Californian Reacts | An Introduction to Parliament (UK Government)

preview_player
Показать описание
Understanding the basics and inner workings of UK Parliament as an American! How does it work? Is it effective? What is the history?

The Parliament of the United Kingdom is the supreme legislative body of the United Kingdom, the Crown dependencies and the British overseas territories. It alone possesses legislative supremacy and thereby ultimate power over all other political bodies in the UK and the overseas territories. Parliament is bicameral but has three parts, consisting of the sovereign (Crown-in-Parliament), the House of Lords, and the House of Commons (the primary chamber). Both houses of Parliament meet in separate chambers at the Palace of Westminster in the City of Westminster, one of the inner boroughs of the capital city, London.

The House of Lords includes two different types of members: the Lords Spiritual, consisting of the most senior bishops of the Church of England; and the Lords Temporal, consisting mainly of life peers, appointed by the sovereign, and of 92 hereditary peers, sitting either by virtue of holding a royal office, or by being elected by their fellow hereditary peers. Prior to the opening of the Supreme Court in October 2009, the House of Lords also performed a judicial role through the Law Lords.

The House of Commons is an elected chamber with elections to 650 single-member constituencies held at least every five years under the first-past-the-post system. By constitutional convention, all government ministers, including prime minister, are members of the House of Commons or, less commonly, the House of Lords and are thereby accountable to the respective branches of the legislature. Most cabinet ministers are from the Commons, whilst junior ministers can be from either house.

With the global expansion of the British Empire, the UK Parliament has shaped the political systems of many countries as ex-colonies and so it has been called the "Mother of Parliaments".

In theory, the UK's supreme legislative power is officially vested in the Crown-in-Parliament. However, the Crown normally acts on the advice of the prime minister, and the powers of the House of Lords are limited to only delaying legislation; thus power is de facto vested in the House of Commons.

#BritishParliment #BritishGovernment #UnitedKingdom
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

I understand much more about Parliament from this video than I ever have before, and just how the government works in general in a very basic form. 🏛

What is the general opinion on Parliament and how it all works? Enjoyable to learn about different types of democracy and how they function, and how us, the people, think about the system.

californianreacts
Автор

Just voted in my local council elections. Took around 30 seconds with no ID shenanigans. What the video DOESN'T say is that UK elections differ from US ones in several ways.
Each party has a strict limit set on how much they can spend based on the size of the constituency.

Constituencies are not gerrymandered but are approximately equal population areas set by an independent election commission.

All parties have, by law, equal time for TV broadcasts paid for by the state. To put it into perspective, the GOP can't outspend the Communist Party of America on TV advertising. Heresy!

The election campaign is only a few weeks long unlike the continual electioneering of the US.

In short, a UK election is designed to be a short, sharp and cost effective execution of democracy. Not a profiteering opportunity for politicians and media types.

fabulousaardvark
Автор

9:04 The United Kingdom has had several coalition governments throughout its history:

1.Aberdeen ministry, the British government under Lord Aberdeen (1852–1855)
2. Asquith coalition ministry, the British government under H. H. Asquith (1915–1916)
3. Lloyd George ministry, the British government under David Lloyd George (1916–1922)
War ministry, the British government during the Second World War
4. Chamberlain war ministry, the British government under Neville Chamberlain (1939–1940)
5. Churchill war ministry, the British government under Winston Churchill (1940–1945)
6. Cameron–Clegg coalition, the British government under David Cameron and Nick Clegg (2010–2015)

darrellpowell
Автор

The great advantage, in my view, of the UK system over the USA is that the leader of the government (PM) and all ministers have to be members of Parliament (MPs/HoC or Lords), not just friends or funders of the President's campaign.
The holders of the "great offices of state" (PM, Chancellor of Exchequer, Home Sec) are members of the HoC, and have to regularly attend to be questioned.
The other advantage is that, since the constitution is not codified (although written) it is an evolving, living thing that grows.

richardwoods
Автор

That video actually does a good job of summarising Parliament. I’m not a huge advocate for first past the post but broadly speaking our system works well.
Particularly for 2022, we have a lot of direct interaction with our MP’s - pretty much every week they hold meetings where anyone can come and speak to them one-to-one. With some sad exceptions this has been unchanged and safe and almost unique to us (not many other countries would let anyone have alone time with their politicians.)
It might seem slow to some, but rarely do things get stuck in a process like in the US - the opposition are there to scrutinise and usually there is enough opposition to allow for some compromise where a bill might be controversial.
The actual current government aside, I think the system works well, and allows for decent representation and debate.
The Queen has never refused to sign a bill. The last time any monarch did was in 1707. It’s a process but has no real meaning now.
We also had a coalition government in 2010-2015 between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

jonathon
Автор

Quite a good explanation, the Monarch can refuse to sign something in to law, its very rare, belive Queen Elizabeth refused to sign Tony Blairs legislation that the permission of the Sovereign no longer be sought to engage our military in conflicts. So the Government still needs permission. Works OK for us and can be good viewing on TV, always try and watch Priminister's Question Time, on a Wednesday.

