler's first question, no, most Brits wouldn't be very familiar with Parliament's origins beyond a vague recollection from schooldays that the institution grew out of earlier advisory bodies, until one parliament was able to execute a king (something that happily hasn't happened since 1649).
Britain has that same division of executive, legislature and judiciary: the first two are actually less separate than in the US model (the PM can end a parliament and call an early election, which a US president mercifully can't do), but the judiciary is happily more independent (and strictly non-political) though its power is slightly more limited.
The PM strictly doesn't have to be from the biggest Commons party (so the Parliament video's actually wrong there!), the appointee will be the person (nearly always but not necessarily a party leader) thought most likely to be able to command a majority among MPs, not necessarily just from the one party.
Everyone agrees the House of Lords is too big and needs whittling down. The new government proposes to remove the 92 hereditary peers and introduce compulsory retirement at 80 (I'd start by removing the political appointees instead, but the numbers are definitely too high).
"Government" in the UK has a narrower connotation than in the US: here it usually relates to more specifically to the executive - the ministers and administration, but excluding parliament and the courts. Parliament legislates; ministers make policy; civil servants and other public authorities (local government, police etc) implement it all and judges decide whether it's being done lawfully.
The monarch is head of state but the PM is head of government - a difference (and I'd say a valuable one) to the US model which combines both functions in the presidency. The PM is this the most important political office-holder, while the monarch's most important role is to sit outside party politics as a last resort if the system of ministers and parliament breaks down: in practice the ruler's response would be limited to appointing an interim cross-party or non-party government to oversee new elections where necessary.
Five years is the maximum parliamentary term: most parliaments don't last that long because a PM can call an early election rather than leave it till the last moment (at which point they'll have lost any choice of the date, so it's best avoided!). It broadly works, and it's actually far preferable to the US model of House elections every two years, a frequency that works to keep politics in constant campaign mode. In the UK we usually get a bit of a breather for 2-3 years before everyone starts thinking about the next contest.
The key strength of the UK system though is in the organic character of a Constitution that's evolved piece by piece over a millennium rather than being preserved in a single document. That's a potential weakness (in theory provisions can be overturned by a simple Commons majority - but they can be restored just as easily so tinkering with the rules doesn't achieve much). But more importantly, the system can evolve without dramatic rewrites: until 2019 we had no explicit safeguard against a PM suspending parliament to prevent an adverse vote, but a single court ruling changed that.
Downsides? The big one is that as a traditionally unitary rather than federal entity, England (like the UK before Scottish and Welsh self-government in 1999) is considerably more centralised than the US. Proposals for regional government keep surfacing, but there's frankly little enhusiasm or firm basis for such a model. Local and county-level government is however under-powered and grossly under-funded.
And ministers still have far too much power within that over-centralised structure. It's time parliament rose up again with the towns and counties in tow, this time not against the long ago de-fanged crown but against ministerial over-reach and interference in its rights and conduct of business. Our parliamentary democracy is on the whole a good model, but remains a work in progress.
Americans elect the executive branch of government that runs things - president and governors. In the UK, people elect the legislature or just the House of Commons. The party that has the majority of the seats becomes the executive and the party leader becomes prime/first minister. The monarch signs legislation making it law but is, theoretically, otherwise ceremonial essentially.
I wrote a email to my MP about my neice who was waiting along time for a payment she was entitled to as she was fighting cancer, My MP sorted it out and she received it 2 weeks latter.
I agree and have addressed a couple of MP's on personal matters and they have sought to help. If addressing an MP on a 'political' matter it you are more likely to get a 'form' letter.
Interesting to hear an outsider's perspective on how the UK's democracy operates, having been developed slowly over 100s of years in the way it has. Whilst it's not perfect by any means, no system ever is afterall, there are some things I would like to be adopted in every country, Prime Minister's Questions being my personal favourite.
