Would the US be better off without a fixed term executive branch?

[Cerowyn]

@Polycarp

FRDE, I too am not an expert here, but it’s my understanding that the P.M. asks (not “advises”) the Queen for a dissolution, and that she is free to deny him that if she believes another stable government can be formed. In practice, she will normally grant his request but does have the prerogative to choose based on the overall political situation and the good of the country as she sees it.

IIRC, that was exactly the Constitutional crisis that arose in Australia in 1975; the Governor-General appointed Fraser (a Liberal party member) as PM to replace Whitlam (of the Australian Labor Party) rather than allowing an election to take place. After the contentious legislation was passed, Fraser did go on to call a general election.

[FRDE]

@Cerowyn

IIRC, that was exactly the Constitutional crisis that arose in Australia in 1975; the Governor-General appointed Fraser (a Liberal party member) as PM to replace Whitlam (of the Australian Labor Party) rather than allowing an election to take place. After the contentious legislation was passed, Fraser did go on to call a general election.

Thanks, I was trying to remember the details of that.

1975 Australian constitutional crisis

[Northern_Piper]

@FRDE

I should really know chapter and verse on this, but it has been a long time.

My understanding is that the Queen invites a Prime Minister to form a Government, but the Prime Minister is the one who calls a General Election (up to the 5 year max).

The last two times it happened was Eden -> Macmillan and Wilson -> Callaghan and in neither case was there a vote of confidence - both were shoe-ins.
Oops - I forgot about the defenestration of Maggie.

Both the selection of the Prime Minister, and the dissolution of Parliament leading to a general election, are powers of the Crown. However, the Queen’s exercise of these powers are normally completely circumscribed by political realities and conventions.

With respect to the choice of the PM, Her Majesty has exercised this power each time a new PM has been chosen, not just the examples of a PM resigning in his personal capacity and being succeeded by another member of his/her own party.

The Queen will choose the leader of the party that commands the confidence of the Commons. When that party has a well defined system for choosing its own leader, she chooses that person. My recollection about the Eden-Macmillan transition is that at that time, the Conservative party still used an informal caucus system to choose its leader, not a more formal party convention, so HM had a bit more leeway. Since the parties now all use a formal leadership selection process, HM doesn’t have that leeway.

With respect to dissolution, if the PM commands a majority, the Crown normally will grant a dissolution on request. However, if it’s a minority situation, and early on in the term of the Parliament, the Crown might want to explore whether anyone else can form a government.

Getting back to my earlier comment that a vote of non-confidence doesn’t always trigger an election, it can happen that an election returns a house with no party in the majority. In that case, the PM has the right to face the House and attempt to put together a majority. But if the PM doesn’t get the majority in the House, the Crown might call on one of the other party leaders to form the government, rather than going directly to another election.

For example, in the 1985 provincial election in Ontario, the Progressive Conservatives had a majority going into the election, but were reduced to minority status. The PCs and the Liberals had about the same number of seats and the NDP came in third. Premier Miller called the new house and lost a vote of non-confidence, since the Liberals and the NDP all voted against him. Since the Liberals and NDP had formally announced a political compact, the Lieutenant Governor called on the leader of the Liberals to form a government, without calling a new election.

There were similar examples of a change in government following a vote of non-confidence at the federal level in Canada in 1874 (Macdonald lost confidence and Mackenzie took office) and in 1926 (Mackenzie King lost confidence and Meighen took office) and in Saskatchewan in 1929 (Gardiner lost confidence and Anderson took office). The common fact to all of these situations was that the party situations were fluid, with either loose party discipline (1874) or multiple parties in the House.

[FRDE]

@Northern Piper

Thanks for that, it clears things up nicely.

As you can see, I’m quite interested in what will happen when Blair goes, if things pan out as I expect, then we could be in for an interesting development.

[DSYoungEsq]

Getting back to discussing OUR system (hey, you silly hijackers! Go play outside! ), the point made by FDRE is actually quite cogent. The system is designed to allow for mid-course corrections, without totally throwing the baby out with the bath water. You’ll note that only 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election in any biennial cycle, and the President is only up every 4 years. So massive, sudden popular sentiment changes don’t result in Washington, D.C. being the center of total upheaval overnight.

No-confidence motions are a pain in the ass. Look at what is happening in Italy and any desire for such things will be ended right away. Of course, the Italian system is not a poster child in much of anyone’s mind.