A Civilised Executive? (Food Banks Split)

[JimC]

Not correct. In parliamentary systems, generally speaking, the public only votes for their member of parliament (equivalent of Congressman in the US). The MPs then select the executive by vote of Parliament. The voting public has no say. Examples = Canada and the United Kingdom. So, it's like if the US Congress picked the President.

I think you have missed Hermit's point. By executive, he means our cabinet of ministers, each of whom needs to be an elected member of parliament, rather than your executive, appointed by the whim of the president of the day.

Forty Two has not missed anything. He keeps wilfully ignoring the several times I have pointed out to him that the executive in Australia is not vested in the Prime Minister - That the office of the Prime Minister does not even rate one solitary mention in our constitution.

If Forty Two wanted to criticise democracy in Australia, he could point to the fact that formally speaking the executive is headed by the monarch in Great Britain and flows down to parliament via the monarch's representative in Australia, the Governor General. Formally speaking again, parliament acts only as adviser to the monarch. In practice, though, the monarch, via the GG, acts only as a rubber stamp, especially so since the GG's reserve power. aka royal prerogative, was further sidelined with a constitutional change by referendum in 1977 following the 1975 constitutional crisis.

He ignores you, sure...

[Scot Dutchy]

I never got that thing about ministers having to be elected MPs... a person familiar with the subject of their ministry would be a better choice, especially since MPs are elected to represent their constituency, not to serve as sinisters.

Entirely agree. Our Minister President can appoint specialists if required into the cabinet. Our cabinet does not sit in amongst other MP's as it has it own place in the Second Chamber. The cabinet members only appear when the debate relates to their office.

[Scot Dutchy]

The UK system has nothing to do with democracy.

Wrong. We have elections. And a maximum term of a parliament.
That's democracy.

That is not democracy. One man one equal vote is. The constituency system deprives people of their rights. It is a gerrymandering system. Not all votes are equal. PR is the purest form of democracy.

You can have too much democracy. You could decide everything by referendum. Then you have people who haven't got a clue, making decisions that are completely democratic. And completely shit.

So you have to have a compromise. The UK system is a good compromise. It provides fairly stable government, that has the ability to actually do things, and the executive has some power, enabling the government to react to events in a realistic time scale.

It is a terrible compromise. 5 year dictatorship by one party. No long term planning. Violent political swings.

If it became more democratic, decisions would be slower and less well-informed.
And you would get coalitions that lasted about a year, on average. Like Italy.

Less democracy means less good decisions. Coalitions represent the country not a party.

[Forty Two]

The UK system has nothing to do with democracy.

Wrong. We have elections. And a maximum term of a parliament.
That's democracy.

That is not democracy. One man one equal vote is. The constituency system deprives people of their rights. It is a gerrymandering system. Not all votes are equal. PR is the purest form of democracy.

Pure democracy is not the highest ideal.

A functioning representative republic with protections for individual liberty and appropriate checks and balances on State power is much better, in my view. Views, of course, may differ. However, democracy is not necessarily fair or reasonable. People will vote for oppressive things. It's called the tyranny of the majority. What a person does in bed with a consenting adult, for example, ought not be up to a majority vote. Or, what a person believes, or the opinions he writes - pure democracy, if applied to such aspects of individual liberty, fast becomes tyrannical.

[Forty Two]

Not correct. In parliamentary systems, generally speaking, the public only votes for their member of parliament (equivalent of Congressman in the US). The MPs then select the executive by vote of Parliament. The voting public has no say. Examples = Canada and the United Kingdom. So, it's like if the US Congress picked the President.

I think you have missed Hermit's point. By executive, he means our cabinet of ministers, each of whom needs to be an elected member of parliament, rather than your executive, appointed by the whim of the president of the day.

Forty Two has not missed anything. He keeps wilfully ignoring the several times I have pointed out to him that the executive in Australia is not vested in the Prime Minister - That the office of the Prime Minister does not even rate one solitary mention in our constitution.

If Forty Two wanted to criticise democracy in Australia, he could point to the fact that formally speaking the executive is headed by the monarch in Great Britain and flows down to parliament via the monarch's representative in Australia, the Governor General. Formally speaking again, parliament acts only as adviser to the monarch. In practice, though, the monarch, via the GG, acts only as a rubber stamp, especially so since the GG's reserve power. aka royal prerogative, was further sidelined with a constitutional change by referendum in 1977 following the 1975 constitutional crisis.

He ignores you, sure...

this is sort of deceptive on Hermit's part. There IS a prime minister in Australia, and he IS the chief executive.

