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

[*End Is Forever*]

George Galloway is one of the most loathesome, disgusting people ever to come from this island... but he still destroyed the senators.

[Sandman]

A Cabinet minister is expected to represent a single constituency and debate general national policy in addition to representing their portfolio.

As has been said, they have an army of civil servants to help them.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by notyoueither


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.

I agree with nye?!

I guess that shows how obvious this view is. I think it's extremely important that politicians at all levels have to deal with real people.

Tony Blair is a constituency MP as well of course.

[Dracon II]

Cabinet ministers are not accountable to "the people", they are accountable to about 70,000 people living in a small part of the nation. Cabinet ministers, more than MPs deal with national problems and issues of national policy... they represent the country as a whole, and yet their political fate is tied to the electoral whims of a small number of people. I am one of the very few people in this country who has the power to eject the alternative representative of the entire nation overseas. I hardly see that as fair.
In the US system, the Cabinet is selected by and answerable to the President, who is elected by the entire nation (or states, if you want to get technical). Their fate is tied to the President's fate, whose fate is tied to the nation as a whole. I see that as a far more accountable system. The cabinet is basically the external expression of the President's will.... he has the power to hire and fire them, and he is accountable to the entire nation... not just a small pocket of the nation. So yes, the people can judge the Cabinet... once every four years, to be exact.
And as for the Parliament calling for a Cabinet minister to resign... presumably the cabinet comes from the majority party in the legislatures... and in Westminster systems parties have tight discipline. This means that Cabinet can get away with a lot worse than in the USA... because the Prime Minister can simply say that a no-confidence vote must be made on party lines... which essentially makes it moot. In the USA, the Congress has more power of scrutiny over the executive than in Westminster systems... thus (paradoxically) making Cabinet more answerable to the electorate, as there is a critical distance between them and the representatives.

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.

Case in point. Republican member of the legislature severely and openly criticizing a Republican member of the Executive. In Australia at least, that would be highly unorthodox....

[Tingkai]

The nation can vote a governing party out of power, just as Americans can vote out a president.

Yes, the vote against a given cabinet minister is confined to a riding, but at least some people have a vote, and outsiders can participate by working for or against a minister. In the American system, no one can vote directly for a cabinet minister.

As for accountablility, does the U.S. Senate and Congress have the power to kick someone out of the presidential cabinet?

In parliaments, cabinet ministers are often forced to resign because of political pressure.

[MikeH]

Absolutely McCain can criticize rumsfeld but he can't get the party to kick him out!

[Dinner]

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.

Galloway is a troll but he is a troll that stomped the hell out of his Republican detractors. There were a couple of threads about this and the conclusion was universal.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MikeH
Absolutely McCain can criticize rumsfeld but he can't get the party to kick him out!

The withdrawl of party support does happen though most commonly it occurs in the House of Representatives. The Republican leadership in the House is well known for threatening reps with lose of campaign funds or black listing from important jobs unless they always vote party line. It is much more difficult to do such things to Senators as the Senators tend to have extremely safe districts and large camaign donation systems of their own.

[Pax]

The part of the British system I admire most is the way they go at each other in sessions. The Prime Minister has to answer attacks right then and there. In the American Government, I feel there is less accountabilty required of the President.

[Drake Tungsten]

Galloway is a troll but he is a troll that stomped the hell out of his Republican detractors. There were a couple of threads about this and the conclusion was universal.

Bucking the conventional wisdom on Poly is almost always the wise course of action.

[notyoueither]

In the USA, the Congress has more power of scrutiny over the executive than in Westminster systems... thus (paradoxically) making Cabinet more answerable to the electorate, as there is a critical distance between them and the representatives.

I'm puzzled by your view here. In Parliaments the executive must answer to legislators every single question period.

Also, there is a tradition of ministerial responsibility that can lead to resignations from cabinet that are far more frequent than such capitulations by cabinet secretaries in the US. In a good year Mulroney lost only one cabinet minister.

Finally, under Westminster the executive lives day to day. If they go seriously wrong they will be defeated on an issue of confidence in the house and an election ensue (the blunt instrument) or the PM can be turfed by his or her own party (the fine instrument) as happened to Thatcher.

I am at a loss to see how you could see the Westminster system as less accountable than those of the Jacobins.

Power of the parties, on the other hand, has been and is the bane of Parliaments. It can get to the extreme that it has in Canada where party discipline would make a fascist feel at home, and the PM then assumes powers that warp the intended functioning of the system.

[Straybow]

Jacobins???

[JimmyCracksCorn]

OMG there are pros and cons to both systems11!!!

The world is imperfect11!!??!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Seriously though, the westminster model scares the hell out of me sometimes.

Imagine if GWB had that amount of power.

And please guys (i.e. Canadians), having the legislative and executive branches merged is just archaic. You know its true.