Community Messageboard: I did not realize lack of a parliamentary majority dictated his cabinet. by Joel

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

I did not realize lack of a parliamentary majority dictated his cabinet. Joel Send a noteboard - 09/03/2012 12:27:31 AM

Specifically, what you said about the French presidency being a far more powerful position if his party also has a parliamentary majority. The US president is in a similar, if not identical, position (hence Obama screwed the pooch in not taking advantage of the Democratic House and Senate majorities while he still had them.)

Indeed. Still, there's a big difference in the sense that the US president can always appoint his own cabinet, regardless of his party's position in Congress. A French president can indeed appoint a PM pretty much at will if his party controls the parliament, and has at least a strong voice in who will get which ministry, but if his party doesn't control the parliament, whoever does (or can create a coalition that does) can become PM and the president's say in the division of the ministries becomes essentially non-existent. At that point the president is left with little concrete power, and reduced to much the same position as the kings and queens of constitutional monarchies, or the president of e.g. Germany. He has a bit more power than those - I believe he still has the nuclear access codes, and might even have a veto of some sort - but not much more.

Do NOT provoke the guy with the Football.

That situation does make the presidency rather anemic absent a parliamentary majority though; unless he does, in fact, retain veto power it is hard to see how it is anything more than a purely ceremonial position.

I suppose it must be possible for a president with a majority to annoy his own party so much that they decide to stop following his lead, vote in their own PM and bring him into much the same position, but I don't believe that has happened yet...

Without knowing more, my guess would be no one has enjoyed single party rule long enough for discontent with the party leader to reach that level and/or MPs lack latitude to secure re-election by opposing their party when constituents do. Honestly, if not for two party rule I am certain the party would have expelled many "Democratic" Congressmen long ago; as it is, Dems live in fear of that because nearly everyone who leaves the party does so as a preface to joining the GOP.

It is more a matter of the PM being both a member of the legislative majority AND head of state. In some ways that gives Britains PM greater (if more precarious) power than the US president. The PMs situation seems more like Obamas before 2010 or Clintons before 1994; he may need the Whip to keep a few unruly party members in line, but seldom faces an openly hostile majority (if only because such majorities tend to relieve him of that burden, by bringing down his government.

)

Very true. Minority governments can happen, but they tend not to last very long as it only takes one lost vote of non-confidence to put an end to things. Yet another difference with the US, that... a PM can be dismissed by a simple vote of non-confidence in the House, at any time, if a majority can be found for it.

True, but both our approach and theirs are something of a mixed blessing. Impeachment DOES provide recourse for removing a president prior to the next election (one can only imagine how American government would have fared had Nixon been able to serve the last three years of his term after Watergate was discovered.) Unfortunately, since party tickets were only a constitutional amendment after the impeachment process was codified, its effectiveness has been diminished. Even when the president faced impeachment for covering up an attempt to rig the election AND the VP resigned amid bribery charges, Nixon just adroitly appointed Ford to succeed Agnew, resigned and received a full pardon for "all crimes he may have committed" (a blank check that went far beyond Watergate; that language from a member of the Warren Commission is very intriguing.) Even in that extreme case very little changed, and in any successful impeachment the presidents deputy would simply assume the presidency in his place.

On the other hand, perhaps that is well, since the head of state can only be removed for "high crimes and misdemeanors" rather than partisan or policy reasons. Removing Chamberlain on the eve of WWII was a necessity; removing Churchill in the middle of it would have been a disaster—but perfectly feasible under federal law.

Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.

This message last edited by Joel on 09/03/2012 at 12:29:35 AM

Edit 1 by Joel on 09/03/2012 at 12:29:35 AM

Reply to message

Now That Romney Is Officially the Republican Presidential Nominee: Pick the President!

Joel - 29/02/2012 08:29:02 PM 1246 Views

I agree Romney will be the candidate. Tom - 29/02/2012 08:54:52 PM 642 Views

I would say the math favors Romney over Obama, but it will probably be close either way. Joel - 01/03/2012 03:37:52 PM 692 Views

I have never understood the point of the Electoral College. Tim - 29/02/2012 11:39:11 PM 693 Views

You don't think like a politician then

Isaac - 01/03/2012 12:38:36 AM 733 Views

I certainly hadn't considered much of that. I'm glad you posted it. *NM* Ghavrel - 01/03/2012 07:15:03 AM 310 Views

I also have not seen most of that mentioned in the popular vs. electoral debate. Joel - 01/03/2012 02:34:31 PM 619 Views

what about one vote one value? wadsy - 02/03/2012 11:51:32 PM 703 Views

That has not really changed. Joel - 03/03/2012 03:30:34 AM 885 Views

a bit simplistic and unrealistic wadsy - 02/03/2012 11:44:02 PM 662 Views

When illustrating a point realism is not required and simplicity is a plus Isaac - 03/03/2012 03:04:26 AM 677 Views

I have a couple quibbles. Joel - 03/03/2012 05:23:46 AM 702 Views

Oh, certainly, I'm over-generalizing but I was already getting long-winded Isaac - 03/03/2012 06:52:04 AM 667 Views

I hate when people do that.

