When we were in lockdown in March 2020 i was worried about my relative living on her own 400 miles away. I contacted her local MP to see if he could get a local charity or church to help her. He contacted her himself and did her shopping for her even buying her a bouquet of flowers. Amazing.
@@scrubbybard380To be fair, even if they acted in their own interests, they still did a good thing for someone they were elected to help. It’s when they act in their own interests and DON’T help their constituents that there’s a problem.
@scrubbybard380 that’s very cynical! Not every elected official does things just for votes! I asked my councillor for help regarding a no fault eviction (section 21) I had to take the first property that was offered to me by the local council (U.K.) but animals weren’t allowed, my cat was 18 then, and I don’t think she’d have handled a new servant (😳) my brother in law had died and she came to me, my councillor (Russell Simpson) visited, said he’d try his best, then spoke to whomever, and she was allowed to come with me (I didn’t realise that he’d come to check that there were no cat smells in my flat) she has never been a cat who smells, even though she’ll be 19 in November! I’m so grateful to Cllr Simpson, whose ward I no longer live in but unsurprisingly, he was voted in in the last council election.
The whole writing to/emailing your local MPs is 100% true. When my secondary school was fairly new there was an alleyway next to it which many students would walk through to get there and go home - but at the same time a few days of the week we would finish later in the day so, especially in winter, it would be dark outside and we soon realised that the lights in the alleyway did not work and it was pitch black through there. With the ground of the alleyway really uneven it was a complete nightmare trying to walk through. My dad came to pick me up one day simply so he could take a picture of the alleyway (it being literally a black screen) and he sent it to our local MP to get them to fix those lights before someone got hurt. The MP responded to it immediately and within a week or so the lights had been fixed.
Most MP's are good for that sort of thing.... it's apolitical and makes them look good. But try writing to them to complain about sewage dumped in the sea when they were one of the ones that voted to allow it. You'll be ignored or palmed off with some pre-scripted party political crap. For the most part they act in the interests of (a) Themselves, (b) Their political party and then finally (c) Their constituents.
@@Paul99T I never said our political system was good, in fact I agree, most politicians in this country are complete pigs and are only in their career for their own self interest and I'm not even going to pretend as if we the people have any sort of say about the big issues - and I'm aware that most MPs only pull off these smaller stunts to gain a good reputation. I was simply saying that writing to them is possible - and the MP my area had at the time was actually a really nice lady who had been an MP for decades and only stepped down a few years ago because she was retiring. I've actually met her a few times throughout school and other events and I think I speak for my area when I say that she was actually a rare good gem in the muck that is modern politics. And as for trying to do it to better her own image? Well I'm pretty sure the whole lighting situation in the alleyway my dad complained about didn't even make the local newspapers so it wasn't like she was doing it for publicity. As much as I'm aware politics is a mindfield of depression and incompetence nowadays, I just hope this small thing restores at least some hope in humanity.
@@emilyhadley9089 Yep... you can write to them. I have several times, but never once got a response from my actual MP always from one of her staff, and it's not like she has a second job or anything, her staff said she doesn't. Yeah sometimes they get stuff done. In the context of this video, you can write to your representatives in the US too, that doesn't mean things happen here when you do any more than it does there. This video presents an overly 'nice' image of the realities of British democracy, that just doesn't live up to it's image in reality.
@@Paul99T Yes, it does make it out to seem a lot better than it is but at least the MP's are relatively accessible. Everyone in school at one point had the MP come and do an assembly.
I'm British and live in the UK, on the most part, the Parliament works quite well, but there are some departments such as The Home Office and Immigration, which are in dire need of being scrutinised, also amazingly, bullying is common in Parliament, and unfortunately has been allowed to continue unchecked, more recently victims have spoken out about this problem in the hope it can be dealt with.
It's important to point out that on the official UK Government petition website, after you get something like 40,000 signatures they debate it in parliament.
@@dawnmrodgers You're correct, it's 100,000 and that forces the issue to be debated in parliament. Obviously parliament still has the authority to decide it's daft and totally ignore it, but at least they've heard about it.
So funny to watch your facial expressions. Yep, as a Brit, all this 1,000+ years of History. Monarchy + Parliament are seeped into our bones from the moment we're born! My school was several hundred years old, my house is 300 years old, my village is 1,500 years old - so we take it all for granted and love it to bits :)
My school (quoted from google): "The King's School is an 11-16 school with a long history being *founded in 1139* making it one of the four oldest schools in Yorkshire. The school has a planned admission number of 210 pupils in each year group." The pub I used to drink in was built around 1400 (used to be a tax collection house, with a huge underground silo for those who had to pay their taxes in grain).
Well I'm from the UK and I see parliament as nothing more than a cartel of the rich working for the rich. This is 50 years of watching the show and thats all it is..... The queen just one small part of the cartel
Fun fact. When Margaret Thatcher was elected as the first female and longest serving PM. The house of lords wrote to my great uncle a professor of theology FF Bruce. And, they asked him his thoughts n feelings on a woman being PM. He replied, he saw no problem whatsoever as there was already a woman at the head of The Crown and had been for over 20 years in 1979.
@@lucymcdonald2874 She did every British person a favour in 1985 and not a lot of people understood what she did, But you need to understand British Law and it's Legal system. She has saved me thousands of pounds.
I would recommend "Politics Unboringed" by Jay Foreman, it explains how the UK Government works from a more civilian standpoint, and through comedic methods
I have had to contact MPs on a number of occasions and always found them responsive even when they disagreed with the point I was raising. On one occasion I was listening to the live broadcast of a debate when a comment was made by a minister which I knew to be wrong. I phoned the parliamentary office of my local MP at the time and told the staff member who took the call, that the minister had made a mistake. About 20 minutes later the local MP, who was from the same party as the minister, raised a point of order to question the minister on the fact that there was an error in what he had told the house. The minister said he would have to look into the matter but the information he had given was, to his understanding, correct. The following day the minister returned to the house to make a ministerial statement admitting that the information he had given the house was in fact wrong. It is not a problem having 800+ members of the House of Lords as they do not all turn up at the same time. Most of the Lords are appointed because of their special knowledge or interest in a specific field. In the main they only tend to turn up for matters which are related to their field of special interest. So, it is rare that there are more than 200 lords present in the house at any one time. Most of the time there are only about 50 present. Unlike MPs, members of the House of Lords only get paid when they attend the House of Lords.
A few points of clarification: The word Government is used slightly differently in the US and the UK. In the US the word government refers to both the legislature and the executive. In the UK the word government refers only to the executive. The UK legislature is parliament. The other important difference is that in the US the legislature and the executive are completely separate, whereas in the UK the members of the executive (government) are a subset of the legislature (parliament). Yes, every law has to be formally approved by the monarch, this is called "royal assent". However these days this is purely a formality. The last time royal assent was not given to a bill was over 300 years ago. If no party manages to win a majority of seats in a general election, this is called a hung parliament. The largest party can form a minority government, however this makes it very difficult to pass laws, since they aren't guaranteed a majority of votes. Instead, more than one party can come together to form a "coalition" government, in order to get a majority between them. The last time there was a formal coalition was 2010-2015, however there was an informal coalition between 2017 and 2019. If you want any further clarification feel free to ask.
@@326Alan you have to be appointed by the Prime Minister (technically you're appointed by the monarch but not really). This tends to mean a lot of old political pals get put in there to keep a balance of politics
Not entirely true. Tony Blair a prime minister a few years ago tried to push through a bill letting the government declare war without royal assent. He was told in no uncertain terms this would not go through. So withdrew it before it became an issue. Also the Queen retains the power to open and close Parliament and she signs off on all new legislation. If she doesn't sign it it is not law! She uses these powers subtly without fuss so as not to abuse her privilege. I.E. abuse of these powers in our modern democracy would have them removed. It is sometimes named a glass cannon abused once and shattered forever.
Perhaps you would be less surprised at the similarities between the UK and US systems when you consider almost every US institution in existence originated and evolved from the original colonial system the Brits put in place to govern the 13 colonies, same for Canada, Australia, India and dozens of others
Legislative systems in US and India share commonalities seeing as how those institutions are based/built off of Westminster features (Australia being a mix of the UK and the US derivative, known as the Washminster mutation). Parliamentary systems in New Zealand and Ireland are very similar given they are modelled on the Westminister system. Canada though is near identical... as how they pretty much did the equivalent of copying the UK's homework exactly, but changed the name from "House of Lords" to "Senate" 💀
Yeah, as a Canadian I watched this going "I knew we based our system on England, I did not know we just coppied it, and changed a few words to make it sound different."
I would absolutely recommend Jay Foreman's "Politics Unboringed" playlist (or just his entire channel), to learn more about how the UK Government works (or doesn't work).
Came here to say this! The video being reacted to here is, uh, bordering on a little bit disingenuous in places. Jay's one is a much more honest view of UK politics!
Additionally to parliament we have local government Councils which run smaller areas and regions these are elected separately to parliament itself. This is worth looking up too
The one thing that really confuses me when I look at the US is the lack of manifestos. In the UK it's the biggest part of any election. In the US it's all so vague. A few big policies but very little else.
In the US the parties do issue a “platform” which is basically the same idea, but I don’t think anyone, even the candidate’s themselves, pays it any attention. In the last election cycle the Republicans didn’t even bother updating theirs.
Margaret Thatcher used to keep a copy of her party's manifesto on her desk throughout her terms as Prime Minister and cross each item through as it was delivered over the five years.
@@johntomlinson6849 Blair had a similar approach - the clarity of the offer in 97 was key to their success - though he was something of a fan of Thatcher in this regard - both Brown and Cameron however had much vaguer promises, resulting in a hung parliament in 2010 - clarity and keeping your promises is an effective political tool, ^oo^
They forgot to mention this: "A whip is an official of a political party whose task is to ensure party discipline in a legislature. This means ensuring that members of the party vote according to the party platform, rather than according to their own individual ideology or the will of their donors or constituents." (From Wikipedia). Manifestos are where I go when I want to figure out who to vote for because I cannot stand all the noise that comes with campaigning. Whenever I write to my MP I get a standard pre-written response. Interestingly, friends of mine who have written to their own MPs, from the same party, on the same issue, have often received the exact same standard reply. The House of Lords is an unelected body made up of peers. Peers being Lords, Ladies, Dukes, Barons etc. Life Peers are proposed by the PM and then appointed by the queen. Hereditary peers are the descendants of people who were were given peerages from way back in history. Hereditary peers are becoming less relevant to politics. The monarch doesn't have overall power. The prime minister doesn't have overall power either. That is the whole point. No one has over all power. 'Parliament' is made up of the party in government, the opposition, the monarch and the body of civil servants who seem to have been running the show since the beginning of time. We mostly have a vague idea of the history of Parliament but don't really spend a lot of time thinking about it. You can get more information about Peerages at Debret'ts Guide: debretts.com/peerage/ranks-and-privileges-of-the-peerage/ Or if you are really interested in how Parliament works watch Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister if you haven't already don so. it's not only educational it's hilarious!
The other political parties are also able to propose Life Peers, though this depends on their attitude to the institution of the Lords as to whether they do this
Good points made. I agree Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister are brilliant well scripted and embarassingly close to the truth but i do feel they need to be watched by viewers who are cynically and sarcastically aware of British politics and the Civil Service rivalries.
This was a good basic video covering the U.K. Parliament. The most powerful part of The government over here, is that they get to control parliamentary time. They get to decide what bills get “government time” - there is time for opposition bills and debates, and the same is true for “private member bills” - but the vast majority of the power comes from controlling time and what parliament will actually debate. Great video.
I am Canadian and I am familiar with Britain's system. I learned about the US system and some other governments in high school. I am not sure when I started learning about Britain's government, Canada is part of the Commonwealth and we have similar styles. We don't have so many representatives. Having so many representatives also means it can take longer to get things done. We only have about 38.5 million people in Canada. I also learned a lot of US elections from tv shows growing up. What do Americans learn in school?
This is definitely worth watching. Even though it is old it is still relevant today. I would guess it is relevant for other countries with similar democratic parties too. So it probably still rings true in the US. It can be watched with a subscription to Britbox.
I wanted some bushes cut down near me as it was a safety issue for the children playing nearby. I contacted my local council who refused to do anything about it. I then contacted my local my local member of parliament by email and all the bushes were cut within two days! Sometimes they do listen.
5 year terms are great. In the US House, representatives with their 2 year terms are campaigning pretty much the whole time (or raising money to be ready to run) which massively increases the influence of large donors. In the UK MPs get to concentrate on being MPs not just candidates.
My Two favourite facts about parliament, 1/ you can't die inside the House of Commons, You can become ill and get taken out of the Chamber at that point you die. 2/ Once a year the Monarch kidnaps/takes hostage an MP. While they visit parliament to give the King or Queen's speech.
The magna carta is not and never has been any part of Scottish law, as for American law/constitution, that was based on the Scottish constitution and was drafted by a Glaswegian who's name escapes me right now.
@@garymcatear822 I'd agree with you up to the point where the UK government put in a supreme court over the English, Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish courts for all civil matters. (It's only Scots criminal cases that are outside it's purview.) The supreme court has been going since 2009. They want a UK national police as the next step. (The Tories never gave back the devolved powers from the EU either, and are already talking about going back on devolution and making civil protest a felony.) Commonwealth law was taken wholesale from English/Welsh jurisprudence back when they were colonies. There's a number of sources that state the magna carta is referenced as far back as the US Charters of freedom. It was given as showing the principles of the English constitution and as a justification for the revolution. As long as Scotland is a part of the UK they will continually move to batter away at Scots law and bring it and us more closely to heel. (They're already hailing Truss as the next Thatcher after her recent visit to the Scottish Tory's.)
@@Bazk01 All civil and criminal cases in Scotland are completly independand from UK law, UK law has absolutely no say in what happens in Scottish law, as for the thing you said about bringing Scottish law to heel to the UK law would be a breach of the act of union and if the UK tried to force that upon Scotland there will be lots of English blood spilled, as far as the Scots are concerned what you suggest would be an act of war.
I really enjoyed this video. Have learnt a lot about how your country works too. Well done for getting your head round our government , it's not that easy! 😅 🙏🇬🇧
MP's have regular meetings in their constituency that any of their constituents can go to to bring an issue to their attention- I have actually done this, I also regularly email my MP about current issues, and she always responds. Like any system it's not perfect, but it does usually work.
The Queen is someone the Prime Minister meets each week to talk about what’s happening. With all her experience, it’s useful for the PM to be able to have a private conversation with someone on a regular basis.
