What country has the best political setup?

[newbie]

The United States of America easily has the best setup. There is no question. The truth of the matter is that "some intellectually challenged or special" folks had taken control of the government and we will have things sorted out in a few months. Just a slight blip was all...

no question? I see little to recommend concentration of power into the hands of an individual 'elected' via a process which concentrates real votes into murky electoral colleges. Or a voting system which denies votes to people who haven't registered a party allegiance. There's no mechanism to no confidence vote out the pres before his time is up, although he can be up for impeachment if he offends the weird sexual morality of a country which pretends to separate state and religion but actually verges on theocracy at times.

The arguments against a fixed constitution are made most strongly by the extraordinary gun laws based on militias of the 18th century. Arguments can be made for or against electing judges or senior police etc, but in an electoral system based almost exclusively on spending power, it's hard to spot responsiveness to the needs of those who can't buy influence.

and so on.

 

[CharlieAddict]

China looks like an awful place from the outside, but you'd be amazed just how much the Chinese love their government.

I also wonder how well China could actually take fully-fledged democracy. You look at places like Taiwan, where they have punchups in the parliament. How on earth, if that's the mentality in China, could it work in a place of the PRC's size...

i'd only live in china if i was mega-rich.
my dad loves china - he was born there, emigrated to hk and then into the uk.

nowadays, he spends 50% here and the other 50% there.

 

[Kaka Tim]

I don't think that's entirely true. Like all politicians in the present mould, Adams et al were looking for the best possible deal they could get, in the meantime looking out for their own self interest.

Agree with that. I was making a glib response to Fullyplumped glib assertion that the IRA had 'lost the war'. Depsite the hobbling effects of brit intelligence they were still able to carry out an effective insurgnecy, including bomb attaks on the UK mainland - tying up a considerable amount of the uks reousrces as a result. By 1990 I think all sides were in the position you outline above - nobody had 'won', and nobody was going to 'win'

 

[Kaka Tim]

But they didn't. If the British state had really gone to town then selected parts of NI would be scorched holes in the ground and an awful lot more people over there would have had shorter and nastier lives than they went on to enjoy.

The British state endured 1000 deaths among the security forces to preserve a modicum of civilised life in NI, dealing death to only 550 terrorists. In the end, the leaders of the insurrectionists were genuinely at a loss as to who was and who was not an agent.

The terrorists didn't get what they wanted by means of murder, torture and extortion and are now reduced to electoral politics.

The UK state was as violent as it felt it could get away with. If had gone any further they would have serious problems with the Irish republic, the large irsh lobby in the US and inspired an even greater level of insurgency. All the same they still managed to murder large numbers of innocent people - often through UK - backed loyalist death squads.

But seeing as you think that the UK state propping up 70 years of corrupt, sectarian and violent Unionist supremcacy is 'preserving civilised life' its clear that your understanding of the issue is as shallow and self-serving as your understanding of what democracy is.

But as a nu-labour stooge that should come as no suprise.

 

[Belushi]

Or a voting system which denies votes to people who haven't registered a party allegiance.

The American system doesnt do that.

 

[belboid]

There's no mechanism to no confidence vote out the pres before his time is up

where can the head of state be no confidenced? Sure, Brit MP's can sack a PM, or bring down a government in theory, but almost never in practise. And it's not something available to the British people. A couple of Latin American countries allow such a thing to happen, i think, but they're hardly magnificent examples of political set ups either.

All all of this goes to show, is that its not the set up which is the most important thing, imo. Even right-wing commentators used to say that the best, most democratic constitution was that of the old USSR, but it hardly manifested itself as such in practise.

 

[newbie]

the head of state here is the queen, and I don't think there's any mechanism to no confidence her except what happened the Charles first. Actually, come to think of it, that's not a bad idea..,.


What you say is right, of course, but the British system (which I'm not here to to defend) does spread power such that it's not concentrated in the hands of a single, non removable, individual. The potential for no confidence constrains individual power, whether it's ever used or not. Thatcher was deposed, teflon Blair clung on and would probably still be there if his party had not pushed him, but it's hard to imagine that Bush has the skills to have stayed in office if there was a political (as opposed to judicial) mechanism to remove him.

 

[Belushi]

What you say is right, of course, but the British system (which I'm not here to to defend) does spread power such that it's not concentrated in the hands of a single, non removable, individual.

So does the American, to a much greater extent than the British system does. An American President has far less domestic power than a British Prime Minister, who is to all extents and purposes an elected dictator providing he can maintain a Parliamentary majority.

