|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
old hand
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094 |
WARNING: completely unrelated to words
I'm almost completely ignorant to the British governmental system, so I have a couple of questions. I turned on C-SPAN and they're showing Tony Blair answering questions in the House of Commons. It seems like they are quite uncomfortable. There appear to be more people there than there are in the US House of Reps and they look to have about half a meter of butt space. They also don't have individual desk space as in the US Congress. Are the two sides split basically between the Conservative and Labour parties? Why does the Prime Minister sit at the bottom in the middle of the others? He has to sit down and stand up every time another question is asked and it seems like a terribly inefficient system for discussing policy. I'm sure it's just a matter of custom, but why don't the free up the space a little? How can there be so many representatives in such a small country?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>I'm almost completely ignorant ... How can there be so many representatives in such a small country? oh don't go there JoPerhaps you should start by defining "small country". Is Australia a small country? The UK has a fifth of the population of the USA (about the same as the combined population of California (34m), New York (18m) and New Jersey (8m), to name a few small places in the USA) squashed up into an area the size of Oregon. Australia occupies the same area as the USA and has a third of the population of the UK. You should also remember that the Commons is not directly comparable with the US Congress. In the USA, law is made at a state level as well as a federal level, in modern times parliament has been the only place where laws have been passed, although local authorities have the power to enact bylaws. Now that the Assemblies of Wales and Scotland have delagated authority in some areas and the European Parliament has a higher authority in others, there are likely to be changes in the number of MPs in the house, especially as the "West Lothian Question" (you can LIU) has never been fully resolved. >I'm sure it's just a matter of custom Oh, wait until you see the opening of parliament screened on TV, you need to brush up on your black rods, woolsacks and wigs. All those in the commons stand when called to speak by the speaker, so that he or she knows that they have not "nodded off" which is common in the House of Lords. They don't need desks as they are not supposed to read out speeches (see below). The Chamber is actually quite small as there is only room for 437 MPs to sit down when there are 659 MPs in total so that members have to get there early for major debates. Apart from the recent major debates and state occasions, such as the Opening of Parliament, the House is rarely full. Members operate a "pairing system" for votes, if they are not able to attend (they are matched up with a member of the opposition who is similarly unable or unwilling to attend a vote). It looks particulary squashed when one side has a large majority as MPs are not keen to sit on the other side, even though, technically, they can. Much of Government policy is studied in more detail in "Select Committees" where MPs do get to sit on a chair. In addition, the new Scottish and Welsh Parliaments do have chairs and desks. There are answers to your questions about the order of speaking, standing, etc is answered here: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/fs52.pdf Essentially: 4. Where Members sit and speak; the form and style of debate
By convention, Ministers sit on the front bench on the right hand of the Speaker: the Chief Whip usually sits in this row immediately next to the gangway. Elder statesman and former Prime Ministers have often sat on the first front bench seat beyond the gangway. Parliamentary Private Secretaries usually sit in the row behind their minister. Official Opposition spokesmen use the front bench to the Speaker's left. Minority parties sit on the benches (often the front two) below the gangway on the left, though a minority party that identifies with the Government may sit on the right-hand side. There is nothing sacrosanct about these places, and on sundry occasions, when a Member has deliberately chosen to occupy a place on the front bench or on the opposite side of the House from normal, there is no redress for such action. Indeed, the latter may happen when a large Government majority means there are too few places for its supporters on its own side. "Crossing the floor", which has come to mean permanently changing party, is possible but naturally very uncommon. If a Member leaves one opposition party to join another, he or she may well not literally cross the floor, but would sit with their new party when they next entered the Chamber. A few Members (for instance John Horam, Reg Prentice and Alan Howarth) have served as ministers in governments of both major parties.