What? An unelected person having such power and influence? That is totally anti-democratic. Brexiters had the gall to claim the EU was undemocratic, what a total lie.
@@PanglossDr well, the EU is undemocratic. That’s why we left. But the British Democratic monarchy is democratic, because the monarch’s powers are subject to parliament and the people’s will. That’s why the monarch takes no political stances.
@@michaels640 I agree that the EU seemed very undemocratic to me, there are real imbalances of power in that system. I definitely prefer a constitutional monarchy. I much prefer the commonwealth system that, it seems many of the other countries who are members feel the same way.
As if Boris Johnson meets the Queen every week. He's a lazy sod, I'd be surprised if he met with her each year but then, why should an unelected person have any power at all. It's ridiculous and it's not just the Queen who has undue influence but the entire Royal Family.
I learnt about some kings and queens in history class in England and most of what I know about the British government is what I was taught by my mum, by watching the news, by books I’ve read and films and documentaries I’ve watched. You can actually watch parliamentary debates in the House of Commons online. It’s very interesting to watch as it can get quite rowdy!!
I only know things about the government because of my own interest in watching and reading up things. I don’t know a hell of a lot, but I try. I find it quite shocking that we have to go out of our way to learn though! Are they trying to keep us dumb?
If I remember correctly a peer is someone who holds a seat in the House of Lords Life peer is someone who has there position for life Hereditary peers pass there titles down there family line father to son style
It wasn't mentioned in the video but at the start of each parliamentary year the monarch officially opens parliament. And a very splendid occasion it is too, with the monarch wearing all the Royal regalia, crown, insignia, robes etc...etc.... There are also some very old and symbolic traditions that go with this occasion which as an American you would find fascinating!
also a new prime minster must go to the king or queen to be sworn in. If they refuse to go and be sworn in they can not be a prime minster and the king/queen can call for another election or demand the leader of a party steps down. 1 labour leader forgot his name refused to be sworn in by the queen and refused to step down as labour leader. luckly for him the labour party didnt win the election or he would of been arrested for treason. Treason still carries the death penatly. only 1 other crime in the UK still caries a death penatly and that making, buying selling or eating mince pies lol. that was a bylaw put in by Oliver Cromwell and has never been repealed as the only person that can repeal a bylaw is the person who made it. He thought mincemeat was the devils food so put a death penalty on any food made with mincemeat. so mincepies and christmas pudding r techinicly illegal in the UK but no one bothers to arrest anyone for it now.
I think the UK and Norway are pretty similar in how the King /Queen interact with politics. In Norway, the King officially "opens" the parliamentary session every October. After an election, he's technically the one who appoints a prime minister, and every week (Friday at 10 Am) he meets the Prime minister and all the other ministers and signs or Vetoes new laws. A veto is very rare, and can through a convoluted process be overturned by Parliament.
I spoke to my local MP by phone on Election Day. He took the time to speak with me and answer my questions . He also forwarded to me some information via text and was keen to hear my response
Easiest way to summarise how new legislation comes in: 1. House of Commons propose it 2. House of Lords reviews and can send back for refinement or re-debate 3. Monarch reviews and can send it back for refinement or re-debate.
The house of commons is literally the house of the people- with MPs etc. The house of lords means those with a title (Baron, Earl, etc). I've always just understood it as parliament formulates the laws and when approved in parliament is then passed through the house of lords who can veto those laws. edit: The government is an elected party of parliament with parliament being the makeup of different political parties
When we refer to government we usually mean the executive branch, the prime minister and other ministers. The Monarch is Head of State; our judicial branch is now the UK Supreme Court, it used to be the House of Lords, there are 12 judges on it and they are selected by an appointment panel; they are not political appointees in the way they are in the USA. Just as our electoral boundaries are drawn up by a commission not by politicians. There are also very strict laws on political donations, corporate lobbying, and election spending. We don’t have commercials for parties in the way you have in the USA. Instead parties are given five minute broadcasts at election time, the number of these each party gets is dependent on their likely votes. Also don’t be fooled by the five year term. It’s possible and is happening now that the Prime Minister can be replaced at any time. MPs can be made to resign if they breach the rules. Five years mean that they have time to actually do something before they have to start campaigning again. (Btw it used to be 7 years, because of shifting events we often have early elections too, as in 2017 and 2019) Manifestos are a thing, usually quite dull, but they do exist. No “filibuster” either. It’s normal for you to be able to make an appointment to be able to meet and discuss an issue affecting you with them. They’re our representatives and work for us.
MPs hold what are called surgeries in their local area so you can make an appointment to go and speak to them, an American friend that lived in the UK said that there’s way may encouragement and expectation to contact your MP over lots of issues that you’d never consider writing to you representative about in the US In the US you have the notion of sending someone to Washington and that’s it, understandable back in the day but it’s much easier to travel those distances quickly now. In the UK while a lot of an MPs work may be in London they’re expected to spend a decent amount of time in the areas they represent
I'm 25 seconds in, and I'd just like to say, there is nothing to be embarrassed about as an American by not understanding how the UK government works. Honestly, nobody expects that. I'm fairly sure most of us Brits don't have a scooby either 👍
Are you assuming Tyler knows who Scooby is and that he will therefore understand your use of rhyming slang ? If only Tyler would read / respond to our comments, at least one of us would know if he knows what you and I inow...?!😮😢😊❤
You’ll notice a lot of similarities because the US based much of its legal and political system on the UK, broadly, although things have diverged a lot since
The US actually took Native American advice to form our government. It makes sense we see similarities since at least the 13 states were originally British.
@@christineperez7562 the Iroquois connection is supposed to be one of the influences, but even the Patriot ideas have most of their origins in British philosophy and politics, the mid-18th century British Country Party was a huge influence but is hardly known now, I think there has been a lot of distancing from the British connections over the years both consciously and unconsciously
@@christineperez7562 There are two chambers in the American system. The two house system didn’t come about by design but by evolution in England over centuries and is a system that influenced the American system. So too did common law. There are crimes that have no statute meaning no one passed a law that made this crime unlawful like murder for example. It has always been a crime going back to Anglo Saxon times but no one can say when it became unlawful to kill. Common law came over to America with the first settlers. The concept of innocent until proven guilty and no conviction without trial are all concepts of Anglo Saxon common law and so too, the concept of debating and creating law by way of debating bills and passing them into law by vote. By the time of the revolution, the monarch was powerless to create his own laws. That power was the sole prerogative of parliament. Unlike France at the time of the revolution for example, which was still feudal and so was most of Europe.
@@PanglossDr That is a very weak example. Both countries have a constitution and the US constitution has it's origins in the Magna Carter. Fact is the US system, as well as most of US life, is based on the UK, specifically England.
I have met my member of parliament many times, and he carried questions from me to the minister in the government. Sometimes a question from a constituent is asked in prime minister or ministerial questions. An member of parliament is literally our representative in parliament
As a Labour party member I attend meetings every two months where members in my constituency can hold our MP to account in terms of her voting down party/manifesto lines and how she is representing our community. Every year the various branches in the constituency review her performance and decide whether we would like her to carry on being the Labour candidate for our constituency if a general election were to be called.
You can visit you MP in their local office. All the MPs in my town have a shop front office. Simply, call up and make an appointment. I have had lunch with 2 MPs at community events. They are mostly just normal people. On a darker note 2 MPs have been murdered in recent years while undertaking these types of appointments/ meeting with members of the public to help them with issues.
If you actually do write to your local MP generally you tend to get a boiler plate reply from their secratary/admin team saying that they have read your letter and have taken it into account and that's about it....
One thing that wasn't covered much was what MPs do in their constituency. You can make an appointment (some even have open drop in clinics) with your MP either to discuss a political issue or to ask for their support in holding public agencies to account on a personal matter. For example, many years ago my aunt was having difficulty in getting the Child Support Agency to look into fraudulent financial statements submitted by her former partner. She took the evidence to her MP and he contacted the agency on her behalf to make sure her case was looked at again and the evidence she had gathered was properly considered - without her having to go to the massive expense of civil legal proceedings. When working for a homelessness charity, clients who were getting past from pillar to post with housing or benefit applications were also encouraged to speak to a local MP when other avenues dried up. You don't even need to be a citizen, migrants and asylum seekers can also ask for support. As elected representatives MPs can, and usually do, get better access and more immediate responses from public bodies who are accountable to government. And obviously, they can more easily access other MPs and committees where they need to lobby on behalf of a constituent. This is as big a part of their role as what they do within the chamber, committees or even the cabinet. Even the prime minister has to hold meetings with his or her constituents and take responsibility for helping ensure they get the responses and support from public bodies that they are entitled to.
On speaking with your MP, most MPs (all I think) hold a weekly surgery, where any constituent can meet them (mostly by appointment, though not always) to discuss any issue the constituent has with government departments or other official body. The MP may then contact officials to clarify or sort out the issues, the MP will then repot back to the constituent. This can be very effective in clearing red tape and 'not my problem' type issues or high light issue in a particular area.
Yes, I spoke to my MP a few months back for help with the passport office who were being useless and not sending my passport back and he helped sort things out for me 🙂 Can't remember where I heard it, that MPs love it when they help their constituents to the point where they're own political beliefs are at odds with the great service they've received from their MP.
Magna Carta is extremely common knowledge in the UK, at least on a surface level. It was essentially a bunch of nobles being unhappy with King John (same John from Robin Hood) raising taxes so high. Rather than have a civil war, the nobles forced the king to sign Magna Carta, which would essentially limit the crown's power, and put restrictions on what the king could or could not do. Before then, if you were king, you could do whatever you felt like with no legal repercussions, because you were the king. Magna Carta is generally regarded as the original beginning of Parliament. It's probably almost as significant to British history as the Declaration of Independence is to the US. I don't think I'd heard of Simon DeMontfort, though.
Canada has the same. Only in Canada if you write to an MP you don’t need a stamp. Also, each MP is required to spend time in their constituency. So you can go to see your MP or your provincial MPP or both. I have been to see both in Canada. The thing that I want is a recall law. We have Senators but they are appointed as is the Governor General and Lt. Governor General , which is the provincial representative of the Queen.
In Canada we also have the parliamentary system , as do most commonwealth countries, we have the House of Commons, but instead of a House of Lords we have a Senate. Unlike the American Senate, in which Senators are voted for. Our senators are appointed to the position, and are representative of the provinces and territories. The Queen is our Monarch and Head of State, as she cannot be present for many official duties we have a Governor General, who is the Queen’s representative.
We in the UK probably should go to a Senate than House of Lords, we’re getting a bit cheesed off with them lately. The monarchy for signing off new laws is good safety net to have in place, no government or what not can make any laws they like without final approval.
@@insoft_uk Yes, we are the same regarding assent. The Governor General gives assent. No matter what, I do prefer the Parliamentary system better than the American system, which is way more complicated and unnecessarily so.
We also have the same system (but no monarch, instead a president who is supposed to be non political but the current one is turning out not to be) and we have a senate which is appointed by the government in power.
Manifesto's do exist and 'should' be a key impactor for a constituents choice of vote.... however in reality manifesto's are rarely the same if that party comes into power. Too many times policies are placed in manifesto's and then completely change and policies omitted when they come into power
This is true....I had an issue with a decision that was made by a specific government department that would have a direct negative impact on my self and felt strongly that I wanted my voice my concerns and reasons about why I thought the decision was unjust or wrong. So I made an appointment with my local constituent member of parliament at his home and voiced my objections and my opinions with my reasons to him to why I disagreed with the decision the department had made. He then sent all that to the senior MP representing that department in the houses of parliament and that senior MP wrote back to me straight away agreeing that I indeed had a valid point of concern about the decision that was made and he had contacted the relevant people within that department to overturn their decision with immediate effect based on my arguments put forward. To be able to get my voice and opinions heard and passed up the chain to the 2nd highest person it could go to behind the actual prime minister just shows that we have a system that shows we can have our voices and opinions heard without someone just chucking in the bin like Tyler says he feel like happens a lot in America most of the time. I've got to add though, it was the most official looking and fancy letter I've ever had sent to me.....thick quality watermarked paper...and thick envelope marked with the governmental portcullis symbol and even officially red waxed sealed....it made me feel important anyway
Everyone is taught the history of Parliament through out school - wether they remember it is another thing! I think most people have a vague idea that long ago people got fed up of the ruling monarch acting like a dictator so wars were fought and now we vote for things and the monarch just oversees it. The trouble is we have a lot of history so most major events are briefly skipped over in class. Where as in the US history lessons can focus more on "recent events" such as the story of the founding fathers and civil wars etc etc....
I wonder if the power of the Monarch in the UK has been tested of late. In Australia, the Governor General who represents the Queen, actually removed our Prime Minister from office in the 1970s, so she is still very much the boss if she wants to flex her authority here. Luckily intervention has mainly been restricted to this event so far.
@@mrd4785 I believe in 1974 the then government was refused permission to dissolve parliament and call another general election because one had just been held and it was thought that it was too soon to call another [almost immediately after the first] The P.M. was forced to attempt to govern for several months as a minority government [iirc] until permission was finally given [about 6, months after the initial general election October 1974].
I have had regular contact with my local MP over several issues. I have met with him and discussed the issues. In the past my mother contacted them herself and got things addressed including a question in Parliament.
One interesting thing they didn’t mention was that boundary changes are done by an independent non-partisan body. In the US because it’s partisan there are the issues of gerrymandering or arbitrary drawing of boundaries. In the UK the boundary commission’s have a duty to group similar communities together if in Geographical proximity rather than pairing areas randomly or arbitrarily. Another great thing we have now is recall as well, where between elections if enough constituents are dissatisfied with their elected representative they can sign a petition and if it gets enough signatories the representative is forced to fight a special election (we call it a by-election). It has happened several times over the past several years.
The UK also has no written constitution. The UK's constitution is written in hundreds of Acts of Parliament, court cases, and in documented conventions. Its essential principles are Parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy and internationalism.
I think because England or the UK has such a huge history we are taught so much more in school as youngsters about the Empire and the rest of the world, Americans are only taught about US history
They do have a ‘world history’ class but they generally learn way less history than we do because of the way it’s structured, for us it’s an ongoing weekly lesson in the UK (up until 15 and then it’s optional), in the US the way I understand it they may have a whole year of school at a time where they learn no history
In the 80s early 90s I was taught pretty well by my teacher's and parents. Now my boys never we're taught in school. I had to teach my children myself. America is lost and I hope we wake up.
