Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Westminster system

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Japan

[edit]

The country's Parliamentary system is closer to the German model than the Westminster system so why is it listed? 202.36.179.66 (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster System in Canadian provinces and Australian colonies

[edit]

I have corrected the introduction, which gave 1867 (the year of Canadian confederation) and 1901 (the year of Australian federation) as the date that the Westminster System was first deployed in Canadian provinces and Australian colonies, respectively. In fact, the first of the Canadian provinces became self-governing in 1848, see Canada_under_British_Imperial_control_(1764-1867)#Act_of_Union_.281840.29, and the six Australian colonies became self-governing between 1855 and 1890, see History_of_Australia#Colonial_self-government_and_the_discovery_of_gold.

There were legislatures in both Canada and Australia before 1848 and 1855 (respectively), but they were not responsible governments, that is, they were not democratic but rather imposed from the United Kingdom. I have therefore adjusted the text to make reference to being granted responsible government. 128.232.110.143 (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian electoral system

[edit]

I took Australia out because I was under the impression Australia uses the Instant Runoff Voting method to elect its parliamentarians...

You are correct about Australia's electoral system, but Australia is still a Westminster using nation. The Westminster system is one of procedure not an electoral system.

I have capitalised both words because depending on usage (ie, formal description or generalised use) it is capitalised or half-capitalised. As this is a formal definition, it is formally capitalised. STÓD/ÉÍRE 01:58 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

australia

[edit]

"Australia is exceptional in that a prime minister must have an upper house (Senate of Australia) which is willing to pass budgets." This is not true at all. The Whitlam government is the most obvious example - there the government was not able to pass a budget which caused the constitutional crisis! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.250.252.200 (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Errrm....Q.E.D. I think? Grant | Talk 06:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ireland

[edit]

I believe Ireland is not a Commonwealth nation, would you agree?

Yup. Changed it. This article however is seriously flawed in its understanding of many of the precepts of the Westminster system, and refers to many things that are not part of the Westminster system but which exist independently of it and alongside it. It will require major editing and rewriting. FearÉIREANN 23:30, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Australia & Ireland

[edit]

My strong feeling is that both Australia and Ireland should be excluded here, for other reasons other than those stated above:

  • Upper houses: Current thinking among Australian political scientists is that the Australian system of government, which has barely changed since 1901, was a strong, conscious blend of the British and US systems. The "Washminster system" is one name for this. An important implication of this is that Australia maintains a very strong Senate, similar in powers to the House of Lords prior to 1911 (see: House_of_Lords#Limitations, or the US Senate, with the power to block any or all legislation.

The Irish president is by no means always directly elected. If the parties represented in the Oireachtas agree on a candidate, there is no election. In practice there has never been a hint of the President exercising real executive powers, and this history of restraint could well constitute a legal precedent. In episodes where a president has been at loggerheads with the government of the day, the president has always come off the worst. See Cearbhall O Dálaigh.

A similar situation exists in Austria, where the President has theoretically quite strong executive powers but wher attempts to activate these have ended in embarrassing capitulation to the parliament (e.g. crisis over formation of government 1999-2000; President Thomas Klestil). 83.65.178.204 12:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussions below ("British influence and tradition" and "head of state/executive & Ireland". I will take your word that a "history of restraint" in Ireland may have the force of law. It certainly didn't work that way in the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975. Also, the ability of a President/Governor-General to act does depend on the particular circumstances and factors such as whether they have support in the parliament. Just because something has never happened, that doesn't mean that it's impossible. The situation in Australia in 1975 illustrates that. Grant65 | Talk 16:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

head of state

[edit]
Because of the formal constitutional powers of the Irish president, some authorities believe the Irish constitution is as similar to semi-presidential systems, as it is to Westminster. On the very rare occasions that Governors-General of Commonwealth countries exercise their full reserve powers — which are formidable under some constitutions — these systems may be seen in a similar light to Ireland.

If the UK head of state were to exercise the her powers "on very rare" occasions would that make the UK semi-presidential system?

I think that this paragraph is a mess. The Irish president has a popular mandate but limited powers (compared to a president in a presidential system) that is why it is a semi-presidential system. The powers which the governor-generals have reflect the powers which QEII has, this paragraph implies that in exceptional circumstances the Westminster System is a semi-presidential system. It is not. It is the Westminster system.