During a general election, there is a strict limit on how much each party can spend. Unlike the United States, they can not spend millions of pounds and there are legal constraints on what it can be spent on. There are no expensive television advertising campaigns, just a ten minute broadcast by each party outlining their policies. In the UK, there is controversy over postal (mail in) votes. People do not have to give a reason why they prefer a postal vote. Theoretically, the entire election could be carried out with no one attending the Polling Station and everyone voting by post ( mail). When the polls close, the sealed boxes are taken to a central counting centre to be counted by hand in front of the candidates and their political agents. When the count is complete and verified by the official Returning Officer, the candidate with the greatest number of votes is declared as the Member of Parliament for that constituency. The party with the most MPs becomes the government. The party with the second greatest number of MPs becomes The Official Opposition. The monarch then meets with the leader of the new government and appoints them as Prime Minister and formally asks them to officially form a government. There is no Electoral College system.
You may hear people speak of the 'Three Pillars of Democracy'. These are:
1) Government, who do the day-to-day running of the country.
2) Parliament who make the laws.
3) The judiciary who enforce the laws.
Basically the idea is to split power into three so nobody has absolute power to do whatever the hell they like. i.e. A dictatorship.
There is also 'The Fourth Estate' aka a free and independent press who's role is to scrutinise everything and shout out when anyone's doing anything dodgy. At least in theory.
Worryingly democracy in the UK is under sever threat as our current far right government has autocratic tendencies. Trump was trying to do the same in the US. So far here in the UK our Government has:
- Tried to illegally prorogue Parliament.
This means dismiss it. If this had been allowed the government could have made new laws with no public scrutiny. Fortunately the Supreme court here stopped that.
- Consequently the government has since attacked the judiciary at every turn since then and is trying to change the law so the Judiciary can no long rule if the government is breaking the law with it's policies. Which is extremely concerning.
- Increasing the use of Henry VIII powers.
This rule allows the Government to bypass parliamentary scrutiny in exceptional circumstances when it needs to act quickly, such as a national emergency. However our current government have used these powers far more than any previous government to bypass parliamentary and public scrutiny. Again deeply worrying.
- Tried to pass a bill that effectively outlaws the right to protest of any group that don't agree with them. A fundamental part of democracy.
- Changed political boundaries in their favour.
- Broken electoral law on several occasions.
Unfortunately the maximum penalty for this is just a £20k fine, which is peanuts to the millionaires in our cabinet.
- Broken UK law on numerous occasions. Also international law, treaties and agreements.
- Tried to suppress media scrutiny.
In particular since coming to power the Tory Government now appoints 3/6 of the BBC's board so it's no longer independent and have threatened to remove the license fee (the BBC's source of funding), radically change it's charter (the rules under which the BBC operates) and would also like to privatise it, most likely selling it to Rupert Murdoch.
Consequently you rarely see too much criticism of the Government on BBC news these days as they're scared of what the government will do to them. The Government are also trying to priviatise Channel 4. Partly because Channel 4 news often calls out dodgy government actions so they want to shut them up. And partly to test the waters before trying to privatise the BBC which is likely to cause a much bigger public outcry.
Two major areas of the UK electoral system that many people want changed are:
1) Using FPTP (first past the post) for elections instead of PR (proportional representation). Only the UK and US still use FPTP which is outdated and unfair. Every other western nation uses some form of PR. PR isn't perfect either, but at least everyone's vote counts.
The main issue with FPTP is that everyone who votes for someone other than the winning candidate of your local electoral ward has their vote discarded. This means in every general election the majority (60-65%) of people who bother to vote have their votes ignored and so aren't represented in parliament.
2) The House of Lords who are unelected.
The idea of the House of Lords is in principle a good one. Experienced and knowledgeable people from many areas like politics, the armed forces, business, science, healthcare, education, the arts, the media, etc who can use their knowledge to scrutinise parliamentary bills and point out amendments and changes which might be needed.
Baring in mind that any ignorant idiot can be elected to the house of commons it isn't a bad idea in theory to have some intelligent, knowledgeable, experienced people who actually know what they're talking about check over proposed new laws.
Unfortunately the reality of the Lords is rather different. Some of the posts are hereditary, so peers can be ignorant idiots too. And new peers are chosen by the Government of the day who often try to load new appointments with their supporters or anyone who's given their party large wads of cash. Many peers just take the large salaries that go with the position and never turn up.
Consequently the House of Lords needs radical revision to ditch the useless and dodgy peers who aren't there on merit.
" _our current far right government_ "
You do yourself, and whatever arguments you may have, no favours when you make comments like this.
