As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
The House of Commons - Brit Politics
APZonerunner
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Or can we solve anything by shouting and jeering at each other?
I'm quite a firm follower of politics here in the UK - more than the average citizen, I should imagine. I take the time to watch Prime Ministers Questions every week on BBC Parliament rather than picking up the best bits from newspapers and such, and I read a lot of political commentary too.
For anybody not from the UK, Prime Ministers Questions is a half an hour segment every Wednesday where MPs - members of parliament - can question the Prime Minister in the house of commons. The questions are pre-selected by the speaker of the house, but the PM isn't aware of what the questions coming at him will be. In addition to MPs, the leaders of the two biggest opposing parties from the last election (always the same two, mind) get questions - the larger party gets 6, and the smaller gets 2.
It's worth noting there's smaller sections too in the same day for questioning individual ministers onmatters they control. It's somewhat like having one of the US presidential debates every single week... and interestingly, for US people, John McCain had pledged to set up a US question time equivalent if he got elected.
The advantage of PMQs is that you can direct questions to your MP and your MP can attempt to get it asked in Question Time, direct to the Prime Minister. Indeed, often Question Time is taken up with small questions like "there isn't enough public transport in city x", and by bringing it direct to the PM's attention, things tend to happen.
Part of the reason I enjoy watching PMQs is because of the reactions. There's a wonderfully cruel, cold and rather British attitude in the house where people aren't afraid to call each other out in no uncertain terms and it means you get to see your leaders at their best and worst. While some political systems mean you only see politicans at their most prepared and best, in PMQs you can often see all the party leaders at their worst, too, unprepared, week-in, week-out.
However some people don't like PMQs. They feel the yobbish attitude in the house with lots of jeering, paper jiggling and whatnot (as parodied in Ali G the movie) sets a bad example, and the vision of all our leaders laughing, jeering and cheering at each other is one of the contributing factors to things like football hooliganism and gang violence because indeed in the house the three parties do look and act like three gangs.
What prompted me to create this thread was this: This week in PMQs Gordon Brown got annihilated for a slip of the tongue. Instead of saying "We not only saved the world's banking system," he said "We not only saved the world..." You have to watch this, because it's pretty funny:
Brown's Epic Slip Up
BBC Story here.
The response was epic, even by commons standards. Every major news agency picked up on it, and the man got picked apart for what was basically a slip of the tongue. While I think PMQs is great for weeding out the people without the brains or the backbone to lead (can you imagine Bush withstanding an onslaught like that?) I think sometimes.. it goes too far and becomes really just unsettling and childish. Sometimes, it perhaps even hinders our political process.
So... Discuss. Because I'm totally unsure.
I'm quite a firm follower of politics here in the UK - more than the average citizen, I should imagine. I take the time to watch Prime Ministers Questions every week on BBC Parliament rather than picking up the best bits from newspapers and such, and I read a lot of political commentary too.
For anybody not from the UK, Prime Ministers Questions is a half an hour segment every Wednesday where MPs - members of parliament - can question the Prime Minister in the house of commons. The questions are pre-selected by the speaker of the house, but the PM isn't aware of what the questions coming at him will be. In addition to MPs, the leaders of the two biggest opposing parties from the last election (always the same two, mind) get questions - the larger party gets 6, and the smaller gets 2.
It's worth noting there's smaller sections too in the same day for questioning individual ministers onmatters they control. It's somewhat like having one of the US presidential debates every single week... and interestingly, for US people, John McCain had pledged to set up a US question time equivalent if he got elected.
The advantage of PMQs is that you can direct questions to your MP and your MP can attempt to get it asked in Question Time, direct to the Prime Minister. Indeed, often Question Time is taken up with small questions like "there isn't enough public transport in city x", and by bringing it direct to the PM's attention, things tend to happen.
Part of the reason I enjoy watching PMQs is because of the reactions. There's a wonderfully cruel, cold and rather British attitude in the house where people aren't afraid to call each other out in no uncertain terms and it means you get to see your leaders at their best and worst. While some political systems mean you only see politicans at their most prepared and best, in PMQs you can often see all the party leaders at their worst, too, unprepared, week-in, week-out.
However some people don't like PMQs. They feel the yobbish attitude in the house with lots of jeering, paper jiggling and whatnot (as parodied in Ali G the movie) sets a bad example, and the vision of all our leaders laughing, jeering and cheering at each other is one of the contributing factors to things like football hooliganism and gang violence because indeed in the house the three parties do look and act like three gangs.
