• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PM to resign

...And all so that the treasonous, power-hungry and corrupt ex-ruling party can try to keep hold of the nation's balls a little longer.

....I thought they were big on things like beating fascism!


Cameron won most seats at the election. Any decent, elected two-eyed patriotic PM would pass up his 'divine' right to try and rule anyway in favour of the man more of the People want.

But still, what else do you expect from Labour? Ex-communists will always follow their own instincts after all!
 
...And all so that the treasonous, power-hungry and corrupt ex-ruling party can try to keep hold of the nation's balls a little longer.

....I thought they were big on things like beating fascism!


Cameron won most seats at the election. Any decent, elected two-eyed patriotic PM would pass up his 'divine' right to try and rule anyway in favour of the man more of the People want.

But still, what else do you expect from Labour? Ex-communists will always follow their own instincts after all!

IMO I believe that Brown now (albeit somewhat belatedly) recognises that he is no longer (if ever he was) Dear beloved Leader.

He has ever since taking over from that other failure (Blair) thought himself as the answer to all the problems that ailed the UK.

He has never been able to stand back and see himself as others see him, namely as a bullying despot who preferred to govern under the maxim ' my way or the (highly taxed) highway'

It must have dealt his ego an enormous blow to find that the majority of the voting public dislike him and his policies so much.

I read that one of his spin Drs has extolled brown's virtues.
This man has done nothing for the UK, but expects to be honored for that which HE believes HE has done.

For the UK it is goodbye and good riddance.
 
At a stroke Gordon Brown has disabled the coalition talks with the Tories, causing the Tories to panic and offer more in the way of electoral reform than anyone including most of the Tory rank and file! That and the revelation that the LibDems have been having parallel disussions with Labour (Brown's) party all along, makes for interesting times.
 
At a stroke Gordon Brown has disabled the coalition talks with the Tories, causing the Tories to panic and offer more in the way of electoral reform than anyone including most of the Tory rank and file! That and the revelation that the LibDems have been having parallel disussions with Labour (Brown's) party all along, makes for interesting times.[/QUOTE]

Indeed it does. And, shows he,s willing to put the country and party first...

Paul
 
I wonder what the USA would do with this problem in the UK.


kind regards.


mikeey
 
I wonder what the USA would do with this problem in the UK.


kind regards.


mikeey

I dont think it can happen here. Someone explain the difference of the British system vs. the american one. Political systems that is.
 
I dont think it can happen here. Someone explain the difference of the British system vs. the american one. Political systems that is.

Having a quick go..

The UK has one national election that elects a party, that election is currently based on a "first past the post" system.

The UK system means each party elects it's own "Leader." The position of Prime Minister is similarly created by an internal party process where the winning part elects their internal leader.

The US elects a President - a similar "first past the post" system is used to elect that President. If he wins by 1 vote or 20 million votes - he is still President.

The UK system means the Prime Minister has direct rival positions in Parliament - the largest opposing group is led by the "Leader of the Opposition." Minor parties also have would be Prime Ministers.

The US has no "alternate President" position. Govt in the US is separated into a Presidential position and a Senate.

The US President has no direct elected rival outside the Senate. The US system does not mean the President ever has to face down any Senate rival in direct debate in the same govt chamber.

The UK Parliament is where the Prime Minister has to directly face his/her opponents AND any other opposing views in debate.

The UK system can occasionally (as now) create a situation where the winning party does now win enough seats to mean outright victory. What then happens is that two (or more) parties enter negotiation with each other so that they can win any debate and votes in Parliament.

The US system can be described as "The President proposes and the Senate Disposes".

The UK system by contrast means that most legislation has to be argued firstly through the parties and then through Parliament. The Prime Minister is not directly involved in creating all proposals for legislation. The cabinet supporting the Prime Minister also has to be elected or come from the within his/her party.

UK Cabinet positions usually come from the ordinary elected Ministers of Parliament but can also come from the 2nd chamber - some positions can also be from outside Govt - but the tradition is that the Prime Minister then makes the person holding a Cabinet seat into a Lord or Lady of the 2nd House. House of Lords positions are either inherited or created by a Prime Minister and the public do not vote for them.

The US governing cabinet is proposed and chosen only by the President - the Presidential Cabinet positions are not directly elected by the voting population.

