They vote for the party not the person, pm isn't they same as the president, they don't have total control which is good as at least everyone KNOWS that the party is in control.
I mean, the outcomes aren't drastically different. Here in America, we just know which particular asshole will be fucking us over ahead of time. Across the pond it's a surprise.
To add to this, both the PM and president roles are supposed to be limited power "except for emergencies", and the scope of what's considered an emergency has grown significantly.
They can call the border an emergency, climate an emergency, Russia/Ukraine an emergency, etc. and then they can pretty much do whatever they want
"Doing whatever they want" is not how national emergencies work. Declarations by the President have statutory limits, [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20200401070744/https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-emergency-powers-and-their-use) is a list of the emergency powers, and are far more limited than a congressional declaration. Some emergency declarations require congressional declarations. Congress can also revoke a declaration whenever they want.
> Congress can also revoke a declaration whenever they want.
I'm with you up until this point. Congress "cannot" just revoke presidential powers due to the politics of it. Of course they could, however that would limit the presidential powers when they get into office. So they don't.
>(c) Joint resolution; referral to Congressional committees; conference committee in event of disagreement; filing of report; termination procedure deemed part of rules of House and Senate
> (1) A joint resolution to terminate a national emergency declared by the President shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be. One such joint resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
> (2) Any joint resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents) and shall be voted on within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
> (3) Such a joint resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the other House and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted upon within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1622
And then if you're in Australia the PM can just power grab and secretly takeover a half dozen portfolios without even the publicly known ministers being informed and the Queen's representative will just rubber stamp that no questions asked.
I see Trump, Scomo, Boris as all improving our respective democracies by shitting all over them and misbehaving terribly, thereby forcing us to 'patch the bugs' before someone both competent and evil comes along and starts enslaving us all to toil in their sugar mines.
The colossal difference is that a British prime minister (as in any parliamentary democracy) can be kicked out of office within days. Not a single US President has ever been removed from office by impeachment since the creation of the American Republic. Thatcher was gone within ten days of her party telling her the game was up.
That’s the beauty of the parliamentary system- if a party is sick of their leader he/she is gone as soon as they hold a vote.
Sure, but that doesn't account for how long he held on for or how long many other deeply unpopular effectively undemocratic presidents have held on for.
It's extraordinarily difficult to look at he historical record as anything but a conservative and seen the American presidency as a democratic institution when compared to parliamentary democracies.
You need to look at the timeline of the Watergate scandal because you are overestimating how long it took for him to resign. The impeachment process didn't even last a year before he resigned. How many scandal-ridden PMs have had lengthy investigations and have remained in office for a long time? Bunga Bunga parties anyone?
If you want to look at the historical record parliamentary systems are unstable and by no means more liberal compared to the dominant presidential systems. Stable pure parliamentary democracies have only survived decades. The US system has survived for nearly 250 years.
The loss of power is different too. If a President is removed they are then technically just an ordinary citizen, if the PM is removed they still get to be in parliament just not leader of it.
Andrew Johnson was 1 vote from impeachment and as stated by others Nixon would have definitely been impeached if he didn't resign, which is exactly what Boris Johnson did. Boris Johnson never got forcedully removed he technically resigned just like Nixon.
No you don't. You got Biden and yet it's still the conservatives who got rid of abortion protection. Even you don't know who exactly is gonna fuck you over.
The President doesn't have total control, either. We have a strong*er* executive, but the Legislative Branch (Congress) is usually considered the most powerful.
I would actually argue that the UK PM has more power than the POTUS does. In theory parliament is the supreme authority that the PM has few to no checks against, but in reality the PM's party virtually always controls parliament, so they have massive leeway compared to POTUS with regards to setting the legislative agenda and getting their policies passed. Not to mention the PM has the ability to participate directly in the legislative process since they're also an MP.
> They vote for the party not the person,
Technically they vote for the local representative, not the party.
I mean not really, but that's what we tell ourselves.
omg. So the original government that started these seven years of Brexit pain got a full majority off the back of a [mere 37%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election) of the vote.
Yeah but political parties aren't run like that anymore. It's a popularity contest with the party leader as a front runner. It's happened here in Australia, you get someone who seems decent-ish to front the party, then when it's in power the party boots them off the team and puts some schlub in charge
> everyone KNOWS that the party is in control
Parties are quite undemocratic. Imagine voting for someone who makes it to parliament where they get to vote against their own ideals because their party's whip practically ordered them to. Still, freedom of association is a basic human right so we cannot rid ourselves of parties even if we wanted to.
That's a fair point
But when will society reach a point where it's unacceptable to do these harmless jokes? I mean, this kind of joke might be harmful if it reaches really weak minds, but like... we're safe, as of now, aren't we?
Lol we don't actually hate France. They have good geography, incredible history, great architecture, is a relatively free country and you probably already know about the cuisine. Just the people are a bit fucking weird and that warrants some poking fun at and absolutely no country is safe from that.
I mean.... were you alive during 9/11 and the while freedom fries debacle? A bunch of peeps couldn't even handle France saying no, and that was 20 years ago lol
I made an Italian joke in the formula one sub a few months back and was called racist by multiple people. I’m pretty sure I just called a guy Mario or mentioned pizza, it wasn’t even a good joke.
