England's political spectrum (basics)?
Please help a yank better understand the political relationships between England and the U.K. In turn, this tread could possibly enable members of this forum, (if they're interested), to better understand the USA.

All UK parliament districts, similar to U.S. Congressional districts, are equally represented by their members within U.K.'s Parliament?
Similar to the relationship between United States of America's federal government and our 50 states, U.K. nations are all sovereign constitutional democracies; but in regard to international and many domestic matters, U. K's laws are the supreme laws?
(I find it easier to understand other nations in comparison to my own nation).

Theoretically, the king may veto a U.K parliament's passed law? In practice, does this happen? The president of the USA has such power, it's not unusual for our presidents to exercise such power, and it's not unusual for our congress by 2/3 majority to “override” president's veto. Does UK's parliament and/or House of Lords have any similar overriding power? How often has that been attempted?
Respectfully, Supposn

Theoretically, yes, in practice, hasn't happened for three centuries

Sixfour, thank you. This Yank appreciates all informative responses. Respectfully, Supposn

I've sometimes viewed videos of the Prime minister and UK's version of the U.S. President's cabinet, being directly questioned by members of parliament.

In the USA, the president or the president's press secretary may, if and when they choose to, answer direct questions from reporters (assigned by their employees, and accredited by the president's administration. They may choose to which questions and which reporters they wish to favor with a response. There's also the less than clear question of congressional committee's authority to summon and demand government's administrators sworn testimony).
I personally consider the UK's method as the superior method.

I suppose a UK government could refuse to respond to a question or topic for reasons of national security.
But similar to U.S. Criminal law that does not require the accused to testify contrary their own wishes and interests, Britain's voters, similar to a USA jury, are free to draw their own conclusions as the reason for the accused choosing not to be subject to questioning. Respectfully, Supposn

Forward overdue tea tax for more answers.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...itics-1744587/

Every British parliamentary constituency is represented individually by one Member of Parliament on a winner-takes-all vote. There is no 'proportional representation' allowing people into Parliament, just because their party scored a certain percentage of the vote, without direct election by local constituents.

Not exactly. The United Kingdom is the sole sovereign power. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have 'devolved' regional parliaments with limited powers, certain important constitutional powers being reserved to the central parliament at Westminster (as the Scottish nationalist government has just found out, the Supreme Court telling them they do not have the authority to order a referendum on independence without the London government's say-so).

No Sovereign has refused Royal Assent to a Parliamentary Bill since Queen Anne rejected the Scottish Militia Bill in 1708, because some Scots were still 'Jacobites' in sympathy with the exiled former king James Stuart. As James II, he had been thrown out of the country in the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 after he suspended Parliament and tried to rule by Royal decree. (The revolution led to the famed Bill of Rights of 1689 on which the US Bill of Rights was substantially based.) James's sister Mary and her Dutch husband William, Prince of Orange, were installed by Parliament as co-regents instead. After they died, Mary in 1694 and William in 1702, Mary's sister Anne became Queen. The former James II had died in exile in 1701, but partisans of his son, also James, born only in 1688, kept agitating to put him on the throne, a game that went on for so long that the son eventually became known to history as 'The Old Pretender'. At the age of 20 in 1708 he was supposedly in command of an invasion fleet launched from France with French collusion, hence Queen Anne's nervousness and annoyance over the whole Jacobite issue. The French Jacobite fleet encountered bad weather, and interception by the Royal Navy, and didn't get anywhere. The Old Pretender was the father of 'Bonnie Prince Charlie', of whom people have heard.

These days it is not done for the Sovereign to refuse Royal Assent to a bill that represents the settled will of Parliament. The Assent is simply read out, in Norman French ('Le Roy le veult' or, previously, 'La Reyne le veult'), in the House of Lords as a formality when a bill that has passed the necessary stages of debate becomes law.

The 2 parties are even more similar than the USA parties. And when Labor wanted to move ever so slightly left they painted them as antisemites and killed their party status.

UK has the NHS but not for much longer.

Victor, I doubt if any government subsidizing their citizens medical expenses could modify that subsidy in a manner that their citizens perceive to be a reduction of their medical benefits. Regardless of the nation's governing or economic type, a government proposing, or attempting to reduce their citizens government subsidized medical expenses would not remain in power. Respectfully, Supposn

OP after you study the differences between the English and American systems of government compare the US against Australia as it has often been said that Australia has a 'Washminister' system of government taking elements from both Great Britain and the US

Here is an article on it anyway - http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/jou...w/2002/10.html

Well it's not like ripping a band aid off; it's done slowly. You can't just announce to the public it'll be gone Monday morning.

Defund, destroy, replace. Start by slashing funds, repeat for years, to the point where people start to resent government services, then offer privatized solutions as a better alternative. Takes time but isn't impossible

Interesting fact.

Citizens in the USA pay more in tax to fund healthcare than citizens in the UK.

Citizens in the UK get a much better return on that tax tho.

this might make sense in theory. but theres many examples to cite.

as for NHS, well its already started. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Care_Act_2022

It was a serious move left. It'sa a catastrophie that we gave up - and for no good reason.

Quite likely true. Not because the right attacks it but because labour has given up on any sort of principle (again)

I'm not in England, but I very much doubt if Its already begun. Regarding the USA, Reagan's attempt to privatize social security retirement benefits was firmly rejected by the voters. I believe you and Nutella Virus are incorrect. Respectfully, Supposn

It's has long begun. The encroachment of the private sector into the NHS and the growth in private healthcare services because of NHS failures is eating it away. Legislation comes after it's terminal - when the right will say there nothing else can be done now while the left will say nothing they could have done.

Still some time to save it but there's no political will or belief on the horizon.