Any one around here of British origin?

Well, if so, i would like examples -or opinions- on how England is dictated or unfairly run...

I would like to know this because it would help me tremendously in formulising a true opinion on the political system, and musing new ideas on how it could be changed. ...?...

Any opinions on how a political order should NOT be run?.... anything will do.

If you have ideas about the future on how countries could grow, or any passionate opinions on what is going wrong all over the world...?...

Please, i would like to know

__________________
"Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the
same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present."
- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

Canada is similar to England. The Canadian Prime Minister is more powerful than his British counterpart.
Both systems are constitutional monarchies. On the surface, this might seem to be a worse system than the U.S., but in reality it works better.
The Queen of Canada is the equivalent of the U.S. President except she has no political power, only constitutional authority. She appoints a Prime Minister who is the equivalent of the House Majority Leader. The PM is the leader of the party that has the majority of seats in the House of Commons so in effect, he is elected. He has tremendous political power and no constitutional authority. When I look at the bone heads around the world that have been elected, a Monarch who has been trained from birth in duty and leadership looks pretty good. If you think the Canadian Queen is a special case, take the Kings of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Jordan and Emporer Akaihito as examples and the British system which is the model for the others is very good.

__________________
I'm too old to worry and too wicked to die

Basically, in Britain, if one party is elected with a huge majority it can lead to elective dictatorship. This is one of the phenomena of FPTP and one of the major criticisms of our electoral system. Before Blair's backbenchers started turning on him for instance he could force through most legislation despite opposition just because he had a mojority of around 160 seats. Power is also further abused because the UK has an uncodified constitution as opposed to the US Bill of Rights etc - a codified document. Our constitution has evolved alongside the state and is therefore quite flexible, but it does mean that the power of the PM is not restricted as much as would be desirable.

In Britain the monarchy doesn't really come into it - the head of state - the Queen - is merely a figurehead who signs legislation.

I was raised in UK and now live in Australia.
Here in Australia we have, probably similar to Canada (both places being given autonomy around the same time), a 2 house system or representatives and senate.
Because Australia was originally a series of individual colonies, each with its own state parliament (which still exist today) there is a strong tussle between the states and the federal government, especially currently when all the states are "labor" (socialist) controlled and the federal government is Liberal-National (conservative) controlled. It seems a popular practice for people to deliberately vote different ways between federal and state elections to encourage this tension.
What makes the Australian system worse is the Senators are elected based on each state receiving the same number of seats (New South Wales 6 million people have same senate representation as Tasmanias 300,000 population) - a real gerrymander, I hear you say.
Presently the Senate (supposed to be a house of review) is pretty much tied (under a system voting based on proportional representation) but with some "free radical" independents able to cobble up deals for particular minority interests to facilitate passing of some legislation. At least the upper house is elected, under a flawed system, better than the UK Lords (which were hereditary until Lloyd George got hold of them).
The house of representatives (same as UK Commons) is the real seat of government. We presently have a Lib/Nat coalition (long standing coalition, not one put together just for the present term). We are coming to the end of the third term of the present conservative government and have an election due before the end of the year.
I think the authority of our federal government is comparable, still, to the authority of UK commons, same for prime-ministerial / executive authority.

Only real difference is we have is for the house of representatives, a second preference method voting instead of a first past post arrangement (and different to how we elect senators).

I personally believe an elected member is elected to represent his/her electorate and thus do not support the idea of proportional representation because it dilutes this expectation / duty / responsibilty on the member.

Hope this adds to the appreciation of the westminster system, an imperfect but remarkably resiliant model of democracy.

__________________
Free Speech measures the idiot by what he says
Censorship measures the idiot as equal with the Sage.

I would just like to say that Labour is by definition a bad idea. Ever since they were elected way back when they have failed to do what they themselves set out in their manifesto, at this point I will have to have a moment of conscience and say that they have tried to increase funds to schools and hospitals and done some of the other things they said they would. That moment apart, they have failed to do most of the things they promised, they have failed to take in the opinion of the British public and lastly they have done some things that we (the British public) didn't want them to. I see Iraq as a prime example, after various opinion polls suggesting that over 70% of the British public did not want Britain, our wise government decided to take it upon themselves to represent the opinion that it was a good idea. At least I can take some comfort in knowing that the British people have more intelligence than to let President Bush's bum chum into any form of power again, hopefully this will be echoed in the General Election.