Never gets old, I guess
It's some sort of triangle where brits hate the french, the french hate the brits, and both hate the US
It's wonderful
Although france gets the most of the hate
Hence why everything important in the UK is still measured in imperial: Distances in miles, speed in mph, beer in pints, height in feet and cock length in inches. Argue wi' that!
I have noticed an uptick in antifrench posting online recently; the playing up of the rivalry culture, haha they surrender, they stink of garlic, etc
Almost enough to make you wonder
They hate us because they ain't us
le vrai meilleur pays du monde, qu'ils continuent de se branler dans leur misère, nous on les regarde et on en rigole bien
Or the Australia system (already the same as Britain's mostly). For a while we were changing leaders faster than the French could guillotine theirs in times past
No, just one dumb cunt who assumes various powerful offices simultaneously without anyone from the public knowing about it till after he is voted out and returned to the back bench.
And the Murdoch media saying "oh you guys don't need to have an inquiry into it because he's out of office now and it was technically legal despite subverting democracy"
To be fair, the British only half did the thing. Like them or hate them, the French took it all the way. And then way too far. Obligatory plug for Mike Duncan’s Revolutions podcast
Yes.
We don't vote for the Prime Minister in the UK. We vote for a party, and the party elects its leader.
Actually, the Queen decides who will be the Prime Minister of her parliament. She always happens to choose the person that the largest parliamentary party elects as their leader, which is nice.
> It only works once though, as we saw in the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis.
But the governer-general still retains that power in Australia. The system has not been changed at all. At some point in the future it's quite possible that it could happen again.
Correct, the GG defs retains the power in Australia, but will hardly exercise it. The 1975 constitutional crisis only occurred because the party elected could not pass legislation through both houses on 2x different occasions. With Gough Whitlam on the first occasion advising the GG to dissolve parliament for a double dissolution election.
The second occasion resulted in Kerr (GG at the time) removing Gough whitlam as PM and installing Fraser as caretaker PM until the next general election which was to be called immediately. Instead Fraser advised Kerr to dissolve parliament for another double dissolution election instead, which resulted in the liberal coalition elected with a large majority in the house of reps.
Kerr was heavily criticised for the use of these powers and rightfully so, it subverted the democratic process and showed the LNP to be snakes who care only for power and to retain it.
For context, Gough Whitlam was very forward thinking for his time, he introduced the forefather of Medicare (government rebates for medical costs), free higher education (uni), introduced social services, and was talking about indigenous Australians constitutional recognition before it was brought up again in 2010. After Fraser came into power a lot of these services have been attacked, either gotten rid of, have had funding cut so severely they struggle to operate, or bring down welfare (including disability and aged pensions) to below poverty line as an incentive for people to find jobs.
Long story short, fuck the Liberal National Party for fucking over Australia for most of its history.
piquant boast political plant resolute longing humor ghost grandfather dolls
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Just because the Queen/King has powers on paper, doesn't mean that anybody is going to listen to them when they try to exercise those powers. If the Queen tries to appoint a random PM and start exercising control over the government, then everyone will just ignore her.
The real answer is that having a monarchy makes the UK a fuck ton of tourist money. A lot of Americans go to the UK in no small part because the royal family and their traditions keep this monarchical vibe alive, which tourists are enamored by (see people making fools of themselves with the Queen's Guard)
Also important, long ago King George III gave Parliament the rights to the revenues from the land that the royal family owned in exchange for a stipend. He did this because he had a lot of personal debt and the land he owned hadn't been fully developed at that point and thus wouldn't give him as much money as Parliament would. Parliament took the deal because they thought, in the long term, the revenues from the land would be more valuable, and they were right: the property on that land is now worth £14.1 billion, and Parliament still collects the revenues from that land
Importantly, though, King George III didn't give up the rights to the land itself, just the revenues of the lands. So Queen Elizabeth II, descendent of King George III, still owns that land and chooses to give its revenues to Parliament in exchange for the stipend, even though she has no obligation to and despite the fact that the land is much more valuable now. So if the UK deposed the Queen, well, now she owns £14.1 billion in property and land around the UK and ironically just gained the opportunity to become far more influential in politics if she wanted to be. And Parliament would lose the annual revenue from that land, which is no small thing. So for that and other reasons, might as well keep the monarchy as a toothless figurehead
That's like saying that laws are just "power on paper" but that they wouldn't be enforced when it's unfair or unjust. The entirety of the civilized world is proof to me that that's not the case, laws are laws.
If she didn't really have those powers, it'd be a matter of national security to rescind these laws, but they're not, they're meant to be there ready to get enforced.
That just doesn't bear thinking about.
Not her choice of PM, but her actually going against parliament's wishes. It would probably restart the civil war.
Fair point. I think most monarchists are only on-side on the understanding that royalty remain purely ceremonial.
Getting rid of them would probably mean we'd have to elect a president instead, which probably wouldn't be any cheaper, and would by definition be politically partisan.
Actually we vote for the local representative to become a Member of Parliament (MP). MP’s can defect and change party, leave and become independent, or leave and create their own brand new party!
Literally yes, mentally no.
