[Swampy]

Jim McLean, on 06 February 2012 - 22:48, said:

All good points except the US Executive thing. I thought the President makes appointments to be confirmed by congress, that isn't a direct election. Once confirmed there is arguably less oversight of the executive branch in the US compared to the UK. (Although they both boil down to almost none)

I was talking about the election of the president. He's not directly elected, as you may remember from 2000. What happens is that that each state's electoral college elects the president. This almost invariably follows the popular vote - but not always. Four times it's happeend that the president didn't win the popular vote. In the UK of course we have constituency-based elections for everything so we're used to that kind of thing.

Quote

As far as that Guardian article goes I suppose you are right in the sense that it doesn't limit the power of the executive but it does limit the power of the individual minister except the prime minister who gets more powers. Although the PM already has the power to dismiss a cabinet member since they serve at the leisure of the monarch (represented by the PM) so it really isn't that much of a gain but it does at least provide a route for better civil service oversight which is something.

Exactly! He selects the cabinet, he hears disciplinary material on the cabinet... people who talked about "President Blair" were mistaken - most of the world's presidents would love the power of a UK PM.

Quote

I think we both agree that oversight is lacking in the British system, I don't necessarily believe that is due to the monarchy (which you have also said) and I am not a firm believer in the separation of Executive and Legislative branches where as you clearly are. I am personally for the removal of the monarchy but as I said crudely in my initial post in the topic it takes more than removing the Queen to get a better system.

Then we agree totally. Getting rid of Liz wouldn't fix Britain - but it'd be a place to start.