Super size me

I guess we’re not getting a Morgan poll tomorrow, so a stand-alone post is required to note recent developments. To wit:

• Antony Green has crunched the numbers from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ latest state and territory population figures and concluded that yet another new seat will need to be created in Queensland next year, again at the expense of New South Wales. Queensland will thus have boomed from 26 seats to 30 in little over a decade, having earlier gained Blair in 1998, Bonner in 2004 and Flynn in 2007. New South Wales lost Gwydir in 2007.

• The Australian Electoral Commission has announced that the finalised new federal boundaries for Western Australia will be gazetted on December 18, and maps published henceforth.

• Possum reckons “it’s time to rethink political demographics&#148, and explains why across a two-part epic here and here.

• A constitutional crisis is brewing in Canada that has some excited observers invoking the example of Australia in 1975. The election on October 14 saw Stephen Harper’s Conservative minority government re-elected, but again requiring the support of Bloc Québécois. However, Bloc Québécois has now signed an accord with the Liberal Party and leftist New Democrats due to dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of the financial crisis. Harper reportedly plans to ask that Governor-General Michaëlle Jean prorogue the parliament so it will not sit until the budget is presented in January. This would avert a sitting on December 8 at which Harper’s government would likely be defeated on a no-confidence motion, and allow him time to pick apart the Liberal-Bloc-NDP deal. This raises the question of whether Jean ought to grant a prorogation to a Prime Minister who might not have the confidence of the House.

UPDATE (5/12/08): Jean agrees to prorogue parliament until January 26. Ben Raue at The Tally Room expresses his displeasure, and proposes reforms to the appointment of prime ministers (citing the practice in the Australian Capital Territory), the scheduling of parliament and the timing elections. I am a little more sympathetic to Jean’s decision, on account of the Liberals’ evident state of disarray – although I can buy the idea that it’s not the Governor-General’s role to make such judgements.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,278 comments on “Super size me”

Comments Page 22 of 26
1 … 21 22 23 … 26

  2. I have mixed views on the US. I agree they HAVE BEEN a great force for progress prior to Bush, and it is not fair to write off a nation on one man. OTOH, a majority of US voters relected Bush. Seeing a documentary on the Dover trial last night it disturbs me to see how ignorant and insular many of their small town communities have become. They need leadership badly.

    As for the statistics, of course they are still the most powerful nation now, but no longer by anywhere near the margin by which they were before. The statistics are misleading IMO – shades of Enron! They have a large GDP but that depends on the valuation of their dollar, which would only have to cease being used as the world’s reserve currency before it might drop by a third or more. In terms of straight manufacturing capacity China very nearly matches them now. They are still well ahead in many areas of technology but not all. Unfortunately for Obama they also have a huge debt, decaying infrastructure and an ageing population with very large unfunded liaibilities for retirement income and health care.

    So overall I think they are at a crossroads. They are on the slide, but have a great capacity to reinvent themselves. If they don’t they will go the way of the British Empire quite quickly IMO.

  3. [The S in SPAN stands for Subscriber, so it isn’t promising…]
    So they are going to set up a public affairs channel that only 20% of people can access?

    When anyone can buy a set top box for a one off payment of $100 and watch anything on digital TV.

    If this isn’t digital TV they are stupid.

  5. #1043 – [Juliem and others before you predict the downfall of the USA, just think about having Communist China or Russia leading world affairs…]

    It’s good to see that the Cold War mentality is still alive and well.

    btw: saying a country is no longer numero uno is not saying that it will fail or disintegrate. It is simply a simple statement or application of the entrophy theory.

  6. Glen

    Maybe so – I am not a British empire hater – it was a much better colonial master than the Dutch, Belgians or Germans. Victorian England was a great civiliser and educator of the world.

    Economically though I only partly agree. The US GDP passed the UK in the 1880s. They were in part bankrupted by their own bad policy. Australia actually loaned them large amounts of cash in WWII and Menzies simply forgave them the debt in the 50s!!! Other nations coped with wartime debt far better. Post war British leadership was really aweful IMO.

