All Episodes
June 1, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
08:51
Prime President's Presentations
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, so Sargon's away and I'm taking the reins for a little bit.
I actually just wanted to, very briefly, discuss something that has interested me over the past few weeks and that is Prime Minister's questions in Parliament, and hopefully I can get you interested as well.
I genuinely admire this format because, believe it or not, we have nothing like it here in the United States when it comes to the President.
I mean sure, we have press pools at press conferences that are allowed to ask whatever question the President deems is enough questions, provided the President is actually present, but does that hold anyone to account for anything?
The answer would be obviously no.
But with Prime Minister's questions, although the members of Parliament address the Speaker, are able to ask any question to the Prime Minister and have it be answered, whether sincerely or insincerely, and gauge what is actually occurring.
It's a good way of getting one of the most powerful people in your government to actually answer for the things they're doing.
Plus, how could you not absolutely adore Speaker John Bercow?
Order! Order! Order! Order! Order! Order!
In response to that question, the Prime Minister has finished, and he can take it from me that he's finished.
Here is what Prime Minister's questions entails.
Quote, The session always starts with a routine question about the Prime Minister's engagements for the day.
MPs are not obliged to give the Prime Minister prior notice of the subjects that they are going to raise in all subsequent questions.
This element of surprise allows opposition MPs in particular to try to catch the Prime Minister out with an awkward question.
The Prime Minister must respond without delay, thinking on his or her feet, but he or she is guaranteed the last word in any exchange.
Government backbenchers can normally be relied upon to ask helpful questions, often planted by the whips, which will allow the Prime Minister to tell the House about successful government policies.
The relative performance of each of the main party leaders is closely watched, and each is under great pressure to get the better of their opponent.
I've taken to watching it every week when it comes out on the UK Parliament YouTube channel, and I highly suggest you give it a look, whether you're in the US, UK, or anywhere for that matter.
If you're in the UK and you aren't watching it, I think you're honestly foregoing an amazing privilege that you have in respect to your government.
And yes, I used the word privilege, but at least in that context, it was a proper usage.
If you're anywhere else and you don't have a system like this with respect to question asking and question answering, perhaps it could inspire you to advocate for something similar in your respective governments.
I would absolutely approve of the president standing up in front of the Senate every week and being forced to answer questions from the opposing side.
Even if the president decides to dodge the question, answer it with a joke, or not give an answer at all, it can give us a lead as to where he doesn't have answers.
With the current system in the United States, however, that doesn't happen, and everything feels entirely scripted.
Official debates feel far more like plays put on for presentation's sake as opposed to an actual back-and-forth.
The president actually fields questions from the press a lot of the time through a specified press secretary.
The president isn't even there.
If someone can direct me to something similar to this in the United States, I'd love to hear it, but so far, I've seen nothing of the sort, at least directed at our head executive.
With the press, the president has more leverage than he would if he was asked by other members of government, preferably the legislative branch, whether it be the House or Senate or a combination of them, because they have the most checks on presidential power.
But the President can easily do a hard-hitting interview with a journalist at a specific network and then refuse to do an interview at that network ever again because he was caught out.
So, there needs to be some type of presidential prickling similar to that of the UK with prime ministers' questions, at least in my opinion.
The president can set up these questioning sessions himself, but that's at the president's whim as well.
There's a massive issue with day-to-day accountability when it comes to the presidency, and I think something like this would remedy that.
That's honestly all that I wanted to get across here.
I think more Americans should advocate for something like this, and that people in the UK should actually watch their prime minister's feet dance on the fire more often as well.
So, let's look at a quick comparison between how our two systems handle this sort of questioning.
Angus Robertson at the Prime Minister's, the Prime Minister's government was elected with 37% of the vote.
So, I'm sure he would acknowledge the success of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP in being returned victoriously for a third time with 46%, the highest of any political party in national elections anywhere currently in Western Europe.
Mr. Speaker, on the anti-corruption summit, has the Prime Minister read the appeals from Nigerian campaigners who say, Our efforts are sadly undermined if countries such as your own are welcoming our corrupt to hide their ill-gotten gains in your luxury homes, department stores, car dealerships, private schools, and anywhere else that will accept their cash with no questions asked.
The role of London's property market as vessels to conceal stolen wealth has been exposed in court documents, reports, documentaries, and more.
What is the Prime Minister going to do about this?
Well, first of all, I am delighted to congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on her victory in the Scottish elections, as I am sure he would want to congratulate Ruth Davidson on her study.
We have something in common because, of course, the SNP have gone from majority to minority while the Conservatives have gone from coalition to majority.
So next week he can get up and ask me how we're getting on with ordering some more pandas for Edinburgh.
I think it would be a very positive development.
But the question he asks about the corruption summit is absolutely right.
The whole point of holding this summit in London is to say the action is necessary by developed countries as well as developing countries.
And one of the steps we're taking to make sure that foreign companies that own UK property have to declare who the beneficial owner is will be one of the ways we make sure that plundered money from African countries can't be hidden in London.
Happy Monday, everybody.
Hope you all had a pleasant weekend.
I do not have anything at the top, so we can go straight to your questions.
Josh, you want to kick us off here?
Sure, thanks, Josh.
I wanted to start with the two Libyans who were transferred out of Guantanamo Bay announced today by the Pentagon.
With the number of remaining detainees there once again lowered, how much longer does the White House plan to wait to continue to give Congress time to look at your plan before you move ahead with potential executive actions to close the president?
Well, Josh, let's go to the news first, which is that the Department of Defense did announce the transfer of two Libyan nationals to the Republic of Senegal earlier today.
With those transfers, there are now 89 detainees remaining at the President of Guantanamo Bay.
Let me also express our gratitude to the nation, the Republic of Senegal, for this significant humanitarian gesture.
The United States appreciates the generous assistance of the government of Senegal as the United States continues its efforts to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.
This is part of a strategy that the President initiated when he first arrived in the White House.
The decision to transfer these two detainees reflects the careful analysis of a review board that was established to consider the individual cases of detainees.
The review board's goal was to determine if there are locations to which individuals could be safely transferred under the right circumstances.
I will venture to say that the former is preferable, because the prime minister is actually taking the lumps, as opposed to a specific hired lump taker to spare him.
The only time he doesn't take these lumps is when he's physically unable to appear, and then he's superseded by the deputy prime minister.
Plus, I think a hefty and witty back and forth is necessary between ideological opponents within the same government.
Anyway, Sargon will be back soon.
Don't you worry.
I hope you enjoyed the video anyway.
Export Selection