NationStates Jolt Archive

What would you rather have in your country? (NS or real life) Parliaments seem livlier to me, maybe that's not all that good. But it makes it exciting. If you've ever watched CSPAN in the US, you know Congress is pretty dry most of the time. The British Parliament, however, is always discussing and yaying and naying and have a jolly old time. Congress just makes dry speeches. Then again, living in the US, I probably only see the most exciting parliamentary debates. Is it all like that?

the people in the parliment yell at each other... :?

I've seen the parliment on C-span as well, it was this man giving a speech against the war on Iraq and then he said somthing about Tony Blair and there was a big "ooooo" from the audiance.

I've seen the Congress on C-span, I live in the capital area and from what I have heard from people who have gone is that its sleep inducing.
Conclusion: Parliment, more fun

Now the question is, is that a good thing? Personally for a person with a short attention span like me, that is.

I've seen the parliment on C-span as well, it was this man giving a speech against the war on Iraq and then he said somthing about Tony Blair and there was a big "ooooo" from the audiance.

I've seen the Congress on C-span, I live in the capital area and from what I have heard from people who have gone is that its sleep inducing.
Conclusion: Parliment, more fun

Now the question is, is that a good thing? Personally for a person with a short attention span like me, that is.

What, if any, is the difference between parliament and congress? :)

If I'd want liveliness, I'd watch a bad tv talkshow. Parliament/congress isn't for entertainment, but for making laws and keeping the government in check. Being able to do that is what's important, not what you call it. :)

What, if any, is the difference between parliament and congress? :)

If I'd want liveliness, I'd watch a bad tv talkshow. Parliament/congress isn't for entertainment, but for making laws and keeping the government in check. Being able to do that is what's important, not what you call it. :)

I don't mean to say the legislature is only for entertainment. I also mean to ask in terms of effectiveness.

Well, then I guess it would depend on what powers the parliament/congress in question has. I don't think you can generally say that one is 'better' than the other without taking in specifics.

I don't know how Parliament works exactly, but I can say that the US Congress is complex enough that it's hard to get much accomplished there, and I'm usually comfortable with that. I'd usually rather them do nothing than have them get all active and really screw things up.

The problem right now is that the Republican leadership is willing to stab their own people in the back once a bill gets to Conference committee, and so many of the good things that get passed--like the rollback of the FCC rules on media ownership--get yanked by the leadership.

Hey, lets not turn this into a republican-democrat debate.

I agree, some gridlock is necessary.

I'm still wondering what the difference is between congress and parliament.

Your US Congress has two houses, right? Reps and senate. Then that isn't all that different from a bicameral parliament, like the one we have in the Netherlands where I live. :)

Hey, lets not turn this into a republican-democrat debate.

I agree, some gridlock is necessary.Sorry--my beef in this instance isn't with the Republican party per se--it's with the leadership, with Tom DeLay and Bill Frist especially, because of what they consistently do in conference committees, undercutting the bipartisan will of the Congress.

Usually, the system works poorly enough to suit me, no matter who's in charge. It's just being hijacked at present.

Hey, lets not turn this into a republican-democrat debate.

I agree, some gridlock is necessary.Sorry--my beef in this instance isn't with the Republican party per se--it's with the leadership, with Tom DeLay and Bill Frist especially, because of what they consistently do in conference committees, undercutting the bipartisan will of the Congress.

Usually, the system works poorly enough to suit me, no matter who's in charge. It's just being hijacked at present.

Alright, I'll let you get away with that one. :wink:

I'm still wondering what the difference is between congress and parliament.

Your US Congress has two houses, right? Reps and senate. Then that isn't all that different from a bicameral parliament, like the one we have in the Netherlands where I live. :)Well, there are some major differences between the two houses in the US. The Reps serve two year terms and are elected from much smaller districts based on population. The Senate serves 6 year terms, and the terms are staggered so there's never more than a third of the Senators up for re-election in any given year, and they're elected state-wide. Also, the House members are apportioned based on population, while the Senate is two from a state. The House is the only place a spending bill can start, and debate is very limited. The Senate approves Cabinet members and Federal judges and is very careful about limiting debate. That's good for starters, I think.

I realize I really am quite clueless about the inner workings of parliament, anyone care to inform?

I realize I really am quite clueless about the inner workings of parliament, anyone care to inform?

Well, I can only speak for the Dutch parliament, but basically:

- the 150 members of the Second Chamber ("Tweede Kamer") are elected directly every four years;

- the 75 members of the First Chamber (senate, "Eerste Kamer") are elected by the members of the Provincial Councils every four years;

- the Second Chamber makes bills, if they're passed they go to the First Chamber, which either approves or rejects them. If approved, the bill becomes law, but if the bill is rejected, it does not go back to the Second Chamber; they'd have to start all over again.

Dutch parliament in a nutshell, leaving out the powers for scrutiny of government.

once I believe I saw a korean government man (parliament or something) being spanked as punishment and I've also seen korean parliament guys actually fight eachother with fists 8) :lol:

Either works

congresses are usually for presidential republics. parliaments are in constitutional monarchies and parliamentary democracies. explanation in a nutshell

btw, for philopolis i'm working out a parliament. a senate and a national council (based on the french lower house national assembly).

