What would modern America politics be like it it were a parliamentary democracy rather than presidential republic?
Assume the forces at work in this alternative America have broadly been the same as in the real world, but they play out within a more say UK style of constitution.
For the sake of the giving the thought experiment a focus, let's say it's early 2016 and Donald Trump's MAGA 'movement' is campaigning against the incumbent democratic party, which has recently lost it's prime minister Obama to ill health, his deputy Mrs Clinton has taken over but will be force to call a general election in November because of the four year limit . Up until this point the Republican party has been the main opposition
How do things play out and what situation do we find ourselves in?
Who is now and what have been the first six months of the new government been like, what have been the major challenges and how have these been tackled, if at all?
How many seats are in parliament? The more seats, the better the Democrats will due, simply due to geographical sorting benifiting the GOP.
If we had a parliamentary system, we'd probably have fractured into a multitude of small, weak nations years ago, rendering the whole idea moot.
Makes me want to vomit.
Stupid idea. Next.
Multiparty systems? Coalition governments?
Gross. :yucky:
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 11, 2017, 08:40:53 PM
Multiparty systems? Coalition governments?
Gross. :yucky:
Agreed, you're better off with King Orange.
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 11, 2017, 08:40:53 PM
Multiparty systems? Coalition governments?
Gross. :yucky:
The Westminster model rarely results in coalition governments but when they do they can be quite effective - present circumstances are the exception.
Also, I am not so sure the American system of ensuring only two parties are realistically possible is laudable.
Foreign cooties in American democracy? Yuk.
Quote from: mongers on June 11, 2017, 08:49:10 PM
Agreed, you're better off with King Orange.
No Trump Meats for you, Mr. Snap Erections.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2017, 09:09:22 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 11, 2017, 08:40:53 PM
Multiparty systems? Coalition governments?
Gross. :yucky:
The Westminster model rarely results in coalition governments but when they do they can be quite effective - present circumstances are the exception.
Also, I am not so sure the American system of ensuring only two parties are realistically possible is laudable.
Yep and yep!
Quote from: dps on June 11, 2017, 07:14:06 PM
If we had a parliamentary system, we'd probably have fractured into a multitude of small, weak nations years ago, rendering the whole idea moot.
:huh: Why would that be the case?
Parliamentary democracies tend to be more flexible. The US has pulled off a Presidential democracy, but not without major problems. We did have a civil war after all.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2017, 10:11:47 PM
Parliamentary democracies tend to be more flexible. The US has pulled off a Presidential democracy, but not without major problems. We did have a civil war after all.
US made it through on the strength of strong tradition preventing the fatal weaknesses of our system from materializing. Without the traditions holding the system together, problems fester indefinitely without resolving.
Quote from: DGuller on June 11, 2017, 10:13:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2017, 10:11:47 PM
Parliamentary democracies tend to be more flexible. The US has pulled off a Presidential democracy, but not without major problems. We did have a civil war after all.
US made it through on the strength of strong tradition preventing the fatal weaknesses of our system from materializing. Without the traditions holding the system together, problems fester indefinitely without resolving.
If we had the system from the begnining, why wouldn't traditions protect it has well?
In parliamentary systems parties haggle with each other to form coalitions after the citizens have voted. They thus have no direct input into the policies followed.
Quote from: DGuller on June 11, 2017, 10:11:31 PM
Quote from: dps on June 11, 2017, 07:14:06 PM
If we had a parliamentary system, we'd probably have fractured into a multitude of small, weak nations years ago, rendering the whole idea moot.
:huh: Why would that be the case?
Historical deterministic 'thinking'.
"We live in the best of all possible worlds", make this type of thread pointless.
Quote from: mongers on June 12, 2017, 07:24:20 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 11, 2017, 10:11:31 PM
Quote from: dps on June 11, 2017, 07:14:06 PM
If we had a parliamentary system, we'd probably have fractured into a multitude of small, weak nations years ago, rendering the whole idea moot.
:huh: Why would that be the case?
Historical deterministic 'thinking'.
"We live in the best of all possible worlds", make this type of thread pointless.
Your threads generally are. :(
Hell, if Washington were alive today, what would he say?
I mean, aside from "get me out of this damned box!". ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2017, 10:54:35 PM
In parliamentary systems parties haggle with each other to form coalitions after the citizens have voted. They thus have no direct input into the policies followed.
only in cases of hung parliaments - which are rare. And this time around it we have an extremely rare occurrence of the governing party being propped up by an extremist party.
Btw, this is a good example of why I don't think proportionate representation works well in a Westminster model of government.
I wonder what "direct" input you think American voters have "into the policies followed" after every American election?
Quote from: Malthus on June 12, 2017, 09:14:56 AM
Hell, if Washington were alive today, what would he say?
I mean, aside from "get me out of this damned box!". ;)
Booooo. :mad:
That was great.
I think parliamentary majorities have too much power to work well here. Our checks and balances are too integral to our system.
On the other hand having MPs head departments would annoy those who like to constantly bitch about the power of 'unelected bureaucrats' whenever they don't get their way on something.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2017, 10:54:35 PM
In parliamentary systems parties haggle with each other to form coalitions after the citizens have voted. They thus have no direct input into the policies followed.
Isn't there haggling and dealing for us as well?
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2017, 01:27:35 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2017, 10:54:35 PM
In parliamentary systems parties haggle with each other to form coalitions after the citizens have voted. They thus have no direct input into the policies followed.
Isn't their haggling and dealing for us as well?
The 60 percent of Americans who want universal health care are really happy with their direct input on policies too.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 11, 2017, 10:53:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 11, 2017, 10:13:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2017, 10:11:47 PM
Parliamentary democracies tend to be more flexible. The US has pulled off a Presidential democracy, but not without major problems. We did have a civil war after all.
US made it through on the strength of strong tradition preventing the fatal weaknesses of our system from materializing. Without the traditions holding the system together, problems fester indefinitely without resolving.
If we had the system from the begnining, why wouldn't traditions protect it has well?
As I pointed out in the civil war statement, traditions haven't always protected us. Sometimes traditions have been detrimental, that's why it was so hard to make lynching a federal crime. Trump is an example of someone who has no use for traditions, for good or ill.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2017, 04:52:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 11, 2017, 10:53:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 11, 2017, 10:13:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 11, 2017, 10:11:47 PM
Parliamentary democracies tend to be more flexible. The US has pulled off a Presidential democracy, but not without major problems. We did have a civil war after all.
US made it through on the strength of strong tradition preventing the fatal weaknesses of our system from materializing. Without the traditions holding the system together, problems fester indefinitely without resolving.
If we had the system from the begnining, why wouldn't traditions protect it has well?