Not to mention Native American history is American history and they learned even less about that. They talk to our children like these people don't exist anymore. Like Ohio it's self is a Native American word. The word Ohio came Iroquois tribe it means beautiful river. The state of Kansas came from Kansas tribe, Utah, Alaska, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Michigan, Texas, Missouri, Tennessee, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Connecticut, are all named after tribes, or native words. 27 states are named after tribes or native words. America most of our ideas from Native American's.
We call the Prime Minister and Cabinet the "Government"; but the rest of the MPs ( Membets of Parliament) of any party feel their job is to scrutinise what the Government is doing. We're in a bit of a mess with the House of Lords at the moment. Until recently it consisted mostly of every hereditary noble in the land! There are still a few places for hereditary peers. (Peer = noble.) Nowadays the parties recommend people to be created 'life peers', I.e. nobles who can't pass on their titles to their descendants, and these are usually selected for their expertise. Surprisingly, the Archbishops of the Church of England, and the most senior Bishop's of the Church of England, also sit, as the 'Lords Spiritual'. This is not very satisfactory, and we're trying to work out how to change how the House of Lords is selected. What improves the situation is that since 1911, if the Lords throw out a Bill passed by the Commons, the Lords can't block it again if the Commons pass it again in the next Parliamentary session. The Lords can't block a Money Bill at all. There is also a convention that the Lords don't block a proposal written down in the manifesto of the winning party in a General Election.
The government isn't just the PM & the cabinet - there are also around one hundred "junior ministers" who are part of the government, with less prominent roles than the cabinet ministers. Generally there are a lot more MPs who are members of the governing party but not part of the government itself, referred to as "back-benchers".
I think one of the biggest differentiators in the outcomes of our democracies is the extent to which money is allowed into the process. Uk election campaigns are capped at around 150k I believe and therefore corporate lobbying is not the most powerful policy influencer. For sure that still happens in the UK but not to the same extent as the US where public benefit in policy making seems to be quite low on the list of priorities.
Interesting to hear an outsider's perspective on how the UK's democracy operates, having been developed slowly over 100s of years in the way it has. Whilst it's not perfect by any means, no system ever is afterall, there are some things I would like to be adopted in every country, Prime Minister's Questions being my personal favourite.
Question time on Wednesdays you can hear MPs mention constituents worries or how policies affect them as questions direct to the prime minister or representative
When I vote I tend to go with someone who has lived locally and not a party that just puts someone in as a token. They have to understand where we are coming from. Some years ago I was living in an apartment that leaked and no matter how much I complained and the workmen came out to repair it they just couldn't manage it so I E-mailed the MP who sent me a letter back straight away saying he was dealing with it, within a week I was offered 3 alternatives and 2 weeks I was in my new apartment. No better MP.
I've written to my MP twice and got detailed answers back very quickly. I didn't like the substance of those answers, but that's another matter. The point is that he replied to my concerns.
the last local elections in my ward only the tory candidate was from my area ( he lives 2 streets from me) the Lib Dem candidate was from a town 15 miles away and still lived there and the Labour candidate was from Brighton i live in north essex safe to say Parachute candidates dont do well here and the tory candidate was elected. that was a snap election as 7 of the 12 Labour members of the council where arrested for misuse of public funds and they ran the council with a majority at the time.
I have written to my MP a couple of times and on both cases I received a stock reply - the same stock reply, word for word, in both cases - which did not answer and ignored the specific points I made in both my letters which, in my second letter, had rebutted statements in the stock reply I received for both my letters! No mention was made in this idealised video of 'safe seats' where the MP is often someone with little connection to the local area who is a shoe-in there to allow that MP, with security of tenure, to become a Government minister without the need to expend too much time and effort nursing the seat. 'Marginal seats', on the other hand, where the electoral majority is small, give the voters more leverage on their MP to represent them more effectively as they are dependent on garnering every possible vote: a postcode lottery. One further point not mentioned is that, as in the US, the voting system for the UK Parliament results in the composition of the elected chamber bearing no direct relationship to the number of votes cast for the respective political parties.
Must be nice to have a choice of someone not parachuted in by the party from somewhere else. My MP doesn't seem to do politics, doesn't like arguments or confrontation with other politicians and keeps heads down on policies and issues in case it puts off a voter and doesn't reply to emails that are not pretty or easy.
The vote on proposal is a government (cabinet ministers) vote. All senior politicians (Home Secretary,Chancellor etc) form the cabinet (or government).
Over here it is often mentioned how bad American education is, and how little Americans know of any of the rest of the world! You are confirming it big time ! Yes, we DO know all about our own history and Magna Carta!
Sorry! but your lack of basics drives me mad ! I like the channel and you seem a nice lad, but would be good if you did a tiny bit of research first ! Have a nice day !
We had a Hung Parliament in Australia a decade ago or so. This means the two major parties had a 50:50 number of seats in the Lower House, (House of Reps). It was a credit to the Rudd/Gillard Government that any bills were passed and made the job of governing difficult. This equal split leaves the sprinkling of Independents with huge sway as the major parties court them for their deciding votes. It makes for interesting politics.
An annoying misconception Americans seem to have as a whole is assuming Britain is *ruled* by a monarch. The dichotomy of the Monarchy/Parliament situation is basically the Monarchy has the authority to dissolve an elected parliament, but parliament has the power to deny it. (No, it doesn't make any sense, but so far, it works.) The monarchy are essentially decoration, a symbol of continuity. When you get down to it, they serve no governmental function other than ceremony.
Politicians are held to account more in the UK than the US, where your only recourse really is more elections, so I can understand why you’d want shorter terms. You can get rid of an MP before their term is up. It’s also much easier to remove a Prime Minister from office than a US President, we don’t have to go through the impeachment process. Maybe something to look into in future
Pretty much no longer true. No one is held to account anymore. The current government have undermined many of the conventions and checks and balances which used to make our system work.
Yes,it would be certainly interesting to see the US President and government heads of departments in front of congress for questions every week ,I see very little accountability in the US system of government apart from elections
House of Commons is for the representatives ( member of parliament , MP ) of the Common People If you look at countries that were in the empire you'll find laws and a type of parliament that is very similar to the British Parliament ( even the USA ish ) For more ways look up on RUclips the Prime Ministers Question Time and select committees ( these look at various potential laws , environmental problems etc etc and can call anyone to attend , even non UK people )
Canada of course is similar. I can go to my local MPs office and complain about whatever. I once had a problem with Revenue Canada not believing my marital status for some weird reason...after contacting my MP, that problem just disappeared. So, they do have power to intervene on your behalf.
Yes, (at least technically) every citizen can go into the House of Commons and 'summon' their MP using a green card which is brought to them, and explains what you want to talk about. Naturally they may well not be present, be busy, or just refuse to speak to you! However lobby groups can attend in larger groups, and all summon their MPs at the same time. This will typically result in at least a few MPs coming our to the lobby and listening to your point!
The Manifesto is what we judge a government on. After 5 years we have a document saying what they promised to do and we have the record of what they have actually done during their 5 years. If the two don't match up we might think twice about voting for that parties candidate to represent our constituency during the next election.
Well our president is elected every 4 years and our representatives are elected every 2 years and our senators are elected every 6 years so we can't do that here. So basically we have elections every year because then you have state elections too and local government as well.
8:03 you've gotta remember that the leader of a party is also an mp and its quite possible for the leader to not retain his/her seat and then not be in parliament at all at which point it will become a leadership election for the party where the party then chooses a new leader but that's mostly done in between elections to make sure they are in place for elections.
Those online petitions, if they have 100,000 signatures then the House of Commons has to debate the question in the house. Also the debates are televised, so if you can keep awake, the general public can watch and hear what happens.
In Australia we have a similar system the senate here is used to represent the states so smaller states are not disadvantaged and also we have the queen as our head of state but she is represented here by the governer general
It's incredible how ingrained the two party system is for Americans when it is NOT the norm for democracies. he NEVER assumes more than two parties. "so the party that didn't win" actually is "the Parties that didn't win" and I am assuming Britain is similar to my home Canada (both parliamentary system) and we generally have four parties splitting the votes so it is VERY hard to get a majority (over 50% of the vote) so many Canadian governments end up 38% Winning party (forms gov't) and like 32% second place. and we have two smaller parties that get around 15-25 % each. with the rest going to independents. so for the Prime minister to pass a bill they need the co-operation of members of other parties because even 100% of the party is not a majority vote. we end up with coalitions where two parties who share the views on a topic, will vote together to push bills. for better or worse sometimes. Edit: at the end WHAT!?!?!?! in America you CAN"T see your elected official. they are there BECAUSE OF YOU, now, in Canada you can't go to there homes, but when in their office, with an appointment. you have every right to schedule a meeting if you can get to Ottawa they are by law supposes to see you.. and of course they say write letters (emails now). I actually met my candidate I voted for in the last federal election three times during the campaign. and always said send me an email anytime.
The Prime Minister is the MP who can command the confidence of the House of Commons, by convention they are from the party who has the most MPs. The monarch then invites them to form a government in their name. However this has not always been the case if their is a hung Parliament or during National crisis such as a war where the monarch can ask whoever in Parliament to form a government
Magna Carta did not place the King under the law, the Queen is still above the law. It was an agreement to end specific abuses of power that John was committing at the time, such as taking noblemen's children as hostages. Most importantly, it ensured that people could not be denied a fair trial. A lot of people don't know about Simon De Montford (and he had not the slightest interest in democracy, but I believe most people in the UK know about Magna Carta. The Queen has a lot more power than the Prime Minister. Prime Minister merely means "first servant" and he has power within reason, but it all devolves from her. She could replace him tomorrow, if she wanted to. The reason UK government is irrelevant to Americans is that Americans think they control the UK. I was told by one American, "He's your president too!" and I had to explain that he definitely wasn't. A good opposition can have an excellent influence for good. Trust in the government doesn;t come naturally in the UK. Our government has to be instantly accountable. The government is the PM and the cabinet. They are part of Parliament. I love how Americans are always confused by the monarch's role. She is our head of state and ultimate power and responsibility rests with her. She is a believer in democracy and generally does not use the immense power she has, but it is always there, if needed. The manifesto is important. Politicians are not to be trusted, so making them put their promises in writing means we can prove that they broke them.
In the UK any MP, even the Primeminister can be "recalled" by their constituency. This forces a by-election that runs a constituency wide election for that MP. If the new MP alters the balance of power with the government loosing their majority it can unseat the government and force a general election. If a government becomes a minority, it tends to go out looking for other parties to shore up their majority, doing deals on their policies to regain a majority through coalition - this is very rare, although due to BREXIT it's happened recently, David Cameron prior to BREXIT also headed a coalition with the liberal democrats, before of course him stepping down because he lost the BREXIT reforendum and refuse to enact its outcome despite pledging to do so. This is one of those times the monarch can actually step in and force a general election too if they feel the government is no longer representing the people. I have contact my MP a few times, they always respond and believe it or not just getting them involved can change a mindset if an agency that's being bloody-minded... It's not an immediate fix, but once they write or contact someone they sudden stop playing off the rule book. This is also true with local government as senior councillors can alter an intransigent officious or non-compliant jobs-worth who refuses to even engage over an issue. Again it's not perfect but getting a third-party involved makes a big difference sometimes.
No, there are only 3 circumstances when an MP can be recalled: a) if they have been suspended from the House of Commons for at least 10 days following a Committee of Standards report. b) Convicted and sentenced of an offence and ordered to be imprisoned (a sentence of over 12 months is an automatic recall) c) convicted of an offence under section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, (making false or misleading Parliamentary allowance claims).
@@arwelp The Recall of MPs Act 2015 (c. 25) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that makes provision for constituents to be able to recall their Member of Parliament (MP) and call a by-election. It received royal assent on 26 March 2015 after being introduced on 11 September 2014. Suspensions imposed by the Independent Expert Panel (established 2020) originally could not trigger recall. This "loophole" was effectively closed by an amendment passed in October 2021. Before this. The Representation of the People Act 1981 disqualifies any person in jail for more than a year from being an MP, and thus automatically ejects an MP so jailed. MPs involved in scandals or convicted of lesser crimes could be expelled from their party and pressured to resign, but there was no mechanism to force the exit of an MP prior to a general election.
Good video and comments. You may find it interesting to look at other forms of government, such as MMP (Mixed Member Parliament) Which we use in NZ and gives each voter two votes, one for a constituent representative and one for the party the voter prefers (not always the same thing). Or Single transferable Vote as used in Australia. There is an excellent series on RUclips which compares various forms of government and their strengths and weaknesses. We also voted to drop the second house quite a while back and voted to keep our term of election at three years. Most of such changes are made by national referendum, not parliamentary vote (who is going to vote themselves out of a job?) So that people get the government they want.
To answer your questions. The house of Lords used to contain hereditary peers who's family could have been made a Lord hundreds of years ago. They now mix it up with men that can be made a Lord or ladies that can be given a dameship. These are usually exceptional people in their field. The Queen actually has all the power. She can in theory remove a government if she wishes. She gets a red box 363 days a year with all the proposed bills in it. As said she debates in confidence each week with the current PM. It's only the 2 of them and the conversations are never openly discussed. MP's do respond to all correspondence in the UK. You should watch what powers the Queen has. You'll be surprised!
I once wrote to my local MP who happened to be the Prime Minister, complaining against then government policy. I received a letter by return, addressing my concerns in detail - not a stock letter. I didn't like her answers, but I give her credit for replying, and it was personally signed by her.
Female PM. That narrows it down. I'm guessing May as Truss wasn't in that long, and wasn't working during our period of mourning, and Thatcher was soooo long ago, but I could be wrong.
I would recommend you react to a video called what powers does the queen actually have. Very broad overview to give a clearer understanding of what powers the monarch has in the modern world
I wrote a email to my MP about my neice who was waiting along time for a payment she was entitled to as she was fighting cancer, My MP sorted it out and she received it 2 weeks latter.
I agree and have addressed a couple of MP's on personal matters and they have sought to help. If addressing an MP on a 'political' matter it you are more likely to get a 'form' letter.
