Parliament: Laws can be made there, can question the government, can call election with the right number of votes by MPs. Can remove the government if the majority of MPs vote to do so, at which point, either another party with the confidence of the House becomes the new government or a General Election is held.
Like most if not all countries our parliament/government has many flaws, but with that being said i think it works better than the equivalent in many countries, like at least if something clearly good for the country is suggested, then most of the time the opposition will support it, where as in the states for example it seems like the equivalent would block things just for the sake of it even if it's good for everyone.
A nice video that gives a good simplistic overview of UK democracy but unfortunately misses out a big section of the government, namely the civil service. I recommend the comedies "yes minister" and its sequel "Yes, prime minister", which does a very good job of explaining the workings of Westminster in a humorous fashion.
@@californianreacts The original British TV series "House of Cards", not the American remake, is also a good introduction into how Westminster works, but of course it's not a comedy. EDIT: This video uses some clips from the original "House of Cards", e.g. at 5:38
As many have said, our governance has its flaws, and these days generates a lot of apathy sadly, since many others would die, or indeed are dying (Ukraine) to have what we have. While the Commons chamber is the rowdy epicentre, a massive amount of cross-party work gets done behind the scenes, examining key issues, calling key public servants and others to account etc. The House of Lords is often decried as outdated and undemocratic, however, there are many who get there because of hard work and expertise, and they check and examine legislation to ensure it will actually work. All in all, it works well. And having a non partisan Head of State is a very very good thing in my opinion!
I don’t have a problem with the rows. Politics is passion. Often looked at other models, & then I look at our old girl of country, & it’s been going in one form or another for over 1000 years. So us Brits must be getting something right.
The House of Commons chamber is deliberately designed to be confrontational, that is the two sides face each other. We do not have the sort of fan-shaped legislature that many countries have where one might quietly slip sideways to join another more congenial group. In our parliament one would 'cross the floor' which is done in the full glare if all MPs. Winston Churchill did it twice.
As far as I know, the last bill not given Royal Assent (what it is called when a monarch agrees on a bill from parliament) was in 1708 by Queen Anne. George V did look at possibly not giving Royal Assent to the Government of Ireland Bill in 1914 which he did not like but did still approve it. So Elizabeth II has never not given Royal Assent on a parliamentary bill.
True, however while Elizabeth II has never refused a bill that has completely passed through both the Commons and the Lords she has used powers to prevent bills from even being discussed in parliament. Parliament is duty bound to inform the Queen when any potential act would limit or alter the powers of the monarch or pretty much effect her in anyway and then get her consent to even be able to talk about it or vote upon it in Parliament e.g. there was a bill by Blair that would have allowed him to order the military around without going through the Crown and/or notifying the Crown, but the Queen had this squashed, so it never made it to second reading.
@@davidwallin7518 In Australia technically her powers were used to kick out an entire parliament calling a general election when nothing was getting done. I say technically because officially it was done by the Queen's representative who does her job on her behalf in Australia and supposedly the Queen knew nothing about it with no definite advanced warning, but there was correspondence between the representative and Prince Charles raising the possibility with a reply saying its his decision and the Queen would support his decision.
It is pretty chaotic in parliament, but if you find that shocking, check out some of tge eastern European and Asian parliaments. They literally have fist fights.
There's a good Ted video by an American on. Countries Constitutional Monarchies and how 10 of the top 20 democracies in the world are constitutional monarchies
There are merits to our system but quite a bit of it now is out of date. Firstly whilst the Royal Family have such powers it wouldn’t be wise for them to use them as they would be overthrown in a heartbeat. (this is where the UK Royal Family learned from their German and Russian cousins) Secondly whilst our system has a lot of merits there are areas that are out of date. We use a First Past the Post system rendering elections virtually 2 Party only (especially in England) and meaning that change is virtually impossible similar to the US. We also have a stupid second tier called the House of Lords where the PM of the time can just elect a mate to earn thousands of pounds each month for hardly any work for the rest of their lives. The last point I would make is that whilst this did cover our main political system it also gets far more complicated in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In these countries they have certain devolved powers and their own more local governments.
Just to clarify that the positions the Prime Minister fills in Government such as Home Secretary and Foreign Minister are chosen from the other elected MPs in parliament and a few from the House of Lords. They are normally all chosen from the PMs own party unless in the rare occasion its a coalition Government. My understanding is in the US system the President can select anyone he wants for the position and than needs voting through the Senate if I understand correctly which is a bit of a difference.
We have somehow ended up with a political and legal system that isn’t perfect but it seems to have kept us free and safe for a long time, compared to some democracies. The Queen provides a non political head of state with the armed forces under her rather than the government directly so checks and balances. We have had a long history of peace with slow change but positively in the main. Just look at countries like Zimbabwe, Spain, Singapore and India to see troubled systems with questionable histories and government policies.
PMQs is once a week on Wednesday, not representative of Parliament, opportunity to question the PM, bit of a bear pit, but entertaining, always watch it. I love our politics, lots is done behind the scenes. The Conservative Party (Tories) are the oldest political party in the world. If its not broke don't fix. Its not cast in stone, so things do change.
The conservative party and the Tory party are technically different parties; the conservative party was formed in 1834. Saying that the term "Tory" was and still is used by some, even long after the party was dissolved
Canada has the same system of government and Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state as Queen of Canada. One big advantage of the parliamentary system as it exists in the UK, Canada, and other Commonwealth nations is that you never get the brinkmanship that regularly occurs in the USA where there is the possibility of government ceasing to function because the previous budget has expired and there has been no agreement on a new one. The failure of a budget bill to pass is considered a non-confidence motion in the government and the party currently in power has to call a new election. But taxes keep being collected and monies spent as required based on the last budget bill that passed. Canada enacted a law requiring elections to take place within four years of the last one but an election could take place much sooner than that either due to the government losing a non-confidence vote, unlikely in a majority government, or because the party in power figures they stand a better chance of retaining power if they call an election early rather than waiting the full four years.
I am not a broad, I am a dude and a proper geezer in fact, but I am British and I think it generally works OK. There are about 60m of us here in the UK, so you won't keep everyone happy, and the consistently weak opposition in recent years has not helped in my opinion, but overall I think it is a good system that has developed over many centuries.
The biggest issue with the representational system is it forces a two party system. Politics has stagnated because of it. Labour Vs Conservative. This is why Brexit surprised the establishment, because they had become so complacent the drive for alternative approaches forced a populist revolution. It was actually proportional voting that allowed us to get Brexit sorted, which is the anthesis of the party system. This system also is biased towards cities as they hold more seats, often leaving those in less dense areas with less chance to influence the politics. My personal view is we should abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a new house, of proportionately voted members of parliament. This in addition to the normal house would combine representative and direct democracy in a balanced way.
personally I'd get rid of most govts and replace them with a monarchy ...politics has become such a mess now, that all they do is rip chunks out of each other on a personal level, like a bunch of pre teen school kids on the playground with agendas that change with the wind!!!
It's not mentioned, but there other parties involved: the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, Independents (I may have missed one or two others). The LibDems, for example, have recently scored well against the Conservatives. Whatever the Queen privately thinks of a PM or a party, she really has no pubic say in the matter. It should be noted she has acknowledged 14 PMs during her reign.
Prime minister’s question time is a very small part of what is done. It gives a very bad impression and is usually unproductive. It is very hard to score a hit, but it does give the back-benchers to put the PM through his paces. Most debates are much quieter and constructive. Furthermore much detailed questioning of the Government, the Civil Service and even outsiders, plus the discussion of bills line by line is done by small groups in committees. The other house, the Lords, is full of people who are knowledgeable and who are more independent because they are appointed for life. Just like the US Supreme Court. The problem is that they are chosen is strange way and there are just too many of them, many of whom do not even speak or even attend.