catherinewilkins
Автор

Winston Churchill once said that: “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”

MichaelJohnsonAzgard
Автор

I can defnitely recommend watching a session of Prime Minister's Questions (PMQ's). They are all broadcast live every Wednesday in a number of places including the UK Parliament youtube channel in standard and sign language versions. For a first time viewer, there's definitely some things you would need to get used to, but to answer the key questions you would probably have when viewing for the first time:
Every week they start with some pre-prepared questions from MP's (Which to save time are often simply asked as the number in the order that the question appears), questions from the Leader of the Opposition and from the leader of the third largest party (Currently the SNP). After this, questions will alternate back and forth from each side of the house. Generally, the government's side will mostly be fluff questions that are essentially boasting about what a great job their government is doing for their particular constituancy, while the opposition will be asking harder hitting questions. Though generally you don't get particularly solid answers as the PM will usually try to turn any answer into a way to brag about other things they've accomplished.

As there is no set order for who gets selected to ask these questions, you will see the MP's standing up to try and get the Speaker's attention which is why you'll see them all bobbing up and down to try and get the Speaker's attention. There are also some very strict rules on what you can and can't call other MP's, names are baanned which is why they will usually refer to each other by titles such as 'My honourable friend, the member for X' and similar.
They also aren't allowed do directly address each other, instead they will be asking their questions directly to the Speaker, hence everyone talking to 'Mr Speaker'. Clapping is also banned, which is why you'll hear a constant murmor which was originally supposed to be 'hear hear', but over time has been slurred down into a general noise.

ivivaitylin
Автор

there was a coalition of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrat parties in 2010 general election. Liberal Democrats were mauled in following elections because they were the smaller party and had to go along with Conservative policies that went against their views. Generally coalitions are uncommon, if not rare.

niallrussell
Автор

We has a coalittion government in the UK from 2010-15. We also had aminority government from 2017-19. The last time there wasn't a clear winner was back in the 70's. In many countriez in Europe coalition government sare the norm.

redgeorgieredgeorgie
Автор

Parliament in UK despite apperances is actually really effective and from experience can respond quickly to basically any issue. Of course not always the case if the issue is complicated but generally its an efficient system.

Przemro
Автор

A couple of things the video did not mention. The Lords have absolutely no say in 'money bills'. Since 1671 they have not been able to interfere with tax rates and in 1911, this was formally made law. So the Lords can't debate the Budget, or delay it, or modify any bills the Speaker decides are to do with 'money'. We've had several coalition governments, during both World Wars and in the 1920s and 30s to deal with problems such as the Great Depression. As these were national emergencies, the main parties came together to push through necessary legislation and it gave the PM the opportunity to pick the most talented people from any party to head a ministry or government department. Finally, there was a recent coalition government between 2010 and 2015, when Conservative leader Cameron did not have a majority. He formed a government with the help of Liberal Democrat party (which is politically between the Conservative and Labour). There have also been informal coalitions, such as when Theresa May formed a pact with a small Irish Unionist party to try and force her Brexit legislation through parliament. She failed to achieve this though.

iainsan
Автор

why would it be outdated? the westminster system is used across the world- where else is the american version used apart from america?

LordArrow
Автор

In Britain we tend to vote for the political party that ticks most boxes concerning how the country is run, in one’s own opinion.In America is seems that you vote for the most charismatic person running. Having only two political parties limits your choice. In Britain we have the “raving looney party “ to vote for if we disagree with all the parties, ( normally there are five or six parties to vote for.)
I hope we never see an ex actor, nor a billionaire, lead our country

brianbonner
Автор

5:14 The UK system runs faster than US government does. This is down to the facts the UK is smaller and has to find compromises more to get things done. PMQ's does hold the Prime minister to account with hard questions they have to answer. British queries tend to be short, fast and bitingly to the point, a skill set not widely available in Washington.

darrellpowell
Автор

Generally it a good system and remember we've had political stability in this country for close on 400 years.Unlike most others.

paulusarnhelm
Автор

Thought I'd say this is a great video - it's great to see people learning and I hope more people find it!
I thought I might throw in my hat a bit. There are 'issues' in our system and highlighting them might help to understand what people's grievances are or where we aren't 'effective'.