You may hear people speak of the 'Three Pillars of Democracy'. These are: 1) Government, who do the day-to-day running of the country. 2) Parliament who make the laws. 3) The judiciary who enforce the laws. Basically the idea is to split power into three so nobody has absolute power to do whatever the hell they like. i.e. A dictatorship. There is also 'The Fourth Estate' aka a free and independent press who's role is to scrutinise everything and shout out when anyone's doing anything dodgy. At least in theory. Worryingly democracy in the UK is under sever threat as our current far right government has autocratic tendencies. Trump was trying to do the same in the US. So far here in the UK our Government has: - Tried to illegally prorogue Parliament. This means dismiss it. If this had been allowed the government could have made new laws with no public scrutiny. Fortunately the Supreme court here stopped that. - Consequently the government has since attacked the judiciary at every turn since then and is trying to change the law so the Judiciary can no long rule if the government is breaking the law with it's policies. Which is extremely concerning. - Increasing the use of Henry VIII powers. This rule allows the Government to bypass parliamentary scrutiny in exceptional circumstances when it needs to act quickly, such as a national emergency. However our current government have used these powers far more than any previous government to bypass parliamentary and public scrutiny. Again deeply worrying. - Tried to pass a bill that effectively outlaws the right to protest of any group that don't agree with them. A fundamental part of democracy. - Changed political boundaries in their favour. - Broken electoral law on several occasions. Unfortunately the maximum penalty for this is just a £20k fine, which is peanuts to the millionaires in our cabinet. - Broken UK law on numerous occasions. Also international law, treaties and agreements. - Tried to suppress media scrutiny. In particular since coming to power the Tory Government now appoints 3/6 of the BBC's board so it's no longer independent and have threatened to remove the license fee (the BBC's source of funding), radically change it's charter (the rules under which the BBC operates) and would also like to privatise it, most likely selling it to Rupert Murdoch. Consequently you rarely see too much criticism of the Government on BBC news these days as they're scared of what the government will do to them. The Government are also trying to priviatise Channel 4. Partly because Channel 4 news often calls out dodgy government actions so they want to shut them up. And partly to test the waters before trying to privatise the BBC which is likely to cause a much bigger public outcry. Two major areas of the UK electoral system that many people want changed are: 1) Using FPTP (first past the post) for elections instead of PR (proportional representation). Only the UK and US still use FPTP which is outdated and unfair. Every other western nation uses some form of PR. PR isn't perfect either, but at least everyone's vote counts. The main issue with FPTP is that everyone who votes for someone other than the winning candidate of your local electoral ward has their vote discarded. This means in every general election the majority (60-65%) of people who bother to vote have their votes ignored and so aren't represented in parliament. 2) The House of Lords who are unelected. The idea of the House of Lords is in principle a good one. Experienced and knowledgeable people from many areas like politics, the armed forces, business, science, healthcare, education, the arts, the media, etc who can use their knowledge to scrutinise parliamentary bills and point out amendments and changes which might be needed. Baring in mind that any ignorant idiot can be elected to the house of commons it isn't a bad idea in theory to have some intelligent, knowledgeable, experienced people who actually know what they're talking about check over proposed new laws. Unfortunately the reality of the Lords is rather different. Some of the posts are hereditary, so peers can be ignorant idiots too. And new peers are chosen by the Government of the day who often try to load new appointments with their supporters or anyone who's given their party large wads of cash. Many peers just take the large salaries that go with the position and never turn up. Consequently the House of Lords needs radical revision to ditch the useless and dodgy peers who aren't there on merit.
" _our current far right government_ " You do yourself, and whatever arguments you may have, no favours when you make comments like this. There are many who regard the current Conservative government as left-of-centre, given the largesse with which it has dispensed public funds in supporting people during Covid. From your comment, I don't think you have any idea what a far right government would actually look like.
@@istvanglock7445 Lol NOBODY has ever called this government center left! 🤣🤣🤣And i say that as a centerist with balanced views. Just think about what you just said. Constant attacks on democracy is NOT being center left! Or even center right for that matter. It's the action of a wannabe autocratic government. Wanting to take away your human rights is NOT center left FFS! It's the first thing autocratic governments and tinpot dictators do! Please stop trying to defend the indefensible out of blind loyalty. It does you no credit and makes you look foolish, ignorant and uninformed. Please look at their actions and ask yourself if they're those of decent people. Do you seriously not care about your human rights, workers rights, food safety standards, animal welfare, pollution? Since leaving the EU the government has attacked all of these. You mentioned the money they spent during Covid. If they'd acted sooner. i.e. followed their own 2014 pandemic response paper which lays out exactly what they SHOULD have done we wouldn't have the worst death rate from Covid in Europe. They also ignored the 2017 findings of operation Cygnus, the WHO, warnings from Italy, and the medical and scientific community. And don't forget intentionally running down the NHS for 12 years, including having no PPE at the start of the pandemic. I learnt in primary school that with highly infectious diseases you quarantine. Almost EVERYONE knows that. Except apparently this government. Why didn't they act? Because super rich Tory donors whinged about their businesses losing money. Ironically if they'd acted sooner the country wouldn't have been so hard hit by Covid, they wouldn't have had to spend so much of tax payers money and business wouldn't have suffered so badly. Were you aware that they put infected people into care homes? Or that they continued to do so AFTER being informed this was killing thousands of pensioners? Quite frankly they should all be on manslaughter charges for that. Look at some of their other actions: e.g. Constant law breaking, corruption, breaking treaties and international law, increased homelessness and poverty, removing free school meal from kids this summer, the treatment of the disabled by the DWP which has killed hundreds of the UK's most vulnerable citizens, the Windrush scandal where innocent UK citizens were illegally put in detention and deported (some died as a consequence). Giving billions of tax payers money to their chums for services that never materialised or were unfit for purpose, etc, etc. Did you know many of the policies espoused by this government show strong parallels, if slightly toned down, to those of the fascist governments of Germany, Italy and Spain in the early 1930s. So yes this IS an extremely right-wing government. P.S. Did you know that a number of leading Tories display many of the 20 personality traits listed on the psychopath test? Once you realise this it explains why they act as they do. Johnson is almost certainly a narcissistic psychopath. Patel , Hunt and IDS are also prime candidates, others may not be full blown, but at the very least would be classed as having serious personality disorders. All of which explains the insane and vile actions of this vile and inhuman government which is the worst in living memory. Worrying they're not the only world leaders displaying many psychopathic traits. ex president Trump (obviously), Putin, Kim Jong Un, Bosonairo of Brazil, Orban or Hungary, Lukashenko of Belarus, Erdogan of Turkey, Modi of India, ex Pm Morrison of Australia... Having so many psychopaths as leaders/CEOs is why the world has gone to shit. Until we start testing our leaders for serious personality disorders this will continue.
Fun to compare with Canadian Parliament. Some of it is common : Magna Carta, and Westminster Statute but after that it became different in both countries
In Australia our parliamentary system is based on the British Model with 2 major differences, 1- In Australia voting is compulsory if you are over 18. 2 - We vote for our politicians in both houses (House of Reps and the Senate) ,while Britain only votes for 1 (House of commons ) and the other ( House of Lords ) are appointed.
The more I watch and learn about it I actually like the concept of the House of Lords and even the idea of the hereditary peers . If they are not elected like the US and Aussie Senate they aren’t influenced by any outside forces like lobbyists or big donors or even the people they are not worried about reelection. But they care about the country’s future and their legacy and want their seat in the House of Lords to be there when it’s time for their eldest child to take their place. Therefore it’s in their interest to be concerned about laws long term effect not just of it will help get them re-elected. Yea their is lo control over each peers personal mental state or if they care about the wellbeing of the population, but it’s a good balance I think. Life peers is a good idea in theory but as we have seen they tend to be retired long time members of parliament and former PMs successful business leaders like “Lord Sugar” etc. in my mind Corp CEOs are not necessarily people you want having a direct influence on laws
@@dalemac614 unfortunately those who sit in the House of Lords have been shown to be influenced by lobbyists and self interest . Just like any other they look after themselves first . Most come from a Conservative background (Right wing ) admittedly some come from working class backgrounds but they are in the minority . Nobody by birthright has the wisdom or should have the power to govern others . Power should be earned and wisdom learned not taken as given because of who your ancestors were.
Compulsory voting is the best idea ever. It enables a fairer outcome. If you dont vote in Australia, you get a fine. That is through the three tiers of government. If people object about voting: "Its a waste of time" etc (dumb thinking- make your vote count) then you can deliberately spoil your ballot paper and no one is the wiser. These are called "informal "votes and always feature on an outcome.
@@enoughofthis No we don't have a none of the above option, it is required by law you vote but really that means you are required to go get your name marked off and submit your vote slip. Australia invented the secret ballot so once you mark your name off you don't actually need to vote for anyone you can post your ballot un marked if you choose to because there's no way to know who it belonged to. We also have a preferensal voting system so you can vote for multiple people numbered from your 1st, 2nd 3rd 4th chose etc, if your first choice is in the smallest pile of votes your vote is re counted towards the second choice and this continues until there is a candidate with the majority of the votes over 51%
Most people, if they really thought about it, know most of this stuff but in a very non-formalised way. The video skipped over a lot and didn't even mention the Civil Service or the role of the official Parliamentary press ("Hansard"). I would recommend watching clips from some UK comedies like "Yes, Minister", "Yes, Prime Minister" or "The Thick Of It" to get a feel for how the Government and Civil Service interact. Also, I'm not sure that you quite appreciated that the Government in the UK is a Cabinet of MPs chosen by the PM to head up the various ministries / departments. Unlike the US system where the President fills these positions with unelected political friends and cronies, in the UK these have to be drawn from sitting MPs (and occasionally Lords) of the majority or coalition party /parties. This means that, however bad, in your opinion, a Minister might be, you can console yourself by knowing that a majority of the people in a constituency, somewhere, must have voted for this pratt! "Parliament" are all the elected MPs, except the Cabinet Ministers, and is made up of the Opposition and the rest of the majority party's MPs (their "back-benchers"). Their role is to hold the Government to account by representing the interests of their constituents and, unless whipped, to vote in accordance with those interests. The largest party in the Opposition ("The Official Opposition") organises itself so as to shadow the Government positions by drawing on its own MPs to form a Shadow Cabinet and occupies the benches directly opposite their Cabinet equivalents. I would recommend watching some clips from "Prime Minister's Questions", which are live-streamed every Wednesday morning, to get a feel for this.
One of my daughters wrote to our local MP (Member of Parliament) when she was 10 years old. She was against fox-hunting - there was a bill in Parliament at the time to ban fox-hunting. She wanted the MP to vote against fox-hunting. He wrote back and invited her to meet him when he came to our village. We met in the village hall and she spoke about her wish to ban fox-hunting. The MP didn't agree with her but debated with her, saying he was against whale-hunting but pro fox-hunting (on the basis that foxes attack farm animals and fowl and had no natural predators) and he wanted the tradition of fox-hunting to continue. Although I didn't agree with his conservative politics, he was a good MP and did listen to his constituents (the majority of which shared his views - not surprisingly as he was voted MP) and I respected the man for his honesty and openness. He did vote against banning fox-hunting but his party lost that vote.
When we were in lockdown in March 2020 i was worried about my relative living on her own 400 miles away. I contacted her local MP to see if he could get a local charity or church to help her. He contacted her himself and did her shopping for her even buying her a bouquet of flowers. Amazing.
You should name that MP so that he can get the credit for his actions. It's great to hear of a politician that actually bothers.
You don't need to be an mp to do this and chances are that they only did it to promote themselves unfortunately
@@scrubbybard380To be fair, even if they acted in their own interests, they still did a good thing for someone they were elected to help. It’s when they act in their own interests and DON’T help their constituents that there’s a problem.
How good is that? Respect to that dude/dudet
@scrubbybard380 that’s very cynical! Not every elected official does things just for votes! I asked my councillor for help regarding a no fault eviction (section 21) I had to take the first property that was offered to me by the local council (U.K.) but animals weren’t allowed, my cat was 18 then, and I don’t think she’d have handled a new servant (😳) my brother in law had died and she came to me, my councillor (Russell Simpson) visited, said he’d try his best, then spoke to whomever, and she was allowed to come with me (I didn’t realise that he’d come to check that there were no cat smells in my flat) she has never been a cat who smells, even though she’ll be 19 in November! I’m so grateful to Cllr Simpson, whose ward I no longer live in but unsurprisingly, he was voted in in the last council election.
The whole writing to/emailing your local MPs is 100% true. When my secondary school was fairly new there was an alleyway next to it which many students would walk through to get there and go home - but at the same time a few days of the week we would finish later in the day so, especially in winter, it would be dark outside and we soon realised that the lights in the alleyway did not work and it was pitch black through there. With the ground of the alleyway really uneven it was a complete nightmare trying to walk through. My dad came to pick me up one day simply so he could take a picture of the alleyway (it being literally a black screen) and he sent it to our local MP to get them to fix those lights before someone got hurt. The MP responded to it immediately and within a week or so the lights had been fixed.
Most MP's are good for that sort of thing.... it's apolitical and makes them look good. But try writing to them to complain about sewage dumped in the sea when they were one of the ones that voted to allow it. You'll be ignored or palmed off with some pre-scripted party political crap. For the most part they act in the interests of (a) Themselves, (b) Their political party and then finally (c) Their constituents.
@@Paul99T I never said our political system was good, in fact I agree, most politicians in this country are complete pigs and are only in their career for their own self interest and I'm not even going to pretend as if we the people have any sort of say about the big issues - and I'm aware that most MPs only pull off these smaller stunts to gain a good reputation. I was simply saying that writing to them is possible - and the MP my area had at the time was actually a really nice lady who had been an MP for decades and only stepped down a few years ago because she was retiring. I've actually met her a few times throughout school and other events and I think I speak for my area when I say that she was actually a rare good gem in the muck that is modern politics. And as for trying to do it to better her own image? Well I'm pretty sure the whole lighting situation in the alleyway my dad complained about didn't even make the local newspapers so it wasn't like she was doing it for publicity. As much as I'm aware politics is a mindfield of depression and incompetence nowadays, I just hope this small thing restores at least some hope in humanity.
@@emilyhadley9089 Yep... you can write to them. I have several times, but never once got a response from my actual MP always from one of her staff, and it's not like she has a second job or anything, her staff said she doesn't.
Yeah sometimes they get stuff done.
In the context of this video, you can write to your representatives in the US too, that doesn't mean things happen here when you do any more than it does there.
This video presents an overly 'nice' image of the realities of British democracy, that just doesn't live up to it's image in reality.
@@Paul99T Yes, it does make it out to seem a lot better than it is but at least the MP's are relatively accessible. Everyone in school at one point had the MP come and do an assembly.
Excellent, @emilyhadley9089. : o )
I'm British and live in the UK, on the most part, the Parliament works quite well, but there are some departments such as The Home Office and Immigration, which are in dire need of being scrutinised, also amazingly, bullying is common in Parliament, and unfortunately has been allowed to continue unchecked, more recently victims have spoken out about this problem in the hope it can be dealt with.