Looked at another way, the US took a idealised snap shot of the Westminster system as it was 230 years ago, so one could argue that the US presidential system is a semi-Westminster-system. Which as a statement is just as opaque calling the Westminster system semi-presidential. PBS 20:23, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"If the UK head of state were to exercise the her powers "on very rare" occasions would that make the UK semi-presidential system?" Well yes, it would and Bagehot referred to Britain as a "crowned republic". Point is, HM doesn't do that.
"The powers which the governor-generals have reflect the powers which QEII has..." Not true. In the Australian case, with which I ma most familiar, the G-G has potentially huge powers, much bigger than the monarch in regard to Australia or the UK. This is because of Australia's formal, unified constitutional Act, something which all of the Commonwealth countries — except NZ — have and which Britain does not. This is a big difference: a straightforward constitutional document is much more powerful than ancient powers, all but erased by centuries of convention (i.e. that the monarch does not intervene). For example, s.64 of the Australian constitution gives the G-G the right to dismiss any minister, at any time. Which is what happened to the Australian PM in 1975, against the conventions of the "Westminster system" and against the advice of the Australian Solicitor General. It was nevertheless legal and pefectly "constitutional".Grant65 (Talk) 15:49, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

The monarch has similar powers. You see them in use when there is a hung parliament. It is just since WWII there have been little need for the powers to be used because the House of Commons has usually been run with a clear mandate. When there has not been one then there has been a general election which has given one. If there was not, then the monarch gets involved. There are lots of other powers as well it is just that they have not been needed to be exercised, but they exist. Plucking just one from the list "orders in council" which if there was a hung parliament and a national crises, is an extreamly powerfull residual power.PBS 23:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy it. When was the last time a monarch dismissed a British PM, or even intervened directly in parliamentary politics? And what was it that supposedly happened some time around WW2 to change the system? I once ran the kind of argument you're making past a political science professor -- a Canadian who had studied/taught in the US, UK and Australia --- and he wouldn't have a bar of it. He said, for example, that if there was an hung parliament in the UK "the party leaders would sort it out among themselves".Grant65 (Talk) 11:33, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I think you might find this interesting http://www.norepublic.com.au/essays/Essay_Reserve_Powers.htm I agree that usually the party leaders would sort it out. But about every 70 years or so there is a seismic shift in British parties which make up the house of Commons. When that happens there can be a lot of instability with no clear leader. If it is coupled with a national crises there is no guarantee that the parties will amicably agree on a PM. If ever the Librals get to introduce PR, this could lead to many more hung parliaments in which case the arbitrator (which in the UK is the monarch) will play a more central role.

In the Irish Home Rule crises of 1912-1914 George V contemplated using his veto. This was a very big crises, which also and bought in the Parliament Act. This was the last really big constitutional crises in the UK. Another example is not so much choosing a PM but choosing not to dissolve parliament when asked to do by a PM who has lost the confidence of the house if another potential PM candidate asked the monarch not to do it because they thought they could form a majority. PBS 20:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree there is a remote possibility that a monatch would intervene in the event of a British constitutional crisis. But this is as remote as Pluto when compared to the demonstrated abilities of the Australian G-G's and state governors -- the JB Paul article you linked gives several examples. My only real criticism of that article is that Paul can't have it both ways: he questions Roy Jenkins' assertions about a UK crisis and at the same time (correctly) points out a major difference between the Commonwealth countries and Westminster:
As the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council said in Adegbenro v. Akintola, ‘it is . . . the wording of the Constitution itself that is to be interpreted and applied, and this wording can never be overridden by the extraneous principles of other Constitutions which are not explicitly incorporated in the formulae that have been chosen as the frame of this Constitution’.
This will apply equally to any ordinary law. The precise words of the law will govern, not appeals to practice in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. It will be no use arguing: ‘Oh! but that’s not what the framers of the law meant. It’s just "an attempt to frame United Kingdom constitutional conventions (or some others) in terms of positive law", and it’s the convention, not the law, that governs.’ Grant65 (Talk) 09:25, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Meaning of "government"

[edit]
In a Westminster system, the members of parliament are elected by popular vote. The head of government is usually chosen by being invited to form a government by the head of state or representative of the head of state (ie, governor-general in some Commonwealth states), not by parliamentary vote. (See Kiss Hands.)

Again, this sentence makes no sense to American ears! What do you mean, "form a government"?? You HAVE a government already! The Westminster system IS the government! So, what does it mean to "form a government"? Unless "government" has a special term that no one writing these articles seems able to define?? Revolver 07:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, the opposition parties will sit in one row of seats, and the government party will sit in the other.

What is a "government party"? EVERY party is part of the government! Am I missing something?? Revolver 07:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A related convention is that members of the Cabinet are collectively seen as responsible for government policy and ministers must publicly support the policy of the government regardless of their private reservation. A minister is duty-bound to resign if they cannot publicly support the government's position.

