UK's System of Government

[Trekker4747]

I'll admit that I don't fully understand how it works.

They have a Queen and a PM. As I understand it the Queen doesn't have much "real power" and really most of the power and ruling goes to the PM and Parliament.

Is this more or less right? How does government work in the UK?

How is/was the Queen "chosen" I presume it's because she's the daughter of the former King, so has England always been in "one family" and always continue to be? If not, how does another family become the ruling class?

When the Queen passes who takes over? Does Prince Harry then become King Harry?

If the Queen/King doesn't do much and it's all the PM and Parliament why not dispense with the King/Queen nonsense?

Not to sound ignorant, but I've never really learned how England's government works and I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Skywalker]

The royal family exists because of tradition/symbolic reasons, and they bring in a lot of money via tourism. When the Queen passes, her son Charles, the Crown Prince, will become King Charles--unless he takes a different name when he assumes the throne, or unless he abdicates in favor of his son, who would then become King William (again, unless he takes a different name).

The current royal family (the House of Windsor) hasn't always been the same, but they're related to most (don't know about all) of the past royal families in some form or another. Another family would take over only if the current family line eventually dies out (i.e. a ruler dies without having any offspring), or by taking the throne by force. And since this isn't the Middle Ages anymore, when sitting on the throne actually meant something, the latter isn't very likely to happen.

I don't really understand the UK's actual government very well, so I'll let people who actually live there answer that question.

EDIT: Oh, and if I got any of this wrong, I apologize to any Brits who might take offense. I'm trying not to be an ignorant American!

 

[Canadave]

I don't know the details of the monarchy, but the British government works in essentially the same way as the Canadian one. A Parliament is elected to the House of Commons, from which the party (or coalition of parties) that holds the majority of seats in the House forms the government. The leader of that party or coalition becomes Prime Minister, and the business of the government proceeds from there, with bills proposed, debated and voted on in the House. Anything that is approved by the House of Commons then moves on to the Upper House, which is the House of Lords in the UK, made up mostly of appointed members. In Canada, it's the Senate, also made up of appointed members.

Either way, the idea of the Upper House is to be a chamber of "sober second thought", where bills are debated more civilly than in the often-contentious Commons. From there, bills can be signed into law by the Queen if approved by both Houses... I don't believe the Queen has any real power to veto a law by herself. Other than that, the only time the Queen really does anything is approve the formation of the government, or allow the Prime Minister to dissolve the House of Commons and call an election.

 

[Trekker4747]

Prince Charles, that's who I meant. Lord knows where I got Harry from.

 

[Tomalak]

Basically many moons ago, the king was the boss.

Gradually, his power waned as he needed to raise money from his subjects to fund wars. The nobility who bankrolled the crown became more influential, as the king increasingly needed their agreement for any venture.

Charles I tried to return to the more autocratic ways, believing that he ruled by divine right, and his will was God's will. Civil War broke out, and he was beheaded. Oliver Cromwell lead the Parliament in the absence of the king as essentially the President.

However, Cromwell's puritanical rule wasn't particularly popular, and when he died, Charles' son (Charles II) returned as monarch, but his power was curtailed. In essence, this was the start of the the constitutional monarchy, which continues today.

The Queen is the Head of State, but is a mere figurehead. The elected government has ultimate power, she is merely the rubber stamp. As for why the monarchy still exists, I think it's largely because of history, tradition, and the sense that she's better than some other elected politician on the make.

In terms of succession, the current Queen can claim descent by either blood or marriage from William the Conqueror. She became Queen upon the death of her father, George VI. Charles is next in line as her first-born child. William is next in line as his oldest son.

I hope that answers some questions. If you want more in-depth information, Wikipedia probably isn't a bad place to go.

 

[Skywalker]

Hmm...if Cromwell hadn't been such a puritanical jackass, do you think England might have completely dispensed with the monarchy for good?