  8. Personally id rather the British running/leading world affairs instead of America but that’s the way things are i guess.

    They could of sued for peace in 1940 and kept their Empire, they chose to duke it out and lost it all despite winning the war.

  9. [Maybe so – I am not a British empire hater – it was a much better colonial master than the Dutch, Belgians or Germans. ]

    What a high benchmark.

    I’m sure there are plenty of Aborigines, Native Americans, Africans, Indians and Malayans that disagree with you.

  10. Oz check out how Leopold I treated the Congolese…then compare that with the stolen generation…i think the aboriginals could have had it much worse!

  11. Also Britain is a country of only 60 million. They only became a great power because they had lots of coal and invented the industrial revolution. Once the US grew to its full potential it was inevitable that Britain would lose its position. Plus, as Glen says, they bankrupted themselves saving the world from German imperialism in two world wars. They are still, by the way, a very respectable power both militarily and economically.

  12. [Personally id rather the British running/leading world affairs instead of America but that’s the way things are i guess.]
    Why? They still have a Monarchy, which was one of the most despotic systems of government ever devised.

  13. Soc, “much better colonial master” – no such thing. Oxymoron, contradiction in terms. Ala “much better rapist”.

  15. Oz
    I’m not saaying colonialism is good but even though I am personaya republican, I still think it is valid to say that the British empire was far less eveil than many of its contemporaries and all of its predecessors. Also, at the risk of reigniting culture wars I don’t think you can blame the Brits (mostly) for harm done to Aborigines or Native Americans. It was us. There was actually a British commissioner supposed to guard the rights of Aborigines in 19th century Australia but it was our forebears who set up a constitution that took their land and didn’t give them a vote until the 60s.

    Native Americans too had treaties with the British, but it was American governments that later consistently broke their ageements and drove them off their land. I agree Africans, Indians and Malays were cruelly exploited by British commercial interests but not so much the government itself; the indigenous cultures in each of those places had been weakened by wars with local rivals or earlier Eurpoean colonials. Britain was still one of the first countries to ban slavery.

  18. [ShowsOn they are a constitutional monarchy and the monarch hasnt got the powers they once had…]
    They don’t even have a written constitution!

    The Queen could sack the Prime Minister tomorrow if she wanted to.

    She could do the same thing to our Prime Minister. Her power is effectively absolute, because the precise nature of her power has never bee explicitly codified.

    Systems of government that just rely on a bunch of conventions are completely open to manipulation. The U.S. has a far superior system, they actually write down what they mean, and if they find problems with it, they correct it.

  20. ShowsOn the last Monarch to actively intervene in such ways lost his head!

    Anyway i like the fact that if some despot got into power here he could be removed!

  22. [ShowsOn the last Monarch to actively intervene in such ways lost his head!]
    So you are willing to leave constitutional arrangements to chance “well the last time it happened….”

    I prefer to have LAWS that govern the function and operation of a political system.
    [Anyway i like the fact that if some despot got into power here he could be removed!]
    How can someone who is democratically elected be a despot? It is the Monarchy which is despotic, because they are unelected, unrepresentative and ultimately unaccountable.

  24. I must admit that having a Monarchy produces some hilarious effects. Like last week when the Queen opened the U.K. parliament by proclaiming that the government was intending to focus on stabilising the economy during tough economic times.

    Of course she did this while wearing a multi-million dollar tiara encrusted with 3000 diamonds.
    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,24760202-5000112,00.html

    I don’t think that sort of juxtaposition would make much sense at any time in history, but I am certain it makes no sense whatsoever NOW.

  25. [A-Span will be on digital treee-to-air and Pay TV]

    Good news. Maybe they changed what the S in A-SPAN stands for from the US version 😉

  26. ShowsOn

    “They don’t even have a written constitution!

    The Queen could sack the Prime Minister tomorrow if she wanted to.”

