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.
@@KenFullman MP for Lincoln, Karl McCartney. I live near Bristol. My relative in Lincoln living alone and in circumstances where she had no one close to call on and was unable to leave her flat nor was she having any luck in getting a delivery slot from any supermarket was overwhelmed by his kindness. I was gobsmacked. I thanked him on a Facebook page for Lincoln at the time but he certainly wasn't doing it to win votes as far as I'm concerned. He was the one to ask me for her details so he could personally help. I'd just asked him if he knew of any local organisation who could help.
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.
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.
Unfortunately what isnt taught is that King John recinded it at the first opportunity. Wasnt till Henry VIII yes him that brought it back as part of his round table. Also the judiciary expanded on by his son. This history missed out the civil war though when the power from the monarch was vastly reduced after.
Magna Carta is as close to a written constitution as we have. Not sure if I learned about it at school or if it's something I've learned about myself. Everyone knows where the Magna Carta was signed tho.....at the bottom! (Runnymede, on the banks of the Thames.) I've seen 2 versions of the MC - one at Lincoln Castle and one at Salisbury Cathedral.
Actually we did have a civil war, it lasted 2 years. King John had the pope annul the Magna Carta which led to the First Barons War. When King John died, his 9 year old son Henry III reinstated a stripped down version of the Magna Carta in the hopes of reuniting England. It didn't work. But a year later, the original Magna Carta’s terms became the foundation for the Lambeth Peace Treaty. It is often considered as Europe's first written constitution, even though today only 4 of its 63 clauses are still valid.
@@kandii5927 I came here to say this too 👍 Magna Carta is frequently cited by certain anti-government groups to support their arguments - however, its provisions have been superseded or replaced. The document itself no longer holds any legal significance, as its key principles exist in other forms. However, it remains historically significant.
@@captvimesI always teach the magna carta as a start to the topic of the barons war ending with the death of John and the siege of lincoln with a case study on william marshall
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.
Also, politicians cannot be called out for lying at the Despatch Box during televised Prime Minister Question Time & the mainstream media reiterates these lies. SMH.
Also foreign terrorists have killed and otherwise attacked multiple MPs in recent years and muslim sectarian politics threaten our democracy and way of life.
You're confusing policy making (parliament) with delivery (bureaucrats/civil service). Democracy starts to go wrong when the civil service tries to hinder the will of the politicians.
@@jgibbs651 UK Civil Servants are unable to interfere with the will of parliament. The function of Civil Servants is to implement policies, record outcomes & to advise. Parliament can & often does over rule sound advice. Even government appointed quangos are routinely ignored as are independent experts. UK Prime Ministers sic. B. J. have been known to over rule parliament to push through policies & to lie to the Queen to prorogue parliament & thus to implement Brexit after only one an advisory referendum. That referendum was not followed by a comprehensive explanation of the outcomes which both Civil Servants & Independent experts had expected. The promised second referendum of course never materialised. This kind of behaviour harks back at least as far as Thatcher (spit) within my lifetime to which I can personally attest as I worked for local authorities & the evidence is in the minutes that I was obliged to trawl through from time to time. Cheers.
@@MazzaEliLi7406 The CS may not interfere with the will of parliament, but that is because such a beast doesn't really exist. Members of the CS frequently drag their feet over implementation of things with which they disagree. Your criticism of the blond bungler is justified. However, you are entirely wrong about the 2016 referendum being only "advisory": it was advertised as being a for-all-time vote and people voted in that knowledge: a second referendum was NEVER promised. But then "recollections may vary" most often when it comes to things to do with Europe. I'm old enough to have voted in the original "do we stay or go" referendum in 1975 and attended meetings where Roy Jenkins assured us that there was no question of sharing currency, open borders or political union. Politicians of all stripes lie.
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.
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.
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
It’s weird watching this reaction when most people here (in the uk) complain about how terrible our government is no matter who gets voted in. We don’t know how lucky we are sometimes
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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!
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^
One thing that I am still so incredibly thankful for in the UK, is that members from each side will often vote for bills proposed by other parties, and the majority of the time that won't cause ostracisation from their own party, unlike how it now seems to be in the US.
Also the UK doesn't have the US practice of politicians stuffing lines into bills that have nothing to do with that bill in return for agreeing to vote for it. So you can have a bill about military construction projects and there will be a section banning net neutrality buried in it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_(legislation)
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 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.
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.
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
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.
That's cool! Here in the US, most of our officials hold town halls where constituents can come for a Q & A session, but some of them either don't hold any or hold closed events where only big donors or certain people get invited. :( Most of them at least try to pretend they listen to voters, whether or not they do in practice.
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 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
I worked for the Labour candidate during the election in my constituency, she took similar calls and lost. Sadly you can do a lot of work and still lose!
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?
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
Most people know about the Magna Carta, at least those that have paid attention at school. I know about Simon de Montfort, partly because I'm a bit of a history geek, but also he was the Earl of Leicester, the area where I live. Fun fact - in the House of Commons there is a red line in front of both the government and opposition front benches that members must not speak between - those lines are two sword lengths apart to avoid any dueling :-)
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
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.
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.
@@dWFnZWVr that's not a summary, that's completely ignoring the most important parts, the "public" consultation and the vote. We all know it's not the true public who have a say, it's the rich and big business giving gifts to MPs to buy thier votes. "lobbying" 🙄 call it what it is, bribery.
The Executive (government) propose legislation, not the Commons (the Legislature). The House of Commons are supposed to scrutinise legislation and decide whether to amend it and then whether pass it at that stage. If they do amend and pass it, it goes to the House of Lords to also decide whether to amend and then pass it. This happens 3 times. If the Commons reject it the third time it is rejected, if the Lords reject it on the third time the Government can overrule them.
@@Dark0Storm There are Private Members' bills, introduced by MPs not in Government, but they don't usually get passed. There have been a few though, and the fact that they exist and get debated can influence Government bills by bringing attention to a subject.
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
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.
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 would think many people know about Magna Carta, even if they don't know when it was signed or who by, and probably many don't understand the significance of it. I think even fewer will know about Simon De Montfort.
I went on a guided tour of parliament, both houses. It was absolutely fascinating finding out how democracy works in the UK. One of the best tours I’ve done.
I did the tour as well. Well worth it, and you can stand at the dispatch box where the Prime Minister stands. My one complaint was the prices in the cafe are shocking. I paid £1.60 for a can of Coke, and that was five years ago.
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.
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.
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].
The UK has had two notable instances of hung parliaments leading to coalition governments in its recent history: 1. The first instance was in 1974 when the Conservative party under Edward Heath failed to win an overall majority. Harold Wilson's Labour party formed a minority government after the election in February. Another election was held in October the same year, resulting in another hung parliament. Labour under Wilson formed a minority government again. 2. The second instance was in 2010. Following the general election in May, no party secured an overall majority. The Conservative party under David Cameron formed a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats led by Nick Clegg.
King John signed The Magna Carta which restricted the future power of Kings. A copy of which is held in Lincoln castle and about 5 miles from where I live
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
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
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.
@@matthewatkinson9161 Unfortunately I have not had the chance to meet him in person yet due to me not being able to make meetings due to work, however the feedback I have had from others who have met him is positive. I will reserve judgement until I meet him myself.
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 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.
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.
In reality, they only turn up when it's a topic to do with something they have a financial interest in and then they spend the whole time arguing with each other. They never actually DO anything or get anything done. You can watch it live too if you want. If it's something about the people, the room is usually empty.
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.
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! 😅 🙏🇬🇧
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".
