A Civilised Executive? (Food Banks Split)

[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.

If unelected, how are they chosen?

Appointed by the sitting PM.

[JimC]

A potential recipe for cronyism if I ever heard one...

[pErvinalia]

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?

Appointed by the sitting PM.

Seriously? That's fucking crazy.

[BarnettNewman]

A potential recipe for cronyism if I ever heard one...

Yep. That's why the push for reform.

[Scot Dutchy]

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?

Appointed by the sitting PM.

That is just stupid.

[Brian Peacock]

The UK House of Lords is appointed by the PM in as much as the Prime Minister's office approves the list. Partly new appointment are drawn up by a Lords committee, partly from nominations from other parties, and partly on a whim. The majority of appointees are from a political background, all church of England bishop's get a free ticket, elevation to the Lords is for life, and before Cameron was pushed out he set in place a program which will see the number of elected MPs cut by 50 to 600 and the number of appointed Lords swelling to over 900.

[Forty Two]

There are degrees of civilisation. Canada, for instance, is currently governed by the Liberal party. Certainly more civilised than being governed by reactionary fuckknuckles like yours is about to be because a plurality of your voters want it that way, and whose wish has been granted through the agency of you Electoral Collegiate system, but not as civilised as countries governed by parties who still fundamentally support capitalism but temper it with policies based on compassion, altruism and empathy, those qualities being collectively known as "civilised".

This is a failure to understand the US system.

Oh, I understand alright. In parliamentary systems the executive is elected by direct popular vote. In the US system it isn't.

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.

No. See below.

Anticipating you using the second and third paragraph to ignore the first, let me repeat: I understand the US system alright. In parliamentary systems the executive is elected by direct popular vote. In the US system it isn't. I added the next two merely in order to point out that it isn't working as it was designed to work.

Well, which parliamentary country are you referring to? In Canada, only the people in Justin Trudeau's riding voted for or against him. Every other riding voted for or against candidates for MP to represent that riding. The chief executive of Canada was voted in by coalition of the MPs. If the US was to mimic that process, then the US Congress would elect the President.

The Prime Minister is not the executive. Not in Canada, not in the UK, not in Australia. Executive power is vested in the parliament. That's why it's called the parliamentary system. In the US executive power is vested in the President. That's why your form of government is called the presidential system.

The Prime Minister is elected by the Parliament as the head of the government. That's the reality. In the US the head of government is the President. So, our head of government is elected by the states, pursuant to the electoral college system. Each state has a separate election to determine which candidate the state will vote for. The vote could lawfully be advisory, but each state has enacted laws to require electors to vote in accordance with the will of the people OF THAT STATE.

In a parliamentary system, the people do not vote for the HEAD OF GOVERNMENT. The head of government is elected by the members of parliament. That's the reality of how the PM is picked. Technically, the prime minister of Canada is someone appointed by the Queen of England's Governor General. So, while the practice has been democratic (in a representative way), the technically, the Governor General could just appoint someone else.

Nothing you have said renders me incorrect at all.

Prime minister of Canada is the head of government of Canada - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada Prime minister "appointed" by the Governor General after the general election. LOL. So, the folks bleating on about how the "electoral college" is undemocratic because it can technically not follow the will of the people -- in the Canadian system, the Governor General could, just as technically, not follow the will of either the people or Parliament in appointing the Prime Minister.

On the issue of whether a system is "democratic" or not - - while the prime minister is, in practice, the most politically powerful member of the Canadian government, he or she is sometimes erroneously referred to as Canada's head of state, when, in fact, that post is held by the Canadian monarch (aka Queen Elizabeth II), represented by the governor general. The prime minister is, instead, the head of government and is responsible for advising the Crown on how to exercise the Royal Prerogative and its executive powers, which are governed by the constitution and its conventions.

So, there are those here bleating on about how undemocratic the US is, when the blokes reside in consititutional MONARCHIES where the prime minister technically is appointed by a governor general of a hereditary monarch. Now, we all know that the monarch is now just a rubber stamp symbol and a historical anachronism who would be shut down immediately if she tried to wield real power. So, we all know that the executive power lies in the government of Canada, and not in the monarchy. And the head of that government is the Prime Minister who exercises those powers.

Yes, in the US we have a "three branch" system, executive, legislative, and judicial, whereas in the parliamentary system you have two -- Parliament (executive/legislative combined) and judicial. That makes my point because the head of your executive functions of government is the prime minister who is not elected by the people, but is instead elected by the members of parliament and appointed (essentially rubber stamp) by the governor general.

Though the Queen may be Canada’s head of state, and the governor general the Queen’s stand-in, it is the prime minister who truly rules Canada. Known as the nation’s head of government, his office is said to be one of the most powerful leadership positions in any western democracy,

http://www.thecanadaguide.com/the-prime-minister The Canadian Prime Minister is Head of the Legislature (Parliament), Head of the Executive (Ministries and executive agencies/departments), Commander-in-Chief, Appointer-in-Chief (virtually all important positions in the federal government are appointed by the prime minister directly), chief foreign policy person, etc.

