Talk:Westminster System

From Academic Kids

I took Australia out because I was under the impression Australia uses the Instant Runoff Voting method to elect its parliamentarians...

You are correct about Australia's electoral system, but Australia is still a Westminster using nation. The Westminster system is one of procedure not an electoral system.

I have capitalised both words because depending on usage (ie, formal description or generalised use) it is capitalised or half-capitalised. As this is a formal definition, it is formally capitalised. STÓD/ÉÍRE 01:58 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

Contents

1 ireland 2 head of state 3 Meaning of "government" 4 where??

ireland

I believe Ireland is not a Commonwealth nation, would you agree?

Yup. Changed it. This article however is seriously flawed in its understanding of many of the precepts of the Westminster system, and refers to many things that are not part of the Westminster system but which exist independently of it and alongside it. It will require major editing and rewriting. FearÉIREANN 23:30, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

My strong feeling is that both Australia and Ireland should excluded here, for other reasons other than those stated above:

• Upper houses: Current thinking among Australian political scientists is that the Australian system of government, which has barely changed since 1901, was a strong, conscious blend of the British and US systems. The "Washminster system" is one name for this. An important implication of this is that Australia maintains a very strong Senate, similar in powers to the House of Lords prior to 1911 (see: House_of_Lords#Limitations, or the US Senate, with the power to block any or all legislation.

• Executive power: the President of Ireland has a mandate through direct election and both she/he and the Australian Governor-General have much greater formal, constitutional powers, even if these are rarely exercised, than those normally associated with ceremonial heads of state under the Westminster System (see e.g.President_of_Ireland#Reserve_powers and Governor-General_of_Australia#The_reserve_powers). In some important respects, both countries are closer to Semi-presidential_systems than the Westminster system. Regards, Grant65 (Talk) 12:17, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

head of state

Because of the formal constitutional powers of the Irish president, some authorities believe the Irish constitution is as similar to semi-presidential systems, as it is to Westminster. On the very rare occasions that Governors-General of Commonwealth countries exercise their full reserve powers — which are formidable under some constitutions — these systems may be seen in a similar light to Ireland.

If the UK head of state were to exercise the her powers "on very rare" occasions would that make the UK semi-presidential system?

I think that this paragraph is a mess. The Irish president has a popular mandate but limited powers (compared to a president in a presidential system) that is why it is a semi-presidential system. The powers which the governor-generals have reflect the powers which QEII has, this paragraph implies that in exceptional circumstances the Westminster System is a semi-presidential system. It is not. It is the Westminster system.

Looked at another way, the US took a idealised snap shot of the Westminster system as it was 230 years ago, so one could argue that the US presidential system is a semi-Westminster-system. Which as a statement is just as opaque calling the Westminster system semi-presidential. Philip Baird Shearer 20:23, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"If the UK head of state were to exercise the her powers "on very rare" occasions would that make the UK semi-presidential system?" Well yes, it would and Bagehot referred to Britain as a "crowned republic". Point is, HM doesn't do that.

"The powers which the governor-generals have reflect the powers which QEII has..." Not true. In the Australian case, with which I ma most familiar, the G-G has potentially huge powers, much bigger than the monarch in regard to Australia or the UK. This is because of Australia's formal, unified constitutional Act, something which all of the Commonwealth countries — except NZ — have and which Britain does not. This is a big difference: a straightforward constitutional document is much more powerful than ancient powers, all but erased by centuries of convention (i.e. that the monarch does not intervene). For example, s.64 of the Australian constitution gives the G-G the right to dismiss any minister, at any time. Which is what happened to the Australian PM in 1975, against the conventions of the "Westminster system" and against the advice of the Australian Solicitor General. It was nevertheless legal and pefectly "constitutional".Grant65 (Talk) 15:49, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

The monarch has similar powers. You see them in use when there is a hung parliament. It is just since WWII there have been little need for the powers to be used because the House of Commons has usually been run with a clear mandate. When there has not been one then there has been a general election which has given one. If there was not, then the monarch gets involved. There are lots of other powers as well it is just that they have not been needed to be exercised, but they exist. Plucking just one from the list "orders in council" which if there was a hung parliament and a national crises, is an extreamly powerfull residual power.Philip Baird Shearer 23:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy it. When was the last time a monarch dismissed a British PM, or even intervened directly in parliamentary politics? And what was it that supposedly happened some time around WW2 to change the system? I once ran the kind of argument you're making past a political science professor -- a Canadian who had studied/taught in the US, UK and Australia --- and he wouldn't have a bar of it. He said, for example, that if there was an hung parliament in the UK "the party leaders would sort it out among themselves".Grant65 (Talk) 11:33, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I think you might find this interesting http://www.norepublic.com.au/essays/Essay_Reserve_Powers.htm I agree that usually the party leaders would sort it out. But about every 70 years or so there is a seismic shift in British parties which make up the house of Commons. When that happens there can be a lot of instability with no clear leader. If it is coupled with a national crises there is no guarantee that the parties will amicably agree on a PM. If ever the Librals get to introduce PR, this could lead to many more hung parliaments in which case the arbitrator (which in the UK is the monarch) will play a more central role.

