Westminster Style of Government?

tinygiraffe wrote:

.....*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.

The author of this absurd, self-loathing screed should familiarize himself with some important facts of British life and law. The modern surveillance state that exists in Britain today would not be accepted here. Though the British are, with traditional stubbornness, doing a good deal better than the continental nations in maintaining a competitive and adaptive society that almost reproduces itself with succeeding generations and is able to assimilate the immigrants it needs to renew itself - they are well behind us in each area.

Our Australian and European critics who imagine that an American administration that they don't happen to like is indicative of their innate superiority should recognize that (1) they don't vote here; and (2) they are so far demonstrable unable to deal with the external threats that confront them and the demographic collapse that they (in Europe) now face.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

tinygiraffe wrote:
.....*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.

The author of this absurd, self-loathing screed should familiarize himself with some important facts of British life and law. The modern surveillance state that exists in Britain today would not be accepted here. Though the British are, with traditional stubbornness, doing a good deal better than the continental nations in maintaining a competitive and adaptive society that almost reproduces itself with succeeding generations and is able to assimilate the immigrants it needs to renew itself - they are well behind us in each area.

Our Australian and European critics who imagine that an American administration that they don't happen to like is indicative of their innate superiority should recognize that (1) they don't vote here; and (2) they are so far demonstrable unable to deal with the external threats that confront them and the demographic collapse that they (in Europe) now face.

Given that I am the only Australian posting here, I would be interested for you to show exactly where I said our system had "innate superiority".

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

dwolan wrote-

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

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

When have they managed it?

Clones appear to me to be highly available in our systems, also.

0 Replies

George-

Come on old boy. I've supported this administration through thick and thin despite the size of the target it presents to its enemies. I hope you are not including me in your remark about external critics. I've gone into bat for our side a lot more than most.

Isn't it a presumption that demographic "collapse", a somewhat diffuse term, is a bad thing which the expression "now face" suggests.

How about "demographic explosion"?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

George-

Come on old boy. I've supported this administration through thick and thin despite the size of the target it presents to its enemies. I hope you are not including me in your remark about external critics. I've gone into bat for our side a lot more than most.

Isn't it a presumption that demographic "collapse", a somewhat diffuse term, is a bad thing which the expression "now face" suggests.

How about "demographic explosion"?

You are correct. I was a bit annoyed by some others and responded a bit too broadly.

With respect to demographics, if you exclude the Scandanavian nations and Britain, the difference of median ages between the United States and Europe (now at just over four years) is forecast to increase at about 0.6 years/year over the coming decades. That is an enormous rate of change in a factor that will likely transcend all others in the character of our respective social and economic trajectories, and ultimately political relations.

It is always a mistake to assume that present trends will continue indefinately. However, except for a slight rise in fertility in France, this one is so far growing in its effects. The combination of low fertility and a somewhat greater (than ours) unwillingness to truly assimilate immigrants doesn't leave those so afflicted with many options.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

spendius wrote:
George-

Come on old boy. I've supported this administration through thick and thin despite the size of the target it presents to its enemies. I hope you are not including me in your remark about external critics. I've gone into bat for our side a lot more than most.

Isn't it a presumption that demographic "collapse", a somewhat diffuse term, is a bad thing which the expression "now face" suggests.

How about "demographic explosion"?

You are correct. I was a bit annoyed by some others and responded a bit too broadly.

With respect to demographics, if you exclude the Scandanavian nations and Britain, the difference of median ages between the United States and Europe (now at just over four years) is forecast to increase at about 0.6 years/year over the coming decades. That is an enormous rate of change in a factor that will likely transcend all others in the character of our respective social and economic trajectories, and ultimately political relations.

It is always a mistake to assume that present trends will continue indefinately. However, except for a slight rise in fertility in France, this one is so far growing in its effects. The combination of low fertility and a somewhat greater (than ours) unwillingness to truly assimilate immigrants doesn't leave those so afflicted with many options.

What on EARTH does that, even if true, have to do with pluses and minuses of our respective styles of democracy?

0 Replies

Well dwolan-- it does indeed have something to do with our respective styles.

But the changes will be gradual and most people will hardly notice them assuming they don't make comparisons over, say, 50 year periods, as one can do with feminism "before and after".

