UK government in historic first

[B5B7]

For the first time in British history the government has been found in contempt of parliament. The Brexit mess continues.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/ ... 19741.html

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I didn't know that was even a thing until this week.

[Elheru Aran]

But how does that even work? Isn't Parliament the government? (American here)

[DaZergRock54444]

Based on vague context clues (also Yank), I gather that the government is basically the Prime Minister and her Cabinet.
Brits are more than welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Gandalf]

Put simply, the government is simply the party (plus any coalitions) which has enough seats in the legislature to form a majority. Once they have this majority, they "form government," and can fill positions like PM, Cabinet, etc.

It's a pretty good system overall.

[Formless]

But how does that even work? Isn't Parliament the government? (American here)

My understanding (also as an American) is that the word "government" can mean two things under a parliamentary system. On the one hand, it can mean the same thing as here, the system of power that governs the nation. But because all the ministers, bureaucrats and other governing officials in the Prime Minister's cabinet are voted in all at once in a single vote, what we would call the Administration (as in, the Trump administration, the Obama administration, the Bush administration, etc.) can also be referred to as the government. I think in some countries parliament can also undergo radical changes in a short period of time as well. Basically, a voting year in Britain (or any year in a country where the government can be removed by the electorate through a Vote of No Confidence) can bring about quite radical policy changes relative to our system because so many people are being cycled out at once. Our voting cycle here in the States is staggered specifically to ensure there is a greater sense of continuity between presidential administrations, and Congress always retains half of the Senate and House in a voting year, so it makes little sense in our system to talk about the government this way. Moreover, most of the nation's bureaucracies and agencies like the Justice Department, Federal Trade Commission, EPA, NASA, and so on are part of the Executive branch of government, but most of their employees and bureaucrats remain in office between presidents. Again, this keeps a sense of continuity between administrations, although the President has power to hire and fire many of those officials (how we got an industry stooge like Chairman Pai in charge of the FCC, for instance). The government evolves over time, but for better or worse it can never change as quickly as most European governments can no matter if the people want them gone or not.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Put simply, the government is simply the party (plus any coalitions) which has enough seats in the legislature to form a majority. Once they have this majority, they "form government," and can fill positions like PM, Cabinet, etc.

It's a pretty good system overall.

And it was May's ill-advised election last year that put the DUP in a kingmaker position since the Tories lost enough seats they couldn't form a majority without them. And since the DUP has the greatest stake in the NI border, May cannot simply ignore them like she could have done before since she needs them more than they need her.

[madd0ct0r]

But how does that even work? Isn't Parliament the government? (American here)

My understanding (also as an American) is that the word "government" can mean two things under a parliamentary system. On the one hand, it can mean the same thing as here, the system of power that governs the nation. But because all the ministers, bureaucrats and other governing officials in the Prime Minister's cabinet are voted in all at once in a single vote, what we would call the Administration (as in, the Trump administration, the Obama administration, the Bush administration, etc.) can also be referred to as the government. I think in some countries parliament can also undergo radical changes in a short period of time as well. Basically, a voting year in Britain (or any year in a country where the government can be removed by the electorate through a Vote of No Confidence) can bring about quite radical policy changes relative to our system because so many people are being cycled out at once. Our voting cycle here in the States is staggered specifically to ensure there is a greater sense of continuity between presidential administrations, and Congress always retains half of the Senate and House in a voting year, so it makes little sense in our system to talk about the government this way. Moreover, most of the nation's bureaucracies and agencies like the Justice Department, Federal Trade Commission, EPA, NASA, and so on are part of the Executive branch of government, but most of their employees and bureaucrats remain in office between presidents. Again, this keeps a sense of continuity between administrations, although the President has power to hire and fire many of those officials (how we got an industry stooge like Chairman Pai in charge of the FCC, for instance). The government evolves over time, but for better or worse it can never change as quickly as most European governments can no matter if the people want them gone or not.

The govement also include the civil service members who provided the technocratic competentcy and the continuation between the different ministers in the same role. The humpheries.

[Coop D'etat]

Put simply, the government is simply the party (plus any coalitions) which has enough seats in the legislature to form a majority. Once they have this majority, they "form government," and can fill positions like PM, Cabinet, etc.

It's a pretty good system overall.

Its a subtle distinction, but technically the Government is only the party MPs who are serving as ministers. The backbenchers are supposed to be distinct from the government and suppposedly its part of their role to conduct oversight of he Government.

This distinction is frequently lost by high party loyalty backbenchers acting like they are a part of the government, but its supposed to exist in the Westminister system.

The functional equivalent American term to a Westminister government is a President's administration, rather than the US government as a whole.

[Gandalf]

Ah, in Australia it's treated slightly differently to the UK it seems.

[Elheru Aran]

OK, so what does "contempt of Parliament" mean in this context? I'm aware that people can be held in contempt of Congress here in the States, but that's like when a Congressional committee wants someone to answer questions and they refuse. What does it mean when a large chunk of Parliament, is held in contempt of... itself? What are the consequences, basically?

[Bedlam]

Basically Contempt of Parliament means that you have been taking actions to try and stop Parliament from carrying out its function. It included refusing to appear before a committee or refusing to testify, lying to or trying to bribe a MP or failing to provide requested information.

In this case by not providing details of the legal advice provided in relation to the Britexit agreement it was found that the government (more or less the PM and cabinet) was preventing the rest of the MPs from having the information they would need to debate and vote on the agreement. I don't know what legal steps can be taken against the somewhat nebulous 'government' but individual MPs can be suspended or expelled (or locked up in Westminster Clock Tower, but that's rather out dated), non MP's can be imprisoned for it. In this case the practical side has been that the requested information was quickly provided to parliament.