In the Irish Home Rule crises of 1912-1914 George V contemplated using his veto. This was a very big crises, which also and bought in the Parliament Act. This was the last really big constitutional crises in the UK. Another example is not so much choosing a PM but choosing not to dissolve parliament when asked to do by a PM who has lost the confidence of the house if another potential PM candidate asked the monarch not to do it because they thought they could form a majority. Philip Baird Shearer 20:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree there is a remote possibility that a monatch would intervene in the event of a British constitutional crisis. But this is as remote as Pluto when compared to the demonstrated abilities of the Australian G-G's and state governors -- the JB Paul article you linked gives several examples. My only real criticism of that article is that Paul can't have it both ways: he questions Roy Jenkins' assertions about a UK crisis and at the same time (correctly) points out a major difference between the Commonwealth countries and Westminster:

As the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council said in Adegbenro v. Akintola, ‘it is . . . the wording of the Constitution itself that is to be interpreted and applied, and this wording can never be overridden by the extraneous principles of other Constitutions which are not explicitly incorporated in the formulae that have been chosen as the frame of this Constitution’.

This will apply equally to any ordinary law. The precise words of the law will govern, not appeals to practice in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. It will be no use arguing: ‘Oh! but that’s not what the framers of the law meant. It’s just "an attempt to frame United Kingdom constitutional conventions (or some others) in terms of positive law", and it’s the convention, not the law, that governs.’ Grant65 (Talk) 09:25, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Meaning of "government"

In a Westminster system, the members of parliament are elected by popular vote. The head of government is usually chosen by being invited to form a government by the head of state or representative of the head of state (ie, governor-general in some Commonwealth states), not by parliamentary vote. (See Kiss Hands.)

Again, this sentence makes no sense to American ears! What do you mean, "form a government"?? You HAVE a government already! The Westminster system IS the government! So, what does it mean to "form a government"? Unless "government" has a special term that no one writing these articles seems able to define?? Revolver 07:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Traditionally, the opposition parties will sit in one row of seats, and the government party will sit in the other.

What is a "government party"? EVERY party is part of the government! Am I missing something?? Revolver 07:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

A related convention is that members of the Cabinet are collectively seen as responsible for government policy and ministers must publicly support the policy of the government regardless of their private reservation. A minister is duty-bound to resign if they cannot publicly support the government's position.

Again, this statement sounds like nonsense to Americans. The government doesn't have a position in America. The government is collectively everyone who makes up the government. Even people who just work for the government are referred to as part of "the government". The government is a form of running the country given by the Constitution, but the government doesn't take positions on policy...in fact, most Americans would say that phrase doesn't even make sense. Individuals and parties take positions, not the government, unless "the government" has some technical meaning. Sorry to beat a dead horse, but you really need to know, these articles aren't doing a very good job of explaining anything. Revolver 08:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

As has been mentioned elsewhere Government, in this context, is used in a similar way to how administration might be used in the US. It is a shorthand way of saying the party or parties who control the executive (and, in westminster systems, the legislature as well). Iain 10:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the problem is the difference in capitalisation - the "Government" is the subset of the "government" that is made up of the members of Parliament of the party in power.

James F. (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. The places where I was confused were NOT capitalised. They were lower-case. Revolver 18:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point - the words were uncapitalised, and this was wrong and thus potentially more confusing than if it had been otherwise. James F. (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The Curse of the Phantom Lowercasers on Wikiepdia! Lol. They can hardly see a capital without lowercasing it. And then we get readers who understandably can't understand an article because the subtleties conveyed by the use of capitals has all been lost! :) FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 22:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if there's such a definite distinction between government and Government. In Ireland at least, "government" is understood to be the executive, rather than the wider state apparatus as in the US usage. The capital is normally used when referring to the government of the day, e.g. "the Government is considering the matter", and I think this is also the style in the UK (in the UK the definite article is normally dropped, e.g. "Government is considering the matter"). I don't know if there's anything analogous to the US usage of "government" as the state apparatus and anyone in its employ. In Ireland we might use "the State" to refer to the legislature, courts, civil service etc. I can only base this on experience of Ireland and the UK, however. --Ryano 12:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what you are confused about. It is perfectly obvious. A form of government is not the government. It is the constitutional system by which that form of government operates. The US has a form of government known often as presidentialism. The Westminster System is a parliamentary form of government whereby the head of government is chosen by parliament, not in a presidential election, and is answerable to parliament, not a president. It is elementary political science.

Similarly collective cabinet responsibility is patently obvious and no, it doesn't exist in the US. In the US the cabinet is a committee of members who do the President's bidding. They aren't collectively answerable to themselves but to him. In the Westminster System, the cabinet is collectively answerable to each other on an 'one for all, all for one' basis, so one minister cannot walk away and disagree. If they were in cabinet, even if they were outvoted on an issue, they are responsible for the policy. If they want to disown it they must resign. Again it is elementary political science. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 21:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

where??

As has been mentioned elsewhere

Where, elsewhere?? The only place I can find is at the article on differences in American/British vocabulary, not on articles on parliament itself. I'm just telling you, you need to make some note (e.g. "Here, "government" refers to the political party in power, not to the general agency of governing") or something, or else people unfamiliar with parliamentary systems are going to be totally confused. Revolver 18:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Im sorry, I had thought from your contribution list that you had found out the answer to your query by yourself (you had edited the US/UK diferences article). I was only responding here in order to clarify the issue for anyone else who might have had the same problem. I meant: On at least one other page where you also asked this question. Iain 09:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)