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 my dim & distant youth I worked in London during which time marched against Maggie Thatcher policies when she was Education Minister & was one of the marchers who reached the Lobby of the H of P. Later I marched in support of nurses/care/ancillary workers - nothing much changes!. I have also written to my MP & signed many petitions including YouGov Petitions. Public opinion can affect/amend government policies (though not when the government of the day chooses to act as an autocracy rather than as a democracy which is possible when their majority is too large). Government is too important to be left solely to the politicians. People before politicians. After all politicians answer to corporate lobbyists & corporations often operate in the interests of powerful minorities rather than in the interest of the majority (workers/consumers) but there is strength in numbers. Organise, unionise & educate. Make your voices heard. People before politics. Power to the people. Keep up the good work T R. Your people need you. IMO. Cheers.
Magna Carta which is a purely English thing not relevant in Scotland is actually a list of things barons and other nobles were allowed to do. It was designed as a way to not only curtail the power of the king but to ensure that the barons retained total power over the peasants and artisans(the working and middle classes). A fat better document describing the rights of people up to and including removing a king if they acted not in the interests of the people is the Declaration of Arbroath which is a de facto Scottish constitution and formed the basis for the US constitution(many of the signatories of the US constitution were Scots or of Scots heritage)
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....
Same in the US, although occasionally an elected official feels strongly enough about a particular issue that their staff is directed to make sure the official is informed any time someone contacts their office about that issue, and then in that case, some action or at least a more personal response might happen.
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.
Individualism has its good points but due to various cultural factors a lot of politicians (and voters) somehow decided that anything that benefits the public is somehow "communism" and thus "anti-American". Never mind that the Founders, slaveholding elitists that some of them were, at least recognized the concept of the common good and took steps to ensure it(albeit from their perspective of "good").
a couple of things - 1) The party manifesto is not binding - although there would be a major problem if a government was elected which then ignored their manifesto and changed direction completetely. 2) The House of Lords is effectively appointed - Hereditary peers (which are only a small number) are there simply due to luck of their birth - many of them do bring some real world experience to the role. Life Peers are appointed by the government mainly for their expertise and experience. New batches of life peers are made each general election (by the outgoing government) and occassionally in the New Years Honours list : There is a significant movement in the UK to make the house of Lords elected. 3) Minority and coalition governments do happen (the last coalition was in 2014) but they aren't common. 4) The house of Lords can only amend legislation, they can't create it, and if the houses of lords and commons don't agree on a law the commons have the last word. 5) The government propose a budget every year, which normally is only changes to taxes, and changes to government spending plans, and since the government have a majority the budget is almost always agreed. There is no risk of a government shutdown in the UK - tax money keeps coming in and previous payments keep going out when the budget isn't agreed.
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 )
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
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!
I studied King John in my history degree. I was surprised by the amount of people I spoke to who didn't know who he was. And they're Brits! I think it completely depends on if you're taught about it in school, or if the curriculum changed while you were studying.
Lakland John was a right royal tarter till he made his sign on the Magna Carta, ink seal table runnymeade green annoi domini 1215. Learned at primary school as part of a poem.
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.
@@kiwifarms New Zealand, and I believe the UK, technically has a document that does the job of a constitution... But it's basically a list of which other laws, traditions, etc. to refer to for what matter, and neither the document in question nor the things it refers to are anything like as locked in and locked down as the US constitution.
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.
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
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.
The weird thing to remember about the UK is that the Monarch is legally the ultimate and absolute power in the land. Parliament is theoretically an advisory body rather than actually having legal weight. The balance of power between Parliament and the Monarch is a very bitterly contested series of traditions and compromises, which was rather settled in the English Civil War when the king lost his head after fighting against parliament, but that balance is tradition rather than being legally enforced- no monarch nowadays is going to rock the boat by fighting Parliament.
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!
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.
