Westminster sucks (or, How I learned to stop worrying and love the President...

[Dracon II]

...ial system of Government

This semester I had to do a subject called "Political Practice", which is basically an internship program for Political Science students.

For my internship I worked in the electorate office of the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kevin Rudd MP.

During my internship there I came to the conclusion that the Westminster Cabinet system is ridiculous. A Cabinet minister is expected to represent a single constituency and debate general national policy in addition to representing their portfolio. Thus there is a system whereby a Minister is torn by conflicting responsibilities and must fulfill diverse competencies, that dilute their portfolio competency, were they able to focus their energies purely on their delegated cabinet responsibility.

In a Presidential system, however, Cabinet is selected by President to specialize their expertise in their specific portfolio. I believe that this system has greater potential for efficiency than the Westminster system.

Discuss.

[Drake Tungsten]

What's to discuss? You're obviously right. Parliamentary systems make for a good show, but they're a pretty primitive way to run a nation.

[notyoueither]

Re: Westminster sucks (or, How I learned to stop worrying and love the President...

Originally posted by Dracon II
In a Presidential system, however, Cabinet is selected by President to specialize their expertise in their specific portfolio. I believe that this system has greater potential for efficiency than the Westminster system.

Effeciency in political offices?

You've clearly gone mad.

[GePap]

A Parlimentary system has the ability of getting things done faster if one party has a clear mayority. It also gives greater power to smaller parties if a large mayority is lacking and the large parties must seek alliences from small ones.

At the same time, there are less checks on an overwhelming mayority and too many parties give you a fractured legislature.

So each system has benefits and costs.

[Dracon II]

From the way I see it... the British system of parliament harks from a time when the executive branch was separate (vested in the Monarch). As the executive powers of the monarch diminished, they were simply delegated down to the Parliament.

The checks and balances problem is ameliorated if the Parliament has a strong committee system, an upper house that has strong review powers over legislation and is elected in a different way to the lower house, and if there is a supreme court and a codified constitution.

The problem that I'm talking about is that there is not a sophisticated enough division of labour within the executive branch. A cabinet minister should be devoting their time to the demands of their portfolio... not out there kissing babies, opening schools and debating legislation that is irrelevant to their cabinet position.

[Ted Striker]

Dracon,

So who actually does the work?

The interns?

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Dracon,

So who actually does the work?

The interns?

Damn right they do

The staff does most of the work on the ground. I wasn't able to see what Kevin does, but he has a lot of obligations in the electorate and does take a lot of time to meet with people in the area... so a lot of time would be deducted from his foreign policy commitments.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dracon II
From the way I see it... the British system of parliament harks from a time when the executive branch was separate (vested in the Monarch). As the executive powers of the monarch diminished, they were simply delegated down to the Parliament.

The checks and balances problem is ameliorated if the Parliament has a strong committee system, an upper house that has strong review powers over legislation and is elected in a different way to the lower house, and if there is a supreme court and a codified constitution.

The problem that I'm talking about is that there is not a sophisticated enough division of labour within the executive branch. A cabinet minister should be devoting their time to the demands of their portfolio... not out there kissing babies, opening schools and debating legislation that is irrelevant to their cabinet position.

Why not?

Why should the Ministers never have to mix with the people they make decisions for? Do they not have staff in the ministry to help with work load?

Parliaments can keep executives closer to what actually matters about the whole system, ordinary people.

[Drake Tungsten]

The thought of Rumsfeld tearing people apart on the floor of the House is intriguing, I must admit...

[Ted Striker]

I don't know about the House, but Rumsfeld has gotten beat up every time he has appeared before the Senate.

I have particular affection for the time McCain ripped into him.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dracon II
From the way I see it... the British system of parliament harks from a time when the executive branch was separate (vested in the Monarch). As the executive powers of the monarch diminished, they were simply delegated down to the Parliament.

Well, the Parliment thought took that power for itself in the 17th century. So the systems has had plenty of time to work itself out if the Brits really wanted a strong independent executive branch.

The problem that I'm talking about is that there is not a sophisticated enough division of labour within the executive branch. A cabinet minister should be devoting their time to the demands of their portfolio... not out there kissing babies, opening schools and debating legislation that is irrelevant to their cabinet position.

As NYE said, they have large staffs that do everything for them.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


I don't know about the House, but Rumsfeld has gotten beat up every time he has appeared before the Senate.

I have particular affection for the time McCain ripped into him.

Judging by your avatar, I have to believe you're not the best person to turn to when it comes to crowning the winners of Senate debates.

[Tingkai]

Re: Westminster sucks (or, How I learned to stop worrying and love the President...

Originally posted by Dracon II
In a Presidential system, however, Cabinet is selected by President to specialize their expertise in their specific portfolio. I believe that this system has greater potential for efficiency than the Westminster system.

The down side is that voters do not have an opportunity to judge members of the presidential cabinet. In the Westminister system, cabinet members can be voted out of office or pressured to resign.

As alluded to previously, the parliamentary system also puts cabinet ministers under more scrutiny in the sense they must answer questions in Parliament on a regular basis. You see that as taking time away from their jobs, I see it as ensuring that they are doing their jobs properly.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Judging by your avatar, I have to believe you're not the best person to turn to when it comes to crowning the winners of Senate debates.

8 out of 10 judges agree, Galloway pwn3d the Senators.


Hostile Senators are alot harder for someone like Rumsfeld to deal with instead of the lemming, orchestrated press conferences he is used to.

[Ted Striker]

PHOENIX -- U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Monday that he has "no confidence" in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, citing Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq and the failure to send more troops.

Asked about his confidence in the secretary's leadership, McCain recalled fielding a similar question a couple of weeks ago.

"I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence," McCain said.

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/mccain14e_20041214.htm