To Brits, Australians, Canadians on this forum.

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by IShopAtPublix, Mar 22, 2009.

  1. I was wondering what are your feelings towards Westminster system of government. Now this should be separate from your feelings towards people who occupied positions of power (i.e if you thought Blair/Howard/Harper was a moron that is not the same as believing system of government is flawed).

    The reason I am asking this question is because I consider Westminster system of government to be mature and polished and I cannot stand the presidential system of government we have in US. But of course, my perceptions living outside of Westminster countries can be flawed.
     
  2. Mr J

    Mr J

    I'm Australian and prefer the parliamentary system, if only just to get away from the overhyped wank that is the presidential election, and for a smaller (cheaper) government. Both systems are flawed, as like any other system they're only as good as the politicians in power, and as we know they're rarely a helpful bunch. I see it as a matter of which system allows the least corruption and exploitation, and I would guess that both of these systems are similar.
     
  3. The British system is significantly different from Australia. The Australian senate is quite a different beast from the House of Lords (and actually has more power than the House of Lords).

    If you dump the constitutional monarchy crap - as we should - then the big question is what is the role of a president as head of state. I would favour a very limited role.
     
  4. I hate the presidency. I think it has too much power, the pageantry connected with it is uncalled for, State of the Union address is a circus, etc, etc. Head of Government should be a public servant, nothing more. My motto is "a free man bows to no one"
     
  5. If the US had a parliamentary system there is a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would be President...The horror of it all!
     
  6. Mr J

    Mr J

    And I think it's amusing how the US tends to put their president on a pedestal. With all of the glamour, security etc, he's treated like a king. I doubt that's what the US Founding Fathers had in mind, but then I doubt much of what exists today is what they had in mind.
     
  7. I think it gives too much power to parliament. The lack of a constitution, and the lesser power of the judicial branch allows whichever party has power to do pretty much what they want.

    However I do oppose the notion of a powerful head of state/president. IMO the head of state should be a powerless figurehead used mainly for diplomatic niceties. The Queen in the UK does this pretty well. Ireland also has a powerless president. Any seeking to be head of state is by definition the wrong person for the job.
     
  8. Parliamentary systems don't usually have presidents, or if they do then it is a nominal role with little real power.
     
  9. Yes, I suppose they call them Prime minister
     
  10. Mr J

    Mr J

    Yet, there seems to be more abuse of power by the US Government than by the others. If we moved towards a Presidency in Australia, I'm sure it would simply be a position that simply replaces the Queen (in reality the Governor General, an Australian) as Head of State.
     
    #10     Mar 23, 2009