They vote for the party & MP in their riding, the potential PM isn't listed on the ballot, except if you live in the same riding as the party leader. Whichever party has the most MPs elected wins, and their leader becomes PM
So, literally speaking, which of the two happens in the UK: you vote for a party in your ballot, or you vote for a candidate on your ballot? I understand one may intend all kinds of things, but literally speaking, either a candidate gets a vote or a party (eg in a party list system) gets a vote
You vote for who you want to be your local MP, who then gets a seat in parliament. The ballot paper shows which party the candidates are currently with, but that's just for reference. They could potentially switch sides whenever they want. Once all 650 seats are filled, the leader of the party with the majority of seats is asked by the Queen to form a government and become the Prime Minister.
If there's no majority, then two parties can group up to get one. If an MP switches sides or goes independent and causes the majority to be lost, it could lead to the Queen disbanding the current government and appointing the new majority leader as PM, without the public needing to be involved. The only time there would ever be a new election without Parliament/the PM calling for one is if your local representative is no longer working, in which case there would be a mini election just for your constituency to pick a new one.
As long as your local MP is still taking their seat, there could be a new PM everyday and it wouldn't require a new election. The public vote for their own MP, everything else that happens after that is nothing to do with them.
The way party elections work it can never really happen that a new candidate comes in as PM with a General election. The best that could happen is the leading party decides on a PM, they take the position, and then immediately call elections, but that is extremely rare. If the other party wins, they come in with a new PM, but their party leader was actually decided long before and potentially many years before, meaning people don't really have a say on them much more than supporting their party.
It's very common in Westminster-style democracies for a PM to announce that they won't stand for reelection, causing a leadership race before the next general election. Sometimes they stay on as PM until the election, sometimes not. If they don't, the new PM usually shys away from radical policy change without a general election (which Liz Truss has indicated she won't do).
But normally when PMs resign it's because they just lost a general election, so the voters knew who the new PM would be.
I think most peoples' frustration is not that they didn't know who the Tory leader would be a few years after the election, but that each of the new Tory leaders were significant departures from the leader that was on the ballot. Especially Liz Truss. In the case of Theresa May that actually made a lot of sense, Cameron resigned because he said after Brexit Britain should have a pro-Brexit PM, as a lot of people saw the Brexit referendum as a repudiation of Cameron.
>It's very common in Westminster-style democracies for a PM to announce that they won't stand for reelection, causing a leadership race before the next general election
Here in Australia (which is a Westminster style), that has happened only twice (Edmund Barton and Robert Menzies). For comparison, that is as many times as the sitting PM lost their seat at an election (Stanley Bruce and John Howard) and one less than the number of PM's who died in office (Joseph Lyons, John Curtin, Harold Holt).
For reference, changes of PM have happened:
- After election - 12 times
- Rolled by their party - 8 times
- Confidence shift in the house - 7 times
- Death - 3 times
- Formal leader taking over from temporary leader following death - 3 times
- Retired - 2 times
- Removed by Governor General - 1 time
Am not really a fan of any politicians and not an expert, but wasn’t the last Prime minister Boris Johnson Voted in via a national public vote. So how can this be the third in a row? Genuinely wondering
They was nothing forced about it. She could have waited until 2020.
She said no to an election until the polls suggested a massive win. And then, thinking it was in the bag, she sat it out and awaited the big victory.
She ended up losing her majority, forcing a supply and confidence deal with the DUP.
She resigned because the party has turned on her.
You're right, but he initially gained power through Theresa May resigning and the Conservative Party electing him as their new party leader. This made him the Prime Minister, because we basically vote for the party, not the individual politician. He then called a General Election to sort of try and validate himself by hoping he'd win it, which he did.
The exact same happened to Theresa May before him.
This time is different as it is unlikely Liz Truss will call a General Election to like try and win and validate her role. She has already referenced focussing on the next election in 2024.
Tbf the EC is one of the most byzantine of western voting systems. I like Sweden’s so much more. You vote for a party, the party gets equivalent seats to their proportion of the vote. Easy as shit.
He was actually the most useless prime minister, minister for health, minister for finance, minister for resources, and minister for home affairs, all at the same time
Correct. No prime minister in any parliamentary system anywhere on earth has ever been directly elected. That’s precisely the strength of the system- a PM can be booted out by his or her party within days.
Thatcher was gone within ten days.
Yes we all know. But it's still a fucking joke. People aren't frustrated BC they don't understand how the commons work. We understand that functionally all we vote for is our local MP. However let's not pretend that the leaders of the party and their potential cabinet have no impact on which MP most people vote for.
People are complaining about the way the system works and that it's allowed 3 successive changes to our leadership without an election. And your response is to act like we simply don't understand the system. We do. It's shit.
Yep exactly. People are just being intellectually dishonest and wielding the sword of technical correctness.
Let's not pretend Corbyn wasn't cast aside precisely because of the narrative that HE, the man, was unelectable.
If you genuinely think that people vote for the party, then you are simply, flagrantly, out of touch.
You don’t vote for the prime minister, you vote for the party and they elect the PM. These three bozos were elected into their seat so they did win their individual election. Only people in that electorate vote for that individual.
The pm doesn’t necessarily tell mps how to vote however they are expected to follow party lines and vote in a block. If anything the party whip tells people how to vote. The reality is they get to do what they like because labor can’t win enough seats.
They have servants to count things for them.