The current position can't really be duplicated in the US - the Senate does not choose a leader who becomes President, the Senate majority party can be different politically from the President's own political view and the separation of executive power means that proposing power always comes from the White House.

The UK situation means that powers reside (mostly) in the Houses of Commons where the parties, Prime Minister and his opposition reside. The Prime MInister does have his /her own residence in Downing Street but he/she still has to make law within the Houses of Parliament.

That turned out a bit longer than I thought... and I still probably left stuff out. :lol:
 
It looks the Lib Dems are being offered the AV [Alternative Vote] system of voting by both Labour and the Cons.
This system is used by the Australian House of Representatives.

In this system if a candidate does not receive more than half of the first preferences of voters, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and voters second preferences are redistributed until one candidate has over half the votes.
Its not quite proportional representation but goes some way to offering what the Lib Dems and may be the country.

Electoral Reform Society - The Alternative Vote

Paul
 
INFINITE CHAOS Thank you. I appreaciate your explaining it to me. I can see now how a mess things are over there as far as this election. Would the issue of us going to our supreme court in the 2000 election be like that issue?
 
-- Would the issue of us going to our supreme court in the 2000 election be like that issue?

I can't recall the last UK Prime Minister to win over 50% of the votes available but it will be a long time ago.

I don't know enough about the intricacies of what happened in Florida but there hasn't been a dispute over who won the most votes in the UK election - that was clearly David Cameron's conservatives with 9 million votes. Labour won about 7.5 million if I recall correctly and the Lib Dems won 6 million votes.

You could legitimately say 13 million people voted against the Conservatives, but as I started out - it's been quite a while since any UK politician won 50%+ of any electoral mandate.
 
Having a quick go..

<snip>

That turned out a bit longer than I thought... and I still probably left stuff out. :lol:

If I may, I'd like to clarify some things here. I don't know where you're from, Infinite Chaos, but I'm American and I've been studying UK government. I think you're misrepresenting the Senate a bit.

1) The U.S. has a written Constitution, while the U.K. has an unwritten constitution.

The U.S. has codified it's supreme law in the Constitution, which was written in 1787, and has been amended twenty-seven times. The Constitution declares the basics of how U.S. government will work and no law from the federal government, state governments, or local governments may contradict the Constitution. Who determines what contradicts the Constitution? The Supreme Court does. Appointments to the Supreme Court, which are called Justices, with Chief Justice being the "first among equals," can rule acts and orders from the President and Congress as unconstitutional. This means that the U.S. holds judicial review as the highest power in the land. However, this is not that big of a deal since the Supreme Court doesn't have any other power, such as writing law or commanding government. The sole purview of the Supreme Court is to strike down unconstitutional laws written by Congress and unconstitutional acts performed by the administration of the President.

The U.K. however, has an "unwritten" constitution. That is, their basic law isn't codified in one document; instead, it is comprised from several statutes, treaties and traditions of British law. The bedrock of the U.K. constitution is the idea of Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament is the highest source of law, and should they wish to change their constitution, they can do so merely through an Act of Parliament. This makes it more difficult or even impossible for the judiciary to strike down laws, especially Acts of Parliament, in the U.K. than it is in the U.S.

2) The U.S. has Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances, while the U.K. has most powers contained within Parliament.

In the United States, government is separated into 3 distinct branches:
The Legislature = the Congress = House of Representatives + Senate = writes laws
The Executive = the President = enforces laws
The Judiciary = the Supreme Court = interpret laws

So Congress writes law, the President and his administration enforces law, and the Supreme Court interprets law and can declare them unconstitutional. Of note is that a member of one branch cannot be a member of another branch. This is to maintain separation of powers as well as to prevent a few people from having too much power.

Take, for example, Hillary Clinton, who was a Senator from New York when she was nominated and confirmed to serve as Secretary of State, an executive position under the President's Cabinet; in order to accept, she had to resign as Senator.

In the U.K., they have 3 branches, but most powers are eventually fall upon Parliament.

The Legislature = the Parliament = the House of Commons + the House of Lords = writes laws
The Executive = the Government = the Cabinet = enforces laws
The Judiciary = the Supreme Court of the U.K. (formally Lords of Appeal in Ordinary of the House of Lords) = interprets law

Parliament writes laws, known as Acts of Parliament. Parliament is made up of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Lords have few powers with regards to passing an Act; most of their power lays in delaying a bill from the Commons. So most power is delegated to the House of Commons.