Any suggestion that the prime minister is of little importance or power is absurd.

And, again, that commander in chief, chief executive, and head of legislature, is NOT elected by popular vote. He is appointed by the governor general, after the members of parliament choose him.

And, remember, in the US, the President is NOT the head of the legislature. The head of the legislature is the "Speaker of the House" (Paul Ryan now), and that is why the Speaker of the House is second in line for the Presidency, after the Vice President (who also serves as President of the Senate), if the President dies or leaves office. So, a Prime Minister IS the head of the legislature, and that large swath of power is NOT part of the President's powers in the US. The American President only has the executive power and commander in chief aspects of Prime Ministership.

Remember, also, that I'm not saying there is anything "wrong" with that kind of system. It's a representative democracy. It's not a given that everything in government should be best decided by a direct vote of the population. There are good reasons why it's better NOT to have a direct vote of the tidal mass of the population. I think everyone recognizes that. All I am saying is that the screeching and bleating about the American system, which likewise is representative in nature, and includes democratic elections in the overall representative government system, neither system is objectively more or less "democratic" than the other, particularly in light of how the head of government of each system is picked.

[pErvinalia]

The PM can't do anything without the support of his/her party. That support can be withdrawn at any moment (as it has three times in the last six years or so in Australia). The PM only has executive power whilst ever the government MPs Grant it to them.

[Forty Two]

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?

Appointed by the sitting PM.

"House of Commons" -- Commons. Commoners.

Head of State is a hereditary monarch with the title - Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Obtains her position because King George the VI decided not to pull out of The Queen Mother some time in July or August of 1925. It's unknown whether he was banging her doggy style or missionary.

Beneath the monarch is the nobility - the "peers." We're all entitled to a jury of our "peers." A noble is judged by other nobles, not the commoners. LOL. But, I digress. The nobility have rights to stand for election to the House of Lords, dining rights in the House of Lords, position in the formal order of precedence, the right to certain titles of nobility, and the right to an audience with the monarch. These are the Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts and Barons.

Beneath the peers, you have the gentry, full of baronets, knights, esquires and gentlemen.

Beneath them, are the commoners. Those folks with the right of commonage. Originally, that meant the people who had a right to pasture animals on common land. The commons. Now, that means just the common people in general. Nowadays, peasants are part of the commoners group, but back in the day, they were the poor tenant farmers and such.

So, you've got your House of "Commoners" - and their laws are reviewed the "House Lords" who are unelected, and then you've got all these dukes and other nobility running around, and an actual monarch. The Prime Minister holds head of government power, but he's technically appointed by the queen who by tradition appoints the guy or gal who the parliamentarians choose.

That's the way the US should do it, if they wanted to be an actual democracy without an oppressive system of classes.

[Forty Two]

The PM can't do anything without the support of his/her party. That support can be withdrawn at any moment (as it has three times in the last six years or so in Australia). The PM only has executive power whilst ever the government MPs Grant it to them.

He is head of government and not elected by a vote of the people.

The President in the US can't do much if he doesn't have party support either. Remember, our President has no role in lawmaking. The Prime Minister is ALSO the head of the legislature so he has some power to direct or lead his party in the Parliament. The President of the US has no authority in the legislature - at all. Congress is a separate but EQUAL branch of government.

So, I agree, the PM is not an all powerful elected king, but neither is the President of the US.

The fact remains, though, that the PM does have a power structure. Does hold authority in government. Does constitute the "head of government" and commander in chief roles in parliamentary democracies. And, is not popularly elected to that position.

[pErvinalia]

The PM can't do anything without the support of his/her party. That support can be withdrawn at any moment (as it has three times in the last six years or so in Australia). The PM only has executive power whilst ever the government MPs Grant it to them.

He is head of government and not elected by a vote of the people.

He or she is elected by the people, just not as the head of government. The PM has no more inherent power than any other MP. They are granted their power conditionally by the other MPs. As I said, that power can be revoked at any point if the PM acts outside the wishes of the party.

The President in the US can't do much if he doesn't have party support either.

The MP chosen by his/her party to be PM can't do ANYTHING outside normal MP duties without the support of the party.

The fact remains, though, that the PM does have a power structure. Does hold authority in government. Does constitute the "head of government" and commander in chief roles in parliamentary democracies. And, is not popularly elected to that position.

Commander-in-chief roles vary. As far as I understand it the Parliament has to approve military action in the UK system, whereas in Australia the Parliament has no say. The decision rests with the PM and/or the cabinet (I'm not sure of the exact process).

[Forty Two]

I think 42 is confusing the figurehead of a governmental executive with a company 'chief executive'.

No, I'm not. If you're suggesting that the Prime Minister of Canada is a mere figurehead, then you're wrong. He is head of government, head of legislature, commander in chief, and he appoints all the major government positions. I think you're confusing a position that is not of unlimited power (which, of course, the PM is not an elected king), with a position that has no power. In the Canadian system, the governor general - titular head of state serving at the pleasure of the monarch -- is the rubber stamp -- the figurehead. The PM holds real power.

