The Queen is the constitutional Head of State and carries out ceremonial duties. She has few powers, and those she has she uses sparingly and only on the advice of the prime minster. She does what the government of the day requires her to do. The Queen is non-political and it is important that she and her immediate family remain that way.
The Government is formed by the party who win the majority of the 646 seats in the House of Commons (Parliament). If no one party wins a majority a coalition ot working agreement can be formed with another party to achieve a majority for most purposes.
The Prime Minister is chosen by the majority party and is the leader of that party in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister then appoints his Ministers and junior Ministers from his elected colleagues. Secretaries of State (and other senior Ministers) form the Cabinet, the inner group which forms the executive of the country. All elected members of Parliament sit in the House of Commons and take part in debates on legislation put to the house. Proposed bills are presented to the House (technically, any member can do this, but usually the only bills likely to get a reading are Government bills). This is called the first reading and the bill is debated. The house then votes on whether to send the bill to Committee stage (for greater scrutiny) or reject it (send it back to the author to re-think). After Committee stage the bill is presented for its second reading, further debated and the final draft submitted to the Upper House (the House of Lords) who also debate it. If they approve the bill it is passed into law. It may look like a long drawn out, and unwieldy process, but it does actually produce good law.
The Judiciary in Great Britain is entirely non-political. Judges are drawn from the upper echelons of the legal profession.
Law in Great Britain can be made two ways; either by legislation or by judicial ruling. I hope that helps you.
I understand that the Judiciary is an independent body and that the lower and upper house in Parliament is the Legislative Body. But my question was this. If the Queen is not elected to the office of executive and the Prime Minister is not elected to the office of executive, then perhaps there is no such office in British Govt, although you seem to think that the Cabinet take that office upon themselves they do not campaign and run for the Cabinet (Executive) as such, as the U.S.Presidential candidate runs for that particular office, in an election, so perhaps your assumption is not correct and the Cabinet is not the Exec. Perhaps the British Govt. only have two levels of govt, and why not? ,why would a third be needed if the legislature runs the country ? After all the U.S. president is not elected directly by the people, but by the College of Cardinals known as the Electoral College. This is because, the view seems to be, that the people cannot be trusted to make a sound judgment.NOTEIn Britain the actual head of the Executive is the Prime Minister. The office certainly exists, otherwise there would be chaos. He or she must be able to form an administration and **must have a majority in the House of Commons sufficient to get (most) legislation passed**. In effect, the Prime Minster is elected. At the time of a general election, the leaders of the various parties are known and it is something electors take into account when voting. The entire government forms the Executive (of about 100 members plus), and the Cabinet (with about 20-25 of these) is an inner clique.
If a Prime Minister resigns, dies or is ousted while in office, his party then chooses a new leader. In such a case, the majority party elects a new leader (unless the outgoing Prime Minister has been thrown out on a vote of no confidence - which is extremely rare. It has only happened twice in the last 130 years). Obviously, a Prime Minister who is elected mid-term by the majority party hasn't been popularly elected. However, the assumption is that the party will have the sense to elect someone likely to win the next general election.
There is a feature of the American system that is not acceptable in the British 'constitution', namely this: in Britain it is regarded as intolerable to have a Prime Minister who cannot get most legislation through Parliament. So the situation that can arise in the U.S of a President at loggerheads with either or both House of Congress is unacceptable in Britain.
The implications of this are very far-reaching. It means that in Britain there are almost NO 'checks and balances' on the power of the Prime Minister, provided he or she retains a majoirty in Parliament.
It is sometimes said that Britain is an 'elective Dictatorship', the 'elected dictator' being the Prime Minister of the day. Bear in mind that far-reaching changes in legislation of a kind that would count as a constitutional change in most countries can be passed by a simple majority in Britain.
Having said that, some laws are regarded as more fundamental than others, and in last few years there has been increasing use of judicial review.
Also. all the more senior judges are full-time, as in other countries.
The U.S. president is not elected by the people, (popular vote), but by the College of Cardinals known as the Electoral College. This is because, the view seems to be, that the people cannot be trusted to make a sound judgment"
The Electoral College system is set up to keep a few states from having a monopoly on the selection of President. By giving each state one elector for each Congressman, they are represented in proportion to their population by the number of Representatives but tilted a little to the less populated states since each state has two Senators. If the President were elected strictly on the popular vote, he could be selected by New York, California, and a few large cities between. Voters in Montana and Nebraska wouldn't even be noticed. What I see wrong with this system is the fact that each state decides how to select (elect or appoint), and commit (proportional to popular vote, all for the candidate selected by the majority, or not committed to either candidate).
Yes, Britain does have separate Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government. The fact that the monarch as head of the Executive is not elected does not alter the fact of the 3 branches existing.
Part of the legislative branch is not elected either, the House of Lords, notwithstanding the Blair reforms.
The Prime Minister does not become second in command of the Executive until invited by the Monarch to form a government. Being the leader of the largest party does not confer that role, as such a person may not command an overall majority in the Commons. It is possible, but contrary to convention, that even a person commanding an overall majority would not be invited to form a goverment.
It is possible, although most unsatisfactory, to govern Britain without making new laws, so without control of the Commons. This would be a short-lived government, as the Commons has control of the taxation revenue, and only it can grant "supply", that is, the funds to govern.
The monarch retains the "reserve power" to fire the Prime Minister. Australia has the same form of government, and there the monarch's functions are carried out by the Governor-General. In 1975, Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed sitting Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, so the monarch's functions are not merely ceremonial.
