@@jillhobson6128 Not strictly true .The convention is that the Monarch assents to everything but the veto is there if needed .Queen Elizabeth refused to agree something under the Blair government ( I think) but perhaps someone else will remember better than I what it was .
@@reactingtomyroots What's the difference between an American and a Brit? A Brit thinks 100 miles is a long way, and an American thinks 100 years is a long time.
The house of Lord's is an Un-elected body, There has been a fair amount of discussion about changing that, But i for one hope it stays as it is, Why? Because to me a elected house and a hereditary / appointed house have different strengths and weaknesses. If both houses were elected then they would have the same weaknesses. Having an elected upper House allows the UK to be flexible, And move with changes. While having the Lord's the way it is provides stability and it acts as an anchor, Stopping a wild swing in any direction. A bit like blending two metals of different characteristics into an alloy with more of the strengths of both and fewer of the weaknesses.. 🤔
Yeah. When you have two elected houses they just deadlock when they disagree because neither is more legitimate than the other, like in Italy, or even the USA (after they made the Senate elected a hundred years ago).
Except it doesn't stop anything. Most the lords can really do it ask the government to rethink something. Because it is unelected it can't actually completely deny the elected chamber. So an actual elected chamber could challenge the gocernment more effectively
@@Rorksen True, But it doesn't look good for the government to have bill's rejected / bounced back to them all the time, If that happened, The media & voters would quickly bring the government down, Everything in politics is about perceptions and optics, And also i said it provides stability by stopping wild swings in any one direction, While having the commons elected provides flexibility allowing the country to move with the times, If the Lords was the absolute fixed and immobile point it seems you think i meant, Then the Commons wouldn't be able to move the country at all, What i really meant was the lords stops the country from moving to fast or to far . Like breaks on a car. The lords provides a resisting force that is immune to the same things that drive the commons like a leaf in the hurricane winds of popular public political opinion.
I agree with you in that the house of Lords benefits from skill/knowledge based appointments over popularity appointments. On the other hand the system does need overhauling as there needs to be some limits placed on the numbers.
We could elect the upper chamber, but can you imagine more voting, more apathy, more divisiveness, more party politics. As many issues as the H of L may have, it contains a vast body of expertise, experience and wisdom, with less party affiliation. My best friend from school, born and originating from Jamaica, is now in the H of L, not through birth, but because of life experience and alternative perspective. It is far from perfect but many countries would give their eyeteeth for something similar.
The reason I’m really enjoying your content Steve so far is because you ask excellent questions, logically thought out and genuinely curious questions that elicit real responses from real people. (Which is defiantly going to help your engagement massively and hopefully continue to grow your channel!)
A good way to watch our Parliament in action and get the real breadth of topical issues in the UK is to watch Prime minister's Question time (PMQ's) held most Wednesdays 12 noon UK time such as today. This is a weekly parliamentary sparring match between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and other MP's from all parties on the issues of the day, holding the Prime minister to account. It's about 45 minutes long and quite a feat of stamina. The PM is usually very well prepared so no knockout blows are usually landed.
In my opinion, aside from very limited entertainment value, it achieves very little because it's cheap point-scoring most of the time with the principals talking across each other without listening or actually answering the questions (which are often just unproven assertions masquerading as questions).
Most debates in Parliament are recorded and have been for decades. Some you might catch live/rebroadcast on C-SPAN, and broadcast live and archived on the Parliament Live TV Web site. The Parliamentary Recording Unit has licensing agreements available for reusing content, as well as forms for requesting a copy of video of debates (and hearings) not currently available in the public archives. Elizabeth Tower houses Big Ben (and the prison that used to hold misbehaving politicians), and Victoria Tower (approximately the opposite corner of the Palace of Westminster) houses the Parliamentary Archives - I think the UK Parliament UA-cam channel have a few videos on the Parliamentary Archives, and I believe one of those was about bringing all remaining copies of the Magna Carta to the same place for public display in 2015.
The House of Lords consists of 26 Church of England bishops, who have seats ex-officio, 92 hereditary peers who were left when the system was reformed in 1999 (before that there were hundreds of them - when one of the hereditaries dies an election is held between all the lords who don’t have a seat, to fill the vacancy), and around 700 life peers who are people who have expertise in some field (either superannuated politicians who have given up Commons seats, or list them in an election, scientists, the arts, etc) and are appointed for life by the Prime Minister of the day. Life Peers are something that was created around 1960 - before that nearly all the peers were hereditary.
The petition system is incredibly powerful powerful too. If a petition gets 10,000 signatures then the government MUST respond to it. If a petition gets over 100,000 signatures then it must be debated by parliament
In theory the monarch could refuse to approve a bill, But if they do so they had better have a very good reason or they would lose the approval of the public, And there would be consequences to their future role, Queen Elizabeth II did stop the government / house of commons from granting it's self the ability to declare war without royal approval. ( Although i can't remember if that proposal was a bill as such ) Which Isin't widely known but an action i do agree with, Because it would be very strange if for example the US Senate could declare war without the approval of the US president..
@Graham Johnson That change wasn't made by refusing royal assent. There is another rule in parliament that says if there is any possibility said bill can affect the monarch then parliament needs to get the permission of the monarch to even debate the bill in parliament. Its this rule that the monarchs use to influence parliament, so rather than stop a bill once politicians have agreed on it, which would create a public relations nightmare, they stop the bill quietly in parliament in such a way that it doesn't create any waves or at least it gets quietly amended to create a royal exemption.
There is literally a leaked list of hundreds of bills that were refused by the Queen. The comments here are utterly delusional. You must all be reading the Daily Mail or something.
There is a difference between refusing consent and refusing assent. Queens consent ment that parliament must seek royal permission in advance in order to alter the royal prerogative which declaring war comes under. Effectively blocking the bill before it is created. Refusing assent would mean blocking a bill that had been approved by both houses of parliament. The last time it was refused was in 1708 by Queen Anne. Monarchs have threatened to do so since which has usually been enough to make parliament back down. Though rarely used it is still fully within the Kings power to refuse bills and to dissolve parliament.
@@connorward2400 I don't think the monarch can dissolve parliament now. I know that a few years ago under David Cameron they brought in the fixed term parliament act that removed the then Queens prerogative to dissolve parliament and declared a fixed 5 year term or shorter if parliament voted for it. It was this law that caused all sorts of problems for Brexit and Boris did declare that he was going to repeal it but then covid happened and I don't think he did manage to repeal it.
Yes the Monarch has to approve the Bill for it to become law, but technically the Monarch can't refuse to approve it. That would cause a major constitutional issue. It really is only a ceremonial act.
I once saw a comment by an American who said, “it’s crazy how you guys have a queen who runs the country instead of a democracy, that’s so alien to us!” I had to explain that to think the queen runs the country is like me thinking the Bald Eagle runs the USA - she’s just a national symbol!
Although the King can refuse to agree a law they would never do so, If they did so it would cause a constitutional crisis, The last time a monarch refused to agree to what Parliament wanted was in 1708.
Hello, dear Steve. 'Parliament' simply means 'talking place' from the French verb 'parler' - to talk. The government is a separate institution; those people appointed by the governing party to run the country between general elections, and approved by the monarch.
The big difference in the UK, is that the general election takes place on one day, and the results are know by the next day. As you will have seen over the last few months, if the government is not doing a good job, then public opinion will force them to change, in the last few cases, the prime minister was changed. In the US, the constitution says Government of the people by the people. Its a real shame that is no longer the case there. in the UK, we have government of the people by the people because the members of parliament ( MPs ) ARE normal people, not just professional politicians.
there is a joke ... where was the magna carter signed ( in reality - the place ' Runnymead ' ) ( but the joke is ) ' at the bottom ' ( of the page ) also ...............at a quarter past twelve ( 1215 A.D. )
Technically, you are correct that the Monarch has the "final say", as the entirety of Government is conducted "in his/her name" / on his/her behalf, and they must formally approve (or "Assent") to any Bill before it is "Enacted", thus becoming an actual Law. However, by convention, it would NEVER be the case in practice that the Monarch would refuse to enact a Bill that has passed the Parliament. That would be the fastest way to ensure the dissolution of the Monarchy!
The monarch never does not approve a bill. Its a ceremonial role.. monarch is head of state but if the monarch did not approve a bill then the monarchy would cease to exist.
Glad you found the recommendation useful. I second the people recommending Prime Minister's Question Time, just remember the clips on UA-cam are often people picking the most raucous ones.
Best time to go to Parliament is when there is only a few people there. Then they debate the issue like grown ups, rather than just shout at each other, like they do at Question time.
The monarch giving approval for a bill is called "royal assent". Technically it can be withheld, but the last time that happened was over 300 years ago. Also, since 1911, the House of Lords has been unable to completely block bills. They can delay them for a period of time, but ultimately the Commons can force it through. This power to bypass the Lords is rarely used however, since 1911 it has been used only 7 times.
"Royal Assent withheld 300 years ago" - I wonder what would happen if it was wihheld these days - would we ever know? - would the bill be altered to overcome Royal objections? - would another Civil War break out? Interesting to speculate?
There’s more to the story. Queen Anne withheld royal assent on the Scottish militia bill in 1708 because there was a sudden change of circumstances and the government told her to. She didn’t veto the bill on her own initiative.
I work in health and was part of a small group of people who pushed for the smoking ban in the UK. We were outside of the government but it was the result of our actions that the law exists. It was very much driven by ordinary people. Your understanding of the power of ordinary citizens in UK government is correct. And yes, we have "districts" which an MP represents. We call it a constituency.
HI STEVE DEBRA HERE FROM SOUTH WALES HOUSE OF COMMONS The House of Commons has 650 MPs (Members of Parliament) In the House of Commons or as it is sometimes called the Lower Chamber. To be able to form a government any party must have a working majority of over half of the seats that is for example 326 seats or more. These MPs are voted for by the general public in a party system, we vote for a particular party such as Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat or any other party that may be listed on the voting slip, we do not vote for an individual. The Prime Minister is the leader of the winning party. General Elections are held every five years HOUSE OF LORDS There are around 800 unelected members, in the House of Lords (or the Upper Chamber) Most of them are appointed as 'life peers' by the Queen on advice of the Prime Minster. The rest comprise of 92 hereditary peers (Earls etc) and 26 Church of England Archbishops and Bishops. The Lords are unelected and are placed there by an hereditary position (inherited titles such as Earls etc) where they get their titles from their families. Or they are placed there by the Prime Minister nominating them to the King for a life peerage such as being a Baronet. They can then sit in the House of Lords for the rest of their lives. Here in the UK many people are asking for a reform of the House of Lords and for them to be voted in as well. MPs hold what is known as a Surgery in their constituencies that you can go to talk to them about any grievance that you may have about the work the government is carrying out and if you want them to raise any matters on your behalf in the House of Commons. The king/Queen can say no to a bill but never would it happen and the monarchy do NOT interfere with the work of The Commons all the Monarch does is sign the Bill into Law.
People get elected to the Commons at general elections or when an MP resigns or dies. People are nominated to the Lords by political parties and they are there for life. The Lords can only delay a government Bill or put forward a modification for one to be considered by the Commons. The monarch gives Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament but the monarch refusing assent is not a thing because a monarch defying the will of Parliament by convention ceases to be the monarch including famously by losing his head. The Congressional district thing in the US is essentially identical to the British constituent thing. It is why both tend towards being a two part state. One major difference between the UK and US systems is the wholesale brutality of British parliamentary discourse.
As you are now no doubt aware that the US government is modelled on the UK system which is what the founders had experience of. Two houses, upper and lower, an executive and first past the post voting. In New Zealand we started with much the same system as in the UK but have now adopted the MMP system (Mixed Member Proportional) which gives parliamentary representation to a wider range of views and minimises opportunity for single parties being able to govern alone which has been described as elected dictatorship. We also did away with our upper house some years ago as it was felt that it served no real purpose in our country. The monarch remains at this time head of state, by our choice and is King of New Zealand, not because of any subservience to the United Kingdom, with New Zealand being an independent vountry
It makes sense now that I see it, but I just never took the time to contemplate how our government was formed before. I was probably taught bits and pieces of it, but 25 years out of school with no refresher leaves me not remembering a lot of what was taught. It's amazing how much influence the British have had over the world. I mean all the way to your country of New Zealand, which by the way I hope to visit one day. You guys have such beautiful nature.
@@reactingtomyroots If you ever do get down to New Zealand, make sure you visit both of the main islands - a lot of tourists only visit the Auckland area and miss out on a lot of incredible country. (ps - Bob Mack - greetings from Dunedin!)
One important thing not mentioned is that Candidates and their agents at a UK Parliamentary General Election must follow certain rules about how much they can spend, who they can accept donations from and what they must report after the election. The spending limit for each candidate standing for election is £8,700 plus 6p per registered parliamentary elector.