There are many who regard the current Conservative government as left-of-centre, given the largesse with which it has dispensed public funds in supporting people during Covid. From your comment, I don't think you have any idea what a far right government would actually look like.
@@istvanglock7445 Lol NOBODY has ever called this government center left! 🤣🤣🤣And i say that as a centerist with balanced views.
Just think about what you just said. Constant attacks on democracy is NOT being center left! Or even center right for that matter. It's the action of a wannabe autocratic government. Wanting to take away your human rights is NOT center left FFS! It's the first thing autocratic governments and tinpot dictators do!
Please stop trying to defend the indefensible out of blind loyalty. It does you no credit and makes you look foolish, ignorant and uninformed.
Please look at their actions and ask yourself if they're those of decent people. Do you seriously not care about your human rights, workers rights, food safety standards, animal welfare, pollution? Since leaving the EU the government has attacked all of these.
You mentioned the money they spent during Covid. If they'd acted sooner. i.e. followed their own 2014 pandemic response paper which lays out exactly what they SHOULD have done we wouldn't have the worst death rate from Covid in Europe. They also ignored the 2017 findings of operation Cygnus, the WHO, warnings from Italy, and the medical and scientific community. And don't forget intentionally running down the NHS for 12 years, including having no PPE at the start of the pandemic.
I learnt in primary school that with highly infectious diseases you quarantine. Almost EVERYONE knows that. Except apparently this government. Why didn't they act? Because super rich Tory donors whinged about their businesses losing money.
Ironically if they'd acted sooner the country wouldn't have been so hard hit by Covid, they wouldn't have had to spend so much of tax payers money and business wouldn't have suffered so badly.
Were you aware that they put infected people into care homes? Or that they continued to do so AFTER being informed this was killing thousands of pensioners? Quite frankly they should all be on manslaughter charges for that.
Look at some of their other actions:
e.g. Constant law breaking, corruption, breaking treaties and international law, increased homelessness and poverty, removing free school meal from kids this summer, the treatment of the disabled by the DWP which has killed hundreds of the UK's most vulnerable citizens, the Windrush scandal where innocent UK citizens were illegally put in detention and deported (some died as a consequence). Giving billions of tax payers money to their chums for services that never materialised or were unfit for purpose, etc, etc.
Did you know many of the policies espoused by this government show strong parallels, if slightly toned down, to those of the fascist governments of Germany, Italy and Spain in the early 1930s. So yes this IS an extremely right-wing government.
P.S. Did you know that a number of leading Tories display many of the 20 personality traits listed on the psychopath test? Once you realise this it explains why they act as they do.
Johnson is almost certainly a narcissistic psychopath. Patel , Hunt and IDS are also prime candidates, others may not be full blown, but at the very least would be classed as having serious personality disorders. All of which explains the insane and vile actions of this vile and inhuman government which is the worst in living memory.
Worrying they're not the only world leaders displaying many psychopathic traits. ex president Trump (obviously), Putin, Kim Jong Un, Bosonairo of Brazil, Orban or Hungary, Lukashenko of Belarus, Erdogan of Turkey, Modi of India, ex Pm Morrison of Australia...
Having so many psychopaths as leaders/CEOs is why the world has gone to shit. Until we start testing our leaders for serious personality disorders this will continue.
Magna Carta did not place the King under the law, the Queen is still above the law. It was an agreement to end specific abuses of power that John was committing at the time, such as taking noblemen's children as hostages. Most importantly, it ensured that people could not be denied a fair trial.
A lot of people don't know about Simon De Montford (and he had not the slightest interest in democracy, but I believe most people in the UK know about Magna Carta.
The Queen has a lot more power than the Prime Minister. Prime Minister merely means "first servant" and he has power within reason, but it all devolves from her. She could replace him tomorrow, if she wanted to.
The reason UK government is irrelevant to Americans is that Americans think they control the UK. I was told by one American, "He's your president too!" and I had to explain that he definitely wasn't.
A good opposition can have an excellent influence for good.
Trust in the government doesn;t come naturally in the UK. Our government has to be instantly accountable. The government is the PM and the cabinet. They are part of Parliament.
I love how Americans are always confused by the monarch's role. She is our head of state and ultimate power and responsibility rests with her. She is a believer in democracy and generally does not use the immense power she has, but it is always there, if needed.