I believe that a good idea has been utilised for a long time in a country (I think it's Australia, care to verify Col-Rouge?) where the parliament building is entirely open to the public, restaurant and all. My favourite bit was that the roof of the building is carpeted in grass that the public can walk on; this is to show that the public can walk all over their government. How refreshing that someone recognises that no government can be run without making the people happy.

__________________
"Experience is the ability to recognise a mistake when you make it again."

Yes Garbler access to parliament etc. was very open but with an ever increasing security issue / terrorist threat, it is not as unfettered as it used to be.

Note references to"labour" politics versus "conservative" politics we are talking the system and not the players in the system.
The most important thing to consider is the adherence to the principles of democratic goveernment, be the flavout of the politics more conservative or more socialist.

I am totally committed to the idea of smaller government .. a system where I am left to make my own decisions and mistakes instead of government taking responsibility and control for me.

A further concern is the level of social welfare. Australia is, politically, somewhere between UK and USA in terms of social welfare but I am concerned we are developing an ever increasing system of welfare payments funded by ever increasing taxation.
I see a grave danger when reward for effort means less, through progressive taxation and people are protected (from among other things) their own laziness and indolence. This is the point, through welfare safety nets (which ultimately develop into poverty traps - the point where incremental working income, when offset from welfare benefit withdraw is a negative). We collectively end up stiffling the incentive and energy which generates basis of wealth on which taxes are levied, resulting in a downward spiral of increasing poverty.

__________________
Free Speech measures the idiot by what he says
Censorship measures the idiot as equal with the Sage.

I agree; the system of welfare in some countries is excessive. People no longer know the value of hard work. I'm 16 and over the holidays I am the 'General Office Assistant' (posh title meaning I do everything nobody else can be bothered to) at an Insurance Brokers. I know that my boss is a good bloke; I get to pick my hours, etc. Last time I was there they needed someone in to answer the phones because the boss was on holiday, the receptionist was ill and everyone except Carol (the Office Manager) was off. I got the phone call at 8am, got there at 9am, and worked the extra three hours. At the end of my working week the boss came in (this slightly worried me) and gave me flowers and said thanks.

I think that because I know I will be rewarded for good work and not for bad that spurs me on. I think that in some places the attitude is not shared. Welfare state was established in Britain when the poverty line was only £1 a week, the system was a little excessive at keeping the workers well below it so they would go and find jobs and there were several other large flaws, but I feel that if the current system went a little in that direction so that it would be advantageous for people to work then I think it would work better.

__________________
"Experience is the ability to recognise a mistake when you make it again."

The question of welfare services and "safety nets" is critical.

I was born and raised in UK so am familiar with the miriad of social services and the impact funding them has on "net versus gross" incomes.

In Australia we have developed a range of benefits in the form of "family pensions" where (say) a single mother can benefit to around the same amount of a normal unskilled weekly wage from benefits - but which are then reduced if she works. This creates a "poverty trap" - where the amount of benefit lost is equal to or even greater than the amount of genuine income generated from real work. These benefits can go on for a number of years, say whilst children grow up and are then terminated when the children reach maturity (age 1. So after say 10 years of social security payments the benefitting mother (usually) maybe completely de-skilled and unsuited to compete for available work and is thus, assigned to a future of poverty.

Better to make the benefit smaller and thus encourage work activity instead of economically "institutionalising" people away from real employment.

__________________
Free Speech measures the idiot by what he says
Censorship measures the idiot as equal with the Sage.

I do agree, but if it was made too low and the person honestly couldn't get work for any reason then it would be unfair to penalise them, if there is no work it is not their fault.

__________________
"Experience is the ability to recognise a mistake when you make it again."

Been in that position... poverty is a wonderful motivator... there is always work... what is uncertain is - at what price.

__________________
Free Speech measures the idiot by what he says
Censorship measures the idiot as equal with the Sage.