A Civilised Executive? (Food Banks Split)

[Forty Two]

When you wrote "Not correct", you were wrong. What Hermit said is absolutely correct.

Fucking dishonest, man.... it depends what one refers to as "the executive." That word can refer to a person, or to a branch of government. I was referring to the person, and that was obvious. So fuck off, and stop your bullshit. I've explained this to you six ways from Sunday, and either you're too slow on the uptake to understand it, or you just want to fuck around.

Let me make it clear for you. The pertinent concern isn't that the PM isn't directly elected while the Prez sort of is.

That was my concern when I started the discussion on the previous thread. Whether it's your concern is of no importance to me at all. My raising of the comparison between PM and President was SOLELY in relation to how they are elected, given all the hubbub about how godawful undemocratic the American system of electing the President was. That's why I raised the issue. That's why it's pertinent.

I know you think that's the pertinent concern, but it's misguided.

No, not if the issue being discussed is the democracy issue. Which it was. And that's why I made the comparison. You may think some other issues are more interesting or relevant, which is fine. Discuss them all you want.

The reason it is misguided is because 1 - the executive in parliamentary systems are elected by the people (with no involvement of an Electoral College like in the US executive);

But your PM, who fulfills most of the same roles as a President, is not elected by the people. So, if the US followed your lead, our president would be Paul Ryan.

and 2 - the real democratic threat in the commonwealth parliamentary systems (or at least some of them like ours) is that technically an unelected monarch is the head of state. The threat to executive democratic legitimacy ISN'T the parliament electing the PM, it's an unelected monarchy in another country sitting as the head of state.

I never argued about any "threat to executive legitimacy." That's not what I was talking about when i started the discussion about the manner of electing the head of government. It's certainly a worthwhile discussion, the threats to executive democratic legitimacy. But, that wasn't what I was concerned about.

[Hermit]

The Prime Minister is the chief executive. He is the head of government. He is not elected by popular vote, he is chosen by the Parliament...

... you are ignoring, downplaying or denying the differences ...

I've not ignored differences - I've stated them outright. ... However, whatever differences there...

OK. Downplaying it is then. Bye.

The issue in this discussion was never "are there significant differences between the Prime Minister position and the Presidential position."

The issue was how the head of government is elected, and whether one system is more or less democratic than the other. pErvin was correct when he said that the election of the President is more democratic than the election of the Prime Minister.

My raising of the comparison between PM and President was SOLELY in relation to how they are elected

How can you discuss the significance of how the head of government is elected, and whether one system is more or less democratic than the other without reference to significant differences between the prime ministerial position and the presidential position? The fact that in the US the executive is the president, while in Australia the prime minister is just a part of it.

[Brian Peacock]

When you wrote "Not correct", you were wrong. What Hermit said is absolutely correct.

Let me make it clear for you. The pertinent concern isn't that the PM isn't directly elected while the Prez sort of is. I know you think that's the pertinent concern, but it's misguided. The reason it is misguided is because 1 - the executive in parliamentary systems are elected by the people (with no involvement of an Electoral College like in the US executive); and 2 - the real democratic threat in the commonwealth parliamentary systems (or at least some of them like ours) is that technically an unelected monarch is the head of state. The threat to executive democratic legitimacy ISN'T the parliament electing the PM, it's an unelected monarchy in another country sitting as the head of state.

On your second point, the Queen as head of state of the commonwealth nations has no political power in constitutional term (but perhaps some influence in cultural terms). The Queen is no more likely or able to interfere with the AUS, NZ or CAN etc legislature and executive than she is the UK's. The position of the Monarch as head of state is historical, not political, and while I'd agree that for a European Monarchy to have survived into the the 21st century is somewhat at odds with more than a 150 years' worth of wider social and political development, one has to remember that we never had a resetting revolution in the UK and that the Monarchy still has the support of about 75% of the population.

The point here is that the Monarchy is a constitutional fact but a political irrelevance with regard to the administration of executive power both in the UK and in it's dominions - with the exception of the Crown Dependencies of course, which are uniquely self-governing possessions of the Crown.

[pErvinalia]

But Hermit wasn't. So you were erecting a strawman.

No, because I was arguing my point, which I started on the previous thread from which this was split. If you guys want to change my subject, that's your business. I'm sticking to the issue I raised.

Where did you raise it? I just quoted your first post addressing the democratic legitimacy of Prez vs PM, and it was in reply to Hermit raising the point of the democratic legitimacy of the executive in the US vs Australia. You bolloxed it all up at that point and for a while after.

[pErvinalia]

When you wrote "Not correct", you were wrong. What Hermit said is absolutely correct.

Fucking dishonest, man.... it depends what one refers to as "the executive." That word can refer to a person, or to a branch of government. I was referring to the person, and that was obvious.

