If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Ever wondered what the point to a Constitutional Monarchy is in these modern times? When Australia's government shuts down, the Queen fires all the politicians but everyone else still goes to work and gets paid   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 113
    More: Cool, Australians, Parliament, monarchy, Labor Party, government shutdown, federal government, politicos  
•       •       •

6370 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Oct 2013 at 7:43 AM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



113 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-02 07:34:03 AM
Ok. Pick a time in American history where you didn't like the president.

Now replace the queen with that president

How are you feeling about that bullshiat now?

No one should have the authority to overrule the will of people freely chosen. Better to make a mistake than make no choice at all.
 
2013-10-02 07:45:51 AM
We shouldn't need a monarchy to do what needs to be done after this fiasco.

2014: the year no incumbent was reelected.
 
2013-10-02 07:46:45 AM

Mangoose: Ok. Pick a time in American history where you didn't like the president.

Now replace the queen with that president

How are you feeling about that bullshiat now?

No one should have the authority to overrule the will of people freely chosen. Better to make a mistake than make no choice at all.


In a normal Parliamentary system, it is usually the Prime Minister who makes the decision to suspend the Parliament and calls for a new vote. That includes firing him or herself for the PM, and everyone gets to stand for re-election. I'm perfectly fine with that. Australia is a weird quasi-parliamentary system, and I don't agree with the Queen or her agents being able to overrule the vote of the People, but also we're talking about a one-time incident almost 40 years ago. The US government has shut down 17 times, Australia has only suffered that fate once. Also, Australia gave the Queen the power to make that choice, so her actions were "The Will of the People", to some degree.

Anyway, if we had a Parliamentary system here (sans the ability of a Figurehead to intervene), we would probably get a hell of a lot more done on the Federal level. Because intractable politicians who pushed us to closing the Government because they aren't getting their way would rather quickly be sent packing and forced to run for their position again. It wouldn't take long to force those politicians to stop farking around and get the business of the People done, rather than holding the Government hostage on a whim.
 
2013-10-02 07:46:54 AM
Listen - strange women lying across the Pond distributing pink slips is no basis for a system of government.
 
2013-10-02 07:48:25 AM
Without reading too much about it I wonder how much of that is simply the traditional dissolution of Parliament.

Personally I think it's a good thing. It's not overruling the will of the people, it's ending a deadlock and giving the people the power to end it. By calling elections the power was placed firmly in the hands of the people to make their wishes known.
 
2013-10-02 07:50:29 AM
I seriously don't get it.  The federal government has shown that they aren't capable of performing even the most basic function of the government - keeping it running.

Why shouldn't they all be fired?  Every single last one of the, both parties, senate and congress.

They've failed at their jobs.
 
2013-10-02 07:51:07 AM
So you don't do your job, you get fired? I'm okay with this.
 
2013-10-02 07:51:09 AM
If a constitutional amendment mandating any budget as permanent until a new budget is decided were passed, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.
 
2013-10-02 07:52:03 AM
Enjoy the fact that your royal overlords are a frail old woman and a tiny baby.
 
2013-10-02 07:52:48 AM
Obama would prefer to be king. That way he could simply rule; which is more his style; because he's incapable of leading.

I' m sure tons of farkers would also prefer their dear leader have dictorial powers. Go ahead, show your hands! You could all dispense with the silliness of tolerating different views, or having to work with people who disagree with you.

Hell, you could simply hang folks who don't see things the way you do!

It lines up perfectly with the Chicago way, the corrupt, self-serving style of politics with a certain brutishness that Obama has brought to the national scene.
 
2013-10-02 07:54:30 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: If a constitutional amendment mandating any budget as permanent until a new budget is decided were passed, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.


Or a constitution amendment that if a new budget isn't passed, everyone in charge gets fired.

This is their job.  And they've shown they're incapable of doing it.  They should all be fired and permanently banned from holding public office.
 
2013-10-02 07:54:40 AM

Sybarite: Enjoy the fact that your royal overlords are a frail old woman and a tiny baby.