You will likely know we have a unruly parliament chamber, you should check it out, even if just for a laugh. The house of commons chamber has boos, shouting and hand gestures across the floor, but it has also provide great oratory, and some very amusing moments that get everyone laughing.
That's only really in PMQs - plus a few other times. Most of the time other debates only have a handful of people and are quieter. Worth looking at PMQs though
@@Gerishnakov yep. We want to help Steve understand what its like because that's what he wants, we need to show how ridiculous and mad it is and the best way is for him to have a look.
While the monarch technically can veto (or rather reject) a bill, they almost never do, since that would cause a constitutional crisis as they'd be going against the will of the people. However, there are some perpetually unconfirmed rumors that along the years Queen Elizabeth II (and other monarchs) did quietly kill off proposals before they even made it to the bill stage. Instead of outwardly refusing Royal Assent after MPs and Lords agreed on a bill, the the monarch would privately ask government ministers and MPs if such and such proposal was wise or prudent while it was still in the early colored papers stages. That would usually be enough to end support for it before it gained traction. To make a slightly morbid joke, think of it as taking a Plan B pill instead of getting a late-term abortion.
The UK has no written constitution, however it is virtually impossible for the monarch to refuse to sign or indeed line item veto any duly created Bill. Secondly the UK elects 600 members to the House of Commons each representing a particular constituency ( or District in US terms) and this from a population of some 65 million people. The US has 435 members of the lower House of Congress representing some 250 million people. Clearly the UK system puts representatives much closer to individual electors. Finally as leader of the largest group in the House of Commons the Prime Minister is required to be present and to answer questions and comments from the whole of the House of Commons every week, and lying to the House is illegal (cf Boris Johnson). In addition the PM is summoned to a meeting with the Monarch, normally on a weekly basis, to explain his or her priorities and to keep the Monarch informed about Parliamentary business. Could you imagine the Donald doing that?
As mentioned in another comment: You should watch "What Powers Does the Queen of England Actually Have?" by 'Today I Found Out.' Quite a fascinating video to watch.
I feel the video creator goes a bit too far with sensationalism in that, the information's not technically inaccurate but he makes it sound like people would just follow what the law says like obedient zombies, which is not how real life works. You really have to counterpoint it with the story about how Parliament makes the monarch wait in a little room with Charles I's death warrant on the wall when Parliament is opening, just in case anyone gets any funny ideas.
I think the striking similarity between the US and UK is that both countries usually employ one or t'other (an old phrase) of the main 2 parties. The difference is Americans know who will be President with their main vote, because the campaign whittles it down to 2, either Democrat or Republican. When we vote, we can only choose one member to represent the city or region ( a seat) in London. After that it's down to paid up members of the two parties to select their leader. The average voter has no say in who becomes the head honcho of either party. Its a limited democracy, which i believe needs a shake up. Hope this helps.
You make a good point about the term "Member of Parliament". I am not surprised you are confused as it's clearly a misnomer: whoever invented the term all those centuries ago was at fault as, to be accurate and clear, it should have been something like "member of the House of Commons in Parliament" as neither the monarch nor members of the other chamber of Parliament, namely the House of Lords, are ever called "members of Parliament". Mind you, your Congress has confusing terminology too. The lower house is called the "House of Representatives" which gives the misleading impression that the Senate, the upper chamber, does not consist of "representatives" (which it surely does - two electrd representatives for each state?). Well done for noticing that point!
I'm surprised to see many Americans not knowing the difference between the government and parliament, lol. Like... it'a not just about the UK, but also the U.S.
No mention that the Uk's upper chamber is unelected or the fact that we use the First Past The Post system which is completely undemocratic - just like the US system is. In both countries its possible, and quite often has happened, where the popular vote doesn't correspond to who takes power. We need a more proportional system like Germany or Switzerland. Its so strange that the US and UK gave Germany a more Democratic system of government but refused to reform their own undemocratic systems. One thing I do like about the UK system is that there is a limit to how much you can spend. Although there are often attempts to get around this rule by clever accounting.
The House of Lords is there to discuss bills and to recommend changes. It has NO has many on here are saying no powers to stop a Bill ,THE elected HOUSE of COMMONS are the law makers.
Great video! I am an American, but I think that the British Parliamentary System is a superior form of government. I so pray that we could go in that directions. It isn't that I am advocating we give up our independence (though, that would not bother me personally), rather that we reform our government to function like the Parliament with all the same avenues for the people to retake control of the governmental decision making processes. Anyway, can you, or have you found a video that investigates the actual pro's and con's of the British vs. U.S. governmental systems? I think that would be awesome. Thanks.
Although the Monarch has final say they are supposed to be nonpolitical and cannot offer an opinion so it is usually a given that it will signed into law. There have only been a couple of times where a monarch has refused to sign a bill into law.
There were no free elections under universal suffrage until the 19th century and women got the vote in the early 20th century. Parliament's House of Commons was composed of representatives of the towns and shires who were primarily appointed by landowners and such elections as may have occurred were limited to a narrow electorate of landowning classes and persons of standing. The House of Lords was composed of hereditary peers (barons, discounts, earls, marquesses and dukes) who earned their seats in parliament by virtue of their noble titles. The King In Parliament ruled with many powers still dispensed solely by the King (or Queen) under the Royal Prerogative.
Actually Parliaments go back before the Magna Carter but they where meetings of the Crown and their chosen advisors, De Montford was the first to invite (mostly Unelected) representatives from the Towns and Shires. "Life Peers" are chosen by the Crown, they are respected British Experts in various fields, Hereditary Peers are the old nobility and inherit their jobs, the "Bishops" used to just be CoE but today come from many faiths., Life Peers serve for life unless removed or retiree, Hereditary Peers keep the job as long as they have the Title, Bishops until the Church say otherwise. The Crown is largely Ceremonial today, but theoretically has a bunch of powers they can exercise should Parliament fall apart. but when things are working properly all they do is Appoint a Government from the party (or Coalition) with the most popular support and they rubber-stamp Laws and Appointments of Public Officials. I Recommend you watch "Yes Minister"and "Yes Prime Minister" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister) a Comedy from the 80's that is shockingly close to how things are done behind the seens and is still valid to this very day.
There is an entire TV channel BBC Parliament which covers all the live debates in the Commons and Lords and if there is nothing else to watch then it is worth wasting two hours of a day to watch.
I know nothing about politics but I used to get high and watch tony Blair Vs William Hague was a right laugh watching the opposition constantly shit string and cheering each other on.
we have also a tv channel like that in France which cover debates in the parliament. it's called "la chaine parlementaire" , translated in english "the parliamentary chanel"
You seem to get a pretty good grasp on most of it. You are right some similarities to America some differences. The Commons is an elected house and is similar to your house of representatives. But it is definitely the power, they will get a law passed if it is their will. The speaker of the house is different. In Britain the Speaker is an unbiased chairperson, That regulates the meetings. They are chosen by the MP's themselves from among themselves. and it is pretty much a job for life or as long as they want it. They do need to get re-elected, but the major parties have an agreement not to put an opponent against the Speaker in an election, When they talk about constituencies, It is what you would call districts, The countries are split into 650 districts/ constituencies, There are boundary commissions that decide on these constituencies it isn't left to the parties . They are decided on population as well as area. trying to make them all about the same by population, they do vary from country to country in the UK depending on density of population and area covered. Averaging out at between 50 and 70 thousand people in each constituency, The Lords is not elected they are appointed. and as the name suggests it is made up from Lords, Peers of the realm some are Hereditary Lords there because at some point in their history their great great however many time grandfather pleased the King and was made a Duke or some such Hereditary title which passes down through the generations from father to son, some are Bishops of the Anglican Church but most are Lifetime Lords usually Businessmen or politicians who have excelled in some way and on retirement are made Lords for life.
An often forgotten effect of the HoC's Speaker being an impartial overseer of proceedings who doesn't vote is the the people in their constituency are basically without representation in Parliament for the duration of their time as Speaker.
650 elected members of parliament (MPs) who reside in the House of Commons. Each member represents a constituency which is a smaller area of the country. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party who have the majority of elected members in the commons. Leader of the opposition is the leader of the the second largest party in the commons!
I think the biggest difference between our governments is that you don’t need money to become a member of parliament, and move up to prime minister. In America your president has to be rich to cover the cost of campaigning, and doesn’t even have to have government experience
That's very true for the most part. We do have a few examples of people without money becoming house reps, but I'd say 99% of all our politicians are wealthy when they enter office. I wish that wasn't the case.
The reason why they need a lot of money to campaign, is simply because the USA is a vast country. There are individual states that are as big as countries.
@@Stand663 that’s true, but although the Uk is much smaller we still have campaigning but the cost comes from the party donations not the individual and therefore being extremely rich isn’t a necessity. They also have to already be a member of parliament to get to the top job
@@gilltrewick5219 The British parliamentary system is much better. Politics is local. We vote for our local MP’s. The party with the most local MPs forms the national government. The losing parties then join together to form a strong opposition. Regardless of which party wins, there’s always a natural counter weight against the government so it doesn’t get too big or tyrannical etc etc
There is less corruption, well overt corruption in the uk system as there are rules about campaign finances, no commercial for candidates on TV, these are enforced. Indeed some of the scandals that affected the Johnson government related to his attempts to turn a blind eye to it in his government; that he failed to do this shows the system does at least work. If an MP has connection with a lobbying group they have to declare that interest.
Question: does the monarchy have control over laws? Answer: yes and no. Yes they technically and legally can refuse to sign a bill into law but they can’t really. It’s tradition and ceremony again…. If a monarch actually did refuse to sign a bill passed by both houses the monarch would be in serious danger. It would turn the public against the monarchy. The government could then propose a bill for a royal bypass, or worse a bill to abolish the monarchy all together. So yes they have the power but they can’t use it, and most monarchs wouldn’t want to go against the public. In 1649 parliament put the king on trial and sentenced him to death for not respecting parliamentary sovereignty. Charles I was beheaded and Britain became a republic for 12 years under the rule of “lord protector” Oliver Cromwell. Once he was dead and his son/successor proved to be no where near as smart or formidable as his father. The people called for Charles II to come back as king. UK over through their monarch and killed him, became a republic for about 10 years then realized that monarchies were better. Or more accurately the bad things about the monarchy were fixed by Cromwell killing Charles, parliamentary sovereignty was beyond question and any king or queen who threatened it could remember what happened to Charles I. It’s the difference between theory and practice, in theory they can refuse a law. In practice they can’t. In theory there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is.
The general election is for only the House of Commons and there is no term limit on how long they are an MP or Prime Minister. As to the parties basically there is only two parties that can get elected to government and they are Conservatives and Labour as we have a first past the post voting system and not a Proportional Representation system. However we do have other parties sitting in the parliament with smaller number of MP's. Off the top of my head I can think of another 5 parties in the parliament that are not Conservative or Labour. The last time we had a hung parliament was in 2010 were the Conservatives won but did not have enough seats to form an overall majority so they formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats to form a government. It is very similar. You have districts and we have constituencies which is basically the same thing but we only have one representative (an MP) for each constituency, for example my constituency MP is a single MP who belongs to the Labour party and we do not elect anyone to the Upper chamber like you do with the Senate
The majority of Lords are what are called “life peers”, they’re appointed for life, but cannot pass on their title. They are proposed by the government in power and appointed by the monarch. There are also a few “hereditary peers” - about 90. These are members of the nobility who inherit their right to sit in the House of Lords - examples include the 18th Duke of Norfolk and the 20th Earl of Caithness. Up until the 20th century, the majority of peers in the House of Lords were hereditary members of the peerage - hence the name House of “Lords”, as opposed to Commons (not members of the nobility) There are also the Lords Spiritual - which are the senior bishops and archbishops of the Church of England, the established state church.
We have some pretty strict campaign laws. A lot of the way US parties run and sustain themselves wouldnt fly here. When MPs get cought doing stuff they shouldnt its very damaging to the party and often ends their carrer. Also remember that the priminister doesnt have a term limit. They run the show becaus they have the support of their party. If the party think their leader is a liability to the contry or their re-election chances they can be dissmissed or forced to resign without consulting the public and without an election. This has just happened in the UK as the old guy overstepped the line one too many times and his party had enough of him.
The monarch cannot object to any law made by his/her government. If the monarch disagress with his/her own government he/she is, effectively, telling the people they voted for the wrong politicians.
We are a nation of contradiction and paradox. Bishops in the Church of England get a lifelong seat in the House of Lords. This technically makes us a partial theocracy. Despite this we've evolved into one of the most secular nations in the World. One of the other advantages of having the offices of head of government and head of state invested in two different people is that our political leaders aren't owed the deference afforded to heads of state. Our journalists can ask the hard questions and really hold their feet to the fire. Journalists like Jeremy Paxman are renowned for dismantling politicians on live TV. He picks apart their double talk until they squirm. It's a joy to behold!