But there is no executive individual in the parliamentary system. That's the point we've been trying to make to you. You can't say that you understand that point, but prove in that first post of yours that you demonstrably didn't understand it at that point.

So fuck off, and stop your bullshit. I've explained this to you six ways from Sunday, and either you're too slow on the uptake to understand it, or you just want to fuck around.

I'm trying to explain the logic fails in your argument. Stop whining like a persecuted liberal and start concentrating.

Let me make it clear for you. The pertinent concern isn't that the PM isn't directly elected while the Prez sort of is.

That was my concern when I started the discussion on the previous thread. Whether it's your concern is of no importance to me at all. My raising of the comparison between PM and President was SOLELY in relation to how they are elected, given all the hubbub about how godawful undemocratic the American system of electing the President was. That's why I raised the issue. That's why it's pertinent.

But you said absolutely nothing about the democratic legitimacy of one system vs the other. HERMIT was the one who raised the democratic legitimacy point, and it was the reverse of what you thought it was as demonstrated by your first post in this thread.

I know you think that's the pertinent concern, but it's misguided.

No, not if the issue being discussed is the democracy issue. Which it was. And that's why I made the comparison. You may think some other issues are more interesting or relevant, which is fine. Discuss them all you want.[/quote]

And back in circles we go. The PM has LITTLE TO NO power that the parliament doesn't grant to him. So why is it a democracy issue if the PM is elected via the parliament? It could only be a democracy issue if one was under the mistaken impression that the PM has significant executive power.

The reason it is misguided is because 1 - the executive in parliamentary systems are elected by the people (with no involvement of an Electoral College like in the US executive);

But your PM, who fulfills most of the same roles as a President, is not elected by the people. So, if the US followed your lead, our president would be Paul Ryan.

The PM DOESN'T fulfil most of the same roles as a president. Not inherently. Most of the PM's power is temporarily granted to him by the parliament. The Prez doesn't need party support to take executive action.

and 2 - the real democratic threat in the commonwealth parliamentary systems (or at least some of them like ours) is that technically an unelected monarch is the head of state. The threat to executive democratic legitimacy ISN'T the parliament electing the PM, it's an unelected monarchy in another country sitting as the head of state.

I never argued about any "threat to executive legitimacy." That's not what I was talking about when i started the discussion about the manner of electing the head of government. It's certainly a worthwhile discussion, the threats to executive democratic legitimacy. But, that wasn't what I was concerned about.

What in fuck's name point were you allegedly trying to make then? And why have you repeatedly commented on the democratic legitimacy of Prez vs PM if you allegedly weren't commenting on democratic legitimacy?

[JimC]

The potential power wielded by an Australian PM varies, although it is always circumscribed to a greater or lesser degree by the internal politics of the parliamentary party they belong to, made even more complex if there is a coalition. Some past PMs such as Whitlam, Fraser and Hawke probably had more personal power than recent PMs (by charisma or otherwise), and certainly more than the current PM, hamstrung by the right-wing rump within his own party. The key point of difference is that the cabinet (and the caucus that elects it) are all elected representatives of the people. Trump's "team" have absolutely no democratic underpinnings whatsoever...

[pErvinalia]

When you wrote "Not correct", you were wrong. What Hermit said is absolutely correct.

Let me make it clear for you. The pertinent concern isn't that the PM isn't directly elected while the Prez sort of is. I know you think that's the pertinent concern, but it's misguided. The reason it is misguided is because 1 - the executive in parliamentary systems are elected by the people (with no involvement of an Electoral College like in the US executive); and 2 - the real democratic threat in the commonwealth parliamentary systems (or at least some of them like ours) is that technically an unelected monarch is the head of state. The threat to executive democratic legitimacy ISN'T the parliament electing the PM, it's an unelected monarchy in another country sitting as the head of state.

On your second point, the Queen as head of state of the commonwealth nations has no political power in constitutional term (but perhaps some influence in cultural terms). The Queen is no more likely or able to interfere with the AUS, NZ or CAN etc legislature and executive than she is the UK's. The position of the Monarch as head of state is historical, not political, and while I'd agree that for a European Monarchy to have survived into the the 21st century is somewhat at odds with more than a 150 years' worth of wider social and political development, one has to remember that we never had a resetting revolution in the UK and that the Monarchy still has the support of about 75% of the population.

The point here is that the Monarchy is a constitutional fact but a political irrelevance with regard to the administration of executive power both in the UK and in it's dominions - with the exception of the Crown Dependencies of course, which are uniquely self-governing possessions of the Crown.

I'd be interested to know whether the Queen could actually interfere in Australian democracy if for whatever reason she felt like it. Could she actually sack the Australian government in a moment of madness (or perhaps sanity, if it was a Tony Abbott government)?

[JimC]

The issue is not really the Queen, but whether a future Governor General could repeat the Whitlam sacking off his own bat...