 

[CorporalClegg]

May I take this opportunity to suggest the US might be better off with something similar to the the parliamentary elections for the congress? At least because it presents a much larger scope of representation. It just seems that with each turn bipartisan politics seem less and less appealing.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Well, considering that the Westminster Parliament is moving more and more towards a two party system, I don't see what point it'll have.

In a Parliamentary system, there's less checks and balances. The ruling party (or ruling coalition) has a lot more power than in the United States, where the House, Senate, or Presidency (not to mention Justices of the Supreme Court) could belong to a differing party and can act as a check on the others. In the Parliament, I guess there's the House of Lords, which members are appointed (for life, right?) could act as a block, but the House of Commons could always just override them. The Monarchy could always intervene, but they won't.

And with elections only having to be called every 5 years, that's a long time of significantly unobstructed control.

 

[JuanBolio]

May I take this opportunity to suggest the US might be better off with something similar to the the parliamentary elections for the congress? At least because it presents a much larger scope of representation. It just seems that with each turn bipartisan politics seem less and less appealing.

The only thing I really prefer about the Parliamentary system is the ability to remove a chief executive from power through a no-confidence vote. We could have been rid of Bush ages ago.

 

[Hermiod]

I'll admit that I don't fully understand how it works.

They have a Queen and a PM. As I understand it the Queen doesn't have much "real power" and really most of the power and ruling goes to the PM and Parliament.

Is this more or less right? How does government work in the UK?

It's not really hard.

The Queen is the figurehead head of state. This position is hereditary.

How is/was the Queen "chosen" I presume it's because she's the daughter of the former King, so has England always been in "one family" and always continue to be? If not, how does another family become the ruling class?

When the Queen passes who takes over? Does Prince Harry then become King Harry?

That is just all part of having a monarchy. It currently goes to the oldest male heir but this is going to change soon to just oldest heir. Right now, in the event of Prince Charles deciding that he does not want the throne, Prince William, Charles' older son, is second in line to the throne. Another family can become royalty by marriage.

If the Queen/King doesn't do much and it's all the PM and Parliament why not dispense with the King/Queen nonsense?

Because the British people do not want it. Most of us like our royal family. The core of the Royal Family is actually pretty self-sustaining.

Not to sound ignorant, but I've never really learned how England's government works and I'm genuinely curious.

The country is divided up in to 646 constituencies. Each constituency elects a Member of Parliament. This MP may or may not represent a specific political party.

The party with a majority government (i.e. more MPs or seats than all of the other parties put together) may form a government. In the event of no such majority existing - a hung parliament, parties may form coalitions to create one.

The leader of that party, who is chosen by means that are purely internal to the party he or she represents, may then travel to see the Queen and formally ask her for permission to form a government. This is purely ceremonial, she cannot actually say no. The position of Prime Minister doesn't actually "exist" anywhere, it is more of a combination of various other positions that I won't go in to. Suffice to say, it is a common mistake to believe that the person holding the position of Prime Minister is directly elected like a US President would be. The Labour Party, the party with a current majority in Parliament, may choose to change Prime Ministers at any time without asking the electorate. The only people who voted Gordon Brown in to office were the people of his constituency Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath Dunfermline East.

Any member of Parliament may introduce legislation, which will put to a simple majority vote. Any legislation must pass the House of Commons and the House of Lords, unless the Parliament Act is invoked, in which case the Commons can overrule the Lords.

 

[clint g]

May I take this opportunity to suggest the US might be better off with something similar to the the parliamentary elections for the congress? At least because it presents a much larger scope of representation. It just seems that with each turn bipartisan politics seem less and less appealing.

The bipartisan politics isn't really a built in feature of the United States government, its more something that evolved over time. No where in the Constitution did it say that there would be political parties, let alone 2 of them. Over time however the smaller parties died out, parties came and went, and we wound up with the two we have today. That said, the Congress actualy has a larger scope in terms of representation, in that the House of Representatives is based off of population. The boroughs in the UK are not from what I recall.

 

[Hermiod]

^Don't confuse boroughs with constituencies.

 

[clint g]

^Don't confuse boroughs with constituencies.

