American Reacts to Who's In Charge of Britain?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 жов 2023
- We take a closer look at "Who's in Charge of Britain" by Jay Foreman and the surprising intricacies of British governance. From Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to the Prime Minister, we'll explore the various figures who wield power in the United Kingdom. (and yes, we are aware that it's King Charles now but the video was made before the transition 😉)
Don't forget to hit that "like" button, subscribe, and ring the notification bell to stay updated with our global adventures and reactions. Join us on this entertaining and educational journey as we unravel the mystery of "Who's in Charge of Britain."
Original Video: • Who's in charge of Bri...
Grab a mug! jjlareacts.creator-spring.com...
Support the channel! patreon.com/jjlareacts
#BritishRoyalty #americanreacts #WhoIsInCharge
The UK actually has lots of parties in addition to the 3 mentioned....ie SNP, Greens, Socialist Workers party, Reform, Plaid Cymru, Lots of independents etc
Even the Monster Raving Loony Party and the Let's Have Another Party Party, although I'm not sure if either of those still exist
....... and the Covid parties 😏😁
Some parties are specific to certain areas of the UK e.g. the Scottish National Party (SNP), Plaid Cymru (the Welsh nationalist party), the official Ulster Unionists (Northern Ireland), the Democratic Unionists (ditto), Sinn Fein (ditto).
The party with the third largest number of MPs is now the Scottish National Party. That honour previously went to the Liberal Democrats before they were figuratively massacred in the general election of 2015 as punishment for having entered into a coalition (the first since the Second World War) with the largest party, the Conservatives in 2010.
Sinn Fein (Irish for "We Ourselves") is the party representing the bulk of the Roman Catholic population of Northern Ireland. It is a republican party and, despite winning seats in elections over several decades, never sends its MPs to Westminster, not least because every MP is required to take an oath of allegiance to the monarch which they refuse to do.
Besides the geographically specific parties and the three UK-wide parties, namely the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, other parties have little chance in general elections owing to our voting system ("First Past The Post" - the same system used for Congress in the USA) in the constituencies. The one exception is the Green Party which has one MP.
@@jumpjet777that was smooth 😂
Yes, and the US also has lots of political parties. He said the US has two 'main' political parties. I wouldn't say the Socialist Workers Party was one of the 'main' parties of the UK.
Just for record that fight was at the Ukrainian parliament. It did used to happen a great deal in the British parliament leading to a ban on swords and suits of armour in the building in 1313. The only exemptions are the 'Serjeant at Arms' and 'Black Rod' which can carry a sword to this day.
An absolute must watch is Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister, comedies which are brilliantly written, accurate and very funny.
We do have the Monster Raving Looney Party as well. Definitely a bunch of clowns.
We do not have lobbyists to the same extent you do in the US, there are relatively strict limits on campaign spending, elections have to be completed in a few weeks and every party only gets 1 TV spot
I can't believe you made us listen to Cameron farting twice lollllllll
It wasn't because George I didn't speak English it was because George I was German and spent 95% of the year in Germany as he had no interest in governing Britain. It was the same with George II who was raised in Germany and only went to England for the symbolic ceremonies. George III however who was actually the grandson of George II couldn't stand his father so chose to live in England. However, by the time the crown came to George III the position of prime minister had become very powerful holding the executive power that George III was unable to get the backing needed among the peerage to recover the executive power of the Monarch. It wasn't until the early 20th Century that the PM started to be chosen from among the elected MPs as opposed to the hereditary peers as had been the case for hundreds of years.
The truth is the exact opposite.
George I spend only one fifth of his reign visiting Hanover (20%, not 95%). It is hard to see how the King could have successfully chaired meetings of his council without any knowledge of the language (as evidenced by the fact that his coronation had to be held in latin).
George II visited Hanover 12 times in 33 years, spending only the summer there but even those relatively brief visits caused discontent in Britain as they held up the business of government and perhaps because the German connection was not much liked. A senior British government minister always accompanied the king on each trip to allow the King to keep abreast of State affairs in Great Britain. George II participated fully in governing Britain: he did not limit himself to purely ceremonial occasions.
