Therese of Lisieux

ye so as you all prob know,we have a queen in england but most countries are republics.The usa for example doesnt have a king/queen and instead is "democratic" and elects the most powerful and undeniably greatest human-being on earth such as Bush as their head of state.Our political power in britain is held by the prime minister who isnt head of state and so can be freely attacked in the way a president cant be.Which system do you thinks better and why?

Magix1Reaper

Very good question... Considering that we can pick our rulers I would give our system the best rating, solely for that. Of course the constitution, our bill of rights and the amendments are bonuses but they really don't have much to do with the type of government we have.

A monarchy strikes me as old fashioned; one family rules them all and only that family. But what if no one in that family desires to rule? What then? Or what they are incapable of ruling? Just some things I've thought about.

Therese of Lisieux

you could say the desire to rule as in your presidents should disqualify them at the start.And the royal family doesnt "rule",its mostly symbolic and does so by the will of the people.And does the US really choose its leaders?A choice is put to you but only after those with the most money have got themselves into a position to get elected.If hilary gets in,your last 4 head of states will have been bush,clinton,bush,clinton,is that down to "democracy" or money and influence and privilege?

Ace

First off... isn't the Prime Minister elected? And the Crown has almost no power from what I understand of the situation, much like you said symbolic. Again I'm not from the UK so I don;t know anything but what I read but most of the power is held by the Cabinet offices, who are entitled to it through Acts of Parliament.

The UK's system isn't much unlike our own.. we “elect” an official who is bound by “the peoples will” through acts of the decoration and bill of rights. The President has only a few absolute powers he can be vetoed out of most if not all of his decisions by congress.

After all... we did originally break away from you guys... is it too big a surprise that our governments would end up being very closely related?

On a side note though you are right about one thing for certain. We do live in a capitalist society, money makes the world go round as the saying says.

__________________

Therese of Lisieux

the prime minister is not directly elected,no.All he or she needs is to be elected by their town/mini-region and then they get chosen to lead by the party they represent.The problem with this is recently our system has gone presidential like the us and the prime minister has alot of power without ever being directly chosen.It used to be the case that the cabinet would hold considerable power over the leader but with Blair that changed and he basically did what he wanted thinking himself untouchable.

Ace

Hmm, Yeah... personally I thing absolute communism would be the best... but alas it can't reasonably exist in this day and age.

__________________

Gamma

Absolute communism is a nice thought, but as said, it cannot be done.

And yes, England has a constitutional monarchy...basically, a democracy with a family that dresses snappy and holds NO political power.

All the queen does is address crowds at ceremonies and whatnot.

And for god sake, Therese, if you're going to try and have an intelligent discussion, don't be a biased prick, or I will move this to the spam out.

__________________

Jorgi

Norway has the best politics, I dunno what it is called. But anyways:

We have a king and a queen but all they do is cut some ropes and ****, people say they are good for reputation and a symbol and stuff, but **** them.

Anyways those with the power is 3 parties that the people elects. The parties listen to what people wants and wins stuff through elections, there are also 10 other parties which can gain more power, even though they are not in the top 3 they can be very influenced, each party stands for different values.
It works great, now we have 3 social Democrats parties, and they are the best, they have done so I get 20% more scholarship free school books, less tax and I can take a scholarship loan with 0% tax!!!!!!

I think I will loan 1 million dollars put them in the bank let them grow over 3 years (which is the period with no tax) Pay it back and keep the rent that the bank made


Well the social democrats are really nice to poor students and the lower class. They take more from the rich that has more money then they need, and give to the poor. Kinda like Robin Hood. It is the opposite of capitalism. Share and care

Gotta love it, it works perfectly, only thing that is stupid is this party there that says oooh you city people have to move out to the farms, they are some kinda agriculture freaks that thinks everyone in the city should move out to the farms because Norway is low on agriculture, lol

Well we are a country with mountains all over the place, it's kinda hard to get much more agriculture, what do you want us all to be goat farmers? lopl.

I love goats, they are such nice animals

__________________

Magix1Reaper

"...desire to rule as in your presidents should disqualify them at the start."

???

That made no sense. If your implying that because he wants to rule he seeks power over others THEN I can see it.

Yes, we do elect our leaders. Those who have the money can advertise themselves but anyone with the qualifications can run for president. Just because they've got their name out doesn't mean they will always get elected. They can have all the influence they want, if we don't like you you are gone. If you've been following the republican party then you know Mccain wasn't a favorite at the start and no one in the news thought he would get very far. Look at him now.

So we like someone with a name, so what? If we think we can trust that someone then we vote for them, it's as simple as that.

Therese of Lisieux

Those who have the money can advertise themselves but anyone with the qualifications can run for president.
--------------
thats just delusional,sorry.You can only get off the starting blocks in us politics if you have wealth married to massive connections and/or an establishment name ala bush/clinton.Take that mitt romney,i mean he spent like $40 million of his OWN cash just to get as far as he did in his campaign,are you saying "anyone" could afford to do that in your country?And just how far would george bush have got in anything if his name wasnt george bush?

and gamma,how am i being "biased"?you know i like to mix things up a bit whenever i post and forgive me if im mistaken but isnt that why everyone luvs me so much?

Gamma

No...it's just ignorant.

You call Americans idiots, but then post biased comments against the American form of government, which is very, very similar to your own.

Also, presidents can be attacked very easily - they are constantly.

They can be impreached, as well.

If you try and say "Well, then why hasn't George Bush been impeached yet?", then I'd like to ask why Tony Blair wasn't impeached when many, many people were calling for it over the same thing - the Iraq war.

Which, no joke, get over it - since the war, there has been a worldwide decrease in terrorism. That was the goal.

You're not a monarchy, either, so even the thread title is wrong. You're a constitutional monarchy - HUGE difference.

By the way, Jorgi, Norway is too if you have King/Queen AND democracy.

__________________

Shooting Palanx

Australia is very much run similar to America, and what not, just that we're a tad more democratic in the sense.

We have a parliament, which has the house of representives and the senate, which each have there own seats.

The latter of the 2, are split into there own parties/coalitions, for instance the most important, which is at the moment that Labour Party and the second is the Liberal.

We have a nation wide voting process, end result, we get a prime minister who runs it.

Although a Governor General (the representive of the queen in this country) has the power to sack the prime minister, if he/she is seen lacking in the job.

That's what it is basically.

Majority wins.

__________________

Therese of Lisieux

gamma,i know everything there is to know,dont call me "ignorant" man.Why was i "biased",i just put points across to be debated and america should have the perfect system as theyre such a new country and only copied it off us about 200 years ago.Presidents,do they have to face examination and get flogged with abuse by their opponents every week like ours do every week in parliament?Problem with presidents is its like a half-way house between PM and Monarch so they have to be shown respect even when theyre doing stupid things.Ive heard alot of american people and even opponent party politicians come out with the old "as an american ill rally round my president" or some such similar slightly cringeworthy statement.Blair won the vote for going to war in parliament so he has no case to answer as far as that goes.And are you really sure theres been a "decrease" in terrorism?Wheres the evidence?