"Forming a government" in a parliamentary system

Factual Questions
21

A “party stalwart” (that’s the term usually used in Canada :wink: ) who holds a safe seat for the PM’s party will resign. The PM then stands for election in the resulting by-election. If successful, the PM then has a seat in the House.

For example, in Canada, Prime Minister Mackenzie King lost his seat not just once, but twice! (He was a master political strategist, but lacked personal charisma.)

In 1925, as PM, he led the Liberals to a second minority government, but he lost his seat in York North (Toronto).

At that time, the Liberals were strong in the west, and the MP from Prince Albert Saskatchewan resigned. King ran in that seat in the by-election and was elected. He stayed PM throughout the period he lacked a seat in the Commons.

King continued to stand for election in Prince Albert in subsequent elections and kept winning - until he didn’t. Twenty years later, he lost the seat in the general election of 1945. So, another party stalwart resigned a safe seat in Ontario and King stood for election there, winning the by-election. Again, he stayed as PM without interruption while he sought a new seat.

22

Incidentally, there’s another interesting case of how the system operates in New South Wales at the moment. The leader of the Labor opposition resigned because of some personal scandal, his deputy was elected by the party caucus as the new leader, and the new deputy leader (Penny Sharpe) is a member of the upper house (the Legislative Council), apparently because she is more competent and/or experienced than any Labor member of the lower house (the Legislative Assembly). There is a convention, at least in NSW, that the deputy premier must be a member of the lower house, so after the next state election in March 2019, if Labor wins, the party caucus will have to meet and choose a new deputy leader to be the deputy premier.

23

I’m not sure that there are any seats in Australia that are safe enough for that to happen. For example, in the recent Wentworth by-election, the Liberal Party has a 19% swing against it, and lost to an independent. If the out-going PM is unpopular enough to lose his/her own seat, he/she might lose a by-election in any safe seat. That may be because party identification is becoming less strong in Australia.

24

Ah. Light dawns. I may have been assuming knowledge on this point, which is actually quite different between the American and the Westminster systems.

Right, in the US system, the nomination process and the general election all happen in the same year, and are roughly a continuous political process.

That’s not the case in the Westminster system. The leaders of the party are elected by the party, often years in advance of the general election. They are quite separate processes.

For example, Canada is going to have a federal general election next year. There are currently five parties represented in the Commons. Barring unforeseen incidents, like another intra-party spat in the Bloc québécois, we already know who will be leading each of those parties in the 2019 election. Here’s the list, with the year each one was elected party leader:

Liberals: Justin Trudeau (2013)

Conservatives: Andrew Scheer (2017)

New Democrats: Jagmeet Singh (2017)

Bloc québécois: Mario Beaulieu (2018)

Greens: Elizabeth May (2006)

25

How many U.K. government workers in the executive branch automatically lose their jobs when a new government takes over? 22 Cabinet members, anyone else? Ambassadors?

The U.S. government includes 1200+ posts appointed by President and confirmed by Senate; another 350+ appointed by Pres. without Senate confirmation; and 2500 additional “political appointments” appointed by other political appointees. Among the 750 “most essential” political-appointed posts, half are vacant as I type despite that the present Administration has been in power for almost two years.

26

A bit late to the thread but what’s been posted so far is spot on from my perspective.

One issue that hasn’t been discussed is that when an election is called the parliament goes into caretaker mode. The current PM and the cabinet stay in office with the undertaking they make no controversial or longer term appointment. If there was to be a national emergency, say an economic crisis or NZ invaded then the Opposition would need to be involved in any deliberations.

But the key is the Public Service stays in place. Parliament is prorogued but the function of government goes on. There may be no change in department heads at all following a change of government. The levers of government can stay in this mode indefinitely. If the election hangs on a razor thin margin, say one seat and there are electorates where the result is in dispute we stay in caretaker mode until all recounts and avenues of appeal are concluded. What happened in the US in 2000 when SCOTUS intervened does not happen in a Westminster parliamentary system.

Point of order.
Most key portfolios are usually known during the election PM, Treasurer, Attorney General, Health. But you don’t know who is to be Minister for Roads or such like. In most elections at least one key minister or shadow minister loses their seat. And as noted above all the “Directors” are public servants and they stay in place at least until a new government is sworn in.
In the case of the Whitlam government in 1972 we knew only that Gough would be PM. Gough and his deputy Lance Barnard were the only members of the first Whitlam ministry from 5-19th December 1972 until the ALP caucus determined who would have what portfolio in the second ministry. Gough and Lance held 27 portfolios between then and made a series of decisions that required Governor General authorization.

. Sort of. If you were leader of a party which won 60% of seats the GG would call on you to form a government.
In theory you could decline and suggest the GG approach somebody else. There was an example in Tasmania with an incumbent Premier in a hung parliament that this happened but the State Governor did not accept that advice an recommissioned the incumbent.
If you accepted the commission you would become PM and theoretically on the first day of parliament some upstart could depose you from the floor but how they would get the numbers to propose the motion, let alone win the vote is a hypothetical beyond me.

In addition to Harold Holt disappearing in the surf from Chevron Beach in ’67, Australia PM Joe Lyon died in office in ’39 and John Curtin in ’45.

As pointed out, the parliamentary party elects a new leader.
In the Queensland state election 2012 the leader of the LIB opposition party was Campbell Newman who was not an MP. While his party won the election comfortably the ALP almost thwarted his ambition when Newman only sneaked home in the seat of Ashgrove. He was Premier for one term then lost both Ashgrove and government in 2015.

27

Conventionally there may have been but I’d agree that playbook is right out the window now.
The locals also don’t appreciate a party HQ candidate being parachuted in so yes it’d be far from assured. The recent burst of by-elections under section 44 show how much politics is retail in the current environment.

28

It’s not necessarily up to them, though. The Australian model of the MPs having sole control over the leadership, which can be yanked away from the incumbent for any or no reason, isn’t universal. (I guess the MPs fundamentally do have control, if they want to completely buck the party, but it would take a lot to get there. Which is why the UK Labour Party is currently led by someone who has minimal support among his own MPs but rabid support from the people who vote in leadership elections.)

29

Yes, I was thinking of LIB and LAB.
LIB would go through the party room. LAB would be determined by the factional warlords.

Were the current minor parties to get to majority status it could be fun.
The Australian Democrats require a ballot of the party membership.
I don’t know what would occur with the Greens but it would go totally feral.

30

I think the answer is none, the 2 systems are completely different here. 22 Cabinet members, and around 60 other junior government ministers, are all active politicians. They must be either elected Members of Parliament or members of the House of Lords (the vast majority are MPs). If the governing party loses an election, the cabinet members and junior ministers will lose those jobs but they will carry on being MPs, unless they lost their seats at the election (members of the House of Lords can almost never lose their seats, which to many in the UK is as absurd as it sounds).

I think at most elections where there is a change of government, some cabinet members will lose their seats but most tend to retain them, as local voters often like having an MP who is nationally recognised.

You can also have the opposite situation, where the governing party wins an election but individual cabinet members lose their seats and have to be replaced in government.

In any given department, the political head of the department has a civil service equivalent, the Permanent Secretary, and a vast hierarchy of civil servants below the Permanent Secretary. As the name suggests, they do not change with a change of government and maintain continuity. They are expected to be politically neutral. Ambassadors and things are not officially political appointments and again do not change at elections.

31

some of the personal employees of the ministers loose their jobs, because their man isn’t entitled to as many support staff anymore.

Some of the heads of departments loose their jobs, because they are too closely associated with the outgoing government. This is fluid and varies in different countries and at different times. The old convention was that they were crown employees, and independent of the elected government. In Aus it used to be the case that they couldn’t be fired: they had to be re-assigned at the same level, paid out, or put on inactive duty (and also paid out, compensated, or re-assigned at the same level).

The even older convention was that the whole of government were all friend and political appointees. (As was the system in America at the time Abraham Lincoln was elected).

The formal convention is that ministers are sworn in, and briefed by their department heads. Before the election, after the election is called, the ministers are in a ‘lame duck’ situation: by convention, they don’t make any decisions, and the department just keeps on doing whatever it is doing. That continues until the new ministers are sworn in. There isn’t any urgency, and there isn’t any urgency to appointing new heads of department — unless the incoming government feels urgent.

When Whitlam was elected in Aus in 1972, he and a few others “called on the Governor General”, got them selves sworn in, and immediately started giving directions. There would have been an almighty stink if the GG hadn’t been waiting at home for them to call whenever they felt like it.

They didn’t bother with the other ministers for a few days, they didn’t bother with heads of department for a few days, they didn’t bother with parliament for a few days. At the time, this was considered rather shocking, and possibly wrong, but there wasn’t any suggestion that it wasn’t within their power, or that anybody could stop them or do anything about it.

32

IIRC, the convention in the UK, where the transition after an election is nearly immediate, is that new ministers start handling their responsibilities immediately on being notified by the PM of their appointment, even if it takes some time for the formalities to be completed. Even the PM doesn’t formally become First Lord of the Treasury until several days after they’ve moved in to Number 10.

33

It’s theoretically possible for the leader of a party to lose their seat in a general election, even though their party ends up with a majority in The House.

Although ministers are usually elected MPs, there is no reason why someone from the Upper House or even from outside cannot be appointed. Frank Cousins and Patrick Gordon Walker in Harold Wilson’s Cabinet in 1964 for example, and Peter Mandelson for a short time in 2008. This can only happen when the ruling party has a strong majority as they usually want ministers to be in The House supporting the leader.

34

In British Columbia in 2013, the governing Liberal Party unexpectedly increased its majority, but the premier lost her own seat. She was able to convince a member of her caucus to resign, and she was elected to the legislature in a by-election two months later. She remained as premier the whole time.

35

That is not correct.
You don’t for example change our diplomatic relationship which China without some consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs.

On Dec 3rd Whitlam asked the key department heads John Bunting (PMO&C), Clarrie Harders (AG), Keith Waller (FO), Arthur Tangie (Defence) and Frank Wheeler (Treasury) to stay at their posts. It might have been a mistake but Gough trusted the senior public service.

36

About a 100 ministers of all stripes, including junior ministers.
Probably another 100 or so other Government political appointees.

37

Couple of footnotes:

As regards a changeover of government in the UK after an election:

For some time preceding an election, the permanent civil servants in each department will have a team working on discreet contacts with the opposition shadow ministers to understand their policy thinking and priorities. Once an election is called, the civil service “goes into purdah” (as it’s called), and though it carries on the back office work and the most routine of public business, it does nothing that could look like working for the government party. However, the team working on understanding the opposition goes through their manifesto and steps up its activity preparing briefings on how the opposition’s ideas might be put into practice, should there be a change of government, so that on the Monday after the election, the new ministers can get the civil servants straight down to work.

As for how appointments are done:

If the result is a clear win for the current government, no change (though I think technically the Queen’s private secretary will make a formal appointment for her to meet and confirm the PM, who will probably take the opportunity to start reshuffling the ministerial team)

If the result is a clear win for the opposition, the Queen’s PS will be on the phone to agree with the PM and the leader of the opposition times to call at the Palace for the formalities. After which, if the election has as usual been on a Thursday, the new PM spends the weekend appointing the new team, so the existing shadow ministers are glued to their phones waiting for the call.

If there’s no clear result, the existing government continues in office until a deal between the parties is done to work out a sustainable arrangement. Only then will the PM inform the Palace as to what the outcome is.

Other countries may have it much more codified, or even written into law. For example, in the Netherlands, where the system almost always requires coalitions, the monarch appoints as “rapporteur” a senior politician, to explore with the parties what combination (s) would work. Where there’s an elected President, s/he may take a more active role along those lines (Italy, I think, but not Germany, where the parties seem to sort it out among themselves). France is sui generis, since it has s US-style executive presidency alongside a PM and ministerial team reflecting the parliament.

38

Just picking up on a couple of points made upstream.

Coalitions are usually expedient and change but in Australia at Federal and State levels the conservative side of govt is usually referred to as the Coalition as a more-or-less permanent agreement between the Liberal Party [our main conservative democratic party] and the National Party [mainly rural constituency]. The mechanics of power-sharing can get complicated and ugly at times. The Libs being bigger get to appoint Prime Minister and the Nat the Deputy PM from within their parliamentary membership.

Recently in Australia Coalition Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was rolled and Scott Morrison appointed. That was entirely a thing that happened among the elected members of the Liberal party within the federal parliament. Because the Lib-Nat Coalition still had the ability to form a government with a majority, the prime ministership remained theirs, and they [over-simplifying] just had to advise of a new occupant for the chair.

Morrison and the Nats guy [points for remembering his name] then re-shuffled the ministry, rewarding backers in the coup, balancing state and factional numbers etc from among the rather ordinary selection available.

Regarding how many people lose their jobs, Westminster democracies with preferential voting tend to be pretty stable compared to first past the post, so a ‘landslide victory’ could be a dozen seats won off the other team. The losers would be those parliamentarians who lost their seats outright, the minister for XYZ who become opposition spokesperson on xyzabc, with loss of power, status, staffing. A minister’s personal staff will lose their job, but the public service liaison staff will stay on to the new person or be rotated back to their permanent job.

If you want a Westminster system documentary reference - in The Thick of It, Terry Coverley was a permanent public servant, but all the others were essentially careerist political hacks working election to election. Such people may or may not share the politics of their employer.

Good thread - I’ve learned a lot from previous contributors. Who’d have thought Canadian politics was so exciting?

39

We try to keep it a secret. :smiley:

One former premier of Ontario who had been very successful in office was once criticized for being too bland.

His two word reply: “Bland works.”

40

I would have thought that there would be more political appointees: the ones who work in each minister’s office. Chief of staff for each minister, researchers, etc. But still, if the base line is about 100 ministers of all stripes, then I would think those office appointees would be maybe 3 to 10 per minister? (Just a guess.). But, none of those people would be household names or even mentioned in the media. They work behind the scenes to support their minister.

Nothing like the US system, with thousands of positions changing hands.