Parliament isn’t separate from government, the government is the biggest party who the prime minister belongs to, parliament is the entirety of elected MP’s including the opposition. It has the potential to be great, but people keep voting tory 😩
Here in the US a number of organizations, both right and left, have something called "bill trackers" where people can sign up for email alerts about issues that concern them so that whenever their state legislature or Congress is holding hearings or votes on them, the list members get emailed a summary of the bills in question. Some elected officials also email newsletters to their constituents about their activities such as town halls, ribbon cuttings, etc. which sometimes includes info about the various bills they've been working on. I would guess that politicians and political groups in the UK probably do the same.
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%
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.
It made me smile too. We get wall-to-wall coverage of their Presidential Election. Their system seems to be stuck in 'Georgian' times. Hence the horse-and-cart timing of their power handover. I'm pretty sure any educated brit would know Washington, Lincoln, Ben Franklin, a bit about their Civil War and maybe the wartime presidents too?
Parliament always has 650 members and the current (Labour) Government consists of 412 of these members. This is a huge number compared to recent results.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some things not explained completely in that video: Monarch = Head of State is above politics and entirely politically neutral closest comparison to President, but no political power particularly. The veto is theoretical and has not been used for centuries. Prime Minister = Head of Government (also a constituency Member of Parliament - MP) NOT equivalent to an executive president Cabinet = Senior ministers who run departments (also members of Parliament and usually MPs ) There are other more junior ministers who are usually MPs but may be members of the House of Lords Prime Minister, Cabinet and other Ministers are the Government (The Executive Branch) Government MPs (including Prime Minster), other MPs from the ruling party, plus opposition MPs - i.e. all MPs form the House of Commons 650 in all House of Lords is appointed 800+ members: A mix of Life Peers (someone given a title for their lifetime, because of their expertise, but can't pass it to their children) these are the bulk 96 hereditary peers (inherited title) 26 senior Bishops from the Church of England The House of Lords is primarily a revision chamber - they can only really delay passage of a bill - not stop it entirely. The House of Commons plus the House of Lords are the Houses of Parliament (The Legislative Branch) So a big difference with the USA is - in the British System the Executive Branch is a subset of the Legislative Branch BTW - House of Commons - the word "Commons" is very old usage and means community. It's nothing to do with being a "commoner" We do also have a Judicial Branch - but this is entirely separate and not mentioned in the video you reacted to. The Judiciary are entirely politically neutral, they are appointed on merit by the Judicial Appointments Commission
@@BritishRepublicsn actually you're right. 90 "elected" from among the remaining hereditary rump, plus 2 hereditary office holders (where the office and not just the peerage is hereditary). Currently 91 are sitting.
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.
@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.
@@KenFullman MP for Lincoln, Karl McCartney. I live near Bristol. My relative in Lincoln living alone and in circumstances where she had no one close to call on and was unable to leave her flat nor was she having any luck in getting a delivery slot from any supermarket was overwhelmed by his kindness. I was gobsmacked. I thanked him on a Facebook page for Lincoln at the time but he certainly wasn't doing it to win votes as far as I'm concerned. He was the one to ask me for her details so he could personally help. I'd just asked him if he knew of any local organisation who could help.
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 )
"If you elect someone, they're going to be there for 5 years"
Tell liz truss that 😂😂
We don't elect Prime Ministers. How many times...
The lettuce won 🤣
@jonathanwilliams9697 actually, when a prime minister steps down, the prime minister is elected, but only by party members.
She was never elected
@@danwic that depends on the party… Each party is free to choose how it appoints (or anoints) it’s leader.
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.
Unfortunately what isnt taught is that King John recinded it at the first opportunity. Wasnt till Henry VIII yes him that brought it back as part of his round table. Also the judiciary expanded on by his son. This history missed out the civil war though when the power from the monarch was vastly reduced after.
Magna Carta is as close to a written constitution as we have.
Not sure if I learned about it at school or if it's something I've learned about myself.
Everyone knows where the Magna Carta was signed tho.....at the bottom! (Runnymede, on the banks of the Thames.)