To become law, legislation must pass through the House of Commons and the House of Lords and then be approved by the monarch. It is highly unlikely, but not impossible, that some monarch might refuse to sign a proposed law (called at this stage a Bill) in which case it would not become an Act, and therefore law.
Therefore the monarch has roles in both the Executive and Legislative branches. So do all ministers.
As in the USA, a law must pass both upper and lower houses. In the US the Senate can block legislation. In the UK, since 1911, the Lords cannot. If a Bill passes the Commons 3 times it becomes law even if rejested by the Lords.
If we consider the judiciary we find the familiar lack of separation. The Attorney-General is the head of the legal profession and appoints the judges, although not being one. The Attorney-General is usually a MP and often a Minister. The safeguard is that once judges are appointed they cannot be dismissed, nor their salaries or conditions reduced.
Nearly all members of the government are also members of one of the two houses of Parliament.
In short, the British arrangements lack the very clear division of powers that characterizes the U.S. Constitution (and some others). There is a certain fuzziness.
The legislative branch in England is known as Parliament. It does essentially the same thing as the US Congress, except that its members may serve in the Executive Branch (Prime Minister and ministers) without resigning their elective offices.
In the United States, the executive branch is under the President who is separate from the legislative branch. In England the executive branch is a part of Parliament and made up of members of the Legislature. Americans think their way is better and Englishmen think their way is better. Both ways have advantages and disadvantages.
It is the Parliament.
It was and remains the ruling body of the country
parliament in England
Parliament - the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Parliament, comprised of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.komalakamug
It depends on the government of your particular nation or political unit as to why parliament would be called the legislative branch. Some nations such as The United States, France, and others use a government divided into three distinct parts. The United States uses a President for the chief executive to run the government. Congress passes the laws and approves financing. And the courts take care of trials and legal matters. Sometimes in that type of system the branch that passes the laws is called Parliament. In the British System, Parliament appoints the government, passes the legislation, and votes on financial matters. So, in England Parliament serves as both the legislative branch and executive branch. It both passes legislation and supervises the government.
The basic difference between the governments of England and the United States is in the in the Executive Branch. England has no executive giving the political head of the government to the Legislative Branch. The Prime Minister is considered the head of state.
In democratic countries Parliament makes laws -i.e the legislative power belongs to Parliament. All the citizens after the age of 18 have the right to vote. They vote for their representatives in the parliament (in England, for example, they are called MPs). So citizens take part in legislation indirectly- though their representatives.
In the US it is collectively referred to as Congress. Congress is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the US government the legislative body is referred to as Congress. In England, the legislative body is parliament.congress
Beginning with the Magna Carta, signed by King John at Runnymeade in 1215, Parliament began to use its legislative powers.
Colonists were "outside the realm" of England, connected only by separate ties to the crown and beyond the legislative jurisdiction of Parliament.
Parliament of England ended in 1707.
England has no parliament of it's own, however the UK's parliament is located in London, England. The building where the UK parliament sit is called Westminster Palace.
Edward I established the Parliament in England.
The legislative body of the United Kingdom is called Parliament. It is formally known as the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island but is also called the UK Parliament, the British Parliament, or Westminster (where it is located in London, England).This is not the same as the English Parliament, which some voters in England have been strongly lobbying for since 2012. A devolved English Parliament would give the English voters individual representation in the UK Parliament, similar to the representation that Scotland, Wales, and Northern Island have in the UK Parliament. A devolved English Parliament does not exist at this time so when speaking about the English Parliament, most people are referring to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.The UK Parliament possesses legislative supremacy over all other political bodies in the UK. It is bicameral, meaning it has an upper house known as the House of Lords and a lower house known as the House of Commons. The current Sovereign, Elizabeth II, is the third component, though she is more of a figurehead as the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy with legislative powers held by Parliament.
to prevent the misuse of powerIn England, the King traditionally held most of the power of government executive, legislative and judicial power, along with a parliament made of up a powerful House of Lords (constituted of landholders who inherited their membership) and a weaker elected House of Commons. (Note that although the House of Commons in the modern United Kingdom now holds almost of the legislative power and the Prime Minister the executive power, this evolved in the 19th and 20th centuries and was not the case at all in 1789).When the US Constitution was written in 1789, the drafters feared placing too much power in the hands of single President, going so far as to consider a three-person executive, before settling on our current system. They separated the power of making law (legislative power) from the power of enforcement and administration (executive power) in order to prevent any one man from taking on the characteristics of a king.Although the high courts of many nations overlapped with the other branches of government (the House of Lords being the Supreme Court of Great Britain, for example), the drafters also saw wisdom in creating an independent judiciary, nominated by the President and ratified by the Senate.
2 houses where? england: house of lords and house of commons....U.S.: senate and hous of representatives make up the legislative branch...(president=executive, legislative= house of reps and senate, judical= supreme court and congress??? not sure if i have that right. please edit if not...)
the Legislative forum is known in England as Parliament. There are two "Houses" of Parliament, the House of Commons and House of Lords. Every word of every speech and debate is reported on a daily basis by a company called Hansard. Daily Debates from Hansard are published on this website the next working day by 6am on the Parliament's web site. In the US it is in the Congressional Record that is published regularly.
In the United States government, there is only one legislative branch, but it is divided into two sections-- the Senate (100 senators), and the House of Representatives (435 representatives). But other countries have their legislative branch set up in different ways--for example, in England, there is the House of Lords and the House of Commons.none, there are three branches of goverment, and they are executive, legislative, and the judical branch.
The queen is the recognized head of England. The national legislature is made up of parliament. Parliament makes the laws in England.