Whilst most were hereditary peers in the House of Lords and ineligible to sit in the House of Commons, there were numerous untitled prime ministers who were MPs before 1900: Gladstone, four times prime minister, Disraeli and Peel being the most notable. Others included Canning, Spencer Percival and William Pitt the Younger.
All prime ministers since 1902 have been MPs.
Don't forget the monster raving looney party (yes that is actually a thing!)
The comparison between the Monarch and a President is surprisingly apt.
Many European nations HAVE presidents who essentially fill in the executive 'power on paper, but not in practice' role that the Monarchy does in the UK. Germany, for example, does have a President, but all the day to day power is in the Prime Minister.
Yeah there are 3 main parties across the UK, but there are also nationalist parties, like ones specifically for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Scotland has the SNP, which is currently falling apart, Wales has Plaid Cymru (Wales party in Welsh), and Northern Ireland has about 5. The biggest Northern Ireland ones are the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) and Sinn Fein, and neither of them can agree on whether they want to unite with Ireland or not. Conservatives are currently in power (not for long) and Labour are the official opposition, with Liberal Democrats gaining clout when both of them screw up. Also the Green Party exist, who want to save the planet, but people value money more, so nobody votes for them. Hope this helps!
Fax
The SNP is the third largest party by numbers of MPs and has many more than the Liberal Democrats.
@keithbulley but because only the electorate in Scotland can vote for them, they're not considered the third party as they only consider the parties who are nationally recognised
@@MrBulky992 yes, but it isn’t a cross national party
@@Anonymous_Because_I_CanThe ranking of the parties is determined by seats and has nothing to do with their geographical distribution. It's maths, not geography.
A better question is ... who's in charge of America.
Of cause it was quite common to have monarchs and nobles who did not speak english or Middle English or old english, due to successful invasions from the sacons, vikings/ Danes and finally the Normans, the normans spoke french and William I brought his norman friends to rule the land under him and the normal people spoke old english and variants. This was the case for many centuries. But didnt matter as most subjects would never have met the king anyway and would never recognise them iff they appeared ( which is why heralds and officials would come ahead if the monarch would even bother coming there)
The Prime Minister is usually the leader of the party with the most elected MPs. The difficulty comes when no party gains an overall majority in an election. It then usually goes to the leader of the party who can command a majority in the House of Commons.
Lobbying is just a nice word for legal corruption! 😉
The easy way to explain the constitutional monarchy thing is that the monarch technically runs the country but they lend that power to parliament in exchange for a pile of money and a golden coach.
Jay is right when he says that we will lose it if they actually tried to run the country but we are generally ok with them waving and quietly inbreeding.
I would suggest watching King Charles III a tv special based on a play, written while Charles was still Prince of Wales, and looks at what may happen if a monarch weilds their power instead of leaving parliament to do its job.
For historical context, it was theorised that Charles could be like his his regnal namesakes, either by taking us to the brink of a civil war, or as his reputation was at the time the play was written, a bit of a womaniser and playboy dandy like Charles II
Uk isnt a democracy its a democratic constitutional monarchy
It is a democracy. Not a very good one, but it is. 'Democratic constitutional monarchy' just means 'a democracy with a constitutional monarchy.' So you contradicted yourself.
@@monkeymox2544
As the monarch is also the head of the State Religion, and the Holy Book of that religion is used in the swearing of oaths within the laws and governance of the country, the UK is also technically (though unofficially) a theocracy.
@@tonycasey3183 yes sort of, but not really. Theocracy means 'rule of religion', but since the monarch doesn't actually rule, we aren't really a theocracy. I suppose you could say the UK is to some degree ceremonially theocratic. Although having said that, we do have some actual theocratic _elements_ in the legislature - a few seats in the Lords are reserved for religious leaders, almost exclusively from the C of E.
