ok I found "past prime ministers" on the No. 10 website; right in front of me, as usual.

Ricky: you were answering to me about minority governments. Now, I understand that that is when a party wins a plurality of seats in the federal Parliament (or one of the provincial legislatures) but not greater than 50% of them?

So in order to pass its agenda, it will have to ally and/or compromise with other MPs in the chamber, from different parties, perhaps even distinctly different?

It was my understanding that, in parliamentary democracy (although, this is where every one of the two major types of democracy show their fifty shades of gray) some sort of alliance is required between parties to form a government. Canada is perhaps different because minority governments in your country are possible, but not necessarily likely? But there are a bunch of other countries which do not allow minority governments, or where they would not be possible: should the "victor" win the most votes, but still short of the promised land, there must be a coalition government formed. I think this seems to have to happen when there are more than just three major parties: if there are four or five, or perhaps only a couple major parties and a bizillion little ones, you cannot have a "minority government"...or maybe those countries' constitutions specifically prohibit them....I would guess. And I think this might be the case in Israel which [I read] is in the Guinness Book of Records for longest time taken to form a coalition government (100+ or 300+ days I think it said? have to look it up again to make sure of that).

What happens when a minority government isn't getting support on legislation from other parties? Is the prime minister then obligated, either by written constitution or by custom, to ask the governor-general to dissolve parliament/hold elections?

They only have to call fresh elections if they lose a confidence vote or a de facto confidence vote like a budget.

hacker, coalition governments can work fine. As I said earlier some of the most popular Canadian legislation today, came from minority governments. The thing about parliamentary minority governments where cabinet members must come from the legislature is that actual positions of power are shared. And that marries parties for the mandate period.
Althought there are plenty of instances where parliamentary systems are gridlocked its not as entrenched as the current situation in Washington. Moreover, the solutions for ending gridlock in parliamentary systems are known and eventually applied when ever it happens. Mostly compromise... Sometimes, new elections.
The problem in the US now is that the gridlock is the result of a more complex legislative system, more complicated electoral system, and a stem with only two opponents. Face to face compromise is less likely than when compromise between 2 or 3 parties in a multi party legislature over coming opposition from the other parties... More options. More opportunity.

Guys, before I reply just now, do any of you folks have an iPad? Do you also if so have a litle tiny keyboard you can carry around? And if so also, is there any way to fix the fact taht the virtual keyboard keeps gosh-darn popping up in the most annoying way/ Would appreciate that folks

Anyway, ipads notwithstanding, I have another question (UK this time). I noticed on the "former prime ministers" at the no. 10 website that some of these past PMs seem to have been "the third earl of [whatever]"...being "the third" leads me to believe that this was obviously Not a "peer for life" or something (and from what you said, they did not have those way back in the day, did they? Like, before the 20th century..?).

So were some of the very past prime ministers drawn from the House of Lords, and not the House of Commons? I see that the last seems to have been the Marquess of Salisbury ("real" name being Robert Cecil...) around the turn of the century. But then of course it says "Baroness Thatcher" but that was of course a life peerage, bestowed upon her well AFTER her premiership came to a crashing halt. Right?

Many prime ministers had one or two (or more) non-consecutive premierships, it looks like so that's why the order looks a little...off. There might have been a couple of prime ministers who had it three times if I read correctly.

(We only have had one president with two, non-consecutive four year terms, and count him twice as 22nd and 24th presidents...so Barack Obama is counted as the 44th, not 43rd, president.)

Also my dad asked me a question: Churchill's father was in the House of Commons correct? But wasn't he already Duke of [something-or-other] at the same time? Could you have a peerage but still run for a seat in the Commons, back then? (thinking, late 19th century?)

Er...everyone on vacation, or just lost interest? Eeeeeeee....

Oh I wanted to say: from what you gentlemen have told me about coalitions and minority governments it almost sounds as if the latter are a little bit more "democratic" than the former. After reading this paragraph feel free to correct me or offer critique to what is essentially an assumption on my part based on what you've told me so far:

A minority government may have to give in to pressure from other MPs to whom they must reach out to in order to get their legislation passed. A coalition, well, if the voters in the districts electing Party A beliieve in certain things, voters who elected Party B believe in certain things (that were the platform on which that party's deputies ran; these parties) and Party C believe in certain things their voters voted them in for....etc....and Party A has a little bigger number and is the plurality, but must make an alliance with Parties B and C to form a government (I have read that not all countrys' constitutions or parliamentary customs allow for even a very large minority government, even if it held a large plurality of seats, hence the requirement to form a coalition even *most* of the time), they will most assuredly have to meet together to reach a compromise, which may in some senses betray the beliefs that maybe the voters who voted in those parties believe in. At least with a minority government, from what I have learned from the both of you so far, only has to reach across the aisle vis a vis each individual issue or vote.

This is just a guess on my part. Feel free to correct me. Am I correct in this guess, guys? About minority governments vs. coalition governments in the paragraph above?

Er...everyone on vacation, or just lost interest? Eeeeeeee....

I've been on a stag do for a few days. Oddly enough, we all went to the horse racing dressed in full country gent style tweeds and somehow ended up in a conversation with Lord Cavendish, the local lord of the manor. We came a cropper here as it turned out that the horse we'd been pretending to own to everybody we talked to turned out to belong to him... But I digress.

I have another question (UK this time). I noticed on the "former prime ministers" at the no. 10 website that some of these past PMs seem to have been "the third earl of [whatever]"...being "the third" leads me to believe that this was obviously Not a "peer for life" or something (and from what you said, they did not have those way back in the day, did they? Like, before the 20th century..?).

So were some of the very past prime ministers drawn from the House of Lords, and not the House of Commons? I see that the last seems to have been the Marquess of Salisbury ("real" name being Robert Cecil...) around the turn of the century. But then of course it says "Baroness Thatcher" but that was of course a life peerage, bestowed upon her well AFTER her premiership came to a crashing halt. Right?

The 3rd Earl of wherever would be the grandson of the 1st Earl. Life peerages were introduced in the early part of the 20th century (I have 1913 in my head for some reason, but that will probably be wrong). It was brought in by the government of the day in order to break the dominance of the naturally very conservative aristocratic Peers in the House of Lords. Prior to the invention of life peerages it was still possible to ennoble people, but they then became hereditary members of the aristoicracy themselves. This, and other provisions of the Parliament Act shifted power firmly in the Commons' favour and effectively ended the period where it was possible for a Prime Minister to sit in the Lords. Constitutionally there isn't any bar to it, but practically it could never happen these days. Prior to that though, PMs sitting in the Lords was commonplace. Palmerston and Salisbury and the Duke of Wellington were all Prime Ministers at various times in the 19th Century, and there have been others. The last time a member of the Lords became PM was Alec Douglas-Home in the early 60s, but he had to renounce his peerage and stand for the Commons to do it.

Many prime ministers had one or two (or more) non-consecutive premierships, it looks like so that's why the order looks a little...off. There might have been a couple of prime ministers who had it three times if I read correctly.

Yes, this is not uncommon. Wilson won 3 elections, although they weren't all consecutive, Thatcher won 3, Blair won 3.

Also my dad asked me a question: Churchill's father was in the House of Commons correct? But wasn't he already Duke of [something-or-other] at the same time? Could you have a peerage but still run for a seat in the Commons, back then? (thinking, late 19th century?)

Churchill was closely related to the Dukes of Marlborough (the Churchill family is quite a famous one; the first Duke, John Churchill, was a famous war hero and scourge of the French in the War of the Spanish Succession, which earned him his peerage). Winston wasn't actually Duke himself though.

hacker

Many prime ministers had one or two (or more) non-consecutive premierships, it looks like so that's why the order looks a little...off. There might have been a couple of prime ministers who had it three times if I read correctly

You have defined the difference betwen coalition and minority government. A coalition is an active partnership and sharing of cabinet positions. A minority survives with support in the commons from opposition members when votes of confidence come up.

As to non-cosecutive... Lots in Canada. Including our first Pm MacDonald, .And Laurier, King and Trudeau for instance. KIng was primeminister for 22 years. Three terms, nonceonsecutively. The third for 13 years.... Odd duck. Life long bachelor, who's famous for attending seances and talking to his dead mother.
At the other end, Abbot Turner and Campbell were PM for 3 or 4 months...
PMs are numbered by their first time as PM. Harper, the current PM is 22.

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/prime-ministers

A minority government may have to give in to pressure from other MPs to whom they must reach out to in order to get their legislation passed. A coalition, well, if the voters in the districts electing Party A beliieve in certain things, voters who elected Party B believe in certain things (that were the platform on which that party's deputies ran; these parties) and Party C believe in certain things their voters voted them in for....etc....and Party A has a little bigger number and is the plurality, but must make an alliance with Parties B and C to form a government (I have read that not all countrys' constitutions or parliamentary customs allow for even a very large minority government, even if it held a large plurality of seats, hence the requirement to form a coalition even *most* of the time), they will most assuredly have to meet together to reach a compromise, which may in some senses betray the beliefs that maybe the voters who voted in those parties believe in. At least with a minority government, from what I have learned from the both of you so far, only has to reach across the aisle vis a vis each individual issue or vote.

Outcomes vary depending on the electoral system and the way that the political culture has been shaped by it. In countries that have a version of proportional representation of the kind that Ricky prefers, you tend to find that forming a majority government is completely impossible. This means that there will always be some kind of a coalition. Often the coalition will just be two or three parties that usually work together anyway and there's no surprise that it happens again, but not always. Either way though, the voters know full well that they're not really voting for a specific platform because the actual government that takes shape with be formed from multiple parties and negotiated behind closed doors after the votes have been counted. I personally don't approve of this, but I suppose in purely representative terms it is more 'democratic'. The point though is that coalition and compromise is the norm and the expectation in a lot of countries. It doesn't necessarily lead to better government of course.

Minority governments are comparatively rare and inherently unstable. Typically they last for 2 or 3 years before fresh elections are called. This is not to say that there can't be very effective minority governments, but they seldom last very long.

It is my personal belief that sometimes, in parliamentary governments forming a coalition, it almost always betrays the will of the voters because the government that the plurality party leader is attempting to form, right after an election, comes from a very wide range of options he or she (and his or her inner circle within the plurality party MPs) especially when there are more than three or four parties at the most; a "multiparty" parliamentary democracy that allows the little fish inside the tank is always going to have a hell of a time forming a new government without seriously diluting (or even betraying) its own platform and manifesto. Not that I've lived under one, but am making an observation. "Winning" parties must then water down their original objectives just to make sure they command a majority once the negotiations are over. Italy is a great case of this and Edward Luttwak explains it pretty well in his book about military coups. If you think "gridlock" cannot happen in a parliamentary democracy, or even happen, but still not as much as in the American presidential system, my suggestion is you look at Italy. The gridlock is there, it's just manifested in a different form. When government after powerless government occurs thanks to its reliance on coalitions, not a damn thing gets done. Look at the 4th Republic of France. The German "Weimar" Republic. There is a reason the 5th republic of France has such a powerful executive branch (contrary to popular belief, the "semipresidential" republics strengthen the Executive branch at the expense of the legislative...not the other way around. Hint: it was designed by Charles de Gaulle to correct the weak executives of the 4th republic---is it just me or do the French seem to have bad luck with republics???)

The result is the same in Italy as you believe it is in the United States; our two countries simply arrived in the same place via different routes. Because I have to be honest with you: there are parliamentary governments, Italy included, that do NOT produce a "strong government with the abiity to act."

That's why I have to agree with ricky this time...a minority government at least doesn't have to water itself down to command a majority. But in a way, running a minority government in a parliamentary democracy is not too far removed from running a "split" government in America. The main difference is, of course, if there is a bit of gridlock in the U.S., the President [thankfully!] does not have the power to dissolve Congress.

In other words, a parliamentary government here would not solve these problems. And the short term of the members of the House of Representatives ensures you at least do not have to wait too long for it to happen, either. That's why I have inisisted all along: we achieve the same essential goal (prevention of despotism in government) via different routes.

During the Clinton Administration we had "good times" in some ways. A lot of effort was taken back then to compromise between the president and Congress, even if Bill Clinton really did not want to or intend to compromise on such measures. Let anyone complain all they want about gridlock. Truth be told, we *usually* have decent times under divided governments. Presidential democracy is at least designed to handle that to an extent, without sacrificing the entire stability of the government. Not all parliamentary governments have been able to pull that off.

sass

Minority governments are comparatively rare and inherently unstable. Typically they last for 2 or 3 years before fresh elections are called

There is a nation wide congressional election in the US every 2 years... If a shorter time frame for a parliamentary election is a sign of instability .....then an election every two years is what? It means constant electioneering.
And, BTW Sass, the system I prefer is 50% proportional and 50% direct... It ensures minority views are represented even if they are only a small percentage. But it also provides constituents a direct representative to petition and more likely majoriities.

hacker
.

But in a way, running a minority government in a parliamentary democracy is not too far removed from running a "split" government in America

A couple of very important exceptions. Losing a non-confidence vote in a parliament leads to an election. There are direct consequences that sometimes a minority doesn't want. In a recent Ontario vote, the NDP forced an election in just this way. As the minor party that held the balance of power in a minority govneremnt they had forced a budget that they could have written. But for some reason thought an election more opportune. They lost seats and the ruling Liberals came back with a majority.

I take your point about italy. Thats partly why i think a system like germany more likely. However the gridlock in Italy actually reflects Italian society.
More often in todays Washington the gridlock is caused because their are legislative tools that allow small minorities to stop action. And because the evolution of the primary system and the cost of elections has driven party discipline (especially in the republican party) to a point where few congressmen or senators are willing to cross the floor . They are punished for compromising.

hacker

a minority government at least doesn't have to water itself down to command a majority

.
Theorectically. But usually, because governments want to govern, they do.... At least for a time and until they can force a vote on an issue they want to compete an election upon..

hacker
T

ruth be told, we *usually* have decent times under divided governments. Presidential democracy is at least designed to handle that to an extent, without sacrificing the entire stability of the government

Under Newt the republicans began to take more and more extreme positions. As a party they have become both doctrinare and extreme. Compromise is not tolerated. And because primaries, and the cost of campaigning are so high .... there are few moderate republicans anymore.
When compromise is not tolerated ....... it really doesn't matter what system you have. But, when you've provided legislative tools where small minorities can stop bills coming to vote or passsing with majorities .... then you have the current disaster in Washington.
Italy, non-withstanding ..... compromise is generally tolerated and understood in most European parliaments.

There is a nation wide congressional election in the US every 2 years... If a shorter time frame for a parliamentary election is a sign of instability .....then an election every two years is what? It means constant electioneering.

I know this, which is why I explicitly raised it as a problem in an earlier post. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Well (before I can make a more detailed response) is that it sounds to me like the problems you are citing (legislative obstruction, for example) are less constitutional, and more procedural. I understand what you're saying about obstruction, about campaign costs and spending. These legislative tools you mention, NONE (except one or two) are actually written into the Constitution. There was a little intro in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th Ed. about the development of American parliamentary procedure. Early congresses had to almost "play it by ear" and use the same custom practiced in the Continental Congresses, the state legislatures (formerly colonial legislatures) that already existed, and a lot of that came from the experience of the Houses of Lords & Commons.

One thing about Germany (your "half-and-half" system) I wonder if the Weimar Republic actually had the same scheme? Something makes me strongly suspect that it did (because a lot of little parties were able to gain seats in the Reichstag or "Imperial Diet" in the 1920s, with very harmful effects, actually). If that is so, the only thing that keeps the German Government "stable" in the present system are the two big changes they put in the Grundgezetz (sp? The basic law?) in 1949: 1)the rule of Constructive No-Confidence; and 2)the 5% Rule. The former means that you cannot just vote no-confidence in the incumbent chancellor and her government and leave it at that: the motion must contain the name of the new chancellor, in case the vote succeeds. The latter means you have to win at least 5% of the vote (out of the party list seats) to be allocated those seats in the Bundestag.

Otherwise Germany would be nearly as farcical and near-dysfunctional as Italy. It's not the half-and-half system that keeps Germany more stable--without the 5% rule and the rule of Constructive No-Confidence Germany would be Italy times ten (or Weimar 2.0). It actually makes it (or WOULD make it) far more unstable, without the two rules I mentioned (and others, perhaps, that I'm not aware of). Because the old constitution allowed for the country to go weeks without finding out who the new frigging chancellor is (following a no-confidence vote) and who was going to be in the new coalition government, following an election, what with all the tiny little parties.

But in any case, from what I have heard, there are other somewhat-dysfunctional governments in the E.U. An the European Parliament itself I hear a lot of scorn and...resentment from all countries. Actually, even though I'm pleased you already agree with me on Italy, I ought to quote that bit from Coup d'etat: A Practical Handbook. Just because it's interesting, really...

I know there has been that kind polarization--believe me, I can feel it being gay and living in a republican county within a Blue State but having some republican-ish beliefs, I feel it more than most people--but there is still some independence, especially among the Senators. I have an app for iPad, My Congress, and it does say how often Senator/Rep. X votes with his/her party, how many bills he or she sponsored or co-sponsored, and how many of those bills got to the promised land.

JimHackerMP wrote:One thing about Germany (your "half-and-half" system) I wonder if the Weimar Republic actually had the same scheme? Something makes me strongly suspect that it did (because a lot of little parties were able to gain seats in the Reichstag or "Imperial Diet" in the 1920s, with very harmful effects, actually).

It wasn't 'half and half' - The Wiemar period saw elections to the Reichstag on a national proportional system, and there were no thresholds.

If that is so, the only thing that keeps the German Government "stable" in the present system are the two big changes they put in the Grundgezetz (sp? The basic law?) in 1949: 1)the rule of Constructive No-Confidence; and 2)the 5% Rule. The former means that you cannot just vote no-confidence in the incumbent chancellor and her government and leave it at that: the motion must contain the name of the new chancellor, in case the vote succeeds. The latter means you have to win at least 5% of the vote (out of the party list seats) to be allocated those seats in the Bundestag.

1949 did not see 'changes' to the Basic Law, it saw the establishment of it. The Basic Law is essentially the Constitution of the FRG, and amendments made during it's drafting are analogous to the Bill of Rights in the USA. The Basic Law represented a complete break not only from the Nazi system (which was a legal mess anyway), and the Weimar constitution which it perverted, which was by then all but defunct during the occupation by the allies.

Otherwise Germany would be nearly as farcical and near-dysfunctional as Italy. It's not the half-and-half system that keeps Germany more stable--without the 5% rule and the rule of Constructive No-Confidence Germany would be Italy times ten (or Weimar 2.0). It actually makes it (or WOULD make it) far more unstable, without the two rules I mentioned (and others, perhaps, that I'm not aware of). Because the old constitution allowed for the country to go weeks without finding out who the new frigging chancellor is (following a no-confidence vote) and who was going to be in the new coalition government, following an election, what with all the tiny little parties.

To be honest, I think there has been a social pressure in Germany to not have political chaos, as the Nazi period has cast a long shadow. In the same way, Germans are very concerned about inflation, much more so than many other nationalities, because the hyperinflation of the 1920s cause massive problems (and those helped to foster extremist politics). The first half of the century has cast a long shadow over the German national psyche.

But in any case, from what I have heard, there are other somewhat-dysfunctional governments in the E.U. An the European Parliament itself I hear a lot of scorn and...resentment from all countries. Actually, even though I'm pleased you already agree with me on Italy, I ought to quote that bit from Coup d'etat: A Practical Handbook. Just because it's interesting, really...

There are - every country has their own system, and their own politics that interacts with the system. The European Parliament gets a lot of flack unfairly - much of the real power in the EU resides in the Council of Ministers (which is made up of the governments of each member nation) and the Commission (appointed as a 1-per nation nomination from governments, and approved by the Parliament).

not that the EP is perfect, and it doesn't help when parties like the UK Conservatives break up blocs for no real positive reason - leaving the EPP was about Cameron becoming leader of the Party by trying to 'out-sceptic' his opponent. It lead to them having to either work alone (which renders them useless as a group of MEPs), or try to cobble together a bloc with various fringe right wing groups - some of whom are not that savoury, and others would be more natural allies of UKIP, who also have the same problem forming a bloc. I believe there have been issues on the Left in the past too.

I know there has been that kind polarization--believe me, I can feel it being gay and living in a republican county within a Blue State but having some republican-ish beliefs, I feel it more than most people--but there is still some independence, especially among the Senators. I have an app for iPad, My Congress, and it does say how often Senator/Rep. X votes with his/her party, how many bills he or she sponsored or co-sponsored, and how many of those bills got to the promised land.

I can see the same thing for MPs here.