Westminster Style of Government?

we're against that kind of thing for the same five reasons we're against "communism,"

we don't know what it is, it wouldn't work here, it's bad, it's unamerican, and we already have the best country in the entire universe.

That criticism is one that stands out for me.

For the rest, I assume it is swings and roundabouts.....but it seems you DO have to be rich to get anywhere in American politics.


Am I wrong?



I think that a serious flaw.

Ooh! ooh! sarcasm me thinks.

i don't think even being rich helps.

What if you are rich and Jewish?

You've just killed a good debate by using the "J" word.
In future try avoiding the "J", "H", and "I" words. You anti-semite...you! How dare you.

actually, i think that killed the debate for me.

It's an impossible proposition.

A Boundary Commission is necessary for a Westminster style government. Your state lines are set in stone I gather. Dictatorship is your only other option it seems to me. So you had better make what you've got work and bend your energies to that instead of fantasising.

Re: Westminster Style of Government?


I don't think that you can make a case for the proposition that a parliamentary form of government is any more effective than our Federal system in enabling ordinary citizens to advance in politics. The cost of education and political campaigning do indeed create barriers to such advancement in every modern country, however, many people get by despite them.

We do indeed have an "effective opposition' in our political system, though it does not function the same way as yours. We don't have a King or Queen either.

The direct answer to your question about why we don't have a 'Westminster" form of government is that we revolted against one to create ours, and at the time had little reason to suppose that justice and freedom could be found by imitating it.

Our system has worked fairly well for a long time now - and we are well-adapted to it. We'll probably keep it.

Perhaps I should ask you, "Why does Australia have a Westminster Style of government, instead of something of its own making?"

George wrote-



There's a degree of truth in that which has been exaggerated for psychological reasons.

To an extent though you were abandoned and ignored. It was felt in some circles that you wouldn't make anything of it for various reasons. With hindsight that was an error of judgement but an understandable one I suppose.

It certainly wasn't simple.

O'George is the only one here who has shown any insight into why the United States does not have a Westminster style of government. I would amend his comment by saying that the United States rebelled against the concept of the King in Parliament.

At the time of the American Revolution, and for quite a while after, there was no concept of political parties in the modern sense of the term. To that extent, the idea of a party leader also acting as the Chief Executive did not exist in England, either. The King would propose a "Prime Minister." Even that term was then of recent origin--historians, including English historians, consider that Walpole was the first "Prime Minister" in that government, and that was a mere generation before the American Revolution. As late as 1831, in the crisis of the first Reform Act, William IV called for Lord Grey to return the seals of office, and asked the Duke of Wellington to form a government. Wellington was obliged to inform the King that he would be unable to form a government, and William was obliged to recall Lord Grey, who then, eventually, passed the Reform Act.

It was in the period between the 1819 "Peterloo" Massacre and the passage of the first Reform Act that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" were first used in the press in England to describe political philosophies. In 1783, when England acquiesced and acknowledged its inability to impose its will on the United States, and recognized its independence, the concept of modern political parties was unknown. People spoke of faction, and the more idealistic, such as Washington, condemned faction as being inimical to good government. Even long after the rise of modern political parties, the allegiance of members to their leadership was much more fluid than it is today. Among the Tories (roughly, the conservatives) of England, there were two prime factions which divided the philosophies of Tory members throughout most of the 19th century, the Canningite and the Peel Tories, referring to George Canning and Robert Peel. Canning was Prime Minister, but for the shortest term of office of any Prime Minister. Nevertheless, his coalition of Tory and Whig (the latter roughly corresponding to "liberals") was sufficiently successful that it divided the Tory party, and for long after his death, Tories whose outlook was socially "liberal" were known as Canningite Tories, a term to which they did not object, and in which many took a great deal of pride. On the opposite side of the Tory party stood Robert Peel. He long stood on "conservative" political principles--but it is a measure of the extent to which political loyalties were not carved in stone to note that Peel's two terms as Prime Minister were with minority governments, which also relied upon Whig support to govern. Ironically, although Peel rejected an appeal from a Whig/Radical coalition to form a political party, it was Gladstone and Lord Aberdeen who, leading Peelite Tories, formed the Liberal Party in coalition with disenchanted Whigs and Radicals. Originally seen as the more "liberal" wing of the Tory party, the Canningites allied themselves with the Duke of Wellington, and moved slowly, but steadily to the right. The point is less who had what political agenda than to point out that party politics as we know them, and which color our views of "Westminster" style government, did not exist at the time of the foundation of the United States, and remained fluid and unpredictable for long, long after the 1780s.

