Replies

From what I understand though when first created the Senate was not a body people were elected to; that each individual State Legislator appointed representative to serve there. I am sure when this was the case there was far more discipline and they were more answerable to what they did and said otherwise they would be removed.

I can see fores and against both systems but one of my argument for the Parliamentary system would be that the public voted the government in on its manifesto not on individual people's points of view so they should be able to persue these policies for the full term of the government not be challenged on this after a few months. Goverment policies should be given a few years not weeks to suceed but unfortunately we live in a fast food enviroment and people are not prepared to give time to achieve goals.

If the government is not fulfilling those manifesto promises it is up to people who voted for their local MP in the party of power to put pressure on them to bring this up in the house or privately with Cabinet officials.

As I see it, often in the US system you have over 500 points of view and parties are just for convenience. The parties are used for campaign funds only and the individual does not even have to abide by the tenants that the party stands for once elected. To me this is wrong and something should be done about it.

I maintain if an elected official goes against his own party's policy/agenda he should be expelled from the party. I have even heard of US politicians campaigning for people in a different party I cannot see how that is in any way acceptable and if this happened in Britain you would be expelled from the party. Even an ordinary member of the party if found supporting a candidate of another party would be outed.

I think that the Senate confirmation hearings whilst in principle are a good idea have become a farce and again I have reservations as to whether the Senate should decide whether or not a President can appoint someone to a Cabinet position. Judges and other appointments I think the hearings are a good idea but a Cabinet official to me seems strange as these people are appointed at the pleasure of the President to carry out his policies. In private they may voice different opinions but should not and are unlikely to voice them publicly so what is the point of a Senate hearing.

I know many will flame me for this post especially being a Brit but I am not being deliberately critical of your system and saying mine is perfect because that is not the case.

Margret Thatcher in fact adopted Parliamentary Committees as a result of studying your system and these committees have greatly enhance our system.

I feel that lessons can be learned on both sides.