Firstly, 'effective' is always a tough concept to define, let alone quantify or qualify. We pass laws - the government generally gets parts of their manifesto (ideas) into law. All that happens with intense scrutiny from both Houses (Commons and Lords) as well as committees, pressure groups and think tanks, and anyone who wants to get involved. Our democracy is therefore relatively healthy and our leaders are relatively accountable. I'll come onto the flaws in a moment but, by and large, having our executive (our Prime Minister) seated in one of our Houses/chambers, is a system we've found to work well. The nation doesn't directly elect them, and there certainly is a case for that, but they are still elected by a constituency (an area of people like a congressional district). Overall, it's effective. Let it be known I won't touch on local and federal issues - though these are very frequently discussed and bemoaned by people - see the rise of nationalist parties in the UK as an example.
Some issues that hinder the effectiveness (which can also promote certain other positives) include: our uncondified constitution, the Westminster system (our voting system, aka First Past the Post), who goverrns Parliament's time, traditions and formalities, and general form of both Houses - specifically, in most people's minds, the House of Lords.
Our constitution is uncodified. In theory, this means that all of our laws are equal in standing and can be repealed, amended, and created with relative ease. It keeps our system quite modern, allowing for a government to create laws where they see fit and change fundamental structures in the country using a simple majority in the Commons (and the Lords to some extent but their function is complementary so their changes to laws are never binding). This can create problems, but we've got into the habit of having referendums (national votes) on key constitutional issues now.
The Westminster system is an electoral system whereby a member of parliament (an MP, who sits in the Commons) is elected by a simple majority of votes in their constituency. This means that sometimes, an MP could have been elected through a low percentage of voters, like 35%, if the remaining 65% were spread thinly across different parties. Taking into account low turnout as well - if only 40% of eligible voters voted, then they would 'purely' represent the wills of 35% of 40% of an area. Many people aren't happy with this system as it seems undemocratic, but the arguments for its use is that it is simple and it produces majorities (where one party has over 50% of the nations constituencies). In recent years, this has emerged as an issue again, as critiques have noted the coalition government of 2010-2015 and the minority government of 2016-2019 (where no party had overall control) as demonstrations of ineffectiveness.
Time governance is a lesser known issue but one that presents some problems. The government controls what laws are debated and when. Theoretically, this sounds good - they have a majority and they make a significant proportion of the laws, so need to debate them accordingly. But calls have arisen for that to change, as they can 'stuff' lots of bills into Parliament at once or during a short timeframe, which means there are fewer days to debate it and therefore less time in which they are held accountable. It has been a particular issue recently, as many contentious and divisive laws were put to both Houses at once. Some have argued that the House of Commons Speaker (the person who monitors debate) should control tabling of bills, with appeals from the government for structure - but there are worries this might politicise a role that we try to keep 'apolitical'.
Traditions and formalities are a hang-ons from the fact that the earliest form of parliament came from the 800AD Wittens, that developed into the Lords, and then wider Parliament over the course of the last millenia +. Many of them are exactly what I've said: formalities, that hold no bearing on the function of our law making body. The Queen, for example, does not overtly involve herself in politics - she's aware that in doing so she would undermine the stability of a system that keeps her in place. But the government is called 'Her Majesty's Government', and her, or recently a consort, will 'open' parliament by reading the government's desired agenda. Strange, but rather whimsical to many outsiders and cherished as much as it is questioned and rejected by many in the UK.
This brings me onto the House of Lords. It's one of the least understood parts of the British system and, even when understood, doesn't make much sense in theory. But it operates and works like a reactionary chamber - it scrutinises the laws that are sent to it and changes/amends parts that they believe could be improved. They do this through the same methods as the Commons - hearings, committees, votes. The catch? They aren't elected, but appointed. You can become a Lord if you are: put forward by one of the major parties to represent them in the chamber; if you are descended from aristocracy you can ballot for one of 92 seats in an election of other eligible 'hereditaries'; you are a bishop in the Church of England; you are a Supreme Court judge; you apply to the appointments commission or are chosen by them. Forgive me if I've forgotten another method. This is usually the most criticised element of the system. It's important to know it's criticised because of its form, rather than its function. Once in the Lords, you remain their for life (unless a bishop), and can help amend laws as you see fit. Nowadays, many normal people have been elevated to the Lords, who aren't rich or noble. But the system is easily corrupted and many scandals have emerged where people have paid to be given a spot. Yet, it continues to hold government to account, especially when they have a resounding majority in the House of Commons - it almost serves as a second opposition.
I hope I've been as objective as possible. It is up to everyone based on the evidence to decide what should and shouldn't be changed. That's what healthy democracy is. I would say that, if one was to create a country now, it's very unlikely that it would or should be anything like the UK's system. Ours has developed over 1200+ years. It's far from perfect but, somehow, it operates to a reasonable enough extent that people have not rebelled en masse since the 1640s. It's far more complex than what I've written here and, if a brave soul decides to read all of this and still hungers for more knowledge, I will gladly recommend books if they comment.

oliverbourton
Автор

It is not just opposition MPs who object or seek amendments to Government bills. Because MPs represent a constituency, you will often find back-bench MPs from the ruling party raising concerns or making suggested amendments in order to safeguard the interests of their constituents.

grapeman
Автор

Many times in our history there have been coalition governments, most recently in 2010. There were minority governments/near minority governments that relied on the support of another party more times than not since WW2.

pabmusic
Автор

Prime Minister's questions, while sounding like a farm yard a lot of the time, is actually very effective in holding the government to account (in public).

It means that those who lead must stand up and be scrutinised. They can't just pass a law and hide away behind the scenes.

This is usually twice a week!

TomWheatcroftBirmingham