The manifesto is important. Politicians are not to be trusted, so making them put their promises in writing means we can prove that they broke them.
The monarch is not above the law certain laws don’t apply to the monarch which is not the same
The Party which has won the most seats in the House of Commons (enough to form a government) has its power formally acknowledged/endorsed by the reigning monarch. (Not quite sure how coalition governments work but there have been several during my lifetime & before that during the WWII)
I'm from the UK and we are currently on our 5th prime minister in the same government, one thing not mentioned in this video is the reigning monarch has to give a newly appointed Prime Minister permission to form a government for them, these governments are what runs the country until the next general election so at the moment we have a conservative (Tory) government with Labour as the opposition. The tory government we have now has been nothing but a shambles.
The first prime minister in this government was David Cameron however when Brexit happened he didn't want to deal with it and resigned and was replaced by the second of five - Theresa May, she was deeply unpopular and even lobbied a vote for herself to basicly see if people actually wanted her as PM and she lost seats in parliament as a result also she couldn't handle Brexit.
She was replaced by Boris Johnson who alongside with navigating us through covid,albeit very confusingly, finally got Brexit all done and dusted however he threw a party at number 10 during lockdown and people wanted him gone.
He was replaced by the now infamous Liz Truss or the devil incarnate, lets just say everything she touched turned to sh**e and move on, she also only lasted 5 weeks as PM because she was so awful - there was also an online poll over live footage of a lettuce over which would last longer, the lettuce or Liz as PM, the lettuce won.
Which brings us to number 5, Rishee Sunak who so far hasn't done anything majorly awful but at this point I have no faith in this government what so ever however Tory is still the better alternative to Labour at this point so yeah, england is a bit of shit show right now.
I've written to my various MPs over my 60 year life about eight times and each time had a personal reply on as of comments headed writing paper concisely tackling my concerns. However you can never be entirely sure how seriously they're taking you!
Most people, if they really thought about it, know most of this stuff but in a very non-formalised way. The video skipped over a lot and didn't even mention the Civil Service or the role of the official Parliamentary press ("Hansard"). I would recommend watching clips from some UK comedies like "Yes, Minister", "Yes, Prime Minister" or "The Thick Of It" to get a feel for how the Government and Civil Service interact.
Also, I'm not sure that you quite appreciated that the Government in the UK is a Cabinet of MPs chosen by the PM to head up the various ministries / departments. Unlike the US system where the President fills these positions with unelected political friends and cronies, in the UK these have to be drawn from sitting MPs (and occasionally Lords) of the majority or coalition party /parties. This means that, however bad, in your opinion, a Minister might be, you can console yourself by knowing that a majority of the people in a constituency, somewhere, must have voted for this pratt!
"Parliament" are all the elected MPs, except the Cabinet Ministers, and is made up of the Opposition and the rest of the majority party's MPs (their "back-benchers"). Their role is to hold the Government to account by representing the interests of their constituents and, unless whipped, to vote in accordance with those interests. The largest party in the Opposition ("The Official Opposition") organises itself so as to shadow the Government positions by drawing on its own MPs to form a Shadow Cabinet and occupies the benches directly opposite their Cabinet equivalents. I would recommend watching some clips from "Prime Minister's Questions", which are live-streamed every Wednesday morning, to get a feel for this.
I think one of the biggest differences and most important differences between our governments is that because our priminister is elected by party vote and not individual vote they don't campaign in the same way that yours do, so you don't have to be rich to be priminister unlike in the US. Your local party will door knock talk to the people I the area leaflet drop things like that but there are no rallys and big money spending involved
There’s also strict limits on campaign spending here that don’t exist in the US
@@vaudevillian7 There are election campaign laws here in the US, but with the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling poured more dark money into the mix. Where super pac can spend any amounts of money.
To confuse matters more the government structure goes as follows, Monarch, house of commons, house of Lords, cancil, local cancil, parish cancil.
The monarchs role is ceremonial. She or now he, always approves the bills once they get to that stage. She no longer interferes in this process but she still approves it out of respect and deference because she’s the head of state
Loved your video. Please don't underestimate the power of HM Queen Elizabeth II. Whilst it's the power she denies other people that is largely symbolic, she does have clout.
