British or Republican Parliament?

[pkt]

The fact that President Shrub got hackled [normal] and booed [not usual] in the Australian Parliament recently got me to ask this question:

Which is the better parliamentary system:
British - where the Chief Executive have to face the House daily for Question period while parliament sits, or
American - where the Chief Executive shows up at most two or three times a year?

PK

[jeff]

The question is wrong.

There is nothing about the US system that makes the President not have to frequently face and answer to Congress, or requires the PM to to so. The difference is that a chief executive enjoying a strong majority doesn't have to worry about a vote of no confidence (Parliamentary system) or failing to push through his agenda through a same-party Congress (US system) as is currently the case here. A president who wants to push an agenda through an opposite party Congress has to do a lot more face to face with them, though unfortunately little of that is done in public. "Never watch sausages or compromises get made"

That said, I would relish a change to US political structure that would put the president (or anybody else) in front of sharp questioning that would test or demonstrate his reasoning and rhetorical ability. The UK has a strong and enviable tradition here.

[2Sirius]

...demonstrate his reasoning and rhetorical ability.

I'm not sure that being able to think fast on your feet and speak well in front of huge audiences under intense pressure is especially pertinent to the job of president. A president should be a good leader -- with all that implies -- not necessarily an expert debater. OTOH, you don't want a president who comes across as a complete nincompoop on the TV, either. Ideally, you would have a good leader who can speak well, but I personally wouldn't require it.

[jeff]

Maybe not necessary, but a big plus, especially since so much of the job is (or should be) convincing others that some particular policy is correct.

They can't all be Winston Churchill, but I think they should be able to conduct themselves honorably in public speech. Isn't that how Lincoln first made his reputation? Don't we still run public debate? It's very much in the tradition of democracy, going back to the Greeks, and it's a shame to see much of it reduced to sloganeering.

[2Sirius]

Amen to that. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Most politicians aren't intelligent so much as cunning. That's a requirement for getting elected. And especially required for getting re-elected after they screw everyone who got them there in the first place.

There are not many decent, intelligent people who run for public office. Most politicians I've met are interested only in lining their pockets and getting re-elected so they can do it for another X years. The ones who run out of a sense of civic duty or patriotic spirit usually don't win. If they do, they are considered crackpots in D.C.

Whew! (Takes deep breath). Rant over.

Yes, it would be nice to have politicians who could excel at public debate. I think they would certainly gain more respect on the world stage. In that sense, the president of our country should represent us well internationally. As far as the American people are concerned, I'm not sure the apathy of the average Joe Sixpack could be overcome enough to get anyone interested in public political debate.

[pkt]

2S,

What do you think happens at a televised TV debate?

At least a chief exeutive of a country should know the word is "NU-CLEAR", not "NU-CU-LAR"!

President Shrub was taken aback in the news clip by the jeering in the Oz Senate, I think, when he mentioned Iraq. It was on BBC's world News. Was this "warm reception" by the Oz legislators carried on any US TV?

PK

[Inquartata]

Say, pkt, I know you meant "heckled", but the malapropism was much funnier...

Anyway, I'm not sure I see any real utility in Question Time. I mean, it's a nice idea and all, but essentially it's become an opportunity for many politicians to puff themselves up for the cameras instead of just one. Nothing of any consequence ever seems to come out. The opposition spends all its time playing "gotcha" or propounding their own policies in the guise of asking questions, the PM has some of his time wasted fending off the attacks. How is the business of the nation being served by this circus?

The two systems are different, but neither can be said to be "better" than the other, I think, because both are gamed by politicians. Both get dragged down into the mire, and no system shows itself at its best when covered in mud...

[2Sirius]

Originally posted by pkt


What do you think happens at a televised TV debate?

Which is why I said you didn't want one that looks like a complete boob on TV. A president should represent the country in an honorable fashion.