I've seen 2 versions of the MC - one at Lincoln Castle and one at Salisbury Cathedral.
Actually we did have a civil war, it lasted 2 years. King John had the pope annul the Magna Carta which led to the First Barons War. When King John died, his 9 year old son Henry III reinstated a stripped down version of the Magna Carta in the hopes of reuniting England. It didn't work. But a year later, the original Magna Carta’s terms became the foundation for the Lambeth Peace Treaty. It is often considered as Europe's first written constitution, even though today only 4 of its 63 clauses are still valid.
@@kandii5927 I came here to say this too 👍
Magna Carta is frequently cited by certain anti-government groups to support their arguments - however, its provisions have been superseded or replaced. The document itself no longer holds any legal significance, as its key principles exist in other forms. However, it remains historically significant.
@@captvimesI always teach the magna carta as a start to the topic of the barons war ending with the death of John and the siege of lincoln with a case study on william marshall
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.
Also, politicians cannot be called out for lying at the Despatch Box during televised Prime Minister Question Time & the mainstream media reiterates these lies. SMH.
Also foreign terrorists have killed and otherwise attacked multiple MPs in recent years and muslim sectarian politics threaten our democracy and way of life.
You're confusing policy making (parliament) with delivery (bureaucrats/civil service). Democracy starts to go wrong when the civil service tries to hinder the will of the politicians.
@@jgibbs651 UK Civil Servants are unable to interfere with the will of parliament. The function of Civil Servants is to implement policies, record outcomes & to advise. Parliament can & often does over rule sound advice. Even government appointed quangos are routinely ignored as are independent experts. UK Prime Ministers sic. B. J. have been known to over rule parliament to push through policies & to lie to the Queen to prorogue parliament & thus to implement Brexit after only one an advisory referendum. That referendum was not followed by a comprehensive explanation of the outcomes which both Civil Servants & Independent experts had expected. The promised second referendum of course never materialised. This kind of behaviour harks back at least as far as Thatcher (spit) within my lifetime to which I can personally attest as I worked for local authorities & the evidence is in the minutes that I was obliged to trawl through from time to time. Cheers.
@@MazzaEliLi7406 The CS may not interfere with the will of parliament, but that is because such a beast doesn't really exist. Members of the CS frequently drag their feet over implementation of things with which they disagree.
Your criticism of the blond bungler is justified. However, you are entirely wrong about the 2016 referendum being only "advisory": it was advertised as being a for-all-time vote and people voted in that knowledge: a second referendum was NEVER promised. But then "recollections may vary" most often when it comes to things to do with Europe. I'm old enough to have voted in the original "do we stay or go" referendum in 1975 and attended meetings where Roy Jenkins assured us that there was no question of sharing currency, open borders or political union. Politicians of all stripes lie.
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.
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 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
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
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
@@dopeheaddude9651 We're talking about the age of things. Thought it was worth pointing out the topic of the thread.
It’s weird watching this reaction when most people here (in the uk) complain about how terrible our government is no matter who gets voted in. We don’t know how lucky we are sometimes
One more thing if you gather 100 000 signatures for a subject it has to be discussed in parliament
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.
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.
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 lot of Lords turn up and claim the daily allowance and then have a bite to eat lol
@@Thelatenightchipshopexperience
Often keeping the same taxi that they arrived in with its meter running.
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.
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.
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 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!
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.
The monarch is also kept informed by daily reading reports from the Government departments- sent to them in a "red box".
It is quite amazing how many the Queen got through daily, even right up to her death
One thing that I am still so incredibly thankful for in the UK, is that members from each side will often vote for bills proposed by other parties, and the majority of the time that won't cause ostracisation from their own party, unlike how it now seems to be in the US.
Also the UK doesn't have the US practice of politicians stuffing lines into bills that have nothing to do with that bill in return for agreeing to vote for it. So you can have a bill about military construction projects and there will be a section banning net neutrality buried in it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_(legislation)
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.