Joel - 05/03/2012 09:49:36 AM 647 Views

What a bunch of waffle! wadsy - 03/03/2012 10:47:19 AM 802 Views

First you complain of simplicity then of my lack of brevity? Isaac - 03/03/2012 11:18:11 AM 597 Views

A simplistic argument doesn't mean it's brief *NM* wadsy - 03/03/2012 09:55:51 PM 330 Views

Also I don't like this refrain that implies only the POTUS vote matters Isaac - 03/03/2012 03:29:58 AM 822 Views

IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college. Joel - 03/03/2012 05:57:41 AM 624 Views

Re: IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college. Isaac - 03/03/2012 07:02:30 AM 660 Views

*is learning* Joel - 04/03/2012 09:49:42 PM 653 Views

Re: *is learning* Isaac - 04/03/2012 09:56:16 PM 665 Views

To the extent I can (yet again) claim to speak for Europeans... Legolas - 04/03/2012 10:33:01 PM 641 Views

I've fairly limited exposure and that from some years back Isaac - 04/03/2012 11:35:12 PM 700 Views

Re: *is learning* Joel - 05/03/2012 12:08:08 AM 703 Views

You could imitate the French.

Legolas - 07/03/2012 10:40:16 PM 635 Views

That seems... unlikely....

Joel - 08/03/2012 03:03:54 PM 637 Views

It does, doesn't it?

Legolas - 08/03/2012 06:11:08 PM 834 Views

After I thought about it more, I realized France and the US are not so different in that respect. Joel - 08/03/2012 08:51:03 PM 614 Views

More similar than the other major Western democracies at least, agreed. Legolas - 08/03/2012 09:32:55 PM 592 Views

I did not realize lack of a parliamentary majority dictated his cabinet. Joel - 09/03/2012 12:27:31 AM 670 Views

I don't know much about Norwegian politics, but you seem to be wrong. Legolas - 03/03/2012 06:18:08 PM 672 Views

Do you happen to have that link, please? Joel - 03/03/2012 06:46:31 PM 555 Views

Sure. Legolas - 03/03/2012 06:58:07 PM 728 Views

Guess we did not read far enough. Joel - 03/03/2012 10:38:07 PM 671 Views

Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics... Legolas - 03/03/2012 11:49:44 PM 873 Views

Hey, man, I am an AMERICAN: I do not HAVE to know ANYTHING!

Joel - 04/03/2012 11:46:57 PM 893 Views

Re: Hey, man, I am an AMERICAN: I do not HAVE to know ANYTHING!

Legolas - 05/03/2012 11:14:42 PM 1207 Views

Re: Hey, man, I am an AMERICAN: I do not HAVE to know ANYTHING!

Joel - 08/03/2012 02:56:02 PM 727 Views

Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics... DomA - 05/03/2012 06:56:24 AM 675 Views

The thing is, regions often have national relevance far greater than their populations would suggest Joel - 05/03/2012 10:21:26 AM 626 Views

Fascinating. Legolas - 05/03/2012 10:52:32 PM 654 Views

Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics... Macharius - 08/03/2012 07:11:12 PM 625 Views

Many valid reasons, including those Isaac cited. Joel - 02/03/2012 02:26:37 AM 771 Views

Most states are ignored anyway wadsy - 02/03/2012 11:56:12 PM 849 Views

Only because and to the extent they have already committed themselves. Joel - 03/03/2012 03:41:39 AM 697 Views

Why would we do something logical? Dude, you're utterly ridiculous. *NM* callandor1000 - 05/03/2012 04:53:38 PM 366 Views

I'm kind of sad- does this mean Santorum won't be providing wonderful sound bites anymore? beetnemesis - 01/03/2012 02:22:31 PM 613 Views

Nothing has shut him up yet, why should this? *NM* Dannymac - 01/03/2012 05:27:30 PM 348 Views

Maybe he'll pull a Palin and go touring around the country *NM* beetnemesis - 01/03/2012 07:06:02 PM 318 Views

No, it probably means we will get more and worse than ever. Joel - 01/03/2012 11:25:25 PM 794 Views

Romney or Obama, either way, America loses. *NM* Hieshyn - 02/03/2012 01:10:26 AM 440 Views

Hard to dispute that either; six of one, half a dozen of the other. Joel - 02/03/2012 01:38:07 AM 596 Views

Couldn't agree more *NM* Hieshyn - 02/03/2012 06:52:51 PM 357 Views

It reminds me of when Denver backed into the NFL playoffs. Joel - 02/03/2012 09:36:13 PM 583 Views

I'd agree hope and change was extremely unrealistic wadsy - 02/03/2012 11:58:57 PM 588 Views

Well, you know my story there; I voted for Obama and got Hillary (at best.) Joel - 03/03/2012 01:43:20 AM 608 Views

Update: Despite rules requiring they be split, the MI GOP is giving Romney BOTH statewide delegates. Joel - 02/03/2012 11:10:56 PM 699 Views

Romney is damaged wadsy - 02/03/2012 11:27:33 PM 607 Views

Obama is rather damaged also; it will probably come down to FL and OH, yet again. Joel - 03/03/2012 02:23:53 AM 710 Views

I'm hoping for Rubio as VP... then FL probably won't matter Isaac - 03/03/2012 04:28:08 AM 596 Views

You should put that on your license plates.

