JimHackerMP wrote: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.

This is correct but not entirely correct. First, the system is dependent on whether the state is a home rule state, i.e. local towns, township and boroughs are the lowest level of governing, or if the lowest local government is the County level. I can discuss Pennsylvania which is a Home Rule state.

Parties are set up with three different levels of committee. There is the local municipal committee. This is the basic grass roots level of party activists. They are the ones that walk neighborhoods, do the lit drops, door knocking and work the polls on Election Day.

They also make decisions on endorsing candidates for local office, i.e. Mayor, Town Council, etc... While anybody can get on the ballot by getting the appropriate signatures, if the local party decides to endorse a specific candidate, the local party will support that candidate both in manpower and financially. Additionally, the party will assist the candidate with fund raising. Sometimes the local party will choose not to endorse a specific candidate in the primary. That happened this year in my local Democratic party Congressional candidates. There was a candidate who was handpicked by the DCCC to run against the Republican incumbent. However, he was the definition of a carpetbagger so a local business owner decided to run. The committees of the district choose not to endorse either candidate.

However, by contrast, the Democrats of my local state representative district had a contested race. The County level of the party recruited a very popular local Republican school board member to switch parties and run as a Democrat. The local party didn't approve so they got a local Democrat to run as well. This local received the party endorsement and got all of the support that entails.

The local committees will elect an executive committee for the county level. This executive committee coordinates all of the activities of the local committees in regards to county and state level offices.

The final level is the state committee. The general party membership votes for these members in the primary elections. Again, while anybody can run, there is usually a slate the county/local Republican committees choose to support. The state committees are the ones who will vote to see if the party will endorse a specific candidate in the state and national level race, i.e. Governor, State Treasurer, U.S. Senate.

I believe the County level of governing works the same way but with only two levels of committee.

In PA that's probably true. Maryland I could only describe as "Europe before the Peace of Westphalia". As far as party central committees the lowest level would be that of the 23 counties (the City of Baltimore is a polity equal in status to a 24th county) and of course I suppose (assume actually) that the members of these elect the state central committee of that party. Municipalities are not any kind of official structure. Some places are incorporated cities/towns/whatever, others are not. College Park and Berwyn Heights, for example, are incorporated cities with their own mayors and city councils; but a law made by the Executive/County Council of Prince George's County would be superior to and binding on the people living within those two incorporated municipalities because they are within Prince George's County. As far as the jurisdiction within those cities of the Prince George's County Police (because there are police departments of the City of College Park and City of Berwyn Heights as well, their own city police forces), I could ask the buddy of mine I campaigned for in College Park, but something tells me I do not want to. So there is no two-tier structure within Maryland counties as is operative in Pennsylvania; there is no Democratic Party Central Committee of the City of [whatever]--except of course that of the City of Baltimore, as I said it was like its own county--that would report to the Prince George's County Central Committee. [I only mention the police departments as an example of how municipal governments do not work the same here.]

A lot of these "municipalities" are very old, there are a handful formed as early as the 18th century or maybe even before that. It is just that sometimes, the people who live in a certain higher-density area have decided to incorporate into a little city or town for some reason. But it is at the county level that is the "lowest" level of one of the major parties' central committees. But yes there is also a Maryland Democratic State Central Committee elected [I assume] by the county committees; ditto for the GOP. I am like, 99.9% sure of this....in fact, the elections for municipalities like CP or Berwyn Heights or Westminster are always held on off years, and are non-partisan.

I did often wonder why, once the potholes start (which means you have crossed the border between Maryland and Pennsylvania), there are the little blue signs that say you're in the borough/township of [wherever]...I never realized it was some sort of two-tiered structure. But I do not think our county central committees have the authority that you have described the ones in Pennsylvania as having. But yes, I do think they serve useful functions like supporting Democratic or Republican candidates for office, etc, endorsements of candidates, stuff you have described. But little authority beyond that if I am not mistaken. I really ought to email one of them and find out for sure...a voter should know this stuff.

Of course that won't be a consideration anymore, I received my new voter registration card in the mail (proudly displaying I am "unaffiliated") so I will no longer be asked to pick central committee members.

By the way, we had a good talk about secretaries of state, junior ministers, ministers of state and pps's; how do you get to be a Minister anyway? Besides being in the majority party, for quite a while, and not on the prime minister's bad side...

