Pinned post
We own Parliament. So how did we lose control of it?
Follow the chain of command.
What power do you really have?
…
Chain of command:
Citizen: “We have to fix this problem.” (E.g., pollution in a river.)
Go to local government. They say: “No rules or laws are being broken. We cannot fix this problem.”
Go to your MP. Your MP agrees with you: “We need a new rule.” (E.g., a law banning the pollution of the river.)
The MP drafts a new law and presents it to Parliament.
This is where it gets interesting, because now we see who controls the government.
…
The MP can freely present it, briefly, to the other 649 MPs in the House of Commons.
It then goes through a back-and-forth process to refine it, and a majority vote by the MPs makes it law.
So, in short, the ultimate authority is the majority vote of the MPs who sit in the House of Commons. This is crucial to understanding NewCommons, but let’s leave that for now.
In practice, what happens to this new law? Who is in charge next?
No vote on the law itself takes place until its Second Reading. So who, or what, determines whether that happens? What is the next level of power?
An internal office, run by MPs, called the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons.
It writes the schedule, deciding which laws will be discussed. It has the power not to put something on the agenda.
It literally decides what the government considers doing.
So who runs this office?
An MP with the title “Leader of the House of Commons”.
Who appointed them?
The monarch.
But wait, surely not? We stripped the monarch of such power long ago.
Formally, yes. In practice, the monarch can only appoint the person they are told to appoint.
By whom?
The Prime Minister.
So the Prime Minister essentially controls the Office of the Leader of the House and therefore the agenda.
The power to enact this new law essentially lies with the Prime Minister.
….
Right, so who is the Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister is an MP given the title “Prime Minister”. By whom? The monarch again?
The same principle applies. The monarch does not personally choose whoever they want. They must appoint the person capable of commanding the confidence of the House of Commons, normally the leader of the party with a majority of MPs.
So, in practice, the majority of MPs determines who can be Prime Minister.
…
This is where theory and principle meet reality.
In principle, power in the House of Commons is divided equally between 650 MPs. Any of them can present a law, and all of their votes are equal when deciding whether to pass it.
However, the mechanism Parliament uses to organise itself, the Prime Minister and so on, concentrates that power into the hands of a small number of MPs.
This isn’t necessarily a problem. Parliament has to organise itself somehow, and the authority of these individuals ultimately depends upon the support of the other MPs.
It’s a genius system…but…what is really going on?
Follow the chain of command.
What power do you really have?
…
Chain of command:
Citizen: “We have to fix this problem.” (E.g., pollution in a river.)
Go to local government. They say: “No rules or laws are being broken. We cannot fix this problem.”
Go to your MP. Your MP agrees with you: “We need a new rule.” (E.g., a law banning the pollution of the river.)
The MP drafts a new law and presents it to Parliament.
This is where it gets interesting, because now we see who controls the government.
…
The MP can freely present it, briefly, to the other 649 MPs in the House of Commons.
It then goes through a back-and-forth process to refine it, and a majority vote by the MPs makes it law.
So, in short, the ultimate authority is the majority vote of the MPs who sit in the House of Commons. This is crucial to understanding NewCommons, but let’s leave that for now.
In practice, what happens to this new law? Who is in charge next?
No vote on the law itself takes place until its Second Reading. So who, or what, determines whether that happens? What is the next level of power?
An internal office, run by MPs, called the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons.
It writes the schedule, deciding which laws will be discussed. It has the power not to put something on the agenda.
It literally decides what the government considers doing.
So who runs this office?
An MP with the title “Leader of the House of Commons”.
Who appointed them?
The monarch.
But wait, surely not? We stripped the monarch of such power long ago.
Formally, yes. In practice, the monarch can only appoint the person they are told to appoint.
By whom?
The Prime Minister.
So the Prime Minister essentially controls the Office of the Leader of the House and therefore the agenda.
The power to enact this new law essentially lies with the Prime Minister.
….
Right, so who is the Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister is an MP given the title “Prime Minister”. By whom? The monarch again?
The same principle applies. The monarch does not personally choose whoever they want. They must appoint the person capable of commanding the confidence of the House of Commons, normally the leader of the party with a majority of MPs.
So, in practice, the majority of MPs determines who can be Prime Minister.
…
This is where theory and principle meet reality.
In principle, power in the House of Commons is divided equally between 650 MPs. Any of them can present a law, and all of their votes are equal when deciding whether to pass it.
However, the mechanism Parliament uses to organise itself, the Prime Minister and so on, concentrates that power into the hands of a small number of MPs.
This isn’t necessarily a problem. Parliament has to organise itself somehow, and the authority of these individuals ultimately depends upon the support of the other MPs.
It’s a genius system…but…what is really going on?
