Talk:Cabinet collective responsibility

Do other countries apart from the UK have this convention

For people that known about other Westminister system governments like Canada and Australia: do other countries apart from the UK have this convention? If so, please say so on this page and this article can be updated appropriately. Deus Ex 22:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The practice is certainly used in Canada and I'm pretty sure it is present in other Westminster system countries. I have thus changed the article to make it more general. - SimonP 22:47, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Australia does use this convention. -Brisbane

Traditionally New Zealand has the convention too, although it is has been watered down quite a bit post-MMP by the demands of coalition government. Ben Arnold 01:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There is at least one country that applies the cabinet collective responsibility: France, although they have an elected president. In France, this is a political convention and not a rule; that involves that there may be exceptions: a minister can express a point of view that is not the official one without leaving. For example Rama Yade (minister) was officialy against the visit in Paris of Muammar Gaddafi in 2010 and she said it harshly as Gaddafi was in France (approximatively: our republic is not a carpet on which a dictator can wipe the blood of his hands). But she remained minister because her point of view was quite popular...

But this remains rare: normaly the ministers agree or don't say what they really think to follow the cabinet responsibility convention.

Further explanations and examples on the french wikipedia page: solidarité gouvernementale or solidarité ministérielle (in french...).

This convention should exist in Germany also be there is no name or expression in german to describe this convention.

I've also heard about one country in Scandinavia that applies a specific rule for this: if a minister declares before a vote of confidence that he/she is against the law that could make the government fall and if the government falls, the minister can stay as minister in the next government. I've never checked this strange information --Norbi à Metz (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Smoking

I don't have the reference to hand but there was public dissent from collective responsibility over the smoking ban in clubs in England before the UK Parliament voted in favour. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cabinet responsibility vs cabinet solidarity

The article is very unclear about the distinction between cabinet collective responsibility and cabinet solidarity. For a brief distinction between the two, see this blog post. The distinction is also made by Rhodes, R.A.W.; Wanna, John; Weller, Patrick (2009). Comparing Westminster. OUP. p. 127. ISBN 978-0-19-956349-4.

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Ebonelm (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

---

As the previous section of this talk page states, the current articles do not establish what the difference is between Cabinet collective responsibility and Cabinet solidarity. How common is it to have one without the other? One might say that one is a consequence of the other; but such a nice distinction is better discussed in a single article than either or both of two separate ones. jnestorius^(talk) 12:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Merge - Cabinet collective responsibility and cabinet solidarity are the same principle. One could argue that cabinet solidarity is the applied version of cabinet collective responsibility but this is not a reason to have two separate articles on the same topic. Ebonelm (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need to have three heads in Indian system: Legislative head, Executive head and Grievance or Preferential head (Ombudsman).

Two way approach for cross checking of the functioning of the system. Single heads makes it authoritative whereas cross functional working style will create checks and balance by its nature similar to line managers or functional managers. It will help learn and develop steps taken by other two heads and suo motto. Thanking sincerely Pritam Das Contact-7896419889 Email id-preetam94351@gmail.com

Pritam94351 (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)