Again, this statement sounds like nonsense to Americans. The government doesn't have a position in America. The government is collectively everyone who makes up the government. Even people who just work for the government are referred to as part of "the government". The government is a form of running the country given by the Constitution, but the government doesn't take positions on policy...in fact, most Americans would say that phrase doesn't even make sense. Individuals and parties take positions, not the government, unless "the government" has some technical meaning. Sorry to beat a dead horse, but you really need to know, these articles aren't doing a very good job of explaining anything. Revolver 08:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentioned elsewhere Government, in this context, is used in a similar way to how administration might be used in the US. It is a shorthand way of saying the party or parties who control the executive (and, in westminster systems, the legislature as well). Iain 10:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the problem is the difference in capitalisation - the "Government" is the subset of the "government" that is made up of the members of Parliament of the party in power.
James F. (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The places where I was confused were NOT capitalised. They were lower-case. Revolver 18:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my point - the words were uncapitalised, and this was wrong and thus potentially more confusing than if it had been otherwise. James F. (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Curse of the Phantom Lowercasers on Wikiepdia! Lol. They can hardly see a capital without lowercasing it. And then we get readers who understandably can't understand an article because the subtleties conveyed by the use of capitals has all been lost! :) FearÉIREANN(talk) 22:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there's such a definite distinction between government and Government. In Ireland at least, "government" is understood to be the executive, rather than the wider state apparatus as in the US usage. The capital is normally used when referring to the government of the day, e.g. "the Government is considering the matter", and I think this is also the style in the UK (in the UK the definite article is normally dropped, e.g. "Government is considering the matter"). I don't know if there's anything analogous to the US usage of "government" as the state apparatus and anyone in its employ. In Ireland we might use "the State" to refer to the legislature, courts, civil service etc. I can only base this on experience of Ireland and the UK, however. --Ryano 12:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Christ why bother, it's so typical of something Americans have no business or right in to "Americanise" something for their own benefit. Seriously you don't see Brits or Irish whining on the article for Congress so why do you do it here Revolver? Does Westminster lie in the US? Hell no. --217.42.234.252 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is only one English Language encyclopedia. And because understanding the rest of the world is usually something everyone criticises (criticizes) Americans for not doing. I'd bet most people one meets (you meet) in (on) an American street don't even know what the word "cabinet" means. Revolver is actually asking an intelligent question about it. 32.178.52.28 (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Collin237[reply]

I don't see what you are confused about. It is perfectly obvious. A form of government is not the government. It is the constitutional system by which that form of government operates. The US has a form of government known often as presidentialism. The Westminster System is a parliamentary form of government whereby the head of government is chosen by parliament, not in a presidential election, and is answerable to parliament, not a president. It is elementary political science.

Similarly collective cabinet responsibility is patently obvious and no, it doesn't exist in the US. In the US the cabinet is a committee of members who do the President's bidding. They aren't collectively answerable to themselves but to him. In the Westminster System, the cabinet is collectively answerable to each other on an 'one for all, all for one' basis, so one minister cannot walk away and disagree. If they were in cabinet, even if they were outvoted on an issue, they are responsible for the policy. If they want to disown it they must resign. Again it is elementary political science. FearÉIREANN(talk) 21:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

where??

[edit]

As has been mentioned elsewhere

Where, elsewhere?? The only place I can find is at the article on differences in American/British vocabulary, not on articles on parliament itself. I'm just telling you, you need to make some note (e.g. "Here, "government" refers to the political party in power, not to the general agency of governing") or something, or else people unfamiliar with parliamentary systems are going to be totally confused. Revolver 18:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, I had thought from your contribution list that you had found out the answer to your query by yourself (you had edited the US/UK diferences article). I was only responding here in order to clarify the issue for anyone else who might have had the same problem. I meant: On at least one other page where you also asked this question. Iain 09:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A question

[edit]

Since British government ministers are also MP's at the same time, how can ministers be impartial ?

Siyac 19:08, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on what you mean by impartial: do you mean politically impartial or impartial in the sense of not favouring their own constituency? If the former, the answer is they are not. A minister will act in the interests of implementing his or her own party's policy - this is what they've been voted into office to do. If the latter, then the answer is also that they're not. However they do have a huge weight of statute and precedent, as well as collective cabinet responsibility, restraining them from going all out in the interests of their own patch.
I can't really comment on the political culture in the UK in any great detail, but here in Ireland a constituency would expect to see some "return" out of having one of their TDs at the cabinet table. However, there is also probably a "cushioning" effect for TDs who are also Ministers - while some constituents will probably expect them to continue to relentlessly pursue every petty constituency issue alongside their cabinet portfolios, many will give them a large amount of leeway in terms of balancing their local and national responsibilities. --Ryano 17:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply.
My question was, since one of the main tasks of the British Parliament is to scruntize British government, if British government ministers are also MP's at the same time, wouldn't it cause a conflict of interests ?
Siyac 10:17, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Well, I suppose you can take it that the Minister doesn't fulfil that part of the MP's role while serving in Government. --Ryano 09:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Put the question another way. Is there any evidence that the formal independence of members of the US congress makes them any more actually independent n their scrutiny of the administration? Alan 05:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Payroll vote - there should really be a mention of it in the article. 78.105.19.184 (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

[edit]

Do the characteristics of a Westminster System necessarily extend only to the UK or former colonies of the United Kingdom?