Seeing politicians squirm on tv would be a joy. LOL Too many over here don't want to represent the people, they simply look at government as a way to line their pockets. How I wish our journalists were honest, but most aren't.
Hi, The parliament of 1265 was not elected. MPs are Members of Parliament, they have a term of up to 5 years, and can be re-elected any number of times. Peers (Members of the House of Lords) are Appointed (not elected) these are normally life appointments. The public can suggest changes, there is a petition system, but it rarely does very much. I'm fairly certain that an MP must introduce any bill to parliament. Whilst the monarch can refuse to approve a new law/act I don't think it has happened in living memory. Like the US, the UK has 2 main parties, there ae also Nationalist parties (Scottish/Welsh) and various in Northern Ireland, by definition these are unable to have sufficient MPs to form the government, but may support either of the main parties in a minority government. There ae other parties but due to our system they tend to be spoiler votes. Collisions ae rare.
As to how a bill becomes law I have never known for the Monarch not to sign a bill into law. I think by the time the bill gets to the Monarch it is just a formality that the Monarch signs it at that stage. However, the Monarch may have been able to give their thoughts and advice at an earlier stage because everyday the Monarch gets their own Red Boxes, these contains the documents of business that has gone through parliament that day so the Monarch is fully informed and might make suggestions to the government at that stage and whether the government acts on that suggestion is up to the government. But by the time the bill gets to the Monarch for Royal Ascent it is basically a done deal and only a formality.
No. The People (meaning the population) had no say whatever in the government until the 19th century. King John in 1215 afixed his Great Seal to Magna Carta which stated that his "peers" were equally under law and that they could not be arrested or detained without due cause. The King's "peers" were nobles of high rank. The peasants and ordinary people had no part in this.
Universal Sufferidge or the right to have a vote was only established in 1919 when women were given given the vote prior to that only men at one stage with property of a certain value could vote this was abolished in 1918 after World War 1 when all males over 21 could vote ,Women got the vote in the early 1920,s
The way the house of commons was designed so that when swords were carried they could not stab across the aisle it is two sword lengths apart, about 10 feet. There are lines in front of each front row of seats on each side of the house and the members were not allowed to stand past that line when they were debating. They were allowed to go past those lines only to enter or leave the chamber (if I remember correctly).
Sadly, this is a myth. The lines were woven into the carpet after the second World War. Earlier chambers - those when men actually wore swords and before the Palace of Westminster was rebuilt in the 1830s and 40s - had no lines in the floor, and in any case swords may not be carried into the chamber. Racks are provided for them in the cloakrooms.
The House of Lords members don't have time limits. Most of the members are life peers, that is they are appointed by the monarch (on the recommendation of the Prime Minister - and some from an appointments commission ) and hold the title of Barron or Baroness. They hold the title for life, but can retire from the house by giving the Speaker of the Lords notice. There are also a small number of Hereditary peers elected by members of the peerage to represent them (under 100) together with a small number of hereditary office holders (the hereditary peers have titles Barron, Viscount, Earl, Marquis and Duke in increasing order of seniority). The final membership of the Lords are the Lords Spiritual, 26 Bishops and Archbishops of the Church of England. These are the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, The bishop of London, The bishop of Durham the Bishop of Winchester, then the 21 longest appointed bishops also are members (though this has been changed a bit with the appointment of Women bishops - they will now take precedence until there are an equal number of women and men bishops in the lords. Another exception for church of England Bishops membership are the bishop of Sodor and Man- who is a member of the upper house of the Manx parliament (the Legislative Council) and the Bishop of Gibraltar - because Gibraltar is outside the British Isle. Note there is no representation of the Established Church of Scotland, or the disestablished Church in Wales or the disestablished Church of Ireland, any formal representation of the Catholic Church, Jewish or Islamic religions - though there are members from that community appointed as life peers. MPs have been debating reform of the lords for some 150 years at least.
One thing our system does is it allows greater chance fro the common man to get a say or perhaps get something started. this has increased a lot with the internet as canvasing people who may have a common interest is easier. A good example of this was a campain started by a policemans widow for tougher sentances for anyone convicted of harming or killing someone in the line of duty. It took about 2 years and unfortunatly wont affect the sentence of teh men who killed her husband but it is now law. There have been a few instances of polititions getting caught taking money its rare as it is much more controlled here. there was a cash for questions scandal a few years ago and the rules were really tightened up.
Is that a good way of making law? All evidence points to "deterrence" having little to no effect on the likelihood of people to commit particular crimes.
the best part of the uk system to me is that the lords are are much more likely to say not now or not quite instead of no way. in that way its less likely to have gridlock.
This is what royalists dont like to admit when discussing the monarchy. It is ceremonial in name only. Think about the things mentioned in this video that you may have just casually overlooked. The Queen meets once a week with the PM, why? This is giving the monarch influence over the elected leader that noone in the country has. She stamps the laws into existence as you commented on. She has the power to dissolve parliament. She cannot be prosecuted. The military serve the monarchy, not the government.
When the Queen was asked to visit SA. During Apartheid, I believe she refused, whilst Apartheid ruled. I do hope that was true. Nelson Mandela and her Majesty was always were very close friends. He was one the the very few people who called her Elizabeth, and Prince Phillip, Phillip.
Although we have multiple parties, the 2 major parties almost always rule. The only exception is when no party gets over half the MPs, in which case they sometimes have to work with a minor party. This has only happened twice since WW2 so it's not that different from only having 2 major parties
It is true that any member of the public can write their own proposal for a law change or a new law and they can goto Parliament and present it in committee meetings with relevant MPs on that subject
@@vhc6600 Yes but, you're missing the point which is that for any of these bills to become law they need the support of the government of the day. The idea that someone could independently propose a bill and it would somehow become law without the government giving it the ok is fanciful in the least. Also, you say "many" but have you looked up how many private member's bills have actually become law? It is a tiny, tiny number.
@@Gerishnakov yes I have that's why is didn't say a big % of, I was highlighting that at least it has happened and therefore its possible... There was one that got momentum recently regarding Polluter Pays
U.S. is strange to other countries how really only two parties only. In many have two sometimes three major parties but at least two minor parties in the Upper and Lower houses of Government. Many Countries the President or Monarch have less power than the American President.
The monarch never interferes with the creation of laws in modern times. It’s just ceremonial and a throwback to many years ago. Once the bill is presented to the monarch it’s simply approved.
M.P. Members of Parliament. 650 in House of Commons all elected by the public. I cannot imagine any Monarch not proving a law. House of Commons up for election and we all vote on the same day. Have a look at A day in Parliament on You Tube. Our MPs cannot line their pockets though of course some try, if caught they are thrown out.
To change legislation you get the ear of your Member of Parliament, who is easy to contact. Its then down to the MP how they get changes by various processes. Love our politics and have been an avid follower since a child. The House of Lords are appointed by the Priminister and the Monarch, they should have done something to merit it. There is a small faction of hereditary peers, who inherited their position, when one dies they elect replacement from selected few. Certain jobs will also get a peerage (peer is a Lord) on retirement, First sea Lord being an example. Regarding cost of candidates being elected this is heavily regulated and there is a cap on finances. Breaches of rules are a criminal offence, with heavy penalties. There are enough eyes following to make it stupid to even try. So generally a level playing field.
The US senate used to be more like the house of lords. While 2 senators from each state was always the case, they were chosen by the state congress and the governor until the late 19th century in most states
The US President is Head of State and also Head of Government. In the UK The King/.Queen is the Head of State and the Prime Minister is Head of Government. Technically, the Prime Minister and all other Ministers are appointed by the Monarch, but there are processes and precedents to decide how this happens. Theroretically (I think) The Monarch could decide not to appoint in accordance to this precedent but then that would be a constitutional crisis and just couldn't stand.
I believe this video was commissioned by Parliament, so is a bit sugar coated. It barely talked about the Lords, as it's quite a controversial element of Parliament, and ripe for reform. It also doesn't talk about the monarch and Privy Council role, as they'd rather that be kept on the hush hush to avoid provoking more republican sentiment. And it avoids mentioning the first past the post voting system, which is the cause of some pretty pendulous swings in the UK political makeup, and means the House Of Commons isn't as representative as it would like to think. And to add in some up to date flavour, it doesn't talk about the democratic issues inherent in simply placing the leader of a political party in the most powerful seat when their party holds the majority. That is being exposed right now with the Conservative party in power, a recent leadership vacuum, and meant that 80,000 Conservative party members got to vote for the prime minister.
You know its funny, becasue im british and I live in the UK in England, and im learning a lot from whatching your videos. I mean I knew about voting and the party leader becoming the prime mininster and stuff and having mps represent areas around the UK, but I didn't know that the debates consisted of the elected party and all the opposition parties that got seats, and now it makes sense why they need the speaker to keep order in the house of commons debates. Ive seen some of these debates, and it always seems to be the consertives and labour never agree on a lot of stuff. I think this is obvious to most people, but I never really known a lot about poltics at all. But this video helped me learn. And I did not realise how much of a voice we have here as the british people. Cos I just kinda whatch it happen in the background and see it on the news and I go "oh whats everyone arguing about now XD"
I mean this mornig there was talk about our priminster Rissi Sunak not wearing a seatbealt while in the back of a cab from a video posted. And apparetly the person who supposed be in charge of our ecomey and tax's and stuff, littrelly ahsn't paid his own bloody taxs and theres all sorts of calims that go on latley. Im sure you will have heard of Boris Johnsons covid birthday Party even though he said people can't do that. Thats why he no longer the leader of the concertive or prime minster anymore
It also mentions the Magna Carta and then the Barons. But kind of Missed the English Civil wars from 1642-1651. Were kind of important to, When the king said I am the Power I rule by divine Right because God made me King, Parliament said no we are the power because the people voted for us. an argument the king lost when Parliament chopped his head off.
Then after suffering being a Republic for 11 years, the people basically said 'Sod this for a game of soldiers' and reinstated Charles ll, son of the murdered king, as a Constitutional Monarch which it has remained.
Lords are not elected. (There are campaigns to change that, but there are arguments on both sides - them being elected would be more democratic, but them not being elected means they're not subject to the same electoral pressures as MPs, and many of them have different perspectives as a result.) Life peers are nominated by government, and are then scrutinised before being accepted. Their seats are for life. hereditary peers are actual Lords, Earls, etc (the non-royal ones). Their seats are passed on, along with their titles. Others, like religious leaders, the seat goes with the job. Strictly speaking, the PM doesn't have to be an MP, they could be in the House of Lords. It hasn't happened since 1902. General Elections (where MPs are elected) is a bit complicated. There was a thing called the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which set each Parliament at five years. That was overturned by Boris Johnson's government. So it's reverted to the older system, where the Prime Minister of the day decides when the next election is. There's a five year limit at which Parliament is automatically dissolved if an election hasn't been called by the PM (the election is then a month (or it might be six weeks, come to think of it) later). But the sitting PM can call an election and dissolve Parliament at any time within that period, and an election will be a month/six weeks later. So right now, although the outside limit on the next election is Dec 2024 for the dissolving of Parliament, with the election in Jan 2025, Liz Truss could stand up in Parliament on Monday and say she's calling an election if she wanted to. Probably the biggest difference between the US and UK is the professional civil service at the highest level. While MPs and ministers do have politically appointed advisors, there's another layer of the civil service, who are not political appointees, and who remain constant no matter who is in power. The idea is it guarantees continuity. Not anybody can present a bill, but there is public consultation. There's a problem at the moment with the government wanting to be able to make laws in private, in the cabinet, without scrutiny or parliamentary questioning. There can be a coalition - if nobody gets a majority, the biggest party gets some time to try to negotiate to form a majority with another party, and then it's open to whoever can. If nobody can, there can be another election, of the Queen (or sorry, King) can appoint somebody to form a government.
The Monarch is not the defacto President. It's the other way around. The President is the defacto Monarch. As said in the video, Parliament's roots are in the signing of the Magna Carta near Runymede in 1215. The way it was explained to me was that, in general, the powers allocated to the US President when the Constitution was put into force were pretty much those of the British Monarch of the time. Things will have evolved and diverged on both sides of the Atlantic in the interveining years.
