I think you're seeing a one of the fundamental differences between the US and "Westminster" systems of government as seen in the UK and Australia. Here and in the UK, our leaders participate in debates and answer questions on a daily basis on the floor of the parliament, and are asked hard questions by the media in regular interviews. In the US, Bush never, ever has to answer the hard questions, from anyone.

IIRC, the "rowdy" behaviour of the parliament was something picked up on by the US media when Bush last came to visit us.

It's widely acknowledged (sorry, too slack to find the references ;) Bush just simply wouldn't last a second in a Westminster style democracy. Even some of his lackeys would have serious problems when faced with the kinda questioning we get here.

Having said that, the Queen (would be replaced by a President if we ever become a Republic) does not have to answer any such questions. Then again, the Queen and her local representative have jack-all to do with the actual running of the country.

I tried not to get into a broader discussion about the merits and flaws of the actual system; I just wanted to point out that there's a particular aspect of the parliamentary system that means that in general, your politcians are going to know their shit, and know how to express it, or get laughed out of the room.

Having said that, I tend to disagree on most of the points you bring up :)

"Also, I have a love-hate relationship with the prominence of third parties. I am dissatisfied with many aspects of the US's two-party system. However, I dislike the necessary coalition-building and undue influence it can give a small group when there is no majority party."

I suppose you're talking about Israel there, although other countries come to mind. However, it's worth noting (since the main topic seems to be the British political landscape) that even in the mainly two party system that British politics has become, small parties can wield a fair amount of influence - in the final years of the last Tory government, the Unionists had an arguably disproportionate influence over the government.

Whilst coalition-building can lead to the misrepresentation of the majority view on various issues, the same can also happen with a majority government like the current Labour government. For example, Blair didn't become Prime Minister on a platform for going to war in Iraq, and it's debatable that he'd get support for that or a number of other issues in something like a referendum. Labour got broad support for a collection of policies - that's how the party political system works, after all - but more direct democracy would be a good thing, in my opinion.