Isn't Germany, by the definition given in the article, a "Westminster System"?

In Germany there is an executive comprised of members of the legislature, there are opposition parties, an elected legislature, and a differentiation between head of state and head of government.

If anything, these are probably the defining aspects of any parliamentary system, not just those based upon the United Kingdom's system of government. Lapafrax 18:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, Germany does not have the Westminster System. There is more than the items you list. There is a specific role for a head of state which the Federal President does not have. There is a specific relationship between the executive and the legislature that Germany does not have, eg, the Constructive Vote of No Confidence used in Germany runs contrary to the Westminster System. The WS operates on the principle that a government is completely answerable to parliament and can be forced out of office by vote of parliament, or forced into a general election, through such things as Loss of Supply or defeat in a confidence motion. The Germany model in effect locks the government in power by requiring that it can only be displaced by electing a successor. That means that the relationship between the Chancellor and government versus the Bundestag is far stronger than the relationship that exists between cabinets and parliaments in the Westminster System. They are completely different concepts. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark

[edit]

Having read the article and the talk page I'm adding Denmark to the list. (At the very least it fulfills all the "key characteristics2.) I think Norway and Sweden could go in too, but I'm not sure, so I've left them out. I'll be watching this page, so flame away here if you disagree Nvj 17:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Denmark should be on this list. For one, countries with a Westminister system were English colonies. Second it doesn't really fit the key characteristics:
  • an executive branch usually made up of members of the legislature with the senior members of the executive in a Cabinet
    • No true, all members of the executive are part of cabinet in Denmark
  • the presence of opposition parties;
    • True
  • an elected legislature, or a system in which one of two houses is elected and the other appointed;
    • Denmark is unicameral
  • a ceremonial head of state, who is different from the head of government, and who may possess reserve powers that are not normally exercised.
    • True, though Denmark's head of state is much more ceremonial
  • the ability of the lower house of parliament to, by default, dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) Supply" (rejecting a budget), passing a no-confidence motion, or defeating a confidence motion. The Westminster system enables a government to be defeated, or forced into a general election, independently of a new government being chosen.
    • True, to my knowledge
  • the ability for a parliament to be dissolved and elections called at any time.
    • True I guess
But Denmark also has characteristics that go in against the Westminister logic, especially the occurence of minority cabinets, multiparty coalitions, a written constitution and the absence of an adversial politics, instead working in more consensual ways. Although both systems are parliamentary monarchies, Denmark is not as similar as Canada or Australia. So I've removed it.C mon 22:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not entirely true. Canada, Australia and India all have written constitutions yet are still considered Westminster systems. Canada currently has a minority government under Stephen Harper. Australia currently has a coalition government between the Liberal Party and the National Party. So the concepts of coalition governments and minority governments aren't antithetical to the notion of a Westminster System. The UK doesn't have coalition governments because of the voting system used in UK general elections. If the UK used a PR (proportional representation) system, then the likelihood of British coalition governments would increase. Lapafrax 23:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll leave Denmark out for now. Personally, I'm left thinking that the term "Westminster System" isn't really well-defined, at least not on this page. Based on your logic the following changes should be made to "list of key characteristics":
  • Country should be a former English colony
  • Canada should be excluded, the Cabinet of Canada seems to include the same persons as Denmarks.
  • Add bicameralism (which is not implied in the list, note "or".
  • No coalition/minority governments
  • Generally adversarial politics
I have no idea what you mean by "the Westminster logic", perhaps that's something that should be in the page. Finally, I wouldn't be so sure that Denmarks head of state is so much more ceremonial compared to UKs.
So, I'm being a bit "adversarial" here, but please take it in the spirit of eventual consensus-building ;-) Nvj 10:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would include Denmark. Bicameralism is not a strong component of the Westminster system. New Zealand has no second chamber. Canada is very close to having no second chamber because of the weakness of the Senate. Ditto Ireland. The Canadian provinces and the Australian state of Queensland are all unicameral. Canada is famous for minority governments and the MMP system in New Zealand more or less guarantees multiparty coalition governments.