I, of course, have always been a proponent of sleeping one's way to the top....

Nobody? I guess most of you are looking at the more controversial threads on Ferguson MO and Hamas v. Israel. Bummer. I'll wait LOL.

JimHackerMP wrote:Nobody? I guess most of you are looking at the more controversial threads on Ferguson MO and Hamas v. Israel. Bummer. I'll wait LOL.

Well, it's not something easy to answer, and you kind of did it yourself.

There is not a defined career path to Ministerial position in the UK. But basically, if you are seen to be loyal, able, hard working, and you have the right allies, you are more likely to do it.

Not a lot of evidence of sleeping the way up, but I guess it's one way. It's is, however, also career limiting if discovered and made public.

It didn't work too well for Edwina Currie.

While there are undoubtedly some sleazy men in Parliament who are happy enough to take advantage of their position for sexual gratification, they mostly just take advantage of young staffers. When I was there, the most notorious for it were actually gay. Nick Brown, who was Labour Chief Whip at the time, could be found most nights in the bars trying to pick up young guys. A couple of my friends had to politely decline his advances. He still hadn't come out at the time as well, it was just one of those open secrets that everybody knew about but nobody revealed. Not that there was anything wrong with what he did really, he was a single man after all and anybody who agreed to sleep with him was doing it consensually.

Lol again, just joking. As you both seem to have pointed out, that sort of stuff backfires anyway. Amusing about the chief whip though...

But no seriously....as far as *working* ones way to the top I would think that getting to the level of minister probably isn't that easy. Probably takes a while. And without the requirement of any "advice & consent" as in the U.S. model, it is more or less by the prime minister's sort of quasi-fiat (I am assuming that there are "internal" means guiding the PM's hand when he makes appointments to the cabinet?) that a minister can be chosen/promoted/demoted, no?

Ricky had pointed out that party-line disciplilne was more strict in parliamentary systems...does this mean you have to kiss a lot of a$$ (ar$e I guess?) to the party leadership over a number of years to end up Minister? In the U.S. system that's harder to say: with the executive being entirely distinct from the legislative, more or less, it could be anybody. Dr. Kissinger was a college professor, I think, or that and working at a government think tank (I forget exactly what he was doing) before becoming National Security Adviser, then Secretary of State, under Nixon. Dr. Rice--ditto for George II--was also a college professor, and speaks several languages besides English in fact. In other words, since we are not required to draw the cabinet members from the 535 members of Congress, few cabinet members are usually senators and representatives when appointed (sometimes, but not always). The two secStates under the current president were both senators. That's actually unusual for that particular portfolio, it seems. But on the whole I think in the U.S., saying "I want to be in the cabinet one day" is a bit like saying "I want to be an astronaut when I grow up..."

Are there "safe" seats (or at least "safer" seats) in the House of Commons? I would think there would need to be at least a few of them--hoping of course that there are a lot fewer than in the U.S. House of Reps.--for the PM's seat for instance. I guess it would be silly to allow someone to be PM who comes from a constituency that changes hands a little too often? If he lost election for his own constituency, he could be booted out, right?

hacker

Ricky had pointed out that party-line disciplilne was more strict in parliamentary systems...does this mean you have to kiss a lot of a$$ (ar$e I guess?) to the party leadership over a number of years to end up Minister?

You can't be a renegade in Cabinet. You can be out spoken in cabinet meetings, but out side that private setting the Cabinet is expected to be solidly loyal to the party position.
Ordinary members of parliament get a little more leeway. But not too much usually. Caucus solidarity is also expected.
Usually ministers are appointed because they are 1) able administrators of thie polciy relating to their ministry 2) opinion leaders within the party and within the country 3) bright, capable and usually articulate 4) represent a rgion of the country's interest within the cabinet.
Some prime ministers tolerate a little more independence than others. The current PM Harper, is a nortorious control freak.

You mean a Canadian counterpart of a Margaret Thatcher? I saw on a documentary (and the movie about her with Meryl Streep) that she was like that.

OK, so you cannot be a renegade if you are a Cabinet member, in the UK or Canada? I think I was told that, too, because the point of cabinet government (well, one of them) is "consensus". What do you do if you really oppose something? Just resign from the Cabinet and hold a press conference to inform everybody why?

