Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What do you think is better the US congress or the Houses of Parliament. I prefer the Congress as Senator's and Representatives don't have to vote with the party if they don't agree with its policies. This (normally) avoids bad agendas being forced through.


    However the Prime Minister's questions system is a great way of Executive accountability being maintained effectively. The US should do that itself.

    What do you think??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think congress with changes. Such as the President actually attending and debating the issues with senators.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I like the parliment system that we have at the moment. Would there have to be a president if there was a congress?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    the president doesn't attend debates in congress because of the separation of powers. Also in Congress there is a lot more done in the committee rooms in the legislative process and less is decided on the floor of the chambers.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Parliament is so much better. Since government is drawn from the legislature, at least Parliament can try to hold Mr. Blair to account.

    Congress doesn't stand a chance...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I like the parliment system that we have at the moment. Would there have to be a president if there was a congress?
    Congress is just another word for Parliament.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wise One)
    Parliament is so much better. Since government is drawn from the legislature, at least Parliament can try to hold Mr. Blair to account.

    Congress doesn't stand a chance...
    Hmmm......so you're not a fan of the separation of powers then?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Course Congress can hold the President to account. The Legislative branch is the foundation for the executive branch and as such the President must accept the power and privilege of the Congress if he wishes to achieve a full success to his policy initivatives. Congress can impeach the President (Clinton), Only Congress can declare war, only congress can pass a bill, only congress can accept and ratify the agreements that the President has put the US name to.

    So yeah, Congress can hold the President to account and at the same time wields enormous power in the process and application of the roles of the United States government.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not really a fan of the Seperation of Powers, no.
    I'd also like to see a democratically elected second chamber, proportional representation for general elections, and a multi-party (rather than two-party dominant) system.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I like the parliment system that we have at the moment. Would there have to be a president if there was a congress?
    Congress is part of a checks and balances system. It has to have the president and the supreme court or none of it's bills passed would become law, because a bill rarely gets enough votes to become law without a president's signature.

    (Original post by USUK1)
    What do you think is better the US congress or the Houses of Parliament. I prefer the Congress as Senator's and Representatives don't have to vote with the party if they don't agree with its policies. This (normally) avoids bad agendas being forced through.


    However the Prime Minister's questions system is a great way of Executive accountability being maintained effectively. The US should do that itself.

    What do you think??
    A parliamentary system ensures that a chimp like George Bush cant become the Head of Government (can you imagine the chimp at Prime Ministers Question Time - he'd be slaughtered within a minute).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by USUK1)
    What do you think is better the US congress or the Houses of Parliament. I prefer the Congress as Senator's and Representatives don't have to vote with the party if they don't agree with its policies. This (normally) avoids bad agendas being forced through.


    However the Prime Minister's questions system is a great way of Executive accountability being maintained effectively. The US should do that itself.

    What do you think??
    Parliament. Westminster is the mother of all parliaments as they say.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by USUK1)
    What do you think is better the US congress or the Houses of Parliament. I prefer the Congress as Senator's and Representatives don't have to vote with the party if they don't agree with its policies. This (normally) avoids bad agendas being forced through.


    However the Prime Minister's questions system is a great way of Executive accountability being maintained effectively. The US should do that itself.

    What do you think??
    MPs don't have to vote along party lines if they don't want to, either. What one earth made you think that they did?

    The real difference is that we don't have an elected second chamber.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Personally i am very happy with the system we have here in the UK. I think that parliament does keep the Pm in line most of the time, however i do not think the PM should be able to go to war without consulting parliament more fully. Whether the war on Iraq was right or wrong we certainly did not have the full and open debate we were promised. This should of been inscribed into the legislature.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    Personally i am very happy with the system we have here in the UK. I think that parliament does keep the Pm in line most of the time, however i do not think the PM should be able to go to war without consulting parliament more fully. Whether the war on Iraq was right or wrong we certainly did not have the full and open debate we were promised. This should of been inscribed into the legislature.
    Yeah, but the fact remains that Parliament still voted it through.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wise One)
    I'm not really a fan of the Seperation of Powers, no.
    I'd also like to see a democratically elected second chamber, proportional representation for general elections, and a multi-party (rather than two-party dominant) system.
    Fuc me its just a copy from my old poltics classes.
    Jesus why do you people just try and gloat about what you know when you can simply tell all the terminology used has been so in your present year of education. Jesus come up with something orginal!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MyHappyEnding)
    Jesus why do you people just try and gloat about what you know when you can simply tell all the terminology used has been so in your present year of education.
    Not necessarily.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    MPs don't have to vote along party lines if they don't want to, either. What one earth made you think that they did?

    The real difference is that we don't have an elected second chamber.
    But most MPs are career politicians, and so rely on the backing of their party to remain the nominee for their party in a constituency. The Parliamentary Labour Party sends a report to Constituency Labour Parties detailing the voting behaviour of MPs in parliament. If they don't tow the party line this reporr is most unfavourable. My old MP John Marek lost his post as Labour MP for Wrexham because he did not tow the New Labour party line-he's very much old labour. Luckily, he's now in the Welsh assembly instead.

    Anyway, my point is that career MPs feel greatly obliged to tow the party line, representing their party rather than constituency. Congress is better because of processes such as pork-barreling, in line with weak party discipline, enable electees to better represent their constituents.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    MPs don't have to vote along party lines if they don't want to, either. What one earth made you think that they did?
    No they don't have to. But if they value their career they'll do what the whips bloody well tell them to do.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In effect the whips run 90% of the Parliament. (how wonderful that the MP's have so much individual power to present and vote on their opinion rather than the continuation and success of the party line as laid out by the leadership)
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

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.