 

[belboid]

damn, I meant to use the Hailsham term in my post!

 

[Belushi]

damn, I meant to use the Hailsham term in my post!

Heh, all my American Politics elective just came back to me

 

[newbie]

So does the American, to a much greater extent than the British system does. An American President has far less domestic power than a British Prime Minister, who is to all extents and purposes an elected dictator providing he can maintain a Parliamentary majority.

surely it's that provision that we're discussing? The US pres may have fewer direct powers but he can veto a great deal of the political will of the elected representatives and they can't get rid of him.

I'm not convinced either system is worthy of defence, but the contention upthread that the US system is the best isn't a foregone conclusion imo.

 

[newbie]

damn, I meant to use the Hailsham term in my post!

Whcich hailsham quote are you thinking of? Many, amny years ago we used to have one from him stuck to our fridge but for the life of me i can't remember it and google is refusing to enlighten me.

my mistake, twas Denning on our fridge, not Hailsham

 

[belboid]

the 'elective dictatorship' he used in his 76 Dimbleby Lecture.

"Only a revolution, bloody or peacefully contrived, can put an end to the situation which I have just described. We live in an elective dictatorship, absolute in theory, if hitherto thought tolerable in practice."

 

[newbie]

aye, me being confused, but thanks for the full quote. Surely it's only 'tolerable in practice' because the power of the PM is held in check by the need to retain the confidence of (both houses of) parliament? The PM needs to hold together the ruling party, which in turn, need to know that byelections are winnable. If the current lot lose Glenrothes and one or more in their English heartlands then Brown will probably be forced to call a confidence election (as he almost did last year). Bush's party, by contrast, has lost pretty much everything they've stood for in the last couple of years but his position has remained untouchable.


Denning (in a rare moment) said something lucid about laws only standing while men (people) are prepared to tolerate them, but I can't find it.

 

[doddles]

I'm going to make a case for Australia. Many of the strengths of the UK parliamentary system, with few of its weaknesses. And some additional strengths of its own.

So, a fully elected upper house, but one which is elected on a completely different basis than the lower house, and at different times, thus ensuring a degree of independence of the two houses. A PM that can be (and has been) removed if he/she loses all support. A high voter turnout due to compulsory voting (whilst retaining the right of individuals to cast a "non-vote"). A system that ensures that if no single party obtains a majority, then the party which is most liked (as measured using rank-ordered voting) forms government. Nowhere near the amount of prying on personal lives by the government (including repeated failures to introduce ID cards). Healthy freedom of speech and decent independent/publically funded media (the lack of which is one of the main reasons politics in the USA has become so dumbed down).

A long way from being perfect, but I would argue a better designed and functioning system than many developed democracies can boast.

 

[Nigel]

Post feudal, pre-industrial(capitlaist) possibly.
CUBA
NICUARAGUA(1980'S)
VENEZUALA
USSR(PRE-STALIN)
GERMANY(1918-1922)
INDIA(UNDER NEHRU)
BURKINA FASO(UNDER SANKARA)

 

[Fullyplumped]

is that 'probably' it? Not that the spanish government didnt bomb the hell out of the basque country, which according to you it should have?

That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. Why tell lies when the truth could serve you just as well?

Nor the fact that sinn feins participation in government is woefully constrained and could be removed by a foreign power at any moment? I don't really think they support your argument very well at all.

What foreign power? Are the Russians plotting something again? Sinn Fein is represented in the NI Assembly and the UK Parliament within the UK constitution, and has members who are ministers in a UK devolved assembly with full access to the ministerial mondeo. They probably get to go on the playstation too. The only constraints they face are the will of the electors, and continuing to not kill people.

[qute]I disagree with much of what you say but at least you're sticking to the point of the thread from the original post. ooh, get her, now she's the fucking arbiter of what's relevant to the thread. Always a good sign of when someones argument is getting ripped apart, they suddenly go 'stick to the point of the thread'.

My "argument" was simply that it is not obvious, as the original poster had it, that the UK didn't have the best "political setup" - no more, no less. My argument was hardly getting ripped up by people disagreeing with it. You do use awfully violent language for such a camp wee thing. I bet you wouldn't talk like that to my face.

And just to do that, another very very simple reason why the UK has very very obviously not get the best political set up - three of the four branches of government & law making are unelected. Anyone trying to defend that set up is a reactionary scumbag, pure and simple.

I take it that you disagree with me too? Fair enough.

I personally don't agree with elected judges.

