It does seem to be good at biting too.
I think the closest parallel (albeit almost inverse) in US politics would be every time elections cause the same party to control Congress and the Presidency simultaneously. And it’s not a very good parallel even at that.
But we don’t have the no-confidence vote mechanism to force new elections and “restart” like parliamentary systems do; our elections are every two/four years without exception. So in a sense, our “governments” never actually change (and in another, they do every 2/4 years). Part of that is due to the election cycle, and part is because the terms all overlap each other in strange ways, with two, four and six year terms.
Another important difference is that our de-facto two party system essentially forces a majority in each house of Congress. So we don’t really end up with these sorts of deadlocks where three parties can paralyze each other. One party’s always got control of each house, and one party’s always got two of the three of House, Senate, and Presidency. So our default tends to be this sort of deadlock (to a certain degree), and only occasionally do all three align.
Yes, Fox News bites.
As I understand it, part of the problem specific to France is that the President cannot call an election within one year of the last election. So Macron’s stuck with the Parlaiment he’s got at least for now.
Wrong word choice, “parliamentary republic,” where the head of state is elected in some fashion or appointed and approved, so unlike Canada. Or the UK, which is not secular either as the same monarch is also the head of the national church.
So you can answer that timeless question: what DOES the fox say?
We also still have bishops sitting in the House of Lords. Labour have promised to finish reforming the upper house at some point, but it’s a low priority for now.
I believe that only 2 countries give clerics an automatic seat in their assemblies. The UK and Iran. One is a backwards looking country with a ruined economy. The other is Iran.
That’s what we thought before Trump came along.
The 12-month thing was built into the system by de Gaulle specifically to avoid the revolving-door governments of the Fourth Republic who often lasted months or weeks before falling, and making France the butt of a thousand jokes.
In retrospect a better choice would’ve been requirement for a constructive no-confidence vote; the National Assembly would have to simultaneously a replacement PM for the vote to be successful. It’s worked for Germany.
Speaking of Romania, some amazing news coming from there: Apparently a court has annulled the results of the election there, saying it was entirely corrupted by Russian propaganda:
Yeah, the French system is sort of peculiar, compared to other parliamentary systems, in that it’s both got a President with a high degree of power (most are mere heads of state like Frank-Walter Steinmeier), and it’s got some unusual rules like this inability to call new elections.
And he’s gone for Bayrou
Anyone want to set up une tête de laitue ?
So how many Trusses or Scaramuccis is this fellow likely to last?
Which presumably short half-life may or may not say much about his merits, versus what it says about the vice he’s putting his 'nads into.
And now Bayrou has resigned nine months later after having lost a confidence vote, to be replaced by the defense minister Sébastien Lecornu.
Will he last 9 months?
Do they have an equivalent of the “Lettuce Test” in France?
How come the US Government can’t “fall” at some random time, do to a no-confidence vote?
Because it has no provision for such a vote.
I suggested that for the last guy, in post 53 above.
Because we got the early-adopter beta-test version of democracy, before all of the bugs were worked out.
I have read it argued that United Statesian democracy is basically the 18th century version of English Parliamentary Democracy, only with an elected king.