If a monarch in the UK were daft enough to any such thing, there is indeed no specific written law to disallow it. But getting the House of Commons to approve legislation proposed by such a government is another matter. And statute law makes it impossible for a new election to be held before its due date without the approval of two thirds of the House. So in such a situation, there’s deadlock until that due date, unless enough of the House judges a general election would go the way they want. In that sort of situation, the only way to break it is for one or the other to back down, or one or the other to assume the power to force the other to do so. The combined lessons of 1649 and 1688 show that going only one way.
As you can see, you are the one spreading FACTUALLY incorrect information. The monarch can legally appoint whoever they want even if it is political suicide to do so.
Please stop talking to me like I’m an 8 year old. There is a difference between LEGALLY CAN and SHOULD.
Moderator Note
Let’s drop the hijack on this point. Posters have explained to you what the practical situation is. Nitpicking over the fact that it is technically possible doesn’t contribute further to the thread.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
OK, there’s another interesting difference. In Canada, AFAIK, the Governor General has the ultimate power to dissolve parliament and call an election. (IIRC, the same situation decades ago in Australia when the two houses were deadlocked). However, once again, this is a power that the Australian case proves was not to be exercised lightly.
I recall something about a situation about 1930 where the Canadian GG disregarded the PM’s advice and instead asked the next party to form a government rather than calling an election. But nowadays, the precedent is fairly well established and always followed - the PM tells the GG whether and when to call an election. The PM must resign and ask for an election if he fails in a confidence vote. The GG may have discretion if it’s been recent since the last election (no fixed rule, but say, 6 moths to a year) and it looks like the next largest party has enough support.
A more interesting case was Harper’s prorogue of parliament. Harper had the kind of personality where he could not resist poking the opposition in the eye just because he could. Instead, the opposition parties got together and said they would all vote no confidence, form a coalition and ask the GG to approve their group for government and PM. (A testament to his personal skills - they all wanted him out) To avoid a confidence vote which would force him to resign, Harper “prorogued” parliament - ending the session and suspending it for 6 months. Actually, he had to ask the GG to do so.
As a result, the GG had choices - should she do what the PM asked, and end the parliamentary session? Do what the opposition wanted, make them the government? Call a second election just months after the first? Any choice would result in applause and criticism, any choice would be legal - an actual serious political decision for the figurehead of state. In the end she chose the safest option, do what the PM wanted. And as Harper expected, within 6 months, the opposition agreement unravelled and he was safe…
In the UK system the government can appoint a limited number of special advisers known as SPADs whose salaries are paid by public money (about 70 of them.)
There is much political comedy about them and their fractious relationship with the permanent career civil servants and their mendacious ways of bending the party system to their masters will.
They can be recruited from anywhere, but having the ear of a minister and being their political fixer is often an important stepping stone in a subsequent political career.
The whip may also be withdrawn temporarily to allow for discussion. This was the case with my very embarrassing MP, Jared O’Mara of Sheffield Hallam. Wikipedia covers it pretty well but in a nutshell, following his surprise win at the last election various nasty social media posts were made public as well as allegations concerning his recent behaviour.
In O’Mara’s case the selection process probably failed (to discover these things) because of it being a snap election. Rather than the local party he was selected in an emergency selection process under the control of the National Executive Committee and regional boards.
O’Mara was reinstated by the Labour Party on July 3rd, on condition he underwent training. On the 12th he resigned from the party and now sits as an independent. I can guarantee he will not be reelected to parliament. He’s not popular round here, not any more, as I said he’s an embarrassment.
New Zealand just enacted a law forbidding MPs from changing parties, and it also allows the parties to expel their MPs from Parliament if certain criteria are met.
Gotta love autocrats who monkey with democracy. I think it was Manitoba where the provincial government had a law forbidding members from crossing the floor - but it crumbled at the first legal challenge, and was rescinded.
I don’t think anyone has gone as far as to suggest that the party system could override the will of the Canadian voter and expel a sitting member. IIRC I think a full vote of parliament (or the legislature) can expel a sitting member, but maybe not. There was a case several decades ago where a Quebec MLA was criticized for collecting his salary while in prison. His logic was simple - Why resign? it was free money, and there was an election in 6 months and he wasn’t going to get re-elected. (He was in jail for sex with underage girls, reports indicated he asked for a girl “without hair”. Nope… not getting re-elected.)
To expel someone from party caucus in Canadian parliament requires a secret vote of the caucus, I believe.
So a sitting MP can only rescind their party affiliation, and sit as an independent? They cannot cross the floor?
What if they state something like, “I am resigning my ABC Party membership, and will sit as an independent until the next general election, at which point, I will join the XYZ Party, and run for election in LMNOP riding?”
They actually can’t rescind their party affiliation either.
How does that reconcile with freedom of association? Sec. 17, of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as I understand it?
I cannot imagine somebody being forced to be a member of a political party against their will. Can you explain further?