The House of Commons has single-member districts. Whichever candidate wins the plurality of votes in those districts represents that constituency in the Commons. After many Acts of Parliament over the decades, the Commons is the most powerful house of Parliament, having seriously stripped the power of the House of Lords in the past decades.

Technically, executive power remains in the hands of the Monarch; however, she exercises executive authority only on the advice of her Cabinet, who effectively administrates and executes the policies of the U.K. government.

The Cabinet is comprised of Members of Parliament that have the confidence of Parliament to exercise executive authority on behalf of the Monarch. Should the Cabinet no longer have the confidence of Parliament, Parliament can call a vote of no confidence for the Monarch to dissolve Parliament. Once this is done, a general election is made to form a new Parliament, which will have to form a new Cabinet. Alternatively, general elections for Parliament, and therefore the Cabinet, are automatically held 5 years after the last election, although a term of Parliament can be extended by an Act of Parliament.

Previously, supreme judicial functions were performed by a number of members from the House of Lords, which was called the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, or the Law Lords. Recently, however, Parliament created the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to take over those judicial functions that were held by the House of Lords.

So as you can see, while the U.S. has separated the functions of government into different branches, the U.K. has centered government power into Parliament. The executive and (until recently) the judicial functions of government has come from the legislature.

3) The U.S. Cabinet is different from the U.K. Cabinet.

The U.S. Cabinet and the U.K. Cabinet both serve the same functions: to head the executive agencies and departments of the government. How they are chosen, however, are different.

The U.S. Cabinet is chosen to advise the President on executing the policies of the U.S. government. They also head the executive departments of the U.S. government. The President nominates a candidate who must then be confirmed by the Senate. A member of the U.S. Cabinet serves at the President's pleasure, and may be dismissed by the President at any time. A member of the U.S. Cabinet may not belong to any other branch of government, such as Congress or the Supreme Court.

The U.K. Cabinet are appointed from the House of Commons or the House of Lords by the Monarch on the advise of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can, at any time, ask the Monarch to dismiss a Minister of the Cabinet from their office.

4) The U.S. has a line of succession, while the U.K. does not.

The United States has a clear line of succession in order to maintain continuity of government. In case the President dies or is incapacitated, another officer of government is able to take his place. The order of presidential succession is:
1. the Vice President
2. the Speaker of the House
3. the President pro tempore of the Senate (the most senior Senator of the majority party of the Senate
[Cabinet officers in the order their appointment was created]
4. Secretary of State
5. Secretary of the Treasury
6. Secretary of Defense
7. Attorney General
etc.

This line of succession ensures that there is always a President in power at all time. Some constitutional scholars are against the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore being a part of the presidential succession; they argue that because those positions are legislative rather than executive them being in the line for presidential succession violates the system of separation of powers advocated by the Founding Fathers.

In the U.K., the Prime Minister is seen as a "first among equals" - that is, while the PM heads the government he is as much a member of Parliament as every other MP is, and should the Prime Minister die unexpectedly then all that has to be done is for the Monarch can ask Parliament to offer a new Prime Minister for her to accept or to dissolve Parliament and hold a new general election to replace him.

So while the President is the singular head of the executive, the Prime Minister isn't as irreplaceable. Then again, this is only because the Prime Minister wields executive authority on behalf of the Monarch, who is the technical holder of executive power.

5) The U.S. has regular and separate elections, while the U.K. has votes of no confidence.

The U.S. has regular elections for it's officials, which is stated in the U.S. Constitution.

The President has an election every 4 years, but no one can serve as President for more than 10 years, and the Cabinet serves at the President's pleasure.

The House of Representatives has an election every 2 years, with no term limits. The Senate has an election every 6 years, with roughly 1/3 of the Senate having an election every 2 years. So ever 2 years we elect a new Congress.

The Supreme Court is not an elected position - instead, it is a lifetime appointment. Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The U.K., on the other hand, has rather irregular elections.

In the U.K., Parliament is dissolved automatically after 5 years since the last general election, as mandated by an Act of Parliament, or if the Prime Minister no longer holds the confidence of Parliament. The Prime Minister can also ask the Monarch to to dissolve Parliament in case he resigns or wants to hold general elections before the 5 years are up. PMs can do this strategically to maintain power in Parliament by holding general elections at time when his party is the most favorable.