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!
One thing they didn't mention was an election takes 6 weeks and there are strict spending limits.
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.
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.
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
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 love your curiosity Tyler and the way you are trying to grasp our systems.
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.
That's cool! Here in the US, most of our officials hold town halls where constituents can come for a Q & A session, but some of them either don't hold any or hold closed events where only big donors or certain people get invited. :( Most of them at least try to pretend they listen to voters, whether or not they do in practice.
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 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
I worked for the Labour candidate during the election in my constituency, she took similar calls and lost. Sadly you can do a lot of work and still lose!
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.
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
Most people know about the Magna Carta, at least those that have paid attention at school.
I know about Simon de Montfort, partly because I'm a bit of a history geek, but also he was the Earl of Leicester, the area where I live.
Fun fact - in the House of Commons there is a red line in front of both the government and opposition front benches that members must not speak between - those lines are two sword lengths apart to avoid any dueling :-)
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
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.
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.
It can be introduced in the Lord's and then sent to the commons though, although this is less common.
@@dWFnZWVr that's not a summary, that's completely ignoring the most important parts, the "public" consultation and the vote. We all know it's not the true public who have a say, it's the rich and big business giving gifts to MPs to buy thier votes. "lobbying" 🙄 call it what it is, bribery.
The Executive (government) propose legislation, not the Commons (the Legislature). The House of Commons are supposed to scrutinise legislation and decide whether to amend it and then whether pass it at that stage. If they do amend and pass it, it goes to the House of Lords to also decide whether to amend and then pass it. This happens 3 times. If the Commons reject it the third time it is rejected, if the Lords reject it on the third time the Government can overrule them.
@@Dark0Storm There are Private Members' bills, introduced by MPs not in Government, but they don't usually get passed. There have been a few though, and the fact that they exist and get debated can influence Government bills by bringing attention to a subject.
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
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.
Treason no longer carries the death penalty though. There are no crimes now which carry it, since the late 1990s.
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.
@@geoffreycodnett6570 Technically he can, by withholding Royal Assent.
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.
Bills can be assigned parliamentary time as well if submitted by a member of the public to the official website, and it gets enough votes.
@@danwic this is true, but you need at least 100,000 signatures, and even then they are only considered for debate - the government can still say no.
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
I would think many people know about Magna Carta, even if they don't know when it was signed or who by, and probably many don't understand the significance of it. I think even fewer will know about Simon De Montfort.
I went on a guided tour of parliament, both houses. It was absolutely fascinating finding out how democracy works in the UK. One of the best tours I’ve done.
I did the tour as well. Well worth it, and you can stand at the dispatch box where the Prime Minister stands. My one complaint was the prices in the cafe are shocking. I paid £1.60 for a can of Coke, and that was five years ago.
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!
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.
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 UK has had two notable instances of hung parliaments leading to coalition governments in its recent history:
1. The first instance was in 1974 when the Conservative party under Edward Heath failed to win an overall majority. Harold Wilson's Labour party formed a minority government after the election in February. Another election was held in October the same year, resulting in another hung parliament. Labour under Wilson formed a minority government again.
2. The second instance was in 2010. Following the general election in May, no party secured an overall majority. The Conservative party under David Cameron formed a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats led by Nick Clegg.
King John signed The Magna Carta which restricted the future power of Kings. A copy of which is held in Lincoln castle and about 5 miles from where I live
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
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
Manifestoes
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
@@docsmellyfella What do you make of Simons thus far?
@@matthewatkinson9161 Unfortunately I have not had the chance to meet him in person yet due to me not being able to make meetings due to work, however the feedback I have had from others who have met him is positive. I will reserve judgement until I meet him myself.
It's probably been stated before but broadly speaking the monarch cannot refuse assent to a law.
It'd be the end of the monarchy if Royal Assent were withheld.
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
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
The "history" lesson is very well known in every Commonwealth country, although nowadays it probably isn't as well taught in schools.
