Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

A Presidential System for the UK watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Like someone above has said. Presidential system means different things.

    If you mean 'replace the monarchy with a president with similar powers and duties', the change would be minimal and largely semantic, although there is danger of politicising the last major public office which continued to serve the country and not party.

    If you mean 'adopt a US style constitution with an executive president', it would be such a fundamental change as to make as likely to come about as the French monarchy being restored. Additionally the US presidential system is deeply flawed, even if it does look nice and tidy. It's a deeply conservative system which favours incumbents and relies on resolving disputes between executive and legislature by means of pork barrel and bribery. The current Westminster system always ensures there is a democratic means of resolving deadlock (general election and/or dismissal of the government).
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Agent Smirnoff)
    Who here thinks the UK should have a presidential system?
    I favour it... just need to get rid of old queenie first
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Additionally the US presidential system is deeply flawed, even if it does look nice and tidy. It's a deeply conservative system which favours incumbents and relies on resolving disputes between executive and legislature by means of pork barrel and bribery. The current Westminster system always ensures there is a democratic means of resolving deadlock (general election and/or dismissal of the government).
    When the executive in this country wants something done, it shakes the prospect of ministerial jobs, deselection in constituencies, expulsion from the party and whatever else the grubby arsenal of Westminster politics can conjure up at MPs. That's no less of a problem: at least the 'bribery' you talk about in the US system is largely based on policies rather than jobs.

    Meanwhile - and I think this is a big problem - we have a significant number of people in the legislature who are on the government payroll, essentially earning significant cash on the basis that they cannot speak out against the government or its proposals. Moreover, they then cease to be representatives of their constituents, but instead become representatives of the executive.

    Let's not forget too that the "Presidential System" is what the British constitution is based upon. Before the days of Prime Ministers, we had an executive - the monarch - and a separate legislature. The difference was that the monarch could not properly assert his lawful authority because he did not have a democratic mandate. Thus evolved the system where his prerogatives were gradually surrendered to the only elected body, the Commons, and the man able to best hold the confidence of that House.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I woul like to see a directly elected leader. It may be the one thing that could re-invigorate our politics. Anyone could stand so it would take power away from the party elites. Restrict individual party donations to £10,000, have an elected 2nd chamber and we'd be on our way.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Parliamentary vs. presidential is an either/or case.

    What is the point of electing a president that cannot implement his/her policies, since the legislature is of a rival party?

    What then is the point of the president/executive even having a manifesto, if s/he cannot implement it?

    I couldn't give a **** about the monarchy, stay or go, I don't care. But we could have a combined head of state and head of government in a parliamentary system, similar to what South Africa has.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    We will never adopt the presidential system - it would be a disaster. Far, far too much power in the hands of one person, elected or not. There's a reason why all European democracies bar France use the Parliamentary system.

    We may adopt a president within the Westminster system. Even then there would be little more than a semantic difference, you wouldn't notice the change unless someone told you about it. The head of state in a parliamentary system is completely powerless. Since it doesn't really matter if we have a monarch or a president, I can't find a compelling argument to change it for the time being. If the monarchy wielded power then there would be a serious justification for getting rid of them, but they haven't blocked a bill since the reign of Queen Anne three centuries ago. It's not an important issue - more democratic nations than us such as Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands and Denmark, have constitutional monarchs. There are other things we can do to improve the quality of British democracy before we should even consider talking about the monarchy, such as having a full and frank debate about the voting system, reforming local government, etc.
    There is not too much power in the hands of one person, this only occurs in the most extreme of cases. The American system is far more democratic than ours, even then you could have a pluralist presidential system instead of just a unilateral one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd support reform of the Monarchy, but I don't see a need for a Presidentual system
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If there is a presidential system, then how are disputes between the President and Parliament resolved? Why elect a President on a given manifesto, when Parliament is of a rival party and simply wants to scupper him/her?

    In our present system, the PM does have too much power, but this can be remedied by Parliament making civil service appointments. The PM can only focus on being the head of the Cabinet, drawing up government policy and appointing his/her minister.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    The royal family has no power and has nothing to do with our democracy other than some formality. So pretty much your entire post is void.
    I think pretty much your talking out of your back side.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    I think pretty much your talking out of your back side.
    Go on then. Whats powers has the Royal family used recently?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    What would a president do that the PM can't?
    I for one would hope a popularly-elected executive President would be able to do less than the Prime Minister. Separate some powers, but not so much as being in the realm of a ceremonial head of state like with the German Model (or our current Queen!). But definitely less than the 'Imperial' Premiership of United States Presidents.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Go on then. Whats powers has the Royal family used recently?
    Just because they havent used them doesn't mean they dont have them. How do we know they havent used them.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.