0 Replies

Do the English have a system of listening devices set up to listen to every phone call out of and into its country like our country has. Or do they just subscribe to our system?

0 Replies

Who cares?

I only make phone calls to get bets on and send for taxis.

If they want to listen to them they are welcome.

0 Replies

And the incomings are even more dire.

So much so that I only ever experience them when there's no-one else around. If somebody wants to listen in to that he has my deepest sympathy.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Who cares?

I only make phone calls to get bets on and send for taxis.

If they want to listen to them they are welcome.

My outgoings are mainly to order pizza!

0 Replies

You have no taste Wilso. I hate pizza. The lack of gravy is the main problem. I don't like dry food. I prefer it all sloppy.

0 Replies

Quote:

The author

(that's me)

Quote:

of this absurd,

feel free to point out five things i'm wrong about in it.

Quote:

self-loathing screed

getting very flowery now, but i don't loathe myself, i loathe bystanders that wave flags like idiots and can't think of anything better to do than elect some barely-different version of an idiot that is destroying the country one civil liberty at a time- or have you turned the news on in the past 8 years?

Quote:

should familiarize himself with some important facts of British life and law.

which i bet you don't even point out*, but it makes it sound like you know something. cool, with you so far.

Quote:

The modern surveillance state that exists in Britain today would not be accepted here.

horseshit. your picture is taken 100 times a day,
you're videotaped everywhere you go,
cameras watch your plates,
atm's watch you get money,
cell phones (which have all but replaced pay phones) naturally act as gps locators when you have them on (the towers can triangulate you within a few yards, they almost have to, just to keep you connected,)
your webcam and mic (if you have them connected and leave your computer on like so many people do) can be activated by virii (this was used by a guy to spy on someone, it was in the news)
you are probably carrying *several* radio-based tranceivers in your wallet that make it possible to link you to several accounts just by walking through a powered antenna, (or pointing one at you,)
chances are, all your search queries, browsing history, tied to your ip address and timestamp, tied to a log in your isp, are collected by the government to "fight terrorism," not that it will probably ever effect you, but that's not the point is it? the point is you're either very simple, or a liar,
your email is harvested by the fbi, your phone may or may not be tapped without a warrant,
and it's becoming closer to impossible for anyone to get a job without submitting their piss for scrutiny...

tell me, where do americans draw the line?

Quote:

Though the British are, with traditional stubbornness, doing a good deal better than the continental nations in maintaining a competitive and adaptive society that almost reproduces itself with succeeding generations and is able to assimilate the immigrants it needs to renew itself - they are well behind us in each area.

meaningless spew not backed by anything, also known as "no you're just wrong..." presented as a refutation!

Quote:

Our Australian and European critics who imagine that an American administration that they don't happen to like is indicative of their innate superiority

i'm an american citizen, so this doesn't apply to moi.

Quote:

should recognize that (1) they don't vote here; and (2) they are so far demonstrable unable to deal with the external threats that confront them

how's the taliban doing in afghanistan? did we find osama in iraq? what meaningless victories have proven that the u.s. has a better track record than anyone else? how many countries in the coalition of the willing have to bomb iraq before all terrorism is defeated? and how the hell do you win a war against a kind of warfare? oh, right, you don't because the very idea is f***ing retarded...

Quote:

and the demographic collapse that they (in Europe) now face.

all i know is that europe has stronger currency. oh yeah, so does canada. i've never heard of a "demographic collapse" but i'm sure it's really important somehow.

you've called my post "absurd" and pretty much said the opposite of what i did. somehow, i think you managed to say less using more words. do you really think you made a point, or refuted one of mine? are you willing to support anything you said with anything besides your imagination and arbitrary contradiction?

*nope, you didn't even bring up the topic again.

0 Replies

tinygiraffe wrote:

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.

Why wouldn't it work here? The United Kingdom has had its Westminster government for almost a hundred years longer than the U.S. has had its Constitution.

For me, I am sick and tired of the political bickering that results from our separation of powers and checks and balances that do nothing more than let socio-economic problems fester when concerted, non-partisan government action may be able to do something worthwhile. Supposedly our convoluted political process is a bulwark against government tyranny, but 2007 is not 1787.