At least a chief exeutive of a country should know the word is "NU-CLEAR", not "NU-CU-LAR"!

Too right! How embarrassing!

President Shrub was taken aback in the news clip by the jeering in the Oz Senate, I think, when he mentioned Iraq. It was on BBC's world News. Was this "warm reception" by the Oz legislators carried on any US TV?

I certainly didn't see it, but the news media here is not overly fond of our president. I would find it hard to believe it didn't appear somewhere on the cable news shows.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by pkt

At least a chief exeutive of a country should know the word is "NU-CLEAR", not "NU-CU-LAR"!

So, you didn't care for Carter, either, then? Arguably the smartest President we've had this century...also mispronounced the word.


Non omnia possumus omnes. I'd rather have a President who can lead than one who's spent all his time perfecting superficial qualities like appearance, diction, gestures and other tools of the demagogue...

[Dave]

There is nothing about the US system that makes the President not have to frequently face and answer to Congress, or requires the PM to to so.

Actually there is (in the british case) We have a thing called "parliamentry question time" where the prime minister has to answer any questions from the house. This happens for about an hour every wednesday afternoon.

Oh, and the prime minister isn't technically our head of state, the Queen is.
This means that no one have absolute power (well the queen does but if she ever tried to use it the monarchy would be scraped) so our policies are not made up at the whim of one person.

[jeff]

Hi Dave, and I'm aware of the Question Time, and it's part of the British tradition I was complimenting. There's nothing about the Parliamentary system that makes having such a pointed question hour necessary though, and if the PM's party has a substantial majority, the PM probably isn't going to get harsh treatment or feel obliged to make substantive responses.

[Dave]

sorry miss read the posts (that will teach me for skimming rather than reading).

Question time does at least allow all M.P.s a chance to ask the Prime minister (or on other days other ministers) questions which they must answer.
There are always a number of sycophantic questions from the majority party but there are also usually many pointed ones from the opposition parties. It can be used to bring events which the government would rather have been ignored to the fray.

If the PM does look bad repeatedly (or is unpopular) they can face a leadership chalenge from within there own party which could force them from office. Margret Thatcher suffered one of these during the first Gulf war. She won but the result was so close that she had to step down because it was obvious that she no longer had the suport that she needed within her own party.

So in theory yay the british system it's just a shame that it is in the state that it is,

[pkt]

Thanks Dave.
I've brought up this seemingly unbelievable dichotomy in the British system:
The Queen has all the power but is not supposed to exercise it;
The PM does not have any of the power but is allowed to exercise it.

Only Brits can think up such a concept. I know, I know, it evolved as a result of the Magna Carta...

==)========

These day and age, the Cdn PM Jean Chretien as well as many of the other politicians in Cda have developed the technique of answering the questions posed during Question Period without really answering the question. To me that's an abuse of the QP and wasting everyone's time.

Judging from what little of the Brtiish Parliament's QP I see on BBC World Tony and his cohorts have not devolved to this level of abuse.

The contents of QP can be found in Hansard. It'd be a stupid politician to not watch what he/she says for every word - except the inaudible heckles - uttered is recorded and be used in future...

==)=======

In4, The "hackled" bit was good, wasn't it? I guess being heckled can raise one's hackles.

PK

[Louweasel]

Originally posted by pkt
Thanks Dave.
I've brought up this seemingly unbelievable dichotomy in the British system:
The Queen has all the power but is not supposed to exercise it;
The PM does not have any of the power but is allowed to exercise it.

PK

Dave didn't say the Queen had all the power, neither did he say the PM had none. He said neither of them had absolute power, which is true. I'm not saying the British system is perfect, nor that it doiesn't have dichotomies (probably) but that isn't one of them.

