Talk:Westminster system

message: 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)
thread_title: Japan

message: 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)
thread_title: Westminster System in Canadian provinces and Australian colonies

message: 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===
"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)
replies: text: Errrm....Q.E.D. I think? Grant | Talk 06:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian electoral system

message: "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)
replies: text: Errrm....Q.E.D. I think? Grant | Talk 06:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: australia

message: 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)
thread_title: ireland

message: 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.
*Executive power: the President of Ireland has a mandate through direct election and both she/he and the Australian Governor-General have much greater formal, constitutional powers, even if these are rarely exercised, than those normally associated with ceremonial heads of state under the Westminster System (see e.g.President_of_Ireland#Reserve_powers and Governor-General_of_Australia#The_reserve_powers). In some important respects, both countries are closer to Semi-presidential_systems than the Westminster system. Regards, Grant65 (Talk) 12:17, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Australia & Ireland

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: where??

message: 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)
thread_title: Germany

message: 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)
thread_title: Should "System" be capitalised?

message: 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)
replies: text:  The Westminster System is of British origin.  I'd have thought the article makes that fairly clear.  Lapafrax 15:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Authors Left Out Critical History

message: 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)
thread_title: criticism section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Parliament Seating Layout

message: 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)
thread_title: Weapons Within The House Of Commons

message: *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)
thread_title: Votes don't count

message: 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)
thread_title: Terms

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: What about having no "Ceremonial middleman" in form of the President? Glide08 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Israel?

message: 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)
thread_title: Voting System

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bermuda

message: 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)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Washminster system" 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  'Washminster' system of Australia. Really? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Indonesia and Spain 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request: March 30, 2024