I would exclude Germany because of the constructive vote of no confidence and the requirement for an absolute majority to elect a chancellor. Alan 06:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1- Why did you exclude, for example, Spain? 2- UK didn't have, in its long history, minority Governments or coalition Governments? 3- "Westminster system" is really different from other parliamentary systems? I mean that, excluding Germany for its constructive no confidence vote (that doesn't seem to me so important for distinguishing its system from the British one), I really don't see graet differences. I am italian: what is really different between UK and Italy? Sure, in Italy there was a great (apparent) instability; but also in UK history there were weak governments, frequent elections and so on (note that in italy we did never have two elections in the same year...). --clemi 10:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British influence and tradition

[edit]

Regarding the above claims re Denmark, Italy, Germany, Spain, etc, it is a matter of opinion. One of the main things that ties the countries mentioned in the article together is a history of British influence and traditions. Many of these are of little consequence, but are nevertheless shared, such as titles like Black Rod. In my opinion, some of the countries in the article are dubious inclusions: Australia because of the powerful Australian Senate, Ireland because of the directly-elected Irish president, New Zealand because of its use of the (German) MMP system, etc. If we include countries with no history of British rule/traditions, we may as well merge/redirect this whole article into the Parliament article. Grant65 | Talk 02:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't quite know what's a non-Westminster parliamentary system due to lack of personal experience, but from what I've gathered some of the most salient characteristics of Westminster are the theoretical concentration of power in the head of state and the vulnerability of the government to fall via non-confidence and lack of supply. See Talk:Parliamentary_system#Variations in Parliamentary Systems

  • Ireland should probably go off the Westminster list because the enumerated powers of the President are limited and the Government's powers are enumerated under the constitution. The Taoiseach is also formally nominated by the Dali before appointment by the President. Finally, the Irish President does not have the power of dissallowance, only referral to the Supreme Court or to a referendum.
  • Australia should probably stay because the PM's authority is based on the Queen's (who in theory can one day decide to move to Canberra and start ruling). While the government can fall from lack of supply from the Senate (from 1975), it is not a strict confidence chamber, and a motion of non-confidence passed in the Senate would have no legal effect upon the government.
  • New Zealand stays: means of electing the Parliament are not crucial to whether a system is Westminster or not.

I can't say for certain whether a strict British colonial history is a necessary prerequisite, but I would say that at the very least the system of government has to draw significantly from the British tradition for it to count as Westminster, such as how Meiji Japan drew heavily upon the German system. I actually don't know any examples of such countries off-hand, though.

Kelvinc 23:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin, I agree in general, but what you say about Australia is incorrect. As the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 shows, there a few points about the Australian system which do not attract much attention, but are nevertheless very significant.
  • Under the Australian constitution, the role of the head of state is much more significant than would be considered the case in Westminster per se. The Queen has few explicit powers in Australia, while the Governor-General has some very significant ones. For example, the G-G can dismiss the PM and any or all members of the cabinet, at any time. The G-G can also appoint a caretaker government of his or her choosing. This is why the actions of Sir John Kerr in 1975, in dismissing Gough Whitlam's govt, without reference to the Queen, were legal in the strict sense, even if they were unconventional and unpopular. Kerr was a constitutional lawyer and he knew what he was doing. The oddity is that the monarch can dismiss the G-G, and would almost certainly have dismissed Kerr on the recommendation of Whitlam, had the latter suspected that Kerr had it in for him. So the role of head of state is effectively split between monarch and G-G in the Australian system.
  • The Australian Senate actually has greater power within the Australian System than even the US Senate in the US system, because the latter cannot force a change of the head of government (President) due to fixed terms. Hence the term "lame duck president". However, there are no fixed terms in Australia and a hostile Senate can cause the downfall of a PM quite easily. This was the first part of Whitlam's downfall. I'm not aware of an upper house with such powers in any other Westminster system. Grant65 | Talk 04:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Argh 1975 makes things so complicated.
I guess I can see where the problem lies, and I guess either it's the Senate's unusual powers or the G-G's perogative that makes Australia unique. What I don't think, however, is that it's both.
  • If it's the Senate's unique ability to block supply, then the G-G's right to dismiss the government and find someone else who does have confidence from the House is not unusual, per the King-Byng Affair.
  • But if all the Senate did was delay supply and create a lot of political pressure on Whitlam (which does seem to be the case), then Kerr acted outside convention in sacking a government without that government having lost supply or confidence, but that would imply that Ker, not the Senate, actually brought down the government.
I guess I agree with you on the outcome being distinctively un-Westminster-like. I'm just really uncertain as to what makes it so.
I'm not sure if the issue of Senate blocking supply is that big of a deal since it's possible that the Canadian Senate has that power because the BNA Act was passed before 1911 (though this power is untested) and it seems that the Lords in the UK had that power before 1911. The H. H. Asquith article suggests that when the Lords failed to pass the People's Budget, it did eventually trigger an election. The first Parliament Act was passed as a result, but the whole thing seems to be removing a big question mark in the Westminster system. The difference was that in the UK, the dilemma was resolved in favour of the lower house, while in Australia it was resolved in favour of the upper house. Kelvinc 05:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kelvin, sorry for the delay in replying. I would agree. And that is a big "difference". It's what distinguishes Australia from the other Westminster countries.
Yes, '75 is complicated. There were extenuating circumstances in Whitlam's refusal to resign (e.g. the role of Joh Bjelke-Petersen) which should have given Kerr pause to reconsider
I'm not that familiar with King-Byng, and I accept that it changed conventions/created precedents, but there seems to me a world of difference between a G-G passively refusing a dissolution, and the Whitlam-Kerr case, in which a G-G appointed a caretaker PM who did not have a majority in the lower house. Grant65 | Talk 02:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My whole view of '75 w.r.t. defining Westminsterness is that the whole debate is centred around exceptional actions that rode roughshod over way too many conventions that doesn't really help in understanding whether Australia is a Westminster system in the other 105 years since Commonwealth. As you've said below, systems have evolved so much in different countries it's hard to say whether anything besides historical relations are truly common across Westminster countries.
I agree that Fraser's lack of confidence within the House is probably the pivotal issue here (cross-party Senate nominations don't really have any impact on this debate, although it definitely should've been a factor in Kerr's decision).
I don't claim any authority on this issue, being merely an Oz politics junkie that actually lives in that other giant empty Commonwealth realm, so your patience has been appreciated. Kelvinc 08:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