The house of lords are generally, yes, nobility, but some gain their lordships and knowledge about these laws being added to our system in other ways, they can also be previous prominent primeministers and deputy primeministers or prominent politaicians from both main parties over the years, who all have experience in ensuring laws dont go too far, such as, changing the rules on voting once in power,in order to ensure you stay in power, and are the balance of level headedness and experience, which ensure laws aren't self serving, so it is right that we have these people called lords, because they have earned their right to be in that position of respect, in ensuring laws are fair, and is in fairness sake, quite a responsibilty. We have local elections throughout each year to elect new Members of Parliament or M.P. for short, each of the many parties, stand for election in their local area known as a constituancy, every citizen has the right to stand for election and form their own party, and there a quite a few parties that stand, such as the monster raving looney party led by screamoing Lord Sutch, or the green party whom camapign for green laws and environmental issues and are not seen as very popular right now, but did never the less get one MP elected and she did sit in the house of commons as an elected MP. Each elected area MP, loses their seat in parliament on the night of the general election, and it is up for grabs again, but some areas are more loyal to one party over another allowing something called a safe seat, (meaning that a leader of a party occupies a safe seat in order to continue as leader of the party without the political risk of losing his seat in the house of commons), as even the prime ministers seat is up for grabs in his local constituancy, and must still win that seat back on the night of the general election.
The house of lords are experienced older people. Usually after many years of extensive contribution in their field... noted for their special dedication...to a particular item... then recomended by the prime minister...forwarded to the monarch who will be advised on the persons contribution to society and what level of award they should recieve... the monarch then progresses the person to appropriate award or house of lords if appropriate...
@@neuralwarp Very much in theory. Boris Johnson's resignation Honours list includes 2 of his former aides, one of whom is 30 and the other is in her late 20s.
I may be wrong but I remember one of your branches of government I think the Senate was originally supposed to be unelected (made up of appointed members of the community for a life role)
Private citizens would talk to the MP for their area and try to get them to raise the issue or propose a bill on their behalf, Where the video confuses things a bit for those who don't know, Is that the video says the idea for a bill can come from the public, Without explaining about the process at that time, Giving a possible misunderstanding that the public can directly introduce a bill..
Also people can nowadays start a petition on the Parliament website and if it gets 100,000 signing it then the issue gets time to be debated in the Commons.
A Member of Parliament (MP) represents an average Constitucicy(District) of 68,000 people! In the UK, the number of Political Parties ranges from the leading 4 to 14 The Main 4 are: Conservatives & Unionist Party (Government) UK-wide party Party Leader and Prime Minister: Lizz Truss (ideology: Centre-Right, Conservatism (British), Social liberalism, Economic liberalism (also called the Tories has had majority-government for the last 7 yrs) Labour and Co-operative Party (Opposition) UK-wide party Party Leader: Sir Kier Starmer KC (ideology: Center-Left, Social Democracy, Democratic socialism (Opposition party for 12 years, were in power from 1997 till 2010) Scottish National Party / SNP: (only stand and elected in Scotland) Leader in the House of Commons: Ian Blackford / Party Leader: Nicola Sturgeon MSP First Minister of Scotland (Scottish Parliament) (ideology: Centre-left, Scottish nationalism, Scottish independence, Civic nationalism, Pro-Europeanism) Liberal Democrats: UK-wide party Party Leader: Sir Ed Davey (ideology: Centre to centre-left, Liberalism (British), Social liberalism, and Pro-Europeanism (were in coalition with the Conservatives from 2010 to 2015) Other Parties: Democratic Unionist Party: only stand and are elected in Northern Ireland Party Leader and in the Northern Ireland Assembly: Jeffrey Donaldson (ideology: Right-wing, British unionism, British nationalism, Social conservatism, Anti-Irish Unification) Sinn Féin: only stand and are elected in Northern Ireland Party Leader in the House of Commons and in the Northern Ireland Assembly: Michelle O'Neill (ideology: Center-Left to Left-wing, Irish republicanism, Social Democracy, Democratic socialism, Left-wing nationalism, Irish Unification) Plaid Cymru: (Party of Wales (only stand and elected in Wales) Leader in the House of Commons: Liz Saville-Roberts / Party Leader: Adam Price Member of the Senedd (Welsh Parliament) (ideology: Center-Left to Left-wing, Welsh nationalism, Welsh independence, Civic nationalism, Social Democracy, Democratic socialism, Environmentalism, Regionalism, Pro-Europeanism) Social Democratic and Labour Party: (only stand and are elected in Northern Ireland) Leader in the House of Commons and Northern Ireland Assembly: Colum Eastwood (ideology: Center-Left, Irish nationalism, Social Democracy, Irish Unification) Alba Party: (only stand and elected in Scotland) Leader in the House of Commons: Neale Hanvey / Party Leader: Alex Salmond (ideology: Scottish nationalism, Scottish independence, Scottish republicanism, Pro-Europeanism) Alliance Party of Northern Ireland: (only stand and are elected in Northern Ireland) Leader in the House of Commons: Stephen Farry / Party Leader Naomi Long and in the Northern Ireland Assembly (ideology: Centre to centre-left, Liberalism, Irish Nonsectarianism and Pro-Europeanism) Green Party of England and Wales: (only stand and elected in England and Wales) Leader in the House of Commons: Caroline Lucas (ideology: Left-wing, Green politics, Progressivism, Pro-Europeanism)
Great reaction video. One of the world's greatest democracies, in which we don't elect the head of state, we don't elect the head of government (directly), we don't elect the upper house of Parliament (they're appointed based on their experience and expertise), but we're still a functioning democracy that ruled a quarter of the planet at its height, and has evolved and survived for more than a thousand years 😲 Most of Europe has the same. Mind boggling.. 😂
The House of Lords are not elected by universal suffrage. They are composed of Peers (Barons and Hereditary Peers (Dukes, Marquises, Earls, Viscounts, Barons) who inherit their title from their father) and also by Life Peers, who are Barons appointed by the King and the Government for life. The House of Lords have 96 members who are hereditary peers plus all the Life Peers. The Hereditary Peers are chosen by their fellow Hereditary Peers who number around 900, are chosen by election from among themselves to be the 96 Heredtaries.
We have multiple parties, even joke ones, the Monster Raving Loony party, who can all stand. Only need signatures of support from electorate to stand . Plenty of video on the House of Commons in action, it is interesting and can be hilarious, not boring at all.
Having just said that the House of Lords contains Life Peers, Hereditary Peers and Bishops, he then says that the Lords are selected for their knowledge and experience. It can't be both. The fact that the Lords aren't s-elected is the reason many people would want to make the second chamber a s-elected one. At the moment, if you're a lord, you're in Parliament for life. I suppose he might mean that certain lords are put onto those select committees but that's not what he says. The video is a bit confusing about bills - it's the same here as it is with you. And no, the monarch's seal of approval is ceremonial, he would never turn a law down. Many people would argue that the UK is not a real democracy, as MPs are elected on a first-past-the-post basis so the composition of the Commons isn't a real reflection of the views of the country. This is the source of a lot of discussion, and it's often different in other parts of Europe. (The same argument applies to the US, of course). Many people think a system of proportional representation would be better. Districts: yes, each MP represents a district, known as a constituency. The geographical size of a constituency is roughly proportional to population, so a big city like London has dozens of MPs while a more rural place of the same area will have only a couple. And of course, we have no elected second house. Have a look at one of the videos of, say, Prime Minister's Questions to see the House of Commons in noisy action. Just remember that a lot of this is just theatre and the real work of government is going on in offices far away from parliament.
There are others but the main difference between a prime minister and a president is that a prime minister is not the commander and chief of the armed forces or th year of state, that's the monarch
NO if the monarch refused to sign something it would still be signed. There is another individual who is legal obligated to sign. It is believed that the Queen's uncle who was then King had refused to sign some assent documents. These were just signed later and the King said to be indisposed. This was also the King who was ejected and replaced by his brother the Queen's father. The point being if the then monarch tried to affect the government by using some ceremonial function, they would be ignored and might be quickly replaced. The monarch's function is to smile, wave, shake hands with diplomatic visitors and shut up. I might point here that the Queen was apparently a decent car mechanic and serviced here own personal cars. In practical terms her greatest life achievements were having a family and car mechanics. All except one of her children ended up divorced, one is likely a kiddie meddler and one qualified for the Olympics on her own merits. They are just people and just as mediocre as anyone.
The Monarch could in theory not give Royal Ascent to a bill but in practice never would as it would undermine the democratic processes of getting it there. It would only be in the case of something which would so fundamentally wrong e.g. a bill outlawing General Elections or opposition parties (if it ever got that far but the House of Lords would stop that first). So in reality the monarch is rubber stamping the bill.
We in reality have a 2 party system - Conservatives and Labour, with Liberal Democrats third. (Although there are more parties with seats). A lot of that is to do with how many constituencies the parties can contest (they simply have more people)- which does come partly down to money I guess but not in any way like the US. Anyone can contest a seat - only requires a deposit of something like £500. As a result you do get independent candidates campaigning on specific issues in their constituency, or the more 'interesting' parties such as The Monster Raving Looney Party or Lord Buckethead (a sort of Darth Vader with a bucket on his head!!). Worth googling election results 2019 Uxbridge where there's Lord Buckethead, Elmo and someone called Boris with very messy yellow hair. You don't get that in the US! (Or probably anywhere else really)
The House of Lords is not elected. It is partly appointed and partly hereditary. Peers may be appointed for life and are given the noble rank of Baron. Hereditary peers inherit their title from their father and may be a baron, viscount, earl, marquis or duke depending on the noble family's historic title. Some Bishops of the Church of England also sit in the House of Lords by virtue of their seniority. All Lords sit for life. More recently, it was decided by an Act of Parliament that the number of hereditary peers would be limited to 92 members with the remainder of the House of Lords being made up of the Life Peers. The hereditary peers vote amongst themselves to appoint a member from their ranks when one of them decides to retire from active politics or dies.
House of Commons is elected, House of Lords is not. Lords usually keep their seats for life and are chosen by the monarch, have inherited their seats or are clerical representatives.
What virtually everyone misses is that the UK is NOT a country. It's a government administering several countries, dependencies and overseas territories. Some of those dependencies are not part of the UK proper. The Isle of Man for instance is essentially an independent state not covered by UK laws. I do not say UK Law because there is not such thing. Scotland, England(which includes Wales) and some dependencies all have different law. Most particularly Scotland is a fully sovereign and independent legal system. In legal matters Scotland operates as far as other countries are concerned as if it was just another independent sovereign state. Just like Holland, Lithuania, Germany or France. In fact Scotland has operated Scots Law courts in all of these countries. Most notably the court that triad the Lockerbie Bombers. Videos on UA-cam often made by English people nearly always portray the UK, Britain and England as the same undivided entity. The English dominated UK government based in London has always sought to create this impression. A such Americans always use English and British to mean the same thing. They hear an English accent they call it a British accent. It falls down when a US company hires an English law firm based in London but their property purchase was in Scotland where the firm could not operate. They would have been better hiring a French law firm since property law in France has more in common with Scots Law.
'"In 1215 ! ! !" Thats the sound of an American brian realising how much history we have and how far the rabbit hole goes haha.
No doubt. I have a hard time imaging that amount of history. LOL
The road I live on is at lest 800 years earlier then that .
@@jillhobson6128 Not strictly true .The convention is that the Monarch assents to everything but the veto is there if needed .Queen Elizabeth refused to agree something under the Blair government ( I think) but perhaps someone else will remember better than I what it was .
@@reactingtomyroots What's the difference between an American and a Brit? A Brit thinks 100 miles is a long way, and an American thinks 100 years is a long time.
The house of Lord's is an Un-elected body, There has been a fair amount of discussion about changing that, But i for one hope it stays as it is, Why? Because to me a elected house and a hereditary / appointed house have different strengths and weaknesses. If both houses were elected then they would have the same weaknesses. Having an elected upper House allows the UK to be flexible, And move with changes. While having the Lord's the way it is provides stability and it acts as an anchor, Stopping a wild swing in any direction. A bit like blending two metals of different characteristics into an alloy with more of the strengths of both and fewer of the weaknesses.. 🤔
Yeah. When you have two elected houses they just deadlock when they disagree because neither is more legitimate than the other, like in Italy, or even the USA (after they made the Senate elected a hundred years ago).
Except it doesn't stop anything. Most the lords can really do it ask the government to rethink something. Because it is unelected it can't actually completely deny the elected chamber. So an actual elected chamber could challenge the gocernment more effectively
@@Rorksen True, But it doesn't look good for the government to have bill's rejected / bounced back to them all the time, If that happened, The media & voters would quickly bring the government down, Everything in politics is about perceptions and optics, And also i said it provides stability by stopping wild swings in any one direction, While having the commons elected provides flexibility allowing the country to move with the times, If the Lords was the absolute fixed and immobile point it seems you think i meant, Then the Commons wouldn't be able to move the country at all, What i really meant was the lords stops the country from moving to fast or to far . Like breaks on a car. The lords provides a resisting force that is immune to the same things that drive the commons like a leaf in the hurricane winds of popular public political opinion.