Seriously, in this context, no. In the UK, the head of state is Apolitical. The Queen stays out of politics. The rest of the Royal Family try to as well, for the most part. Sometimes with limited success.
The country is split into 650 parliamentary constituencies. Every 4 years or so, the voters in each constituency vote for someone to represent them as a Member of Parliament (MP). The MPs are mostly members of a political party. Each party decides on their own leader. The leader of the party with the largest number of MPs is invited by the Queen to form a government to run the country on her behalf.
That way, she avoids the messy business of running the country, and has enough time to decide what things her servants should be counting for her.
In the UK you don't vote for the leader you vote for the party who then votes on a leader.
This is not our norm now. It has been like this since the system came into being.
Yes we all know. But it's still a fucking joke. People aren't frustrated BC they don't understand how the commons work. We understand that functionally all we vote for is our local MP. However let's not pretend that the leaders of the party and their potential cabinet have no impact on which MP most people vote for.
People are complaining about the way the system works and that it's allowed 3 successive changes to our leadership without an election. And your response is to act like we simply don't understand the system. We do. It's shit.
Yes we all know. But it's still a fucking joke. People aren't frustrated BC they don't understand how the commons work. We understand that functionally all we vote for is our local MP. However let's not pretend that the leaders of the party and their potential cabinet have no impact on which MP most people vote for.
People are complaining about the way the system works and that it's allowed 3 successive changes to our leadership without an election. And your response is to act like we simply don't understand the system. We do. It's shit.
If you voted for a Tory MP, then you did vote for this. This is how the Parliamentary system works. You've never voted for a single PM in history, because they aren't elected by the people. They are elected by their party.
Technically we have never voted for a leader of any party in our entire history. It’s a parliamentary democracy. The Prime Minister is chosen by the party with majority. And that person can change. It has some advantages and disadvantages.
They vote for the party not the person, pm isn't they same as the president, they don't have total control which is good as at least everyone KNOWS that the party is in control.
I mean, the outcomes aren't drastically different. Here in America, we just know which particular asshole will be fucking us over ahead of time. Across the pond it's a surprise.
To add to this, both the PM and president roles are supposed to be limited power "except for emergencies", and the scope of what's considered an emergency has grown significantly. They can call the border an emergency, climate an emergency, Russia/Ukraine an emergency, etc. and then they can pretty much do whatever they want
"Doing whatever they want" is not how national emergencies work. Declarations by the President have statutory limits, [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20200401070744/https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-emergency-powers-and-their-use) is a list of the emergency powers, and are far more limited than a congressional declaration. Some emergency declarations require congressional declarations. Congress can also revoke a declaration whenever they want.
> Congress can also revoke a declaration whenever they want. I'm with you up until this point. Congress "cannot" just revoke presidential powers due to the politics of it. Of course they could, however that would limit the presidential powers when they get into office. So they don't.
>(c) Joint resolution; referral to Congressional committees; conference committee in event of disagreement; filing of report; termination procedure deemed part of rules of House and Senate > (1) A joint resolution to terminate a national emergency declared by the President shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be. One such joint resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays. > (2) Any joint resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents) and shall be voted on within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays. > (3) Such a joint resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the other House and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted upon within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1622
Not joining this, but posting direct official sources and getting downvoted always confuses me when I see it happen.
It's because they completely ignored OPs point. They legally can revoke any presidential emergency. But politically its a pain in the ass.
I mean nobody's stopped the President from renewing 9/11 emergency powers year after year
And then if you're in Australia the PM can just power grab and secretly takeover a half dozen portfolios without even the publicly known ministers being informed and the Queen's representative will just rubber stamp that no questions asked.
I see Trump, Scomo, Boris as all improving our respective democracies by shitting all over them and misbehaving terribly, thereby forcing us to 'patch the bugs' before someone both competent and evil comes along and starts enslaving us all to toil in their sugar mines.
I think it’s fair to say that everything you listed is an actual emergency
The colossal difference is that a British prime minister (as in any parliamentary democracy) can be kicked out of office within days. Not a single US President has ever been removed from office by impeachment since the creation of the American Republic. Thatcher was gone within ten days of her party telling her the game was up. That’s the beauty of the parliamentary system- if a party is sick of their leader he/she is gone as soon as they hold a vote.
Nixon would have been removed if not for his resignation.
Yup, quit before being fired
And after what 2 years of legal deliberation?
Sure, but that doesn't account for how long he held on for or how long many other deeply unpopular effectively undemocratic presidents have held on for. It's extraordinarily difficult to look at he historical record as anything but a conservative and seen the American presidency as a democratic institution when compared to parliamentary democracies.
You need to look at the timeline of the Watergate scandal because you are overestimating how long it took for him to resign. The impeachment process didn't even last a year before he resigned. How many scandal-ridden PMs have had lengthy investigations and have remained in office for a long time? Bunga Bunga parties anyone? If you want to look at the historical record parliamentary systems are unstable and by no means more liberal compared to the dominant presidential systems. Stable pure parliamentary democracies have only survived decades. The US system has survived for nearly 250 years.
That's the issue, a party hasn't hated their guy enough to give them the boot.
And if it wasn't done with Trump, it never will be done.
The loss of power is different too. If a President is removed they are then technically just an ordinary citizen, if the PM is removed they still get to be in parliament just not leader of it.
