Harumph Harumph!

CtrlAltDelete: Harumph Harumph!

I didn't get a Harrumph! out of that guy...

That's absolutely farking brilliant and hilarious. Thank you submitter, you made my day.

That was awesome. I wish our Congress worked like that- you know, actual debate. Not just scripted speeches for the CSPAN cameras before an empty chamber.

And he's dead right about the point he's making, too. Centralization of power always begets more centralization of power.

I really just want to say hi.

Churchill2004: That was awesome. I wish our Congress worked like that- you know, actual debate. Not just scripted speeches for the CSPAN cameras before an empty chamber.

And he's dead right about the point he's making, too. Centralization of power always begets more centralization of power.

It is one of the beauties of the Westminster system: Those elected who are not in the majority reigning party are required to be in Opposition to the Government and all that it does! No mater what the Government does, there's someone there pointing out how they would have done it better/differently/sooner/cheaper/not at all/faster/etc... sometimes it's just bluster, and sometimes it's not needed, and sometimes it's not really that appropriate, but I think it's a great system that forces a government to justify every action and policy it puts forward, knowing that if the Opposition can find a weakness, they will exploit it, and at the very least, affect public opinion.

ghost_who_walks: It is one of the beauties of the Westminster system

I was more referring simply to the way their own affairs are managed by the two bodies. Congress has saddled itself with far too much managerial power over the government rather than sticking to debating and crafting legislation. The rules of the House and Senate used to govern actual debate and deliberation- now they're merely going-through-the-motions formalities to apply policy that was formulated elsewhere.

The Westminster system has its strengths and weaknesses. Encouraging a stronger Opposition is a definite plus, but I'd argue that a strong independent judiciary, with the ability to enforce Constitutional restrictions on the legislature, makes a much better check on government power. The British system doesn't have this obviously, though almost every other country to adopt the Westminster system has implemented it in some form.

i think a "middle way" if you'll excuse the term could be found, basically have pelosi jeer the president during the SOTU and call him out on his bullshiat, and have the house of lords executed.

The British politicians have always seemed to be a hell of a lot more witty and sarcastic than ours.

C-Span would play Administers Notes/questions. Apparently the PM in England has to face their parliament and answer questions. Sometimes they are softball questions, sometimes hard ones but they are actually very amusing.

I wish we had a system like that.

William Hague is one of the great parliamentary speakers of our time.

His closing Queens Speech before he resigned as leader of the Opposition was as funny as this - and also managed under the humour to score some very good political points.

Darth_Lukecash: The British politicians have always seemed to be a hell of a lot more witty and sarcastic than ours.

C-Span would play Administers Notes/questions. Apparently the PM in England has to face their parliament and answer questions. Sometimes they are softball questions, sometimes hard ones but they are actually very amusing.

I wish we had a system like that.

Yes, it's "Question Time", and with the right PM and the right Leader of the Opposition, it can be the best live TV debates you'll ever see. As long as everything is couched in polite terms ("if he believes that, then the Honourable Member for Ballarat should have his head exaimined, because, Mr Speaker, only a complete idiot would believe it!") they can say pretty much anything. Question time can throw up some massive problems for a sitting government, as the Opposition will often throw in surprises, revealing mistakes of the Government without warning and forcing Ministers to either admit ignorance or incompetence, right then and there, in public and on the record.

Sure, the Westminster system ain't perfect, and yes, Australia and other countries have actually adopted the "checks and balances" part of the US model and folded it into their version of it... but for outright entertainment? I think only the occasional fist-fights that break out in Parliaments around the world rank higher, but are not as consistently entertaining :-)

Darth_Lukecash: Apparently the PM in England has to face their parliament and answer questions.

Because the PM is always the leader of the majority party in parliament; thus, an MP.

I saw this two weeks ago. What I think is funny is how David Milliband, the Labour Foreign Secretary, is laughing his ass off about his party's former leader.

robobular: Because the PM is always the leader of the majority party in parliament; thus, an MP.

Not quite.

The post is appointed by the Monarch to the person most likely to command the House of Commons.

There is legally no requirement for the person to be a Commoner, so a member of the House of Lords could - technically - take that job title.

Indeed, any MP (or Lord) from any party can take the job - if they can command the House of Commons.

