Canada also has completely free votes, but also a hybrid, a Cabinet bill. That is, the bill is proposed by Cabinet and all members of Cabinet are expected to vote for it, but government backbenchers are not required to do so. The most recent example of a Cabinet bill that I can think of was the same-sex marriage bill back in 2005.
Silly man. You aren’t supposed to encourage me, you know.
I know very little about the Canadian system so your insight is interesting to me, as well.
It looks like America and Japan are on the opposite sides of the spectrum of the degree of political control over the executive functions of government with the UK and Canada in between.
Something I learned this election cycle was the critical role that transition teams play and how presidential candidates are required to form these teams even before the primaries are finished. There have been a number of articles on how Trump’s team wasn’t handled well. Here is one article on it. ‘This guy doesn’t know anything’: the inside story of Trump’s shambolic transition team | Donald Trump | The Guardian
I promise I’ll stop flooding the thread with too much unrelated information concerning Japanese politics. But not before mentioning that one of the serious problems concerning the Japanese government is the overly cozy relationship between the bureaucrats and industry. It’s tangentially related to the thread because of the strong role the “nonpartisan” bureaucrats play in the government.
Bid rigging “dango” for projects in Japan is rampant, and it endures for several reasons related to the relationship between the bureaucrats and the politicians. In America many of rules fighting corruption are the results of opposition parties promising reform after scandals. In Japan, since it’s the [del]wolves[/del] bureaucrats running the hen house, political parties have less ability or incentive to really change the system. In the late 90s, Ozawa, a product of one of the most corrupt political organizations around, formed a “clean party.” It’s as if a Tammany Hall politician were to run as a reformer.
Top ranked bureaucrats enjoy amakudari (literally the decent from heaven), the practice of retiring to highly paid jobs in the private sector in companies they did business with.
OK, that should end this hijack.
I’ve always thought Canada could benefit from being more like Westminster. Canada has 338 MP’s. Britain has 650. So a majority government in Canada would be about, say, 170 MPs. Of those, about 50 will be ministers or some such, about 50 or 60 will be their assistants, heads of key committees, etc. another 50 or s are newbies hoping to get moved up in a shuffle or two… that leaves many 20 or 30 backbench troublemakers who don’t expect anything and could raise trouble behind the curtain in the party caucus. SO essentially, the PM calls the shots and tells the MP’s what to do.
Do the same math for the 380 MP’s in England, and you still end up with about 100 to 200 MP’s who have no incentive to follow the party line in the privacy of caucus. As a result British party politics seems more boisterous, and the leader is much more obliged to listen to what his/her backbenchers are whining about. (as we saw last week)
Another issue - in Canada, the leader can override most constituency votes and refuse to sign a nominee’s party affiliation papers in an election. AFAIK in the USA, the party cannot divorce itself from whoever gets the local nomination - hence whackadoodles or guys who chase teenage girls remain the party’s nominee. In Canada, a whiff of serious PR problems means the party drops the candidate like a hot potato. Not sure the British system, but I’m imagining it’s close to Canada’s.
Of course, it has another downside - once in a while desirable candidates can be “parachuted” into a riding, the local organization is told the central party would be very happy if this person got the nomination. Jean Chretien in the 90’s was notorious for helping ensure his friends got their (re)nominations unopposed by fiddling the nomination rules for constituencies to prevent more reformist challengers. (At the time, a Liberal nomination in some areas was a free ticket to parliament.)
Depending on the nature of the scandal they will either resign the seat, or the whip will be withdrawn and they will continue to sit as an Independent.
Whitlam regarded the public service heads as politicized, and his behaviour was a break with the previous tradition. But in this respect, as in time, he was closer to Menzies than he was to Rudd.
The “consultation” about the relationship with China was that he let them talk, then told them what going to happen. That was the way he worked.
The idea that he trusted the senior public service is laughable, but is in line with the “knife in the back” mythology of the labor years.
I assume “off them” is either:
(1) a typo for “offer them”, or
(2) some weird Aussie colloquial abbreviation,
but not:
(3) the more well-known idiomatic expression? :eek:
If the third meaning is intended, it adds an additional frisson to those hectic “spills”.
yep, typo … meant offer, though not many offers are declined
They were a cosy cabal that considered they had ran the country for the past quarter century.
How else was it going to work? Gough knew that if he wanted to recognise PRC that the guys in charge could do if faster and better than any new broom.
Gough’s Father Fred Whitlam was Commonwealth Crown Solicitor. He trusted that they would carry out his instructions, even if reluctantly.