This shows a difference in how the U.S. and the U.K. operate - the U.S. is much more stable but must suffer unpopular governments, while the U.K. can adapt to emergency and necessities of the government but also risk one PM or party retaining power.

6) The U.S. President is voted by the electoral college, while the U.K. Prime Minister is chosen from Parliament.

The U.S. President is elected into office via the Electoral College. According to the Constitution, each state is allocated a number of electoral votes equal to that state's Representatives and Senators. Whichever Presidential ticket (composing of the Presidential candidate and the Vice Presidential candidate he chose to run with) receives 50% + 1 of the electoral votes then becomes President and Vice President. State law determines how the electoral votes of that state are allocated. Most states give their full amount of electoral votes to whichever candidate receives the plurality (not majority) of the popular vote within that state. Maine and Nebraska has as state law that whichever Presidential tickets receives a plurality of votes in a congressional district gets that district's electoral vote for it's Representative, while the winner of the state-wide election gets the two electoral votes from their Senators.

The U.K. Prime Minister is the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons. Therefore, the PM is not directly elected by the people. Instead, the PM is usually the leader of the political party with the majority of seats in Parliament. This means that the leader of a party is an MP. If a political party feels that their leader is not able to get them a majority, then they can choose a different party leader to help them gain a majority in Parliament.
 
7) The U.K. has a "shadow cabinet" while the U.S. has no formal method of opposition.

Whichever party holds a majority in Parliament automatically has power of the executive Cabinet. This means whichever parties has not won Parliament doesn't have any members in Cabinet either (usually). The largest party in Parliament that is in opposition to the majority party or it's coalition is known as the Opposition Party. What the opposition can do is form a "shadow cabinet," which are MPs of the opposition who "shadows" a Minister of the Cabinet and proposes alternative legislation or actions.

The U.S., because it keeps it's executive and legislature separate, and the different branches are elected separately, has no such similar system for the opposition. This is because the majority party in one branch may be the minority party in another branch.

For example, the President may be of one party but the majority party of Congress might be in opposition to him. Despite that, the President retains his office until his next election. What can also happen is that one chamber of Congress, either the House of Representatives or the Senate, can have a majority from one party and the other chamber be from a different party, and the President is the same party of one or the other. This can happen because the whole House is elected every 2 years while only 1/3 of the Senate is elected every 2 years. It can even occur that the President and Congress be of the same party.

This means that there is no real formal system of opposition for it's minority parties.

8) The U.K. has the Prime Minister's Questions, while the U.S. does not.

In the U.K., the Prime Minister is mandated to answer questions from the MPs for half an hour. This is a time in which the Prime Minister takes on questions critical of his running of government, especially from the Leader of the Opposition facing him. In this way, Parliament reasserts how the Cabinet and the Prime Minister are ultimately accountable to Parliament to maintain power.

In the U.S., there is no such question time. This is because the President is separate from Congress. This also means that the President is not accountable to Congress to maintain power - instead, the President is accountable to whole nation. Sometimes the President is voted into office as a check against Congressional power; other times, the make-up of Congress is voted into office as a check against Presidential power. Because the President maintains separate executive authority separate from the legislative powers of Congress, the President is not mandated to take questions from Congress. Indeed, the President may be voted into office as a criticism of Congress.

9) The Prime Minister can initiate legislation, but the President can't.

Because the PM is a Member of Parliament, he can initiate whichever legislation he wants to. He can also partake in debate of legislation and vote to pass it in Parliament.

Because of separation of powers, the President cannot initiate legislation. Instead, he must rely on Representatives and Senators to initiate legislation on those things he campaigned on. The only direct effect the President has on legislation is to either sign it into law or veto it. This means in order to get his legislative agenda passed in Congress, the President needs to be on good terms with the Representatives and Senators of his party and support the legislation his Congressional allies initiate by signing them into law so that those Representatives and Senators will initiate the bills the President wants.

10) The U.K. has a multi-party system, while the U.S. has a two-party system.

Both the U.K. and the U.S. use winner-take-all voting systems, and according to Duverger's law a winner-take-all voting system naturally tend towards a two-party system. This is why the U.S. has a broad two-party system.

