The shadow cabinet, or lack thereof.

[dolf]

Do you have one?

In the uk, the parties not in power organise themselves the same way as the party in power.
We have a shadow cabinet. There's a minister, and there's an opposing shadow minister.
We have a known leader for each political party.
Earlier today, half listening to radio 4, I heard the guest point out that you do not have a leader of the opposition.
Obviously I knew this, but I'd never actually noticed. It's a pretty huge difference now I think about it.

What are your thoughts.

 

[HisArpy]

Actually my cabinet is large and very visible. It sits in the living room and is stuffed full of things I'd rather not talk about.

Because confidentiality.

 

[Saint_Ann]

We also haven't had a king since Elvis.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

Do you believe in the idea that it's ok to do whatever you want if you don't hurt anybody?

Gov't is supposed to govern. Represent your people, not your beliefs.

 

[dolf]

Do you believe in the idea that it's ok to do whatever you want if you don't hurt anybody?

Gov't is supposed to govern. Represent your people, not your beliefs.

I'm not opposed to hurting people...

That's a non answer!
You can't think of any pros and cons of the different styles?
You don't have any curiosity about the world beyond your walls?

 

[dolf]

We also haven't had a king since Elvis.

 

[Lazaran]

Do you have one?

In the uk, the parties not in power organise themselves the same way as the party in power.
We have a shadow cabinet. There's a minister, and there's an opposing shadow minister.
We have a known leader for each political party.
Earlier today, half listening to radio 4, I heard the guest point out that you do not have a leader of the opposition.
Obviously I knew this, but I'd never actually noticed. It's a pretty huge difference now I think about it.

What are your thoughts.

What do you see as the advantages of your system?



Do you see advantages?



I might be able to address your OP if you expand on it a bit.

 

[dolf]

What do you see as the advantages of your system?



Do you see advantages?



I might be able to address your OP if you expand on it a bit.

The advantages of our system? We can see what the opposition might look like in power, having seen them representing and debating in parliament. Each minister has a direct counterpart, so one person/team is concentrating their efforts on challenging that minister and that area of government. The opposing party has a clear spokesperson.

The disadvantage is that backbenchers (those not filling a set role), and by extension their constituents, receive less attention.

 

[Bray123]

In the UK when a leader of a political party resigns there is an immediate process to elect a replacement. That new leader will then be the candidate at the next election to become Prime Minister, should that party win enough seats. If no party wins a majority, they could form a coalition with other parties. Coalitions are common in Europe, not so much in the UK (the Lib-Lab pact a recent exception that lead to a near-destruction of the Liberals).

It looks to Europeans that the US Democrat party is rudderless, unable to coordinate an effective opposition to the bizarre policies and activities of someone who only achieved support of some 25% of the population.

 

[dolf]

In the UK, when a leader of a political party resigns, there is an immediate process to elect a replacement. That new leader will then be the candidate at the next election to become Prime Minister, should that party win enough seats. If no party wins a majority, they could form a coalition with other parties. Coalitions are common in Europe, not so much in the UK (the Lib-Lab pact, a recent exception that led to a near-destruction of the Liberals).

It looks to Europeans that the US Democrat party is rudderless, unable to coordinate an effective opposition to the bizarre policies and activities of someone who only achieved support of some 25% of the population.

The two parter elections are interesting. It's always good to see the various candidates tearing each other apart, then endorsing soon after.
"Vote for him! He called my wife ugly and I said he was terrible yesterday, but today he has my endorsement! He's the only man for the job."

 

[Lazaran]

The advantages of our system? We can see what the opposition might look like in power, having seen them representing and debating in parliament. Each minister has a direct counterpart, so one person/team is concentrating their efforts on challenging that minister and that area of government. The opposing party has a clear spokesperson.

The disadvantage is that backbenchers (those not filling a set role), and by extension their constituents, receive less attention.

Seems like a good setup / system.



Brexit still happened, though, so it seems shit can go off the rails just as epically with your system as it did with America’s.



As for the American system:

Before “MAGA”, there WERE fairly defined opposition leaders who challenged their counterparts in the United States congress in a contest of ideas, but “MAGA” went rogue and left the reservation of "normal"politics, so the Democratic Party has had to adjust. (The MAGAts will claim the Democrats (Obama) went rogue.)

Ironically, the Democratic Party is in the process of “matching up” with their MAGAt counterparts by adopting some of the MAGAts tactics - though with far more decent / noble aims and goals. “The New Democratic Party” may well be as bombastic and combative as the MAGAts in future political tilts - which may spill out into the streets.

The Democratic Party tried “going high” when the MAGAts went low, and look what happened. The next political conflict (the 2026 midterm election and the 2028 presidential election) will likely see both parties going low.

There is a new “politics” in America. There WILL be a leaner, meaner, and more militant Democratic Party in America in 2026 / 2028 if things keep going the way they are. And they will need be that way just to match up / keep pace with their MAGAt counterparts.

Apparently, that ^ is what the majority of the public wants…



It didn’t have to be this way. But now, thanks to Trump and the MAGAts, “it is what it is”.



We. Told. Them. So.

 

[Chernosoth]

Trump leads both parties. He leads the Dems by making them react to him. They'll find their own leader after he dies or retires.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Trump leads both parties. He leads the Dems by making them react to him. They'll find their own leader after he dies or retires.

Reacting to a fascist isn't leading, ya dumb shit.

 

[Chernosoth]

Extreme wealth may lead to extreme caution and indecision. With much more to lose, the extremely wealthy seek expert opinions instead of trusting their own brains. The extreme wealth funding the Dems may be keeping them brainless, so all they can do is hire experts and react to Trump, who has the confidence to be his own expert.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

I'm not opposed to hurting people...

That's a non answer!
You can't think of any pros and cons of the different styles?
You don't have any curiosity about the world beyond your walls?

I don't believe violence is the answer yet it's the one we pick when we go to war. There are lots of people dying for a cause because nobody is willing to agree to prove they're the best any other way.

I don't have an opinion of either style. The way your gov't works doesn't affect me any more than the way Australia's gov't does. The way my gov't works has not had a significant effect on my life. Ever. All the ups and downs I experienced were due to me and how I chose to live my life at those times.

I don't have any political curiosity beyond what is necessary to know, if that's what you're asking. Gov't is boring to learn about unless you're a regular of the PB.

 

[Politruk]

Do you have one?

No. A shadow government is only found in parliamentary systems. Here, a presidential candidate never even makes public promises as to who he will appoint to what post.