Better them as overlords than that pile of uneaten dog food you call congress.
 
2013-10-02 07:54:48 AM

Sybarite: Enjoy the fact that your royal overlords are a frail old woman and a tiny baby.


Um, you missed a few in between them
 
2013-10-02 07:55:24 AM

95629: AverageAmericanGuy: If a constitutional amendment mandating any budget as permanent until a new budget is decided were passed, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

Or a constitution amendment that if a new budget isn't passed, everyone in charge gets fired.

This is their job.  And they've shown they're incapable of doing it.  They should all be fired and permanently banned from holding public office.


Firing everyone doesn't solve the problem of the shutdown.

But sure. Let's do what you said. Emotion makes for great policy.
 
2013-10-02 07:56:11 AM

95629: AverageAmericanGuy: If a constitutional amendment mandating any budget as permanent until a new budget is decided were passed, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

Or a constitution amendment that if a new budget isn't passed, everyone in charge gets fired.

This is their job.  And they've shown they're incapable of doing it.  They should all be fired and permanently banned from holding public office.


Fired? Sure. Banned from holding office again? That's a bit Un-American, I think. Let them face the voters, and have to explain why they should get another shot at governing, if they can.
 
2013-10-02 07:56:20 AM
Why not amend the constitution. If government remains shutdown for x days then hold a general election where all candidates have to fight for their job. That may change their willingness to negotiate.
 
2013-10-02 07:56:31 AM

dfenstrate: Obama would prefer to be king. That way he could simply rule; which is more his style; because he's incapable of leading.

I' m sure tons of farkers would also prefer their dear leader have dictorial powers. Go ahead, show your hands! You could all dispense with the silliness of tolerating different views, or having to work with people who disagree with you.

Hell, you could simply hang folks who don't see things the way you do!

It lines up perfectly with the Chicago way, the corrupt, self-serving style of politics with a certain brutishness that Obama has brought to the national scene.


Oooh. You'll get some bites on that one.

7/10
 
2013-10-02 07:57:22 AM
Small problem in that the queen wasn't elected. Its kind of like having Elvis's granddaughter turn up at random and tell the president he has to pack his bags.

This whole deal is political theater. In this day and age of having a backup plan for our backup plans (because, terrorism) there is no reason that an emergency funding process doesn't exist.
What they are doing isn't new and is no different than the sequester. They shut everything down because its the other guys fault (it's always the other guys fault) and want to anger a bunch of people into calling their opponents.
Those angry calls fall on deaf ears because the opposition has its own people to represent. Angry calls are why they didn't agree in the first place.

So basically its a giant blame game where we toss around hypothetical budget losses and blame while stalling for time until the next big vote.
You can send the politicians home. Their supporters will probably send them back anyway.
 
2013-10-02 07:59:12 AM
Or the UK system; there is no seperate executive and parliamentary majority. The Prime Minister and his/her cabinet propose a budget, and by definition the Prime Minister is the head of the majority in parliament who will then pass the budget (after a small amount of discreet wrangling). The 'upper house' is the House of Lords, and by tradition they don't fark about too much with budgets.
 
2013-10-02 07:59:28 AM

Mangoose: Ok. Pick a time in American history where you didn't like the president.

Now replace the queen with that president

How are you feeling about that bullshiat now?

No one should have the authority to overrule the will of people freely chosen. Better to make a mistake than make no choice at all.


Not an apt analogy.  Her Majesty does not actively participate in the political process except for this type of extraordinary circumstance.  There is no reason not to like her, as she doesn't - I'll put this in terms an American can understand - 'get all up in yer grill 'n shiat.'

The Crown is an apolitical safety-valve on the process...a Parliamentary system with a majority government is already too close to a dictatorship to not have, finally, some unitary executive that can say 'STOP.'  The Crown is the Ctrl-Alt-Delete of our system.
 
2013-10-02 08:00:14 AM

MmmmBacon: Fired? Sure. Banned from holding office again? That's a bit Un-American, I think. Let them face the voters, and have to explain why they should get another shot at governing, if they can.


Some failures don't warrant a second chance to fail in the exact same way.
 