However, the difference between the U.K. and the U.S. is in their campaign system. In the U.K., political campaigns, especially political ads, are tightly controlled and regulated by the government. The U.S., on the other hand, has less strict regulations on campaign contributions and political ads because of the Constitution's guarantee of free speech.

Because U.K. laws mean political parties get more equal time during campaigns, third parties have an easier time getting elected to Parliament than they do to Congress or the Presidency in the U.S.

11) The U.K. Parliament is divided into two chambers based on class, one representing commoners and the other representing nobles, while the U.S. Congress is divided into two chambers, one representing the people and the other representing the states.

The U.K. Parliament is divided into the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Commons represents commoners and is divided into seats based on geography. The House of Lords represents the nobility and some spiritual leaders as well.

The U.S. Congress is divided into the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House represents the people, which is why there's a larger number, and favors the larger states. The Senate represents the states, each state getting 2 Senate seats, and favor the smaller states.

12) The U.K. has the House of Commons as the more dominant chamber, while the U.S. has co-equal bicameral chambers for Congress.

In the U.K., the powers of the House of Lords has slowly been whittled away so that the Commons has the most power with few checks by the House of Lords. This means that the House of Lords has few powers they can use to assert their authority.

In the U.S., however, the House and Senate are co-equal. In order for a law to be written, both the House and Senate must pass the same language of a legislation. Only when both chambers pass the same bill does it get presented to the President for passage or veto.

Umm, yeah, I think that's all I have to add. Hope this has been informative, and I may be wrong on a few things regarding the U.K. government.
 
If I may, I'd like to clarify some things here. I don't know where you're from, Infinite Chaos, but I'm American and I've been studying UK government. I think you're misrepresenting the Senate a bit.

Gosh samsmart. I am not going to claim to be anything like as knowledgeable on this as you and Infinite chaos, but I'll have a go at a few things which I think are slightly different from what you say.

The U.K. Cabinet are appointed from the House of Commons or the House of Lords by the Monarch on the advise of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can, at any time, ask the Monarch to dismiss a Minister of the Cabinet from their office.

UK Cabinet as far as I am aware is appointed by the Prime Minister who can hire and fire people at will. The Opposition Leader does the same with the Opposition Cabinet.

4) The U.S. has a line of succession, while the U.K. does not.

The United States has a clear line of succession in order to maintain continuity of government. In case the President dies or is incapacitated, another officer of government is able to take his place. The order of presidential succession is:

This line of succession ensures that there is always a President in power at all time. Some constitutional scholars are against the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore being a part of the presidential succession; they argue that because those positions are legislative rather than executive them being in the line for presidential succession violates the system of separation of powers advocated by the Founding Fathers.

In the U.K., the Prime Minister is seen as a "first among equals" - that is, while the PM heads the government he is as much a member of Parliament as every other MP is, and should the Prime Minister die unexpectedly then all that has to be done is for the Monarch can ask Parliament to offer a new Prime Minister for her to accept or to dissolve Parliament and hold a new general election to replace him.

No, we are not in such a dismal situation. We have a Deputy Leader. If the Prime Minister were accidentally to die, s/he would take over.

At the moment with Brown resigning as Leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman is the 'Acting' Leader of the Opposition until a new leader is elected.



The U.K., on the other hand, has rather irregular elections.

We hear this is to change.



11) The U.K. Parliament is divided into two chambers based on class, one representing commoners and the other representing nobles, while the U.S. Congress is divided into two chambers, one representing the people and the other representing the states.

The U.K. Parliament is divided into the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Commons represents commoners and is divided into seats based on geography. The House of Lords represents the nobility and some spiritual leaders as well.

This is certainly how it used to be but is not nearly so much now. However the House of Lords is not elected and that is something which needs to be changed.

UK: Plans for abolition of House of Lords to be unveiled
The Telegraph ^ | 3/13/2010 | Patrick Hennessy

Posted on 14 March 2010 06:58:08 by bruinbirdman

Plans to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a 300-strong, wholly elected second chamber are to be unveiled by ministers in a key political move ahead of the general election.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is this weekend consulting cabinet colleagues on a blueprint which would represent the biggest change to the way Britain is governed for several decades.

UK: Plans for abolition of House of Lords to be unveiled

Of course different government and the conservatives are not so kean on this.
 
Last edited:
If I may, I'd like to clarify some things here. I don't know where you're from, Infinite Chaos, but I'm American and I've been studying UK government. I think you're misrepresenting the Senate a bit.