It's important to point out that on the official UK Government petition website, after you get something like 40,000 signatures they debate it in parliament.
I 5h8nk its more like 60,000 signatures but a well made point.
and no politicians turn up to hear it .....
I think it's 90k
I thought it was 100,000 when you can hand in a petition to number 10
@@dawnmrodgers You're correct, it's 100,000 and that forces the issue to be debated in parliament. Obviously parliament still has the authority to decide it's daft and totally ignore it, but at least they've heard about it.
So funny to watch your facial expressions. Yep, as a Brit, all this 1,000+ years of History. Monarchy + Parliament are seeped into our bones from the moment we're born! My school was several hundred years old, my house is 300 years old, my village is 1,500 years old - so we take it all for granted and love it to bits :)
As a fellow brit I can concur this is stamped into my brain forever lols
Same, but only because of Horrible Histories for me 😂
My school was only 100 years old, my house is only 50 years old, but the company i work for is 351 years old. Britain is an odd mix
My school (quoted from google):
"The King's School is an 11-16 school with a long history being *founded in 1139* making it one of the four oldest schools in Yorkshire. The school has a planned admission number of 210 pupils in each year group."
The pub I used to drink in was built around 1400 (used to be a tax collection house, with a huge underground silo for those who had to pay their taxes in grain).
Well I'm from the UK and I see parliament as nothing more than a cartel of the rich working for the rich. This is 50 years of watching the show and thats all it is..... The queen just one small part of the cartel
Fun fact. When Margaret Thatcher was elected as the first female and longest serving PM. The house of lords wrote to my great uncle a professor of theology FF Bruce. And, they asked him his thoughts n feelings on a woman being PM. He replied, he saw no problem whatsoever as there was already a woman at the head of The Crown and had been for over 20 years in 1979.
unfortunate it was mags though
@@lucymcdonald2874 She did every British person a favour in 1985 and not a lot of people understood what she did, But you need to understand British Law and it's Legal system. She has saved me thousands of pounds.
Wow, they really are a pathetic bunch of man-children in suits, great fun fact. 👍
@@reaperoflostsouls4323 so, what, the suffering of thousands for the generations after is excused because you saved a quid?
@@reaperoflostsouls4323 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I would recommend "Politics Unboringed" by Jay Foreman, it explains how the UK Government works from a more civilian standpoint, and through comedic methods
Have you ever seen Jay's brother perform ?
@@darthgorthaur258 do you mean mark cooler jones the guy he does map men with? never heard of him having a brother but maybe im just wrong
@@mmcgrath2510 no he means jay foreman actual brother, known as Beardyman.
I have had to contact MPs on a number of occasions and always found them responsive even when they disagreed with the point I was raising. On one occasion I was listening to the live broadcast of a debate when a comment was made by a minister which I knew to be wrong. I phoned the parliamentary office of my local MP at the time and told the staff member who took the call, that the minister had made a mistake. About 20 minutes later the local MP, who was from the same party as the minister, raised a point of order to question the minister on the fact that there was an error in what he had told the house. The minister said he would have to look into the matter but the information he had given was, to his understanding, correct. The following day the minister returned to the house to make a ministerial statement admitting that the information he had given the house was in fact wrong.
It is not a problem having 800+ members of the House of Lords as they do not all turn up at the same time. Most of the Lords are appointed because of their special knowledge or interest in a specific field. In the main they only tend to turn up for matters which are related to their field of special interest. So, it is rare that there are more than 200 lords present in the house at any one time. Most of the time there are only about 50 present. Unlike MPs, members of the House of Lords only get paid when they attend the House of Lords.
He is clearly clueless unless it happens in the U.S.
@@ardentynekent2099 right..because everyone knows how the UK political system works?
A few points of clarification:
The word Government is used slightly differently in the US and the UK. In the US the word government refers to both the legislature and the executive. In the UK the word government refers only to the executive. The UK legislature is parliament. The other important difference is that in the US the legislature and the executive are completely separate, whereas in the UK the members of the executive (government) are a subset of the legislature (parliament).
Yes, every law has to be formally approved by the monarch, this is called "royal assent". However these days this is purely a formality. The last time royal assent was not given to a bill was over 300 years ago.
If no party manages to win a majority of seats in a general election, this is called a hung parliament. The largest party can form a minority government, however this makes it very difficult to pass laws, since they aren't guaranteed a majority of votes. Instead, more than one party can come together to form a "coalition" government, in order to get a majority between them. The last time there was a formal coalition was 2010-2015, however there was an informal coalition between 2017 and 2019.
If you want any further clarification feel free to ask.
True but she has used Queens Consent before.
Her Majesty refused the Blair government's aim to be allowed to carry out air raids in Iraq without Royal Assent
To take you up on the offer of answering more questions: how would you go about becoming a life peer in the House of Lords? :)
@@326Alan you have to be appointed by the Prime Minister (technically you're appointed by the monarch but not really). This tends to mean a lot of old political pals get put in there to keep a balance of politics
Not entirely true. Tony Blair a prime minister a few years ago tried to push through a bill letting the government declare war without royal assent. He was told in no uncertain terms this would not go through. So withdrew it before it became an issue. Also the Queen retains the power to open and close Parliament and she signs off on all new legislation. If she doesn't sign it it is not law! She uses these powers subtly without fuss so as not to abuse her privilege. I.E. abuse of these powers in our modern democracy would have them removed. It is sometimes named a glass cannon abused once and shattered forever.
Perhaps you would be less surprised at the similarities between the UK and US systems when you consider almost every US institution in existence originated and evolved from the original colonial system the Brits put in place to govern the 13 colonies, same for Canada, Australia, India and dozens of others
Legislative systems in US and India share commonalities seeing as how those institutions are based/built off of Westminster features (Australia being a mix of the UK and the US derivative, known as the Washminster mutation).
Parliamentary systems in New Zealand and Ireland are very similar given they are modelled on the Westminister system.
Canada though is near identical... as how they pretty much did the equivalent of copying the UK's homework exactly, but changed the name from "House of Lords" to "Senate" 💀
It you follow so called conspiracy the USA is still under the control of the Crown ( the crown is not the Royals)
Yeah, as a Canadian I watched this going "I knew we based our system on England, I did not know we just coppied it, and changed a few words to make it sound different."
@@ostrowulf Is there an equivalent to the house of lords in Canada?
@@helenchelmicka3028 We have a house of commons and a senate.
I would absolutely recommend Jay Foreman's "Politics Unboringed" playlist (or just his entire channel), to learn more about how the UK Government works (or doesn't work).
Also Map Men!
And Unfinished London!
Came here to say this!
The video being reacted to here is, uh, bordering on a little bit disingenuous in places. Jay's one is a much more honest view of UK politics!
Additionally to parliament we have local government Councils which run smaller areas and regions these are elected separately to parliament itself. This is worth looking up too
The one thing that really confuses me when I look at the US is the lack of manifestos. In the UK it's the biggest part of any election. In the US it's all so vague. A few big policies but very little else.
In the US the parties do issue a “platform” which is basically the same idea, but I don’t think anyone, even the candidate’s themselves, pays it any attention. In the last election cycle the Republicans didn’t even bother updating theirs.
Margaret Thatcher used to keep a copy of her party's manifesto on her desk throughout her terms as Prime Minister and cross each item through as it was delivered over the five years.
@@johntomlinson6849 Blair had a similar approach - the clarity of the offer in 97 was key to their success - though he was something of a fan of Thatcher in this regard - both Brown and Cameron however had much vaguer promises, resulting in a hung parliament in 2010 - clarity and keeping your promises is an effective political tool, ^oo^
It turned that way lately it sure didn't start that way.
@@gregweatherup9596 The RNC had no actual platform for the 2020 election while the Democratic platform was about 200 pages long.
They forgot to mention this:
"A whip is an official of a political party whose task is to ensure party discipline in a legislature. This means ensuring that members of the party vote according to the party platform, rather than according to their own individual ideology or the will of their donors or constituents." (From Wikipedia).
Manifestos are where I go when I want to figure out who to vote for because I cannot stand all the noise that comes with campaigning. Whenever I write to my MP I get a standard pre-written response. Interestingly, friends of mine who have written to their own MPs, from the same party, on the same issue, have often received the exact same standard reply.
The House of Lords is an unelected body made up of peers. Peers being Lords, Ladies, Dukes, Barons etc. Life Peers are proposed by the PM and then appointed by the queen. Hereditary peers are the descendants of people who were were given peerages from way back in history. Hereditary peers are becoming less relevant to politics.
The monarch doesn't have overall power. The prime minister doesn't have overall power either. That is the whole point. No one has over all power.
'Parliament' is made up of the party in government, the opposition, the monarch and the body of civil servants who seem to have been running the show since the beginning of time.
We mostly have a vague idea of the history of Parliament but don't really spend a lot of time thinking about it.
You can get more information about Peerages at Debret'ts Guide: debretts.com/peerage/ranks-and-privileges-of-the-peerage/
Or if you are really interested in how Parliament works watch Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister if you haven't already don so. it's not only educational it's hilarious!
Or the thick of it. Is also a good watch
The other political parties are also able to propose Life Peers, though this depends on their attitude to the institution of the Lords as to whether they do this
Good points made. I agree Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister are brilliant well scripted and embarassingly close to the truth but i do feel they need to be watched by viewers who are cynically and sarcastically aware of British politics and the Civil Service rivalries.
This was a good basic video covering the U.K. Parliament. The most powerful part of The government over here, is that they get to control parliamentary time. They get to decide what bills get “government time” - there is time for opposition bills and debates, and the same is true for “private member bills” - but the vast majority of the power comes from controlling time and what parliament will actually debate. Great video.
I am Canadian and I am familiar with Britain's system. I learned about the US system and some other governments in high school. I am not sure when I started learning about Britain's government, Canada is part of the Commonwealth and we have similar styles. We don't have so many representatives. Having so many representatives also means it can take longer to get things done. We only have about 38.5 million people in Canada.
I also learned a lot of US elections from tv shows growing up. What do Americans learn in school?
Love to know that too.
@@joyridgway6398So would I.
I think you’d love watching a political comedy series called ‘yes Minister’ and ‘yes prime minister’ 😂
I have currently lost 3 boxed sets of these series that I subsequently lent to foreigners wanting to know how our political system works :)
This is definitely worth watching. Even though it is old it is still relevant today. I would guess it is relevant for other countries with similar democratic parties too. So it probably still rings true in the US. It can be watched with a subscription to Britbox.
@@tnetroP yeah the bit about Leading Questions is classic and very relevant to today.
Another good one, would be The New Statesman. Rick Mayall was genius in that 🤣🤣
Yes a truly great series - I need to watch it again myself - I fear it may be dated but perhaps not - it's probably timeless.
I wanted some bushes cut down near me as it was a safety issue for the children playing nearby. I contacted my local council who refused to do anything about it. I then contacted my local my local member of parliament by email and all the bushes were cut within two days! Sometimes they do listen.
You don’t have Sir Edward Leigh. An absolute waste of space rich Tory.
Curious as to why a bush is harmful to children nearby.
@@pheart2381 Likely a traffic and visibility issue at a guess.
@@pheart2381 bushes attract weirdos who hang around in bushes
@@jamesgornall5731 Hey, some of us like hanging around in bushes like a bat. I don't think that that makes us weirdos!
5 year terms are great. In the US House, representatives with their 2 year terms are campaigning pretty much the whole time (or raising money to be ready to run) which massively increases the influence of large donors. In the UK MPs get to concentrate on being MPs not just candidates.
My Two favourite facts about parliament, 1/ you can't die inside the House of Commons, You can become ill and get taken out of the Chamber at that point you die. 2/ Once a year the Monarch kidnaps/takes hostage an MP. While they visit parliament to give the King or Queen's speech.
Magna Carta was essentially the first human rights document, it's the basis of all UK, Commonwealth and American law.
As you might expect, the Magna Carta was declared invalid by the Pope some six months after it was signed.
The magna carta is not and never has been any part of Scottish law, as for American law/constitution, that was based on the Scottish constitution and was drafted by a Glaswegian who's name escapes me right now.
@@garymcatear822 I'd agree with you up to the point where the UK government put in a supreme court over the English, Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish courts for all civil matters. (It's only Scots criminal cases that are outside it's purview.) The supreme court has been going since 2009.
They want a UK national police as the next step. (The Tories never gave back the devolved powers from the EU either, and are already talking about going back on devolution and making civil protest a felony.)
Commonwealth law was taken wholesale from English/Welsh jurisprudence back when they were colonies.
There's a number of sources that state the magna carta is referenced as far back as the US Charters of freedom. It was given as showing the principles of the English constitution and as a justification for the revolution.
As long as Scotland is a part of the UK they will continually move to batter away at Scots law and bring it and us more closely to heel. (They're already hailing Truss as the next Thatcher after her recent visit to the Scottish Tory's.)
@@Bazk01 All civil and criminal cases in Scotland are completly independand from UK law, UK law has absolutely no say in what happens in Scottish law, as for the thing you said about bringing Scottish law to heel to the UK law would be a breach of the act of union and if the UK tried to force that upon Scotland there will be lots of English blood spilled, as far as the Scots are concerned what you suggest would be an act of war.
@@garymcatear822 www.supremecourt.uk/docs/jurisdiction-of-the-supreme-court-in-scottish-appeals.pdf
I even wrote to speaker Berkow on Parliamentary behaviour of some members behaviour in the house and received a hand written formal letter in reply.
@@liamloxley1222 Exactly. Glad he's gone though one of the underlings for the new Speaker is on a feminist ego trip at times.
I really enjoyed this video. Have learnt a lot about how your country works too.
Well done for getting your head round our government , it's not that easy! 😅 🙏🇬🇧
MP's have regular meetings in their constituency that any of their constituents can go to to bring an issue to their attention- I have actually done this, I also regularly email my MP about current issues, and she always responds. Like any system it's not perfect, but it does usually work.
The Queen is someone the Prime Minister meets each week to talk about what’s happening. With all her experience, it’s useful for the PM to be able to have a private conversation with someone on a regular basis.
What? An unelected person having such power and influence? That is totally anti-democratic. Brexiters had the gall to claim the EU was undemocratic, what a total lie.
@@PanglossDr well, the EU is undemocratic. That’s why we left. But the British Democratic monarchy is democratic, because the monarch’s powers are subject to parliament and the people’s will. That’s why the monarch takes no political stances.