Love the vids. Check out MTM on Tim Pool when she explains how bills are voted for in the US. Same as ours. Totally non democratic, but it ain't communism yet! Phew
This video is broadly accurate but ignores the legal explanations required to fully understand the U.K. Constitution (the U.K. does have a constitution, it just isn’t codified into a single document like the US constitution) Furthermore, the video doesn’t mention the role of the Judiciary and the courts. Actions taken by the monarch and the government can be subject to judicial review. These actions can also be overturned by a ruling of the U.K. Supreme Court. For example, the government advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament in 2019. Prorogation is the ending of a parliamentary session. A period between closing down Parliament and the State Reopening of Parliament. This order by the monarch (on advise of her Prime Minister) was ruled unlawful by the U.K. Supreme Court and expunged, as if the order had never been issued. Parliament was immediately recalled. Finally, The Queen has never blocked a law (refused royal consent). The last monarch to do so was Queen Anne in 1708.
History YEETI Channel There's A Very Old Adige, Politics Is The Alternative To War, Metaphorically Speaking"!!! It's The Equivalent To Coming Up Behind You Political Opponent And Smashing Their Heads In,!!!!!! "If You Can't Stand The Heat Don't Go In The Kitchen,"!!!!! .
Comedy and education at it's finest!
But... who is actually in charge?
The people of Britain. Brexit and the last election proved that.
Parliament: Laws can be made there, can question the government, can call election with the right number of votes by MPs. Can remove the government if the majority of MPs vote to do so, at which point, either another party with the confidence of the House becomes the new government or a General Election is held.
We understand the difference between a Head of State and a Head of Government
Like most if not all countries our parliament/government has many flaws, but with that being said i think it works better than the equivalent in many countries, like at least if something clearly good for the country is suggested, then most of the time the opposition will support it, where as in the states for example it seems like the equivalent would block things just for the sake of it even if it's good for everyone.
A nice video that gives a good simplistic overview of UK democracy but unfortunately misses out a big section of the government, namely the civil service. I recommend the comedies "yes minister" and its sequel "Yes, prime minister", which does a very good job of explaining the workings of Westminster in a humorous fashion.
Thank you Martin, I'll search them up! Thanks for pointing this section missing out as well, I would have not known about it.
@@californianreacts The original British TV series "House of Cards", not the American remake, is also a good introduction into how Westminster works, but of course it's not a comedy.
EDIT: This video uses some clips from the original "House of Cards", e.g. at 5:38
As many have said, our governance has its flaws, and these days generates a lot of apathy sadly, since many others would die, or indeed are dying (Ukraine) to have what we have. While the Commons chamber is the rowdy epicentre, a massive amount of cross-party work gets done behind the scenes, examining key issues, calling key public servants and others to account etc. The House of Lords is often decried as outdated and undemocratic, however, there are many who get there because of hard work and expertise, and they check and examine legislation to ensure it will actually work. All in all, it works well. And having a non partisan Head of State is a very very good thing in my opinion!
I don’t have a problem with the rows. Politics is passion.
Often looked at other models, & then I look at our old girl of country, & it’s been going in one form or another for over 1000 years. So us Brits must be getting something right.
Prime Minister’s Question’s can be funny to watch sometimes. They act like kids in kindergarten. 😂
The House of Commons chamber is deliberately designed to be confrontational, that is the two sides face each other. We do not have the sort of fan-shaped legislature that many countries have where one might quietly slip sideways to join another more congenial group. In our parliament one would 'cross the floor' which is done in the full glare if all MPs. Winston Churchill did it twice.
As far as I know, the last bill not given Royal Assent (what it is called when a monarch agrees on a bill from parliament) was in 1708 by Queen Anne. George V did look at possibly not giving Royal Assent to the Government of Ireland Bill in 1914 which he did not like but did still approve it. So Elizabeth II has never not given Royal Assent on a parliamentary bill.