@@monkeymox2544 Theocracy is "government ruled by or subject to religious authority.". The members of the UK Parliaments are subjects to the monarch. The monarch chooses the head of government. The monarch can dissolve parliament at any time. The monarch is the head of the state religion. We Brits don't like to admit the fact and, constitutionally, it is denied, but we are, in fact, a theocracy by definition. The head of the official state religion does not need to rule directly but his subjects are under his authority and he does have an army that pledges allegiance to him in that role as well as his role of monarch. Uncomfortable but true, nonetheless.
@@tonycasey3183 it's not actually true, though. The monarch can't actually dissolve parliament, or command the army, or choose the Prime Minister. Those are all powers which are formally or ceremonially held by the Crown, but not actually exercised by the monarch. Constitutionally, the Monarch is the living embodiment of the Crown, which is itself an embodiment of the state, whose functions are actually carried out by officials in Parliament and Whitehall. The monarch reigns, they do not in any real sense rule. I don't know why some people think it is relevant to point to theoretical powers that can practically never be exercised, as if they are relevant to understanding how our system works.
Just to be clear, I think it is mental that our head of state is also the head of the church. I also think it is mental we have a monarchy in 2023. I'm just pointing out that it is an overstatement to call the UK a theocracy, since we don't in practical terms actually meet the definition of one. The pseudo-theocraric elements of our system in terms of the role of the monarch are entirely ceremonial, and have nothing to do with how we're actually governed.
Most of the top and most stable democracies are constitutional monarchies. The most direct US equivalent to the PM is the Speaker
Yes, the Corgis are in charge.
A constitutional monarchy in my opinion is much better than one individual having absolute power the monarchy will always side with the public in the end as they are the ones who matter . 😊
The people fighting were not British.
You should look at Prime Minister’s Questions, where the PM is challenged by Parliament every Wednesday
The UK Prime Minister has a completely private meeting, once a week, with the King. So he must justify himself at least to the King. I am sure that focuses his attention, compared to the President who is surrounded by yes-men; and always slaggs off any opposition, unless they parallise the economy with the debt ceiling.
Simon whistler does an amazing video on the Monarchy's powers, called: What powers Does the queen have.
King Charles has the theoretical and actual power to declare war and peace with nations, this can be done by his executive power, he also has full authority over the UK's nuclear weapons, the Armed forces of the UK swear an oath to King, Crown and Country. (We do not swear an oath to defend the government.) the government of the UK put simply could be dissolved and removed from power by order of King Charles. The reasons all monarchs have these powers and more is in case of extreme crisis, if the world fell into complete Armageddon our King can use his authority to re establish the government.
Our election in UK only last 4 weeks
Good thing we vote this way as otherwise we would be in a mess .
There are more than 3 parties in the UK- the tories, Labour and Lib Dems are the largest across the whole UK, but there are also regional parties in Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland, plus The Green and other smaller interest group and independedents. Their power across the UK (as opposed to inside their constituent countries) is mainy derived from how and when they either support, or don't support, the bigger parties.
The parliamentary fight scene IS real- just not from the UK - it was somewhere in Europe, but I forget where.
As usual from Jay Foreman that was a really good video- the slight vagueness is how things actually work.
The House of Lords really is rather complex - it used not to be, but it has been reformed several times, which has changed its makeup considerably, and there are always calls for more reforms....but the main point about it is we don't get to vote on who sits in the House of Lords.
Best phrase to understand the British government is that the Monarchy Reigns, but does not rule. All of the laws are made official by the authority of the monarch, but the monarch would never dare refuse to implement the decision of an elected government
We have lobbyists in uk, Think Tanks and party donors from big business etc .. all can seem quite dubious in their way.. apparantly anyone can lobby govt in reality but i expect money and status makes a difference to outcome.
Do you have lobbyists in Britain. 😂😂😂😂 They invented the practice.