@@michaels640 The EU is not undemocratic. If you dont understand how something works? Educated yourself or shut up!
@@michaels640 I agree that the EU seemed very undemocratic to me, there are real imbalances of power in that system. I definitely prefer a constitutional monarchy.
I much prefer the commonwealth system that, it seems many of the other countries who are members feel the same way.
As if Boris Johnson meets the Queen every week. He's a lazy sod, I'd be surprised if he met with her each year but then, why should an unelected person have any power at all. It's ridiculous and it's not just the Queen who has undue influence but the entire Royal Family.
I learnt about some kings and queens in history class in England and most of what I know about the British government is what I was taught by my mum, by watching the news, by books I’ve read and films and documentaries I’ve watched. You can actually watch parliamentary debates in the House of Commons online. It’s very interesting to watch as it can get quite rowdy!!
Parliament also has its own TV channel broadcast on the BBC showing debates and committee proceedings.
I only know things about the government because of my own interest in watching and reading up things. I don’t know a hell of a lot, but I try. I find it quite shocking that we have to go out of our way to learn though! Are they trying to keep us dumb?
@@mdx7460 The answer is a big fat yes!
If I remember correctly a peer is someone who holds a seat in the House of Lords
Life peer is someone who has there position for life
Hereditary peers pass there titles down there family line father to son style
My primary school used this video in history to explain the government and how it’s changed over time
It wasn't mentioned in the video but at the start of each parliamentary year the monarch officially opens parliament. And a very splendid occasion it is too, with the monarch wearing all the Royal regalia, crown, insignia, robes etc...etc.... There are also some very old and symbolic traditions that go with this occasion which as an American you would find fascinating!
I think a reaction video to the opening of Parliament would be entertaining and bizzare for all concerned
also a new prime minster must go to the king or queen to be sworn in. If they refuse to go and be sworn in they can not be a prime minster and the king/queen can call for another election or demand the leader of a party steps down.
1 labour leader forgot his name refused to be sworn in by the queen and refused to step down as labour leader. luckly for him the labour party didnt win the election or he would of been arrested for treason.
Treason still carries the death penatly.
only 1 other crime in the UK still caries a death penatly and that making, buying selling or eating mince pies lol. that was a bylaw put in by Oliver Cromwell and has never been repealed as the only person that can repeal a bylaw is the person who made it.
He thought mincemeat was the devils food so put a death penalty on any food made with mincemeat. so mincepies and christmas pudding r techinicly illegal in the UK but no one bothers to arrest anyone for it now.
I think the UK and Norway are pretty similar in how the King /Queen interact with politics.
In Norway, the King officially "opens" the parliamentary session every October.
After an election, he's technically the one who appoints a prime minister, and every week (Friday at 10 Am) he meets the Prime minister and all the other ministers and signs or Vetoes new laws. A veto is very rare, and can through a convoluted process be overturned by Parliament.
Same in the UK
Except the UK Monarch cannot veto laws. They are also not allowed to involve in political debate.
In the UK the King meets only the Prime Minister at the weekly audience. It is a very informal meeting and completely confidential.
I spoke to my local MP by phone on Election Day. He took the time to speak with me and answer my questions . He also forwarded to me some information via text and was keen to hear my response
Easiest way to summarise how new legislation comes in:
1. House of Commons propose it
2. House of Lords reviews and can send back for refinement or re-debate
3. Monarch reviews and can send it back for refinement or re-debate.
The house of commons is literally the house of the people- with MPs etc. The house of lords means those with a title (Baron, Earl, etc). I've always just understood it as parliament formulates the laws and when approved in parliament is then passed through the house of lords who can veto those laws. edit: The government is an elected party of parliament with parliament being the makeup of different political parties
When we refer to government we usually mean the executive branch, the prime minister and other ministers. The Monarch is Head of State; our judicial branch is now the UK Supreme Court, it used to be the House of Lords, there are 12 judges on it and they are selected by an appointment panel; they are not political appointees in the way they are in the USA. Just as our electoral boundaries are drawn up by a commission not by politicians.
There are also very strict laws on political donations, corporate lobbying, and election spending. We don’t have commercials for parties in the way you have in the USA. Instead parties are given five minute broadcasts at election time, the number of these each party gets is dependent on their likely votes. Also don’t be fooled by the five year term. It’s possible and is happening now that the Prime Minister can be replaced at any time. MPs can be made to resign if they breach the rules. Five years mean that they have time to actually do something before they have to start campaigning again. (Btw it used to be 7 years, because of shifting events we often have early elections too, as in 2017 and 2019)
Manifestos are a thing, usually quite dull, but they do exist.
No “filibuster” either.
It’s normal for you to be able to make an appointment to be able to meet and discuss an issue affecting you with them. They’re our representatives and work for us.
In 1974 we had two general elections, in February and October!
MPs hold what are called surgeries in their local area so you can make an appointment to go and speak to them, an American friend that lived in the UK said that there’s way may encouragement and expectation to contact your MP over lots of issues that you’d never consider writing to you representative about in the US
In the US you have the notion of sending someone to Washington and that’s it, understandable back in the day but it’s much easier to travel those distances quickly now. In the UK while a lot of an MPs work may be in London they’re expected to spend a decent amount of time in the areas they represent
The Prime Ministers always say the safest conversation is the one with the king/queen because it will never be leaked
I'm 25 seconds in, and I'd just like to say, there is nothing to be embarrassed about as an American by not understanding how the UK government works. Honestly, nobody expects that. I'm fairly sure most of us Brits don't have a scooby either 👍
Are you assuming Tyler knows who Scooby is and that he will therefore understand your use of rhyming slang ? If only Tyler would read / respond to our comments, at least one of us would know if he knows what you and I inow...?!😮😢😊❤
You’ll notice a lot of similarities because the US based much of its legal and political system on the UK, broadly, although things have diverged a lot since
The US actually took Native American advice to form our government. It makes sense we see similarities since at least the 13 states were originally British.
@@christineperez7562 the Iroquois connection is supposed to be one of the influences, but even the Patriot ideas have most of their origins in British philosophy and politics, the mid-18th century British Country Party was a huge influence but is hardly known now, I think there has been a lot of distancing from the British connections over the years both consciously and unconsciously
@@christineperez7562 There are two chambers in the American system. The two house system didn’t come about by design but by evolution in England over centuries and is a system that influenced the American system. So too did common law. There are crimes that have no statute meaning no one passed a law that made this crime unlawful like murder for example. It has always been a crime going back to Anglo Saxon times but no one can say when it became unlawful to kill. Common law came over to America with the first settlers.
The concept of innocent until proven guilty and no conviction without trial are all concepts of Anglo Saxon common law and so too, the concept of debating and creating law by way of debating bills and passing them into law by vote. By the time of the revolution, the monarch was powerless to create his own laws. That power was the sole prerogative of parliament. Unlike France at the time of the revolution for example, which was still feudal and so was most of Europe.
They are actually totally different. The US has a written Constitution, the UK has not.
@@PanglossDr That is a very weak example. Both countries have a constitution and the US constitution has it's origins in the Magna Carter.
Fact is the US system, as well as most of US life, is based on the UK, specifically England.
I have met my member of parliament many times, and he carried questions from me to the minister in the government.
Sometimes a question from a constituent is asked in prime minister or ministerial questions.
An member of parliament is literally our representative in parliament
The writing to your MP does work. I wrote to mine to make posistion on certain issues clear and he wrote me back answering my questions.
The monarch is also kept informed by daily reading reports from the Government departments- sent to them in a "red box".
As a Labour party member I attend meetings every two months where members in my constituency can hold our MP to account in terms of her voting down party/manifesto lines and how she is representing our community. Every year the various branches in the constituency review her performance and decide whether we would like her to carry on being the Labour candidate for our constituency if a general election were to be called.
Who is your mp? Out of interest
@@jackbeswick4662 Yvonne Fovargue
You can visit you MP in their local office. All the MPs in my town have a shop front office. Simply, call up and make an appointment. I have had lunch with 2 MPs at community events. They are mostly just normal people.
On a darker note 2 MPs have been murdered in recent years while undertaking these types of appointments/ meeting with members of the public to help them with issues.
Both were terrible days for democracy. Our MP's may infuriate us but that is wrong on every level possible.
Yes, I thought of that while he was talking about it. 5hats the down side of being so available.
If you actually do write to your local MP generally you tend to get a boiler plate reply from their secratary/admin team saying that they have read your letter and have taken it into account and that's about it....
One thing that wasn't covered much was what MPs do in their constituency. You can make an appointment (some even have open drop in clinics) with your MP either to discuss a political issue or to ask for their support in holding public agencies to account on a personal matter. For example, many years ago my aunt was having difficulty in getting the Child Support Agency to look into fraudulent financial statements submitted by her former partner. She took the evidence to her MP and he contacted the agency on her behalf to make sure her case was looked at again and the evidence she had gathered was properly considered - without her having to go to the massive expense of civil legal proceedings. When working for a homelessness charity, clients who were getting past from pillar to post with housing or benefit applications were also encouraged to speak to a local MP when other avenues dried up. You don't even need to be a citizen, migrants and asylum seekers can also ask for support.
As elected representatives MPs can, and usually do, get better access and more immediate responses from public bodies who are accountable to government. And obviously, they can more easily access other MPs and committees where they need to lobby on behalf of a constituent.
This is as big a part of their role as what they do within the chamber, committees or even the cabinet.
Even the prime minister has to hold meetings with his or her constituents and take responsibility for helping ensure they get the responses and support from public bodies that they are entitled to.
When you consider that the uk is the size on just 1 or 2 us states and has more representation than the entire us government
We still have a low turnout in elections.
Plus the 7383 state legislators
On speaking with your MP, most MPs (all I think) hold a weekly surgery, where any constituent can meet them (mostly by appointment, though not always) to discuss any issue the constituent has with government departments or other official body. The MP may then contact officials to clarify or sort out the issues, the MP will then repot back to the constituent. This can be very effective in clearing red tape and 'not my problem' type issues or high light issue in a particular area.
I’ve done it twice, both times I was helped.
Yes, I spoke to my MP a few months back for help with the passport office who were being useless and not sending my passport back and he helped sort things out for me 🙂 Can't remember where I heard it, that MPs love it when they help their constituents to the point where they're own political beliefs are at odds with the great service they've received from their MP.
@@fayesouthall6604 Me too, once or twice. They definitely were helpful.
Magna Carta is extremely common knowledge in the UK, at least on a surface level. It was essentially a bunch of nobles being unhappy with King John (same John from Robin Hood) raising taxes so high. Rather than have a civil war, the nobles forced the king to sign Magna Carta, which would essentially limit the crown's power, and put restrictions on what the king could or could not do. Before then, if you were king, you could do whatever you felt like with no legal repercussions, because you were the king.
Magna Carta is generally regarded as the original beginning of Parliament. It's probably almost as significant to British history as the Declaration of Independence is to the US.
I don't think I'd heard of Simon DeMontfort, though.
Canada has the same. Only in Canada if you write to an MP you don’t need a stamp. Also, each MP is required to spend time in their constituency. So you can go to see your MP or your provincial MPP or both. I have been to see both in Canada. The thing that I want is a recall law. We have Senators but they are appointed as is the Governor General and Lt. Governor General , which is the provincial representative of the Queen.
In Canada we also have the parliamentary system , as do most commonwealth countries, we have the House of Commons, but instead of a House of Lords we have a Senate. Unlike the American Senate, in which Senators are voted for. Our senators are appointed to the position, and are representative of the provinces and territories. The Queen is our Monarch and Head of State, as she cannot be present for many official duties we have a Governor General, who is the Queen’s representative.
We in the UK probably should go to a Senate than House of Lords, we’re getting a bit cheesed off with them lately.
The monarchy for signing off new laws is good safety net to have in place, no government or what not can make any laws they like without final approval.
@@insoft_uk Yes, we are the same regarding assent. The Governor General gives assent. No matter what, I do prefer the Parliamentary system better than the American system, which is way more complicated and unnecessarily so.
Yeah, no Lords in Australia either, it's also called the senate.
We also have the same system (but no monarch, instead a president who is supposed to be non political but the current one is turning out not to be) and we have a senate which is appointed by the government in power.
@@insoft_uk The H of L are now mostly life peers, which is about the same as Canadian senators who are madatorialy retired at 75.
Manifesto's do exist and 'should' be a key impactor for a constituents choice of vote.... however in reality manifesto's are rarely the same if that party comes into power. Too many times policies are placed in manifesto's and then completely change and policies omitted when they come into power
This is true....I had an issue with a decision that was made by a specific government department that would have a direct negative impact on my self and felt strongly that I wanted my voice my concerns and reasons about why I thought the decision was unjust or wrong. So I made an appointment with my local constituent member of parliament at his home and voiced my objections and my opinions with my reasons to him to why I disagreed with the decision the department had made. He then sent all that to the senior MP representing that department in the houses of parliament and that senior MP wrote back to me straight away agreeing that I indeed had a valid point of concern about the decision that was made and he had contacted the relevant people within that department to overturn their decision with immediate effect based on my arguments put forward. To be able to get my voice and opinions heard and passed up the chain to the 2nd highest person it could go to behind the actual prime minister just shows that we have a system that shows we can have our voices and opinions heard without someone just chucking in the bin like Tyler says he feel like happens a lot in America most of the time. I've got to add though, it was the most official looking and fancy letter I've ever had sent to me.....thick quality watermarked paper...and thick envelope marked with the governmental portcullis symbol and even officially red waxed sealed....it made me feel important anyway
Great video. Many thanks.
Everyone is taught the history of Parliament through out school - wether they remember it is another thing! I think most people have a vague idea that long ago people got fed up of the ruling monarch acting like a dictator so wars were fought and now we vote for things and the monarch just oversees it. The trouble is we have a lot of history so most major events are briefly skipped over in class. Where as in the US history lessons can focus more on "recent events" such as the story of the founding fathers and civil wars etc etc....
I wonder if the power of the Monarch in the UK has been tested of late. In Australia, the Governor General who represents the Queen, actually removed our Prime Minister from office in the 1970s, so she is still very much the boss if she wants to flex her authority here. Luckily intervention has mainly been restricted to this event so far.
Recent events - 1777, 1865,? Nice. Silly, but nice.
@@mrd4785 I believe in 1974 the then government was refused permission to dissolve parliament and call another general election because one had just been held and it was thought that it was too soon to call another [almost immediately after the first] The P.M. was forced to attempt to govern for several months as a minority government [iirc] until permission was finally given [about 6, months after the initial general election October 1974].