No, she really doesn't. All the sovereign's real power was removed in 1689 following the "Glorious Revolution" under the English Bill of Rights. This is where the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty was established.
100% correct. The Queen is a figurehead only.
The 'Palace' of Westminster, there be Kings & Queens attend. We are ruled by H.M Government. All MP's also take an oath of allegiance to the Monarch before holding a seat in Parliament. 🇬🇧
I did read once that in October 1974, after two general elections that year with no large working majority, Harold Wilson asked her to dissolve parliament again for a third election. She refused, saying that the public had been consulted twice, had given much the same answer and he was therefore to go away and make it work. He entered into a sort of coalition with the liberals and the government stood until May 1979.
The monarch does actually have real powers. Some are soft powers, persuasion and diplomacy, but some are hard powers. She can dissolve parliament, but she can also refuse to allow parliament to be dissolved early. She can appoint a prime minister and can refuse to sign a bill. The fact that she generally doesn't do any of these is down to the constitutional crisis it might cause, not because she can't.
The biggest factor not mentioned in this video, is the 'permanent' or 'senior' civil service, sometimes referred to as 'Whitehall' after where they are physically based in London. These are the professionals who actually know how to do the day-to-day work of running a government and they work with whichever party is in power. Like any normal person they can vote too, which is interesting, as they are often torn between voting for the left to keep the funding for their civil service jobs; or voting for the right which is a more popular choice with landowners and the rich. It goes without saying that the diplomatic service and the secret services wield a lot of unelected power, due to their professional skill and influence. It is the opinion of the senior civil service that they run the country 'despite' the meddling of the elected parliament LOL
Here in the US a number of organizations, both right and left, have something called "bill trackers" where people can sign up for email alerts about issues that concern them so that whenever their state legislature or Congress is holding hearings or votes on them, the list members get emailed a summary of the bills in question. Some elected officials also email newsletters to their constituents about their activities such as town halls, ribbon cuttings, etc. which sometimes includes info about the various bills they've been working on. I would guess that politicians and political groups in the UK probably do the same.
I once wrote to my local MP who happened to be the Prime Minister, complaining against then government policy. I received a letter by return, addressing my concerns in detail - not a stock letter. I didn't like her answers, but I give her credit for replying, and it was personally signed by her.
Sir, Edward, vile man, Leigh is my MP and I only ever get a flimsy standard letter back. Hopeless.
Female PM. That narrows it down. I'm guessing May as Truss wasn't in that long, and wasn't working during our period of mourning, and Thatcher was soooo long ago, but I could be wrong.
Re "symbolic monarch." Not really. Check out "What Powers Does the Queen of England Actually Have?" by 'Today I Found Out.'
The title Queen of ‘England’ does not exist! That is like talking about the President of California!
@@wardenblack9734 Correct. Nonetheless, this is the title of the TH-cam video. If I had written her actual title (Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith), this would have been unhelpful to Tyler and may have hindered him in identifying the correct video.
Honestly i would love to see you react to how the Magna Carta was formed !
we have TV channel where we can watch weekly Prime Minister's Question Time and such.
Prime Minister's have to 'shake hands' with the Monarch at the start of their time in the PM role.
A year late, but as the video doesn't go into much detail about it, I feel I should explain further.
The House of Lords, also called the Upper House, is a non-elected body. Originally it consisted entirely of Hereditary Peers, that is people from aristocratic families (Dukes and Earls and so on) who were major landowners and inherited their positions, as well as Bishops in the Church of England who also owned a lot of land. In the early days of British democracy this made a lot of sense, people were likely to be more loyal to the men who owned the land they lived on (the Hereditary Peers and Bishops), so having these men approve all new laws helped ensure that people living far from London would obey them.
The Life Peers are a fairly new innovation, and have largely supplanted the old Hereditary Peers, Life Peers are appointed to the position by the PM, via the monarch, and serve for life, but unlike Hereditary Peers their position is not passed on to their children. These are chosen for their expertise, and many are former PMs and MPs.
As I said, the House of Lords is an unelected body, and their have been calls, in recent years, for its dissolution, although since that would require an Act of Parliament, which the Lords would have to approve, this seems unlikely
We do also have a legislative, executive and judiciary sort of concept.