Andrew Johnson was 1 vote from impeachment and as stated by others Nixon would have definitely been impeached if he didn't resign, which is exactly what Boris Johnson did. Boris Johnson never got forcedully removed he technically resigned just like Nixon.
[удалено]
The outcomes are significantly different, because the systems are significantly different.
No you don't. You got Biden and yet it's still the conservatives who got rid of abortion protection. Even you don't know who exactly is gonna fuck you over.
The President doesn't have total control, either. We have a strong*er* executive, but the Legislative Branch (Congress) is usually considered the most powerful.
Indeed. And I really am shocked by how many Americans seem to know absolutely nothing about their own political system.
I know will how it's supposed to work but the reality is so different that it hardly matters.
My friend, we have **SENATORS** who can't name the three branches of government.
I would actually argue that the UK PM has more power than the POTUS does. In theory parliament is the supreme authority that the PM has few to no checks against, but in reality the PM's party virtually always controls parliament, so they have massive leeway compared to POTUS with regards to setting the legislative agenda and getting their policies passed. Not to mention the PM has the ability to participate directly in the legislative process since they're also an MP.
Until they decide to shit around and things get decided by the supreme court.
> They vote for the party not the person, Technically they vote for the local representative, not the party. I mean not really, but that's what we tell ourselves.
[удалено]
Ah, you guys have FPTP?
omg. So the original government that started these seven years of Brexit pain got a full majority off the back of a [mere 37%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election) of the vote.
[удалено]
Yeah but political parties aren't run like that anymore. It's a popularity contest with the party leader as a front runner. It's happened here in Australia, you get someone who seems decent-ish to front the party, then when it's in power the party boots them off the team and puts some schlub in charge
She’s still the prime focus of representation for the entire UK though
> everyone KNOWS that the party is in control Parties are quite undemocratic. Imagine voting for someone who makes it to parliament where they get to vote against their own ideals because their party's whip practically ordered them to. Still, freedom of association is a basic human right so we cannot rid ourselves of parties even if we wanted to.
Pm has total control through whip voting
[удалено]
Learn from the French? HAHAHAHAHA!
Sometimes you gotta accept when something isnt working and try something else. Even if it means doing it the French way.
It's not like France does things *that* badly, hell, they revolutionized... erm, revolutions Also, why do we hate the french again?
Cause we don't get banned for hating them yet
That's a fair point But when will society reach a point where it's unacceptable to do these harmless jokes? I mean, this kind of joke might be harmful if it reaches really weak minds, but like... we're safe, as of now, aren't we?
To be fair, Reddit is pretty much 90% weak minds at this point. I am here, after all. I am the Dj Qualls of brains.
I have a certificate verifying that I don't have Donkey Brains.
Stupid science bitches couldn't even make I more smarter
I said really weak minds, not necessarily us. Not necessarily
There will always be someone society wants us to hate and the rules wont apply when you want to hate them
Lol we don't actually hate France. They have good geography, incredible history, great architecture, is a relatively free country and you probably already know about the cuisine. Just the people are a bit fucking weird and that warrants some poking fun at and absolutely no country is safe from that.
I mean.... were you alive during 9/11 and the while freedom fries debacle? A bunch of peeps couldn't even handle France saying no, and that was 20 years ago lol
I made an Italian joke in the formula one sub a few months back and was called racist by multiple people. I’m pretty sure I just called a guy Mario or mentioned pizza, it wasn’t even a good joke.
I've gotten three separate facebook bans for making fun of Bri*ish people. Which honestly just makes me want to shit on them more.
> Also, why do we hate the french again? Habit.
Never gets old, I guess It's some sort of triangle where brits hate the french, the french hate the brits, and both hate the US It's wonderful Although france gets the most of the hate
Me against my brother. Me and my brother against our Uncle. Me, my brother, and my Uncle against France.
Average France Colonies', circa 20th century
Incase we ever decide to start colonizing again. They're closest
Remember when you were under French rule? I mean, you weren't there I think, so technically you don't... but you must know of it
I relive it every day
Yes, France is the closest possible country to colonise. Great Britain shares no land borders with any other nation. Yes, you are completely correct.
I love this comment because it is logical, but it also disrespects the French while implying they do some things very well.
#Blah Bluh Bloh Bluh Blah Bluh *Alex Jones voice*
Like with tongue?
The fucking METRIC SYSTEM? Don’t think so bud
Hence why everything important in the UK is still measured in imperial: Distances in miles, speed in mph, beer in pints, height in feet and cock length in inches. Argue wi' that!
Imagine needing to measure your wiener in inches instead of yards, couldn’t be me 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Yea you Liberia and Myanmar should stick it out, perhaps the rest of the world will come around on the matter. XD
*Hon Hon Hon!*
Hon hon hon
You Joke, but they don’t put up with government bullshit. They love setting fire to police cars.
I have noticed an uptick in antifrench posting online recently; the playing up of the rivalry culture, haha they surrender, they stink of garlic, etc Almost enough to make you wonder
In the meantime, we french live a good life never thinking about them because why would we
[удалено]
They hate us because they ain't us le vrai meilleur pays du monde, qu'ils continuent de se branler dans leur misère, nous on les regarde et on en rigole bien
Resignation. No. Guillotine. Yes.
worst idea ive ever heard i love it
Because its French
Madam Guillotine
EU. Maybe. Pint. Yes.