*********************************************

When the United States was recognized by England as an independent nation in 1783, it was governed by the Continental Congress (much confusion can be avoided it if is remembered that there was a First and a Second Continental Congress, both of which were formed just before the Revolution to oppose Parliamentary Acts, and from which the Continental Congress derived, but which are distinct from the body which governed the United States during the Revolution). The Continental Congress was a largely ineffective body, because all of the states were jealous of their prerogatives and their sovereignty. It did not matter how many representatives a state sent to the Congress, as long as they sent one--each state had a single vote in the Congress. Most states sent more than one member so as to have a hand in committees. The President of the Continental Congress was elected from among the members, and possessed no power not specifically granted him by the Congress.

Most Americans, never mind foreigners, don't understand that the original United States saw themselves as states in the sense of nation-states, each independent of the other, and only acting in concert to the extent that they freely agreed to do so. The concept of the King in Parliament from which modern Westminster government derives was meaningless to the original states, which had rejected the King, and had united to fight the English, and agreed only to the extent that it was necessary to prosecute the Revolution, and often not even effectively to that extent.

After the Revolution, it quickly became clear to the several states that the Continental Congress was not effective at governing, but most states were loathe to submit to any more centralized government. The most populous states at that time were Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Maryland. None of that quartet feared a strong central government, so long as there would be proportional representation in the Congress--so they initially worked against the effectiveness of the Continental Congress by refusing to cooperate in revenue matters, since they saw themselves as having their pockets picked by the small states (small in population, and lead by New York and New Jersey, which were then not the densely populated states that they now are), who could overrule them in a government of equal representation by state.

This issue was the crucial issue exercising everyone's minds at the time that the Constitutional Convention assembled in Philadelphia. The small states were determined to retain equal representation, and many of their delegates were instructed by the state legislatures to vote against proportional representation--and some were even instructed to leave the convention if proportional representation were mooted. The heavily populated states, of course, were determined on proportional representation, because they didn't intend to provide the lion's share of revenue for the government without having an equivalent voice in determining how revenues would be used.

Of all the state delegations, only Virginia arrived with a plan ready to present to the convention. That plan called for a single legislative house, with proportional representation based on population, and an executive committee rather than a single executive officer, with that committee appointed by the legislature. Essentially, they envisioned a continuation of the Continental Congress with equal representation replaced by proportional representation.

To avoid triggering the instructions of those delegates who were required to vote against proportional representation, or even to withdraw from the convention, the members resolved themselves into a committee of the whole in order to discuss these matters. The eventual result was that the Senate was created as body in which matters of sovereignty would reside, and in which the states would be equally represented. The appointment of ministers was seen then in Europe as an issue of sovereignty and had been for centuries--unpopular ministers even in autocratic governments had been toppled and even sent to the scaffold. In the American Constitution, the Executive appoints the officers of government, but must obtain the consent of the Senate. Additionally, all treaties engaged in by the United States must be approved by two thirds of the Senate. Those are the principle issues of sovereignty as they were seen in the late 18th century, and the Framers reposed those powers in a Senate in which the states were equally represented.

The House of Representatives is chosen by a proportional representation based on population. All money bills must issue from the House, which was sufficient to allay the resentments of the populous states in 1787, who were concerned that their money not be spent without them having a voice in the matter proportional to the revenues which they would provide.