Joel - 03/03/2012 06:41:34 AM 720 Views

Re: You should put that on your license plates.

Isaac - 03/03/2012 06:51:00 AM 664 Views

Ax murderers are people, too!

Joel - 04/03/2012 08:23:41 PM 616 Views

And what are you basing all of this on? wadsy - 03/03/2012 09:54:06 PM 707 Views

The closeness of several states when Obama was far more popular, and UTs heavily Mormon neighbors. Joel - 03/03/2012 11:44:06 PM 659 Views

Wrong wadsy - 04/03/2012 08:08:56 AM 782 Views

Higher turnout magnifies the Mormon effect. Joel - 04/03/2012 08:08:09 PM 817 Views

Your reasoning is flawed and if you can't see it there is no hope for you wadsy - 05/03/2012 11:39:04 PM 723 Views

Yeah, I think we had that conversation already, several times, in fact. Joel - 07/03/2012 05:36:45 AM 561 Views

Do you have any knowledge of statistics at all? wadsy - 07/03/2012 09:04:15 PM 721 Views

I hate this message board wadsy - 07/03/2012 09:06:30 PM 516 Views

It would probably help if you deleted the stuff from two, three posts back? Legolas - 07/03/2012 09:25:40 PM 632 Views

Some, though it is far from exhaustive. Joel - 08/03/2012 02:29:06 PM 700 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="247049">
<quote id="247037"><quote id="247033">Specifically, what you said about the French presidency being a far more powerful position if his party also has a parliamentary majority.  The US president is in a similar, if not identical, position (hence Obama screwed the pooch in not taking advantage of the Democratic House and Senate majorities while he still had them.) </quote>
Indeed. Still, there's a big difference in the sense that the US president can always appoint his own cabinet, regardless of his party's position in Congress. A French president can indeed appoint a PM pretty much at will if his party controls the parliament, and has at least a strong voice in who will get which ministry, but if his party doesn't control the parliament, whoever does (or can create a coalition that does) can become PM and the president's say in the division of the ministries becomes essentially non-existent. At that point the president is left with little concrete power, and reduced to much the same position as the kings and queens of constitutional monarchies, or the president of e.g. Germany. He has a bit more power than those - I believe he still has the nuclear access codes, and might even have a veto of some sort - but not much more.</quote>
Do NOT provoke the guy with the Football. (8 That situation does make the presidency rather anemic absent a parliamentary majority though; unless he does, in fact, retain veto power it is hard to see how it is anything more than a purely ceremonial position.

<quote id="247037">I suppose it must be possible for a president with a majority to annoy his own party so much that they decide to stop following his lead, vote in their own PM and bring him into much the same position, but I don't believe that has happened yet...</quote>
Without knowing more, my guess would be no one has enjoyed single party rule long enough for discontent with the party leader to reach that level and/or MPs lack latitude to secure re-election by opposing their party when constituents do.  Honestly, if not for two party rule I am certain the party would have expelled many "Democratic" Congressmen long ago; as it is, Dems live in fear of that because nearly everyone who leaves the party does so as a preface to joining the GOP.

<quote id="247037"><quote id="247033">It is more a matter of the PM being both a member of the legislative majority AND head of state.  In some ways that gives Britains PM greater (if more precarious) power than the US president.  The PMs situation seems more like Obamas before 2010 or Clintons before 1994; he may need the Whip to keep a few unruly party members in line, but seldom faces an openly hostile majority (if only because such majorities tend to relieve him of that burden, by bringing down his government. :P)</quote>
Very true. Minority governments can happen, but they tend not to last very long as it only takes one lost vote of non-confidence to put an end to things. Yet another difference with the US, that... a PM can be dismissed by a simple vote of non-confidence in the House, at any time, if a majority can be found for it. </quote>
True, but both our approach and theirs are something of a mixed blessing.  Impeachment DOES provide recourse for removing a president prior to the next election (one can only imagine how American government would have fared had Nixon been able to serve the last three years of his term after Watergate was discovered.)  Unfortunately, since party tickets were only a constitutional amendment after the impeachment process was codified, its effectiveness has been diminished.  Even when the president faced impeachment for covering up an attempt to rig the election AND the VP resigned amid bribery charges, Nixon just adroitly appointed Ford to succeed Agnew, resigned and received a full pardon for "all crimes he may have committed" (a blank check that went far beyond Watergate; that language from a member of the Warren Commission is very intriguing.)  Even in that extreme case very little changed, and in any successful impeachment the presidents deputy would simply assume the presidency in his place.

On the other hand, perhaps that is well, since the head of state can only be removed for "high crimes and misdemeanors" rather than partisan or policy reasons.  Removing Chamberlain on the eve of WWII was a necessity; removing Churchill in the middle of it would have been a disaster—but perfectly feasible under federal law.
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password