True, however while Elizabeth II has never refused a bill that has completely passed through both the Commons and the Lords she has used powers to prevent bills from even being discussed in parliament. Parliament is duty bound to inform the Queen when any potential act would limit or alter the powers of the monarch or pretty much effect her in anyway and then get her consent to even be able to talk about it or vote upon it in Parliament e.g. there was a bill by Blair that would have allowed him to order the military around without going through the Crown and/or notifying the Crown, but the Queen had this squashed, so it never made it to second reading.
That's here, I believe that She blocked one in Australia, possibly in the '50s.
@@martingibbs1179 And that's good - can you imagine him being given more power than he already had?
@@davidwallin7518 In Australia technically her powers were used to kick out an entire parliament calling a general election when nothing was getting done. I say technically because officially it was done by the Queen's representative who does her job on her behalf in Australia and supposedly the Queen knew nothing about it with no definite advanced warning, but there was correspondence between the representative and Prince Charles raising the possibility with a reply saying its his decision and the Queen would support his decision.
Not giving royal assent would end the monachy
It is pretty chaotic in parliament, but if you find that shocking, check out some of tge eastern European and Asian parliaments. They literally have fist fights.
Very true! I've seen a few of those videos and it's truly out of control elsewhere.
There's a good Ted video by an American on. Countries Constitutional Monarchies and how 10 of the top 20 democracies in the world are constitutional monarchies
There are merits to our system but quite a bit of it now is out of date.
Firstly whilst the Royal Family have such powers it wouldn’t be wise for them to use them as they would be overthrown in a heartbeat. (this is where the UK Royal Family learned from their German and Russian cousins)
Secondly whilst our system has a lot of merits there are areas that are out of date. We use a First Past the Post system rendering elections virtually 2 Party only (especially in England) and meaning that change is virtually impossible similar to the US. We also have a stupid second tier called the House of Lords where the PM of the time can just elect a mate to earn thousands of pounds each month for hardly any work for the rest of their lives.
The last point I would make is that whilst this did cover our main political system it also gets far more complicated in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In these countries they have certain devolved powers and their own more local governments.
The queen's incharge she alone holds all the power !
Just to clarify that the positions the Prime Minister fills in Government such as Home Secretary and Foreign Minister are chosen from the other elected MPs in parliament and a few from the House of Lords. They are normally all chosen from the PMs own party unless in the rare occasion its a coalition Government. My understanding is in the US system the President can select anyone he wants for the position and than needs voting through the Senate if I understand correctly which is a bit of a difference.
Technically the PM doesn't actually need to choose them from Parliament either
@@RB-747 So, I could be appointed Home Secretary and you Foreign tomorrow then? Unlikely, but technically possible.
We have somehow ended up with a political and legal system that isn’t perfect but it seems to have kept us free and safe for a long time, compared to some democracies. The Queen provides a non political head of state with the armed forces under her rather than the government directly so checks and balances. We have had a long history of peace with slow change but positively in the main. Just look at countries like Zimbabwe, Spain, Singapore and India to see troubled systems with questionable histories and government policies.
PMQs is once a week on Wednesday, not representative of Parliament, opportunity to question the PM, bit of a bear pit, but entertaining, always watch it. I love our politics, lots is done behind the scenes. The Conservative Party (Tories) are the oldest political party in the world. If its not broke don't fix. Its not cast in stone, so things do change.
The conservative party and the Tory party are technically different parties; the conservative party was formed in 1834. Saying that the term "Tory" was and still is used by some, even long after the party was dissolved
Canada has the same system of government and Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state as Queen of Canada.
One big advantage of the parliamentary system as it exists in the UK, Canada, and other Commonwealth nations is that you never get the brinkmanship that regularly occurs in the USA where there is the possibility of government ceasing to function because the previous budget has expired and there has been no agreement on a new one.
The failure of a budget bill to pass is considered a non-confidence motion in the government and the party currently in power has to call a new election. But taxes keep being collected and monies spent as required based on the last budget bill that passed.