The Executive was created while George Washington sat as President of the Convention, and each day as the members discussed and debated, they looked at the dais and saw the most trusted man in the nation, and in American history, presiding, and tailored the office for him. It is doubtful that they'd have given the office such wide powers had they not had him in mind. Even then, Washington was disappointed in his efforts to create an even stronger executive. A separate Judiciary was created as well, which was not beholden either to the Executive or the Legislative branches. None of these ideas were necessarily new in theory--all of them were new and unique in the application.

The United States government, based on the Constitution, does not anywhere mimic any form of government which existed at the time of the creation of the nation. It differs radically from the Westminster style of government because it was formed on wholly different principles. In short, the Constitution, as the preamble says, seeks to form a more perfect union of independent states, none of whom were obliged to acknowledge the powers of the feeble Articles of Confederation which preceded that Constitution.

There could not be a greater "apples to oranges" comparison than to compare the United States Constitution to the Westminster form of parliamentary government.

Settin Aah-aah wrote-



An in yer face insult to the rest of us, an assertion of no merit and a patronising use of George as a stick with which to beat us.

And the Aah-aah is to follow which hasn't even set yet.

I don't think it was so much a stick as merely a way of introducing his subject. In any event Setanta has given us a lucid description of the thing itself, the manner of its creation, and the forces that brought it about. He described several essential elements far better than I ever have, and I thank him for that.

With no psychology?

it would be easier to boot out a king than impeach the f***ers we've got now, something most americans have no appreciation for.

plus, we'd have greater freedom if we could tell our masters "go f*** yourself" instead of "please don't fire me, i can't afford healthcare unless i keep this cushy job i spent years working my way up to!"

*and* the british currently have greater freedom of speech in the media, which along with the "right" to revolt (which we no longer have, but the british/europeans actually protest things regularly, and with some actual effect) forms the basis for all other freedoms.

we should weigh our freedom against britain's now and again, just to be realistic. we tried our way for 200 years and look what bastions of freedom we are. the queen could save us from this mess rather easily, as could the next king if he were so inclined. freedom is great, propaganda is for the enslaved.

ask yourself, do the british like freedom any less? why aren't they all trying to come here? if we got rid of telling ourselves how free we are just to feel good, we might find that we could be a lot more free, instead of slaves to a flag that's really fallen already. watching this country for the last several years, i think america might be deluding herself. oh and if you see fit to deport me to the motherland, that's great- you go right ahead. i know we have freedom of speech here, but perhaps i went "too far" you know the best part though? the queen doesn't care if you're "patriotic" - because that's all a load of f***ing nonsense.

That seems more like a proper analysis than all that superficial guff gleaned out of history books.

It was, in fact, very difficult to "boot out" kings, as several English revolutions would tell you.


However, I am struck by how effectively impossible it is to boot out a president, no matter how bad, during their term of office.


I think that is, to some degree, a positive factor in Australia's and the UK's system...that an appalling eejit of a Prime Minister can be got rid of far more readily.

Your president looks quite monarchical to us. Of course, you get to elect one from your oligarchy, and boot them out after four years, if you choose, but still.....


As I said earlier, though, it's swings and roundabouts: our system is possibly more prone to populist reactions that make it harder to pursue a longer term vision for a leader?

dwolan wrote-



And if they manage it they get a clone as replacement.

I don't think the colonists of the period felt they were either abandoned or ignored by the British. Indeed they had all come here to escape one or the other aspect of British life and went about creating their own governments without a look back.

The odd bit psychologically was the fact that the British assumed the colonies were ever theirs to dispose of at all. The experiences of the Seven Years War ended utterly whatever social contract remained with the British here - though this was not detected by the self-absorbed British governments of the time. It was not until later when they attempted to impose taxes and direct governance that they discovered that what they thought was theirs had long ago become an independent thing.

The psychological delusions were all on the British side.