Take the UK for example, the "head of state" is "officially" the Queen, but she's not really the head of state. Or, if I'm wrong about that and the Crown is really head of State in terms of "power" then the UK could not call itself a democracy and there would be no reasonable way to suggest that a hereditary monarchy is more democratic than a federal republic with an electoral college.

Note, Hermit says the prime minister is not the head of government - fine - who is, Hermit? I know the answer, but, so that we are clear - tell me who the head of government is for Australia.

Hermit points out that the head is really the Crown, but then he points out that that's just ceremonial and a rubber stamp. True. That's why I did not go ahead and lambaste Australia on that basis. Everyone knows that Australia is a democracy with government power vested in elected officials, and the Crown is not the actual power center. So, that, then, leads the question to become -- who is the head of government in reality?

[Forty Two]

Forty Two wrote:

Not correct. In parliamentary systems, generally speaking, the public only votes for their member of parliament (equivalent of Congressman in the US). The MPs then select the executive by vote of Parliament. The voting public has no say. Examples = Canada and the United Kingdom. So, it's like if the US Congress picked the President.

I think you have missed Hermit's point. By executive, he means our cabinet of ministers, each of whom needs to be an elected member of parliament, rather than your executive, appointed by the whim of the president of the day.

I didn't miss that. The PM is the head of government, appointed by vote of Parliament. That's not democracy by vote of the people. Check. So, that's less democracy than the electoral college relative to electing the head of government.

As to Oz's cabinet of ministers, they are appointed. Yes, they must be members of parliament, but the only people who vote for them are the voters in the district they represent. They are wielding power delegated to them by appointment from the PM, and the are acting nationally, but they were voted by a few people in one district.

Likewise, in the US, we have a cabinet of appointed persons. However, it's not a whim. All appointments have to be "confirmed" by the US Senate. Like your members of parliament, senators are elected. The Senators are elected to represent the States. Each State has 2 in the US. And, so, they vote as popularly elected representatives of the States as to whether to confirm or reject a nominee.

Now, I have not suggested that Oz is not a democracy or that it's not democratic, or even that it's "less" democratic than the US. What I've suggested is that all these folks leveling loud accusations at the US for having a non-democratic system are forgetting that no system is pure democracy, and that countries like the UK, Canada, and Oz, are not electing their executive government heads by pure popular vote. You might like your system better, but that doesn't make it more democratic or beyond criticism for the same reasons leveled at the US system.

[Brian Peacock]

Not correct. In parliamentary systems, generally speaking, the public only votes for their member of parliament (equivalent of Congressman in the US). The MPs then select the executive by vote of Parliament. The voting public has no say. Examples = Canada and the United Kingdom. So, it's like if the US Congress picked the President.

I think you have missed Hermit's point. By executive, he means our cabinet of ministers, each of whom needs to be an elected member of parliament, rather than your executive, appointed by the whim of the president of the day.

Forty Two has not missed anything. He keeps wilfully ignoring the several times I have pointed out to him that the executive in Australia is not vested in the Prime Minister - That the office of the Prime Minister does not even rate one solitary mention in our constitution.

If Forty Two wanted to criticise democracy in Australia, he could point to the fact that formally speaking the executive is headed by the monarch in Great Britain and flows down to parliament via the monarch's representative in Australia, the Governor General. Formally speaking again, parliament acts only as adviser to the monarch. In practice, though, the monarch, via the GG, acts only as a rubber stamp, especially so since the GG's reserve power. aka royal prerogative, was further sidelined with a constitutional change by referendum in 1977 following the 1975 constitutional crisis.

He ignores you, sure...

this is sort of deceptive on Hermit's part. There IS a prime minister in Australia, and he IS the chief executive.

Take the UK for example, the "head of state" is "officially" the Queen, but she's not really the head of state. Or, if I'm wrong about that and the Crown is really head of State in terms of "power" then the UK could not call itself a democracy and there would be no reasonable way to suggest that a hereditary monarchy is more democratic than a federal republic with an electoral college.

Note, Hermit says the prime minister is not the head of government - fine - who is, Hermit? I know the answer, but, so that we are clear - tell me who the head of government is for Australia.

Hermit points out that the head is really the Crown, but then he points out that that's just ceremonial and a rubber stamp. True. That's why I did not go ahead and lambaste Australia on that basis. Everyone knows that Australia is a democracy with government power vested in elected officials, and the Crown is not the actual power center. So, that, then, leads the question to become -- who is the head of government in reality?

A fair point, but we've somehow gish galloped into constitutional arm wrestling. I guess this started with the implication that a need for food banks somehow threatens a nation's claim to being civilised. Perhaps we can head back in that direction?