Apologies for my over simplification - I was however trying to illustrate the contrasts.

--Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament is the highest source of law, and should they wish to change their constitution, they can do so merely through an Act of Parliament. This makes it more difficult or even impossible for the judiciary to strike down laws, especially Acts of Parliament, in the U.K. than it is in the U.S.

It's not the job of the judiciary here to arbitrate on laws made in Parliament. Judges seated in the House of Lords can argue against a law and there are Judicial committees outside of Parliament (upper and lower) that are reference bodies but they don't strike any laws down - that is what "Parliamentry Sovereignty" actually means - i.e. Parliament strikes down its own laws and nobody else.

-- The Cabinet is comprised of Members of Parliament that have the confidence of Parliament to exercise executive authority on behalf of the Monarch.

The tradition is that they are drawn from voted in MPs and or where necessary - the House of Lords. Peter Mandelson is a prime example of a variety of ways someone can get into cabinet. Originally he was voted in as part of Tony Blair's Govt in 1997 but after his second "disgrace" he left and was appointed to the EU. When Gordon Brown needed him back, he was brought into the Cabinet and given a Lordship to allow him to sit within the tradition of his being part of one of the Houses of Parliament.

Should the Cabinet no longer have the confidence of Parliament, Parliament can call a vote of no confidence for the Monarch to dissolve Parliament.

Nearly but not quite. A govt can keep going despite loss of confidence by Parliament - this happened in the 70's if I recall correctly. It's the Prime Minister who eventually realises he / she cannot keep going and calls for a General Election OR as happened with Thatcher, his/her own party chooses a replacement leader. The position of PM then becomes untenable and the PM has to (by tradition) resign.

Once this is done, a general election is made to form a new Parliament, which will have to form a new Cabinet.

John Major followed on from Thather's loss of confidence without a General Election for two years.

Alternatively, general elections for Parliament, and therefore the Cabinet

Technically, Parliament chooses a cabinet - but in reality, this is the Prime Minister's perogative.

-- Previously, supreme judicial functions were performed by a number of members from the House of Lords, which was called the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, or the Law Lords. Recently, however, Parliament created the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to take over those judicial functions that were held by the House of Lords.

This potted history and info page will help you.

--The U.K. Cabinet are appointed from the House of Commons or the House of Lords by the Monarch on the advise of the Prime Minister.

See my earlier comments about Peter Mandelson. Technically yes the Monarch takes advise in choosing and appointing the Cabinet - but this is a show of tradition rather than an act of reality. The decisions are made by the PM and rubberstamped through the Queen's representatives in Parliament.

-- The Prime Minister can, at any time, ask the Monarch to dismiss a Minister of the Cabinet from their office.

Again, technically this happens but the Monarch doesn't really get involved.

--4) The U.S. has a line of succession, while the U.K. does not.

We have a deputy Prime Minister - when Tony Blair was away or on holiday, the deputy (John Prescott) would stand in. If he died, the deputy would run Govt until the party process of the Governing party would choose a successor.

Last year while Gordon Brown was away, Labour tried out a rotating system where differing senior ministers ran the Govt.

-- In the U.K., the Prime Minister is seen as a "first among equals" - that is, while the PM heads the government he is as much a member of Parliament as every other MP is, and should the Prime Minister die unexpectedly then all that has to be done is for the Monarch can ask Parliament to offer a new Prime Minister for her to accept or to dissolve Parliament and hold a new general election to replace him.

This doesn't happen - see above for the Deputy Prime Minister role.

Sorry, gotta rush - will get back later to your points on the UK Govt.
 
-- The U.K., on the other hand, has rather irregular elections.

In the U.K., Parliament is dissolved automatically after 5 years since the last general election, as mandated by an Act of Parliament, or if the Prime Minister no longer holds the confidence of Parliament. The Prime Minister can also ask the Monarch to to dissolve Parliament in case he resigns or wants to hold general elections before the 5 years are up. PMs can do this strategically to maintain power in Parliament by holding general elections at time when his party is the most favorable

As Alexa pointed out, this is up for debate as part of the new coalition Govt - one of the things the Liberal Democrats wanted before they joined with the Conservatives. The other bits you mention ar correct - more info here

-- This shows a difference in how the U.S. and the U.K. operate - the U.S. is much more stable but must suffer unpopular governments

Bit of an oxymoron there. :lol:

-- the U.K. can adapt to emergency and necessities of the government but also risk one PM or party retaining power.