As I pointed out in the civil war statement, traditions haven't always protected us. Sometimes traditions have been detrimental, that's why it was so hard to make lynching a federal crime. Trump is an example of someone who has no use for traditions, for good or ill.
Depending on the size of the Parliament, he might not be PM here. (That's assuming no butterfly effect until now)
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2017, 01:26:39 PM
I think parliamentary majorities have too much power to work well here. Our checks and balances are too integral to our system.
On the other hand having MPs head departments would annoy those who like to constantly bitch about the power of 'unelected bureaucrats' whenever they don't get their way on something.
Yeah, you might end up with government that functions. The terror!
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 13, 2017, 08:51:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2017, 01:26:39 PM
I think parliamentary majorities have too much power to work well here. Our checks and balances are too integral to our system.
On the other hand having MPs head departments would annoy those who like to constantly bitch about the power of 'unelected bureaucrats' whenever they don't get their way on something.
Yeah, you might end up with government that functions. The terror!
You're being sarcastic, but our whole system is set up to limit the power of the government, especially the Federal government.
Quote from: dps on June 13, 2017, 11:56:50 AM
You're being sarcastic, but our whole system is set up to limit the power of the government, especially the Federal government.
Which it hasn't done. Instead it has limited the effectiveness of the government.
Quote from: Maximus on June 13, 2017, 11:58:35 AM
Quote from: dps on June 13, 2017, 11:56:50 AM
You're being sarcastic, but our whole system is set up to limit the power of the government, especially the Federal government.
Which it hasn't done. Instead it has limited the effectiveness of the government.
I'll live with the ineffectiveness as long as it limits the power. I much prefer the model of human and civil rights we have here to that they have in the UK. I'll grant that I would be happier if the government's power were even more limited.
Yeah civil rights for minorities are pretty damn good in the US.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 11, 2017, 07:08:02 PM
How many seats are in parliament? The more seats, the better the Democrats will due, simply due to geographical sorting benifiting the GOP.
:shutup:
Doesn't the parliamentary system of checks on power as well?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2017, 12:57:27 PM
Doesn't the parliamentary system of checks on power as well?
Parliament combines legislative, executive, and even judicial powers doesn't it?
Quote from: garbon on June 13, 2017, 12:55:18 PM
Yeah civil rights for minorities are pretty damn good in the US.
Yeah, you have been gone for a while.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2017, 01:02:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2017, 12:57:27 PM
Doesn't the parliamentary system of checks on power as well?
Parliament combines legislative, executive, and even judicial powers doesn't it?
I believe that the judicial functions have been handing off to Supreme Court in UK now.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2017, 12:57:27 PM
Doesn't the parliamentary system of checks on power as well?
Yes, but they operate somewhat differently.
First and foremost, there is the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
This is why the current kerfuffle in the US is so baffling to those familiar with Parliamentary democracies - the notion that one man, the President, is effectively beyond the Rule of Law while he holds office is just weird. Under the US system, the "check and balance" is supposed to be Congress, who has the power to impeach him if he pulls shit like blatantly covering up having an unfriendly foreign government fuck with elections in his favor.
In Canada, and in many Parliamentary democracies, there is also the fact that the Prime Minister isn't also the head of state. In extreme and weird situations, the actual head of state (the Monarch's representative) can intervene to uphold the Rule of Law, preventing the PM from acting like a dictator, even if he or she has a massive majority in Parliament.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 13, 2017, 01:03:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 13, 2017, 12:55:18 PM
Yeah civil rights for minorities are pretty damn good in the US.
Yeah, you have been gone for a while.
Pretty sure that minorities have a strong right...nay obligation to be civil in the US.
Quote from: garbon on June 13, 2017, 01:08:12 PM
Pretty sure that minorities have a strong right...nay obligation to be civil in the US.
:lol: If they know what's good for them, you bet your ass they do, Coltrane.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2017, 01:07:52 PM
This is why the current kerfuffle in the US is so baffling to those familiar with Parliamentary democracies - the notion that one man, the President, is effectively beyond the Rule of Law while he holds office is just weird. Under the US system, the "check and balance" is supposed to be Congress, who has the power to impeach him if he pulls shit like blatantly covering up having an unfriendly foreign government fuck with elections in his favor.
That's a very odd view of the US government. The President is hardly above the Rule of Law. Look at how the courts have shut down the travel ban so far (though TBH, I'm not sure that the law isn't actually on the President's side on that one).
In the US Constitution's defense, it kinda took for granted we would never elect this kind of guy, or that a majority of Congress wouldn't want to do anything about him. Oops.
There are many parliamentarian systems besides the British Westminster one and all of them will have different strengths and weaknesses.
One of the most interesting ones is Switzerland's which has a collective head of government and of state which are however elected by a two cameral parliament. The seven members of the Swiss federal government are not members of parliament and they are also each heading one of the seven government departments. Who is the primus inter pares for international relations among them rotates yearly.
Quote from: dps on June 13, 2017, 01:23:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2017, 01:07:52 PM
This is why the current kerfuffle in the US is so baffling to those familiar with Parliamentary democracies - the notion that one man, the President, is effectively beyond the Rule of Law while he holds office is just weird. Under the US system, the "check and balance" is supposed to be Congress, who has the power to impeach him if he pulls shit like blatantly covering up having an unfriendly foreign government fuck with elections in his favor.
That's a very odd view of the US government. The President is hardly above the Rule of Law. Look at how the courts have shut down the travel ban so far (though TBH, I'm not sure that the law isn't actually on the President's side on that one).
That's not the same thing at all.
The President's selected decrees may well be legally challenged.
The President, it would appear, may only be personally held accountable for bad behavior, while actually in office, by impeachment.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2017, 01:07:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2017, 12:57:27 PM
Doesn't the parliamentary system of checks on power as well?
Yes, but they operate somewhat differently.
First and foremost, there is the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
This is why the current kerfuffle in the US is so baffling to those familiar with Parliamentary democracies - the notion that one man, the President, is effectively beyond the Rule of Law while he holds office is just weird. Under the US system, the "check and balance" is supposed to be Congress, who has the power to impeach him if he pulls shit like blatantly covering up having an unfriendly foreign government fuck with elections in his favor.
In Canada, and in many Parliamentary democracies, there is also the fact that the Prime Minister isn't also the head of state. In extreme and weird situations, the actual head of state (the Monarch's representative) can intervene to uphold the Rule of Law, preventing the PM from acting like a dictator, even if he or she has a massive majority in Parliament.
I don't think a Westminster system is any more or less likely to protect against a Trump-like figure.