@@neilgriffiths6427 compared to UK history, that is recent
Michael your history may be ok, but you spell whether with a H
The "history" lesson is very well known in every Commonwealth country, although nowadays it probably isn't as well taught in schools.
I have had regular contact with my local MP over several issues. I have met with him and discussed the issues. In the past my mother contacted them herself and got things addressed including a question in Parliament.
One interesting thing they didn’t mention was that boundary changes are done by an independent non-partisan body. In the US because it’s partisan there are the issues of gerrymandering or arbitrary drawing of boundaries. In the UK the boundary commission’s have a duty to group similar communities together if in Geographical proximity rather than pairing areas randomly or arbitrarily.
Another great thing we have now is recall as well, where between elections if enough constituents are dissatisfied with their elected representative they can sign a petition and if it gets enough signatories the representative is forced to fight a special election (we call it a by-election). It has happened several times over the past several years.
The UK also has no written constitution. The UK's constitution is written in hundreds of Acts of Parliament, court cases, and in documented conventions. Its essential principles are Parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy and internationalism.
Only two other countries are like that. New Zealand and Israel.
I think because England or the UK has such a huge history we are taught so much more in school as youngsters about the Empire and the rest of the world, Americans are only taught about US history
To Americans, America is the world.
They do have a ‘world history’ class but they generally learn way less history than we do because of the way it’s structured, for us it’s an ongoing weekly lesson in the UK (up until 15 and then it’s optional), in the US the way I understand it they may have a whole year of school at a time where they learn no history
England is a constituent part of the U.K., just as California is a constituent part of the USA!
In the 80s early 90s I was taught pretty well by my teacher's and parents. Now my boys never we're taught in school. I had to teach my children myself. America is lost and I hope we wake up.
Not to mention Native American history is American history and they learned even less about that. They talk to our children like these people don't exist anymore. Like Ohio it's self is a Native American word. The word Ohio came Iroquois tribe it means beautiful river. The state of Kansas came from Kansas tribe, Utah, Alaska, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Michigan, Texas, Missouri, Tennessee, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Connecticut, are all named after tribes, or native words. 27 states are named after tribes or native words. America most of our ideas from Native American's.
I do remember parts of it but school for me was a long time ago but I do love learning about history.
Just remember what Churchill said
"Democracy is a terrible way to run a country, however, it is a better way than all the rest!"
We call the Prime Minister and Cabinet the "Government"; but the rest of the MPs ( Membets of Parliament) of any party feel their job is to scrutinise what the Government is doing.
We're in a bit of a mess with the House of Lords at the moment. Until recently it consisted mostly of every hereditary noble in the land! There are still a few places for hereditary peers. (Peer = noble.) Nowadays the parties recommend people to be created 'life peers', I.e. nobles who can't pass on their titles to their descendants, and these are usually selected for their expertise. Surprisingly, the Archbishops of the Church of England, and the most senior Bishop's of the Church of England, also sit, as the 'Lords Spiritual'.
This is not very satisfactory, and we're trying to work out how to change how the House of Lords is selected. What improves the situation is that since 1911, if the Lords throw out a Bill passed by the Commons, the Lords can't block it again if the Commons pass it again in the next Parliamentary session. The Lords can't block a Money Bill at all. There is also a convention that the Lords don't block a proposal written down in the manifesto of the winning party in a General Election.
Not what I call the prime minister!
Most of the life Peers bought their seats. A perfect example of the undemocratic system in the UK.
Exactly - a Cabinet Government which is scrutinised by Committees made up of the ordinary MPs
The government isn't just the PM & the cabinet - there are also around one hundred "junior ministers" who are part of the government, with less prominent roles than the cabinet ministers. Generally there are a lot more MPs who are members of the governing party but not part of the government itself, referred to as "back-benchers".
I think one of the biggest differentiators in the outcomes of our democracies is the extent to which money is allowed into the process. Uk election campaigns are capped at around 150k I believe and therefore corporate lobbying is not the most powerful policy influencer. For sure that still happens in the UK but not to the same extent as the US where public benefit in policy making seems to be quite low on the list of priorities.
Interesting to hear an outsider's perspective on how the UK's democracy operates, having been developed slowly over 100s of years in the way it has. Whilst it's not perfect by any means, no system ever is afterall, there are some things I would like to be adopted in every country, Prime Minister's Questions being my personal favourite.
Question time on Wednesdays you can hear MPs mention constituents worries or how policies affect them as questions direct to the prime minister or representative
When I vote I tend to go with someone who has lived locally and not a party that just puts someone in as a token. They have to understand where we are coming from. Some years ago I was living in an apartment that leaked and no matter how much I complained and the workmen came out to repair it they just couldn't manage it so I E-mailed the MP who sent me a letter back straight away saying he was dealing with it, within a week I was offered 3 alternatives and 2 weeks I was in my new apartment. No better MP.
I've written to my MP twice and got detailed answers back very quickly. I didn't like the substance of those answers, but that's another matter. The point is that he replied to my concerns.
the last local elections in my ward only the tory candidate was from my area ( he lives 2 streets from me) the Lib Dem candidate was from a town 15 miles away and still lived there and the Labour candidate was from Brighton i live in north essex safe to say Parachute candidates dont do well here and the tory candidate was elected. that was a snap election as 7 of the 12 Labour members of the council where arrested for misuse of public funds and they ran the council with a majority at the time.
I have written to my MP a couple of times and on both cases I received a stock reply - the same stock reply, word for word, in both cases - which did not answer and ignored the specific points I made in both my letters which, in my second letter, had rebutted statements in the stock reply I received for both my letters!
No mention was made in this idealised video of 'safe seats' where the MP is often someone with little connection to the local area who is a shoe-in there to allow that MP, with security of tenure, to become a Government minister without the need to expend too much time and effort nursing the seat. 'Marginal seats', on the other hand, where the electoral majority is small, give the voters more leverage on their MP to represent them more effectively as they are dependent on garnering every possible vote: a postcode lottery.
One further point not mentioned is that, as in the US, the voting system for the UK Parliament results in the composition of the elected chamber bearing no direct relationship to the number of votes cast for the respective political parties.
Must be nice to have a choice of someone not parachuted in by the party from somewhere else. My MP doesn't seem to do politics, doesn't like arguments or confrontation with other politicians and keeps heads down on policies and issues in case it puts off a voter and doesn't reply to emails that are not pretty or easy.
In US your President is elected as a temporary monarch, the house of commons is basically the house of reps, and your senate is the house of lords
In the UK, Parliament refers to the government, the opposition, etc. The government is whichever party is in charge.
The vote on proposal is a government (cabinet ministers) vote.
All senior politicians (Home Secretary,Chancellor etc) form the cabinet (or government).
Spoke with my local mp on many occasions and they are always willing to listen!
Over here it is often mentioned how bad American education is, and how little Americans know of any of the rest of the world! You are confirming it big time ! Yes, we DO know all about our own history and Magna Carta!
Sorry! but your lack of basics drives me mad ! I like the channel and you seem a nice lad, but would be good if you did a tiny bit of research first ! Have a nice day !
He is doing better than most by educating himself with this video for example
I've seen a copy of the Magna Carta on a visit to Salisbury Cathedral.
We had a Hung Parliament in Australia a decade ago or so. This means the two major parties had a 50:50 number of seats in the Lower House, (House of Reps). It was a credit to the Rudd/Gillard Government that any bills were passed and made the job of governing difficult. This equal split leaves the sprinkling of Independents with huge sway as the major parties court them for their deciding votes. It makes for interesting politics.
An annoying misconception Americans seem to have as a whole is assuming Britain is *ruled* by a monarch.
The dichotomy of the Monarchy/Parliament situation is basically the Monarchy has the authority to dissolve an elected parliament, but parliament has the power to deny it. (No, it doesn't make any sense, but so far, it works.)
The monarchy are essentially decoration, a symbol of continuity. When you get down to it, they serve no governmental function other than ceremony.
Politicians are held to account more in the UK than the US, where your only recourse really is more elections, so I can understand why you’d want shorter terms. You can get rid of an MP before their term is up. It’s also much easier to remove a Prime Minister from office than a US President, we don’t have to go through the impeachment process. Maybe something to look into in future
Pretty much no longer true. No one is held to account anymore. The current government have undermined many of the conventions and checks and balances which used to make our system work.
Now that I completely agree with 💯👍
Ergo Boris Johnson.
Yes,it would be certainly interesting to see the US President and government heads of departments in front of congress for questions every week ,I see very little accountability in the US system of government apart from elections
@@alanvanallen7762 Yes, it's time they serve us instead of us serving them!!
House of Commons is for the representatives ( member of parliament , MP ) of the Common People
If you look at countries that were in the empire you'll find laws and a type of parliament that is very similar to the British Parliament ( even the USA ish )
For more ways look up on RUclips the Prime Ministers Question Time and select committees ( these look at various potential laws , environmental problems etc etc and can call anyone to attend , even non UK people )
Exactly and Americans only need look across the Canadian border to see the same Westminster System in operation there! No need to cross the Atlantic!
Canada of course is similar. I can go to my local MPs office and complain about whatever. I once had a problem with Revenue Canada not believing my marital status for some weird reason...after contacting my MP, that problem just disappeared. So, they do have power to intervene on your behalf.
The monarch might have to approve all new laws, but it is virtually unheard of for them to reject one.
Yes, (at least technically) every citizen can go into the House of Commons and 'summon' their MP using a green card which is brought to them, and explains what you want to talk about. Naturally they may well not be present, be busy, or just refuse to speak to you! However lobby groups can attend in larger groups, and all summon their MPs at the same time. This will typically result in at least a few MPs coming our to the lobby and listening to your point!
The Manifesto is what we judge a government on. After 5 years we have a document saying what they promised to do and we have the record of what they have actually done during their 5 years.
If the two don't match up we might think twice about voting for that parties candidate to represent our constituency during the next election.
Well our president is elected every 4 years and our representatives are elected every 2 years and our senators are elected every 6 years so we can't do that here. So basically we have elections every year because then you have state elections too and local government as well.
8:03 you've gotta remember that the leader of a party is also an mp and its quite possible for the leader to not retain his/her seat and then not be in parliament at all at which point it will become a leadership election for the party where the party then chooses a new leader but that's mostly done in between elections to make sure they are in place for elections.
Those online petitions, if they have 100,000 signatures then the House of Commons has to debate the question in the house. Also the debates are televised, so if you can keep awake, the general public can watch and hear what happens.
Australia is similar.
You should look into the Welsh and Scottish parliaments and the Northern Irish assembly next.
Yes that would be a great idea.
In Australia we have a similar system the senate here is used to represent the states so smaller states are not disadvantaged and also we have the queen as our head of state but she is represented here by the governer general
It's incredible how ingrained the two party system is for Americans when it is NOT the norm for democracies. he NEVER assumes more than two parties. "so the party that didn't win" actually is "the Parties that didn't win" and I am assuming Britain is similar to my home Canada (both parliamentary system) and we generally have four parties splitting the votes so it is VERY hard to get a majority (over 50% of the vote) so many Canadian governments end up 38% Winning party (forms gov't) and like 32% second place. and we have two smaller parties that get around 15-25 % each. with the rest going to independents. so for the Prime minister to pass a bill they need the co-operation of members of other parties because even 100% of the party is not a majority vote. we end up with coalitions where two parties who share the views on a topic, will vote together to push bills. for better or worse sometimes.
Edit: at the end WHAT!?!?!?! in America you CAN"T see your elected official. they are there BECAUSE OF YOU, now, in Canada you can't go to there homes, but when in their office, with an appointment. you have every right to schedule a meeting if you can get to Ottawa they are by law supposes to see you.. and of course they say write letters (emails now). I actually met my candidate I voted for in the last federal election three times during the campaign. and always said send me an email anytime.
The Prime Minister is the MP who can command the confidence of the House of Commons, by convention they are from the party who has the most MPs. The monarch then invites them to form a government in their name. However this has not always been the case if their is a hung Parliament or during National crisis such as a war where the monarch can ask whoever in Parliament to form a government
Magna Carta did not place the King under the law, the Queen is still above the law. It was an agreement to end specific abuses of power that John was committing at the time, such as taking noblemen's children as hostages. Most importantly, it ensured that people could not be denied a fair trial.
A lot of people don't know about Simon De Montford (and he had not the slightest interest in democracy, but I believe most people in the UK know about Magna Carta.
The Queen has a lot more power than the Prime Minister. Prime Minister merely means "first servant" and he has power within reason, but it all devolves from her. She could replace him tomorrow, if she wanted to.
The reason UK government is irrelevant to Americans is that Americans think they control the UK. I was told by one American, "He's your president too!" and I had to explain that he definitely wasn't.
A good opposition can have an excellent influence for good.
Trust in the government doesn;t come naturally in the UK. Our government has to be instantly accountable. The government is the PM and the cabinet. They are part of Parliament.
I love how Americans are always confused by the monarch's role. She is our head of state and ultimate power and responsibility rests with her. She is a believer in democracy and generally does not use the immense power she has, but it is always there, if needed.
The manifesto is important. Politicians are not to be trusted, so making them put their promises in writing means we can prove that they broke them.
The monarch is not above the law certain laws don’t apply to the monarch which is not the same
In the UK any MP, even the Primeminister can be "recalled" by their constituency. This forces a by-election that runs a constituency wide election for that MP. If the new MP alters the balance of power with the government loosing their majority it can unseat the government and force a general election. If a government becomes a minority, it tends to go out looking for other parties to shore up their majority, doing deals on their policies to regain a majority through coalition - this is very rare, although due to BREXIT it's happened recently, David Cameron prior to BREXIT also headed a coalition with the liberal democrats, before of course him stepping down because he lost the BREXIT reforendum and refuse to enact its outcome despite pledging to do so. This is one of those times the monarch can actually step in and force a general election too if they feel the government is no longer representing the people.
I have contact my MP a few times, they always respond and believe it or not just getting them involved can change a mindset if an agency that's being bloody-minded... It's not an immediate fix, but once they write or contact someone they sudden stop playing off the rule book. This is also true with local government as senior councillors can alter an intransigent officious or non-compliant jobs-worth who refuses to even engage over an issue. Again it's not perfect but getting a third-party involved makes a big difference sometimes.
heck that's what happened in Malaysia too xD
No, there are only 3 circumstances when an MP can be recalled:
a) if they have been suspended from the House of Commons for at least 10 days following a Committee of Standards report.
b) Convicted and sentenced of an offence and ordered to be imprisoned (a sentence of over 12 months is an automatic recall)
c) convicted of an offence under section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, (making false or misleading Parliamentary allowance claims).