Parliament is the legislature, where the House of Commons (lower house) and the House of Lords (upper house) vote on laws and ammendments.
The executive is the Prime Minister and their cabinet, so this consists usually of members of the commons, but also sometimes the lords.
The judiciary however is the court system, and is completely separate from parliament
"The judiciary however is the court system, and is completely separate from parliament." This is indeed the UK system's greatest strength compared to the US. The separation isn't total: parliament can enact laws affecting judicial powers, but crucially judges are appointed independently outside the political system. Where the UK errs is in having allowed ministers to concentrate too much power vis-a-vis Parliament; that's something MPs should seek to correct.
We elect Members of Parliament in a 1st past the post system - a constituency can be any area but must contain between 69,000 and 77,000 voters - not far off what the USA did at independence. This leaves the UK with 650 MPs - just about manageable for the system. If the US had continued to use this system then there would be several thousand representatives, so the system had to be amended to make it weildy.
An MP represents all their constituents and actively helps out people struggling with 'the system' eg I recently wrote to mine to tell them about a problem in a government department that I was dealing with - they intervened and the department apologised for the mistake they had made (and included a cash award for my inconvenience). Before the intervention they were treating me as a nothing.
When MPs aren't helping out constituents they busy themselves at parliament - obviously they have teams helping them with their constituency work so they have time to shout at each other in the House.
It's probably been stated before but broadly speaking the monarch cannot refuse assent to a law.
It'd be the end of the monarchy if Royal Assent were withheld.
In my Job I hear from the MP everyday with questions from the public
I have personally written to a Minister of The Crown when no action was happening on a matter of pensions. I had an answer from his secretary within 24 hours. It does work.
The Queen never refuses assent, but is, in theory, an impartial figurehead
I wouldn't say peers were selected because of their expertise. They're usually just former MPs that get "booted upstairs" as a sort of retirement.
The House of Lords sounds GREAT on paper. In practice, it's a bunch of unelected officials, often extremely wealthy and not always qualified to discuss the matters at hand. The two types of Peer are Life Peers (whose title dies with them) and Hereditary Peers (whose Peerage passes across generations - effectively making that persons lineage part of parliament forever, no matter how poorly qualified). The hereditary often act in their own interests.
Life peers, thankfully, do tend to be highly qualified in some specific field, and do make up the majority of the House of Lords, otherwise the whole place would be a shambles.
The House of Lords may not elected but it is NOMINATED.
Members come from a wide spectrum of political beliefs - they also come from a wide variety of qualified professional backgrounds. The remaining hereditary peers are not there by right, they are 'elected/selected' by members of the House of Lords - their place in the House of Lords is for their lifetime only, exactly the same as the Life-Peers. They CAN NOT hand their seat down to their eldest sons.
What evidence do you have that the hereditary peers in particular 'often act in their own interests'*
The value of the House of Lords is simply this: The members are independent of party political pressure, they are genuinely free of party control.
*Members of both Houses HAVE to declare any interest they may have in debates.
You have a very biased, politically prejudiced and inaccurate view of the House of Lords
Technically it is not the leader of the party with the most representatives (MPs) who can be Prime Minister. It is technically the person who can demonstrate they carry the support of the House of Commons who gets put forward to the Monarch to be appointed Prime Minister (who by convention then accepts this decision). It's only because UK elections tend to create a majority of MPs from one party that the convention their party leader becomes PM is kind of true (as they obviously have the majority supporting them). In a hung parliament (where there is no overall majority of MPs from one party) it is up to MPs in the commons to work out between themselves who they want to support as PM - meaning the party with the most MPs might actually be totally opposed by the majority of the Commons and therefore those majority of MPs. Ultimately we elect MPs to represent us and make decisions on our behalf and one of those decisions is who will be Prime Minister.
23:27 Quite recently actually, In May of 2010 the election resulted in a hung parliment with the Convservative party having a majority votes (306 of 650) but not enough for an absolute majority (Enough seats that if every member of the Conservatives voted on something it would be more votes then every opposition partys vote combined, or 326 seats essentially) And so the Conservitives reached out to the Liberal democrats with their 57 seats to form a coalition goverment for that period, the previous coalition goverment before that was in 1945
Yes we had a coalition government quite recently with the Conservatives and Liberals (David Cameron & Nick Clegg) from 2010-2015
House of Lords doesn't sound too bad in theory, but they are lifetime or hereditary appointments. The appointments are made by the Prime Minister, I think. You can imagine the issues that comes with that. There are appointments from religious institutions, businesses etc as well, all with its own issues.
