LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
|
Well thank you CS! I aims to please LOL!
Our system is actually not set up that differently to yours; our Queen is head of state, sitting where your President does though she lacks power to initiate anything and is more of a figurehead, who nevertheless is held to be superior to Parliament in that she is the one in whose name legislation is introduced and enacted. She opens Parliament, with great pomp and circumstance (which can be quite amusing to watch) and reads a list of proposed legislation for the term (known as The Queen's Speech).
After that she goes off to do whatever it is she's been booked for - she's really more of an ultimate celebrity and her job is really about PR.
The Parliament is split into the Lords (akin to your Senate, the upper house) and the Commons (akin to the HOR, the lower house). Membership of the Lords is on appointment by the Queen these days (it used to be heriditary) but she only rubber stamps the recommendations of the Prime Minister as to who should be "elevated". Members of the Lords include a few surviving hereditaries but mostly its worthies from the Commons and public office, plus a few dodgy members whose membership could be explained by cynics as a reward for party donations - and the worst aspect of it - all bishops and archbishops of the Church Of England (same as the Episcopalians) are automatically also members of the Lords. The Lords is the revising house - it revises Bills passed in the Commons and either approves them in the name of the Queen or sends them back to the Commons to be looked at again.
The Commons is the elected house. Members are elected from constituencies comprising what are considered representative populations - so dependent on population density a constituency can be very small or quite large geographically. "First past the post" applies, so that if one candidate gets 10000 votes and another gets 9999 and a third gets 9998, the 10000 votes wins out - I consider this totally ridiculous and support proportional representation to replace it but thats by the by. In general, members in the Commons belong to one of a small numbers of political parties, with (New) Labour and Conservatives being the largest and generally forming governments, and Liberal Democrats in third place nationally, plus a small number of members from parties in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.
Whichever party gets the most members in the Commons will form the government, with their party leader becoming Prime Minister - although only at the invitation of the Queen to do so (another archaic tradition). This works out OK in general since the winning party will have a large majority in terms of members of the Commons, where its one member per vote - with such a majority the winning party can put through its planned legislation as long as it keeps all its members on side - although that sometimes doesnt work out when party members not in the government (backbenchers) choose to oppose their own party. In general though, all party members want their party to remain in government and get its legislation passed so they will be on side far more often than not. When the governing party needs to, it is not against the rules for it to do deals to get votes from other parties to pass its Bills (viz my recent thread about abortion, 42 days and the suppression of liberty) and the same sort of cross party dealing will also go on in case of a hung Parliament, where no party has overall control.
The governing party will place its planned legislation before the Commons and the whole Commons will vote on it. Whilst the governing party will take most of the time in terms of introducing legislation, other parties and individual members can also do so. If the Commons votes the Bill down, then it might be looked at again. If the Commons approves the Bill it passes to the Lords for their revision and vote. Parliament also has Select Committees which examine Bills prior to their presentation to the Commons and following their rejection at any stage - these committees are drawn from the members and are often populated by specialists in the relevant field.
As to the security of the Prime Minister - he/she is as secure as his/her party members support. In general, unless a Prime Minister is a totally hopeless disaster, his/her party will provide support - because failing to do so weakens the party and its claim to government. But the Prime Minister is only the Prime Minister because he/she is the leader of the majority party in the Commons - if there is a leadership challenge then the position of Prime Minister is likewise challenged. There can also be a vote of no confidence on the part of the Commons which can bring down the Prime Minister and/or government - this is very serious though and hasnt happened I believe since WWII; it requires enough members of the majority party (the Prime Minister's party) to also vote no confidence for the motion to succeed, and no one risks this unnecessarily since it damages the party and forces a general election which the governing party is more than likely to lose.
The legal system is also like yours. It is founded on common law and statute law and is evolving as precedent is set by case law. Judges are appointed from the ranks of barristers (lawyers who represent in court), and one becomes a barrister from being a solicitor (a lawyer who acts as go between for client and barrister). Senior judges usually end up in the Lords in Parliament, which also acts as the Supreme Court in the UK - though the EU Courts generally have supremacy overall.
E
_____________________________
In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.
|
The other side of the world - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread