Is it just me or are American presidents more likely to be brought before a court than British ones? What I mean is you can point to events that marred the last 4 or 5 presidents that would lead to reasonable calls to impeach them. I can't really think of similar events that would have demanded Major, Thatcher, Callaghan, Wilson and Heath go before a court. I know many many people would have liked to pelt Thatcher with rocks. Since Nixon you can argue (at the least) that this president, Clinton, Bush 1 (rescuing his legacy by the day now) Reagan, and even the dire Carter (Three mile Island cover up) could have been brought before a court.
Why? Is it the power of being President? Or do we just not hear about UK Prime Minister's dodgy behavior despite the UK press being far superior to their US counterparts with regards accountability?
What three mile island coverup?
You mean like the Gulf Of Tonkin?
/apparently people are now wanting to impeach Chimpy over his "ten gazillion liters of anthrax and remote flying drones that will hit Chicago! Oh Noes!!!" speech.
//kind of agree with them
I feel that the two nation's leaders should be equally as corrupt but somehow I am just not seeing it.
I did not like Thatcher - I thought she was wrong several times and eventually, her own party agreed and removed her - but I cannot think of her being "corrupt" per se. Favours in British politics seem to be done more between politicians rather than big business or lobby groups getting their way. That is not to say it does not happen but it is not so overt as USA.
Perhaps the British list system works better - I forget the name of the book but haven't British politicians always been expected to list where money and trips/benefits have come from, beyond a certain point?
The US Presidency and entire political system will always leave a bad taste in my mouth, simply for the fact that lobby groups and big business pick the candidates, through the funding and influence they wield. They do not do this for fun or the kindness of their heart and payback is expected, during the four year term.
At the end of the day, I think that the average British voter carries far more power than the average (supposedly "free-er") American voter, whose votes are easily diluted or "lost" with the current American voting systems, seemingly tweaked on a regular basis and not for the voters' benefit.
Nixon would have been impeached had he not resigned Clinton was .
facts on the clinton impeachment here .
http//www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/impeach.html
What three mile island coverup?
I remember reading in several places how many have accused Carter of ordering a cover up of following the meltdown of Three Mile Island.
What three mile island coverup?
I remember reading in several places how many have accused Carter of ordering a cover up of following the meltdown of Three Mile Island.
Lot's of commentators, including Cronkite, were speaking of dire possibilities, they had the locals hiding in their basements. Carter is a nuclear engineer and had served on a nuclear sub. He visited to show the people that it was okay. I worked for a company that designed nukes (not TMI though) and we heard a lot from the grapevine but it was all published when confirmed.
Won't it have a lot to do with how the two systems are very different in how the president/prime minister gets to power. The prime minister is only prime minister because his party is in the majority. As has been said already, Thatcher was letting her own party down and therefore they could do something about it. If the president lets his/her party down, what can they do regarding voting him/her out if the majority in the house is of the opposite party? If the opposite party don't like the president and they don't have the majority in the house, how can they get rid of him/her. They can't.
Also, I believe the Queen of England still has one power left to her regarding the government and that is to sack the government/prime minister if they are not looking after the best interests of her people/country.
All in all, there would be no reason to impeach a british prime minister because it would never get to that point, surely. )
All in all, there would be no reason to impeach a british prime minister because it would never get to that point, surely. :)
Too true. A British politician will resign after a scandal or even the hint of one. An American politician usually has to be removed with an arrest warrant. If then...
Good point Ben. Whenever there is some minor question in Parliament regards financial dealings the person almost always steps down. Here that's a requirement for office.
The Downing Street memos indicated that Tony lied or performed some extreme exageration to send the boys to Iraq. That must surely be more serious than some financial shenanikens, or is it.
What three mile island coverup?
I remember reading in several places how many have accused Carter of ordering a cover up of following the meltdown of Three Mile Island.
Lot's of commentators, including Cronkite, were speaking of dire possibilities, they had the locals hiding in their basements. Carter is a nuclear engineer and had served on a nuclear sub. He visited to show the people that it was okay. I worked for a company that designed nukes (not TMI though) and we heard a lot from the grapevine but it was all published when confirmed.
I remember now, Rickover's daughter-in-law signed an affidavit that said that the admiral told her he had persuaded Carter to hold back on the worst effects, and now regretted it. I rejected this because everything that came in on the grapevine was included in the report. This would have implied that they managed the grapevine. To do this they would have had to include the scientists, engineers and technicians in the conspiracy.