The 'Government' it was referring to is the party in power, the ministers etc. Kind of like your different secretaries.
I do remember parts of it but school for me was a long time ago but I do love learning about history.
Contact with our MPs is probably the strongest part of the system. We can contact our MP and they will almost always reply regardless of whether we agree with them or not.
Government = the Prime Minister and the other ministers of the largest party.
Things like Health and Education are devolved though. In Wales they come under the purview of the Senedd, and in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament.
The Monarch gives Royal Ascent, but its largely a ceremonial function. They can't (without risking a constitutional crises, and possibly the demise if ghe monarchy) decline Royal Ascent to a bill approved by Parliament.
All of the situations have happened before, 1967 election ended in a minority government, then fresh elections 6 months later.
In 2010 we had a coalition government, for 5 years.
The government is the governing body that does the executive functions. The party who won most of the seats in parliament forms the government.
Prime Minister is equivalent to USA Speaker of the House, whereas the Speaker in the House of Commons just controls the working of the daily sessions, like a chairperson.
The House of Lords performs a similar role to the US Senate.
Might be worth mentioning that the leader of a party isn't obligated to be Prime Minister, they just always are if their party wins enough seats, and no, you don't vote for a PM, you vote for a party and then the MP's will vote for who should be PM. This person then goes to the King to ask permission to form a government (however, this is only a formality.)
Also, a slight nitpick on the video. MP's who are in the same party as the government, but not in the cabinet, are not part of the government, they will just usually vote with the government because - well they're in the same party.
Peers is just the term used for members of the House of Lords. A lot of Peers are former politicians, and some are hereditary peers, as in their parents were aristocrats and therefore they may sit in the House of Lords.
The House of Lords and House of Commons are essentially the upper and lower sections of the government. Similar to the American Senate and House of Representatives or the German Reichstag and Bundestag.
Parliament is the entirety of the House of Commons. We use government interchangeably but what we often mean is the actual administration so the actual party in power which wins an election. In American terms, it’s the equivalent of the democrats winning an election and therefore being the ‘government’, while the republicans form the ‘opposition’ but are still part of parliament (I.e., they have representation in both houses).
Interesting that it did not admit that the Monarch has been known to throw back some proposed 'Laws' or suggestions to the table when they have arrived for approval - for a rethink! The Queen read the dispatch boxes from parliament daily.
The Prime Minister is head of government. The closest US analogue to the Prime Minister would be your Speaker of the House, but even then, it's not really an exact match. The head of state, on the other hand, is the current reigning monarch. Final sign-off of any bill into law is the responsibility of the head of state, or as here in Canada, their representative, the Governor General.
The king only meets with the prime minister on a tuesday at 6.30pm normally at Buckingham Palace
There have been several hung parliaments. It typically leads to a coalition.
Depends on which part of the UK we weren't really taught about the magnacarta but English kids are we were mainly taught about the 1399 wars of independence not sure what happens in Wales or ni.
The opposition parties are known as 'HM loyal opposition ', ie loyal to the crown and country, but opposing and questioning the government.
The UK also has seperation of powers / three branches of government
1) The legislature makes the laws.
2) The executive is responsible for creating policy, putting proposals for laws to the legislature, and putting laws into effect. We call this the government.
3)The judiciary decides whether laws are being followed or if they have been made properly.
The UK House of Parliament and House of Lords are roughly equivalent to US Senators and Representives.
This history is so uniquely special it’s the main reason I voted Brexit!
Save the precious system that evolved and developed separate to anything in Europe or the World.
The EU had already and would have continued to slowly imposed their way and this way would eventually vanish, not because it’s not as good but just because it’s not the commonly found way in Europe, it is the basis of most former colonies including the United States, as well as other former colonies that have a much better standard of living than other European colonies meaning the English system the British system is better than any European system that the EU ultimately favours.
