Talk:Responsible government

Untitled

The comment below is right - responsible government was indeed given to/gained by the colonies of Australia, New Zealand and Canada as they transitioned to dominions, but the term had an agreed meaning within the context of normal English practice - the government is responsible to the parliament (and in particular to the lower house).

---

Hmmm. I don't think the main article is correct. AFAICT , Responsible government describes the conventions at least partly followed by the governmental systems of the UK and the former colonies Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. It describes the system where the monarch (or their representative) formally holds almost dictatorial powers, but uses them only on the advice of the parliament and more specifically the ministers, who are also chosen by the Parliament. It also describes the running of executive government and rules for the behaviour of ministers (ie they are responsible for the actions of their departments and should resign if their department does something seriously wrong, and they are obligated to publically support executive government decisions etc).

I agree. In all Westminster systems the head of state is theoretically independent of the houses of Parliament. Ministers, however, are collectively and personally responsible to Parliament, and specifically to the House of Commons. Andrew Yong 21:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All responsible government really means is that:

• there is an assumption of the separation of powers doctrine with separate legislative, judicial and executive arms;
• however, the executive (PM, Cabinet, ministers etc) must be drawn from Parliament and by convention from the party of government (in Australia for example this is governed by s64 of the Constitution - similar provisions exist in other systems)

The system previously in place was with a Governor and an appointed Executive Council; this replaced the Executive Council with an elected one from the Parliament of the day and the Governor's near-absolute power was limited to accepting bills passed by Parliamet on advisement from Ministers. The idea is that ministers are accountable to the Cabinet, who in turn are accountable to the Parliament, who in turn are accountable to the citizens. In alternative mechanisms, the Cabinet is accountable either to the monarch or president (an appointed system), or to the citizens directly. The system has broken down over the years so the responsibility checks and balances within the system aren't what they were and most accountability mechanisms are extra-parliamentary (i.e. the media and interest groups). Orderinchaos 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

---

If it took them 60 years after the American Revolution to get sensitive -it doesn't seem to be sensitive at all. At least, it's not an aftereffect of the Revolution. --rmhermen

Indeed, it largely reflects the very non-revolutionary way in which the Australian states (formerly colonies) in particular gained self-government :) Orderinchaos 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

system and conception

Terms like "responsibility" and "accountability" are subjective notions, whereas a system of government is an objective affair, a thing. So if a government is responsible when it is "accountable", then we are dealing not with a system but with a conception or an ideal of one. --VKokielov 19:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm wrong and "responsible government" is a name for a system of government, then we must remark that fact; the subjectiveness of "responsible" and "accountable" remains. --VKokielov 19:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Responsible government is indeed the name used in the literature rather than a descriptive - even the authors of many of these texts acknowledge that the responsibility mechanisms within it have failed even while continuing to use the name to differentiate from other systems. I really hope I can improve the article, I've just done a course which dwelt somewhat on this so I have plenty of academic citations (although weighted somewhat towards an Australian view of the topic). Would welcome any assistance and source diversification from Canadian, South African and New Zealand editors. Orderinchaos 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The UK

So I take it that the UK itself still does not have "responsible government?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColDickPeters (talk • contribs) 16:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

External Links

The one and only external link ("Can Responsible Government Survive in Australia?") is to a paper that has ZERO references, is highly biased and poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameronyoung (talk • contribs) 11:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Query accuracy of Nova Scotia being the first colony to achieve responsible government

This statement appears inaccurate:

During this century, Nova Scotia was the first colony in British North America and in the British Empire to achieve responsible government in January–February 1848 and become self-governing through the efforts of Joseph Howe.

What is defined by "responsible government"? If a large degree of autonomy, or self-government, is meant, then how does this account for the assemblies in Virginia and Bermuda? Bermuda is acknowledged as having been self-governed since 1620, when the lower house of the Parliament of Bermuda, the House of Assembly of Bermuda, held its first session. Indeed, as parliament was suspended in England during the interregnum, and no other parliament that pre-dates Bermuda's has existed continuously, Bermuda's parliament is the oldest continuous parliament in the Commonwealth (although Bermuda is not a commonwealth state, it is part of the realm of the United Kingdom, which obviously is). Aodhdubh (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Responsible government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003105821/http://wopared.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/pops/pop26/c04.pdf to http://wopared.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/pops/pop26/c04.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Other countries

The article is very confusing on Responsible government in countries that have not been UK colonies. It seems to me that, under the definition given in the introduction, a lot of counties operating under a parliamentary system also have responsible government. Currently Israel is briefly mentioned, and so is Germany, surely both countries now have Responsible government even though neither uses the Westminster system? Perhaps these countries should be listed at the end of the article instead of rather randomly?

Also: If they are to be listed surely then most European parliamentary governments meet the suggested criteria? Thomasfowl (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

First, Israel was a British mandate from 1920 to 1948, and it does use a form of Westminster parliamentary democracy. Secondly, the fact that other democracies have similar systems does not mean that it is necessarily an outgrowth of one particular form. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I just don't see any reason to classify the Israel as Westminster, it follows barely half of the characteristic described on Westminster system and has far more in common with the Western-European parliamentary systems (PR, Coalition governments, non-adversarial ect.). But if Responsible government is only a characteristic of the Westminster system, then surely it does not make sense to mention Germany in the way it is currently done? The article now implies that it has responsible government but also says that this can only be the case in Westminster systems, which it is absolutely not. Thomasfowl (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)