JimHackerMP wrote:I'll answer the rest of your reply in a second, but for now, I think you said you recognize my name, JimHackerMP, as being one of the three main characters in an old-ish BBC sitcom about that very thing: the Civil Service and how OBSTRUCTIONIST it is.....now I'll bet you three farthings that Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, while probably exaggerating the situation somewhat (satire often does to make its point), contain more than a grain of truth.

Of course, having never been one of Her Majesty's Civil Servants I cannot speak accurately on this matter, but it sounds to me like hundreds of thousands of permanent employees of the State--from the lowliest typist at the Home Office to the Cabinet Secretary himself--are required to perform the same function as a mere 535 members of the United States Congress.

Wouldn't that make our system MORE efficient?

It is a completely different job, so no.

Yes I know. Just a joke. Easy, now...

According to Luttwak, both the British and American systems "show residual features of the earlier structures" as far as the civil service. Fortunately not too many in both of our countries; the spoils system is long gone, but there are still a plethora of political appointees, yes.

This is where the parliamentary system shows one of its strengths, I must admit. Any time a new president is elected, there must be hearings in the Senate to "advise and consent" to an interminable succession of executive appointments in the new government. In Westminster, at least a working cabinet literally comes out of the woodwork the very next day, correct?

As my previous answer - the Supreme Court in the USA is what enforces the Bill of Rights (and other aspects of the Constitution), through hearing cases which challenge the constitutionality of laws and government actions.

Yes, I read something about that somewhere...

I don't know about the others, but I am not really sure what you are saying really on this.

OK I promise I'll use less run-on sentences with innumerable dependent clauses in the future.

we are democracies which also have an independent (in a way) Judiciary which is quite prepared to stand up against the elected powers. We are also democracies where it is often considered inadvisable to simply allow politicians to hold sway on populist positions, and the real 'anchor' is the civil service, which is politically independent.

Perhaps that is true in some cases. But as with all things in government, we must be careful not to allow absolutes to dominate our thinking. By the way, thank you for saying that it is inadvisable to allow politicians to hold sway on POPULIST positions. Meaning, that the vox populi is not always right perhaps? I don't agree with the civil service being its check but I am glad to see someone agrees with me on this one.

You realize Hacker that the parliamentary systems that you suggest can allow "tyranny of the majority" also have the same constitutional protections that the Us constitution provides its citizens...
So how is this "tyranny" supposed to occur?

I was not saying that that was limited to parliamentary democracies. Or that those types of governments in particular were necessarily more prone to it. You're thinking in absolutes.

And as far as how can tyranny happen in free societies; I'm sure any history book will provide at least a few good examples.

hacker

And as far as how can tyranny happen in free societies; I'm sure any history book will provide at least a few good examples.

By definition, where tyranny exists, society is not free.
If you want to claim that occassionally free democratic societies have devolved into dictatorships .. that has happened exceptionally.
Theres little danger that the US will become such despite the inane rhetoric on the right about Obama's tyrannical behaviour. There's more danger that that the aspirations of the middle class and working class will be sublimated to the the corporations and plutocrats, due largely to the structures and workings of the modern American political system. (And in another thread, its argued that this is already ocurring...)

. By definition, where tyranny exists, society is not free.

Makes sense. Tyranny = a not-so-free society.

Theres little danger that the US will become such despite the inane rhetoric on the right about Obama's tyrannical behaviour.

You do not have to convince me of the inanity of the Right. Only that the Left isn't right in there with them. However they do have a point about his rather liberal usage (liberal meaning generous, not lefty kind of liberal) of executive orders. On that particular complaint they are spot on, I'm sorry to say. And I am relieved to hear you say the sky is not falling, at least not yet.

Just out of curiosity, what is the portrayal of the President by Canadian or British media?

hacker

However they do have a point about his rather liberal usage (liberal meaning generous, not lefty kind of liberal) of executive orders.

No they don't
historically Obama is at the low end of the scale when use of Executive orders..
About half of Saint Ron, and a tenth of Roosevels numbers....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un ... ive_orders

Saint Ron?

Oh, Reagan.....clever...

Again, Wikipedia...but I did follow the link to the National Archives Register. A little more reliable perhaps. Could be he pissed people off as to what he did, not so much how many times he did it. What worries me is not so much Obama himself, but some presidents, according to these statistics, have signed executive orders, ostensibly to "carry out" the law but bordering on (or even more than bordering on) "executive fiat". It would be interesting to see how far back the figures were and what they are, not just how many per president.

Not debating Obama in particular, but OK, I am usually more skeptical of second-hand information (even when it comes from "smart people" who are "well informed" if you know what I mean...that is why I have been resistant to some of your arguments in this thread...I never automatically trust people fitting one or both of those descriptions, giving me political information. I force them to prove it. Perhaps you can see now why I probably appear so hard-headed to you guys? Here's a case where I forgot to listen to my own warning bells; when someone told me he had issued over a thousand, who is well informed, smart, and believe it or not, not a Republican or Tea partier.)

That said, may I ask a few more things? That was really the intent behind this thread, an exchange of information as well...

Saint Ron....

My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I have just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes...

hacker.

Could be he pissed people off as to what he did, not so much how many times he did it.

Could be he pissed a lot off because he's black.
The very people who are suing Obama over the use of Exectuive Actions are the same people who then asked him to use Executive Actions to mitigate the "border crisis", (john boehner being the lead)
The issue is total BS when examined in light of the historical record, and the actual conduct of the complainants now, and during the Bush and Reagan terms.

Could be he pissed a lot off because he's black.

Yeah, you know how those Americans are...

Anyway, sass, you mentioned something about "constituency parties"...are they the ones who nominate the candidates for MPs in the UK?

JimHackerMP wrote:Anyway, sass, you mentioned something about "constituency parties"...are they the ones who nominate the candidates for MPs in the UK?

Yes - the basic unit of political party organisations in the UK is (in the main) the constituency party, organised on the same area as the Parliamentary constituency that each elected MP represents.

While the details vary, in the main what happens is that individuals will apply to stand for Parliament (and go through some kind of vetting and perhaps prioritisation by the National level), and when a constituency has a vacancy or selection exercise they apply to the constituency party. There will be a shortlisting exercise, usually done through democratic means internally, such as by an elected committee or by branches of the constituency party. The shortlist will be opened up to all members in the constituency to vote on, and the winner will be the candidate in the next election.

There are a few exceptions, such as where open primaries have been tried (basically the final vote was public rather than member only).

As it happens, I was involved in the process in my constituency last year, as I was on the committee and it was to me that all postal ballots were sent (and then I delivered them sealed to the final hustings where members were able to vote in person).

I'd be a liar if I said I absorbed all of that easily. But I think I get the gist. It is an organization consisting of voters from within the boundar(ies) of a particular district (sorry, constituency) of one seat in [and member of] the House of Commons? And these people nominate the final candidate for MP, for their party, for that constituency, to run in the upcoming general election? Did I understand that right?

How do you get to be a member of the constituency party? Just apply?

And...shortlisting?

You just join the local party, usually paying some small annual membership fee. They'll take more or less anyone because most local parties are desperate for new members.

JimHackerMP wrote: It is an organization consisting of voters from within the boundar(ies) of a particular district (sorry, constituency) of one seat in [and member of] the House of Commons? And these people nominate the final candidate for MP, for their party, for that constituency, to run in the upcoming general election? Did I understand that right?

Yep. the same applies at a local or regional level - members decide who will stand for local council elections with in the council wards, and they decide what order candidates will go in on the lists for European elections.

JimHackerMP wrote:How do you get to be a member of the constituency party? Just apply?

Sassenach wrote:You just join the local party, usually paying some small annual membership fee. They'll take more or less anyone because most local parties are desperate for new members.

Well, yes kind of. If you join a party, it's usually at the national level and they tell you which constituency you are in (and eventually get around to telling the local party they have a new member). You used to have to be approved by the constituency (which I did go through when I joined Labour 25 years ago at the age of 15), but now it's more a case that you join and if someone notices there's a problem they have to complain after the fact.

All members of the Labour party in the UK are in local constituency parties, and vice versa (with the likely exception of Northern Ireland where Labour does not stand candidates for... complicated reasons). I believe the same applies to the other main national parties in the UK.

regional level? How regional is that?

When I voted in the GOP primary a few months ago, one of the races on the ballot was the Carroll County Republican Central Committee. There were about 15 or so candidates, and you could pick a maximum of nine. I have no idea what they do. Long gone are the days where local committees and conventions chose the candidates on the general election ballot; the primaries bypass that completely. You do not require their vetting to get on the primary ballot--that is accomplished by getting a certain number of signatures on a petition for office, which is then presented to the Board of Elections and you are on the primary ballot.

That's why I have no clue what they really do and why they exist. I hate to say that, considering that the buddy of mine I worked for in the primary for the House of Delegates, his campaign committee chairman was formerly a member of the A.A. County Democratic Party Central Committee, lol. Be that as it may, they do do a few things but I totally forget what the heck he said it was. I know there is one instance in which they might have to nominate a replacement when a delegate or senator dies (rather than having the replacement chosen from the opposite party which would piss people off...by allowing someone like the Governor to nominate the deceased's replacement for example).

So those you do not just walk up and join and pay dues. It's required to "run" for office for the local central committees...but it's probably not that hard if it's "pick nine" and the top nine win out of everyone who filed for office. In fact, the filing fee for county central committee is like, $5 or perhaps even free...

If I may ask a personal question, which constituency party were you in Sass (I mean, Tory, Labour, Lib-Dem.)...if it is not too personal a question I mean...

I think I'm going to go back through this thread wherever you answered my questions, and write the answers down. Just because. They didn't really have this kind of detail in a three or four credit hour per week class when I was at UMBC. Things we didn't learn of course (a lot of it was statistical and believe or not there was this one Poli Sci class I took that had a shitload of "game theory" involved.)

If I may ask a personal question, which constituency party were you in Sass (I mean, Tory, Labour, Lib-Dem.)...if it is not too personal a question I mean...

I wasn't. I worked for a Tory MP but I was never active in the party as such, and any kind of allegiance I had to the Tories is long gone. I've been politically neutral now for about 15 years or more, although I do lean slightly to the right in my politics.

JimHackerMP wrote:regional level? How regional is that?

between National and county.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are each a region. England is made up of 9 regions - North West, North East, Yorkshire & Humberside, West Midlands, East Midlands, East, South West & Gibraltar, South East and London.

They are probably closer in scale to a US State, but they have no real political structures in England. We elect MEPs in them, and there have been indirectly elected assemblies for them in the past which were pretty useless. Outside England they are the same as the devolved nations, and so do have elected assemblies with powers