    In fact this is NOT the case. There is no single document but many aspects of the British constitution have now been written down in a variety of laws, court precedents and parliamentary rules, and it continues to evolve. The Queen cannot just sack the PM. Frankly, many basic human rights and freedoms are now better defined in Britain than here. If the Habib or Haneef cases had happened in Britain, Andrews or Keelty would possibly face trial.
    See
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

    and
    http://www.justice.gov.uk/whatwedo/governance.htm

  27. [How can someone who is democratically elected be a despot?]

    Depends on the form of Democracy. Some might call Joh a despot given the gerrymander.

  28. [Need i remind you of Adolf Hitler…]
    I don’t consider violence and intimidation activities of democratic political parties.

  32. Good question Adam 1080. I am also familiar with a few blogs where the first to reach for that reference is deemed the loser of the argument on taste grounds alone. Ad hominem arguments in the extreme.

    Anyway all I was trying to say was that UK and USA have been forces for good in the past, but that didn’t stop the UK from going down economically, and may not save the USA either.

  34. [There is no single document but many aspects of the British constitution have now been written down in a variety of laws, court precedents and parliamentary rules, and it continues to evolve.]
    My point was there is no single constitutional document.

    What act of parliament – or aspect of the Australian constitution – would stop the Queen from sacking Gordon Brown or Kevin Rudd, and dissolving both UK and Australian parliaments tomorrow?

    I propose that the only thing that stops her from doing this is CONVENTION. But it is not a law.

    Our system evolved out of one where the Monarch had absolute power. Of course over time that power shifted to the parliament and the executive government in particular. But there is nothing stopping the Queen from asserting supreme authority over the parliament and government if she chose to do so.

  35. Ultimately any constitution alone does not guarantee freedom and peace. The people have to understand it, value it and keep it. Someone pointed out to me years ago that the Phillipines under Marcos had a great constitution developed with American help after WWII. But that didn’t make much difference to a bunch of oppressed peasant banana farmers who couldn’t even read it.

  37. ShowsOn
    “What act of parliament – or aspect of the Australian constitution – would stop the Queen from sacking Gordon Brown or Kevin Rudd, and dissolving both UK and Australian parliaments tomorrow?”

    There are many! – see the first link I posted for a few laws. The powers of the British monarch over parliament are very closely regulated.

  39. [There are many! – see the first link I posted for a few laws. The powers of the British monarch over parliament are very closely regulated.]
    Where? Point to the precise law that stops the Queen from sacking the Prime Minister on a whim.

    Also, tell me which section of the Australian constitution stops the Queen from sacking the prime minister?

    I suggest to you that this is a RESERVE power that has never been codified in any constitutional document.

  40. ShowsOn is half correct – both the Queen in the UK and the GG in Australia have the power to dismiss the PM and appoint another one any time they like. They do not however have the power to dissolve parliament – a dissolution must be countersigned by the PM, so the Crown cannot act unilaterally in this regard. Of course *in practice* the Crown cannot appoint a PM who does not have the confidence of the lower house of Parliament, UNLESS, as in 1975, they have conspired with that PM to dissolve parliament immediately after their appointment.

  41. ShowsOn

    I wasn’t talking about the Australian Constitution – we all now the problem there. Also, I started talking about protection of basic rights and freedoms, which have been defined since the Magna Carta in the UK, so this is a bit of a non-sequiter argument on your part.

    Even so, to answer your question for the UK, the anser is that they have a doctrine of parliamentary sovreignty. This has existed since the “glorious revolution” of 1688. It was defined in the Parliament Act of 1911. See
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament

    If you had read the link I suggested you would have seen that the Queen cannot exercise the reserve powers unadvised or “on a whim” The last time it was used was in 1974 when the Queen apointed Harold Wilson as PM after seeking advice from the Privy Council. In that case it was not to sack the PM though – an appointment of a PM without a majority had to be made because there was a hung parliament.

    I say again I’m a republican! I’m not in favour of a monarchy. But lets get our facts straight. I generally try to add references where I make factual claims so you could at least read them.