What prompted me to create this thread was this: This week in PMQs Gordon Brown got annihilated for a slip of the tongue. Instead of saying "We not only saved the world's banking system," he said "We not only saved the world..." You have to watch this, because it's pretty funny:
Brown's Epic Slip Up
BBC Story here.
The response was epic, even by commons standards. Every major news agency picked up on it, and the man got picked apart for what was basically a slip of the tongue. While I think PMQs is great for weeding out the people without the brains or the backbone to lead (can you imagine Bush withstanding an onslaught like that?) I think sometimes.. it goes too far and becomes really just unsettling and childish. Sometimes, it perhaps even hinders our political process.
So... Discuss. Because I'm totally unsure.
APZonerunner on
0
Posts
I personally think it's a fantastic idea, and I would kinda like to see something like that over here in the States. It helps keep the leader humble. I mean, what else could possibly be more humbling than having your peers point and laugh at you while on television for the whole nation (and now internet) to see?
Makes you think twice about doing something stupid or saying something you might later come to regret.
That said, the jeering might be a bit much in that particular clip, but at least there are some grown adults having a good time, right?
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
The whole fused legislature-executive thing is a fucking bust, imo.
It is better for the people to think to little of their leaders than to think too much of them. The UK is lucky that they have the former problem.
It doesn't replace real debate, but y'know.
It does away with 'talking point politics' and makes them speak like humans, which is nice. But on the other hand the jeering and such - sometimes it goes so far that I wonder if it should be allowed at all.
XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner
True its not as great as it could be thanks to the jeering, but thats just the way we operate in the UK. Does any other country have something similar I wonder? Perhaps the UK derived democracies.
Anyone remember that SNL sketch with PMQ, where Will Ferrell keeps asking "Whab about Oasis?"
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Except when that guy that looks like an imp pulled the fingers at someone.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
I really wish they'd stop all the jeering. I mean the debates can be pretty good and they make our politicians thinks a bit, but seriously, the jeering is ridiculous.
So, for Brown to slip up and talk about saving the world is funny as hell.
I'd honestly rather keep the jeering, because it makes it impossible (or at least difficult) for politicians to stand up and make meaningless noises instead of answering questions, which seems to be a consistent problem in US politics (I'm not basing this on anything concrete, it's just a vague impression that I have). The jeering allows opposition to call out people who have talked themselves into a corner, or been caught in a lie, and I think that serves a useful purpose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_time
Mostly commonwealth countries, but Japan has one too, bizzarely
The jeering is fantastic; it's not only consistently entertaining, it also keeps the lies and bullshitting at a tolerable level. Though the attached video does not show this, when the opposition starts to get rowdy the truth tends to come out, free of spin and easily understood by dumb proles like myself.
Blair has managed to pretty much completely neuter the House of Lords.
It can delay, or send back legislation to the Commons, but the Commons can now override that if it so chooses. The argument is basically that the Lords are unelected, so the Commons more accurately represents the will of the people, but personally I think that we could really use a second house with more teeth.
I find it extremely annoying, but there is really very little can be done. There are few politicians and political parties who would willingly get rid of a law which ensures that they can get the bills they wish to pass into law.
Unfortunately at the moment the teeth are growing back into the skulls of the owners due to decades on inbreeding.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
fixed.
I agree. The Lords are pretty ineffectual now. They been castrated before any alternative has been put in place to take over the role they play.
Personally I see the Lords as being grumpy old men afraid of change, but we need that to counter the plays of MPs who can't see further than the next election. An example being ID cards, which the Lords hate. Compulsory ID is generally a big nono but happens to have support for the moment. We need a bunch of senile old men telling us not to be so reactionary.
If you take the view that politics is the battle between progressive change and traditional conservatism, the balance has shifted to far towards the Commons for my likeing, and I'm not even conservative.
I'd agree with this. I remember that when the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was being debated -for those unfamiliar with it, this is the wikipedia summary:
-it was the Lords in which there was actually some debate of substance on the matter. In the commons anyone who voiced concerns was basically shouted down with "You're not on the side of the paedophiles and the terrorists are you?".
I think that the neutering of the Lords is one of the most significant factors in how much Orwellian crap Blunkett and now Jacqui Smith have managed to get passed.