Couple of random footnotes to points of comparison above:
National/local control of candidates: in the UK, all serious parties have some system whereby someone has to be approved by the national party, though that’s usually more a matter of making sure they are reasonably articulate, can tie their own shoelaces, don’t have any obvious skeletons in the cupboard and aren’t suddenly going to go “off message” on the main party principles. Usually this is done before they apply to a local party for selection. If an election is called at too short notice for the full local selection procedure (like last year), the national party will take over, at least in key marginal constituencies.
Bureaucrats/business: it"s often said that the permanent civil servants get too close to their subject matter, as opposed to ministerial policies (as it might be, farmers, foreigners, teachers, doctors, armed forces, and so on), without direct bribery and corruption. There can be “revolving doors” as senior civil servants move on to jobs with businesses they have dealt with, but they have to get approval from higher up, and there is supposed to be a quarantine period between leaving the one job and taking up the other.
As for ministerial direction against departmental advice and habit - that’s an ongoing battle. A minister has, in that sense, to be in charge; but ought to listen if a civil servant points out inconvenient complications to some idea. On the other hand, a civil servant can only go so far in relation to something the political authority is committed to: get your objections to its impracticalities down in writing for the record, but do as you’re told, or resign (and if you object on principle, then resign, because the principles are the minister’s job).
Great thread - very interesting!
Another notable incident: the Earl of Home was in the House of Lords when, in late 1963, he was chosen to succeed the Tory PM, Harold Macmillan. He renounced his noble title, as the law had recently changed to permit him to do, and stood for election in an open (and safe) seat. Before his election, he served for 20 days as PM while a member of neither Commons nor Lords.
In Spain this is officially not the case, but then, we have regions where localism is strong enough that the local versions of national parties are a separate legal entity rather than a branch. Attempts by Central to tell a region how to pick their own candidates, or by Regional to tell the same to local, are likely to cause splits.
Not unknown in the UK, though rare. There have been cases where ideological and/or personal disagreements have led the disgruntled rejected candidate to stand as an independent or “real [party name]” candidate.
Notably in 2005 when the Labour party tried to use an all-women shortlist to parachute a party favourite into the Blaeunau Gwent constituency, which annoyed the locals. As a result the local Labour Welsh Assembly Member ran as an Independent Labour candidate, and won, despite being terminally ill with a brain tumour. The Labour candidate came second, Blaenau Gwent being one of the safest constituencies in the country.
In 2010, I think it was, there was also an attempt by the local Tories to remove John Bercow, who is remarkably unpopular with everyone, but it Speaker and hence immune to challenge by any of the established parties. Despite none of the parties challenging him he managed less than 50% of the vote, but still won with a plurality ahead of the locals, with Nigel Farage in third.
Hmm. Hadn’t heard about that before. And why so many spoiled ballots when Bercow ran five years later?: John Bercow - Wikipedia
My understanding is that the Monarch can appoint whomever they want so after Cameron resigned and May was elected leader of the Conservatives, QE2 could have appointed a pro-Brexit politician* to PM saying in effect, “You made this mess. Now clean it up.”
Not saying she should have, just saying she could have.
And your understanding is wrong, as has been explained to you on many occasions; see my summary of the numerous threads where I and other posters have explained to you that Her Majesty is constrained by centuries of constitutional conventions and current political realities to appoint as PM the person who commands a majority in the House of Commons:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20499583&postcount=14
Please stop spreading factually inaccurate information in GQ.
I’m not arguing what she should do politically or by tradition or whatever, but what she can legally do. Are you saying that LEGALLY* if the Queen appointed Jeremy Corbyn as PM that he would NOT, in fact, be the PM because he’s not the leader of the Conservative party?
*notwithstanding the repercussions. This is about powers she has if she chooses to use them.
This has been beaten to death in other threads. You are both right. The Queen could do whatever she wanted, but like Daffy Duck says after swallowing dynamite and a match - “It’s a great trick, but I can only do it once!” Any hint that the monarch was doing anything other than following centuries of tradition would result in a huge scandal followed by the immediate replacement of monarchy’s process in government with an alternate head of state. And… the monarchy knows it and behaves. The process for selecting the PM with or without election is established.
No, what the Queen wants, singularly, is the continuation of the Monarchy.
So by complying precisely with long established precedents and conventions, she ensures that the establishment continues.
I agree with the rest of your post, except for the “you are both right” part. Words have meaning, and without some sort of qualifications, such as “theoretical, although practical not,” the plain reading is that this would be acceptable and not a suicidal move for the institution.
If someone is holding a bottle and asks if they can drink the contents, saying “yes, it’s possible” to narrowly mean that the liquid contents can go down their throat is disingenuous if the bottle contain poison.