The UK’s busiest food bank, in Newcastle, is racing to keep up as demand for emergency supplies hits a festive spike

... Newcastle West Emergency Food Bank is an independent charity and part of the 420-strong network of food banks run by the Trussell Trust, which provides emergency three-day food supplies to individuals and families in crisis.

“People go hungry for all sorts of reasons,” says Margaret Nelson, the trust’s regional coordinator in the north-east. “It can be due to redundancy or bereavement, benefit sanctions, or spiralling debt problems compounded by receiving a huge bill out of the blue.” As one of the larger food banks in the UK, NWEFB also offers advice from specialist agencies such as Shelter and Jobcentre Plus to help make sure users get the benefits to which they are entitled.

An estimated 95% of the food bank’s users live within a two-mile radius. The area is the 40th most deprived council ward in the UK. The Trussell Trust typically sees a 45% spike in referrals for the three-day emergency food parcels in the two weeks before Christmas. Everyone who comes to a Trussell Trust food bank will have been referred by a frontline professional agency such as Citizens Advice, housing associations and children’s centres; they are given a voucher to exchange for the parcel...

...more...

[BarnettNewman]

The PM is the head of government, appointed by vote of Parliament. That's not democracy by vote of the people. Check. So, that's less democracy than the electoral college relative to electing the head of government.

In Canada, the leader of the party becomes the Prime Minister. The leader is selected by the party and runs as an MP for election in their designated riding. Our current Prime Minister is the MP for Papineau, a riding in Montréal.

A party forms a government when the number of elected MPs for the ruling party is greater than the opposition. They form a majority when the numbers are more than the all other parties combined. In the case of a minority government, a vote against a confidence measure (i.e. A budget) will dissolve parliament and force an election.

In other words, the party in power is at the will of parliament and the Prime Minister is a sitting member as determined by a majority of voters within their riding.

[JimC]

Do you have an upper house/senate in Canada?

[pErvinalia]

Not correct. In parliamentary systems, generally speaking, the public only votes for their member of parliament (equivalent of Congressman in the US). The MPs then select the executive by vote of Parliament. The voting public has no say. Examples = Canada and the United Kingdom. So, it's like if the US Congress picked the President.

I think you have missed Hermit's point. By executive, he means our cabinet of ministers, each of whom needs to be an elected member of parliament, rather than your executive, appointed by the whim of the president of the day.

Forty Two has not missed anything. He keeps wilfully ignoring the several times I have pointed out to him that the executive in Australia is not vested in the Prime Minister - That the office of the Prime Minister does not even rate one solitary mention in our constitution.

If Forty Two wanted to criticise democracy in Australia, he could point to the fact that formally speaking the executive is headed by the monarch in Great Britain and flows down to parliament via the monarch's representative in Australia, the Governor General. Formally speaking again, parliament acts only as adviser to the monarch. In practice, though, the monarch, via the GG, acts only as a rubber stamp, especially so since the GG's reserve power. aka royal prerogative, was further sidelined with a constitutional change by referendum in 1977 following the 1975 constitutional crisis.

He ignores you, sure...

this is sort of deceptive on Hermit's part. There IS a prime minister in Australia, and he IS the chief executive.

No he/she/ze isn't. The Prime Minister can't do anything without the backing of the caucus. The PM has no more executive power than any other member of parliament.

[JimC]

He can always try a "Captain's Call", but that tends to have bad consequences...

[Brian Peacock]

I think 42 is confusing the figurehead of a governmental executive with a company 'chief executive'. Governmental executives are an administrative structure usually in control of the legislative program during their sitting term, they are not the same kind of autonomous ultimate authority which a company constitutions usually invest in the position of CEO - although the US model is a lot closer to that (the president being a kind of elected, term-limited absolute monarch) than those models based on the so-called 'mother of parliaments' of the UK system. This is still a massive gish gallop away from the issues though.

[Scot Dutchy]

That is a very anglo-saxon point of view and viewed from a very screwed election system. The UK parliament is not a good example of a government for the people. It is a government for a party.

In our system the government represents the people. The coalition must have over 50% of the vote to govern.

[BarnettNewman]

Do you have an upper house/senate in Canada?

Yes, unelected though. Supposedly there for "sober second thought". The senate reviews and votes on legislation passed by the commons. Senate reform has been an issue for the last few elections.

[JimC]

Do you have an upper house/senate in Canada?

Yes, unelected though. Supposedly there for "sober second thought". The senate reviews and votes on legislation passed by the commons. Senate reform has been an issue for the last few elections.

If unelected, how are they chosen?