Governmental executives are an administrative structure usually in control of the legislative program during their sitting term,

Well, of course, which is the same in the US. The US has a Cabinet of advisors/ministers, and a host of administrative agencies in a large bureaucracy, and all the day-to-day powers are held and exercised by those agencies and their heads. However, the President is the head of government and has the ultimate authority, and he's the one that appoints the "governmental executives" and he can get rid of them. Similarly, the Prime Minister appoints the "governmental executives" to whom you refer. I'm really a bit surprised that people are trying to argue down this route. Is it that you just don't want to agree that your head of government is not directly elected by popular vote? He isn't. There isn't anything wrong with that. It's a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. That's fine. Same with the US. I'm not declaring the US better or more democratic, or denigrating the Parliamentary system in any way. There are many ways to structure the government and divide up power and impose checks and balances, and the US way isn't necessarily the best or the worst. What I've been on about, though, is the current narrative coming from countries who don't popularly elect the chief executive and even live in constitutional monarchies sitting there and pointing their finger at the US, which does hold a popular election (state-by-state) for the chief executive.

It's certainly a fair criticism to argue against the electoral college if you like. It has it's merits and it has it's drawbacks, but it is really a pragmatic issue. It's not that global travesty and tragedy that it's being made out to be. It doesn't make the US "undemocratic" and it doesn't make the US system worse than the constitutional monarchies with parliaments and Senates and Lords and such.

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)

This is absurd. The President has limited constitutional authority and is in no sense an elected king. For example, by comparison the Canadian PM has chief executive powers, appointment powers, commander in chief powers and head of government powers AND head of legislature powers. The US President lacks the "head of legislature" powers. Neither is an elected 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.

The only issue I raised was to point out that the Prime Minister in most Parliamentary systems is the head of government and he's not elected by popular vote of the people, but is rather chosen by the members of parliament (who are elected only by voters in their given districts, so it's like if the US system chose the President by vote of the Congress). That's accurate.

[Forty Two]

The PM can't do anything without the support of his/her party. That support can be withdrawn at any moment (as it has three times in the last six years or so in Australia). The PM only has executive power whilst ever the government MPs Grant it to them.

He is head of government and not elected by a vote of the people.

He or she is elected by the people, just not as the head of government.

No, he or she is elected by the Parliament, and the Parlement members are elected by the people IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS. It's no more an election by the people than Paul Ryan was elected by the People to the post of Speaker of the House. Sure, the Congressmen were directly elected, and they voted for Paul Ryan, but that doesn't mean Paul Ryan was elected by the people DIRECTLY. It's representative action.

The PM has no more inherent power than any other MP. They are granted their power conditionally by the other MPs. As I said, that power can be revoked at any point if the PM acts outside the wishes of the party.

That doesn't change the fact that he or she is the head of government, the chief executive and the head of legislature ,and is not given that position by direct vote of the people.

Yes, the PM and the President are not IDENTICAL roles. Of course not, because the Parliamentary system is a two-branch system and the American system is a three branch system, so the President has zero legislative powers. He can only make executive orders on matters within his constitutional authority, and the executive agencies can only make rules within their authority delegated by law by the Congress. The branches are coequal - separate but equal in authority, having different delegated authorities.

This notion that the PM is really not a real thing and holds very few actual powers is, I think a gross understatement. But, whatever his actual powers, it remains a fact that he is the "head of government" and the chief executive and the one who appoints most of the government posts and such, and is the chief mouthpiece of the country for foreign relations purpose - all of which are presidential type powers, and the PM is NOT elected directly. The PM is chosen by the members of parliament.

[pErvinalia]

Governmental executives are an administrative structure usually in control of the legislative program during their sitting term,

Well, of course, which is the same in the US. The US has a Cabinet of advisors/ministers, and a host of administrative agencies in a large bureaucracy, and all the day-to-day powers are held and exercised by those agencies and their heads. However, the President is the head of government and has the ultimate authority, and he's the one that appoints the "governmental executives" and he can get rid of them. Similarly, the Prime Minister appoints the "governmental executives" to whom you refer.

Only if his party support his actions.

[pErvinalia]

The PM can't do anything without the support of his/her party. That support can be withdrawn at any moment (as it has three times in the last six years or so in Australia). The PM only has executive power whilst ever the government MPs Grant it to them.

He is head of government and not elected by a vote of the people.

He or she is elected by the people, just not as the head of government.

No, he or she is elected by the Parliament, and the Parlement members are elected by the people IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS. It's no more an election by the people than Paul Ryan was elected by the People to the post of Speaker of the House.

Re-read what I wrote.

The PM has no more inherent power than any other MP. They are granted their power conditionally by the other MPs. As I said, that power can be revoked at any point if the PM acts outside the wishes of the party.

That doesn't change the fact that he or she is the head of government, the chief executive and the head of legislature ,and is not given that position by direct vote of the people.

I never said they were.