2013-10-02 08:00:48 AM

KWess: I'll put this in terms an American can understand - 'get all up in yer grill 'n shiat.'


'yer' sounds pretty British to me. Perhaps you're thinking of 'yo'.
 
2013-10-02 08:00:58 AM

way south: You can send the politicians home. Their supporters will probably send them back anyway.


Worth the risk.
 
2013-10-02 08:01:38 AM

Mangoose: No one should have the authority to overrule the will of people freely chosen. Better to make a mistake than make no choice at all.


... Aaaaand it's the "Will of the People" to shut down the government in order to highjack legislation by holding the American Government hostage?

Seems like some people already have that authority.

If this sort of thing happened in any other building other than Congress, the place would be surrounded by SWAT teams.
 
2013-10-02 08:02:34 AM

Mangoose: Ok. Pick a time in American history where you didn't like the president.

Now replace the queen with that president

How are you feeling about that bullshiat now?

No one should have the authority to overrule the will of people freely chosen. Better to make a mistake than make no choice at all.


Incorrect. The queen is head of state, a kind of gatekeeper who oversees the orderly transition of power. In the UK and Australia, the PM is head of government and charged with making laws and policy.

In the USA the president is both head of state and head of government but he has no direct control over the legislative process.
 
2013-10-02 08:02:35 AM

95629: AverageAmericanGuy: If a constitutional amendment mandating any budget as permanent until a new budget is decided were passed, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

Or a constitution amendment that if a new budget isn't passed, everyone in charge gets fired.

This is their job.  And they've shown they're incapable of doing it.  They should all be fired and permanently banned from holding public office.


I like the idea. However, have a feeling that this would be like busting a crack dealer. Within 90 minutes, there would be another one in it's place ready for business.
 
2013-10-02 08:06:58 AM

LiberalConservative: Why not amend the constitution. If government remains shutdown for x days then hold a general election where all candidates have to fight for their job. That may change their willingness to negotiate.


Brinksmanship would still apply. The problem is congress recently got in the habit of rescheduling crisis for some other day.
 
2013-10-02 08:08:20 AM

syrynxx: Listen - strange women lying across the Pond distributing pink slips is no basis for a system of government.


Well played.
 
2013-10-02 08:09:00 AM

Bandito King: We shouldn't need a monarchy to do what needs to be done after this fiasco.

2014: the year no incumbent was reelected.


I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised in that regard.

American short attention span + Tea Party voters who explicitly sent Tea Party people to Congress to stall the government as much as possible = Liberals who will forget about the shutdown and be apathetic toward voting in a non-presidential election, and conservatives who will love the shutdown, pull their feet up toward their ears and call for more. Not all liberals and conservatives, but enough to put morons back into congress.
 
2013-10-02 08:11:52 AM
ah the dismissal....great Aussie history
 
2013-10-02 08:14:23 AM

MmmmBacon: 95629: AverageAmericanGuy: If a constitutional amendment mandating any budget as permanent until a new budget is decided were passed, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

Or a constitution amendment that if a new budget isn't passed, everyone in charge gets fired.

This is their job.  And they've shown they're incapable of doing it.  They should all be fired and permanently banned from holding public office.

Fired? Sure. Banned from holding office again? That's a bit Un-American, I think. Let them face the voters, and have to explain why they should get another shot at governing, if they can.


They face the voters every two years, and the dumb bastards keep voting them back in despite knowing them to be partisan hacks.
 
2013-10-02 08:14:24 AM

perigee: Mangoose: No one should have the authority to overrule the will of people freely chosen. Better to make a mistake than make no choice at all.

... Aaaaand it's the "Will of the People" to shut down the government in order to highjack legislation by holding the American Government hostage?

Seems like some people already have that authority.

If this sort of thing happened in any other building other than Congress, the place would be surrounded by SWAT teams.


Mr Yeltsin, is that you?
 
2013-10-02 08:15:05 AM

UsikFark: LiberalConservative: Why not amend the constitution. If government remains shutdown for x days then hold a general election where all candidates have to fight for their job. That may change their willingness to negotiate.