The one extraordinary thing Trump has done is fired an FBI director because of a troublesome investigation. But a Prime Minister would have the same ability to fire, say, the head of the RCMP. Even if a commission or inquiry was established a PM could cancel that too. The only thing preventing that from happening is custom and fear of public pressure.
Quote from: Barrister on June 13, 2017, 01:52:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2017, 01:07:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 13, 2017, 12:57:27 PM
Doesn't the parliamentary system of checks on power as well?
Yes, but they operate somewhat differently.
First and foremost, there is the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
This is why the current kerfuffle in the US is so baffling to those familiar with Parliamentary democracies - the notion that one man, the President, is effectively beyond the Rule of Law while he holds office is just weird. Under the US system, the "check and balance" is supposed to be Congress, who has the power to impeach him if he pulls shit like blatantly covering up having an unfriendly foreign government fuck with elections in his favor.
In Canada, and in many Parliamentary democracies, there is also the fact that the Prime Minister isn't also the head of state. In extreme and weird situations, the actual head of state (the Monarch's representative) can intervene to uphold the Rule of Law, preventing the PM from acting like a dictator, even if he or she has a massive majority in Parliament.
I don't think a Westminster system is any more or less likely to protect against a Trump-like figure.
The one extraordinary thing Trump has done is fired an FBI director because of a troublesome investigation. But a Prime Minister would have the same ability to fire, say, the head of the RCMP. Even if a commission or inquiry was established a PM could cancel that too. The only thing preventing that from happening is custom and fear of public pressure.
You are forgetting that the PM isn't the Head of State.
A Trump-like figure is somewhat less likely under our system because the actual head of state can, in such an extreme case where the PM is abusing his or her powers, exercise the "Reserve Powers" to force them to account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power#Canada
QuoteTypically these powers are: to grant pardon; to dismiss a prime minister; to refuse to dissolve parliament; and to refuse or delay royal assent to legislation (to withhold royal assent amounts to a veto of a bill, while to reserve royal assent in effect amounts to a decision to neither grant nor refuse assent, but to delay taking a decision for an undetermined period). There are usually strict constitutional conventions concerning when these powers may be used, and these conventions are enforced by public pressure. Using these powers in contravention of tradition would generally provoke a constitutional crisis.
Most constitutional monarchies employ a system that includes the principle of responsible government. In such an order, the reserve powers are thought to be the means by which the monarch and his or her viceregal representatives can legitimately exist as "constitutional guardians" or "umpires", tasked with guaranteeing that Cabinet and parliament adhere to the fundamental constitutional principles of the rule of law and responsible government itself.[1] Some constitutional scholars, such as George Winterton, have stated that reserve powers are a good thing in that they allow for a head of state to handle an unforeseen crisis[2] and that the use of convention to limit the use of reserve powers allows for more gradual and subtle constitutional evolution than is possible through formal amendment of a written constitution. Others, such as Herbert Evatt, believe or believed that reserve powers are vestigial and potentially open to abuse.[2][3] Evatt felt that the reserve powers could be codified and still serve their intended function in a responsible government system,[3] as they do in Sweden, Ireland, and Japan.[2]
There isn't an equivalent in the US (other than impeachment).
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2017, 01:26:39 PM
On the other hand having MPs head departments would annoy those who like to constantly bitch about the power of 'unelected bureaucrats' whenever they don't get their way on something.
who do you think holds real power over the departments in a parliamentary democracy? Hint: it's not the Minister (MP).
Deputy-Ministers are not accountable to the Minister. They do not answer to him, they have no obligation of loyalty toward him, they can not be fired by him and they may chose to obey or disobey his orders as they see fit. Some unexperienced ministers learned that the hard way.
They are accountable to the Prime Minister's Office only. If they're too incompetent for one minister, they are sent to another department.
The parliamentary system is a responsible government, meaning the government is accountable to the people of its actions, even if they go contrary to the minister's wishes. It's a good system for a monarchy, as the Monarch or its representative still get to hold the real theoritical power (it would create a constitutional crisis here or in GB is the Queen or the Governor general refused to sign a bill from parliament), but they let the Prime Ministers worry about the way the country is run, contending themselves with the nominal role of head of state. All the paycheck for half the responsibilities and no need to answer for the morons the people voted for, so not a chance than an angry mob will pop up at your door demanding - and obtaining your head. It's a win-win situation for them ;)
I wouldn't say it's superior to the US Republican system, but it's not inferior either.
It's just that non elected bureaucrat still get to hold the real power over here.
Yes I watched that show to :P
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2017, 02:14:35 PM
You are forgetting that the PM isn't the Head of State.
A Trump-like figure is somewhat less likely under our system because the actual head of state can, in such an extreme case where the PM is abusing his or her powers, exercise the "Reserve Powers" to force them to account.
I don't agree--there are many countries with royal reserve powers, but how many times in the post WWII era have they successfully been deployed (the time constraint is because the nature of constitutional monarchies tended to be different in the past, and not so relevant to today)?
The problem is that the US elected Trump, and his popularity rating is still around 40%, in line with where most recent presidents have been at least at some point in their presidency.
It is hard to see a figurehead head of state exercise reserve powers based on what Trump has done. My opinion of the situation is that nothing has come to light yet that warrants a removal from office, either through royal reserve powers (if they existed) or the impeachment process that we have.
However, there is one major advantage in the US system when dealing with President Trump: the separation of the legislative and executive branches. Many of his major campaign promises are not being implemented because of legislative non cooperation--in spite of his party holding the legislature. it is in serious doubt whether a wall will ever be built, and it is also doubtful that Trumpcare will ever been enacted. His budget was declared dead on arrival after its proposal.
The parliamentarian system of the Weimar Republic had the president as an Ersatz-Kaiser with extremely strong reserve powers...
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2017, 03:07:11 PM
The parliamentarian system of the Weimar Republic had the president as an Ersatz-Kaiser with extremely strong reserve powers...
So long as he doesn't die everything will be fine.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2017, 03:09:27 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2017, 03:07:11 PM
The parliamentarian system of the Weimar Republic had the president as an Ersatz-Kaiser with extremely strong reserve powers...
So long as he doesn't die everything will be fine.
The Enabling Act and Gleichschaltung happened while Hindenburg was still alive and in office.
EDIT: It's actually fascinating to study the first half year of the Nazi regime as they systematically dismantled just about any organisation in society that could have resisted them and established a totalitarian one-party state, abolished the millenia old administrative boundaries and dissolved the federal states, abolished trade unions, etc.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 13, 2017, 03:05:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2017, 02:14:35 PM
You are forgetting that the PM isn't the Head of State.
A Trump-like figure is somewhat less likely under our system because the actual head of state can, in such an extreme case where the PM is abusing his or her powers, exercise the "Reserve Powers" to force them to account.