IS the confusion caused earlier above resolved somewhat by considering that under the former British Colonies that retain HM as head of state the the G-G (or Lt. G_G in the smaller ones) is the Queen's representative, that is unlike stated above it is not split between monarch and G-G, but that monarch and G-G are one and the same thing. I think it is wrong to assume that HM's powers (and ability under constitutional convention to exercise them) are necessarily the same in each realm for which she is Head of State —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.50.99 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

head of state/executive & Ireland

[edit]

I'm surprised that no one had previously made the revisions to the key characteristics section. If anything, the executive arrangement of the Westminster System's defining aspects. Walter Bagehot mentioned the "dignified" and "efficient" governments and the Westminster System echoes this. Heads of state in Westminster Systems, be they the British Sovereign, President of India, etc. are more than unifying figures for their respective nations. Executive powefs are (theoretically and nominally, at least) are in vested in them. The PM and Cabinet in these countries act as de facto executives, making decisions on behalf of the nominal executives. If one examines the constitution of Germany for example, executive powers aren't vested in the President and as such he is not a theoretical executive figure. Evidently Germnay possesses a parliamentary system like the UK, India, Australia, Canada, etc.

As for Ireland, well I wouldn't call it "semi-presidential". The Irish consitution simply gives the President reserve powers and states that the executive is the Taoseich and his Cabinet. So it's purely a parliamentary system. Lapafrax 23:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your first point: I would agree, in that I believe the Westminster system is now so different in the various countries in which it is practised that the only things which really distinguish it from non-Westminster systems is the history of British rule and fairly superficial terminology/nomenclature.
What distinguishes Ireland is not the powers of the president, but the fact that he/she is directly elected and therefore has a popular mandate and therefore greater freedom to use those powers. Grant65 | Talk 02:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this matter? The Irish President is not the de jure (or even de facto) executive authority of the Irish government. By definition, a semi-presidential system comprises of an independently (from the legislature) elected president and a prime minister from the legislature BOTH possessing executive authority. This cannot be the case if the Irish President isn't legally part of the executive. Lapafrax 18:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto above. The Irish president is elected, but elected to be a relatively non-intrusive figure in the operations of the Irish state with only occasional involvement, nowhere near as involved in governance as the president of France or the Republic of China. Thus even her popular mandate does not elevate the President's status to a competing one with the Government: ergo parliamentarianism. Kelvinc 08:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Irish_president#Discretionary_powers. The popular mandate matters because it is very difficult for a hereditary monarch, appointed Governor-General or indirectly-elected president to claim that they are acting according to the people's wishes (regardless of whether they are or not). Hence they have a tendency to act minimally, reluctantly and/or in the least controversial fashion (notwithstanding Kerr's indiscretion in '75). Is it difficult to see that a directly-elected president is greatly empowered, by comparison? If a Taoiseach lost the confidence of the Dail, I doubt that Westminster traditions/conventions would prove much of an impediment to an Uachtaran, safe in the knowledge that she or he had won an election in her/his own right. Grant65 | Talk 12:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This debate stems from the statement in the article that Éire's system of government shares as much semi-presidentialism as it does Westminsterism. In a sense I agree with that statement: I think Éire is neither semi-presidential or Westminster. The Irish President is directly elected, but her de facto role is never confrontational with the Government. She may refer certain laws to referendum or the Supreme Court, but she does not challenge government policy and only addresses the nation with consent from the government. Take a look at the French President or the ROC President, who is a partisan figure (not just as in having party affiliation, but actually taking sides), and where the duality of executive power is a real political issue: that's just not the case in Éire.
Nonetheless, since Éire is descended from the British tradition, and it still is a parliamentarian system, I can see a better leap for it into Westminster than semi-presidential. I would prefer it if the statement that Éire is Westminster is removed, and the historical background elaborated within the article, but without making the rather large leap into suggesting that it's sort of semi-presidential. Kelvinc 22:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should "System" be capitalised?

