Also shows how clueless the video maker is about the realities of the world. Without the Liberal Democrats joining the 2010 coalition we would still be fighting for same-sex marriage, there wouldn't have been a green investment bank or any investment in the environment, Brexit would have been in place much earlier, Hunt would have had free reign to tear up the NHS, the eduction system would have been torn to pieces, and millions of people would be paying much higher income tax without the raising of the threshold. And that's just a taster of the benefits of the Lib Dems being in that government.
It's astounding how convincing this could be if it was CGP Grey narrating it, you even got the music be uses! Also, I really like your style of presenting political topics, which primarily focuses on policy and economy, and uses factors of efficiency and fact rather than emotion and rhetoric. Keep up the good work!
@@loturzelrestaurant Yeah, I watch more than one news source lol. He said he tries to avoid modern political controversies and America because so many Americans on RU-vid. The Supreme Court has failed the world tbh, i can’t believe they tried to restrict climate change action. But my opinion doesn’t matter, overall he tries to avoid topics that divide many people I think.
Fun Fact: The Order of Precedence of the United Kingdom functions quite dissimilar to what you would imagine it to be when talking about who is the most senior and important member of the United Kingdom. Aside from the Royal Family, the person who has the highest precedence is... the Archbishop of Canterbury. Then, the second most important is the Lord High Steward, an office that hasn't had a permanent member in it since the 1400's. Next comes the Lord Chancellor, who actually manages the courts as well as basically everything else (until Blair gave them a massive nerf in 2005). Then the Archbishops of York and Wales withhold higher precedence than the Prime Minister, who immediately succeeds them in this list. I believe the main reason for why the Prime Minister is so low on the list is the fact that the Prime Minister's actual title is the 'First Lord of the Treasury', which is simply a member of HM Treasury. With the actual role only becoming permanent during the 1700's, likely centuries after the order of precedence was written. So if every important member of the United Kingdom was in a burning building, three bishops and two lords will be saved first before the Prime Minister. Which is honestly fine by me.
1. I love the CGPGrey format 2. Officially it's still entirely up to the monarch. It's just that the sane ones have the good sense to consult the government before appointing a newPM
It's not up to the monarch, not if they want money from the taxpayer. Savvy? Money has always been the monarchy's Achilles Heel in British History, and its the reason why we have a Constitutional Monarchy, rather an Absolutist one, and why the City of London has been a tax haven for almost a millennia.
@@vulpes7079 Sorta, the crown estates are indefinitely leased to the UK government for an annual rent. Humorously, the rent is less money than the gov. makes from the estates.
@@BigHenFor It is up to the Monarch, the Soverign Grant has no conditions of that nature and the Monarch can stop any debate or laws affecting them from even being tabled. The Monarch has two incomes: 1. A private/personal income (which doesn't have to pay tax but voluntarily does) this is from the privately owned property, the Dutchy of Lancaster and other holdings that is separate from the Crown. 2. A public income which comes through the Sovergin Grant (the tax payer) which is property and assets owned by The Crown. The Sovereign Grant is a percentage of the income (currently I believe 22%?) of the Crown Estate which is run by the government for profit in order to pay for the running of the Monarchy. Now the Crown Estate pays 100% tax on all profits (thus a tax payer) and then the government gives a percentage of this to the Monarch. That's why you see in the news The Crown costs the tax payer so much a year when in fact the The Crown actually pays the most tax and get a small rebate on their taxes and so doesn't cost any other taxpayer any money what so ever. We have a Head of State which is completely self funded which is very rare in the Western World and so is fantastic value for money. The reason there are two separate incomes is because essentially in legal terms The Crown and the individual who's Crowned a.k.a. The Monarch are two separate legal entities. Right now we have The Crown invested in Her Majesty The Queen Elizabeth II and the individual Elizabeth Windsor.
@@xanderbeutel9239 He joined in the coalition as jr partner in 2010, which in theory should obviously mean the LibDems had some influence over the Conservative government. But in practise he gave up on 90% of his campaign promises & just let the Conservatives govern as if they had a majority.
@@xanderbeutel9239 he ran a centrist party and went into coalition with the Conservatives, instead of labour who had more in common with his party. Then the conservatives basically ignored everything he wanted to do and the Lib Dems lost a huge amount of voters to the point of irrelevancy the next election.
Charles: "Alright, now I shall decide the prime minister." Charles: *"As your rightful king, seeing as I am the best suited for the task, I have elected myself as the prime minister."*
I don't think the monarch is allowed to stand for election to parliament -- it's his parliament remember. That's also the reason he can't vote in general elections
@@Gerishnakov some people still don't understand the nature of coalitions and working with others they don't agree with to get things done. They forget things like the Green investment bank, the retention of a limit on university fees, the increase in the income tax threshold and equal marriage amongst many other things in blind fury that their party lost an election and weren't proped up by a party that was fully independent and had its own priorities to fulfill.