It is just presumed that the leader of the largest party in the Commons would hold that position - but it is not guaranteed.

Incidentally there is no such job as "Prime Minister" in the UK - it is a traditional position based on historic presidence and has no legal authority.

Gordon Brown's job title is officially the First Lord of the Treasury and Head of the Civil Service.

The problem with Prime Minister's questions (the weekly session in which the PM takes questions from MPs), isn't the questions, it's the ridiculous pantomime audience reactions of the other MPs. The shouts/loud murmurs of "wuh-wuh" or "oooh", according to taste, push the whole thing far to close to farcical.

If it was about the actual question and answers, rather than who can get a better reaction for their own MPs, it might be a very useful exercise, rather than a piece of theatre.

Trefusius: If it was about the actual question and answers, rather than who can get a better reaction for their own MPs, it might be a very useful exercise, rather than a piece of theatre.

But it's a great piece of theatre. If you want questions and answers watch the select committee meetings.

The other great thing about P.M's questions and most other debate in the House, is that M.P's are allowed to speak to one person only. The Speaker. You have to couch everything you say in response to the Speaker (or in the case of this clip, Madame Deputy Speaker). I remember once when Ian Duncan Smith, then Lead of the Opposition ranted and raved about a Government report for about 3 minutes, then sat down, Tony Blair stood up, leaned into the mic and said "He read it. He didn't read it well. It wasn't worth reading." then sat back down again, to roars of laughter from both sides of the house, with Duncan Smith the only one not amused.

Al Franken for Senate!

The other interesting thing about the Parliamentary system as practiced in the UK is the concept of the "Shadow Cabinet". That is, the majority party have the real cabinet ministers (all MPs) who are responsible for treasury, defence, foreign affairs, etc.

The major opposition parties have their own "shadow" ministers, who are equivalent domain experts. I'm not sure (it's been over 30 years since I lived in England) but I think that the shadow ministers receive a lot of the same data as the real cabinet.

Makes for some interesting debate and questioning, although Sturgeon's Law applies to "Question Time" as to all things.

It's things like this that make watching C-Span worth it. Every time I catch the Brits on T.V. I end up jealous that our political system isn't the same way. I'd like to think more of us in the States would be interested in politics if our congressional sessions were more like this.

geekchic: Indeed, any MP (or Lord) from any party can take the job - if they can command the House of Commons.

We've had a Lord as PM before.

geekchic: robobular: Because the PM is always the leader of the majority party in parliament; thus, an MP.

Not quite.

The post is appointed by the Monarch to the person most likely to command the House of Commons.

There is legally no requirement for the person to be a Commoner, so a member of the House of Lords could - technically - take that job title.

Indeed, any MP (or Lord) from any party can take the job - if they can command the House of Commons.

It is just presumed that the leader of the largest party in the Commons would hold that position - but it is not guaranteed.


Churchill at the beginning of WWII?

DoctorOfLove:
Churchill at the beginning of WWII?

Had the support of the Commons. That's all that is required.

Kirby Muxloe: That is, the majority party have the real cabinet ministers (all MPs)

They don't have to be MPs, but generally are. Members of the House of Lords can sit in Cabinet, and I think that some posts are always Lords - Lord Chancellor (head of the court system), for example.

I've seen these televised on CSpan and cringe at the thought of W. trying something like this. All of his responses would sound like Butthead reviewing a video.

/uhuhuhuhuh...well, uhuhuhuhuhuh

Vanetia: It's things like this that make watching C-Span worth it. Every time I catch the Brits on T.V. I end up jealous that our political system isn't the same way. I'd like to think more of us in the States would be interested in politics if our congressional sessions were more like this.

First they got to stop the hatin'

TheHoodedClaw: DoctorOfLove:
Churchill at the beginning of WWII?

Had the support of the Commons. That's all that is required.

Exactly. The PM doesn't even technically have to be a MP at all. I remember one PM (I forget his name) who was appointed while in the House of Lords, resigned his peerage, and contested and won a by-election to the Commons a few weeks later. He remained PM the whole time, even when he wasn't in Parliament at all.

If only the Canadian parliament could behave as well as their British counterparts instead of constantly jeering and talking over the person who has the floor. It's embarrassing.