I don't agree--there are many countries with royal reserve powers, but how many times in the post WWII era have they successfully been deployed (the time constraint is because the nature of constitutional monarchies tended to be different in the past, and not so relevant to today)?
The problem is that the US elected Trump, and his popularity rating is still around 40%, in line with where most recent presidents have been at least at some point in their presidency.
It is hard to see a figurehead head of state exercise reserve powers based on what Trump has done. My opinion of the situation is that nothing has come to light yet that warrants a removal from office, either through royal reserve powers (if they existed) or the impeachment process that we have.
However, there is one major advantage in the US system when dealing with President Trump: the separation of the legislative and executive branches. Many of his major campaign promises are not being implemented because of legislative non cooperation--in spite of his party holding the legislature. it is in serious doubt whether a wall will ever be built, and it is also doubtful that Trumpcare will ever been enacted. His budget was declared dead on arrival after its proposal.
You can see from the link that they can, and have, been used - or threatened (with the government backing down) - in both New Zealand and Australia, the two countries most similar to Canada, post-WW2.
Australia:
Quote
2.On 11 November 1975, when the Governor-General of Australia Sir John Kerr dismissed the Commonwealth Government.
In both cases an election was held very soon afterwards and, again in both cases, the dismissed government was massively defeated by popular vote.
In Queensland in 1987, during a tense period of leadership succession, the Governor of Queensland, Sir Walter Campbell, exercised reserve power in declining to exercise vice-regal authority on the advice of the Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Campbell initially refused to redistribute ministerial portfolios on the sole advice of the premier, who lacked the confidence of his cabinet. Subsequently, during a period when Queensland had a "Premier who is not leader" and the governing party had a "Leader who is not Premier",[4] there was speculation on the potential exercise of vice-regal reserve power by Campbell, in dismissing the premier in the absence of a parliamentary motion of no confidence. Ultimately, Campbell was praised for his handling of the undesirable situation.[5]
These are among several exercises of the reserve powers in Australia in the 20th century at state and federal levels.[6]
New Zealand:
QuoteAlmost a century later, in 1984, there was a brief constitutional crisis. The outgoing Prime Minister, Sir Rob Muldoon, had just lost an election, but refused to advise the Governor-General, Sir David Beattie, to make urgent regulations desired not only by the incoming Prime Minister, David Lange, but also by many in Muldoon's own party and cabinet. At the time, the option of Beattie dismissing Muldoon and replacing him, without waiting for Muldoon's resignation, was reportedly discussed. Muldoon eventually relented under pressure from his own cabinet, making use of Beattie's reserve powers unnecessary.
In contrast, how many times have Presidents been impeached, post-WW2? The only one I know of is Clinton.
Yet the fact that it has only happened once isn't proof that it is worthless according to you - is it?
The problem in the US isn't that Trump has provably done stuff for which he ought to be removed.
The problem is that, no matter what he does, it appears he can't be removed, as the only mechanism to do so is impeachment and Congress is fully owned by Republicans who have, apparently, lost any vestige of courage and country-above-party feeling, and so will, seemingly, accept whatever Trump does as valid - meaning no impeachment is likely pretty well no matter what he does.
You mention his approval rating is at 40%. The benefit of reserve powers is that it isn't dependent on such matters.
Are there any of our Presidents who should have been impeached but weren't?
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2017, 03:10:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2017, 03:09:27 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 13, 2017, 03:07:11 PM
The parliamentarian system of the Weimar Republic had the president as an Ersatz-Kaiser with extremely strong reserve powers...
So long as he doesn't die everything will be fine.
The Enabling Act and Gleichschaltung happened while Hindenburg was still alive and in office.
EDIT: It's actually fascinating to study the first half year of the Nazi regime as they systematically dismantled just about any organisation in society that could have resisted them and established a totalitarian one-party state, abolished the millenia old administrative boundaries and dissolved the federal states, abolished trade unions, etc.
Yeah it is pretty sick. The greatest trainwreck in history. It is hard to look away.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2017, 03:21:13 PM
Are there any of our Presidents who should have been impeached but weren't?
Certainly. Nixon. But he resigned before he could be impeached.
The point is that the situations in which such powers ought to be exercised are pretty rare, and so an argument premised on 'they haven't been used since X, ergo they are useless' must fail.
In this particular case - of the US - the concern is that the weakness of Congress has undercut the utility of the protection offered by impeachment, and this weakness is a relatively recent thing.
Malthus: I don't fully understand the Australia examples, but they don't seem to have prevented a Trump like figure. The New Zealand example seems to be more of an issue with the commonwealth constitutional arrangements as to why an intervention would even be contemplated (but also didn't prevent a Trump like figure).
Clinton was the only president impeached, but Nixon resigned in the face of a likely impeachment and removal from office.
I don't think that anything is worthless, I just would not rely on reserve powers to stop a recently elected populist inclined to authoritarian tendencies, barring massive unpopularity. I'd say the same about impeachment.
However, a separation of the legislative and executive, while not very sexy, does have some effectiveness.
Ah I see what you are saying Malthus.
Taking down the government as a GG seems like an almost suicidal move to me unless the government was clearly unpopular. I don't think Trump is unpopular enough that a GG would pull the trigger, which is basically why Congress has not. But I could be wrong.
I note that the examples from Australia and New Zealand show Premiers who lost the confidence of their cabinets, and were massively unpopular. It's quite possible to imagine a US-like scenario in a British Parliamentary regime, with a PM who enjoys the confidence of the cabinet and is not-too-massively unpopular, to cast doubt on whether or not vice-regal powers would indeed be used.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 13, 2017, 03:28:12 PM
Malthus: I don't fully understand the Australia examples, but they don't seem to have prevented a Trump like figure. The New Zealand example seems to be more of an issue with the commonwealth constitutional arrangements as to why an intervention would even be contemplated (but also didn't prevent a Trump like figure).
Clinton was the only president impeached, but Nixon resigned in the face of a likely impeachment and removal from office.
I don't think that anything is worthless, I just would not rely on reserve powers to stop a recently elected populist inclined to authoritarian tendencies, barring massive unpopularity. I'd say the same about impeachment.
However, a separation of the legislative and executive, while not very sexy, does have some effectiveness.
Sure, but we are arguing about two different separations.
You are arguing that the separation of legislative and executive offers certain advantages. I might agree on that.
However, I'm arguing that the separation of the executive from the head of state offers certain other, completely different advantages. One of which being that it would act as a "check" on unbridled populist power on the part of the executive in the unusual circumstance where the legislature has completely lost its mojo.
That, unfortunately, happens to be the exact circumstance happening right now in the US.
Now, maybe the legislature will regain its mojo if the popularity of the executive sinks into single digits. The problem is that, because the sickness of partisan bickering has sunk deep, and a whole culture has emerged in which facts are simply denied or invented at will without any concern, that seems nearly impossible no matter what he does.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 13, 2017, 03:32:33 PM
I note that the examples from Australia and New Zealand show Premiers who lost the confidence of their cabinets, and were massively unpopular. It's quite possible to imagine a US-like scenario in a British Parliamentary regime, with a PM who enjoys the confidence of the cabinet and is not-too-massively unpopular, to cast doubt on whether or not vice-regal powers would indeed be used.
The unusual circumstances are these: a figure who behaved as Trump behaves would usually guarantee unpopularity and loss of cabinet confidence.
It's interesting that the viceroys seem to have more actual constitutional power than the Queen herself seems to have in Britain. Not sure if she can even theoretically remove a prime minister, but it would be a massive constitutional crisis for sure.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2017, 03:39:07 PM
However, I'm arguing that the separation of the executive from the head of state offers certain other, completely different advantages. One of which being that it would act as a "check" on unbridled populist power on the part of the executive in the unusual circumstance where the legislature has completely lost its mojo.
That, unfortunately, happens to be the exact circumstance happening right now in the US.
Now, maybe the legislature will regain its mojo if the popularity of the executive sinks into single digits. The problem is that, because the sickness of partisan bickering has sunk deep, and a whole culture has emerged in which facts are simply denied or invented at will without any concern, that seems nearly impossible no matter what he does.
I disagree with your assessment of the situation. I don't think that there is sufficient cause to remove Trump from office under the US system, so it is not, imo, the situation in the US right now.
However, if you were to put a Trump like figure as head of government in Canada now, with similar popularity and policy, I also think the removal of the prime minister would be massively controversial to such an extent to make the action counterproductive.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2017, 03:43:05 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 13, 2017, 03:32:33 PM
I note that the examples from Australia and New Zealand show Premiers who lost the confidence of their cabinets, and were massively unpopular. It's quite possible to imagine a US-like scenario in a British Parliamentary regime, with a PM who enjoys the confidence of the cabinet and is not-too-massively unpopular, to cast doubt on whether or not vice-regal powers would indeed be used.
The unusual circumstances are these: a figure who behaved as Trump behaves would usually guarantee unpopularity and loss of cabinet confidence.
But we don't really know that would be the case. I mean, we are talking about an instance where someone like Trump would come to power in Canada.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2017, 03:43:05 PM
The unusual circumstances are these: a figure who behaved as Trump behaves would usually guarantee unpopularity and loss of cabinet confidence.
I am far from convinced. Trump behaves as he does in a very specific context that empowers him, and makes him palatable to many voters, as well as other elected officials. British Parliamentary systems are not immune to similar contexts.
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2017, 03:24:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2017, 03:21:13 PM
Are there any of our Presidents who should have been impeached but weren't?
Certainly. Nixon. But he resigned before he could be impeached.
The point is that the situations in which such powers ought to be exercised are pretty rare, and so an argument premised on 'they haven't been used since X, ergo they are useless' must fail.
In this particular case - of the US - the concern is that the weakness of Congress has undercut the utility of the protection offered by impeachment, and this weakness is a relatively recent thing.
I don't understand the argument. You say that reserve powers have averted crises in parliamentary systems even though you only provide one example of such action actually being taken. You assert then that the US system is weak because it was only used once (though it was used effectively in at least one additional case, forcing Nixon's resignation, and the threat of impeachment surely impacted the decision-making of other presidents.
This sounds like you are arguing differences without distinctions.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 13, 2017, 03:53:46 PM
I don't think that there is sufficient cause to remove Trump from office under the US system, so it is not, imo, the situation in the US right now.
Sure there is. His direct profiting of his office is an irreconcilable conflict of interest. There has been sufficient cause to remove him from office since the moment of his inauguration.
Quote from: dps on June 13, 2017, 12:22:43 PM
Quote from: Maximus on June 13, 2017, 11:58:35 AM
Quote from: dps on June 13, 2017, 11:56:50 AM
You're being sarcastic, but our whole system is set up to limit the power of the government, especially the Federal government.
Which it hasn't done. Instead it has limited the effectiveness of the government.
I'll live with the ineffectiveness as long as it limits the power. I much prefer the model of human and civil rights we have here to that they have in the UK. I'll grant that I would be happier if the government's power were even more limited.
That model worked out really well for certain class of people in certain parts of the country. It's as if the federal government is the only type of government that can make the rights spelled out in constitution a legal fiction.
Surprising given the apparent piss-poor thread topic, why so many of your fuckers are posting about it. :P
Quote from: mongers on June 13, 2017, 06:09:30 PM
Surprising given the apparent piss-poor thread topic, why so many of your fuckers are posting about it. :P
Not really. A really bad car wreck will attract more attention than a minor fender bender, so it's no surprise a really stupid thread gets more attention than a typical dumb Timmay thread.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 13, 2017, 04:03:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2017, 03:43:05 PM
The unusual circumstances are these: a figure who behaved as Trump behaves would usually guarantee unpopularity and loss of cabinet confidence.
I am far from convinced. Trump behaves as he does in a very specific context that empowers him, and makes him palatable to many voters, as well as other elected officials. British Parliamentary systems are not immune to similar contexts.
And it is that very specific context that would make Trump very difficult to replicate in a Westminster Parliamentary system. Perhaps not immune but significantly resistant.
Consider the manner in which Trump won the nomination of his party as the anti party, anti establishment candidate. That would be very difficult to replicate in a system where party leaders are selected on a riding level. Not having wide party support would make a riding level election all but impossible.
Also, the major difference that has seemed to have been lost in all of this is that while Americans directly elect their President, voters in a Parliamentary system do not elect their PM. One of the many significant effects of this is that a sitting MP can become PM without the need for an election. As a result there is an incentive for sitting MPs to replace an incompetent PM and the more ambitious ones will definitely have the knives out at the first signs of weakness. There is no equivalent in the US system. Even if the President is impeached the VP steps in. There is no real incentive for ambitious Senators or Congressmen to force the removal of the President. They will still have to bide their time and wait for the proper election cycle timing to make their own bid for the job.
Lastly, while an unpopular President can be bad news for some running for re-election in that particular cycle, others not involved in that cycle may not care as much. In a Parliamentary system, all MPs care because all will be impacted by an unpopular PM or opposition leader in the next election. That is why unpopular PMs and opposition leaders are forced out. The Americans don't have the equivalent mechanism. Instead they have a very legalistic process - as befitting their culture - where the only way to force out a President is through a formal impeachment process.