I agree with you in that the house of Lords benefits from skill/knowledge based appointments over popularity appointments. On the other hand the system does need overhauling as there needs to be some limits placed on the numbers.
We could elect the upper chamber, but can you imagine more voting, more apathy, more divisiveness, more party politics. As many issues as the H of L may have, it contains a vast body of expertise, experience and wisdom, with less party affiliation. My best friend from school, born and originating from Jamaica, is now in the H of L, not through birth, but because of life experience and alternative perspective. It is far from perfect but many countries would give their eyeteeth for something similar.
The reason I’m really enjoying your content Steve so far is because you ask excellent questions, logically thought out and genuinely curious questions that elicit real responses from real people. (Which is defiantly going to help your engagement massively and hopefully continue to grow your channel!)
A good way to watch our Parliament in action and get the real breadth of topical issues in the UK is to watch Prime minister's Question time (PMQ's) held most Wednesdays 12 noon UK time such as today. This is a weekly parliamentary sparring match between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and other MP's from all parties on the issues of the day, holding the Prime minister to account. It's about 45 minutes long and quite a feat of stamina. The PM is usually very well prepared so no knockout blows are usually landed.
Was just about to say the same thing
Yep. I love Prime Ministers Questions.
Prince Minister's Question Time is usually televised.
In my opinion, aside from very limited entertainment value, it achieves very little because it's cheap point-scoring most of the time with the principals talking across each other without listening or actually answering the questions (which are often just unproven assertions masquerading as questions).
@@MrBulky992 I noticed this. Answers usually consist of the PM deflecting and asking what the questioner has done about X issue.
Most debates in Parliament are recorded and have been for decades. Some you might catch live/rebroadcast on C-SPAN, and broadcast live and archived on the Parliament Live TV Web site. The Parliamentary Recording Unit has licensing agreements available for reusing content, as well as forms for requesting a copy of video of debates (and hearings) not currently available in the public archives. Elizabeth Tower houses Big Ben (and the prison that used to hold misbehaving politicians), and Victoria Tower (approximately the opposite corner of the Palace of Westminster) houses the Parliamentary Archives - I think the UK Parliament UA-cam channel have a few videos on the Parliamentary Archives, and I believe one of those was about bringing all remaining copies of the Magna Carta to the same place for public display in 2015.
The House of Lords consists of 26 Church of England bishops, who have seats ex-officio, 92 hereditary peers who were left when the system was reformed in 1999 (before that there were hundreds of them - when one of the hereditaries dies an election is held between all the lords who don’t have a seat, to fill the vacancy), and around 700 life peers who are people who have expertise in some field (either superannuated politicians who have given up Commons seats, or list them in an election, scientists, the arts, etc) and are appointed for life by the Prime Minister of the day. Life Peers are something that was created around 1960 - before that nearly all the peers were hereditary.
The petition system is incredibly powerful powerful too. If a petition gets 10,000 signatures then the government MUST respond to it. If a petition gets over 100,000 signatures then it must be debated by parliament
In theory the monarch could refuse to approve a bill, But if they do so they had better have a very good reason or they would lose the approval of the public, And there would be consequences to their future role, Queen Elizabeth II did stop the government / house of commons from granting it's self the ability to declare war without royal approval. ( Although i can't remember if that proposal was a bill as such ) Which Isin't widely known but an action i do agree with, Because it would be very strange if for example the US Senate could declare war without the approval of the US president..
@Graham Johnson That change wasn't made by refusing royal assent. There is another rule in parliament that says if there is any possibility said bill can affect the monarch then parliament needs to get the permission of the monarch to even debate the bill in parliament. Its this rule that the monarchs use to influence parliament, so rather than stop a bill once politicians have agreed on it, which would create a public relations nightmare, they stop the bill quietly in parliament in such a way that it doesn't create any waves or at least it gets quietly amended to create a royal exemption.
There is literally a leaked list of hundreds of bills that were refused by the Queen. The comments here are utterly delusional. You must all be reading the Daily Mail or something.
There is a difference between refusing consent and refusing assent. Queens consent ment that parliament must seek royal permission in advance in order to alter the royal prerogative which declaring war comes under. Effectively blocking the bill before it is created. Refusing assent would mean blocking a bill that had been approved by both houses of parliament. The last time it was refused was in 1708 by Queen Anne. Monarchs have threatened to do so since which has usually been enough to make parliament back down. Though rarely used it is still fully within the Kings power to refuse bills and to dissolve parliament.
@@connorward2400 I don't think the monarch can dissolve parliament now. I know that a few years ago under David Cameron they brought in the fixed term parliament act that removed the then Queens prerogative to dissolve parliament and declared a fixed 5 year term or shorter if parliament voted for it. It was this law that caused all sorts of problems for Brexit and Boris did declare that he was going to repeal it but then covid happened and I don't think he did manage to repeal it.
All of this essentially means the Monarch does still have power over our laws, which no one seems to take any notice of bizarrely.
Yes the Monarch has to approve the Bill for it to become law, but technically the Monarch can't refuse to approve it. That would cause a major constitutional issue. It really is only a ceremonial act.
I once saw a comment by an American who said, “it’s crazy how you guys have a queen who runs the country instead of a democracy, that’s so alien to us!”
I had to explain that to think the queen runs the country is like me thinking the Bald Eagle runs the USA - she’s just a national symbol!
Although the King can refuse to agree a law they would never do so, If they did so it would cause a constitutional crisis, The last time a monarch refused to agree to what Parliament wanted was in 1708.
Hello, dear Steve. 'Parliament' simply means 'talking place' from the French verb 'parler' - to talk. The government is a separate institution; those people appointed by the governing party to run the country between general elections, and approved by the monarch.
The big difference in the UK, is that the general election takes place on one day, and the results are know by the next day. As you will have seen over the last few months, if the government is not doing a good job, then public opinion will force them to change, in the last few cases, the prime minister was changed.
In the US, the constitution says Government of the people by the people. Its a real shame that is no longer the case there.
in the UK, we have government of the people by the people because the members of parliament ( MPs ) ARE normal people, not just professional politicians.
there is a joke ... where was the magna carter signed ( in reality - the place
' Runnymead ' ) ( but the joke is ) ' at the bottom ' ( of the page ) also ...............at a quarter past twelve ( 1215 A.D. )
Technically, you are correct that the Monarch has the "final say", as the entirety of Government is conducted "in his/her name" / on his/her behalf, and they must formally approve (or "Assent") to any Bill before it is "Enacted", thus becoming an actual Law. However, by convention, it would NEVER be the case in practice that the Monarch would refuse to enact a Bill that has passed the Parliament. That would be the fastest way to ensure the dissolution of the Monarchy!
Last Monarch who tried that CHARLES 1 was beheaded.
The monarch never does not approve a bill. Its a ceremonial role.. monarch is head of state but if the monarch did not approve a bill then the monarchy would cease to exist.
Glad you found the recommendation useful. I second the people recommending Prime Minister's Question Time, just remember the clips on UA-cam are often people picking the most raucous ones.
Best time to go to Parliament is when there is only a few people there. Then they debate the issue like grown ups, rather than just shout at each other, like they do at Question time.
The monarch giving approval for a bill is called "royal assent". Technically it can be withheld, but the last time that happened was over 300 years ago.
Also, since 1911, the House of Lords has been unable to completely block bills. They can delay them for a period of time, but ultimately the Commons can force it through. This power to bypass the Lords is rarely used however, since 1911 it has been used only 7 times.
"Royal Assent withheld 300 years ago" - I wonder what would happen if it was wihheld these days - would we ever know? - would the bill be altered to overcome Royal objections? - would another Civil War break out? Interesting to speculate?
There’s more to the story. Queen Anne withheld royal assent on the Scottish militia bill in 1708 because there was a sudden change of circumstances and the government told her to. She didn’t veto the bill on her own initiative.
I work in health and was part of a small group of people who pushed for the smoking ban in the UK. We were outside of the government but it was the result of our actions that the law exists. It was very much driven by ordinary people.
Your understanding of the power of ordinary citizens in UK government is correct.
And yes, we have "districts" which an MP represents. We call it a constituency.
HI STEVE
DEBRA HERE FROM SOUTH WALES
HOUSE OF COMMONS
The House of Commons has 650 MPs (Members of Parliament) In the House of Commons or as it is sometimes called the Lower Chamber. To be able to form a government any party must have a working majority of over half of the seats that is for example 326 seats or more. These MPs are voted for by the general public in a party system, we vote for a particular party such as Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat or any other party that may be listed on the voting slip, we do not vote for an individual. The Prime Minister is the leader of the winning party. General Elections are held every five years
HOUSE OF LORDS
There are around 800 unelected members, in the House of Lords (or the Upper Chamber) Most of them are appointed as 'life peers' by the Queen on advice of the Prime Minster. The rest comprise of 92 hereditary peers (Earls etc) and 26 Church of England Archbishops and Bishops. The Lords are unelected and are placed there by an hereditary position (inherited titles such as Earls etc) where they get their titles from their families. Or they are placed there by the Prime Minister nominating them to the King for a life peerage such as being a Baronet. They can then sit in the House of Lords for the rest of their lives.
Here in the UK many people are asking for a reform of the House of Lords and for them to be voted in as well.
MPs hold what is known as a Surgery in their constituencies that you can go to talk to them about any grievance that you may have about the work the government is carrying out and if you want them to raise any matters on your behalf in the House of Commons.
The king/Queen can say no to a bill but never would it happen and the monarchy do NOT interfere with the work of The Commons all the Monarch does is sign the Bill into Law.
People get elected to the Commons at general elections or when an MP resigns or dies. People are nominated to the Lords by political parties and they are there for life. The Lords can only delay a government Bill or put forward a modification for one to be considered by the Commons. The monarch gives Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament but the monarch refusing assent is not a thing because a monarch defying the will of Parliament by convention ceases to be the monarch including famously by losing his head. The Congressional district thing in the US is essentially identical to the British constituent thing. It is why both tend towards being a two part state. One major difference between the UK and US systems is the wholesale brutality of British parliamentary discourse.
As you are now no doubt aware that the US government is modelled on the UK system which is what the founders had experience of. Two houses, upper and lower, an executive and first past the post voting. In New Zealand we started with much the same system as in the UK but have now adopted the MMP system (Mixed Member Proportional) which gives parliamentary representation to a wider range of views and minimises opportunity for single parties being able to govern alone which has been described as elected dictatorship. We also did away with our upper house some years ago as it was felt that it served no real purpose in our country.
The monarch remains at this time head of state, by our choice and is King of New Zealand, not because of any subservience to the United Kingdom, with New Zealand being an independent vountry
It makes sense now that I see it, but I just never took the time to contemplate how our government was formed before. I was probably taught bits and pieces of it, but 25 years out of school with no refresher leaves me not remembering a lot of what was taught. It's amazing how much influence the British have had over the world. I mean all the way to your country of New Zealand, which by the way I hope to visit one day. You guys have such beautiful nature.
@@reactingtomyroots If you ever do get down to New Zealand, make sure you visit both of the main islands - a lot of tourists only visit the Auckland area and miss out on a lot of incredible country. (ps - Bob Mack - greetings from Dunedin!)
One important thing not mentioned is that Candidates and their agents at a UK Parliamentary General Election must follow certain rules about how much they can spend, who they can accept donations from and what they must report after the election.
The spending limit for each candidate standing for election is £8,700 plus 6p per registered parliamentary elector.
Yeah it’s pennies compared to the spending in the US
You will likely know we have a unruly parliament chamber, you should check it out, even if just for a laugh. The house of commons chamber has boos, shouting and hand gestures across the floor, but it has also provide great oratory, and some very amusing moments that get everyone laughing.
That's only really in PMQs - plus a few other times. Most of the time other debates only have a handful of people and are quieter. Worth looking at PMQs though
I love watching PMQ’s
Prime Minister's Question Time is a joke and also the least important part of the work that Parliament does.
@@Gerishnakov yep. We want to help Steve understand what its like because that's what he wants, we need to show how ridiculous and mad it is and the best way is for him to have a look.
While the monarch technically can veto (or rather reject) a bill, they almost never do, since that would cause a constitutional crisis as they'd be going against the will of the people.
However, there are some perpetually unconfirmed rumors that along the years Queen Elizabeth II (and other monarchs) did quietly kill off proposals before they even made it to the bill stage. Instead of outwardly refusing Royal Assent after MPs and Lords agreed on a bill, the the monarch would privately ask government ministers and MPs if such and such proposal was wise or prudent while it was still in the early colored papers stages. That would usually be enough to end support for it before it gained traction.
To make a slightly morbid joke, think of it as taking a Plan B pill instead of getting a late-term abortion.
