3 ms·

This is troublesome.. However, I can't help but blame the British system of government. There is no certainty, at any moment the government could collapse, and

This is troublesome.. However, I can't help but blame the British system of government. There is no certainty, at any moment the government could collapse, and even when it's not, the PM must constantly watch their back so that his own cabinet does not stab them in the back. America, and similar Presidential systems, there are set lengths of time for someone to be in office. That builds certainty. America may be a lot of things, it may have many issues, but you know with reasonable certainty, that there will be an orderly transfer or adjusting of power. From Boris, to Truss, to Sunak in a matter of months. I'm an ocean away and I have little faith in the British government, I can't imagine what it's citizens must be going through.

kazen44 4y ago
i disagree with you on this. The problem with british parliamentarism compared to the system other constitutional monarchies and democracies in europe have, is the the cabinet does not automatically gets disbanded when the goverment looses trust in the Prime Minister. In most european parliamentary systems, a re-election would be called if this situation happens. This is not the case in the UK. Its utterly ludicrous the tories are still in the seat of power after having 5 PM's in 6 years.
delecti 4y ago
Amusingly, I actually envy that aspect of the British system quite a bit. It feels like complete fantasy to imagine a president who has messed up and then resigns. The idea of a president's cabinet holding them accountable seems like fantasy as well. And it's only been a week since Truss announced her resignation but there's already a new PM. Boris' own party removed him from office, meanwhile only a handful of US congresspeople have ever voted to impeach/remove a president of their own party. Our last president tried to extort another country, and staged a nearly successful self-coup, and saw the end of his term.
- mr_toad 4y ago
  The Prime Minister is technically the leader of the party so more like the US Speaker of The House than the President. Technically the King as the head of State has the role of President, but of course the King is effectively a figurehead. Imagine if the House of Representatives managed to slap down the President and the Senate so hard that they never got up again, and you have what is effectively the UK system of government.
notahacker 4y ago
> However, I can't help but blame the British system of government. There is no certainty, at any moment the government could collapse, and even when it's not, the PM must constantly watch their back so that his own cabinet does not stab them in the back. It's not very different to any other functioning democracy in that respect (and considerably more stable than many European countries which generally rely on coalition formation). The government has "collapsed" in the sense some politicians have ceased to back some other politicians because they've proved spectacularly inadequate in different ways, but it's the same party in power since the election, and since 2010 for that matter. In other systems, there might be one person almost invulnerable to replacement even if they lose the confidence of everyone around them and everyone that voted for them, but if that person has a habit of hiring and firing people and changing political direction on a whim that's hardly resulting in greater stability, and often such systems come with their own alternative sources of uncertainty like midterm elections for chambers that get to block almost everything... Political invulnerability of inadequate politicians is a bug in a system, not a feature.

kazen44 4y ago

i disagree with you on this. The problem with british parliamentarism compared to the system other constitutional monarchies and democracies in europe have, is the the cabinet does not automatically gets disbanded when the goverment looses trust in the Prime Minister. In most european parliamentary systems, a re-election would be called if this situation happens. This is not the case in the UK. Its utterly ludicrous the tories are still in the seat of power after having 5 PM's in 6 years.

delecti 4y ago

Amusingly, I actually envy that aspect of the British system quite a bit. It feels like complete fantasy to imagine a president who has messed up and then resigns. The idea of a president's cabinet holding them accountable seems like fantasy as well. And it's only been a week since Truss announced her resignation but there's already a new PM. Boris' own party removed him from office, meanwhile only a handful of US congresspeople have ever voted to impeach/remove a president of their own party. Our last president tried to extort another country, and staged a nearly successful self-coup, and saw the end of his term.

mr_toad 4y ago
The Prime Minister is technically the leader of the party so more like the US Speaker of The House than the President. Technically the King as the head of State has the role of President, but of course the King is effectively a figurehead. Imagine if the House of Representatives managed to slap down the President and the Senate so hard that they never got up again, and you have what is effectively the UK system of government.

notahacker 4y ago

> However, I can't help but blame the British system of government. There is no certainty, at any moment the government could collapse, and even when it's not, the PM must constantly watch their back so that his own cabinet does not stab them in the back. It's not very different to any other functioning democracy in that respect (and considerably more stable than many European countries which generally rely on coalition formation). The government has "collapsed" in the sense some politicians have ceased to back some other politicians because they've proved spectacularly inadequate in different ways, but it's the same party in power since the election, and since 2010 for that matter. In other systems, there might be one person almost invulnerable to replacement even if they lose the confidence of everyone around them and everyone that voted for them, but if that person has a habit of hiring and firing people and changing political direction on a whim that's hardly resulting in greater stability, and often such systems come with their own alternative sources of uncertainty like midterm elections for chambers that get to block almost everything... Political invulnerability of inadequate politicians is a bug in a system, not a feature.