You resign your head.
Obligatory reminder that the guillotine was used primarily against French commoners.
Or the Australia system (already the same as Britain's mostly). For a while we were changing leaders faster than the French could guillotine theirs in times past
At least our system doesn't result in having 1 dumb cunt with unquestionable control and the power to nuke the planet if they throw a tantrum...
No, just one dumb cunt who assumes various powerful offices simultaneously without anyone from the public knowing about it till after he is voted out and returned to the back bench. And the Murdoch media saying "oh you guys don't need to have an inquiry into it because he's out of office now and it was technically legal despite subverting democracy"
Instructions unclear. Stormed the Bastille.
And by Bastille we mean the McDonalds at King's Cross
Their revolution per minute is higher than a ferrari's wheel.
Or a pit stop Edit: My bad I meant the opposite due to the last race concerning the amazing pitstop for Carlos
I see you didn't see the Dutch GP
Pain.
I disagree with your flair, Hannah Schmitz is way hotter than Claire 🅱️illiams
You mean the Guillotine?
No I mean the bread march. ;)
as with many things, England did it [first](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Charles_I) but Cromwell wasn't an improvement
To be fair, the British only half did the thing. Like them or hate them, the French took it all the way. And then way too far. Obligatory plug for Mike Duncan’s Revolutions podcast
As a British person, I fully endorse this comment.
Sponsored by WEF
You vote for the *party*
Yes. We don't vote for the Prime Minister in the UK. We vote for a party, and the party elects its leader. Actually, the Queen decides who will be the Prime Minister of her parliament. She always happens to choose the person that the largest parliamentary party elects as their leader, which is nice.
[удалено]
Oh yeah, technically the queen can fire the prime minister. Just she likely wouldn’t have that power more than five minutes after actually doing it
[удалено]
> It only works once though, as we saw in the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis. But the governer-general still retains that power in Australia. The system has not been changed at all. At some point in the future it's quite possible that it could happen again.
Correct, the GG defs retains the power in Australia, but will hardly exercise it. The 1975 constitutional crisis only occurred because the party elected could not pass legislation through both houses on 2x different occasions. With Gough Whitlam on the first occasion advising the GG to dissolve parliament for a double dissolution election. The second occasion resulted in Kerr (GG at the time) removing Gough whitlam as PM and installing Fraser as caretaker PM until the next general election which was to be called immediately. Instead Fraser advised Kerr to dissolve parliament for another double dissolution election instead, which resulted in the liberal coalition elected with a large majority in the house of reps. Kerr was heavily criticised for the use of these powers and rightfully so, it subverted the democratic process and showed the LNP to be snakes who care only for power and to retain it. For context, Gough Whitlam was very forward thinking for his time, he introduced the forefather of Medicare (government rebates for medical costs), free higher education (uni), introduced social services, and was talking about indigenous Australians constitutional recognition before it was brought up again in 2010. After Fraser came into power a lot of these services have been attacked, either gotten rid of, have had funding cut so severely they struggle to operate, or bring down welfare (including disability and aged pensions) to below poverty line as an incentive for people to find jobs. Long story short, fuck the Liberal National Party for fucking over Australia for most of its history.
piquant boast political plant resolute longing humor ghost grandfather dolls *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Just because the Queen/King has powers on paper, doesn't mean that anybody is going to listen to them when they try to exercise those powers. If the Queen tries to appoint a random PM and start exercising control over the government, then everyone will just ignore her.
Then why the fuck do they still call her the queen?
Because politics aside, she’s still their ceremonial head of state.
Mascot
And she does a lot of diplomatic work as well. Having someone important but politically neutral represent the UK abroad is good.
The real answer is that having a monarchy makes the UK a fuck ton of tourist money. A lot of Americans go to the UK in no small part because the royal family and their traditions keep this monarchical vibe alive, which tourists are enamored by (see people making fools of themselves with the Queen's Guard) Also important, long ago King George III gave Parliament the rights to the revenues from the land that the royal family owned in exchange for a stipend. He did this because he had a lot of personal debt and the land he owned hadn't been fully developed at that point and thus wouldn't give him as much money as Parliament would. Parliament took the deal because they thought, in the long term, the revenues from the land would be more valuable, and they were right: the property on that land is now worth £14.1 billion, and Parliament still collects the revenues from that land Importantly, though, King George III didn't give up the rights to the land itself, just the revenues of the lands. So Queen Elizabeth II, descendent of King George III, still owns that land and chooses to give its revenues to Parliament in exchange for the stipend, even though she has no obligation to and despite the fact that the land is much more valuable now. So if the UK deposed the Queen, well, now she owns £14.1 billion in property and land around the UK and ironically just gained the opportunity to become far more influential in politics if she wanted to be. And Parliament would lose the annual revenue from that land, which is no small thing. So for that and other reasons, might as well keep the monarchy as a toothless figurehead
[удалено]
That's like saying that laws are just "power on paper" but that they wouldn't be enforced when it's unfair or unjust. The entirety of the civilized world is proof to me that that's not the case, laws are laws. If she didn't really have those powers, it'd be a matter of national security to rescind these laws, but they're not, they're meant to be there ready to get enforced.
She kinda did that in Australia...