I am immensely relaxed, like the majority of citizens, with the ceremonial head of state not being elected. I see advantages in the functional head of the executive being drawn from and appointed with the consent of the legislature, and I think that a separately elected executive, like they have in the US and France, would be worse than what we have here.

I had to google the expression "four branches of government" and I assume tou mean the bureaucracy as the fourth branch. I would not be in favour of seeing Executive Officers in the Department of Work and Pensions being subject to regular elections.

Anyway, it looks like I am defending "that set up" - if that makes me "a reactionary scumbag, pure and simple" then that is a cross I'll just have to bear.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Agree with that. I was making a glib response to Fullyplumped glib assertion that the IRA had 'lost the war'. Depsite the hobbling effects of brit intelligence they were still able to carry out an effective insurgnecy, including bomb attaks on the UK mainland - tying up a considerable amount of the uks reousrces as a result. By 1990 I think all sides were in the position you outline above - nobody had 'won', and nobody was going to 'win'

That's fair enough.The IRA started the war to end the rule of the UK in Northern Ireland and to achieve unification of NI with the republic. They failed to achieve that aim and it's in that sense that they "lost". Despite having murdered thousands of people their leaders were not liquidated or imprisoned, but were assimilated into democratic electoral politics. I think that is admirable.

 

[Fullyplumped]

The UK state was as violent as it felt it could get away with. If had gone any further they would have serious problems with the Irish republic, the large irsh lobby in the US and inspired an even greater level of insurgency. All the same they still managed to murder large numbers of innocent people - often through UK - backed loyalist death squads.

The UK state could have been much, much more violent that it was. It used much greater violence in insurgencies outwith the UK in the past and probably continues to do so, although the experience in NI has been, as others have pointed out, a valuable sources of lessons. According to the Sutton index of deaths on the CAIN project, summarised in Wikipedia, the republicans killed most dead people. It is part of the propaganda of the IRA and its sympathisers that the loyalist murder gangs killed their victims on behalf of the UK state. I think that is just a convenient lie, although I accept that there were some cases of collusion. The loyalist barbarians did not need an excuse to kill people.

But seeing as you think that the UK state propping up 70 years of corrupt, sectarian and violent Unionist supremcacy is 'preserving civilised life' its clear that your understanding of the issue is as shallow and self-serving as your understanding of what democracy is.

I think re-establishing an environment in which people are no longer killed in their thousands in the street, or in their home, or at work, or on holiday, is 'preserving civilised life'. There is still intimidation and forced conformity for people who live in certain areas, and thugs still hold too much sway, so the job's not completely done yet. "They've not gone away, you know." But unless you like that sort of thing - and maybe you do - NI is more civilised than it was in the past.

But as a nu-labour stooge that should come as no suprise.

Obligatory personal insult. Maybe it makes you feel more confident to say such things?

 

[obanite]

Is direct democracy a good thing or a bad thing?

The 'tyranny of the majority' ... 'That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity...' (A. Hamilton)

Like someone else said, it's highly subjective, and depends on what each person views as the best political system.

I think the UK's system would be a lot better if there were more checks and balances in place to stop MPs from consistently going against the will of the people. It's a shame we have to rely on the House of Lords to act as our last line of defense against draconian legislation like the 42 days bill.

 

[Idris2002]

That's fair enough.The IRA started the war to end the rule of the UK in Northern Ireland and to achieve unification of NI with the republic. They failed to achieve that aim. Despite having murdered thousands of people their leaders were not liquidated or imprisoned, but were assimilated into democratic electoral politics. I think that is admirable.

You are wrong. The IRA did not start the war (in fact did not kill a British soldier until 1971). The war started when the Stormont regime reacted to legitimate, peaceful protests for just demands with brutal, violent, thuggish repression. That is what brought the IRA back from the dead as a fighting force.

I was opposed to the IRA's campaign violence and the taking of innocent lives it entailed. I am opposed to it now.

I am also opposed to people like you who tell lies about history.

 

[Fullyplumped]

You are wrong. The IRA did not start the war (in fact did not kill a British soldier until 1971). The war started when the Stormont regime reacted to legitimate, peaceful protests for just demands with brutal, violent, thuggish repression. That is what brought the IRA back from the dead as a fighting force.

I was opposed to the IRA's campaign violence and the taking of innocent lives it entailed. I am opposed to it now.

I am also opposed to people like you who tell lies about history.

I'm sorry, you're fundamentally right on the question of "who started the war." I used that expression in the sense of the IRA killing a British soldier. It's a matter of perspective - I'm certainly not trying to tell lies about anything.

