UK General Election

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M

Matthew

Guest
#21
#21
resurrection33 said:
Does all the power rest in the House of Commons? What is the House of Lords? Does the monarchy have any power? What power does the prime minister have?
Click to expand...
To try and answer these I'll say the vast majority of legaslative power does reside with the House of Commons.
Now even after making an effort to learn I can't quite wrap my head around the House of Lords but I know they do something as they are a bigger chamber than the Commons, I know they are the upper house in the UK parliament like the Senate in the US but they don't do the same things.

The monarchy has no active political power but they play a cermonial role in government so in that sense the government can't function without the Crown as the Queen has to approve the formation and the dissolving of any government and the Queens speech each year at the start of the new parliamentry session lays out the governments agenda to the country.

The Prime Minister is in practical terms commander in chief like the US President, while in legal terms the Sovereign is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces the PM has power to order deployments and instruct and authorise the use of the UK's nuclear weapons.

The PM also makes all Crown appointments and advises on things like judicial appointments and knighthoods and other honours although some of these things require approval from other bodies, in the same way a Supreme Court Judge must be approved by the Senate.

There's a lot more that I can't remember right now. :)
 
resurrection33

resurrection33

Banned
#22
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#22
Matthew said:
I'm not so wise on the finer details so I could be wrong, but as I understand it the system here, like the US system doesn't gaurantee the party that wins the popular vote wins the election.

It is possible for a party to win more seats in the House of Commons but get less votes overall, this is again why the Liberal Democrats want to bring in proportional representation as their vote share doesn't come close to fairly reflecting their level of representation.

In the current situation, should the Liberal Democrats enter government with Labour that would mean the party who won the popular vote, the Conservatives, would be in oppositon.
I guess you could liken that scenario in very broad terms to Al Gore's run for the US Presidency because I understand he apparently won the popular vote but lost on the Electoral College.
Click to expand...
There is an important reason Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election:

Each state has a certain amount of electoral votes. They get one vote for each of their two Senators and one for each of their Representatives. The number of Representatives is based on the population of the state. In most states, whoever wins the election receives all the electoral votes. The electoral votes are added up at the end of the election, and whoever has the most votes wins the election—George Bush in 2000.

The reason we do it this way is because when the country was first formed, small states feared they would be dominated by large states. The only way to get them to join the union was to give them additional power. They did this by forming a Senate where each state has two votes, regardless of their population. In presidential elections, that means two additional electoral votes for each state, regardless of population.
 
M

Maddog

Guest
#23
#23
We've got a result. Gordon Brown has resigned and David Cameron has accepted HM the Queen's invitation to form the next government. We look set for a full Tory-Liberal coalition.
 
M

Matthew

Guest
#24
#24
resurrection33 said:
There is an important reason Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election:

Each state has a certain amount of electoral votes. They get one vote for each of their two Senators and one for each of their Representatives. The number of Representatives is based on the population of the state. In most states, whoever wins the election receives all the electoral votes. The electoral votes are added up at the end of the election, and whoever has the most votes wins the election—George Bush in 2000.

The reason we do it this way is because when the country was first formed, small states feared they would be dominated by large states. The only way to get them to join the union was to give them additional power. They did this by forming a Senate where each state has two votes, regardless of their population. In presidential elections, that means two additional electoral votes for each state, regardless of population.
Click to expand...
Yes I understand those reasons, that event was one of the things that triggered my desire to learn about politics in general, in the UK, the US and other European countries.
 
resurrection33

resurrection33

Banned
#25
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#25
Matthew said:
Yes I understand those reasons, that event was one of the things that triggered my desire to learn about politics in general, in the UK, the US and other European countries.
Click to expand...
What do you think of Winston Churchill?
 
M

Matthew

Guest
#26
#26
resurrection33 said:
What do you think of Winston Churchill?
Click to expand...
To speak honestly my knowldege of Winston Churchill is rather thin, in recent years I have focused more on gathering an understanding of modern day politics all over Europe and beyond to better understand what's happening now and while the political history of the British Empire is in large part crucial to that I have only recently begun focusing on that.

My only real knowledge of Winston Churchill is that of his leadership during World War 2, which of course commands a certain level of respect as good decisions and bad decisions aside in historical terms his leadership along with that of others was crucial to the Allied Forces winning that conflict.
I also know some biographical facts such as his militray service and some reagarding his political career both before and after the war.

So in terms of his whole life I am not knowledgable enough to have an opinion, but on the strength of what I do know my feelings are that of respect and pride.
 
resurrection33

resurrection33

Banned
#27
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#27
Matthew said:
To speak honestly my knowldege of Winston Churchill is rather thin, in recent years I have focused more on gathering an understanding of modern day politics all over Europe and beyond to better understand what's happening now and while the political history of the British Empire is in large part crucial to that I have only recently begun focusing on that.

My only real knowledge of Winston Churchill is that of his leadership during World War 2, which of course commands a certain level of respect as good decisions and bad decisions aside in historical terms his leadership along with that of others was crucial to the Allied Forces winning that conflict.
I also know some biographical facts such as his militray service and some reagarding his political career both before and after the war.

So in terms of his whole life I am not knowledgable enough to have an opinion, but on the strength of what I do know my feelings are that of respect and pride.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure I read a biography about him once. I see him as a person who stood up to Hitler, when others were unwilling to do so. I suspect he was not a saint, but he seems to me to be one of the more courageous people that history has to offer.

I also respect Charles De Gaulle, though I’m not sure Churchill or Roosevelt liked him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.