  42. Adam

    My unerstanding is that the dismissal powers in the UK are much less unfettered than here. Since the acts I referred to the British monarch acts strictly on the advice of the Ministers or Parliament. Hence the action in 1974 only occurred because there was a hung parliament.

  43. If the Queen (or King) sacked the PM like in the dismissal in the UK then the next time the party of the PM who was dismissed was in power they would pass a law to introduce parliamentary appointment of the PM.

  44. [I started talking about protection of basic rights and freedoms, ]
    I wasn’t talking about protections of basic rights and freedoms. I was talking about the ability of the Queen to sack the P.M. whenever she wants to.

    There is no law stopping this from occurring, either to Gordon Brown, Kevin Rudd or Stephen Harper.

    The only thing that stops it from occurring is CONVENTION and TRADITION.

    I consider convention and tradition risky things to base such important aspects of a system of government on. I prefer the U.S. system where they have a document that determines how their system of government works, and if there are ever problems, the Congress changes it.
    [I generally try to add references where I make factual claims so you could at least read them.]
    I have read it; it is irrelevant to my claim that the Queen can sack Prime Ministers whenever she wants to. This is a side effect of systems of government that evolved out of a Monarchy that had absolute power.

    In some respects, the Monarch RETAINS absolute power, but is simply dissuaded from exercising it. I think such as system is defective and risky. What happens if the Monarch goes nuts, and starts doing such absurd things? What exactly is our constitutional protection against the Queen?

  45. The powers of the Crown in Australia are the same powers that the Crown had in the UK in 1901. So, conversely, the powers of the Crown in the UK are the same as the powers of the Crown in Australia, unless they have in some way been restricted by statute law in the UK since 1901. In relation to the power to dismiss a PM, which last occured in 1834, I don’t believe they have been so restricted. Can anyone point to the statute which restricts the Crown in this respect? It’s true of course that the *expectation* that the Crown will always appoint, and never dismiss, a PM who has the confidence of Parliament, has grown stronger. But as we found in 1975, that does alter the underlying legal fact that the Crown retains this power.

  46. [My unerstanding is that the dismissal powers in the UK are much less unfettered than here. ]
    So tell us the precise law you are referring to.
    [Since the acts I referred to the British monarch acts strictly on the advice of the Ministers or Parliament.]
    This is a CONVENTION of the system, it is not a legal or constitutional obligation.

    It is like how it is a CONVENTION that the Queen appoints an Australian Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister. That CONVENTION alone can not stop the Queen from appointing anyone she likes to that office, after all, it is HER representative.

    I think basing a system so much on conventions instead of constitutional clauses is risky.

  47. [What happens if the Monarch goes nuts, and starts doing such absurd things? What exactly is our constitutional protection against the Queen?]

    That’s what happened in Nepal, and the answer is: they became a republic. Except in the Arab world and in Thailand, monarchs only retain their thrones in the modern world if they refrain from meddling in politics. Even in Thailand that will change once the present King dies – which may be quite soon I gather.

  48. [That’s what happened in Nepal, and the answer is: they became a republic.]
    So the solution is – get a PROPER constitution.

    I quite like that. It also makes the Queen’s office seem even more redundant. 😀

    [Even in Thailand that will change once the present King dies – which may be quite soon I gather.]
    Do you mean that the King’s son will become active in politics once his dad dies?

  49. [What happens if the Monarch goes nuts, and starts doing such absurd things? What exactly is our constitutional protection against the Queen?]

    What if the PM or President goes nuts? There have been dozens of seriously mentally unwell leaders of state. It’s almost impossible to get rid of them unless they do something illegal.

  50. ShowsOn

    I agree it is a problem here in Australia, where the conventions have not been written down. But in the UK most of them have been written down, even if not in laws. So the Queen can’t just dismiss the British PM, unlike the situation here with the GG. Sorry I should have noted your wording more carefully; I focused on your use of “written” rather than “laws”.

    I do agree with you that a written constitution is preferable and I also prefer the US system in this regard. I was in favour of a republic with an elected president, rewritten constitution and defined reserve powers.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 22 of 26
1 … 21 22 23 … 26