UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown to step down

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Either way, it's still weird. Crazy Brits! Perhaps they should actually write up one of these here constitutions so they can keep things straight!

LOL. Yes I will agree that their way of running things is strange to us. But it has evolved over a thousand years or so. And while they might not have a constitution, they do have various legal documents that they hold to. Our bill of rights was based heavily on the Magna Carter for instance. And even not taking that into account, they take their traditions seriously. There are so many unwritten conventions that have the force of law now. Theoretically the Queen has enormous power. In reality she can't use most of it without causing a constitutional crisis. It is really interesting how things ended up the way they did.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

LOL. Yes I will agree that their way of running things is strange to us. But it has evolved over a thousand years or so. And while they might not have a constitution, they do have various legal documents that they hold to. Our bill of rights was based heavily on the Magna Carter for instance. And even not taking that into account, they take their traditions seriously. There are so many unwritten conventions that have the force of law now. Theoretically the Queen has enormous power. In reality she can't use most of it without causing a constitutional crisis. It is really interesting how things ended up the way they did.

Oh believe me I know, I just can't help but enjoy that someone's political system seems crazier than ours. Although the short campaign period would be a great thing to copy.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Oh believe me I know, I just can't help but enjoy that someone's political system seems crazier than ours. Although the short campaign period would be a great thing to copy.

I honestly do like the fact that parliament can be dissolved anything and that elections are shortly after. However that is one of the things that the current Government wants to change. And honestly the PM generally speaking can get a lot more done then the president can, mostly because the PM by his nature has the majority of Commons behind them. While I love this country, I do think that the older British system has some good things going for it.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

I honestly do like the fact that parliament can be dissolved anything and that elections are shortly after. However that is one of the things that the current Government wants to change. And honestly the PM generally speaking can get a lot more done then the president can, mostly because the PM by his nature has the majority of Commons behind them. While I love this country, I do think that the older British system has some good things going for it.

I agree, though like I said, I mostly want the Question Time for purely selfish purposes.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I agree, though like I said, I mostly want the Question Time for purely selfish purposes.

LOL. The heckling? Though I do think it is a good idea for purely political reasons.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

LOL. The heckling? Though I do think it is a good idea for purely political reasons.

Yes the heckling. Plus I think it could be good for the political *cough* pwnage. I think Obama would be good at it too.

But regardless I think it is worthwhile. Although that whole head of state thing means that the pres makes the trips abroad more than if he were just head of government.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes the heckling. Plus I think it could be good for the political *cough* pwnage. I think Obama would be good at it too.

But regardless I think it is worthwhile. Although that whole head of state thing means that the pres makes the trips abroad more than if he were just head of government.

Not just abroad. I always thought combining head of state and government into one position was a bad idea. The President spends more time making various appearances, granting awards and doing a bunch of other ceremonious things instead of actually running the country.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Not just abroad. I always thought combining head of state and government into one position was a bad idea. The President spends more time making various appearances, granting awards and doing a bunch of other ceremonious things instead of actually running the country.

Indeed, although because he can't control Congress his level of being able to 'run' the country is lower. Our way has benefits but theirs does too.

[RU OX Alum]

Maybe there should be question time with the Speaker of the House?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

Maybe there should be question time with the Speaker of the House?

Not quite the same thing though. I mean our pres. wouldn't quite be the same thing either, but if the President and the Speaker are of the same party, it makes more sense to have the President do it. If they're not, it doesn't make as much sense, but I'm not sure that the Speaker is more ideal than the Senate Majority Leader or the President.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Not quite the same thing though. I mean our pres. wouldn't quite be the same thing either, but if the President and the Speaker are of the same party, it makes more sense to have the President do it. If they're not, it doesn't make as much sense, but I'm not sure that the Speaker is more ideal than the Senate Majority Leader or the President.

It just seems to correlate more. And I don't really like that which party is involved having much to do with it. That's what totalitarianists do. Combine offices and such.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

It just seems to correlate more. And I don't really like that which party is involved having much to do with it. That's what totalitarianists do. Combine offices and such.

Speaker is only in charge of one house, not of the government as a whole. President is nominally at least head of government but if he does not have a majority in the house/senate then he's not necessarily making policy either. Unlike the PM who is only the PM as long as his party is in the majority. So yes in some ways it works and some it doesn't. I just don't think it'd be as interesting to have Congress talking amongst themselves.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

It just seems to correlate more. And I don't really like that which party is involved having much to do with it. That's what totalitarianists do. Combine offices and such.

Well the Westminster system is a pretty unique one. It evolved from an absolute monarchy, which would be a totalitarian regime, but with a democracy taking place over the centuries. Strictly speaking it is still an absolute monarchy in fact. Acts of Parliament can't pass without the approval of all three parts, including the Crown. And the cabinet are strictly speaking advisers to the Crown.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Speaker is only in charge of one house, not of the government as a whole. President is nominally at least head of government but if he does not have a majority in the house/senate then he's not necessarily making policy either. Unlike the PM who is only the PM as long as his party is in the majority. So yes in some ways it works and some it doesn't. I just don't think it'd be as interesting to have Congress talking amongst themselves.

Yeah Official Questions just would not work here. However maybe it would work if during the State of the Union address or another joint session questions were asked of the big 3. And to pick a nit, the PM is PM as long as he supports a majority, doesn't have to be just his party as the current situation shows. Also there is no legal requirement for that, as the Queen still has the right to appoint whoever she wishes.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I caught MysticCat in a typo!

Friday was definitely the day I didn't get enough caffeine.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Well the Westminster system is a pretty unique one. It evolved from an absolute monarchy, which would be a totalitarian regime, but with a democracy taking place over the centuries. Strictly speaking it is still an absolute monarchy in fact. Acts of Parliament can't pass without the approval of all three parts, including the Crown. And the cabinet are strictly speaking advisers to the Crown.

Yeah Official Questions just would not work here. However maybe it would work if during the State of the Union address or another joint session questions were asked of the big 3. And to pick a nit, the PM is PM as long as he supports a majority, doesn't have to be just his party as the current situation shows. Also there is no legal requirement for that, as the Queen still has the right to appoint whoever she wishes.

Ah yes that makes sense, it's just 'what is done' so to speak. I suspect that will continue until/if the Queen/King says "screw you I like Joe" (Though I'm sure it would be said very regally) and then they'll change things

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Friday was definitely the day I didn't get enough caffeine.

Hee.