So how does Parliament work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1X83Z
  • 25 comments
  • 607 views
1

1X83Z

Premium
Messages
20,944
United States
usa
Todan on C-SPAN I ran across British Prime Minister Tony Blair speaking in front of Parliament debating issues facing Britain today. I could not get over how damn knowledgeable he was - George Bush could never face his opponents like that (though it seems right out of the George Bush White House with all the seemingly random standing and speaking) with the knowledge Blair had.

In any case, my question is, how was Blair elected? I know Parliament elects him, but does that mean Blair is a representative of a district like every other Parliamentary member, or does the Prime Minister have nothing to do with Parliament?
 
How does Parliment work? Good I guess...it's been around for a while...
 
Well, the UK runs a pretty similar system to here (funny that!), where the Prime Minister is the leader of a particular party (in his case, Labour). He is an elected member of parliament like all the other minister, and is elected leader by the party.

The US equivalent would be the leader of congress (that is your 'lower house' there, isn't it?).

Although he and Bush are nominally 'leaders', Blair would more accurately fit this description as he is the leader of the government of the day.

The equivalent role to President in the UK is the Queen, as she sits over Parliament and signs off on any legislation passed - effectively giving her the power of veto. The equivalent role in Australia is that of Governer-General.

I think that's right - no doubt any UK members will correct me.
 
Originally posted by vat_man
Well, the UK runs a pretty similar system to here (funny that!), where the Prime Minister is the leader of a particular party (in his case, Labour). He is an elected member of parliament like all the other minister, and is elected leader by the party.

The US equivalent would be the leader of congress (that is your 'lower house' there, isn't it?).

Although he and Bush are nominally 'leaders', Blair would more accurately fit this description as he is the leader of the government of the day.

The equivalent role to President in the UK is the Queen, as she sits over Parliament and signs off on any legislation passed - effectively giving her the power of veto. The equivalent role in Australia is that of Governer-General.

I think that's right - no doubt any UK members will correct me.
Click to expand...

Okay - so Blair was first a representative of a district (as were all other members of Parliament), then became the leader for his party, then was elected by the party?

'Congress' isn't a house - Senate and the House are the two houses, both combined equal 'Congress.'

What I compare Parliament to is our own Senate leaders, Tom Daschle and Dick Armey. Since Daschle is the majority leader, he would've been elected president. Damn. We lost. :D

I still cannot get over on how Blair was up-to-date with all the issues. George Bush would need Condolezza Rice, Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, etc. just to give him the info Blair had on the top of his head. Incredible.
 
That's basically right for Blair - he has to be across all those issues because he can be grilled by parliament.

Okay - Congress is your equivalent to parliament, right. The Prime Minister is the equivalent to the leader of the lower house - if the Prime Minister has the support of the majority of members of the lower house (basically enough votes to ensure he survives a motion of 'no confidence) then he is able to form government, even if his party doesn't have the majority (e.g. he has the support of some independant members which combined with his party give him majority).

Blair is a fairly impressive individual to watch though - he is clearly a very intelligent man.
 
Okay. Now that I've learned what's going on, thanks vat_man ...

I agree that Blair is impressive to watch. Those abs, those pecks. Only kidding (boom started it!).

Kidding, only. I think the good thing about Blair is how young he is. Many people consider that a huge factor (me included, to some degee). He's clearly fit for the duty of Prime Minister.
 
Originally posted by M5Power
But vat_man - he eats poo! :lol:

He's shaped like a toaster.
Click to expand...
No friendly cartoon character has teeth like that.

He'll snap, and turn one day, you mark my words. Little Timmy will be sitting there one day with Domo Kun, Mum will turn her back, and <GULP>, no more Little Timmy.
 
Teeth like that - you mean felt? :lol:

Will Mum be arrested, or will Domo-Kun be a suspect? Are they going to recall Domo-Kun? If he eats kids, how big is he? More importantly, how big is his stomach? :D
 
Yep you've pretty much got it. But we've also got he house of lords above the the house of commons where Blair and the rest of 'em sit and decide how to faff up my life.... In the Lords there are life and heridetery peers who also get a say and then finally as you say the Queen is the boss and gets final say but to be honest her role is largely a formal rubber stamping of the descisions made by parliment.

There is debate at the moment to get rid of the Lords as they are argued to not be really relevant any more. Same with Her Maj' in some respects. Errrr, not sure how i feel about that.

I'll swing by the Houses some time this week and take a couple of photos and post 'em to this thread.

Funny to hear Blair being given such high regard..... He gets derided in most papers but then most papers are sympathetic to the Tories and he is of course Labour.

It's a national sport here to take the piss out of politicians and me and Bird are sitting here with looks of shock and horror on our faces to think that Blair is being given any respect at all :)

But he's not bad, we've had worse!