Canada enacted a law requiring elections to take place within four years of the last one but an election could take place much sooner than that either due to the government losing a non-confidence vote, unlikely in a majority government, or because the party in power figures they stand a better chance of retaining power if they call an election early rather than waiting the full four years.
I am not a broad, I am a dude and a proper geezer in fact, but I am British and I think it generally works OK. There are about 60m of us here in the UK, so you won't keep everyone happy, and the consistently weak opposition in recent years has not helped in my opinion, but overall I think it is a good system that has developed over many centuries.
Prime ministers questions can be fun to watch. A more civilised blood sport.
I would argue that the USA is not a Democracy, well one that really works as it should, but what do I know.
The biggest issue with the representational system is it forces a two party system. Politics has stagnated because of it. Labour Vs Conservative. This is why Brexit surprised the establishment, because they had become so complacent the drive for alternative approaches forced a populist revolution. It was actually proportional voting that allowed us to get Brexit sorted, which is the anthesis of the party system. This system also is biased towards cities as they hold more seats, often leaving those in less dense areas with less chance to influence the politics.
My personal view is we should abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a new house, of proportionately voted members of parliament. This in addition to the normal house would combine representative and direct democracy in a balanced way.
personally I'd get rid of most govts and replace them with a monarchy ...politics has become such a mess now, that all they do is rip chunks out of each other on a personal level, like a bunch of pre teen school kids on the playground with agendas that change with the wind!!!
It's not mentioned, but there other parties involved: the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, Independents (I may have missed one or two others). The LibDems, for example, have recently scored well against the Conservatives. Whatever the Queen privately thinks of a PM or a party, she really has no pubic say in the matter. It should be noted she has acknowledged 14 PMs during her reign.
At this present moment in time, I think most of us Brits wish the queen would use her powers and get rid of Boris Johnson.
Prime minister’s question time is a very small part of what is done. It gives a very bad impression and is usually unproductive. It is very hard to score a hit, but it does give the back-benchers to put the PM through his paces. Most debates are much quieter and constructive. Furthermore much detailed questioning of the Government, the Civil Service and even outsiders, plus the discussion of bills line by line is done by small groups in committees. The other house, the Lords, is full of people who are knowledgeable and who are more independent because they are appointed for life. Just like the US Supreme Court. The problem is that they are chosen is strange way and there are just too many of them, many of whom do not even speak or even attend.
The PM runs the country BUT NO BILL CAN BE MADE LAW WITHOUT THE QUEENS SIGNATURE. PLUS SHE DOES WHEEL A LOT OF POWER THAT SHE DOESN'T USE.
Checks and balances
Love the vids. Check out MTM on Tim Pool when she explains how bills are voted for in the US. Same as ours. Totally non democratic, but it ain't communism yet! Phew
This video is broadly accurate but ignores the legal explanations required to fully understand the U.K. Constitution (the U.K. does have a constitution, it just isn’t codified into a single document like the US constitution)
Furthermore, the video doesn’t mention the role of the Judiciary and the courts. Actions taken by the monarch and the government can be subject to judicial review. These actions can also be overturned by a ruling of the U.K. Supreme Court.
For example, the government advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament in 2019. Prorogation is the ending of a parliamentary session. A period between closing down Parliament and the State Reopening of Parliament. This order by the monarch (on advise of her Prime Minister) was ruled unlawful by the U.K. Supreme Court and expunged, as if the order had never been issued. Parliament was immediately recalled.
Finally, The Queen has never blocked a law (refused royal consent). The last monarch to do so was Queen Anne in 1708.
🇬🇧🇳🇬✌🏾
History YEETI Channel
There's A Very Old Adige,
Politics Is The Alternative To War, Metaphorically Speaking"!!! It's The Equivalent To Coming Up Behind You Political Opponent And Smashing Their Heads In,!!!!!! "If You Can't Stand The Heat Don't Go In The Kitchen,"!!!!! .