For all the talk of the American system of checks and balances, really what they have is a President with significant power to do a great deal of harm to the country who is very difficult to remove.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2017, 02:29:25 PM
Yes I watched that show to :P
The former Minister of transport for Quebec, Jacques Daoust, had a problem with a deputy minister.
She didn't give her last two ministers critical information pertaining to alleged corruption in her minister. She censored information given to MPs studying the case in the National Assembly. The media made a big fuss. She was interrogate by the commission where she said: "I do not answer to the minister". So she was suspended. With pay. Now, she's working elsewhere in another department, I think, or still receiving her wage until the time she decides to retire.
Yet, she was cleared of all wrongdoing. She does not answer to the minister. She answers to someone named by the PMO.
She has done nothing wrong in censoring information to the MPs because they are not her "bosses".
For a minister, he relies heavily on his chief of cabinet. However, they do are not named by him, they are assigned to him. When a controversy arises, the chief of cabinet is temporarily removed from his functions, then placed elsewhere in the same assignment.
So who is it that does the assigning? :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on June 13, 2017, 04:03:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2017, 03:24:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2017, 03:21:13 PM
Are there any of our Presidents who should have been impeached but weren't?
Certainly. Nixon. But he resigned before he could be impeached.
The point is that the situations in which such powers ought to be exercised are pretty rare, and so an argument premised on 'they haven't been used since X, ergo they are useless' must fail.
In this particular case - of the US - the concern is that the weakness of Congress has undercut the utility of the protection offered by impeachment, and this weakness is a relatively recent thing.
I don't understand the argument. You say that reserve powers have averted crises in parliamentary systems even though you only provide one example of such action actually being taken. You assert then that the US system is weak because it was only used once (though it was used effectively in at least one additional case, forcing Nixon's resignation, and the threat of impeachment surely impacted the decision-making of other presidents.
This sounds like you are arguing differences without distinctions.
You have it exactly reversed. I was arguing
against the argument that had been previously raised that the reserve powers were worthless because they had not been used since WW2.
I pointed out that, in fact, they had been used - rarely - just as impeachment had been used - rarely. So my argument was that the rareness of its use isn't a good criterion for determining its worth.
I never argued that impeachment was "weak" because it was only used once (and, as you point out, effective as a threat in another case). I am arguing that the US system suffers from a narrow flaw, one that is apparent right now, when the check it relies on - impeachment - is undermined by a congress obsessed with partisanship, and both congress and voters willing to accept 'alternative facts'. This latter issue seems to have gotten worse since Nixon's day.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 13, 2017, 03:53:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2017, 03:39:07 PM
However, I'm arguing that the separation of the executive from the head of state offers certain other, completely different advantages. One of which being that it would act as a "check" on unbridled populist power on the part of the executive in the unusual circumstance where the legislature has completely lost its mojo.
That, unfortunately, happens to be the exact circumstance happening right now in the US.
Now, maybe the legislature will regain its mojo if the popularity of the executive sinks into single digits. The problem is that, because the sickness of partisan bickering has sunk deep, and a whole culture has emerged in which facts are simply denied or invented at will without any concern, that seems nearly impossible no matter what he does.
I disagree with your assessment of the situation. I don't think that there is sufficient cause to remove Trump from office under the US system, so it is not, imo, the situation in the US right now.
However, if you were to put a Trump like figure as head of government in Canada now, with similar popularity and policy, I also think the removal of the prime minister would be massively controversial to such an extent to make the action counterproductive.
The assessment of whether he's done enough to deserve impeachment up to the present moment isn't the relevant argument though. The issue is that it appears that no matter what he does, there does not appear to be a significant chance that congress will impeach him - because it is dominated by Republicans who, so far at least, have shown zero willingness to stand up and challenge him.
It is hard to imagine an exact parallel to a Trump-like figure in Canada. Not because Canada is immune to populism, but rather because of the way the Canadian party system works - the PM is the head of the Party and so must be acceptable to party insiders; he can - and will - lose their confidence if he fucks up.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 13, 2017, 09:02:01 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 13, 2017, 04:03:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 13, 2017, 03:43:05 PM
The unusual circumstances are these: a figure who behaved as Trump behaves would usually guarantee unpopularity and loss of cabinet confidence.
I am far from convinced. Trump behaves as he does in a very specific context that empowers him, and makes him palatable to many voters, as well as other elected officials. British Parliamentary systems are not immune to similar contexts.
And it is that very specific context that would make Trump very difficult to replicate in a Westminster Parliamentary system. Perhaps not immune but significantly resistant.
Consider the manner in which Trump won the nomination of his party as the anti party, anti establishment candidate. That would be very difficult to replicate in a system where party leaders are selected on a riding level. Not having wide party support would make a riding level election all but impossible.
Also, the major difference that has seemed to have been lost in all of this is that while Americans directly elect their President, voters in a Parliamentary system do not elect their PM. One of the many significant effects of this is that a sitting MP can become PM without the need for an election. As a result there is an incentive for sitting MPs to replace an incompetent PM and the more ambitious ones will definitely have the knives out at the first signs of weakness. There is no equivalent in the US system. Even if the President is impeached the VP steps in. There is no real incentive for ambitious Senators or Congressmen to force the removal of the President. They will still have to bide their time and wait for the proper election cycle timing to make their own bid for the job.
Lastly, while an unpopular President can be bad news for some running for re-election in that particular cycle, others not involved in that cycle may not care as much. In a Parliamentary system, all MPs care because all will be impacted by an unpopular PM or opposition leader in the next election. That is why unpopular PMs and opposition leaders are forced out. The Americans don't have the equivalent mechanism. Instead they have a very legalistic process - as befitting their culture - where the only way to force out a President is through a formal impeachment process.
For all the talk of the American system of checks and balances, really what they have is a President with significant power to do a great deal of harm to the country who is very difficult to remove.
Exactly. You put it better than I did.
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2017, 08:31:51 AM
So who is it that does the assigning? :huh:
can't remember the exact title, but there is some sort of leader to the Deputy Ministers (and other high level bureaucrats). That person is named by the PM. He then choses the staff for the top level of each department (Deputy Minister and everyone having -minister in his title). The Minister has nothing to say and he cannot fire anyone. He can ask the Prime Minister Office, who will then ask the "chief of the Deputy Minister" to remove someone from his/her position and put him/her in a pool until the services are required elsehwere at an equivalent position and same wage.
For the Minister's political staff (chief of cabinet), they all are named by the Prime Minister or its office, and they owe loyalty to the party, as they are usually named there for services rendered, like attending an election in a riding known to be lost to the party at 99.9% certainty.