I like the idea of the president having to face questions from the floor on a regular basis like the prime minister.

British parliament is good. There are 2 houses- The house of Commons and the house of lords. The house of commons is where all the people who have been elected-619 i think go(there arent even enough seats!) and the house of lords is where all the hereditary peers go. theyre usually not bothered with politics, cos theyre only there cos their parnets were, and tony blair got rid of hereditary members just recently. the house of commons has green seats, and the house of lords has red ones. a law is passed only when the commons and the lords agree on it, and the Queen must then give her royal seal of approval.
It works so much better :)

British parliament is good. There are 2 houses- The house of Commons and the house of lords. The house of commons is where all the people who have been elected-619 i think go(there arent even enough seats!) and the house of lords is where all the hereditary peers go. theyre usually not bothered with politics, cos theyre only there cos their parnets were, and tony blair got rid of hereditary members just recently. the house of commons has green seats, and the house of lords has red ones. a law is passed only when the commons and the lords agree on it, and the Queen must then give her royal seal of approval.
It works so much better :)

If you want to here the British Parliament then use Radio 4's "listen again" feature to listen to Today in Parliament (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/aod/radio_aod.shtml?tip) it is on at 23:30 GMT so use the link provided (for the most recent edition) or listen to it at the time through the internet. (the website for it is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/3081534.stm where you can watch it live).
Wednesday is the best time to listen to TiP becuase that is when Prime Ministers Questions is (starts at 11:00am GMT iirc), which is where most of the lively debates are (especially now that Micheal Howard is leader of the opposition).

Never having heard Congress I cannot compare. But since there are
A) only two parties who are similar
B) Partisan Politics
C) Little real difference
I can only imagine that it is worse (as in more boring). We have radical socialists and confrontational politics to liven things up.

EDIT:: Got a time wrong.

British parliament is good. There are 2 houses- The house of Commons and the house of lords. The house of commons is where all the people who have been elected-619 i think go(there arent even enough seats!) and the house of lords is where all the hereditary peers go. theyre usually not bothered with politics, cos theyre only there cos their parnets were, and tony blair got rid of hereditary members just recently. the house of commons has green seats, and the house of lords has red ones. a law is passed only when the commons and the lords agree on it, and the Queen must then give her royal seal of approval.
It works so much better :)

Not quite, there are still a few hereditary peers left. One described themselves as "a pustule on the back of British politics to show Blair that modernising is still unfinished" iirc. Also that the hereditaries are the ones most commited to reform, it is the ones with life peerages who don't want reform.

Also the Lords don't have the power to veto legislation, they can hold it up for 8 months (iirc) and the Commons Act means that they can only block the same legislation twice, the third time that it is passed in the Commons then it bypasses the Lords. The Lords serve as a House of Review (as I have been told the Senate serves, but knowing little on the workings of the US legislature I could be wrong), they send legislation back with ideas for ammendments. The fact that they can delay legislation means that at the start of a government they are relatively weak, but towards the end much more powerful (the 'rebound' count' is reset after a general election).

I like the idea of the president having to face questions from the floor on a regular basis like the prime minister.

Of course in Britain PMQ's is an informal arrangement, Blair (or any other PM) is not obliged to have it. In fact since Blair came to power PMQ's time have been 'trimmed' to half an hour each week. Although I agree, it is a good idea.

One thing about our [the Bitish] system, is the fact that nearly everything is informal. And only exists because of convention and tradition. A few things are set in stone, but a lot isn't.

dp

dp

:twisted:

dp

Today in Parliament rocks. I listen to it every weeknight on Radio 4, 11:30 PM. Parliament in general is better than congress, but we need a democratically elected second house.

Today in Parliament rocks. I listen to it every weeknight on Radio 4, 11:30 PM. Parliament in general is better than congress, but we need a democratically elected second house.

From reading your other posts I assume that you like Billy Bragg's Second Mandate system?

It is a good idea in my opinion.

Today in Parliament rocks. I listen to it every weeknight on Radio 4, 11:30 PM. Parliament in general is better than congress, but we need a democratically elected second house.

From reading your other posts I assume that you like Billy Bragg's Second Mandate system?

It is a good idea in my opinion.


You read me like a book.

Today in Parliament rocks. I listen to it every weeknight on Radio 4, 11:30 PM. Parliament in general is better than congress, but we need a democratically elected second house.

From reading your other posts I assume that you like Billy Bragg's Second Mandate system?

It is a good idea in my opinion.


You read me like a book.

Well lets say when you see someone who frequently refers to Billy Bragg, it isn't hard to put 2+2 together ;) . Anyway he is fantastic, so it aint a bad thing.

Today in Parliament rocks. I listen to it every weeknight on Radio 4, 11:30 PM. Parliament in general is better than congress, but we need a democratically elected second house.

From reading your other posts I assume that you like Billy Bragg's Second Mandate system?

It is a good idea in my opinion.


You read me like a book.

Well lets say when you see someone who frequently refers to Billy Bragg, it isn't hard to put 2+2 together ;) . Anyway he is fantastic, so it aint a bad thing.

To be honest, if old Mikey H proposed it I'd support it.

dp