The role of Prime Minister is considerably different than it was in the 18th century. The PM was chosen by the King, partly in light of conditions in Parliament, especially the House of Lords, but also based on the King’s only policy preferences. Lord North, for example, who was the PM who lost the American colonies, stayed in office as long as he did largely because he was carrying out the King’s policies. Many of the “country” MPs felt that they had a duty to support the PM chosen by the King. The concept of responsible government didn’t exist yet.
Today’s Prime Minister is chosen by a democratic process, and holds office according to the principles of responsible government, being accountable to the elected chamber, the House of Commons. The Queen has no role in public policy or the choice of the Prime Minister; unlike George III, her constitutional duty is to be neutral. It’s a much different system and the fact that the leader is called the “Prime Minister” in both systems masks just how different they are.
Except “differing priorities regarding how money should be spent” don’t have to result in a government shutdown. And in fact, a situation where the government shuts down when the President and Congress don’t agree on a budget is a modern creation. It didn’t exist until 1976. We could easily avoid shutdowns by simply changing the law.
But the Republicans like the theater of “shutting down the government”, and so that’s what they do. This is not a consequence of a divided government where the executive and the legislature have differing goals and can’t agree. In fact, if you hadn’t notice, the same part currently controls the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. So much for that theory.
I was going to say the same. The government shutting down isn’t an inevitable consequence of the American form of government. It doesn’t require an overhaul of the entire system and a rewrite of the Constitution. It exists because the people who write the laws like it that way. Some see it as an effective cudgel to use politically.
And honestly, it hasn’t been that destructive. I don’t think most citizens care much because it doesn’t directly affect them in more than minor ways (like national parks closing). It’s not like the military is disbanded, or the postal service stops working, etc. Anything considered “essential” keeps going.
Basically nothing’s broken so there’s little incentive to “fix” it. If it became a bigger problem somehow in the future they’d just change the law again.
That’s not a direct comparison with what happened with Belgium though. The Stormont executive function is back in Whitehall with the NI Secretary, even if full direct control hasn’t yet been taken (and hopefully won’t). Still, it’s an example of the theme of the thread - a functioning permanent Civil Service is a handy thing to have.
One reason it’s “not a problem” is weak American unions. In other countries, not paying thousand of workers would have led to the entire country shutting down - schools, public transportation, sanitation workers. A week of that and any administration would break.
BTW the US Federal government has recently seen two modes of shutdown: the one having to do with the “debt ceiling”, and the other having to do with lack of a specific appropriation to continue certain operations. The first kind is usually across-the-board but solved damn fast; the current one is the second kind, and as seen can be partial and prolonged.
Many US *states * and territories have that provision as well.
Right. This was a relatively recent development, arising between 1974 and 76 as a reaction to the Nixon era to reassert that it was Congress that held the purse strings.
Another (likely unique) feature of the US system is the proportion of the elected representatives and voting public who think that a shutdown government is actually a preferable state to having an operating government.
A technical quibble, the Australian Senate did not reject the Supply Bills, they deferred their passage i.e. they didn’t vote on them.
That left the actual bills administratively and physically in the control of the Opposition in the Senate.
If the bills were voted down they would have been sent back to the House of Representatives where a government majority prevailed and maybe with a couple of amendments then sent back to the Senate where could have been sufficient to persuade some of the Opposition to cross the floor. They only needed one and there were several who were wavering. Also, and crucially, if the Bills were in the control of the House then Fraser could not have guaranteed that he could pass Supply.
The first thing the Fraser government did after the dismissal was pass the Supply Bills unaltered in the Senate. That was a condition required by Kerr as HoS.
The military is still getting paid because its funded through a separate appropriations bill that was already passed. The 2019 Defense Appropriations bill was passed in June. The military is not immune from shut down.
You are right neither side wants to give up the weapon because they may be in a position to use it next.
However in countries with a powerful labor movement, there would be available the weapon of a *general strike *by which state, local, and private industry workers in other fields would *also *walk off in support of those directly harmed, making the general populace feel the pain.
You write “general strike” as though worried young Americans may never have heard of such a thing. Lots of Bay Areans here — how many have heard of the San Francisco General Strike of 1934?
In the Coal Strike of 1902 it was the famous J. Pierpont Morgan who arranged the compromise that sent 150,000 strikers back to work in the mines with a 10% pay hike. However in many big U.S. labor strikes, government allied with big business, and forced strikers to go back to work empty-handed. In Steelworkers v. United States, 361 U.S. 39 (1959) the Supreme Court, with Justice William O. Douglas dissenting, upheld that the Taft-Hartley Act gave the President the power to order strikers back to work.
Labor wasn’t completely defeated — my own mother marched with Cesar Chavez — but I wonder if Millennials have ever even seen a real strike. :eek:
In Spain that’s not possible, but any budget (government or otherwise) has two parts: fixed and variable. For any of our government organizations (national, regional, local, whatever), the respective treasuries will continue collecting taxes and disbursing fixed expenses: government employees’ bonuses* or contractor invoices will wait until the appropriate budget is approved (those are variable) but base salaries or tax-reimbursements will work normally.
We sometimes say that (some of) our City Halls work like old-time farmers: spend during the whole year, pay when they get their one big payout themselves. This is more common in some areas than others; specifically, there are certain taxes which belong to the towns but in certain regions the towns have agreed to have the region do their collecting (towns in the other regions think that’s nuts, while those who’ve done it think it’s nuts to have to pay a tax-person’s salary and pass audits).
In Spain most employees have salary tiers where the salary is fixed and there’s a bunch of possible bonuses which are also part of monthly income. For example, I used to have my salary plus a bonus for working on holidays plus a bonus for seniority: the salary was the same as that of anybody else in the company which was at my same level, no matter their job title, past performance or whatever, and the seniority bonus was calculated the same way, and the holiday bonus was calculated the same way. If my bosses were supermegahappy with me, they could add a personal permanent bonus.
We just trundle along, with the systems for things like health and education working as poorly as they were designed and without any chance of reform or rationalisation until the assembly is back in action.
Lots of Bay Areans here — how many have heard of the San Francisco General Strike of 1934?