I think it’s a Napoleonic system in most of Europe with a civil law which stretches back to Roman times but has been adapted by the French and spread around Europe through Napoleon’s invasions, but he never invaded Britain to force that way on us keeping Britain, British it’s politics, it’s Law, English Common Law and ultimately its legal procedures separate to the ways the EU ultimately endorse.
That’s the fundamental difference between Britain and Europe and it’s why we are not united, it’s boils down to historically successful independence, and an empire that Europe never matched.
We vote for our leaders who are answerable to us can be challenged by us can be removed by us and can be punished by law. None of which applies to the EU system which protects its politicians as the elite, it’s an unelected unaccountable faceless above law backward way compared with the British way.
But people trying to understand Brexit need understand this, and how this is priceless, economies grow and shrink wealth fluctuates with it, but political empowerment lost is lost forever, hence BREXIT!!
The Magna Carta you could say has a lot to do with the reasons for the founding of the US. The phrase "No Taxation without representation" comes from what the US settlers felt they where entitled to by rights granted to them by the Magna Carta.
MP's have a constituent office, called a surgery. Anyone can visit their MP. Also, a constituent can write or email their MP about matters that concern them.
A live peer is a person elected for life/forever. Unless an event of dismissal comes.
A hereditary peer means that if your next of kin passed away, you would inherit their position and responsibilities in the HoL.
The USA actually issued a stamp in 1965 to commemorate the signing of Magna Carta in 1215. Britain had its Civil War in the 1640s and became a constitutional monarchy in 1689, which means the King or Queen is head of state, but the legislation is all done by Parliament. The monarch has very limited powers and has in the end to approve what the democratic process puts forward. Not exactly a rubber stamp but actually not far off. Their value is mostly ceremonial.
The monarch receives what are called Red Boxes every single day, containing the important papers concerning the government of the country. Even in her 90's the late Queen did her boxes daily without fail. King Charles does the same. So the monarch has his/her finger on the pulse and has a duty to advise the Prime Minister at their weekly meetings
Important fact about the Monarchs power:
Yes the Monarch technically passes the law etc... But in reality they pass ANY law that ever comes their way. If the Monarch was to veto a law, you can bet the next step taken by parliament would be to remove the Monarchs ability to do this.
This is why the Monarch is seen as ceremonial rather than practical, they will always pass any law given to them as it is the will of the people -> but it's funny knowing they could almost definitely block one single law before losing that ability :) maybe it will happen some day?
The Speaker is from the the County I live in. and he keeps that all in order. he's wonderful. we also had a Northere Woman Speaker Betty Boothroyd who was wonderfull. the first Woman Speaker.
14:44 The difference between "Government" and "Parliament" is this:
* Every five years or so there is a General Election and everyone votes for their local Member of Parliament (MPs).
* Political comentators talk about all the voting counts, all night, as different constituencies take different amounts of time to count the voting papers,
* At the end of the night one party has more MPs elected than the rest and that party gets to choose who the Prime Minister is,
* The Prime Minister then gets to choose other MPs (or members of the House of Lords) to be Ministers of various goverment departments,
The benches to the left of where the speaker sits is full up with the party who won the last election (currently Labour) and the front bench is where the various ministers sit with the Prime Minister. These people are the "Cabinet" or the actual goverment in charge of our country. Each Cabinet member will be in charge of a specific government department (like the Department of Health who control the NHS and regulate private healthcare). Other people from the winning party are called "back benchers" as they do not sit on the front bench.
The leader of the opposition is chosen by the people of the second biggest party (currently the Conservatives) and the leader of the opposition will pick a bunch of people to be a "Shadow Cabinet". The Shadow Cabinet has zero power (as loosers are not part of the goverment) but you will see people calling themselves the Shadow Chancellor and specifically challenging the actual Chancellor.
We have more than two parties, and there really is no reason why there should not be a second Shadow Cabinet set up by the Liberal Democrats, a third set up by the Green Party, a forth set up by the Scottish National Party and so on. The opposition is not one thing. It is all the loosers sitting to the right of the Speaker.
Our PM is more like your speaker of the house and our monarch is more similar to your president (although they are obviously not elected and are more ceremonial) but they are technically the one who ultimately signs laws into effect.
Also the house of Lords as a BIT like your senators, although they are also not elected. This is one area that would definitely be improved and could be a logical step in the direction of more proportional representation