Just to be clear, they can leave the party if they wish, it just results in their seat becoming vacant.
The argument, as I understand it, is that since NZ has proportional representation, an MP who changes their party’s standings is effectively meddling in the results of the last election.
For much the same reason, I believe - dislike of Bercow, coupled with the fact that residents in the constituency of the Speaker are effectively denied their democratic rights in terms of expressing their views on their MP and/or the government. A spoiled ballot is a protest vote against that.
As NZ has no constitution as one document - no constitution requiring a nationwide agrement (no states to have to get on board, no referendum process ) to amend, the parliament’s Acts can change just about anything . So laws about MP’s being in a party or not, can come and go. NZ’s anti-floor crossing laws were operative from 2001 to 2005 only.
This is all about the cabinet ministers being chosen from elected officials. The more common Westminster system… as in UK, AUstralia, Canada, NZ … and the other democracies have this feature too, The quirky USA is alone in this ?
So if the MP is also a minister, he doesn’t have two jobs, they aren’t paid twice Ministers get a higher salary and higher expense budget. Cabinet ministers higher than other ministers.
Yes the cabinet minister is away from their constituency a lot … but they also come from safe seats. As it happens, somethimes they lose their seat. Well the party might find them a new seat to fill … put pressure on someone who has a seat to hand it over… eg offer them a position such as Ambassador to XYZ. They also get in the news a lot, so the voters know what they are up to. Also, Cabinets have been known to adjust budgets to reward their voters for keeping them in and hence in cabinet. Pork barrelling… Those grants…
None of the MP’s have to be in the parliament except when a counted vote is called for. Then the bells ring, and the ministers can leave their offices and go to vote.
I guess they can also take files into the chamber and not pay much attention to the matters in the chamber, and work through the file… read, decide, mark, sign, write some notes, pass it off to their ecretariate staff who often transfer papers to and from ministers who are sitting in chamber.
But the whole question is kind of moot, when you realise the Minister is a function of the parliament, not someone employed to be head of a public service branch. I suppose some functions of the Minister are delayed since he isn’t able to rush off to the public service’s widely distributed offices on his own calander… he has to fit stuff to the calender of the cabinet and of the parliament.
The Monarch, or its representative the Governor General, will use his general knowledge (eg of who the leader of the party is, and any recent event that clouds that to some extent) to decide who is the real PM. If he gets it wrong and the outside chance wins at court or in the party caucus votes, well then it can all get changed around at that time.
Basically, if the challenger is saying “no I’m the real leader”, then they are proposing that they will be able to make a "no confidence " motion get passed, downing the incorrectly apponted PM, and getting themselves in.
For the same reason, a minority government is often the one that the Governor General believes has the best chance to run the country, based on his knowledge of party allegiances of the members of the House/chamber, and lets it go to the test… the test that no “no confidence” vote passes against that government.
This shortcuts the delay that could occur if it was decided by actual votes, or shows of support, where the proponents of one government change their government (choice of PM and ministers, basically) between putting their selection to the Monarch, or Governor General, and that government actually being put in place. While anyone can submit info to the Monarch, its not required to be done, and there would be no requirement for the Monarch to allow a retraction or correction. The Monarch is taken to be the decider, not the info provided.
Looking back, my previous post was incomplete.
The majority of Japanese cabinet members must be members of parliament but not all have to be.
Also, as a reaction to WWII governments where the military held many key positions including PM, they must all be civilians.
Also as a reaction to WWII, unlike many constitutional monarchies, the Emperor is not even a nominal Chief Executive, and the power is formally given to the cabinet under the constitution.
I see - thanks. Would it be better to require the Speaker to “resign” his or her MP seat (I know that’s not exactly what happens: Chiltern Hundreds - Wikipedia) and then have a by-election? The Speaker would then be an officer of the House of Commons but not a member of it, and his or her former constituents would be fully represented by a new MP. I suppose that might be a deterrent to someone accepting the Speakership, though, since if he or she was not reelected as Speaker by the members of the House, he or she wouldn’t have an MP seat to fall back on.
Funnily enough I was just reading about this issue in a book from the 60s, and it observes that the proposal to make the Speaker lose his regular seat and, say, become MP for a nominal constituency while Speaker went nowhere as there was concern that it would alter the Speaker’s status and undermine his authority.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Because there will have been an election in her own party confirming her as leader, and/or a general election in which her party fought under her leadership. Ipso facto the Palace knows who is on the cards to be PM at any given moment. Come the election result, the Queen’s private secretary will be on the phone to the winner in a matter of hours. If anyone else turns up shouting “It should have been me!”, the PS will politely suggest that’s a matter between them and their party and/or the electorate, but that the news headlines and the official election returns indicated otherwise.
There would need to be a serious indication that the prospective PM really didn’t have the confidence of the party that’s just won a majority under their leadership for anything to go wrong. Ain’t gonna happen.