[Brian Peacock]

I suppose she could try, but I can't see it having any constitutional or legal force - even if it had broader social endorsement. Our colonial cousins are fundamentally politically autonomous entities bound to the motherland only by historical-cultural ties.

[pErvinalia]

The issue is not really the Queen, but whether a future Governor General could repeat the Whitlam sacking off his own bat...

Well the GG isn't put in position by the Queen. They are selected via parliamentary process. The Queen just rubber stamps it. But then the question could be: What if the Queen in a moment of madness decided she wanted to meddle in Aussie politics and deny the approval of the GG?

[pErvinalia]

I suppose she could try, but I can't see it having any constitutional or legal force - even if it had broader social endorsement. Our colonial cousins are fundamentally politically autonomous entities bound to the motherland only by historical-cultural ties.

Well as far as i am aware it does have constitutional force. It's actually social convention that stops her from meddling.

[Brian Peacock]

I don't know a great deal about the constitutional settlement of AUS but in the UK if the Queen criticised or expressed an adverse opinion about the government of the day--let alone refused to give assent to legislation--she'd basically be ignored - and told to STFU by the PM and/or Parliament. She's mostly a kind of mascot.

[pErvinalia]

You lot don't even have a constitution, so it's basically the rabble (either the masses or the hereditary rabble) in charge..

[Hermit]

On your second point, the Queen as head of state of the commonwealth nations has no political power in constitutional term.

On the contrary, in constitutional terms the UK monarchy is given complete executive power.

Section 61 – Executive power
The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

Section 62 – Federal Executive Council
There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor-General and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure.

Section 63 – Provisions referring to Governor-General
The provisions of this Constitution referring to the Governor-General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor-General acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council.

Section 64 – Ministers of State & Ministers to sit in Parliament
The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

Such officers shall hold office during he pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

Our government is known as a parliamentary constitutional monarchy for precisely this reason. While none of this is actually put into practice, the plenary power of the UK monarch remains in our constitution, and as such it remains a worry. If the monarch instructed the governor general to sack the government and replace it entirely with individuals of her personal choice, it would cause immense uproar and very likely a rebellion, but one cannot argue that the monarch had acted unconstitutionally. When Australia becomes a republic, those sections of Chapter 2, titled "The Executive Government", will have to be deleted altogether and the rest of the constitution rewritten from the ground up.

[Brian Peacock]

On your second point, the Queen as head of state of the commonwealth nations has no political power in constitutional term.

On the contrary, in constitutional terms the UK monarchy is given complete executive power.

Section 61 – Executive power
The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

Section 62 – Federal Executive Council
There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor-General and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure.

Section 63 – Provisions referring to Governor-General
The provisions of this Constitution referring to the Governor-General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor-General acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council.

Section 64 – Ministers of State & Ministers to sit in Parliament
The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

Such officers shall hold office during he pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

Our government is known as a parliamentary constitutional monarchy for precisely this reason. While none of this is actually put into practice, the plenary power of the UK monarch remains in our constitution, and as such it remains a worry. If the monarch instructed the governor general to sack the government and replace it entirely with individuals of her personal choice, it would cause immense uproar and very likely a rebellion, but one cannot argue that the monarch had acted unconstitutionally. When Australia becomes a republic, those sections of Chapter 2, titled "The Executive Government", will have to be deleted altogether and the rest of the constitution rewritten from the ground up.

As I think I mentioned before, either before or after the thread split, exercising the 'Royal Prerogative' on behalf of the Monarch, as the UK Prime Minster does, or (apparently) as the AUS Governor General does, does not functionally impinge on the independence of either Parliaments or the administration of executive power. It's a political nicety held to by tradition but with little or no effective influence. Yes, the Queen technically appoints the Prime Minister who, invested with her authority, forms the government, but she has no influence or say over who that is, what party they represent, or how they are to go about their business. Yes, the Monarch has a constitutional role, but only as a figurehead--as a kind of mascot as I put it earlier--but one who has no power to interfere with or influence democratic institutions and/or processes.

As pErvy pointed out, the UK doesn't have a written constitution and the fact that Australia does, and have integrated the Monarch into those documents, does not amount to very much more than a historical hangover to a time when national identity was still tightly bound to the notion of the 'motherland'. If for example the Australian people decided to disavow the notion of the English Monarch as their head of state there would be nothing the UK government or the offices of the Monarchy could, or would, be able to do about it - other than signing it off of course.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not defending the Monarchy - far from it, I think the very principle is anathema to the idea of a modern constitutional democracy - but thus divested of a political role the UK Monarchy are a curious cultural anachronism, tolerated (and to some extent cherished) mostly out of habit and tradition rather than democratic necessity.

In practical terms Australia and the UK are no less democratic than, say, Eire or the US for having a head of state appointed by hereditary convention rather than a parliamentary or popular vote (as I think 4.50016072003 * 9.333 was implying).