Edited to add - I hope you would agree that the IRA's aim pretty quickly became to end the rule of the UK in Northern Ireland and to achieve unification of NI with the republic. further, I hope you would agree that it is a good thing that they were frustrated in that, and that it is a good thing that the killing stopped and that their leaders got to play a part in government.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Fullyplumped

I would call you complacent and smug but that might give the impression that I thought that you were more politically and self aware than you are.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Fullyplumped

I would call you complacent and smug but that might give the impression that I thought that you were more politically and self aware than you are.

You had to think about that, didn't you! A regular Oscar Wilde.

 

[DotCommunist]

Russia

Did you know Putins Grandad started out as a scullion serving Romanov's and Rasputin. He went on to serve shadowy nkvd dinners and even Stalin

all a bit gormenghastly

 

[belboid]

That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. Why tell lies when the truth could serve you just as well?

seemed fair enough to me, you mentioned the lack of the brit gov bombing irish towns.

What foreign power? Are the Russians plotting something again? Sinn Fein is represented in the NI Assembly and the UK Parliament within the UK constitution, and has members who are ministers in a UK devolved assembly with full access to the ministerial mondeo. They probably get to go on the playstation too. The only constraints they face are the will of the electors, and continuing to not kill people.

the yk gov is a foreign power, as you well know. which is why - as you well know again - sf dont sit in its parliament. they are allowed to sit in NI as long as the uk gov says so, they can close it down at any point, as they have done.

My "argument" was simply that it is not obvious, as the original poster had it, that the UK didn't have the best "political setup" - no more, no less. My argument was hardly getting ripped up by people disagreeing with it. You do use awfully violent language for such a camp wee thing. I bet you wouldn't talk like that to my face.

bet i would, i'm a foul mouthed git. tho it would probably come across less offensively as i'd have been laughing in a jolly friendly manner

I personally don't agree with elected judges.

I am immensely relaxed, like the majority of citizens, with the ceremonial head of state not being elected. I see advantages in the functional head of the executive being drawn from and appointed with the consent of the legislature, and I think that a separately elected executive, like they have in the US and France, would be worse than what we have here.

which is still more than we have now, of course. And I am personally for as much democracy as possible. as to the queen being purely ceremonial, and this may be getting a tad off topic, but she is far more than that, a more than symbolic justification of all the inherited wealth and privilege that blights this country.

I had to google the expression "four branches of government" and I assume tou mean the bureaucracy as the fourth branch. I would not be in favour of seeing Executive Officers in the Department of Work and Pensions being subject to regular elections.

well, we all know what 'assume' makes.....i was thinking of the house of lords actually, which labour used to talk about making democratic, but then stopped doing so. it - if its needed at all - should also be elected.

 

[lobster]

Is direct democracy a good thing or a bad thing?

I think its a good idea because then people actually choose something based on their judgement. One of the biggest argument that I have heard against it is that does the average person understand politics enough to make a wise decision or at worst , people could vote irrationally .

One can argue for any politics, a system is only as good as its people .
When you take the soviet union, the original intentions was admirable but once Stalin got in it was already in the bin.
Sure , he abused his power but that does not alter history that humans are not all egalitarian.

I would love a socialist country which would eventually transform into communism , but do we have the people that can achieve this?

I know the conditions are not ready and that the left is in a mess..
Is this mess something that is installed in the human condition and is not going change?

I don't mean to bring hope down but I do worry that very few people want or care for such a better life.

 

[Fullyplumped]

The UK is not a foreign power in NI - a view the majority of people in NI have repeatedly made fairly clear they endorse. It seems that the views of some British citizens in NI are less important than the views of others. If Sinn Fein and their supporters think their fellow citizens should becime citizens of another state, they should try being nice to them and win them over that way. I know that is quite a big thing to ask, right enough, but it's the British way.

Sinn Fein MPs should let someone else have a go if they don't want the gig, and they should give the money back - no compensation without representation. Still, everyone gets to play and hardly anyone gets hurt any more.

 

[belboid]

'the british way'?? oh do fuck off (and - yes I would, and with an even bigger smile on my face) - the british way that carved the bloody state up ignoring the wishes of the majority in the process?

 

[Fullyplumped]

'the british way'?? oh do fuck off (and - yes I would, and with an even bigger smile on my face) - the british way that carved the bloody state up ignoring the wishes of the majority in the process?

You must forgive my ironic British sense of humour.