“The ship of state is the only ship which leaks from the top.” The Rt. Hon. Jim Hacker.
Link not working?
Worked for me: http://www.tbla.ca/resources/European%20Law%20Speech%20by%20Justice%20Wright%20October%2016,%202012.pdf
Start at
Thunder Bay Law Association http://www.tbla.on.ca/
then
2012 News & Activities Thunder Bay Law Association | The Thunder Bay Law Association is a voluntary organization of lawyers residing and practicing law in the District of Thunder Bay on the northwestern shore of Lake Superior
then An Introduction to European Law into Northwestern Ontario
Land pirates, a war between Manitoba and Ontario police forces, lots of fascinating stuff about how the courts developed up here. When the author (a senior judge) presented his paper, it was living history (including the sword with which he used to be led in, and wig he used to wear). A remarkable fellow with a wealth of knowledge and perspective.
If that doesn’t work, send me your email address via private message and I’ll email it to you.
With the further complication being that the UK law is strongly advising “The UK and its monarch will do not such thing !”
UK law doesn’t enter into it. The Queen making a decision with respect to the Australian constitution acts on the advice of Australian ministers. Or, exceptionally, she doesn’t act on that advice. But neither UK law nor the advice of UK ministers are remotely relevant to what she might do or ought to do, and if there was any whisper that she was being influenced by either, that would pretty well put the kibosh on the continuation of the Australian monarchy.
In the Westminster system, the parliament can easily sack the PM, he doesn’t have to resign. Basically there’s no constitutional definition of PM, its a convention that he is paid the salary and benefits of PM, and that is all the parliament does to legitimate the position of PM… Well if the PM and cabinet are acting badly, such as taking long holidays or fighting in the media or in fisticuffs, or something, the head of state may believe that party has lost the plot and feel the current parliament had better be dissolved ,the head of state, OR the PM, calls elections … the voters decide who is right or wrong…
But its rare for the head of state to step in, as its political suicide for the MP or cabinet member to be badly behaved…They choose to go to elections to avoid vote backlash.
There is one clear, perhaps unavoidable, reason for the head of state to dissolve parliament is the case of when the parliament ceases to function due to votes turning out to be 50/50 … deadlocked…not even a balance of power block to break the deadlock… that they have a crisis.
For example, the blocking of supply … the payment of public service (and/or the states/provinces/cities and other institutions )
This didn’t result in elections when Clinton and Obama blocked supply and caused government shutdown… But it does in the Westminster system.
In Italy ,Greece, and other countries, PM’s and cabinets are reworked every few months. There, its not like the head of state is worried about the PM giving the treasurer a black eye during fisticuffs on the floor. They have enough political parties that they never have 50/50 deadlock. Or if they do have deadlock, they put someone in hospital and then the vote goes through one way or another 
No, that’s not correct. The PM is not appointed by the Parliament, but by the monarch. The Commons can withdraw its confidence from the PM, but does not have the power to withdraw his appointment. Only the monarch can do that.
The PM has no independent power to call an election. Only the monarch can do so, normally on the advice of the PM.
I believe it was the Congress which blocked supply in both cases, not Clinton or Obama.
Concur with UDS.
ah - it must be Tapatalk that won’t open the link. It does open on my laptop - thanks!
The Westminster House of Commons cannot be deadlocked. The Speaker always has a casting vote. In the case of a vote on supply, being an issue of confidence, the Speaker would vote with the government. In practical terms, not the most stable basis for the survival of the government, but formally it would be enough. The same is true for most other Westminster-inspired Parliaments.
The Whittlam scenario could not arise in the Westminster Parliament. That’s because it was a deadlock over supply between the two Houses. But at Westminster the Commons could easily override any attempt by the Lords to block supply.
OK, the bit about sulphuric acid in 1918 has me baffled.
The convention is that the House of Lords will not block supply (or, indeed, amend any money Bill)
Maybe a reference Tsar Nicholas II? After murdering him and his family the local soviet dumped his remains in acid and threw what was left down a mineshaft IIRC.
fat doesn’t dissolve in water.
need hot oil.
Not strictly true; the Lords can offer amendments, within 30 days of the Bill being laid, but the Commons has no compulsion to listen. There was actually one occasion in the 1920s when the Lords insisted on an amendment and the Government caved in!
On a day-to-day basis however, the Lords does not even use these powers. It normally, as you say, lets them pass by with barely a murmur. But it’s entirely possible a future House could decide to be more aggressive and revive its powers!
Following the slight hijack earlier, I understand that the last few Governors in Florida have requested that a signed (but undated) letter of resignation be given by each Agency head on appointment. Makes things easier when the Chief of Staff decides you ain’t all that. He just slaps a date on it and announces your resignation (and if he’s not too pissed, he’ll actually call you first and tell you).
In Britain that is normally the case, except that some ministers maybe unelected members of the house of Lords. (Technically a minister does not have to be a member of Parliament at all, but on the rare occasions in modern times when a non-MP has been appointed to a ministerial position, they have either been made a lord, or a member of the Commons with a safe government-party seat has been made a lord so that the new minister can be elected in their former constituency.) In other countries with parliamentary type systems that is not always the case. For instance, in several countries at least some votes are counted as votes for a party, and, depending on how many votes the party gets, a certain number of representatives from a party list are considered elected. They thus may represent no particular region.
In Britain they revert to being regular MPs (or members of the House of Lords, if they were lords). Even while they are ministers, MPs are still representatives of their constituency, and do constituency work, even the Prime Minister.
You misunderstand. It is when ministers get into a lot of hot water that they are pressured to resign, and if the water is hot enough, and enough ministers are in it, the government has to be dissolved. Did you think that I was talking about literally dissolving human beings in hot water? 
Googling “tsar sulphuric” brings up many references to this.
Thank you,** lisiate**. Ignorance fought!
And if it’s the government of Animal (nee Manor) Farm, you need oinkment.