Oh and he has just as many aide's and helpers as Bush.

In the states and Oz is it normal to have poloticians that have gone in to polotics straight from school or do they do real jobs first?
 
And very quickly the way we choose who get's the top job.


We have big elections every so often, 4 years (ish) where we vote for a party (no not beer and music although.....) the country is divided up in to lots of little regions and everyone in theose regions get's to vote. The party with the most votes wins. Simple! Well you'd think so, but even now we sod it up and we've been at it for hundreds of years.

The way we choose a PM, well normally he's (or she) the best man for the job (???) selected by his party. Not necessarily the most gifted or able but the man (or woman) who best represents what the party is about at the time. Lot's of stuff figures in it more than i have time to go in to right now.

Right i have to "go break rocks" as my most excellent friend Boom says.

Laters
 
Generally they get real jobs first - if 'lawyer' is a real job. There have been one or two go straight in.

Don't worry - we deride our politicians very heavily. At least he's articulate, and not stuck in the '50s.
 
:lol:

Excellent posts!

And yes, most - if not all - politicians have 'real jobs' first, though sometimes that 'real job' is entry level politics (i.e. State governor, big-city mayor, etc.), though I'd assume that you could go as high up as state Senator if you go to a great college such as Harvard or Yale.
 
I'll just add a little bit here...

The House of Lords is made up of selected and hereditary peers (as in Lord So-and-so). There is a weight of opinion that says that hereditary peers (i.e. those who have inherited the title through their family) have no experience and therefore no place running the country. However, I personally feel that a lot of the selected peers are just ex-politicians who have been 'bumped upstairs' and so are equally unqualified to do the job.

As for how our elective system works:

The country is split into 629 regions. Each party fields a candidate for each region during a general election, which can happen any time up to five years after the previous election. It tends to be shortly after the fourth anniversary of the previous election however.

During the election, each eligible voter in each region makes their choice, and the party candidate who receives the most votes is elected to their region's seat in Parliament. The party with the most seats is then the government. We do not tend to have non-absolute majority governments in the UK, although sometimes it can be very close.

As for the leader of the party, (s)he is selected through a complicated voting system by the party members, and can be any currently-elected (i.e. sitting in Parliament) member of the party.

This obviously gives people a lot of scope for choosing where to place their cross. Some (myself included) vote for the party that they feel most closely reflects their own opinions. Some vote for their most favoured local person (remember how I mentioned above that each party fields a candidate for each seat?). And some vote for the current leader of the party.

Personally, I feel that that last method of choosing a party is the least meritorious. You may think that Tony Blair is impressive, but that's only because he's been well-briefed, and a lot of the questions he's being asked he's been pre-briefed on. He has a lot of information in that file he has at the stand. Also, let's not forget, that in the public speaking arena, my Mum's dog is impressive compared to George W. Bush! I don't feel that the country is being particularly well served by the current government.

And that's before we get on to the Scottish situation!

But then, I fully agree with Douglas Adams, who wrote "Anyone who even remotely wants to be President of the Galaxy should on no account be allowed to be so". I think that as soon as it's a politician's job to be a politician, any sense of altruism goes out of the window, sacrificed at the altar of self-preservation and self-interest.
 
Originally posted by GilesGuthrie
the current leader of the party.

Personally, I feel that that last method of choosing a party is the least meritorious. You may think that Tony Blair is impressive, but that's only because he's been well-briefed, and a lot of the questions he's being asked he's been pre-briefed on. He has a lot of information in that file he has at the stand. Also, let's not forget, that in the public speaking arena, my Mum's dog is impressive compared to George W. Bush! I don't feel that the country is being particularly well served by the current government.
Click to expand...

I agree, although he does have a lot of knowledge, both local and international, though most of the members of Parliament seemed rather miffed at his little knowledge of US plans to attack Iraq and British plans to help or not help.

Your mother's dog and George Bush? Whoa, fair fight! :D
 
Originally posted by GilesGuthrie
But then, I fully agree with Douglas Adams, who wrote "Anyone who even remotely wants to be President of the Galaxy should on no account be allowed to be so". I think that as soon as it's a politician's job to be a politician, any sense of altruism goes out of the window, sacrificed at the altar of self-preservation and self-interest.
Click to expand...

Agreed - how on earth can someone form meaningful views of society if they've hardly participated in it?
 
Originally posted by slip2rock


Ok so in america a parliment is a fag right? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yup, I thought it was fairly universal because it's a phillip Morris(Marlboro) product (I think) and goodness knows they are more powerful than Microsoft. ;)
 
Oh right.

I normally only smoke roll ups (Drum / Drum light) or Marlboro lights. And then i only smoke one or two a day unless i'm on the beer so i don't come in touch with many tobacco products.

Cheeers man, bin down the wine bar with my boss.... hic
 

Latest Posts

Back