So the UK does have proportional representation?

 

[Hermiod]

^Don't confuse boroughs with constituencies.

So the UK does have proportional representation?

Pained Response from a Liberal Democrat Voter: No.

 

[Tomalak]

That said, the Congress actualy has a larger scope in terms of representation, in that the House of Representatives is based off of population. The boroughs in the UK are not from what I recall.

Each constituency has around 70,000 people, and they are redrawn fairly frequently in any case.

 

[cultcross]

^Don't confuse boroughs with constituencies.

So the UK does have proportional representation?

The constituencies are drawn by population, as yours are. We don't have true proportional representation (there are strong arguments against such a system, such as the disproportionate voice it can give to extremist parties), but we do have population-based constituencies, with elections of MPs in much the same manner as Congressmen. The biggest difference is that it isn't just the two biggest prties that have a chance of winning seats in Parliament. The Lib Dems get a good slice of the pie every election, and smaller parties can show quite a following at local level.

 

[Pingfah]

Well, considering that the Westminster Parliament is moving more and more towards a two party system, I don't see what point it'll have.

Liberal Democrats have increased their share of the popular vote and their share of Parliamentary seats at the last 3 general elections, so I'm not sure where you get that from.

 

[cultcross]

Well, considering that the Westminster Parliament is moving more and more towards a two party system, I don't see what point it'll have.

As Pingfah said, no it's not. The Lib dems gain ground in Parliament each election, and more and more minor parties are seeing victories at local level.

In a Parliamentary system, there's less checks and balances. The ruling party (or ruling coalition) has a lot more power than in the United States, where the House, Senate, or Presidency (not to mention Justices of the Supreme Court) could belong to a differing party and can act as a check on the others.

We also don't obsess over "checks and balances" like the Americans do. The opposition party in Parliament is very vocal, and on issues where the government needs to be 'checked' you often find members of their own side will vote against them. You don't need a complex system of who-can-veto-who to achieve political balance. To be honest, I think its ridiculous the President can just say 'nope!' to what the entire congress has decided.

In the Parliament, I guess there's the House of Lords, which members are appointed (for life, right?) could act as a block, but the House of Commons could always just override them.

The Parliament Act has been invoked a mere handful of times ever. The Lords suggestions and amendments are taken seriously by the commons, and often incorporated into bills.

The Monarchy could always intervene, but they won't.

Actually, they can't - the Queen has no political power.

And with elections only having to be called every 5 years, that's a long time of significantly unobstructed control.

One year more than you?

 

[clint g]

Well, considering that the Westminster Parliament is moving more and more towards a two party system, I don't see what point it'll have.

As Pingfah said, no it's not. The Lib dems gain ground in Parliament each election, and more and more minor parties are seeing victories at local level.

In a Parliamentary system, there's less checks and balances. The ruling party (or ruling coalition) has a lot more power than in the United States, where the House, Senate, or Presidency (not to mention Justices of the Supreme Court) could belong to a differing party and can act as a check on the others.

We also don't obsess over "checks and balances" like the Americans do. The opposition party in Parliament is very vocal, and on issues where the government needs to be 'checked' you often find members of their own side will vote against them. You don't need a complex system of who-can-veto-who to achieve political balance. To be honest, I think its ridiculous the President can just say 'nope!' to what the entire congress has decided.

As Obama is learning right now, this is most absolutely, certainly not the case.

If Congress and the President don't agree, congress can make the presidents 4-8 years a very hellish experience

 

[captcalhoun]

How is/was the Queen "chosen" I presume it's because she's the daughter of the former King, so has England always been in "one family" and always continue to be? If not, how does another family become the ruling class?

she was chosen by being the eldest of two daughters when her dad popped off.

the Royal Family are there because a couple of centuries ago some inbred twat was better with a sword than another inbred twat. or one or other of them had a bigger army.

basically.

as for getting rid of them, there is a rising republican movement in the country, particularly because Charles' wife is disliked and not many people want her to become Queen when he gets in.