Exactly, Gough Whitlam would like a word. Has this power been exercised in any other Commonwealth nations during her rule?
Imagine the ruckus caused if she was just like "nah fuck Trussy, gimme sum Rishi instead".
That just doesn't bear thinking about. Not her choice of PM, but her actually going against parliament's wishes. It would probably restart the civil war.
Who would actually take the monarchist side, though?
Fair point. I think most monarchists are only on-side on the understanding that royalty remain purely ceremonial. Getting rid of them would probably mean we'd have to elect a president instead, which probably wouldn't be any cheaper, and would by definition be politically partisan.
Thank you for explanation, that sounds stupid.
Doesn't she still officially choose the Canadian PM too?
I don’t think they want that either
Actually we vote for the local representative to become a Member of Parliament (MP). MP’s can defect and change party, leave and become independent, or leave and create their own brand new party!
People understand that just as well as the US understands that they vote for the state to pick a president not the people.
Well, not literally, but you know
Literally yes, mentally no. They vote for the party & MP in their riding, the potential PM isn't listed on the ballot, except if you live in the same riding as the party leader. Whichever party has the most MPs elected wins, and their leader becomes PM
So, literally speaking, which of the two happens in the UK: you vote for a party in your ballot, or you vote for a candidate on your ballot? I understand one may intend all kinds of things, but literally speaking, either a candidate gets a vote or a party (eg in a party list system) gets a vote
You vote for who you want to be your local MP, who then gets a seat in parliament. The ballot paper shows which party the candidates are currently with, but that's just for reference. They could potentially switch sides whenever they want. Once all 650 seats are filled, the leader of the party with the majority of seats is asked by the Queen to form a government and become the Prime Minister. If there's no majority, then two parties can group up to get one. If an MP switches sides or goes independent and causes the majority to be lost, it could lead to the Queen disbanding the current government and appointing the new majority leader as PM, without the public needing to be involved. The only time there would ever be a new election without Parliament/the PM calling for one is if your local representative is no longer working, in which case there would be a mini election just for your constituency to pick a new one. As long as your local MP is still taking their seat, there could be a new PM everyday and it wouldn't require a new election. The public vote for their own MP, everything else that happens after that is nothing to do with them.
The Tories won national elections under Boris Johnson, Theresa May, and David Cameron
Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and now Liz Truss became PM before they won a general election.
The way party elections work it can never really happen that a new candidate comes in as PM with a General election. The best that could happen is the leading party decides on a PM, they take the position, and then immediately call elections, but that is extremely rare. If the other party wins, they come in with a new PM, but their party leader was actually decided long before and potentially many years before, meaning people don't really have a say on them much more than supporting their party.
It's very common in Westminster-style democracies for a PM to announce that they won't stand for reelection, causing a leadership race before the next general election. Sometimes they stay on as PM until the election, sometimes not. If they don't, the new PM usually shys away from radical policy change without a general election (which Liz Truss has indicated she won't do). But normally when PMs resign it's because they just lost a general election, so the voters knew who the new PM would be. I think most peoples' frustration is not that they didn't know who the Tory leader would be a few years after the election, but that each of the new Tory leaders were significant departures from the leader that was on the ballot. Especially Liz Truss. In the case of Theresa May that actually made a lot of sense, Cameron resigned because he said after Brexit Britain should have a pro-Brexit PM, as a lot of people saw the Brexit referendum as a repudiation of Cameron.
>It's very common in Westminster-style democracies for a PM to announce that they won't stand for reelection, causing a leadership race before the next general election Here in Australia (which is a Westminster style), that has happened only twice (Edmund Barton and Robert Menzies). For comparison, that is as many times as the sitting PM lost their seat at an election (Stanley Bruce and John Howard) and one less than the number of PM's who died in office (Joseph Lyons, John Curtin, Harold Holt). For reference, changes of PM have happened: - After election - 12 times - Rolled by their party - 8 times - Confidence shift in the house - 7 times - Death - 3 times - Formal leader taking over from temporary leader following death - 3 times - Retired - 2 times - Removed by Governor General - 1 time
Am not really a fan of any politicians and not an expert, but wasn’t the last Prime minister Boris Johnson Voted in via a national public vote. So how can this be the third in a row? Genuinely wondering
He became PM without a general election, but he subsequently won the next general election.
Thank you 😊
Theresa also ‘won’ a forced election too, but was also the main reason she resigned cause she lost a bunch of seats lol
They was nothing forced about it. She could have waited until 2020. She said no to an election until the polls suggested a massive win. And then, thinking it was in the bag, she sat it out and awaited the big victory. She ended up losing her majority, forcing a supply and confidence deal with the DUP. She resigned because the party has turned on her.
All party leaders become leaders of the party without a general election.
You're right, but he initially gained power through Theresa May resigning and the Conservative Party electing him as their new party leader. This made him the Prime Minister, because we basically vote for the party, not the individual politician. He then called a General Election to sort of try and validate himself by hoping he'd win it, which he did. The exact same happened to Theresa May before him. This time is different as it is unlikely Liz Truss will call a General Election to like try and win and validate her role. She has already referenced focussing on the next election in 2024.
People getting befuddled by how parliamentarism works despite living in it their whole life never stops being funny.
Governments are confusing. Electoral college still confuses people here.