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.
In reality, they only turn up when it's a topic to do with something they have a financial interest in and then they spend the whole time arguing with each other. They never actually DO anything or get anything done. You can watch it live too if you want. If it's something about the people, the room is usually empty.
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.
My primary school used this video in history to explain the government and how it’s changed over time
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! 😅 🙏🇬🇧
I'm in the UK, I was at school in the 80s and 90s. We were not taught anything about how UK politics works or its history.
The parties have manifestos but whether they stick to it once in power is another matter!
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.
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".
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 my dim & distant youth I worked in London during which time marched against Maggie Thatcher policies when she was Education Minister & was one of the marchers who reached the Lobby of the H of P. Later I marched in support of nurses/care/ancillary workers - nothing much changes!. I have also written to my MP & signed many petitions including YouGov Petitions. Public opinion can affect/amend government policies (though not when the government of the day chooses to act as an autocracy rather than as a democracy which is possible when their majority is too large).
Government is too important to be left solely to the politicians. People before politicians. After all politicians answer to corporate lobbyists & corporations often operate in the interests of powerful minorities rather than in the interest of the majority (workers/consumers) but there is strength in numbers. Organise, unionise & educate. Make your voices heard. People before politics. Power to the people. Keep up the good work T R. Your people need you. IMO.
Cheers.
Magna Carta which is a purely English thing not relevant in Scotland is actually a list of things barons and other nobles were allowed to do. It was designed as a way to not only curtail the power of the king but to ensure that the barons retained total power over the peasants and artisans(the working and middle classes). A fat better document describing the rights of people up to and including removing a king if they acted not in the interests of the people is the Declaration of Arbroath which is a de facto Scottish constitution and formed the basis for the US constitution(many of the signatories of the US constitution were Scots or of Scots heritage)
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....
Same in the US, although occasionally an elected official feels strongly enough about a particular issue that their staff is directed to make sure the official is informed any time someone contacts their office about that issue, and then in that case, some action or at least a more personal response might happen.
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.
Individualism has its good points but due to various cultural factors a lot of politicians (and voters) somehow decided that anything that benefits the public is somehow "communism" and thus "anti-American". Never mind that the Founders, slaveholding elitists that some of them were, at least recognized the concept of the common good and took steps to ensure it(albeit from their perspective of "good").
You should look into the Welsh and Scottish parliaments and the Northern Irish assembly next.
Yes that would be a great idea.
a couple of things - 1) The party manifesto is not binding - although there would be a major problem if a government was elected which then ignored their manifesto and changed direction completetely.
2) The House of Lords is effectively appointed - Hereditary peers (which are only a small number) are there simply due to luck of their birth - many of them do bring some real world experience to the role. Life Peers are appointed by the government mainly for their expertise and experience. New batches of life peers are made each general election (by the outgoing government) and occassionally in the New Years Honours list : There is a significant movement in the UK to make the house of Lords elected.
3) Minority and coalition governments do happen (the last coalition was in 2014) but they aren't common.
4) The house of Lords can only amend legislation, they can't create it, and if the houses of lords and commons don't agree on a law the commons have the last word.
5) The government propose a budget every year, which normally is only changes to taxes, and changes to government spending plans, and since the government have a majority the budget is almost always agreed. There is no risk of a government shutdown in the UK - tax money keeps coming in and previous payments keep going out when the budget isn't agreed.
I do remember parts of it but school for me was a long time ago but I do love learning about history.
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!
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
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!
I studied King John in my history degree. I was surprised by the amount of people I spoke to who didn't know who he was. And they're Brits! I think it completely depends on if you're taught about it in school, or if the curriculum changed while you were studying.
Come on, every school boy knows (or at least used to)
Where was the Magna Carta signed
At the bottom
Lakland John was a right royal tarter till he made his sign on the Magna Carta, ink seal table runnymeade green annoi domini 1215. Learned at primary school as part of a poem.