In Australia (which has a very similar Westminister system), the deputy PM is more of an official role and is designated as the immediate temporary successor (no meeting of cabinet required) if the PM was to die suddenly. Of course, the deputy PM would only be a temporary 'caretaker' PM until cabinet/parliament would decide a more permanent PM. There have actually been three occasions when an Australian PM has died in office in the last 100 years (interestingly more than the UK). So, one would guess that Australia has had more experience with it. In all of which, the deputy PM was the immediate successor (but only temporarily). I do not know whether this would however apply to military command; I would imagine that that may fall on the defence minister or chief of staff.
In Canada, the role of the DPM is almost/Very similar. It was created in similar circumstances and it's "official" roles are very similar. Neat that both countries have similar origin stories on the role of the DPM. In terms of Succession, it's very similar, but the difference is that if the PM suddenly resigns/Post-Mortem then the Governor General (Queen's representative for Canada) would ask the governing party if they can replace him (which would have a Party election occur). If they cannot, then a general election will occur.
I'm surprised there was no mention of Harold Halt the Australian PM dying suddenly, since Australia follows a very similar system to the UK it would have provided some more modern context. In truth the Monarch (or Governor-General in Australia) chooses the PM, and the parliament only gets to reject the choice of the Monarch through a vote of no confidence. This leads to the PM always being someone with a majority of support among the elected members of parliament which seems fair, even if the unelected Monarch is the one who actually appointed them.
I mean, I suppose we can probably agree that's he's dead by now. Although declaring a prime minister dead without a body or witnesses to his death is probably some flavour of treason.
@@JacobBongers no. It was his #notSponsored Tesla road trip first and then he made a video about some random road in the USA. Which i think it's irresponsible. Since cars are hugely responsible for the impending climate catastrophe. I think we should be doing everything in our power to shift away from a car centric culture and embrace walkability, public transportation and trains. Also weird that grey lives in London, uses public transport and bicycles.
@@JacobBongers Grey always praise the high efficiency of robot and ai can achieve. His video such as best way to board a airplane, solving traffic and Human needed? It is a long running joke in Grey community that Grey is secretly an Ai trying to take over the world by brainwashed us mere mortal with a (RU-vid) video at a time Even his thumbnail is simply a gear piece
Huh. This is a front where Canada is actually a bit more prepared than the UK. Here if the Prime Minister were to die suddenly in the period between the death and the GG appointing a new PM officially, there is a ranked list of cabinet ministers for who takes over immediately as “Acting Prime Minister”, sorted by seniority for how long they’ve been on the privy council by default, but the Government can replace it with their own list (They usually do). So if the Prime Minister were to die in Canada, since an Acting Prime Minister immediately takes over according to the list, the Governor General doesn’t need to appoint anyone immediately. The Government Party MPs would then within a few hours or days meet in Ottawa and pick an Interim party leader to serve until an official leadership election of party members can be held, who would then be formally appointed and sworn in as PM.
4:11 I think this may have changed recently? The Fixed-term Parliaments Act (FTPA) was repealed in March, restoring the previous convention. I'm not familiar with that convention, although Wikipedia seems to suggest that if a government lost a vote of no confidence, the prime minister would be expected to call an immediate election, with a few days to clean up business in Parliament. That happened in 1979. Of course, if the prime minister refused to call an election, I'm not sure what would happen. I'm curious about the different scenarios that might entail. In any case, you probably know this, and having made the video 7 months ago, the law just changed in the meantime.
Basically, the options for what would happen if the PM didn’t ask the monarch for an election after losing a confidence vote are twofold: either the monarch would dissolve parliament regardless and call a new election or, if there was some alternative viable governing coalition, the monarch would appoint their candidate as PM
First I was wondering how fast that video was made and waited for the mentioning of current ongoings. Well, nicely timed I must admit. Yes, and I also realisied far to late that it was BritMonkey and not CGP Grey^^
Yeah, there are some issues with it. Like how the Monarch is not the Crown, and it is the Crown - the Executive arm of government via the Home Secretary, Secretary of State, and other ministers - who run things until a new Prime Minister is chosen from the Party with a majority in the House of Commons.
Repeat after me. The Cabinet has executive power, not the Prime Minister. That’s why there’s no line of succession, because there’s nothing to succeed. The only potential issue is where the PM has actual delegated ministerial powers. But usually UK PMs don’t have a particular portfolios. Even their official title doesn’t have sole responsibility, it’s been delegated to the Exchequer.