If we're talking board of directors for State sponsered agencies or corporations, then they are usually filled with union leaders (to achieve social peace), former politicians and funds collectors as reward to their services. It's apparently technically legal for a member of a board of director to be a funds collector for the party and renting the building to the agency he sits on.
Quote from: viper37 on June 14, 2017, 09:04:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2017, 08:31:51 AM
So who is it that does the assigning? :huh:
can't remember the exact title, but there is some sort of leader to the Deputy Ministers (and other high level bureaucrats). That person is named by the PM. He then choses the staff for the top level of each department (Deputy Minister and everyone having -minister in his title). The Minister has nothing to say and he cannot fire anyone. He can ask the Prime Minister Office, who will then ask the "chief of the Deputy Minister" to remove someone from his/her position and put him/her in a pool until the services are required elsehwere at an equivalent position and same wage.
For the Minister's political staff (chief of cabinet), they all are named by the Prime Minister or its office, and they owe loyalty to the party, as they are usually named there for services rendered, like attending an election in a riding known to be lost to the party at 99.9% certainty.
If we're talking board of directors for State sponsered agencies or corporations, then they are usually filled with union leaders (to achieve social peace), former politicians and funds collectors as reward to their services. It's apparently technically legal for a member of a board of director to be a funds collector for the party and renting the building to the agency he sits on.
Ministers have a great deal of influence over who their DM and what their DM does. Deputy Ministers have the most senior non political job in government. Their role is to implement the Minister's directions in that ministry. To suggest the Minister has no influence over who their DM is significantly mischaracterizes how our system works.
Quote from: dps on June 13, 2017, 06:55:32 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 13, 2017, 06:09:30 PM
Surprising given the apparent piss-poor thread topic, why so many of your fuckers are posting about it. :P
Not really. A really bad car wreck will attract more attention than a minor fender bender, so it's no surprise a really stupid thread gets more attention than a typical dumb Timmay thread.
Instead of fucking moaning, if you're so dissatisfied why don't you start some of your own threads for a change? ;)
I should note four of the ten most recently commented on threads are ones I started, so I must be doing something right to keep this cesspool churning. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2017, 09:31:36 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 14, 2017, 09:04:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2017, 08:31:51 AM
So who is it that does the assigning? :huh:
can't remember the exact title, but there is some sort of leader to the Deputy Ministers (and other high level bureaucrats). That person is named by the PM. He then choses the staff for the top level of each department (Deputy Minister and everyone having -minister in his title). The Minister has nothing to say and he cannot fire anyone. He can ask the Prime Minister Office, who will then ask the "chief of the Deputy Minister" to remove someone from his/her position and put him/her in a pool until the services are required elsehwere at an equivalent position and same wage.
For the Minister's political staff (chief of cabinet), they all are named by the Prime Minister or its office, and they owe loyalty to the party, as they are usually named there for services rendered, like attending an election in a riding known to be lost to the party at 99.9% certainty.
If we're talking board of directors for State sponsered agencies or corporations, then they are usually filled with union leaders (to achieve social peace), former politicians and funds collectors as reward to their services. It's apparently technically legal for a member of a board of director to be a funds collector for the party and renting the building to the agency he sits on.
Ministers have a great deal of influence over who their DM and what their DM does. Deputy Ministers have the most senior non political job in government. Their role is to implement the Minister's directions in that ministry. To suggest the Minister has no influence over who their DM is significantly mischaracterizes how our system works.
Let's say it depends on the minister. If it's someone coming from the party, in good standing with the PM, yes, they can have influence over whom they're sent. Otherwise, nada. You get who you're assigned, that's it.
In a once famous case, miss "Post-It", because her previous job was to stamp post-it with the political affiliation of a job candidate on its cv before forwarding it to the PM, was named as assistant deputy minister to health & social services:
La nomination de Chantal Landray fait jaser (http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/actualites/politique/201209/13/01-4573921-la-nomination-de-chantal-landry-surnommee-mme-post-it-fait-jaser.php)
QuoteDirectrice adjointe au cabinet de Jean Charest, Mme Landry a été nommée, mercredi, sous-ministre adjointe au ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux.
Vice director to Jean Charest's office, Miss Landry was nominated, wednesday, to assistant deputy minister to Departement of Health and Social services.
Now, considering this was done at the request of Charest (PLQ), just before he left office to be replace by Pauline Marois (PQ), these are political appointment, and there is no way a PQ cabinet minister requested that lady to serve under him.
Quote from: mongers on June 14, 2017, 10:01:44 AM
Instead of fucking moaning, if you're so dissatisfied why don't you start some of your own threads for a change? ;)
:cheers:
Quote from: mongers on June 14, 2017, 10:01:44 AM
Quote from: dps on June 13, 2017, 06:55:32 PM
Quote from: mongers on June 13, 2017, 06:09:30 PM
Surprising given the apparent piss-poor thread topic, why so many of your fuckers are posting about it. :P
Not really. A really bad car wreck will attract more attention than a minor fender bender, so it's no surprise a really stupid thread gets more attention than a typical dumb Timmay thread.
Instead of fucking moaning, if you're so dissatisfied why don't you start some of your own threads for a change? ;)
I should note four of the ten most recently commented on threads are ones I started, so I must be doing something right to keep this cesspool churning. :P
You must admit though, of those four threads, this one has the dumbest thesis.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 14, 2017, 01:51:04 PM
You must admit though, of those four threads, this one has the dumbest thesis.
Why exactly? :huh: It seems like the dumbest things in this thread have been said by people saying what a dumb thread this is. US is the oldest version of modern democracy, but one with potentially serious systemic weaknesses that are getting exposed now. It seems entirely non-dumb to compare and contrast the merits of other modern democratic systems.
Ok, maybe use the word silly instead of dumb. Most of us tired of alt history as teenagers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2017, 09:31:36 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 14, 2017, 09:04:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2017, 08:31:51 AM
So who is it that does the assigning? :huh:
can't remember the exact title, but there is some sort of leader to the Deputy Ministers (and other high level bureaucrats). That person is named by the PM. He then choses the staff for the top level of each department (Deputy Minister and everyone having -minister in his title). The Minister has nothing to say and he cannot fire anyone. He can ask the Prime Minister Office, who will then ask the "chief of the Deputy Minister" to remove someone from his/her position and put him/her in a pool until the services are required elsehwere at an equivalent position and same wage.
For the Minister's political staff (chief of cabinet), they all are named by the Prime Minister or its office, and they owe loyalty to the party, as they are usually named there for services rendered, like attending an election in a riding known to be lost to the party at 99.9% certainty.
If we're talking board of directors for State sponsered agencies or corporations, then they are usually filled with union leaders (to achieve social peace), former politicians and funds collectors as reward to their services. It's apparently technically legal for a member of a board of director to be a funds collector for the party and renting the building to the agency he sits on.