To be honest, I'm not really well-informed enough to enter a debate on parliamentary systems, but just in the interests of historical accuracy, the first Prime Minister, Sir Robert Walpole, was appointed by George I in the early part of the eighteenth century (1730-something I think). So considering Magna Carta was signed in 1215, over five hundred years before during he reign of King John, I would suggest the two are not particularly strongly connected...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally posted by Inquartata
Anyway, I'm not sure I see any real utility in Question Time. I mean, it's a nice idea and all, but essentially it's become an opportunity for many politicians to puff themselves up for the cameras instead of just one. Nothing of any consequence ever seems to come out. The opposition spends all its time playing "gotcha" or propounding their own policies in the guise of asking questions, the PM has some of his time wasted fending off the attacks. How is the business of the nation being served by this circus?

If I understand this right, then the British system should be better at weeding out the really bad think-on-their-feeters. Personally, I prefer reasonably smart and evil politicians over dumb and evil ones.

Inq - can yo propose a system that can not be misused (similar to your description above), or at least is substantially more difficult to misuse?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson

Personally, I prefer reasonably smart and evil politicians over dumb and evil ones.

Let's not confuse glib or even witty with smart, though. Otherwise we'd have stand-up comics as Presidents. ( Which may be the next step, after actors, for all I know. )

Nor am I sure I agree that smart villains are to be preferred to dumb ones. I often think that the only reason civilization is able to maintain itself in any semblance of order is that criminals by and large aren't very smart---hence they are not able to pull off their depredations as efficiently as if they were truly clever. The same, I submit, might well apply to politicians...

Inq - can yo propose a system that can not be misused (similar to your description above), or at least is substantially more difficult to misuse?

Not a democratically-based one, for the simple reason that politicians are cunning enough to circumvent, subvert or poke loopholes into any imaginable system...

Notice I said cunning, not smart!

[civiltech]

Canada, Britain, and many other commonwealth countries have a system called Constitutional Monarchy.

That means the head of state, differs from the head of government. The Queen is our Head of State. Jean Chretien is our Head of Goverment. The Queen watches out to ensure government represents Her Dominion, and is constitutional. The Parliament, headed by Jean, does the same. A tidy relationship making sure everyone plays fair, and freely. No bill shall be passed in parliament unless the Queen gives it Her Royal Assent. Interesting to say that the UN's ranking of the top countries in the world, the vast majority had some sort of Constitutional Monarchy....Canada included. Out of the top ten, only two countries were not. The US, and...I forget the other one...

My understanding is that the US has combined the Head of State, with the Head of Goverment. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) There are several areas where this can be taken advantage of..However, the US is not the worst place in the world to be. There form of congress seems to represent the population (one on one with each citizen) better than our members of parliament. (Just my opinion.)

[civiltech]

I like our system better because it does put the leader on the hot seat, and he is more involved in the House "on the front lines."

You don't have to be a whiz at public speaking (Brian Mulroney), but be involved in your governments legislating, debating, and be responsible to the Legislature for your actions. Not elsewhere. Thats why people voted to put you there!

[pkt]

Not to mention that all the Ministers are elected.
In the US the Secretaries are all appointed by th ePOTUS, hence non-elected, i.e. not responsible to the people.

Civiltech, not only is the POTUS head of gov't and head of state, he's also the Commander-in-Chief!!! that's very close to absolute power as one can be.

I know, I know, I know, the checks and balances is built into the US system. But I'm sure you all know what they say about that: You write your CHECK into my BALANCE.

PK

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by pkt
Not to mention that all the Ministers are elected.
In the US the Secretaries are all appointed by th ePOTUS, hence non-elected, i.e. not responsible to the people.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they are only elected to Parliament, not to their Ministries, correct? They are still appointed by their PM. It would be like the US President filling his Cabinet and all of his Department heads with Senators and Congressmen. Under the US system you still get "jobs for the boys", but at least there is a good chance that they will have some expertise in the area they will be overseeing. Very few Congresscreatures have expertise in anything other than getting reelected and directing pork toward their campaign supporters. Does it work differently in a Parliamentary system?