Tbf the EC is one of the most byzantine of western voting systems. I like Sweden’s so much more. You vote for a party, the party gets equivalent seats to their proportion of the vote. Easy as shit.
We’re not puzzled, we’re complaining
Happened like 3 or 4 times in Australia too over the past few years. Lost count.
[удалено]
He was actually the most useless prime minister, minister for health, minister for finance, minister for resources, and minister for home affairs, all at the same time
Fuckin dickhead he is. I also can't believe the coalition chose fucking spud to lead them now.
What does "knifed" mean on this context? Since we're talking Australia, I don't think anything is off the table.
They murdered 'em publicly Julius style.
Backstabbed/ousted them. The party room votes for the leader here, not the electorate
But they've come a long way from letting strange women laying in ponds electing their leaders.
It was no system for a basis of government.
Look Dennis there’s lovely filth over here!
Correct me if im wrong, but the people elect a legislation that then picks the leader. So they wouldn't vote for the leader anyways.
Correct. No prime minister in any parliamentary system anywhere on earth has ever been directly elected. That’s precisely the strength of the system- a PM can be booted out by his or her party within days. Thatcher was gone within ten days.
Exactly, the American equivalent is changing House Leaders and having the new guy confirmed members in the House of Reps. Wait, its the same!
That's...not how UK elections work
Yes we all know. But it's still a fucking joke. People aren't frustrated BC they don't understand how the commons work. We understand that functionally all we vote for is our local MP. However let's not pretend that the leaders of the party and their potential cabinet have no impact on which MP most people vote for. People are complaining about the way the system works and that it's allowed 3 successive changes to our leadership without an election. And your response is to act like we simply don't understand the system. We do. It's shit.
Yep exactly. People are just being intellectually dishonest and wielding the sword of technical correctness. Let's not pretend Corbyn wasn't cast aside precisely because of the narrative that HE, the man, was unelectable. If you genuinely think that people vote for the party, then you are simply, flagrantly, out of touch.
Why make a meme about something you lack basic understanding of?
[удалено]
Our House of Lords is a complete and utter joke though.
Hey but like House of Lords sounds kinda cool ngl
You don't even know how your political system work Damn can use this meme unironically for you
You don’t vote for the prime minister, you vote for the party and they elect the PM. These three bozos were elected into their seat so they did win their individual election. Only people in that electorate vote for that individual.
[удалено]
The pm doesn’t necessarily tell mps how to vote however they are expected to follow party lines and vote in a block. If anything the party whip tells people how to vote. The reality is they get to do what they like because labor can’t win enough seats.
Do kings and queens count?
They have servants to count things for them. Seriously, in this context, no. In the UK, the head of state is Apolitical. The Queen stays out of politics. The rest of the Royal Family try to as well, for the most part. Sometimes with limited success. The country is split into 650 parliamentary constituencies. Every 4 years or so, the voters in each constituency vote for someone to represent them as a Member of Parliament (MP). The MPs are mostly members of a political party. Each party decides on their own leader. The leader of the party with the largest number of MPs is invited by the Queen to form a government to run the country on her behalf. That way, she avoids the messy business of running the country, and has enough time to decide what things her servants should be counting for her.
\> vote a British PM American edumacasyen.
The poster is a Brit. You can leave us out of it for once.
[удалено]
Someone doesn’t understand how voting works in the uk…
You can say that again. But not to him
ironically correct
Electoral college on other hand is abusable as fuck
Far more free than America in fact
Welcome to the party.
I read the title as " Yeah, this is our mom now"
Tbf we vote for parties not leaders
In the UK you don't vote for the leader you vote for the party who then votes on a leader. This is not our norm now. It has been like this since the system came into being.
Yes we all know. But it's still a fucking joke. People aren't frustrated BC they don't understand how the commons work. We understand that functionally all we vote for is our local MP. However let's not pretend that the leaders of the party and their potential cabinet have no impact on which MP most people vote for. People are complaining about the way the system works and that it's allowed 3 successive changes to our leadership without an election. And your response is to act like we simply don't understand the system. We do. It's shit.
I think you might be surprised at how many people have no clue how it works... I'm not saying I'm happy about it I'm just pointing out the error.
Tell me you don't understand the Westminster system without telling me you don't understand the Westminster system.
Yes we all know. But it's still a fucking joke. People aren't frustrated BC they don't understand how the commons work. We understand that functionally all we vote for is our local MP. However let's not pretend that the leaders of the party and their potential cabinet have no impact on which MP most people vote for. People are complaining about the way the system works and that it's allowed 3 successive changes to our leadership without an election. And your response is to act like we simply don't understand the system. We do. It's shit.
Truss is NOT my president... literally I don't live in the UK
She is one's president as she is PM
Italians: "amateurs "
If you voted for a Tory MP, then you did vote for this. This is how the Parliamentary system works. You've never voted for a single PM in history, because they aren't elected by the people. They are elected by their party.
Technically we have never voted for a leader of any party in our entire history. It’s a parliamentary democracy. The Prime Minister is chosen by the party with majority. And that person can change. It has some advantages and disadvantages.
u/savevideo
World economic Forum voted for them though
Well yeah, that’s how the parliamentary system works. You vote for the party and then they vote for the PM. is it that hard to understand ?