I propose that the Senate have 1 senator from each state chosen by the legislatures of each state for a term of 6 years (subject to recall by the senators' respective legislatures). The U.S. House of Representatives would be chosen by the voters in each state based on proportional representation (with no-party and write-in candidates allowed). The President would be chosen by the voters of the nation as a whole but Congress will choose the president if no candidate wins a majority of the vote in the nation as a whole and a majority of the vote in a majority of the states.

The President and Representatives would serve a term of not longer than 6 years since the last election and both the President and House would be allowed to set the date on which elections for the presidency and House are held- the President and House would have to cooperate with each other or see the other end their term.

The Senate would have no power to propose legislation or amend any legislation that is sent to it by the House. The Senate would have nothing more than a veto power over bills approved by the House and an advise and consent power for presidential treaties and appointees.

The House of Representatives would also have an advise and consent power for treaties and all treaties would have at least a 20 year automatic expiration.

The President would have the power to submit legislation to the House, which the House must vote yes or no on without amendment within a certain amount of time.

0 Replies

Quote:

flaja
Why wouldn't it work here? The United Kingdom has had its Westminster government for almost a hundred years longer than the U.S. has had its Constitution.

The following countries all have the Westminster Style of government which is a system that has been evolving since the twelth century. All have an effective oposition, which in the case of a rogue government can block supply then the government must either resign so that a different government can be appointed or seek a parliamentary dissolution so that new public elections may be held in order to re-confirm or deny their mandate. Assuming the oposition was against the invasion of Iraq they could simply have blocked supply and the Bush regime would have been reined in.

Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize
Canada, Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, India, Republic of Ireland,
Jamaica, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea
Singapore, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu,United Kingdom, Vanuatu

0 Replies

anton wrote:

Quote:
flaja
Why wouldn't it work here? The United Kingdom has had its Westminster government for almost a hundred years longer than the U.S. has had its Constitution.

The following countries all have the Westminster Style of government which is a system that has been evolving since the twelth century. All have an effective oposition, which in the case of a rogue government can block supply then the government must either resign so that a different government can be appointed or seek a parliamentary dissolution so that new public elections may be held in order to re-confirm or deny their mandate. Assuming the oposition was against the invasion of Iraq they could simply have blocked supply and the Bush regime would have been reined in.

Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize
Canada, Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, India, Republic of Ireland,
Jamaica, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea
Singapore, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu,United Kingdom, Vanuatu

The U.S. doesn't have an effective opposition because we seldom have an effective government. For all intents and purposes we have a 4 branch federal government- judiciary, president, House of Representatives and Senate. Historically, seldom has a single political faction controlled any 2 of the 3 non-judicial branches. And since party discipline has seldom ever been as good as it usually is in the U.K. both parties usually have individuals who are willing to disrupt their party's agenda. The most someone in government can do is see to it that people in the other branches cannot do anything. You aren't likely to get elected based on what you want to do or have done, but rather on what you can prevent the other party from doing if it is elected.

0 Replies

anton wrote-

Quote:

Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize
Canada, Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, India, Republic of Ireland,
Jamaica, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea
Singapore, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu,United Kingdom, Vanuatu

They nearly all play cricket and soccer and rugby.

You can't have a Westminster style government playing baseball, netball and football US rules.

There's a spiritual connection which I am at a loss to explain.

0 Replies

In the Westminster system you don't have to be a millionaire to become a member of the government, anyone can be a member as long as they are accepted by their party and the people.

0 Replies

That's right.

There are some serious deadbeats in our legislative councils.

It provides balance we think.

Once it gets exclusive "tart's knicker's curtains" the game's up. You might as well donate a couple of samples to a sperm bank with a good picture and CV and hope for the best after that. If they give you $10 be grateful.

0 Replies

anton wrote:

In the Westminster system you don't have to be a millionaire to become a member of the government, anyone can be a member as long as they are accepted by their party and the people.

The U.S. has a population of about 300,000,000 with a House of Representatives of 435 members. The U.K. has a population of about 60,000,000 with a Commons of 650 members. An MC has fewer constituents he has to campaign for and they are confined in geographic areas that are much smaller than a U.S. congressional district. This alone makes a U.S. campaign cost more than a U.K. campaign. U.S. campaigns likely would cost less if we had proportional representation.

0 Replies

Westminster Style of Government?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know