Open admission: if you ask me about the relative authority and roles of the House versus the Senate, that's when I shrug and say, hell if I know. They both have the power to draft and pass laws, and they need cooperation from the other body; that's all I know.
Pretty much. You've got a weird mixture of proportional and fixed representation, tied to what I believe is a first past the post voting system, with each branch of government having certain veto powers over each other branch. From the outside, it looks like it was carefully constructed to ensure that noone ever knew where the power was and thus allow cults of personality to force things through.
I have little idea, though, of what the Lords' power is these days; the answer seems to be "not a whole lot." Which means that your system is kind of but not really bicameral, and that confuses me.
Lords does two things - it's the final court of appeal, and it has the power of veto over Parliament. The latter is, I think, my favourite bit of Lords and the bit that Tony's cocked up most. Lords cannot propose laws, but is required to pass them. Previously, hereditary peers meant that whilst the members might have party affiliations, they were beholded (ideally) to noone save their own consciences. Now that new peers are appointed by the PM ... a lot of suspicious things have been passed by Labour's Lords. There are those who'd call it undemocratic, and they'd be missing the point. Lords acts as a stabilising influence, preventing a suddenly radical parliament (and at the moment, Labour's Whip) from passing laws it believes to be unjust. It does slow the turning of the wheel of social progress, but it slows social regression even faster and, frankly, I'd prefer a slower march towards equality than the rapid descent to totalitarianism that so many notionally elected governments have allowed or encouraged. Our own, for instance. Lords' most publicised recent action was to shoot down Labour's insane and offensive proposed bill allowing for detention without charge for 42 days of anyone accused (no burden of proof necessary) of anything terrorism related. Members of Lords can be lobbied, but they're much harder to force, thankfully.
Whereas on this side of the ocean, the idea that you don't elect the guy in charge of your country is the weird, impersonal thing.
I think we do. We know who the leaders of the parties are, and if we're members of said parties then we participate at one level or another in their selection. Mind you, our PM's powers are, as I understand it, far more limited than your President's, so I can understand that to a certain extent. I still don't understand why it has to take so long and cost so much money with all the primaries and what-have-you. It's a great system for ensuring a local representative has visited and knows all the towns he might represent; it's clunky as hell for an empire spanning a continent with some change. Surely, now that TV, radio, newspapers with simultaneous release across the country and of course the internet are available, a slightly more efficient and fast system could be developed?
And while at times I envy the fact that you can chuck a party out of power as soon as you decide they suck -- man, I wish we could do the same to Bush -- that seems a lot more uncertain than knowing elections will come like regularly scheduled clockwork.
If only it were that easy. ::sighs:: Still, the fact that the ruling party, should one exist, can't rest easy is a comforting thing. It just doesn't keep people as honest as we'll all like.
N.B. This has been typed first thing in the morning, before coffee. It's a bit rambling and incoherent.
no subject
Pretty much. You've got a weird mixture of proportional and fixed representation, tied to what I believe is a first past the post voting system, with each branch of government having certain veto powers over each other branch. From the outside, it looks like it was carefully constructed to ensure that noone ever knew where the power was and thus allow cults of personality to force things through.
I have little idea, though, of what the Lords' power is these days; the answer seems to be "not a whole lot." Which means that your system is kind of but not really bicameral, and that confuses me.
Lords does two things - it's the final court of appeal, and it has the power of veto over Parliament. The latter is, I think, my favourite bit of Lords and the bit that Tony's cocked up most. Lords cannot propose laws, but is required to pass them. Previously, hereditary peers meant that whilst the members might have party affiliations, they were beholded (ideally) to noone save their own consciences. Now that new peers are appointed by the PM ... a lot of suspicious things have been passed by Labour's Lords. There are those who'd call it undemocratic, and they'd be missing the point. Lords acts as a stabilising influence, preventing a suddenly radical parliament (and at the moment, Labour's Whip) from passing laws it believes to be unjust. It does slow the turning of the wheel of social progress, but it slows social regression even faster and, frankly, I'd prefer a slower march towards equality than the rapid descent to totalitarianism that so many notionally elected governments have allowed or encouraged. Our own, for instance. Lords' most publicised recent action was to shoot down Labour's insane and offensive proposed bill allowing for detention without charge for 42 days of anyone accused (no burden of proof necessary) of anything terrorism related. Members of Lords can be lobbied, but they're much harder to force, thankfully.
Whereas on this side of the ocean, the idea that you don't elect the guy in charge of your country is the weird, impersonal thing.
I think we do. We know who the leaders of the parties are, and if we're members of said parties then we participate at one level or another in their selection. Mind you, our PM's powers are, as I understand it, far more limited than your President's, so I can understand that to a certain extent. I still don't understand why it has to take so long and cost so much money with all the primaries and what-have-you. It's a great system for ensuring a local representative has visited and knows all the towns he might represent; it's clunky as hell for an empire spanning a continent with some change. Surely, now that TV, radio, newspapers with simultaneous release across the country and of course the internet are available, a slightly more efficient and fast system could be developed?
And while at times I envy the fact that you can chuck a party out of power as soon as you decide they suck -- man, I wish we could do the same to Bush -- that seems a lot more uncertain than knowing elections will come like regularly scheduled clockwork.
If only it were that easy. ::sighs:: Still, the fact that the ruling party, should one exist, can't rest easy is a comforting thing. It just doesn't keep people as honest as we'll all like.
N.B. This has been typed first thing in the morning, before coffee. It's a bit rambling and incoherent.