Ministers have a great deal of influence over who their DM and what their DM does. Deputy Ministers have the most senior non political job in government. Their role is to implement the Minister's directions in that ministry. To suggest the Minister has no influence over who their DM is significantly mischaracterizes how our system works.
You would accuse gentle viper of misrepresenting the Canadian government?
Quote from: viper37 on June 14, 2017, 12:11:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2017, 09:31:36 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 14, 2017, 09:04:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2017, 08:31:51 AM
So who is it that does the assigning? :huh:
can't remember the exact title, but there is some sort of leader to the Deputy Ministers (and other high level bureaucrats). That person is named by the PM. He then choses the staff for the top level of each department (Deputy Minister and everyone having -minister in his title). The Minister has nothing to say and he cannot fire anyone. He can ask the Prime Minister Office, who will then ask the "chief of the Deputy Minister" to remove someone from his/her position and put him/her in a pool until the services are required elsehwere at an equivalent position and same wage.
For the Minister's political staff (chief of cabinet), they all are named by the Prime Minister or its office, and they owe loyalty to the party, as they are usually named there for services rendered, like attending an election in a riding known to be lost to the party at 99.9% certainty.
If we're talking board of directors for State sponsered agencies or corporations, then they are usually filled with union leaders (to achieve social peace), former politicians and funds collectors as reward to their services. It's apparently technically legal for a member of a board of director to be a funds collector for the party and renting the building to the agency he sits on.
Ministers have a great deal of influence over who their DM and what their DM does. Deputy Ministers have the most senior non political job in government. Their role is to implement the Minister's directions in that ministry. To suggest the Minister has no influence over who their DM is significantly mischaracterizes how our system works.
Let's say it depends on the minister. If it's someone coming from the party, in good standing with the PM, yes, they can have influence over whom they're sent. Otherwise, nada. You get who you're assigned, that's it.
In a once famous case, miss "Post-It", because her previous job was to stamp post-it with the political affiliation of a job candidate on its cv before forwarding it to the PM, was named as assistant deputy minister to health & social services:
La nomination de Chantal Landray fait jaser (http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/actualites/politique/201209/13/01-4573921-la-nomination-de-chantal-landry-surnommee-mme-post-it-fait-jaser.php)
QuoteDirectrice adjointe au cabinet de Jean Charest, Mme Landry a été nommée, mercredi, sous-ministre adjointe au ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux.
Vice director to Jean Charest's office, Miss Landry was nominated, wednesday, to assistant deputy minister to Departement of Health and Social services.
Now, considering this was done at the request of Charest (PLQ), just before he left office to be replace by Pauline Marois (PQ), these are political appointment, and there is no way a PQ cabinet minister requested that lady to serve under him.
The difficulty is you have confused an ADM with a DM. Those are very different roles.
Dominique Savoie was DM to the Departement of transportation (Quebec).
She wasn't chosen by the Minister at the time, and subsequent minister lived with her. She could not be fired after being accused of lying to the Parliament. She could not be fired after being accused and proven guilty of mismanagement of her department. She was put into a pool to be reassigned later. So far, she is still receiving her wages, 211k$/year.
http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/782474/sous-ministre-patron-patron-regles (http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/782474/sous-ministre-patron-patron-regles)
QuoteJe ne pense pas qu'entre un ministre et un sous-ministre, on parle d'ordres.
Dominique Savoie, devant la commission parlementaire, le 18 mai 2016
May 18th, 2016: "I don't think that, between a Minister and a Deputy Minister, we talk of orders".
Meaning: I do what I want to do when I want to do it. He can go fuck himself if he doesn't like me.
By tradition, DM will carry the political will of the minister to carry one his vision, but if they refuse to do it, as in this case, were alleged irregularities were found in this department and she actively obstructed the work of an independant investigator sent by the Minister, there's nothing the Minister can do about it.
Before joining this department, she was Social services department, first as director, then as ADM, then as DM.
And there is no big differences between the DM and the ADM. The ADM has the same powers and responsibilities as the DM, albeit for only a part of the department (ex: ADM to Forestry in the Department of Agriculture, Forest and Fisheries).
Quote from: viper37 on June 15, 2017, 02:46:47 PM
And there is no big differences between the DM and the ADM. The ADM has the same powers and responsibilities as the DM, albeit for only a part of the department (ex: ADM to Forestry in the Department of Agriculture, Forest and Fisheries).
The DM is a political pick. DMs will change when the government changes. They are not career civil servants.
ADMs are not political picks. They do not change when the government changes. They are career civil servants.
Yet Another Canadian hijack. :rolleyes:
:P
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2017, 03:26:03 PM
The DM is a political pick. DMs will change when the government changes. They are not career civil servants.
Yes and no.
Quote
ADMs are not political picks. They do not change when the government changes. They are career civil servants.
yes and no.
In both cases, you can get to ADM and then to DM by carreer advancement. You start at some management level, get to be a director, then an ADM in one department, then either DM in this department, or ADM elsewhere and finally DM.
Case in point: Dominique Savoie. A carreer bureaucrat, started in Social services, graduated up to ADM, then switch to transportation for the same job and then became DM.
Other case, political appointment: In his final days, Jean Charest nominated his personal assitant (Miss Post-It) to the job of ADM to Healthcare & Social Services. Had she remained, she could have become DM.
In the Department of Finance, Treasury, Justice, they tend to advance to the ranks, it's rarely a political appointment.
In others: it varies a lot. But most often, they are political appointments, at some point. They may be appointed ADM and later become DM, but there is no specific rules. Even if you're a carreer bureaucrat, outside of a few departments, you rarely get to this level without political connections.
The Premier (and likely some PMs too) personally review each appointment and asks to know their political allegiance. Despite promises, a blind CV still isn't a thing.
Viper, either the system of government is incredibly messed up in Quebec, or you are not describing it entirely accurately.
I can't find english texts right now. Search for the name I gave you and use Google Translate.
As for the Feds, my experience has been that is not really dissimilar. Media reports on nominations seems to indicate an heavy tendancy for both Liberals and Conservatives, but more for the Libs, to nominate their own people to key position in the government, including Deputy Ministers and Assistant Deputy Ministers.
It was the case with Trudeau Sr, shortly before he left, and Chrétien did pretty much the same.
EDIT:
on wikipedia, nothing indicates you have to be a carrer bureaucrat to achieve one level or another
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_minister_(Canada)
And here (in french), you have a list of Liberal appointees, with close ties to the party:
http://lactualite.com/actualites/2017/05/12/la-caq-devoile-une-liste-de-nominations-partisanes-du-gouvernement-couillard/