Maybe more will know now following the success of Horrible Histories.
@@andrewgarner2224You are so right!!
Yes this is familiar were all taught this in school 😀
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.
@@kiwifarms New Zealand, and I believe the UK, technically has a document that does the job of a constitution... But it's basically a list of which other laws, traditions, etc. to refer to for what matter, and neither the document in question nor the things it refers to are anything like as locked in and locked down as the US constitution.
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.
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!!
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.
The weird thing to remember about the UK is that the Monarch is legally the ultimate and absolute power in the land. Parliament is theoretically an advisory body rather than actually having legal weight. The balance of power between Parliament and the Monarch is a very bitterly contested series of traditions and compromises, which was rather settled in the English Civil War when the king lost his head after fighting against parliament, but that balance is tradition rather than being legally enforced- no monarch nowadays is going to rock the boat by fighting Parliament.
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!
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
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.
Parliament isn’t separate from government, the government is the biggest party who the prime minister belongs to, parliament is the entirety of elected MP’s including the opposition. It has the potential to be great, but people keep voting tory 😩
Here in the US a number of organizations, both right and left, have something called "bill trackers" where people can sign up for email alerts about issues that concern them so that whenever their state legislature or Congress is holding hearings or votes on them, the list members get emailed a summary of the bills in question. Some elected officials also email newsletters to their constituents about their activities such as town halls, ribbon cuttings, etc. which sometimes includes info about the various bills they've been working on. I would guess that politicians and political groups in the UK probably do the same.
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%
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.
Love him explaining the Electoral college like we all know as little about other countries' systems as Americans seem to.
😆 🤣 😂 😹
It made me smile too. We get wall-to-wall coverage of their Presidential Election. Their system seems to be stuck in 'Georgian' times. Hence the horse-and-cart timing of their power handover.
I'm pretty sure any educated brit would know Washington, Lincoln, Ben Franklin, a bit about their Civil War and maybe the wartime presidents too?
Parliament always has 650 members and the current (Labour) Government consists of 412 of these members. This is a huge number compared to recent results.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 know in the us you have a system where a extra item can be papercliped to a bill and it is waved through with the larger act or measure.
Some things not explained completely in that video:
Monarch = Head of State is above politics and entirely politically neutral closest comparison to President, but no political power particularly.
The veto is theoretical and has not been used for centuries.
Prime Minister = Head of Government (also a constituency Member of Parliament - MP) NOT equivalent to an executive president
Cabinet = Senior ministers who run departments (also members of Parliament and usually MPs )
There are other more junior ministers who are usually MPs but may be members of the House of Lords
Prime Minister, Cabinet and other Ministers are the Government (The Executive Branch)
Government MPs (including Prime Minster), other MPs from the ruling party, plus opposition MPs - i.e. all MPs form the House of Commons 650 in all
House of Lords is appointed 800+ members:
A mix of Life Peers (someone given a title for their lifetime, because of their expertise, but can't pass it to their children) these are the bulk
96 hereditary peers (inherited title)
26 senior Bishops from the Church of England
The House of Lords is primarily a revision chamber - they can only really delay passage of a bill - not stop it entirely.
The House of Commons plus the House of Lords are the Houses of Parliament (The Legislative Branch)
So a big difference with the USA is - in the British System the Executive Branch is a subset of the Legislative Branch
BTW - House of Commons - the word "Commons" is very old usage and means community. It's nothing to do with being a "commoner"
We do also have a Judicial Branch - but this is entirely separate and not mentioned in the video you reacted to.
The Judiciary are entirely politically neutral, they are appointed on merit by the Judicial Appointments Commission
Isn't it 92, not 96?
@@BritishRepublicsn actually you're right.
90 "elected" from among the remaining hereditary rump, plus 2 hereditary office holders (where the office and not just the peerage is hereditary).
Currently 91 are sitting.