In constitutional monarchies, we dont vote for a person like you do in countries with presidents (since we already have a head of state; the monarch), we vote for a political party. Then whichever party wins (or coalition of parties) chooses their ministers, including the prime minister. Now, of course, usually the prime minister will be the leader of the winning party (or the leader of the biggest party in a coalition), so in that sense you are kind of voting for the prime minister as well, but it doesnt have to be that way. For example, here in Norway, when Kjell Magne Bondevik was the prime minister of a coalition government, his party was not the biggest in the coalition. But he was the most charismatic and popular one (despite his party not being the most popular party) so that coalition decided to make him PM. I cant remember if it was known beforehand that he was the PM candidate for the conservative coalition, but it likely would have been, so again you kinda were voting for a PM as well, just not technically. You vote for a party and whichever party or parties win and are tasked with putting together a cabinet chooses who to put in the role of PM. It's just that it's common practice to already know before the election who the PM candidate for the various parties and coalitions would be, since it is almost always the leader of the biggest party.
There have been lobbying scandals in Britain, which border on bribery, but MP s must now declare any corporate interests.
The monarch still has a great deal of influence privately, and is Head of the Commonwealth, as well as Head of State.
The House of Lords are also unelected.
Feudal hierarchy is still alive in Britain, with all sorts of aristocratic titles, and privileges.
The monarch DOESN'T appoint the PM the political party they belong to does.
The monarch just asks the PM to form a government after they have been appointed.
We have many political parties in the UK. Conservative, Labour and the Lib/Dems are just the " big 3".
Once thing i would like to say about the party politics differences, is that here generally speaking we can accept something if it's beneficial for the people, so for example if i had voted labour but the conservative government wish to pass a law for free school meals in school, it usually wouldn't be dumbly opposed just because it's not their party. Where is this seems very common in the states, it's like the 2 "sides" are in a permanent cold civil war.
I wish we lived in a world were Tory’s would do things like free school meals, but that would mean increasing the budget and not giving that money away to their friends so it’ll never happen.
I wish we lived in a world were Tory’s would do things like free school meals, but that would mean increasing the budget and not giving that money away to their friends so it’ll never happen.
We had a Monster Raving loony Party too
The Power of the Crown has been used by the late Queen in 1970s there was no overall winner in a General Election and the Queen had to decide which party would govern. She chose Labour Party. Prime Ministers also use the Power of the Crown to avoid going to Parliament, eg Labour PM Attlee used it to allow USA Airbases on British mainland after WW2.there are several other incidents in modern history.
Members of various political parties vote for their leader then if that party wins the election of the people, the Monarch appoints them PM
And each party has their own method for voting for their leader, usually a flawed process, leading to Liz Truss (rich Tory members selfishly wanting tax cuts straight after massive covid borrowing) and Jeremy Corbyn (Facebook foreign disinfo campaigns leading to 200,000 new labour members voting for extreme left).
to answer your question about multiparty rather than a two party system, the current situation in the US is a good example with the republican party ceasing to function as it should and bringing the whole system to a grinding halt. in contrast when one of the major political parties in the UK lost most of its popular support and stopped functioning as a unified party one of the many other parties quickly took its votes and place in the political system.
it did still upset the system somewhat but having other parties available meant people could shift to one that better represented their views, without having to instead vote for a party ideology they opposed due to lack of choice, the government managed to limp on forming a coalition government between the two parties that got the most votes (but neither one enough votes to outright win) it was by no means ideal but everything kept turning and the party that had lost the public faith had to quickly sort itself out or risk ceasing to ever be a major player again.
in the UK system there is no limit to the number of parties and new parties are created all the time while old or irrelevant ones die out. we have even had some ridiculous parties formed purely as a "protest Party" to put pressure on the other political parties to address a particular issue they have ignored or represent a different section of society.
if you want to know how insane British politics can get just look up "the monster raving looney party" (im serious, thats not a joke that name actually appeared on ballots) or even independent candidates like "Count Binface" and his political rival "lord Buckethead" (honestly im not making this up, we truly are this insane at times)
He's being deliberately over-detailed and slightly confusing for comic effect.
