OK, that seems simple enough. Is there any approval process like there is in the US?

It also happens in Australia and New Zealand. Here at least there is no formal approval process (AFAIK), but any leader doing so would need the consent of faction leaders.

Approval process? I don't know what you mean by that - approval from voters or from the party? - so I doubt there is an approval process like you have in the US.

Reshuffles are pretty swift procedures - the party leader will decide, have a private discussion with his team, and then it will be announced to the press. Once it is announced, they won't seek approval or confirmations.

Well not all positions require confirmation here either. The Majoriity or Minority leaders in the House and Senate have pretty much carte blanche for assigning members from their side of the aisle to different committees. Only Presidential appointments require confirmation and some of those are pretty much just rubber stamped. Unless it's a major Department Secretary or SCOTUS appointment, he has traditionally had free reign on his administrative appointments.

This is something that happens in all British parliamentary governments. Same here in Canada and each of the provinces. When used mid-term, it's generally a way for the leader to claim that he-she has been listening to the people and that he-she is now willing to go in another direction. Generally, it's really nothing more than a PR job.

Same in the Irish parliment (which is based on the British system)

The government needs no approval assuming it has a majority (sometimes two parties are working together to form a coalition majority) though in Ireland the government, at least, needs the approval of the President. Thus the President can wait until every party has had a chance to form a government before accepting an offer, especially if no parties are willing to join together in a coalition majority (minority governments tend to be unstable) i guess the Queen has similar powers in... Hmm well maybe the entire commonwealth...

But no approval is needed, our governmental system is not trying to function with it's hands tied behind it's back... What approvals were needed to send the US ambassador to the UN or appoint the Secretary of State?

The balancing factor of having an upper house (Senate in Ireland or House of Lords in the UK) is the they get to review laws made by the government - Not review who is appointed Defence Minister...

Oh on the other hand, i'm pretty sure the government HAS to appoint elected representatIves... Thus the people have approved them by election (but not appoontment to a particular ministerial position...)

Secretary of State most certainlyvdoes have to go through confirmation hearings. But as Hillary Clinton was a former congressman, she sailed through them with ease.

In the U.S., the cabinet, including the Secretary of State, and all ambassadors, including the ambassador to the United Nations, must be confirmed by the Senate. The possibility for political gridlock does exist in the government of this country--just look at California for a case in point.

But I think that British and Irish government ministers have more power than the U.S. cabinet secretaries. While a Prime Minister is first among the ministers, here, the U.S. President holds a position very much above his cabinet, and he can't be kicked out until his term is up.

Yeah that is one massively different thing, we have a rule which is something like 'must call elections within 5 years' - they can do it sooner (perhaps is a coalition partner isn't being very co-operative and they think the can win more seats) this also means no-one knows exactly when to begin campaigning and they may have something like 30-40 days from when the election is called... A very different electoral process... Unlike the 'president with ultimate power' until his term ends.