Brinksmanship would still apply. The problem is congress recently got in the habit of rescheduling crisis for some other day.


Yeah, you're right, brinkmanship would still apply. But the advantage in the re-election process would be the opportunity for voters to elect a majority government OR a different mix of politicians who may be willing to negotiate properly.
 
2013-10-02 08:15:49 AM

r1niceboy: They face the voters every two years, and the dumb bastards keep voting them back in despite knowing them to be partisan hacks.


'because they are partisan hacks', actually.
 
2013-10-02 08:15:52 AM

syrynxx: Listen - strange women lying across the Pond distributing pink slips is no basis for a system of government.


Bravo
 
2013-10-02 08:15:53 AM

Mangoose: Ok. Pick a time in American history where you didn't like the president.

Now replace the queen with that president

How are you feeling about that bullshiat now?

No one should have the authority to overrule the will of people freely chosen. Better to make a mistake than make no choice at all.


It doesn't quite work that way.  The queen doesn't have command of any soldiers, and does not have control of any government finances.  There is a really fine balance at play in these sorts of governments.  The crown has 'authority' but no real power to enforce it other than the good will of the governed. So far it has worked out pretty well for the countries governed in this and similar systems.
 
2013-10-02 08:16:14 AM
Yeah, and Mussolini kept the trains running on time.
 
2013-10-02 08:17:07 AM
That article is so misleading. The Queen actually refused to intervene in the crisis. The reply by the Queen's Private Secretary was..

"As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act."

It was actually the Governor General who used his reserve powers to dismiss parliament and call the election that the incumbent Prime Minister refused to.
 
2013-10-02 08:18:11 AM
A lot of Federales are not working, but guess who is? FEMA, that's who. I think this is when they are going to finally do it - while the other Feds aren't around to stop them and while we are all distracted. A lot of Farkers will probably be in the camps receiving the other kind of ObamaScare. There will probably be death panels too. But that's OK because God turned His back on Amerika a long time ago. Don't bother praying it is too late. We should have been praying all along.

First, leaders like Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachman, and Rush Limbaugh will have unfortunate "accidents," then it will be gun confiscation, martial law and FEMA camps in football stadiums across the US of A. So if your local high school or pro football team cancels their game Friday night, you better head to the hills before the barbed wire goes up. And yes, you better pray to the LORD to restore our Christian Republic of America to His graces.
 
2013-10-02 08:20:49 AM

lokis_mentor: perigee: Mangoose: No one should have the authority to overrule the will of people freely chosen. Better to make a mistake than make no choice at all.

... Aaaaand it's the "Will of the People" to shut down the government in order to highjack legislation by holding the American Government hostage?

Seems like some people already have that authority.

If this sort of thing happened in any other building other than Congress, the place would be surrounded by SWAT teams.

Mr Yeltsin, is that you?


Hey, yeah - Benito! Hows it hangin', paisan? Give 'em the stiff arm and stay large and in charge; party over people, Mussy. The sheeple don't matter.
 
2013-10-02 08:21:43 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Firing everyone doesn't solve the problem of the shutdown.

But sure. Let's do what you said. Emotion makes for great policy.


Firing people who can't do their job is not an emotional response--it's a rational and expected one.
 
2013-10-02 08:22:13 AM

Bandito King: We shouldn't need a monarchy to do what needs to be done after this fiasco.

2014: the year no incumbent was reelected.


You have more faith in Kentucky than I do.

Damnit, people, send Mitch home!!!!!
 
2013-10-02 08:22:56 AM

bukijin: That article is so misleading. The Queen actually refused to intervene in the crisis. The reply by the Queen's Private Secretary was..

"As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act."

It was actually the Governor General who used his reserve powers to dismiss parliament and call the election that the incumbent Prime Minister refused to.


+1. I think you should forward this to the author of TFA.
 
2013-10-02 08:24:08 AM

ReverendJasen: AverageAmericanGuy: Firing everyone doesn't solve the problem of the shutdown.

