24

The principal power of the Church of England in the House of Lords is vested in the Lords Spiritual - Church of England bishops who are granted seats in the House. Since the Bishopric of Manchester Act 1847, the number of Lords Spiritual has been set at 26. Five of these seats are granted automatically - the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops ...


10

In Germany, the government is required to answer written kleine Anfragen by members of parliament in writing. That has the same purpose as an oral question, but it lacks the cut-and-thrust of parliamentary debate. On the other hand, the written format should make it harder to gloss over messy details (governments still try, of course). There have been ...


7

Yes, this form of words is the expected formula to recognise the chair. The use of formulaic speech is part of the decorum of debate. As is well known, debate in Westminster can be pretty cut-and-thrust. These fixed expressions help remind everyone to be polite, to address the chair (not the opponent) and remember that it is a debate, not a brawl. ...


7

Such precedents are of interest, but are in no way binding. That follows from the constitutional principle of Parliamentary supremacy, which prevents Parliament from binding a future Parliament. That being the case, there's no way that a decision of Parliament, or the executive, in another country can be binding. In the case at point, an attempt to ...


7

Summary The parliaments of Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have weekly Question Time when government ministers answer oral questions. In Sweden, the Prime Minister attends Question Time once per month. For Denmark and Finland, the regularity of Prime Minister attendance is not clear to me. Hence the question is based on a false premise. Premise In OP's ...


6

Questions to the Prime Minister is a fairly modern innovation, dating back only to the 1960s. There has long been a tradition that MPs could ask questions of each other with the Speaker's permission, and typically there would be some time set aside each day for questions to Ministers of the Crown. But it was ad hoc, and if Parliamentary time was short there ...


6

No, it's not unique. France's Assemblée nationale has one or two weekly sessions for oral questions to the government. They were introduced with the current constitution (1958) and the format evolved over time. Questions are now time-limited but otherwise very free (whereas other business has to obey stricter rules on etiquette and process). The government ...


5

This seems to be only used in Australian English. It is not known in British English, and comments here suggest it is "alien to Canadian political discourse". In Britain, soft questions and sycophantic questions are common (but tend to get jeered) The government is not supposed to actually plant questions, and Speaker Bercow did warn the government back ...


3

Austria also has something similar, where at the beginning of each plenary sitting of the parliament, there can be1 a so called "Fragestunde/Question Time": During Question Time, which takes place at the beginning of plenary sittings, all Members of Parliament may address oral questions to members of the Federal Government. Once the government ...


3

Not all Shadow Ministers and Ministers are members of the Shadow Cabinet and Cabinet, only the most important roles within Government are Cabinet roles. Cabinet Ministers are those that fill the top 20 or so most important roles in Government, the precise number varies, for instance the Minister for Exiting Europe role did not exist before the referendum. ...


2

There is not an official record. In response to a request in 2013 for a list of free votes the then Leader of the Commons responded: Whipping is a matter for individual parties and not a matter that the Government can comment on. Neither Parliament nor the government keep an official record of which votes have been whipped. Moreover, as the weekly ...


1

To support the notion that this is a relatively common occurrence in parliamentary democracies everywhere, the website of the Estonian parliament, Riigikogu, says that there's a weekly Question Time there with both ministers and the PM taking part: Besides adopting legal acts, the Riigikogu is responsible for supervising the activities of the executive ...


1

In short, yes, the leader of the opposition is free to choose who ever he wants to be in his shadow cabinet. The Shadow cabinet has no legally defined position. It is purely a matter of effective opposition to have someone responsible for shadowing each government position. Similarly there are no required positions in the Cabinet (To be exact, there is no ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible