Australia to dump British monarchy - we should do the same!

[Smallc]

A different, costly, irrelevant and unnecessary, office. Yes.

First, the office costs near nothing....and it would need to be replaced. There needs to be someone in such a position within a parliamentary system. Look to so many European countries for an example. The Governor General's budget is quite small...you're talking about something different.

What you're talking about is the budget she gets for travel and security from Public Safety, DND, and Foreign Affairs. Also, there is the budget for Canadian honours, from the Department of Canadian Heritage and DND. The Governor General does not choose where she travels and what she does. Her ministers advise her on travel and ceremony, and she generally follows their advice.

As for being irrelevant and unnecessary, it is constitutionally and systemically necessary. I would start here:

http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=13288

to even begin to get an understanding of the office.

[PoliticalCitizen]

First, the office costs near nothing....and it would need to be replaced. There needs to be someone in such a position within a parliamentary system. Look to so many European countries for an example. The Governor General's budget is quite small...you're talking about something different.

What you're talking about is the budget she gets for travel and security from Public Safety, DND, and Foreign Affairs. Also, there is the budget for Canadian honours, from the Department of Canadian Heritage and DND. The Governor General does not choose where she travels and what she does. Her ministers advise her on travel and ceremony, and she generally follows their advice.

As for being irrelevant and unnecessary, it is constitutionally and systemically necessary. I would start here:

http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=13288

to even begin to get an understanding of the office.

Yes, you're right about the budget. What was it again? 35 Mil in 2002? What about 2009? 50 Mil? That's a hell of a lot of traveling... did a traveling circus accompany her?

The website is interesting... Her Exellency? Black woman and a refugee from French-speaking Haiti? What exactly is her relationship to the queen?

The whole thing seems ridiculous...

[Smallc]

Yes, you're right about the budget. What was it again? 35 Mil in 2002? What about 2009? 50 Mil? That's a hell of a lot of traveling... did a traveling circus accompany her?

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. That's not her budget, that's what was spent for her to do her job by various departments...and it wasn't her choice.

The website is interesting... Her Exellency? Black woman and a refugee from French-speaking Haiti? What exactly is her relationship to the queen?

The whole thing seems ridiculous...

To you, I suppose it does.

[PoliticalCitizen]

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/index-eng.asp

And the GG is appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, who gets his job by virtue of an elected Parliament.

All right, here's what the new government might look like:

1. Proportionally elected Parliament;

2. PM elected by the Parliament;

3. President elected directly by the voters;

4. Senate with certain number of seats per Province or Territory, with Senators elected by the corresponding Provinces or Territories.

[Smallc]

All right, here's what the new government might look like:

1. Proportionally elected Parliament;

2. PM elected by the Parliament;

3. President elected directly by the voters;

4. Senate with certain number of seats per Province or Territory, with Senators elected by the corresponding Provinces or Territories.

By parliament, i'm guessing you mean the House of Commons, since the Senate is 1/3 of parliament right now. What happens if enough people don't agree with your idea? And what will the new president do that will be different than what the governor general does now?

I already don't agree with you. First, the idea that the territories, who aren't partners in Confederation, have the same number of Senate seats as the provinces is outrageous. Second, I don't see senators appointed by provinces as any better than senators appointed by the prime minister.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Smallc

[ToadBrother]

All right, here's what the new government might look like:

1. Proportionally elected Parliament;

What kind of PR.

2. PM elected by the Parliament;

Sorta kinda works that way anyways.

3. President elected directly by the voters;

What sort of President? Parliamentary republic style, with essentially same powers as the Queen (ie. like India or Ireland)? Semi-presidential system with shared/competing powers by PM and President? You can't be talking about a Presidential system, because in that system, the President is both head of State and of Government (no need for a PM).

4. Senate with certain number of seats per Province or Territory, with Senators elected by the corresponding Provinces or Territories.

No complaint there.

[ToadBrother]

Yes, you're right about the budget. What was it again? 35 Mil in 2002? What about 2009? 50 Mil? That's a hell of a lot of traveling... did a traveling circus accompany her?

And you think an elected president would be cheaper?

[g_bambino]

And you think...

You're asking quite a lot there, TB.

[jbg]

Didn't you study history? Or at least, look at a history book before posting these brain farts of yours?

That assumes literacy. A big leap.

[jbg]

All right, here's what the new government might look like:

1. Proportionally elected Parliament;

2. PM elected by the Parliament;

3. President elected directly by the voters;

4. Senate with certain number of seats per Province or Territory, with Senators elected by the corresponding Provinces or Territories.

How would you avoid a popularly elected President and a PM elected by Parliament having a perpetual power struggle?

[PoliticalCitizen]

What kind of PR.

Open party list PR.

Sorta kinda works that way anyways.

Yes, but the powers of the PM will be much more limited.

What sort of President? Parliamentary republic style, with essentially same powers as the Queen (ie. like India or Ireland)? Semi-presidential system with shared/competing powers by PM and President? You can't be talking about a Presidential system, because in that system, the President is both head of State and of Government (no need for a PM).

Powers should be shared between the PM and the President with the PM acting as the head of the Parliament and the President appointing ministers and having executive powers. President's decisions would have to be approved by the PM/Parliament.

No complaint there.

Good

[PoliticalCitizen]

By parliament, i'm guessing you mean the House of Commons, since the Senate is 1/3 of parliament right now. What happens if enough people don't agree with your idea? And what will the new president do that will be different than what the governor general does now?

I already don't agree with you. First, the idea that the territories, who aren't partners in Confederation, have the same number of Senate seats as the provinces is outrageous. Second, I don't see senators appointed by provinces as any better than senators appointed by the prime minister.

Yes, House of Commons, as opposed to the House of Lords... the name would have to change as well

Senators ELECTED by Provinces. PM's appointment would hardly reflect the will of the Province whose interests the member of the Senate would be representing.

[PoliticalCitizen]

And you think an elected president would be cheaper?

No. But he would be a meaningful and elected official; who would also be the Head of State.

[PoliticalCitizen]

How would you avoid a popularly elected President and a PM elected by Parliament having a perpetual power struggle?

Both may belong to the same party in which case there shouldn't be much of a struggle.

Alternatively some struggle would exist but within the boundaries of the new juridical framework, which should have failsafes that prevent deadlock or collapse of the government.

[ToadBrother]

Open party list PR.

Oh goody, the least democratic and most party-centric system of PR there is. I'll stick with ours, thanks.

Yes, but the powers of the PM will be much more limited.

In what way precisely?

Powers should be shared between the PM and the President with the PM acting as the head of the Parliament and the President appointing ministers and having executive powers. President's decisions would have to be approved by the PM/Parliament.

In a way, this was how our system did work, up until the 19th century when the House of Commons gained supremacy. At any rate, this is fairly close to a semi-presidential model, and I'm not a fan. There's a lot of gridlock in France, for instance. I think the standard Westminster parliamentary model is more streamlined and efficient.

To my mind the best systems are Parliamentary and Presidential. Semi-presidential risks deadlock. Presidential offers a more consistent set of checks and balances, but Parliamentary, to my mind, is the most efficient. It's a trade off, like most things. To be honest with you, I think our system functions fairly well.

[ToadBrother]

Both may belong to the same party in which case there shouldn't be much of a struggle.

It's happened in France, and it's a recipe for gridlock.

Alternatively some struggle would exist but within the boundaries of the new juridical framework, which should have failsafes that prevent deadlock or collapse of the government.

How exactly would the judiciary help? They are bound by whatever constitution you create. The judiciary didn't cure France's gridlock problems of a socialist president and a right-wing PM. This looks like a bit of handwaving.

You see, creating constitutional governments is in fact a rather hard thing to do. Go read the Federalist Papers, and you'll find out just how much effort went into the US Constitution.

I'm still not exactly seeing how you would produce the benefits that would make the risks of turfing the constitution worth it. There are problems with our system, though I think they've been overblown somewhat by the sore losers. But look at presidential and semi-presidential systems. They are hardly problem-free.

As to PR voting, I'm for certain kinds. Party lists are the worst, benefiting the parties but doing little for the electorate. To my mind, whatever system we go with, every single candidate must have a specific geographical constituency that he or she represents, and who he or she is ultimately responsible to. Party lists are designed to create apparatchik drones. It's the worst aspect of Germany's democratic institutions, for instance.

[myata]

We could toss it over forever... but it (PR) just ain't going to happen.. here. In fact nothing is going to happen here (politically), all glorious achievements in this country being firmly (and safely) assigned to the glorious past.

This means among other things like "stability" and "predictability" and "extreme boredom of political life" that there's exactly one serious challenge we (or our ancestors) have yet to face as a country. And it will come, sooner or later because such is the nature of life.

[ToadBrother]

We could toss it over forever... but it (PR) just ain't going to happen.. here. In fact nothing is going to happen here (politically), all glorious achievements in this country being firmly (and safely) assigned to the glorious past.

I wouldn't say that at all. I suspect that if the UK goes for the Alternative Vote system, I think we may see some movement on this side of the pond.

This means among other things like "stability" and "predictability" and "extreme boredom of political life" that there's exactly one serious challenge we (or our ancestors) have yet to face as a country. And it will come, sooner or later because such is the nature of life.

I'd give a lot for a boring political system.

[Moonlight Graham]

It sounds to me as if the suggestion has been made, not that the decision has been made. Seems to me your thread title is misleading.

ditto. This is just the PM mouthing off. Not a decision.

[ToadBrother]

Looks like Australia is the next of Her Majesty's Realms to go to a minority government, or a coalition to try to govern. I'm beginning to sense a pattern here.

[jbg]

You see, creating constitutional governments is in fact a rather hard thing to do. Go read the Federalist Papers, and you'll find out just how much effort went into the US Constitution.

You sure got that read of American history right.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Looks like the Australian elections went haywire - the parties are scrabling to win the support of independents; so they may not be dumping the old lady yet...

[ToadBrother]

Looks like the Australian elections went haywire - the parties are scrabling to win the support of independents; so they may not be dumping the old lady yet...

It was going to take a lot more than the musings of candidates to do it anyways. While support for the monarchy is probably the lowest of any the realms, I still wouldn't want to bet even my little toe on a yes vote in a referendum.

But you're right. The name of the game right now, as it is in the UK and Canada, is political survival.