The basic outline is: You vote for the member of Parliament (MP) who represents the constituency that you live in. The party with the most MPs takes power and forms the government, and the leader of this party becomes the prime minister (PM). The "appointment" by the monarch is a mere formality nowadays.
Therefore nobody votes directly for a prime minister in the same way that Americans vote for a president. Everyone knows who the party leaders are and what they stand for, of course. Many people vote along party lines specifically to influence who they want as prime minister, rather than actually considering who they want as a local MP.
In recent years there's been a move towards American-style campaigning by the party leaders, with televised debates and so on. This is quite controversial.
If the party in power changes leader for any reason, the new leader becomes prime minister without need to call a new election. This is generally a good thing, as it means an ineffective or incapacitated prime minister can be booted out quickly and easily. In times of political turmoil, as with the Conservative party recently, we can get through several PMs in quick succession.
The entire Parliament is entitled to have confidence in the prime minister to do the job and lead the nation. If this isn't the case, the opposition can call for a vote of confidence. If the government loses this vote, then (depending on the circumstances) either the current PM must resign and be replaced, or the entire government is brought down and a new general election is called. In a way, this is kind of a balance offsetting the ruling party's ability to change leaders.
Theoretically, the monarch does retain the power to select and appoint prime ministers at will, and to dissolve Parliament, and many other sweeping powers. But any attempt to use them would cause an immediate constitutional crisis and probably a revolution. For all practical purposes, the monarch is a ceremonial figurehead where government is concerned.
The other thing that people don't realise is that Parliament doesn't make all the laws. Our judges make a lot of law. When the Courts make law that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament steps in and passes an Act of Parliament. Mostly Acts are just giving powers to the Government Ministers to do certain things and then they use those powers to set regulations and tell civil servants to do things. The Acts are very vague and don't set out a lot of detailed rules so Minsiters have a lot of latitude. That said, the Courts can rule against the Government and it's Minsiters' decisions so its a wonder anything gets done.
Slight misrepresentation. Courts don't 'make law' in the sense that Parliament does, they're not legislators. They interpret legislation, and those interpretations become binding on future cases unless a specific act of Parliament is passed which supercedes case law.
This won't be unfamiliar to any American anyway, since they also have a common law system.
@@monkeymox2544 Common law is created by judges studying precedent from previous cases to derive common principles. Statutory law on the other hand is that derived from Acts of Parliament although judges also interpret that as even Act cannot cover every situation. There is a tension between law made by judges and that made by Parliament. My sons are lawyers.
@@brianthesnail3815 yes. You just repeated what I said but in different words. But as I say, judges don't legislate, it's just that their judgements becomes binding on future judges.
@@monkeymox2544 Yes but their judgement become the law as a result of precedent. They literally make the law as they pass judgement.
@@brianthesnail3815 yes, I know that. I'm not arguing otherwise. The only point I'm making is that the courts don't make law in the same sense that Parliament do. Judges don't invent new laws, they pass judgements on the interpretation of existing laws. Common law doesn't form a body of law such as that passed by a legislature, it forms a body of precident with which laws are interpreted. The way you phrased it in your original comment made it sound as if Judges actively create laws, which they don't. The courts do not pass acts or issue decrees, they issue judgements.
I dont think we can say we have a democratically elected government as the prime minister is the leader of the Tory party, elected by members of the party, and not by the electorate. The last 2 PMs have been unelected.
The punch-up was real, but it wasn't in Britain. Unfortunately
The principle is that the monarch is supposed to appoint the person "most likely to command the confidence of the house of commons" as PM. Commanding the confidence means winning a vote by getting at least 50% of MPs to say they have confidence in you as PM.
So if one party has a majority of seats then yes the leader of that party (or whoever the party says they want to appoint as PM) would naturally be that person.