The UK has no written constitution, however it is virtually impossible for the monarch to refuse to sign or indeed line item veto any duly created Bill. Secondly the UK elects 600 members to the House of Commons each representing a particular constituency ( or District in US terms) and this from a population of some 65 million people. The US has 435 members of the lower House of Congress representing some 250 million people. Clearly the UK system puts representatives much closer to individual electors. Finally as leader of the largest group in the House of Commons the Prime Minister is required to be present and to answer questions and comments from the whole of the House of Commons every week, and lying to the House is illegal (cf Boris Johnson). In addition the PM is summoned to a meeting with the Monarch, normally on a weekly basis, to explain his or her priorities and to keep the Monarch informed about Parliamentary business. Could you imagine the Donald doing that?
As mentioned in another comment: You should watch "What Powers Does the Queen of England Actually Have?" by 'Today I Found Out.'
Quite a fascinating video to watch.
I will definitely check it out. Thanks
I feel the video creator goes a bit too far with sensationalism in that, the information's not technically inaccurate but he makes it sound like people would just follow what the law says like obedient zombies, which is not how real life works. You really have to counterpoint it with the story about how Parliament makes the monarch wait in a little room with Charles I's death warrant on the wall when Parliament is opening, just in case anyone gets any funny ideas.
The key thing you need to look at is the English civil 1642-47. King Charles 1 was found guilty of treason and beheaded. That changed everything.
I think the striking similarity between the US and UK is that both countries usually employ one or t'other (an old phrase) of the main 2 parties. The difference is Americans know who will be President with their main vote, because the campaign whittles it down to 2, either Democrat or Republican. When we vote, we can only choose one member to represent the city or region ( a seat) in London. After that it's down to paid up members of the two parties to select their leader. The average voter has no say in who becomes the head honcho of either party. Its a limited democracy, which i believe needs a shake up. Hope this helps.
This is how we've ending up having 3 Prime Ministers in as many months.
There is no term limit in the uk, Margaret Thatcher was pm for three terms.
You make a good point about the term "Member of Parliament". I am not surprised you are confused as it's clearly a misnomer: whoever invented the term all those centuries ago was at fault as, to be accurate and clear, it should have been something like "member of the House of Commons in Parliament" as neither the monarch nor members of the other chamber of Parliament, namely the House of Lords, are ever called "members of Parliament".
Mind you, your Congress has confusing terminology too. The lower house is called the "House of Representatives" which gives the misleading impression that the Senate, the upper chamber, does not consist of "representatives" (which it surely does - two electrd representatives for each state?).
Well done for noticing that point!
I'm surprised to see many Americans not knowing the difference between the government and parliament, lol.
Like... it'a not just about the UK, but also the U.S.
No mention that the Uk's upper chamber is unelected or the fact that we use the First Past The Post system which is completely undemocratic - just like the US system is. In both countries its possible, and quite often has happened, where the popular vote doesn't correspond to who takes power. We need a more proportional system like Germany or Switzerland. Its so strange that the US and UK gave Germany a more Democratic system of government but refused to reform their own undemocratic systems. One thing I do like about the UK system is that there is a limit to how much you can spend. Although there are often attempts to get around this rule by clever accounting.
The House of Lords is there to discuss bills and to recommend changes. It has NO has many on here are saying no powers to stop a Bill ,THE elected HOUSE of COMMONS are the law makers.
Great video! I am an American, but I think that the British Parliamentary System is a superior form of government. I so pray that we could go in that directions. It isn't that I am advocating we give up our independence (though, that would not bother me personally), rather that we reform our government to function like the Parliament with all the same avenues for the people to retake control of the governmental decision making processes. Anyway, can you, or have you found a video that investigates the actual pro's and con's of the British vs. U.S. governmental systems? I think that would be awesome. Thanks.
Just shows how important it is to vote, at every level!
And every Wednesday we have Prime ministers question time when the PM is grilled by the opposition!
Although the Monarch has final say they are supposed to be nonpolitical and cannot offer an opinion so it is usually a given that it will signed into law. There have only been a couple of times where a monarch has refused to sign a bill into law.
The monarch would never not approve something - it’s ceremonial because the monarch can’t really refuse a law. It would cause a constitutional crisis
There were no free elections under universal suffrage until the 19th century and women got the vote in the early 20th century. Parliament's House of Commons was composed of representatives of the towns and shires who were primarily appointed by landowners and such elections as may have occurred were limited to a narrow electorate of landowning classes and persons of standing. The House of Lords was composed of hereditary peers (barons, discounts, earls, marquesses and dukes) who earned their seats in parliament by virtue of their noble titles. The King In Parliament ruled with many powers still dispensed solely by the King (or Queen) under the Royal Prerogative.
You should react to some videos of parliament in session. It’s very different to the congress or senate. Much more rowdy
its MP's an MP is for Memeber of Parliment
Actually Parliaments go back before the Magna Carter but they where meetings of the Crown and their chosen advisors, De Montford was the first to invite (mostly Unelected) representatives from the Towns and Shires.
"Life Peers" are chosen by the Crown, they are respected British Experts in various fields, Hereditary Peers are the old nobility and inherit their jobs, the "Bishops" used to just be CoE but today come from many faiths., Life Peers serve for life unless removed or retiree, Hereditary Peers keep the job as long as they have the Title, Bishops until the Church say otherwise.
The Crown is largely Ceremonial today, but theoretically has a bunch of powers they can exercise should Parliament fall apart. but when things are working properly all they do is Appoint a Government from the party (or Coalition) with the most popular support and they rubber-stamp Laws and Appointments of Public Officials.
I Recommend you watch "Yes Minister"and "Yes Prime Minister" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister) a Comedy from the 80's that is shockingly close to how things are done behind the seens and is still valid to this very day.
There is an entire TV channel BBC Parliament which covers all the live debates in the Commons and Lords and if there is nothing else to watch then it is worth wasting two hours of a day to watch.
Yes, that's true. It's either BBC Parliament or an endless Judge Judy marathon. Not much else on the telly anymore lol
LOL sounds like fun. :)
@@reactingtomyroots Can be depending on the subject , and your interest in that particular subject.
I know nothing about politics but I used to get high and watch tony Blair Vs William Hague was a right laugh watching the opposition constantly shit string and cheering each other on.
we have also a tv channel like that in France which cover debates in the parliament. it's called "la chaine parlementaire" , translated in english "the parliamentary chanel"
You seem to get a pretty good grasp on most of it. You are right some similarities to America some differences. The Commons is an elected house and is similar to your house of representatives. But it is definitely the power, they will get a law passed if it is their will. The speaker of the house is different. In Britain the Speaker is an unbiased chairperson, That regulates the meetings. They are chosen by the MP's themselves from among themselves. and it is pretty much a job for life or as long as they want it. They do need to get re-elected, but the major parties have an agreement not to put an opponent against the Speaker in an election, When they talk about constituencies, It is what you would call districts, The countries are split into 650 districts/ constituencies, There are boundary commissions that decide on these constituencies it isn't left to the parties . They are decided on population as well as area. trying to make them all about the same by population, they do vary from country to country in the UK depending on density of population and area covered. Averaging out at between 50 and 70 thousand people in each constituency, The Lords is not elected they are appointed. and as the name suggests it is made up from Lords, Peers of the realm some are Hereditary Lords there because at some point in their history their great great however many time grandfather pleased the King and was made a Duke or some such Hereditary title which passes down through the generations from father to son, some are Bishops of the Anglican Church but most are Lifetime Lords usually Businessmen or politicians who have excelled in some way and on retirement are made Lords for life.
You answered a question I had which was did each MP have a district like our representative do in America. Thanks
An often forgotten effect of the HoC's Speaker being an impartial overseer of proceedings who doesn't vote is the the people in their constituency are basically without representation in Parliament for the duration of their time as Speaker.
@@Gerishnakov The Speaker does have a deciding vote in the event of a tie,although it very rarely happens
650 elected members of parliament (MPs) who reside in the House of Commons. Each member represents a constituency which is a smaller area of the country. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party who have the majority of elected members in the commons. Leader of the opposition is the leader of the the second largest party in the commons!
I think the biggest difference between our governments is that you don’t need money to become a member of parliament, and move up to prime minister. In America your president has to be rich to cover the cost of campaigning, and doesn’t even have to have government experience
That's very true for the most part. We do have a few examples of people without money becoming house reps, but I'd say 99% of all our politicians are wealthy when they enter office. I wish that wasn't the case.
This is a great point that is missed.
The reason why they need a lot of money to campaign, is simply because the USA is a vast country. There are individual states that are as big as countries.
@@Stand663 that’s true, but although the Uk is much smaller we still have campaigning but the cost comes from the party donations not the individual and therefore being extremely rich isn’t a necessity. They also have to already be a member of parliament to get to the top job
@@gilltrewick5219 The British parliamentary system is much better. Politics is local. We vote for our local MP’s. The party with the most local MPs forms the national government. The losing parties then join together to form a strong opposition. Regardless of which party wins, there’s always a natural counter weight against the government so it doesn’t get too big or tyrannical etc etc
There is less corruption, well overt corruption in the uk system as there are rules about campaign finances, no commercial for candidates on TV, these are enforced. Indeed some of the scandals that affected the Johnson government related to his attempts to turn a blind eye to it in his government; that he failed to do this shows the system does at least work. If an MP has connection with a lobbying group they have to declare that interest.
Question: does the monarchy have control over laws?
Answer: yes and no.
Yes they technically and legally can refuse to sign a bill into law but they can’t really.
It’s tradition and ceremony again….
If a monarch actually did refuse to sign a bill passed by both houses the monarch would be in serious danger. It would turn the public against the monarchy.
The government could then propose a bill for a royal bypass, or worse a bill to abolish the monarchy all together.
So yes they have the power but they can’t use it, and most monarchs wouldn’t want to go against the public.
In 1649 parliament put the king on trial and sentenced him to death for not respecting parliamentary sovereignty. Charles I was beheaded and Britain became a republic for 12 years under the rule of “lord protector” Oliver Cromwell.
Once he was dead and his son/successor proved to be no where near as smart or formidable as his father. The people called for Charles II to come back as king.
UK over through their monarch and killed him, became a republic for about 10 years then realized that monarchies were better.
Or more accurately the bad things about the monarchy were fixed by Cromwell killing Charles, parliamentary sovereignty was beyond question and any king or queen who threatened it could remember what happened to Charles I.
It’s the difference between theory and practice, in theory they can refuse a law. In practice they can’t.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is.
The general election is for only the House of Commons and there is no term limit on how long they are an MP or Prime Minister. As to the parties basically there is only two parties that can get elected to government and they are Conservatives and Labour as we have a first past the post voting system and not a Proportional Representation system. However we do have other parties sitting in the parliament with smaller number of MP's. Off the top of my head I can think of another 5 parties in the parliament that are not Conservative or Labour. The last time we had a hung parliament was in 2010 were the Conservatives won but did not have enough seats to form an overall majority so they formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats to form a government.
It is very similar. You have districts and we have constituencies which is basically the same thing but we only have one representative (an MP) for each constituency, for example my constituency MP is a single MP who belongs to the Labour party and we do not elect anyone to the Upper chamber like you do with the Senate
Now at the beginning, Simon De Montford is mentioned he was a Plantagenet ( Viking French) that was the start
0
The majority of Lords are what are called “life peers”, they’re appointed for life, but cannot pass on their title. They are proposed by the government in power and appointed by the monarch. There are also a few “hereditary peers” - about 90. These are members of the nobility who inherit their right to sit in the House of Lords - examples include the 18th Duke of Norfolk and the 20th Earl of Caithness. Up until the 20th century, the majority of peers in the House of Lords were hereditary members of the peerage - hence the name House of “Lords”, as opposed to Commons (not members of the nobility)
There are also the Lords Spiritual - which are the senior bishops and archbishops of the Church of England, the established state church.
We have some pretty strict campaign laws. A lot of the way US parties run and sustain themselves wouldnt fly here. When MPs get cought doing stuff they shouldnt its very damaging to the party and often ends their carrer.
Also remember that the priminister doesnt have a term limit. They run the show becaus they have the support of their party. If the party think their leader is a liability to the contry or their re-election chances they can be dissmissed or forced to resign without consulting the public and without an election. This has just happened in the UK as the old guy overstepped the line one too many times and his party had enough of him.
MP stands for member of parliament..
The monarch cannot object to any law made by his/her government. If the monarch disagress with his/her own government he/she is, effectively, telling the people they voted for the wrong politicians.
We are a nation of contradiction and paradox. Bishops in the Church of England get a lifelong seat in the House of Lords. This technically makes us a partial theocracy. Despite this we've evolved into one of the most secular nations in the World.