[edit]

The title of this article is obviously currently Westerminster System, but the first sentence starts "The Westminster system...".

If "System" is a proper noun then the first sentence needs changing to "System". If it is not a proper noun then the article needs moving to Westminster system. Thryduulf 10:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Authors Left Out Critical History

[edit]

Guys -- You left some things out:

When was the first Westminster-type government? Who was the first Prime Minister responsible to parliament? When was the government brought down for the first time? The first time an election brought the Loyal Opposition to power?

I also checked the article Responsible Government (which actually overlaps this one), but this information is not there either. Scott Adler 07:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Westminster System is of British origin. I'd have thought the article makes that fairly clear. Lapafrax 15:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the problem is with Responsible Government, rather than this article. Although the term "Responsible Government" applies to a much wider range of countries than "Westminster System", very few are discussed there. Grant | Talk 17:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just leaving a note here in case anyone is watching, I plan to rewrite the Responsible government article, will probably have a version up by the end of the weekend. Anyone has any of the above sort of information, feel free to add it. (There is an overlap as Responsible government is one part of the Westminster system, but has its own history and implementation.) Orderinchaos 22:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

criticism section

[edit]

I don't agree that, as it says in the article un der the criticisms section, "The Prime Minister, who is also party leader, will have an active interest in promoting as many members of his party to cabinet as possible..." if he wants the public to view his cabinet as amateurs he might... This has been one of the central criticisms of the current govt. and one of the central causes for compliment of the chancellor who's been in his job since the start... I wanna delete this idea. 87.194.21.177 13:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)alexxxth, 1320 21st feb 2007[reply]

I mean, the point is that the PM will be UNDER PRESSURE to appoint as many to the cabinet as possible, but any PM worth his salt won't see it as IN HIS INTEREST.

Parliament Seating Layout

[edit]

According to the article - "A Westminster-style parliament is usually a long, rectangular room, with two rows of seats and desks on either side." This is true of the British Parliament but not the Indian Parliament in which both the lower and upper houses are semi-circular. Considering that the Indian Parliament was designed and built by the British, is the statement really correct? What about other countries? Are their parliaments rectangular or circular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.31.251 (talk) July 29, 2007

All the others that I can remember seeing are rectangular. Grant | Talk 03:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, most Westminster system Parliaments have long straight benches and a rounded section at the end (e.g. New Zealand, Ireland). A few have 'horseshoe' layout (like Japan) and a few are just straight (like the UK and Canada). --Sg gower (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the devolved Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies? And what about local governments where the council leader-cabinet system is in place? Peter Geatings (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons Within The House Of Commons

[edit]

In the article it states that no weapons are allowed inside the house, although I know it to be a fact that the guards within the house do carry swords. If anyone can verify it can they edit the page? (Will) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.195.83.3 (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes don't count

[edit]
  • Is it true that if you are in a country that has adopted this system and you live in an area where a particular party is certain to take the seat and you support a different party, then it makes no difference whether you vote or not?
  • Linked to that - is it possible that a party could win enough seats to take power but not have the support of the majority of individual voters? Should this not be listed as a criticism of this system!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.12.121 (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes, it will make no difference to the outcome in that case, although it is never quite "certain" that one party will win a seat. polling is conducted across the entire country and can't predict what happens in one seat. However, the number of votes for each party is considered significant: witness the contempt for labour after they won only 35% of the vote in 2005.

2) Yes, this happens very rarely, for example in 1951.

The problems that you outlined aren't a feature of the Westminster System, but of Single-Member District Plurality voting, otherwise known as "first past the post". For example, New Zealand and Australia operate the Westminster system, but use different voting systems. BillMasen (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terms

[edit]

One of the defining features is claimed to be "a parliament which can be dissolved and elections called at any time". That's certainly true of many Westminster parliaments, but it's not true of some of them. Most (all?) of the Australian state and territory parliaments are now fixed-term legislatures, with absolutely predictable election dates. They're still Westminster system affairs, though. (There may be some provisions for elections on alternative dates in cases of extreme circumstances.) -- JackofOz (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Israel?