If no party has a majority then there might have to be negations between multiple parties to try and reach an agreement where at least 50% of the MPs will say they would give confidence to the same person. Again usually that would be the leader of the party with the most seats, but it doesn't have to be. If two smaller parties between them had most of the seats and they agree on a lot of things then one of those their leaders might become PM rather than the leader of a third party who might be the biggest in parliament but not big enough to outvote the first two together. The monarch would be informed of an agreement and then make the appointment.
If it turns out that the monarch got it wrong then the PM would lose a vote of confidence and they'd have to try again, maybe eventually having another general election if they couldn't find anyone who would command the confidence of the house.
By convention, if there us a hung parliament, the sitting prime minister gets first refusal at forming a government even if another party has more MPs than his/her party if (s)he can cobble together a convincing coalition with another party. If (h)e cannot find coalition partners, the Prime Minister will then submit his/her resignation to the monarch.
e.g. in 1974, Ted Heath (Conservative) gained fewer seats than Labour in the election by only a small margin but, rather than resigning immediately, he went into talks, fruitless as it turned out, with Jeremy Thorpe, the leader of the Liberal Party with a view to a coalition. Thorpe wanted reform of the voting system (proportional representation) but Heath could not agree it: an ironic outcome because Heath's party had actually won the largest share of the popular vote so, under a proportional system, might have garnered more seats!
We do have lobbyists, and we also have think tanks, research institutes that perform research and advocacy for certain topics like social policy, economics etc, often lobby groups masquerade as think tanks.
It’s pretty devious actually.
A bunch of them in London are located on Tufton Street, a stones throw from parliament.
Many of them are funded through private donations, or stakes in venture capital, fossil fuels, real estate etc,
I understand why they exist but I hate them.
They so often interfere with and pervert democracy in the country, for instance by air dropping a particular political candidate in elections who subscribes to their views, even if the majority of the public find them unpopular, i.e. our last prime minister Liz Truss.
We vote for a Member of Parliament who just happens to be a member of a political party. The leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister.
We do have more than 3 political parties actually but because of first past the post instead of proportional representation, and the way the media usually is biased towards one party or the other, it’s virtually always between Conservatives and Labour, and the media love that it’s mostly between two parties, it’s a real football-ification of politics.
In the US the president isn't elected by the people either.
You would be surprised how many people here don't realise they are actally voting for an individual person and not directly a political party. However on the ballot paper the name and logo of the party is printed next to their representatives name, so often they just look for that? Sometimes you have to be a little careful though? A few elections ago on our ballot paper, was the "Literal Democrats", rather than the Liberal Democrats and yes, it did cause a problem! The man responsible also ran in another earlier election as "Gerald Maclone" when the sitting MP for that constituancy was Gerry Malone. Confusing?
Until 1970, ballot papers used to be printed without the name of any party - just the candidate's name.
Voters were supposed to know. No spoonfeeding and mollycoddling as there is today!
Also, if an MP becomes cheesed off with his party, he can change parties without having to stand for re-election! Winston Churchill did this a couple of times in his career. It's called "crossing the floor of the House". Labour MP Reg Prentice did so in the 1960s, crossing the floor to become a Conservative and there have been several since.
US politics would be way better without a three party system, two parties can only really lead to opposition and rarely compromise. It makes every issue black and white, for or against, and option a or b etc. All nuance goes out the window, and increasingly so it seems
I used to feel quite neutral about the monarchy, but after the recent issues with PM Johnson and Prince Andrew, I feel quite strongly against it..we need to modernise and reform. Also, the first past the post system of parliamentary elections is unsatisfactory..we need proportionate representation..i think it would be fairer and might mean more of the smaller parties get members elected. 🤔
Prince Andrew is not even on the civil list and has nothing to do with the government and politics of the UK. He is a retired navy officer. He has also not committed any crime in the UK where the age of consent is 16 and topless 16 year old girls were a main selling point of Rupert Murdoch's flagship paper in the UK.