One of the other advantages of having the offices of head of government and head of state invested in two different people is that our political leaders aren't owed the deference afforded to heads of state. Our journalists can ask the hard questions and really hold their feet to the fire. Journalists like Jeremy Paxman are renowned for dismantling politicians on live TV. He picks apart their double talk until they squirm. It's a joy to behold!
Seeing politicians squirm on tv would be a joy. LOL Too many over here don't want to represent the people, they simply look at government as a way to line their pockets. How I wish our journalists were honest, but most aren't.
Pressure groups can lobby the Government to introduce legislation.
The monarch can in theory veto a bill, but there would be hell to pay if they did.
The Queen never stops a bill it is up to parliament but she signs it
Hi, The parliament of 1265 was not elected.
MPs are Members of Parliament, they have a term of up to 5 years, and can be re-elected any number of times.
Peers (Members of the House of Lords) are Appointed (not elected) these are normally life appointments.
The public can suggest changes, there is a petition system, but it rarely does very much.
I'm fairly certain that an MP must introduce any bill to parliament.
Whilst the monarch can refuse to approve a new law/act I don't think it has happened in living memory.
Like the US, the UK has 2 main parties, there ae also Nationalist parties (Scottish/Welsh) and various in Northern Ireland, by definition these are unable to have sufficient MPs to form the government, but may support either of the main parties in a minority government. There ae other parties but due to our system they tend to be spoiler votes. Collisions ae rare.
As to how a bill becomes law I have never known for the Monarch not to sign a bill into law. I think by the time the bill gets to the Monarch it is just a formality that the Monarch signs it at that stage. However, the Monarch may have been able to give their thoughts and advice at an earlier stage because everyday the Monarch gets their own Red Boxes, these contains the documents of business that has gone through parliament that day so the Monarch is fully informed and might make suggestions to the government at that stage and whether the government acts on that suggestion is up to the government. But by the time the bill gets to the Monarch for Royal Ascent it is basically a done deal and only a formality.
if you start a petition, if it gets over 30k votes, it can be debated in parliament.
I thought the threshold was 100,000 ...
No. The People (meaning the population) had no say whatever in the government until the 19th century. King John in 1215 afixed his Great Seal to Magna Carta which stated that his "peers" were equally under law and that they could not be arrested or detained without due cause. The King's "peers" were nobles of high rank. The peasants and ordinary people had no part in this.
Universal Sufferidge or the right to have a vote was only established in 1919 when women were given given the vote prior to that only men at one stage with property of a certain value could vote this was abolished in 1918 after World War 1 when all males over 21 could vote ,Women got the vote in the early 1920,s
The way the house of commons was designed so that when swords were carried they could not stab across the aisle it is two sword lengths apart, about 10 feet. There are lines in front of each front row of seats on each side of the house and the members were not allowed to stand past that line when they were debating. They were allowed to go past those lines only to enter or leave the chamber (if I remember correctly).
Sadly, this is a myth. The lines were woven into the carpet after the second World War. Earlier chambers - those when men actually wore swords and before the Palace of Westminster was rebuilt in the 1830s and 40s - had no lines in the floor, and in any case swords may not be carried into the chamber. Racks are provided for them in the cloakrooms.
Such a positive reactor! Keep it up 👍
The House of Lords members don't have time limits. Most of the members are life peers, that is they are appointed by the monarch (on the recommendation of the Prime Minister - and some from an appointments commission ) and hold the title of Barron or Baroness. They hold the title for life, but can retire from the house by giving the Speaker of the Lords notice. There are also a small number of Hereditary peers elected by members of the peerage to represent them (under 100) together with a small number of hereditary office holders (the hereditary peers have titles Barron, Viscount, Earl, Marquis and Duke in increasing order of seniority). The final membership of the Lords are the Lords Spiritual, 26 Bishops and Archbishops of the Church of England. These are the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, The bishop of London, The bishop of Durham the Bishop of Winchester, then the 21 longest appointed bishops also are members (though this has been changed a bit with the appointment of Women bishops - they will now take precedence until there are an equal number of women and men bishops in the lords. Another exception for church of England Bishops membership are the bishop of Sodor and Man- who is a member of the upper house of the Manx parliament (the Legislative Council) and the Bishop of Gibraltar - because Gibraltar is outside the British Isle. Note there is no representation of the Established Church of Scotland, or the disestablished Church in Wales or the disestablished Church of Ireland, any formal representation of the Catholic Church, Jewish or Islamic religions - though there are members from that community appointed as life peers. MPs have been debating reform of the lords for some 150 years at least.
One thing our system does is it allows greater chance fro the common man to get a say or perhaps get something started. this has increased a lot with the internet as canvasing people who may have a common interest is easier. A good example of this was a campain started by a policemans widow for tougher sentances for anyone convicted of harming or killing someone in the line of duty. It took about 2 years and unfortunatly wont affect the sentence of teh men who killed her husband but it is now law. There have been a few instances of polititions getting caught taking money its rare as it is much more controlled here. there was a cash for questions scandal a few years ago and the rules were really tightened up.
Is that a good way of making law? All evidence points to "deterrence" having little to no effect on the likelihood of people to commit particular crimes.
the best part of the uk system to me is that the lords are are much more likely to say not now or not quite instead of no way. in that way its less likely to have gridlock.
That's only because the Commons has the power to force through legislation if the Lords does try to block anything.
This is what royalists dont like to admit when discussing the monarchy. It is ceremonial in name only. Think about the things mentioned in this video that you may have just casually overlooked. The Queen meets once a week with the PM, why? This is giving the monarch influence over the elected leader that noone in the country has. She stamps the laws into existence as you commented on. She has the power to dissolve parliament. She cannot be prosecuted. The military serve the monarchy, not the government.
The monarch does whatever he or she is told. That’s it.
When the Queen was asked to visit SA. During Apartheid, I believe she refused, whilst Apartheid ruled. I do hope that was true. Nelson Mandela and her Majesty was always were very close friends. He was one the the very few people who called her Elizabeth, and Prince Phillip, Phillip.
Although we have multiple parties, the 2 major parties almost always rule. The only exception is when no party gets over half the MPs, in which case they sometimes have to work with a minor party. This has only happened twice since WW2 so it's not that different from only having 2 major parties
Sometimes it’s a shame we can’t use the cellars under the Houses of Parliament anymore 😂😂😂
Guy Fawkes-The only man to enter Parliament with honest intentions.💣
It was the king he was trying to kill
Watch out or you'll be arrested as the authorities these days are watching social media content and have lost their sense of humour!
@@MrBulky992 good job I didn’t say they all need shooting then 😂😂😂😂👍
@@neuralwarp Thank goodness for PAYE.👍
It is true that any member of the public can write their own proposal for a law change or a new law and they can goto Parliament and present it in committee meetings with relevant MPs on that subject
In reality such Bills rarely become law, as for any Bill to become law it would require Government support.
@@Gerishnakov yes but many gain support along the way doesn't mean it gets voted through with a majority but the system is in place so it could
@@vhc6600 Yes but, you're missing the point which is that for any of these bills to become law they need the support of the government of the day. The idea that someone could independently propose a bill and it would somehow become law without the government giving it the ok is fanciful in the least. Also, you say "many" but have you looked up how many private member's bills have actually become law? It is a tiny, tiny number.
@@Gerishnakov yes I have that's why is didn't say a big % of, I was highlighting that at least it has happened and therefore its possible... There was one that got momentum recently regarding Polluter Pays
U.S. is strange to other countries how really only two parties only. In many have two sometimes three major parties but at least two minor parties in the Upper and Lower houses of Government. Many Countries the President or Monarch have less power than the American President.
The monarch never interferes with the creation of laws in modern times. It’s just ceremonial and a throwback to many years ago. Once the bill is presented to the monarch it’s simply approved.
M.P. Members of Parliament. 650 in House of Commons all elected by the public. I cannot imagine any Monarch not proving a law. House of Commons up for election and we all vote on the same day. Have a look at A day in Parliament on You Tube. Our MPs cannot line their pockets though of course some try, if caught they are thrown out.
To change legislation you get the ear of your Member of Parliament, who is easy to contact. Its then down to the MP how they get changes by various processes. Love our politics and have been an avid follower since a child. The House of Lords are appointed by the Priminister and the Monarch, they should have done something to merit it. There is a small faction of hereditary peers, who inherited their position, when one dies they elect replacement from selected few. Certain jobs will also get a peerage (peer is a Lord) on retirement, First sea Lord being an example. Regarding cost of candidates being elected this is heavily regulated and there is a cap on finances. Breaches of rules are a criminal offence, with heavy penalties. There are enough eyes following to make it stupid to even try. So generally a level playing field.
The US senate used to be more like the house of lords. While 2 senators from each state was always the case, they were chosen by the state congress and the governor until the late 19th century in most states
The US President is Head of State and also Head of Government. In the UK The King/.Queen is the Head of State and the Prime Minister is Head of Government.
Technically, the Prime Minister and all other Ministers are appointed by the Monarch, but there are processes and precedents to decide how this happens. Theroretically (I think) The Monarch could decide not to appoint in accordance to this precedent but then that would be a constitutional crisis and just couldn't stand.
I believe this video was commissioned by Parliament, so is a bit sugar coated.
It barely talked about the Lords, as it's quite a controversial element of Parliament, and ripe for reform.
It also doesn't talk about the monarch and Privy Council role, as they'd rather that be kept on the hush hush to avoid provoking more republican sentiment.
And it avoids mentioning the first past the post voting system, which is the cause of some pretty pendulous swings in the UK political makeup, and means the House Of Commons isn't as representative as it would like to think.
And to add in some up to date flavour, it doesn't talk about the democratic issues inherent in simply placing the leader of a political party in the most powerful seat when their party holds the majority. That is being exposed right now with the Conservative party in power, a recent leadership vacuum, and meant that 80,000 Conservative party members got to vote for the prime minister.
You know its funny, becasue im british and I live in the UK in England, and im learning a lot from whatching your videos. I mean I knew about voting and the party leader becoming the prime mininster and stuff and having mps represent areas around the UK, but I didn't know that the debates consisted of the elected party and all the opposition parties that got seats, and now it makes sense why they need the speaker to keep order in the house of commons debates. Ive seen some of these debates, and it always seems to be the consertives and labour never agree on a lot of stuff.
I think this is obvious to most people, but I never really known a lot about poltics at all. But this video helped me learn. And I did not realise how much of a voice we have here as the british people. Cos I just kinda whatch it happen in the background and see it on the news and I go "oh whats everyone arguing about now XD"
I mean this mornig there was talk about our priminster Rissi Sunak not wearing a seatbealt while in the back of a cab from a video posted. And apparetly the person who supposed be in charge of our ecomey and tax's and stuff, littrelly ahsn't paid his own bloody taxs and theres all sorts of calims that go on latley.
Im sure you will have heard of Boris Johnsons covid birthday Party even though he said people can't do that. Thats why he no longer the leader of the concertive or prime minster anymore
It also mentions the Magna Carta and then the Barons. But kind of Missed the English Civil wars from 1642-1651. Were kind of important to, When the king said I am the Power I rule by divine Right because God made me King, Parliament said no we are the power because the people voted for us. an argument the king lost when Parliament chopped his head off.
Was that Charles II?
@@emma_emma00 His dad Charles i
Then after suffering being a Republic for 11 years, the people basically said 'Sod this for a game of soldiers' and reinstated Charles ll, son of the murdered king, as a Constitutional Monarch which it has remained.
@@karenblackadder1183 You're missing the Glorious Revolution of 1688 but ok.
Lords are not elected. (There are campaigns to change that, but there are arguments on both sides - them being elected would be more democratic, but them not being elected means they're not subject to the same electoral pressures as MPs, and many of them have different perspectives as a result.) Life peers are nominated by government, and are then scrutinised before being accepted. Their seats are for life. hereditary peers are actual Lords, Earls, etc (the non-royal ones). Their seats are passed on, along with their titles. Others, like religious leaders, the seat goes with the job.
Strictly speaking, the PM doesn't have to be an MP, they could be in the House of Lords. It hasn't happened since 1902.
General Elections (where MPs are elected) is a bit complicated. There was a thing called the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which set each Parliament at five years. That was overturned by Boris Johnson's government. So it's reverted to the older system, where the Prime Minister of the day decides when the next election is. There's a five year limit at which Parliament is automatically dissolved if an election hasn't been called by the PM (the election is then a month (or it might be six weeks, come to think of it) later). But the sitting PM can call an election and dissolve Parliament at any time within that period, and an election will be a month/six weeks later. So right now, although the outside limit on the next election is Dec 2024 for the dissolving of Parliament, with the election in Jan 2025, Liz Truss could stand up in Parliament on Monday and say she's calling an election if she wanted to.