Members may speak only from where they were called, which must be within the House: that is, in front of the Chair, and not beyond the Bar (the white line across the width of the Chamber). They may not speak from the floor of the House between the red lines (traditionally supposed to be two sword-lengths apart). They may speak from the side galleries, but due to the lack of microphones there is a strong disincentive from doing so. Also, the Speaker will not call a Member in the Gallery if there is room downstairs. They must stand whilst speaking, but a disabled or incapacitated Member is naturally allowed to address the House seated. The style of debate in the House has traditionally been based one of cut-and-thrust; listening to other Members' speeches and intervening in them in spontaneous reaction to opponents' views. It is thus very different from the debating style in use in some overseas legislatures, where reading of set-piece speeches from a podium or from individual desks is much more often the norm. This style of debate can make the Commons Chamber a live, rather noisy place, with robustly expressed opinion, many interventions, expressions of approval or disapproval, and sometimes of repartee and banter. There is, of course, a fine line to be drawn between vigorous debate and forthright expression of views, and the deliberate attempt to intimidate an opponent. Members have the right, when
speaking, to be heard without unendurable background noise (deliberate or accidental), and the Chair will call for order if it appears there is an attempt to drown out a Member or, for instance, when a number of Members are leaving the Chamber, or conversing loudly. The Speaker also has the right to inform a Member who has failed to observe the courtesies of debate that he or she need not expect to get priority in being called to speak. But successive Speakers have taken care not to bridle the traditional vigour and forthrightness of the expression of opinion in the House, for the style of the House of Commons has never thrived on excessive politeness and restraint. The profound deference towards Ministers and Prime Ministers apparent in some overseas parliaments is generally lacking in the Commons.There is more information about the UK Houses of Parliament, including some interesting words at: http://www.explore.parliament.uk/search/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/fact.htmI also suggest a peruse through the video library. There are some lovely shots of the commons in action at the time of George III (see the "Madness of King George"), there was a wonderful BBC series called "The House of Cards" which may have made it to PBS with a gloriously wicked central character and some great shots of the Commons. Geoffrey Archer currently serving at her majesty's pleasure in another place should have been imprisoned for his life changing book well, it changed his life, anyway "Not a Penny More, Not a Penny Less", but again, the shots of the Commons were quite good.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
"A Woman's place is in the house..."
and, in the US'n version, in the Senate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289 |
With respect to the small size of the House of Commons.
The chamber was damaged almost totally in the Blitz and there were those who proposed that it should be rebuilt more in the style of the U.S. House of Reps. Fortunately, Winston Churchill had the good sense to see that it was rebuilt exactly as it had been, thus preserving the unique intimacy and style in which business and debate is carried on, as described by Jo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
...listening to other Members' speeches and intervening in them in spontaneous reaction to opponents' views.- and - ...unique intimacy and style in which business and debate is carried on.jo's quote led directly into where I'd hoped it'd go and byb hit the nail on the head of what I (back when I had cable) reveled in watching for - its "unique intimacy" through "spontaneous reaction".  JazzO - I did find it rather smashing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>JazzO - I did find it rather smashing.
Me too, I love all the "order, order" stuff, heckling and beating people up with the mace, sitting on woolsacks ...
I wouldn't like to agree with Jazzo in any way [puffed up with national (but not nationalist) pride emoticon] but I do admit that it is a mighty strange way to run a country!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094 |
I wouldn't like to agree with Jazzo in any way I didn't say it was a bad form of government. I was just intrigued by it. Having never really seen the House of Commons in action I found it incredibly strange and interesting. Thank you for your explanation. Do/did they really hit each other? The worst I think I've seen in the US Congress was the Newt years when they started making big presentation signs defaming the ideas of the opposition in comical ways. (I think that was at the start of C-SPAN when they could perform for their constituents.) I've heard the Congress was much more rowdy in the beginning of its existence. Also, what exactly is MP? Member of Parliament? Minister Prime? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
Right first time, Jazzo. MP = Member of Parliament. And why do you suppose the benches are two sword lengths apart? I think it's a while since duels were fought on the floor of the House, but you never know.  Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>Do/did they really hit each other? These days, more often outside Parliament than in. The Deputy Prime Minister had "altercation" with an egg-throwing member of the public during the recent election campaign. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,9352,492489,00.htmlAs Mr Bingley points out, the MPs (Members of Parliament) are not two sword lengths apart for nothing. A memorable incident was in 1976 when Michael "Tarzan" Hesletine, furiously grabbed the mace and held it above his head (have you seen the size of it?) in response to members of the opposition singing "the red flag". http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/a-z_of_parliament/m-o/newsid_82000/82544.stmI had thought that Dennis Skinner had also grabbed the mace (and possibly hit someone) but I can't find it in a report. The House of Lords woke up from its customary slumber one day in 1987 when lesbian activists abseiled into the House of Lords from the public gallery shouting "Lesbians are angry" in protest about anti-gay legislation.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,415
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
2 members (wofahulicodoc, 1 invisible),
805
guests, and
7
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