Before Lincoln, presidents actually took the advice of their cabinet members (far less membership than cabinets from FDR and onward). If they unanimously opposed something the president floated to them, he would reluctantly change his course. The current president (not attacking his character, this is just a fact) probably only meets with his cabinet as a publicity thing. And of course, to take the official picture of the executive branch that is on the White House website.

What do you mean "opinion leaders within the party and within the country"?

I reckon about half of the UK parliamentary seats are 'safe' in that they have not changed hands for a long time. The PM tends to be in a safe seat - most main party leaders are. Ministers will often be, but not all - several ministers and former ministers lost their seats in the 1997 and 2010 elections. Obviously it helps if you want to be a minister because you have less worry about needing to adopt a policy in order to keep a seat. Also, MPs in safe seats will have been around longer so have more parliamentary experience. Parties will try to put their 'best and brightest' into safe seats, and for marginal seats will often prefer to select a campaigner or a local champion to try and win the election rather than think about whether the candidate has a ministerial bent.

JimHackerMP wrote:OK, so you cannot be a renegade if you are a Cabinet member, in the UK or Canada? I think I was told that, too, because the point of cabinet government (well, one of them) is "consensus". What do you do if you really oppose something? Just resign from the Cabinet and hold a press conference to inform everybody why?

Yup. That is what Baroness Warsi did here recently.

Basically it is "collective responsibility" - the Cabinet (including the PM) agree to a policy or position and all abide by it. If they can't then they resign from the Cabinet. It is not that mavericks are banned (many governments have had one or two) but they either rein it in or leave.

Who is baroness Warsi? And I didn't know you could be in the Cabinet and be from the Lords, I thought it was always members of the Commons, these days.

If any of you are wondering "Are you writing a f**** book or something, Hacker?" the answer would be, "sort of". I am taking notes.

It does almost seem a little unfair...perhaps even a little undemocratic...but then again that may just happen to be what works in a parliamentary democracy.

Of course, like I said, for a democracy to remain a stable democracy there must be at least a few "undemocratic" features to keep it stable enough to be a democracy.

It seems however that a powerful, domineering prime minister ends up too powerful for his country's own good. I assume it is possible for such a person to dominate the cabinet and turn it into a more or less rubber stamp (turning the House of Commons, or whatever lower house it may be, into a rubber stamp in turn).

When I started this thread, before we kinda got off topic and started to discuss campaign finance instead, I was trying to say that presidential and parliamentary democracies have started to act like each other in ways that aren't good. Like a "control freak" PM acting presidential, or ditto in the US becoming more like a PM by dominating the legislative system.

JimHackerMP wrote:Who is baroness Warsi?

have you heard of Google? Or Wikipedia? These are useful tools for such questions.

Baroness Sayeeda Warsi is a Conservative politician. In the 2005 she tried for a Commons seat in Dewsbury but was unsuccessful at the General Election. Being a Muslim woman from an urban area in the North of England, and being outspoken, she attracted attention in the party as someone who was not a typical Tory and who could attract new supporters, and she became a Special Advisor. In 2007 she was given a Shadow Ministry (for 'Community Cohesion'), and in order to be a Shadow Minister she had to be in Parliament (just as Ministers do), and the way to get her there was to elevate her to the Lords.

In 2010 she was made Co-Chair of the Party (sharing the job with Baron Feldman, a chum of David Cameron's and a major party donor who was elevated in 2010). In 2012 she was moved to a Foreign Office Ministry post, with responsibility for our relations to nations in Central Asia as well as Pakistan and Bangladesh, the UN, OIC (Organisation of Islamic Countries) and other international organisations including the ICC, and for Human Rights.

It seems that she had differences of opinion with her Cabinet colleagues over government policy towards the Middle East. This was largely (but not exclusively) about Gaza and her belief that Israel was violating human rights (she also is on record as opposing Hamas, btw). She resigned in early August because she decided she could no longer subscribe to the prevailing policy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28656874

And I didn't know you could be in the Cabinet and be from the Lords, I thought it was always members of the Commons, these days.

The PM must be in the Commons. Most Cabinet members will also, but they do not all have to be - they do need, however, to be in one of the chambers of Parliament, as does any lower level Minister. The Leader of the House of Lords is a Cabinet member usually (even if by attendance only), and other peers have been in the Cabinet from time to time.

If any of you are wondering "Are you writing a f**** book or something, Hacker?" the answer would be, "sort of". I am taking notes.

We may not be the best direct sources of information. Jus' sayin'.