That "risk" could also be described as popularity. If a Govt is popular, it makes sense to seek a strengthening. Gordon Brown could when he first became PM have called an election but chose (some say out of fear) not to. Cameron's jibe was he was the first PM to not call an election for fear of winning it. I'm betting Brown rues that decision 2 years ago.

--6) The U.S. President is voted by the electoral college, while the U.K. Prime Minister is chosen from Parliament.

-- snip-- The U.K. Prime Minister is the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons. Therefore, the PM is not directly elected by the people. Instead, the PM is usually the leader of the political party with the majority of seats in Parliament. This means that the leader of a party is an MP. If a political party feels that their leader is not able to get them a majority, then they can choose a different party leader to help them gain a majority in Parliament.

The leaders of all the main parties are MP but all the major parties have different methods of choosing their leaders. Labour is about to demonstrate their methods where MPs have 33% of the say in the new leader, the Unions have another 33% and the Labour Party ordinary members in the constituencies have the last 33%. 66% of the vote for the Labour Party Leader comes from outside the House of Parliament.

Before William Hague was leader - the Tory MPs voted in their leader, but rules changes and David Cameron was voted Leader of the Tory party by the membership.

Parliament UK pages

-- Whichever party holds a majority in Parliament automatically has power of the executive Cabinet. This means whichever parties has not won Parliament doesn't have any members in Cabinet either (usually). The largest party in Parliament that is in opposition to the majority party or it's coalition is known as the Opposition Party. What the opposition can do is form a "shadow cabinet," which are MPs of the opposition who "shadows" a Minister of the Cabinet and proposes alternative legislation or actions.

You'll find that the Lib-Dems had a shadow cabinet too. I don't recall if the smaller parties had any but as these were regional nationalist parties they weren't bothered with "shadowing" UK cabinet policy.

-- In this way, Parliament reasserts how the Cabinet and the Prime Minister are ultimately accountable to Parliament to maintain power.

One thing Tony Blair did was to ignore Parliament when he was at his peak, he had such a huge majority that he and Alastair Campbell (not an MP but arguably one of the most powerful men in UK politics in the last 15-20 years) would brief directly to the press.

--9) The Prime Minister can initiate legislation, but the President can't.

Because the PM is a Member of Parliament, he can initiate whichever legislation he wants to. He can also partake in debate of legislation and vote to pass it in Parliament.

Any member of Parliament can initiate legislation however the opportunities are regulated. Thus you'll find things like laws on the age of consent or homosexuality were "Private Member's Bills" rather than Govt or Prime Minister policy.

-- In the U.K., political campaigns, especially political ads, are tightly controlled and regulated by the government.

If you listen to Republic of Public, you'll believe that. However, an "electoral commission" overseen by committees within Parliament regulate the rules - otherwise a Govt would always seek to make sure it got more airtime or even prevent opposition views.

-- 11) The U.K. Parliament is divided into two chambers based on class, one representing commoners and the other representing nobles--

:lol:

That was 300 years ago. The term "House of Commons" now simply means the house where you have to be elected to have a place. The House of Lords contains a mixture of hereditary peers, Govt appointed peers, judges and members of the clergy.

One Lord gave up his title so he could compete for a commons place (Tony Benn) and you'll find coal miner's sons, ex soldiers and all sorts appointed to the Lords. The Prime Minister makes recommendations (for his own party AND for the opposition) for "Life Peerages"

The U.K. Parliament is divided into the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Commons represents commoners and is divided into seats based on geography. The House of Lords represents the nobility and some spiritual leaders as well.

-- Umm, yeah, I think that's all I have to add. Hope this has been informative, and I may be wrong on a few things regarding the U.K. government.

Hope the links help you get a better picture for your studies. Thanks for the details on the US though - it all helps.
 
Last edited:
Hope the links help you get a better picture for your studies. Thanks for the details on the US though - it all helps.

Yup. :) I admit I don't know much about the practical aspects of how the U.K. government works - everything I got came from wikipedia. :tongue4: But I wanted to point out some inaccuracies regarding the U.S. government, especially with regards to the Senate. And thanks for clarifying that stuff about the U.K. procedures for politics.
 
Back
Top Bottom