@@arwelp The Recall of MPs Act 2015 (c. 25) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that makes provision for constituents to be able to recall their Member of Parliament (MP) and call a by-election. It received royal assent on 26 March 2015 after being introduced on 11 September 2014.
Suspensions imposed by the Independent Expert Panel (established 2020) originally could not trigger recall. This "loophole" was effectively closed by an amendment passed in October 2021.
Before this. The Representation of the People Act 1981 disqualifies any person in jail for more than a year from being an MP, and thus automatically ejects an MP so jailed. MPs involved in scandals or convicted of lesser crimes could be expelled from their party and pressured to resign, but there was no mechanism to force the exit of an MP prior to a general election.
Not only did i get the history of Britain from before magnacarta, i also got a run down of french, spanish and American history too.
@@whatsMyNameAgainAgainIreland isn't in the UK??
I have made an appt with my local MP, and though he doesn't have the greatest reputation, he really helped me with my problem.
Good video and comments. You may find it interesting to look at other forms of government, such as MMP (Mixed Member Parliament) Which we use in NZ and gives each voter two votes, one for a constituent representative and one for the party the voter prefers (not always the same thing). Or Single transferable Vote as used in Australia. There is an excellent series on RUclips which compares various forms of government and their strengths and weaknesses. We also voted to drop the second house quite a while back and voted to keep our term of election at three years. Most of such changes are made by national referendum, not parliamentary vote (who is going to vote themselves out of a job?) So that people get the government they want.
To answer your questions. The house of Lords used to contain hereditary peers who's family could have been made a Lord hundreds of years ago. They now mix it up with men that can be made a Lord or ladies that can be given a dameship. These are usually exceptional people in their field.
The Queen actually has all the power. She can in theory remove a government if she wishes. She gets a red box 363 days a year with all the proposed bills in it. As said she debates in confidence each week with the current PM. It's only the 2 of them and the conversations are never openly discussed.
MP's do respond to all correspondence in the UK.
You should watch what powers the Queen has. You'll be surprised!
I once wrote to my local MP who happened to be the Prime Minister, complaining against then government policy. I received a letter by return, addressing my concerns in detail - not a stock letter. I didn't like her answers, but I give her credit for replying, and it was personally signed by her.
Sir, Edward, vile man, Leigh is my MP and I only ever get a flimsy standard letter back. Hopeless.
Female PM. That narrows it down. I'm guessing May as Truss wasn't in that long, and wasn't working during our period of mourning, and Thatcher was soooo long ago, but I could be wrong.
I would recommend you react to a video called what powers does the queen actually have. Very broad overview to give a clearer understanding of what powers the monarch has in the modern world
I wrote a email to my MP about my neice who was waiting along time for a payment she was entitled to as she was fighting cancer, My MP sorted it out and she received it 2 weeks latter.
I agree and have addressed a couple of MP's on personal matters and they have sought to help. If addressing an MP on a 'political' matter it you are more likely to get a 'form' letter.
You may hear people speak of the 'Three Pillars of Democracy'. These are:
1) Government, who do the day-to-day running of the country.
2) Parliament who make the laws.
3) The judiciary who enforce the laws.
Basically the idea is to split power into three so nobody has absolute power to do whatever the hell they like. i.e. A dictatorship.
There is also 'The Fourth Estate' aka a free and independent press who's role is to scrutinise everything and shout out when anyone's doing anything dodgy. At least in theory.
Worryingly democracy in the UK is under sever threat as our current far right government has autocratic tendencies. Trump was trying to do the same in the US. So far here in the UK our Government has:
- Tried to illegally prorogue Parliament.
This means dismiss it. If this had been allowed the government could have made new laws with no public scrutiny. Fortunately the Supreme court here stopped that.
- Consequently the government has since attacked the judiciary at every turn since then and is trying to change the law so the Judiciary can no long rule if the government is breaking the law with it's policies. Which is extremely concerning.
- Increasing the use of Henry VIII powers.
This rule allows the Government to bypass parliamentary scrutiny in exceptional circumstances when it needs to act quickly, such as a national emergency. However our current government have used these powers far more than any previous government to bypass parliamentary and public scrutiny. Again deeply worrying.
- Tried to pass a bill that effectively outlaws the right to protest of any group that don't agree with them. A fundamental part of democracy.
- Changed political boundaries in their favour.
- Broken electoral law on several occasions.
Unfortunately the maximum penalty for this is just a £20k fine, which is peanuts to the millionaires in our cabinet.
- Broken UK law on numerous occasions. Also international law, treaties and agreements.
- Tried to suppress media scrutiny.
In particular since coming to power the Tory Government now appoints 3/6 of the BBC's board so it's no longer independent and have threatened to remove the license fee (the BBC's source of funding), radically change it's charter (the rules under which the BBC operates) and would also like to privatise it, most likely selling it to Rupert Murdoch.
Consequently you rarely see too much criticism of the Government on BBC news these days as they're scared of what the government will do to them. The Government are also trying to priviatise Channel 4. Partly because Channel 4 news often calls out dodgy government actions so they want to shut them up. And partly to test the waters before trying to privatise the BBC which is likely to cause a much bigger public outcry.
Two major areas of the UK electoral system that many people want changed are:
1) Using FPTP (first past the post) for elections instead of PR (proportional representation). Only the UK and US still use FPTP which is outdated and unfair. Every other western nation uses some form of PR. PR isn't perfect either, but at least everyone's vote counts.
The main issue with FPTP is that everyone who votes for someone other than the winning candidate of your local electoral ward has their vote discarded. This means in every general election the majority (60-65%) of people who bother to vote have their votes ignored and so aren't represented in parliament.
2) The House of Lords who are unelected.
The idea of the House of Lords is in principle a good one. Experienced and knowledgeable people from many areas like politics, the armed forces, business, science, healthcare, education, the arts, the media, etc who can use their knowledge to scrutinise parliamentary bills and point out amendments and changes which might be needed.
Baring in mind that any ignorant idiot can be elected to the house of commons it isn't a bad idea in theory to have some intelligent, knowledgeable, experienced people who actually know what they're talking about check over proposed new laws.
Unfortunately the reality of the Lords is rather different. Some of the posts are hereditary, so peers can be ignorant idiots too. And new peers are chosen by the Government of the day who often try to load new appointments with their supporters or anyone who's given their party large wads of cash. Many peers just take the large salaries that go with the position and never turn up.
Consequently the House of Lords needs radical revision to ditch the useless and dodgy peers who aren't there on merit.
" _our current far right government_ "
You do yourself, and whatever arguments you may have, no favours when you make comments like this.
There are many who regard the current Conservative government as left-of-centre, given the largesse with which it has dispensed public funds in supporting people during Covid. From your comment, I don't think you have any idea what a far right government would actually look like.
@@istvanglock7445 Lol NOBODY has ever called this government center left! 🤣🤣🤣And i say that as a centerist with balanced views.
Just think about what you just said. Constant attacks on democracy is NOT being center left! Or even center right for that matter. It's the action of a wannabe autocratic government. Wanting to take away your human rights is NOT center left FFS! It's the first thing autocratic governments and tinpot dictators do!
Please stop trying to defend the indefensible out of blind loyalty. It does you no credit and makes you look foolish, ignorant and uninformed.
Please look at their actions and ask yourself if they're those of decent people. Do you seriously not care about your human rights, workers rights, food safety standards, animal welfare, pollution? Since leaving the EU the government has attacked all of these.
You mentioned the money they spent during Covid. If they'd acted sooner. i.e. followed their own 2014 pandemic response paper which lays out exactly what they SHOULD have done we wouldn't have the worst death rate from Covid in Europe. They also ignored the 2017 findings of operation Cygnus, the WHO, warnings from Italy, and the medical and scientific community. And don't forget intentionally running down the NHS for 12 years, including having no PPE at the start of the pandemic.
I learnt in primary school that with highly infectious diseases you quarantine. Almost EVERYONE knows that. Except apparently this government. Why didn't they act? Because super rich Tory donors whinged about their businesses losing money.
Ironically if they'd acted sooner the country wouldn't have been so hard hit by Covid, they wouldn't have had to spend so much of tax payers money and business wouldn't have suffered so badly.
Were you aware that they put infected people into care homes? Or that they continued to do so AFTER being informed this was killing thousands of pensioners? Quite frankly they should all be on manslaughter charges for that.
Look at some of their other actions:
e.g. Constant law breaking, corruption, breaking treaties and international law, increased homelessness and poverty, removing free school meal from kids this summer, the treatment of the disabled by the DWP which has killed hundreds of the UK's most vulnerable citizens, the Windrush scandal where innocent UK citizens were illegally put in detention and deported (some died as a consequence). Giving billions of tax payers money to their chums for services that never materialised or were unfit for purpose, etc, etc.
Did you know many of the policies espoused by this government show strong parallels, if slightly toned down, to those of the fascist governments of Germany, Italy and Spain in the early 1930s. So yes this IS an extremely right-wing government.
P.S. Did you know that a number of leading Tories display many of the 20 personality traits listed on the psychopath test? Once you realise this it explains why they act as they do.
Johnson is almost certainly a narcissistic psychopath. Patel , Hunt and IDS are also prime candidates, others may not be full blown, but at the very least would be classed as having serious personality disorders. All of which explains the insane and vile actions of this vile and inhuman government which is the worst in living memory.
Worrying they're not the only world leaders displaying many psychopathic traits. ex president Trump (obviously), Putin, Kim Jong Un, Bosonairo of Brazil, Orban or Hungary, Lukashenko of Belarus, Erdogan of Turkey, Modi of India, ex Pm Morrison of Australia...
Having so many psychopaths as leaders/CEOs is why the world has gone to shit. Until we start testing our leaders for serious personality disorders this will continue.
The P)M is like a managing director, the monarch is chairman of the board
Fun to compare with Canadian Parliament.
Some of it is common : Magna Carta, and Westminster Statute but after that it became different in both countries
In Australia our parliamentary system is based on the British Model with 2 major differences, 1- In Australia voting is compulsory if you are over 18. 2 - We vote for our politicians in both houses (House of Reps and the Senate) ,while Britain only votes for 1 (House of commons ) and the other ( House of Lords ) are appointed.
The more I watch and learn about it I actually like the concept of the House of Lords and even the idea of the hereditary peers . If they are not elected like the US and Aussie Senate they aren’t influenced by any outside forces like lobbyists or big donors or even the people they are not worried about reelection. But they care about the country’s future and their legacy and want their seat in the House of Lords to be there when it’s time for their eldest child to take their place. Therefore it’s in their interest to be concerned about laws long term effect not just of it will help get them re-elected. Yea their is lo control over each peers personal mental state or if they care about the wellbeing of the population, but it’s a good balance I think. Life peers is a good idea in theory but as we have seen they tend to be retired long time members of parliament and former PMs successful business leaders like “Lord Sugar” etc. in my mind Corp CEOs are not necessarily people you want having a direct influence on laws
@@dalemac614 unfortunately those who sit in the House of Lords have been shown to be influenced by lobbyists and self interest . Just like any other they look after themselves first . Most come from a Conservative background (Right wing ) admittedly some come from working class backgrounds but they are in the minority . Nobody by birthright has the wisdom or should have the power to govern others . Power should be earned and wisdom learned not taken as given because of who your ancestors were.
Do you have " none of the above" as a choice?, you can't force mr to vote for someone.
Compulsory voting is the best idea ever. It enables a fairer outcome. If you dont vote in Australia, you get a fine. That is through the three tiers of government. If people object about voting: "Its a waste of time" etc (dumb thinking- make your vote count) then you can deliberately spoil your ballot paper and no one is the wiser. These are called "informal "votes and always feature on an outcome.
@@enoughofthis No we don't have a none of the above option, it is required by law you vote but really that means you are required to go get your name marked off and submit your vote slip. Australia invented the secret ballot so once you mark your name off you don't actually need to vote for anyone you can post your ballot un marked if you choose to because there's no way to know who it belonged to.
We also have a preferensal voting system so you can vote for multiple people numbered from your 1st, 2nd 3rd 4th chose etc, if your first choice is in the smallest pile of votes your vote is re counted towards the second choice and this continues until there is a candidate with the majority of the votes over 51%
Most people, if they really thought about it, know most of this stuff but in a very non-formalised way. The video skipped over a lot and didn't even mention the Civil Service or the role of the official Parliamentary press ("Hansard"). I would recommend watching clips from some UK comedies like "Yes, Minister", "Yes, Prime Minister" or "The Thick Of It" to get a feel for how the Government and Civil Service interact.
Also, I'm not sure that you quite appreciated that the Government in the UK is a Cabinet of MPs chosen by the PM to head up the various ministries / departments. Unlike the US system where the President fills these positions with unelected political friends and cronies, in the UK these have to be drawn from sitting MPs (and occasionally Lords) of the majority or coalition party /parties. This means that, however bad, in your opinion, a Minister might be, you can console yourself by knowing that a majority of the people in a constituency, somewhere, must have voted for this pratt!
"Parliament" are all the elected MPs, except the Cabinet Ministers, and is made up of the Opposition and the rest of the majority party's MPs (their "back-benchers"). Their role is to hold the Government to account by representing the interests of their constituents and, unless whipped, to vote in accordance with those interests. The largest party in the Opposition ("The Official Opposition") organises itself so as to shadow the Government positions by drawing on its own MPs to form a Shadow Cabinet and occupies the benches directly opposite their Cabinet equivalents. I would recommend watching some clips from "Prime Minister's Questions", which are live-streamed every Wednesday morning, to get a feel for this.
One of my daughters wrote to our local MP (Member of Parliament) when she was 10 years old. She was against fox-hunting - there was a bill in Parliament at the time to ban fox-hunting. She wanted the MP to vote against fox-hunting. He wrote back and invited her to meet him when he came to our village. We met in the village hall and she spoke about her wish to ban fox-hunting. The MP didn't agree with her but debated with her, saying he was against whale-hunting but pro fox-hunting (on the basis that foxes attack farm animals and fowl and had no natural predators) and he wanted the tradition of fox-hunting to continue. Although I didn't agree with his conservative politics, he was a good MP and did listen to his constituents (the majority of which shared his views - not surprisingly as he was voted MP) and I respected the man for his honesty and openness. He did vote against banning fox-hunting but his party lost that vote.
One more thing if you gather 100 000 signatures for a subject it has to be discussed in parliament