Probably the biggest difference between the US and UK is the professional civil service at the highest level. While MPs and ministers do have politically appointed advisors, there's another layer of the civil service, who are not political appointees, and who remain constant no matter who is in power. The idea is it guarantees continuity.
Not anybody can present a bill, but there is public consultation. There's a problem at the moment with the government wanting to be able to make laws in private, in the cabinet, without scrutiny or parliamentary questioning.
There can be a coalition - if nobody gets a majority, the biggest party gets some time to try to negotiate to form a majority with another party, and then it's open to whoever can. If nobody can, there can be another election, of the Queen (or sorry, King) can appoint somebody to form a government.
The Monarch is not the defacto President. It's the other way around. The President is the defacto Monarch. As said in the video, Parliament's roots are in the signing of the Magna Carta near Runymede in 1215.
The way it was explained to me was that, in general, the powers allocated to the US President when the Constitution was put into force were pretty much those of the British Monarch of the time. Things will have evolved and diverged on both sides of the Atlantic in the interveining years.
The house of lords are generally, yes, nobility, but some gain their lordships and knowledge about these laws being added to our system in other ways, they can also be previous prominent primeministers and deputy primeministers or prominent politaicians from both main parties over the years, who all have experience in ensuring laws dont go too far, such as, changing the rules on voting once in power,in order to ensure you stay in power, and are the balance of level headedness and experience, which ensure laws aren't self serving, so it is right that we have these people called lords, because they have earned their right to be in that position of respect, in ensuring laws are fair, and is in fairness sake, quite a responsibilty. We have local elections throughout each year to elect new Members of Parliament or M.P. for short, each of the many parties, stand for election in their local area known as a constituancy, every citizen has the right to stand for election and form their own party, and there a quite a few parties that stand, such as the monster raving looney party led by screamoing Lord Sutch, or the green party whom camapign for green laws and environmental issues and are not seen as very popular right now, but did never the less get one MP elected and she did sit in the house of commons as an elected MP. Each elected area MP, loses their seat in parliament on the night of the general election, and it is up for grabs again, but some areas are more loyal to one party over another allowing something called a safe seat, (meaning that a leader of a party occupies a safe seat in order to continue as leader of the party without the political risk of losing his seat in the house of commons), as even the prime ministers seat is up for grabs in his local constituancy, and must still win that seat back on the night of the general election.
Screaming Lord Sutch died over 23 years ago. General Elections are held every 5 years unless there is a vote of no confidence in the Government.
The house of lords are experienced older people. Usually after many years of extensive contribution in their field... noted for their special dedication...to a particular item... then recomended by the prime minister...forwarded to the monarch who will be advised on the persons contribution to society and what level of award they should recieve... the monarch then progresses the person to appropriate award or house of lords if appropriate...
@@neuralwarp Very much in theory. Boris Johnson's resignation Honours list includes 2 of his former aides, one of whom is 30 and the other is in her late 20s.
I may be wrong but I remember one of your branches of government I think the Senate was originally supposed to be unelected (made up of appointed members of the community for a life role)
Private citizens would talk to the MP for their area and try to get them to raise the issue or propose a bill on their behalf, Where the video confuses things a bit for those who don't know, Is that the video says the idea for a bill can come from the public, Without explaining about the process at that time, Giving a possible misunderstanding that the public can directly introduce a bill..
Also people can nowadays start a petition on the Parliament website and if it gets 100,000 signing it then the issue gets time to be debated in the Commons.
MP'S have what are called Surgeries where you can make an appointment to discuss any matters that concern u or to propose an idea.
In theory the monarch can refuse to approve a law ,but it hasn't happened in very long time .
A Member of Parliament (MP) represents an average Constitucicy(District) of 68,000 people! In the UK, the number of Political Parties ranges from the leading 4 to 14
The Main 4 are:
Conservatives & Unionist Party (Government) UK-wide party
Party Leader and Prime Minister: Lizz Truss
(ideology: Centre-Right, Conservatism (British), Social liberalism, Economic liberalism (also called the Tories has had majority-government for the last 7 yrs)
Labour and Co-operative Party (Opposition) UK-wide party
Party Leader: Sir Kier Starmer KC
(ideology: Center-Left, Social Democracy, Democratic socialism (Opposition party for 12 years, were in power from 1997 till 2010)
Scottish National Party / SNP: (only stand and elected in Scotland)
Leader in the House of Commons: Ian Blackford / Party Leader: Nicola Sturgeon MSP First Minister of Scotland (Scottish Parliament)
(ideology: Centre-left, Scottish nationalism, Scottish independence, Civic nationalism, Pro-Europeanism)
Liberal Democrats: UK-wide party
Party Leader: Sir Ed Davey
(ideology: Centre to centre-left, Liberalism (British), Social liberalism, and Pro-Europeanism (were in coalition with the Conservatives from 2010 to 2015)
Other Parties:
Democratic Unionist Party: only stand and are elected in Northern Ireland
Party Leader and in the Northern Ireland Assembly: Jeffrey Donaldson
(ideology: Right-wing, British unionism, British nationalism, Social conservatism, Anti-Irish Unification)
Sinn Féin: only stand and are elected in Northern Ireland
Party Leader in the House of Commons and in the Northern Ireland Assembly: Michelle O'Neill
(ideology: Center-Left to Left-wing, Irish republicanism, Social Democracy, Democratic socialism, Left-wing nationalism, Irish Unification)
Plaid Cymru: (Party of Wales (only stand and elected in Wales)
Leader in the House of Commons: Liz Saville-Roberts / Party Leader: Adam Price Member of the Senedd (Welsh Parliament)
(ideology: Center-Left to Left-wing, Welsh nationalism, Welsh independence, Civic nationalism, Social Democracy, Democratic socialism, Environmentalism, Regionalism, Pro-Europeanism)
Social Democratic and Labour Party: (only stand and are elected in Northern Ireland)
Leader in the House of Commons and Northern Ireland Assembly: Colum Eastwood
(ideology: Center-Left, Irish nationalism, Social Democracy, Irish Unification)
Alba Party: (only stand and elected in Scotland)
Leader in the House of Commons: Neale Hanvey / Party Leader: Alex Salmond
(ideology: Scottish nationalism, Scottish independence, Scottish republicanism, Pro-Europeanism)
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland: (only stand and are elected in Northern Ireland)
Leader in the House of Commons: Stephen Farry / Party Leader Naomi Long and in the Northern Ireland Assembly
(ideology: Centre to centre-left, Liberalism, Irish Nonsectarianism and Pro-Europeanism)
Green Party of England and Wales: (only stand and elected in England and Wales)
Leader in the House of Commons: Caroline Lucas
(ideology: Left-wing, Green politics, Progressivism, Pro-Europeanism)
Great reaction video. One of the world's greatest democracies, in which we don't elect the head of state, we don't elect the head of government (directly), we don't elect the upper house of Parliament (they're appointed based on their experience and expertise), but we're still a functioning democracy that ruled a quarter of the planet at its height, and has evolved and survived for more than a thousand years 😲 Most of Europe has the same. Mind boggling.. 😂
The House of Lords are not elected by universal suffrage. They are composed of Peers (Barons and Hereditary Peers (Dukes, Marquises, Earls, Viscounts, Barons) who inherit their title from their father) and also by Life Peers, who are Barons appointed by the King and the Government for life. The House of Lords have 96 members who are hereditary peers plus all the Life Peers. The Hereditary Peers are chosen by their fellow Hereditary Peers who number around 900, are chosen by election from among themselves to be the 96 Heredtaries.
We have multiple parties, even joke ones, the Monster Raving Loony party, who can all stand. Only need signatures of support from electorate to stand . Plenty of video on the House of Commons in action, it is interesting and can be hilarious, not boring at all.
My personal favourite is the Church of the militant elvis party. One of theese guys came 4th in a local election in 2014.
Having just said that the House of Lords contains Life Peers, Hereditary Peers and Bishops, he then says that the Lords are selected for their knowledge and experience. It can't be both. The fact that the Lords aren't s-elected is the reason many people would want to make the second chamber a s-elected one. At the moment, if you're a lord, you're in Parliament for life.
I suppose he might mean that certain lords are put onto those select committees but that's not what he says.
The video is a bit confusing about bills - it's the same here as it is with you. And no, the monarch's seal of approval is ceremonial, he would never turn a law down.
Many people would argue that the UK is not a real democracy, as MPs are elected on a first-past-the-post basis so the composition of the Commons isn't a real reflection of the views of the country. This is the source of a lot of discussion, and it's often different in other parts of Europe. (The same argument applies to the US, of course). Many people think a system of proportional representation would be better.
Districts: yes, each MP represents a district, known as a constituency. The geographical size of a constituency is roughly proportional to population, so a big city like London has dozens of MPs while a more rural place of the same area will have only a couple. And of course, we have no elected second house.
Have a look at one of the videos of, say, Prime Minister's Questions to see the House of Commons in noisy action. Just remember that a lot of this is just theatre and the real work of government is going on in offices far away from parliament.
But only those proposed by outside bodies.
There are others but the main difference between a prime minister and a president is that a prime minister is not the commander and chief of the armed forces or th year of state, that's the monarch
# head of state
That makes sense. Thanks
NO if the monarch refused to sign something it would still be signed. There is another individual who is legal obligated to sign. It is believed that the Queen's uncle who was then King had refused to sign some assent documents. These were just signed later and the King said to be indisposed. This was also the King who was ejected and replaced by his brother the Queen's father.
The point being if the then monarch tried to affect the government by using some ceremonial function, they would be ignored and might be quickly replaced. The monarch's function is to smile, wave, shake hands with diplomatic visitors and shut up.
I might point here that the Queen was apparently a decent car mechanic and serviced here own personal cars. In practical terms her greatest life achievements were having a family and car mechanics. All except one of her children ended up divorced, one is likely a kiddie meddler and one qualified for the Olympics on her own merits. They are just people and just as mediocre as anyone.
The Monarch could in theory not give Royal Ascent to a bill but in practice never would as it would undermine the democratic processes of getting it there. It would only be in the case of something which would so fundamentally wrong e.g. a bill outlawing General Elections or opposition parties (if it ever got that far but the House of Lords would stop that first). So in reality the monarch is rubber stamping the bill.
We in reality have a 2 party system - Conservatives and Labour, with Liberal Democrats third. (Although there are more parties with seats). A lot of that is to do with how many constituencies the parties can contest (they simply have more people)- which does come partly down to money I guess but not in any way like the US. Anyone can contest a seat - only requires a deposit of something like £500. As a result you do get independent candidates campaigning on specific issues in their constituency, or the more 'interesting' parties such as The Monster Raving Looney Party or Lord Buckethead (a sort of Darth Vader with a bucket on his head!!). Worth googling election results 2019 Uxbridge where there's Lord Buckethead, Elmo and someone called Boris with very messy yellow hair. You don't get that in the US! (Or probably anywhere else really)
The UK parliamentary system is often referred to as the father of all democratic parliaments world wide.
I'm beginning to see why. I think it's pretty accurate.
The House of Lords is not elected. It is partly appointed and partly hereditary. Peers may be appointed for life and are given the noble rank of Baron. Hereditary peers inherit their title from their father and may be a baron, viscount, earl, marquis or duke depending on the noble family's historic title. Some Bishops of the Church of England also sit in the House of Lords by virtue of their seniority. All Lords sit for life. More recently, it was decided by an Act of Parliament that the number of hereditary peers would be limited to 92 members with the remainder of the House of Lords being made up of the Life Peers. The hereditary peers vote amongst themselves to appoint a member from their ranks when one of them decides to retire from active politics or dies.
House of Commons is elected, House of Lords is not. Lords usually keep their seats for life and are chosen by the monarch, have inherited their seats or are clerical representatives.
What virtually everyone misses is that the UK is NOT a country. It's a government administering several countries, dependencies and overseas territories. Some of those dependencies are not part of the UK proper. The Isle of Man for instance is essentially an independent state not covered by UK laws. I do not say UK Law because there is not such thing. Scotland, England(which includes Wales) and some dependencies all have different law. Most particularly Scotland is a fully sovereign and independent legal system. In legal matters Scotland operates as far as other countries are concerned as if it was just another independent sovereign state. Just like Holland, Lithuania, Germany or France. In fact Scotland has operated Scots Law courts in all of these countries. Most notably the court that triad the Lockerbie Bombers.
Videos on UA-cam often made by English people nearly always portray the UK, Britain and England as the same undivided entity. The English dominated UK government based in London has always sought to create this impression. A such Americans always use English and British to mean the same thing. They hear an English accent they call it a British accent. It falls down when a US company hires an English law firm based in London but their property purchase was in Scotland where the firm could not operate. They would have been better hiring a French law firm since property law in France has more in common with Scots Law.