'Pillock' is great but I prefer 'Prannock'
the rpim einsteris just like president, the monarchy is head of state, she/he is head of the military so they will never been taken down
Of ause we have lobbyists all democracies have lobbys the founding fathers even stated so in their works stating all democracies are as corpt as monarchies
To be honest, we only have a 2 party system. Labour and Conservatives have been swapping power between the two of them since 1922. But we have lots of parties, they just never win anything. Liberal Democrats are often known as the third party even though they have never won an election and are actually the 4th biggest party. The real 3rd biggest is the SNP (Scottish National Party) but as they are only representing Scotland, most constituency's don't have any SNP representation. So when you ask if things would be better with a 3rd party, most Brits wonder the same here. There are many parties who better represent us, but since they don't stand a chance of winning, we vote instead for the 2 big parties who frankly only share a couple of values but better represents us than the other side. So for example the Green Party focuses on environmental issues but stand no chance of winning so many people who would vote for them instead vote for Labour who have slightly better environmental policies than the Conservatives. Likewise, the Brexit Party focuses on strengthening our borders but stand no chance of winning so many people who would vote for them instead vote for the Conservatives who have slightly stronger border policies than Labour. And so most of us are unhappy because the party we prefer is either never going to win, or if you do support the main 2, they are so similar that there never really feels like much of a choice (not that it stops people getting super pissed off at the other party.) Which is crazy really, because the Right wing party is too left wing for the right wingers but too right wing for the left wingers, whilst the left wing party is too right wing for the left wingers and too left wing for the right wingers. And if that's confusing it is, but its also a confusing way of just saying, it makes no difference which party you pick. Both sides try too hard to pander to the centrists and take the support of the people the should be representing for granted.
The people decide
Not that this stands for the past 14 years.
Normally, the PM is the leader of the party that gets the most MPs in a general election. Except, it doesn't have to be. The monarch can dismiss the government and appoint another one entirely. Though that's only likely to happen at a time of major crisis.
The Prime Minister technically existed earlier, as the Lord High Treasurer, which started in 1126, but they weren't the highest office. The Lord Chancellor outranked them (technically they still outrank the PM), and they go back to around 1050 ish.
inusa, you have electroal votes so its just as confusing
we all know it's Larry !
****** the monarchy and ****** the tories (Conservative Party)
House of lords check policies and see if they are constitutional and dont violate treaties we have they are unelected noble families who are raised ro be unbias regulators of gov
It would be interesting (but bad) if the king did exercise more of his power, because technically the military make their oath to the monarch (crown) , but many believe they would break their oaths and side with the government.
i think the military would go with the monarch as they always support the military, whwn the govt obviously doesnt
@@paulhadfield7909agree. I have a lot of friends in the military and you never ever criticise the King in front of them. They have even said if it came to it they’d fight to defend the King
We have more than three but the majority of them are these three 🙃
You should have a look at Yes Minister
Check this out for the King’s powers 👍
If you own a house in Britain, you don’t you only own the house NOT the land that is owned by the king . Sorry it is 1300 something and Democracy does not exist anywhere in the world. Regards JH
They’re all one in the same.
You don't need to follow EVERYTHING this guy says as if it is true. It is kind of a comic take on some of the theoretical ideas about the government.. The main thing about the monarchy is that the chiefs of the armed forces, the head of the judiciary etc. do not owe allegiance to a politician. In fact, the armed forces do come under the 'minister for defence' and the judiciary come under (well, they really ARE complicated), but if the Prime minister says 'Go invade Greenland' or something, the armed forces chiefs can tell his minister of defence to go to hell or we will resign, and then the Prime Minister would have to maybe sack his defence minister, and maybe FACE A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE in the House of Commons. Which if he lost would mean a new prime minister unless he tried holding another general election to see if the country agreed with him. So a cock up like the Suez mess in 1957 obviously never happened. The last Prime Minister to 'go to the country' - i. e. order a general election to see if the voters agreed with him was Edward Heat. In the Seventies. The voters told him to find another job.
Honest answer: USA PRESIDENT WE LIKE 😂❤😂❤
OR THE PRIME MINISTER:
King of Queen is too inbred hun xoxoxoxo
He sounds a bit of a commie
This definitely was NOT an informative video, it was just a silly parody.