[edit]

Why is Israel listed as a country with a Westminster system? It's a republic with Party-list proportional representation where voters can't do any changes to the party list, the Knesset is unicameral, they constantly have coalition governments etc, etc.

If Israel should be listed here, then almost every democracy in the world should as well, including the United States. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States isn't paliamentary, but I would expect to see Japan on the list if Israel is listed. Japan is moving towards an effective two-party system and the largest opposition party is having something somewhat similar to a shadow cabinet. Peter Geatings (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about having no "Ceremonial middleman" in form of the President? Glide08 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting System

[edit]

I don't believe the first past the post voting system is a part of the Westminster system as described. It is not used in many countries and indeed is not used in any of the devolved parliaments/assemblies of the United Kingdom.

--Gramscis cousinTalkStalk 09:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda

[edit]

Why is Bermuda on this list? It remains a British Overseas Territory and is not an independent nation like the others on that list. For the record, all British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies used the Westminster system.24.46.236.67 (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The curse of this article seems to be people making sweeping assumptions based on misunderstood generalised theory! You're quite wrong: "all" the British Overseas Territories do not use the Westminister system; the British Indian Ocean Territory is a rather obvious example of one that does not. I'm not sure about the Crown Dependencies, either (at least, until fairly recently). Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Australia

[edit]

I don't really understand the idea that the Australian system was a purposeful mixture of the American and Westminster systems. The original design of the Australian system in 1901 was basically identical to the then system at Westminster, except that the Senate was elected. Perhaps that was due to American influence, but most of the other differences with Westminster have arisen because Westminster itself moved away from the original Westminster system by castrating the House of Lords. Many other Westminster systems besides Australia have or had an elected upper house of some sort. And in fact, the direct election of Senators provided in the Australian Constitution was decided upon at a time when the U.S. Senate was not directly elected. The idea of a conscious hybrid with US forms seems like nonsense. At present, Australia presents a sort of hybrid between US and British forms (although still much closer to the British model), but that's not evidence that this was the original intention. 150.250.188.243 (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentence?

[edit]

I don't quite understand what is the point being made in this sentence:

"The Westminster system enables a government to be defeated, or forced into a general election, independently of a new government being chosen."

Can anyone explain? Bazuz (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Washminster system"

[edit]

What would people say to adding an appropriately sourced section on the definition and use of Westminster ;-)Timeshift (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Washminster' system of Australia. Really?

[edit]

This Australian citizen has been watching Australian politics for over half a century, and before seeing this article had never heard of the term Washminster. The section has one source, to an academic journal, and the link doesn't show that word either, apart from in its heading. Perhaps it's used further inside the journal, but that means we have one article using the word (probably), and nothing else. I don't see this as evidence that it is a nickname, as our article says. I see nothing more than an academic inventing a catchy title for a single paper, certainly not a "nickname". Nicknames have to be used moderately commonly to be so called. Is the word really used anywhere else at all, apart from in that article and in our article? HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seek and you shall find, mate, Google Scholar gives 368 scholarly results in which Washminster is mentioned: https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Washminster&btnG=, so clearly it's a term that caught on. Likewise, the Australian Parliamentary Education Office (PEO) has an article using the term 'Washminster', https://getparliament.peo.gov.au/the-australian-constitution/systems-of-government-in-australia-britain-and-united-states. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 03:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I learn something new every day. Thank you. Part of my concern, however, is the sourcing for "Washminster" in the article. It's not really very good. I'd be tempted to add that PEO article as an additional (better) source. Thoughts? HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's an adequate source. I also found a book (in PDF format) on the work of MPs and senators that mentions 'Washminster' twice, that you can cite: https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/monographs/brenton/monograph.pdf. The mentions are on pages 88 and 105. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 03:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia and Spain

[edit]

First of all, is there any proof that Indonesia used the Westminster system in the past when the country was a parliamentary republic? Second, Indonesia's parliamentary era ended in 1959, not 1966.

Also, I think Spain uses the consesus model instead of the Westminster system. 115.84.96.214 (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request: March 30, 2024

[edit]

I think South Korea under the Second Republic had a government similar the Westminster system except the House of Councillors was elective. Well, Japan had a model combined with Westminster and Prussian, and Japan was colonized by Japan from 1910 to 1945/1948. I think even the Kingdom of Afghanistan used it from 1964 until 1973. Should South Korea and Afghanistan be on the list of former examples/users or not? Plus, I don't think Indonesia used the Westminster system. The parliamentary system ended in 1959, not 1966. If you have any proof that Indonesia used the British model, please send it to me because I might remove Indonesia from the former example list.

Are there any other parliamentary countries that had or have a Westminster system besides the current and former examples? Slimsilkyweave (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Westminster_system&oldid=1218689970"