But sure. Let's do what you said. Emotion makes for great policy.

Firing people who can't do their job is not an emotional response--it's a rational and expected one.


You're going to have a hard time understanding this, but the House Tea Partiers did exactly what they were sent there to do.

Just because you don't like the job they are doing, it doesn't mean they aren't doing their job.
 
2013-10-02 08:24:57 AM
40 votes to repeal funding for ACA - Try the Australian method of dealing with deadlock -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution
 
2013-10-02 08:25:23 AM
"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." -George Washington

Our system of government already has checks and balances. Political parties add a completely new and screwed up layer to this that the founding fathers not only saw, but condemned. They corrupt the existing systems so badly that this is the situation you end up with-- one party that has control of only one portion of one of the branches pitching a fit and causing the system to break down entirely. The above quote by Washington has happened. That iswhere we are today.

Without political parties, without the citizens being poisoned against reason and the spirit of cooperation by those in power (solely for the sake of gaining and keeping power), this mess wouldn't be happening.  Members of Congress no longer represent people. They no longer represent their home states. They are just adding to a political party's numbers for the sake of moving that party's goals forward. Not the country's needs, not the citizen's needs, but their own needs.

Fire them all, vote them all out, and all you get are replacements who were involved in politics in the first place to advance their own standing within the political party, and not to represent their people.  There are no honest politicians out there who want to be involved purely for the sense of duty because politics has become a career choice, not service. As soon as there is a vacuum it will be filled with the very same character types that you forced out because that's all that lies in wait.

To solve this you need to abolish political parties entirely. You need topublicly fund all campaigns and cap spending on them. You need to abolish all lobbying. You need to make it a pure service job again.
 
2013-10-02 08:26:47 AM

r1niceboy: MmmmBacon: 95629: AverageAmericanGuy: If a constitutional amendment mandating any budget as permanent until a new budget is decided were passed, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

Or a constitution amendment that if a new budget isn't passed, everyone in charge gets fired.

This is their job.  And they've shown they're incapable of doing it.  They should all be fired and permanently banned from holding public office.

Fired? Sure. Banned from holding office again? That's a bit Un-American, I think. Let them face the voters, and have to explain why they should get another shot at governing, if they can.

They face the voters every two years, and the dumb bastards keep voting them back in despite knowing them to be partisan hacks.


Plus one party will probably always think they can probably gain seats compared to the last election given the polls at the time, and thus have an incentive to try and cause a shutdown to trigger an election, so if you did something like this the existing politicians would have to be barred from standing again to avoid shutdowns becoming a political tactic to trigger an election.
 
2013-10-02 08:26:57 AM

aszure: 95629: AverageAmericanGuy: If a constitutional amendment mandating any budget as permanent until a new budget is decided were passed, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

Or a constitution amendment that if a new budget isn't passed, everyone in charge gets fired.

This is their job.  And they've shown they're incapable of doing it.  They should all be fired and permanently banned from holding public office.

I like the idea. However, have a feeling that this would be like busting a crack dealer. Within 90 minutes, there would be another one in it's place ready for business.


Yeah, but right now those "crack dealers" know they can do whatever they want with no punishment.  They can get away with anything.

A lot less would screw around with the whole country if they knew that if they screwed up, they'd be out of a job.  Wheres their incentive to do anything but for themselves right now?

I'd love to push to throw them all in jail in addition to being fired.  They should be held to a higher standard to do their jobs than the rest of us, not a lower standard.  They're screwing the country and everyone in it.  They should be in jail.
 
2013-10-02 08:27:40 AM

WinoRhino: To solve this you need to abolish political parties entirely.


You can't do that without amending the First Amendment of the Constitution, and that isn't going to happen any time soon.
 
2013-10-02 08:27:57 AM
how many american people actually understand what's happening and why? (i don't really, although I don't live there so im off the hook)

what im saying is, most people on here, (who are smart and informed) seem pretty disgusted with the situation, and would take steps in their voting (ie) behaviour to prevent it happening again, but is that true for the vast majority of peope?
 
Displayed 50 of 113 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report