Its 20 somthing not 13 somthing is a dumb argument we had democracies in aincient times democracies are not some newer modern day creation their a system that 9/10 times fails democracies have 1800 years of failuires and only 200 years of sucess
There is no such place as "Britain."
Ask anyone in Scotland if their country is "Britain."
Their prime minister is very similar to our speaker of the house. And the government is like our majority standing committees. While the opposition is our house minority leader and ranking minority committee members. Instead of having a secretary of defense, the defense dept reports to the chair of the house committee on military affairs.
None of that is very accurate. Both houses of Parliament have speakers, whose job it is to keep the house in order, schedule the affairs of the house, etc. It's a completely separate office to that of the PM.
Parliament also has committees, which are usually cross-party and are not part of the government.
The government is the cabinet. Again I'm pretty sure it's the case that the President has a similar institution set up around them? Our cabinet is comprised of ministers: the chancellor of the exchequer, the home Secretary, the defence Secretary, etc.
The Prime Minister is the Head of Government, so the closest analogy in US politics is in fact the President. The difference is that the PM's power relies on how much support they have from their cabinet and from the house. Strong Prime Ministers can basically govern with an iron fist and do whatever they want, whereas weak ones are basically useful puppets for the rest of the cabinet. Most PMs fall somewhere between those two extremes.
You are right that it's a bad equivalent. It's just that in the UK it's impossible to have a situation where the head of government is of a different party than the majority. Like right now in the US, the president is of a different party from the majority in the House of Rep. This frequently happens in the second 2 yrs of a term so little gets done. Also a big difference is that all the ministers are also elected officials. In the US, none of them are. If they are elected officials they leave their jobs to join the cabinet, and the president does not have 100 % freedom to shuffle them around they have to be confirmed by the Senate.
@@MichaelJohnson-vi6eh actually ministers don't have to be elected officials in the UK either. They can be drawn from the Lords, too. I think technically they could even be brought in from outside Parliament, but by convention they aren't.
Ministers don't have to be confirmed by Parliament, but they are still (ideally) accountable to Parliament. Parliament can hold a vote of no confidence and remove a sitting PM, and by extension their cabinet.
It's kind of funny, both systems have their elements that make the Head of Government potentially way too powerful, but in different ways. A powerful PM is probably significantly more powerful in practice than a President, since they will practically speaking have control over Parliament, and therefore have fewer checks against their power.
The part he got wrong is saying Britain is a democracy. It takes far more than just being able to vote for it to be a democracy. The monarch is unelected. There are 800 lords sitting in the second chamber, who are unelected, we have the legal form of vote rigging, AKA "gerrymandering", and recently we've allowed foreign interference in our elections, even though it is banned.
And as the video says, we elect a local MP who does what they are told by the party leader.
And something else the video points out, the monarch does less and less. Well, the more they interfere, the less democratic the country will be. But the less they do..... We still have to pay them.....for doing nothing.
£345 million per year, and a £49 million bonus in 2025, yet the country is up in arms over giving a refugee £37 per week and a basic room in a hotel.
The UK doesn't have lobbyists, we have fascism
Free Palestine ..
❤❤❤to our MONARCHY ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
I live here and I still don't no who rules our country .we DO vote for the prime minister ❤
I vote at every election and have never ever voted for the prime minister. Always the local candidate from what ever party I think would form the best government. In my case it’s the bloke who lives next door but one.
The Prime Minister is very often someone you and everyone else will not have voted for as prime minister: Rushi Sunak, Boris Johnson (before his later election triumph), Theresa May (before her disastrous election), Gordon Brown, John Major (before his election victory), Jim Callaghan, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Anthony Eden etc.
That's as it should be because we are not a presidetial system.
This map man should stick to map map map map men men because this is anti royalist andI I loved The QueenI. I like your show though JJ
A UA-cam channel should stick to one subject because you personally loved the Queen... okay...
As an anti royalist, I loved it!