European Tribune

Display:
The caretaker government = the outgoing government. I think that is standard in parliamentary systems. We call it a 'demissionary' government in NL.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 at 07:30:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Had to check it and it is the case in Sweden too. Firm bloc politics has however eliminated the need, after the election it has been pretty clear which government will be formed.

Apparently civil servant governments as caretaker governments has existed in Sweden but not so much in later years.

In Finland it happened as late as 1975:
Keijo Liinamaa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keijo Antero Liinamaa (6 April 1929 - 28 June 1980) was a lawyer and caretaker Prime Minister of Finland.

Following the election of 1975, the political parties couldn't agree on terms for a coalition government. President Kekkonen appointed Keijo Liinamaa as Prime Minister of a caretaker government that lasted from June till November 1975. Kekkonen's intervention made possible the formation of a new coalition government under Martti Miettunen in the autumn of 1975.

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 at 07:47:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Caretaker governments in the UK are normally the outgoing government, doing nothing in particular, for a few weeks between the dissolution of the House of Commons and the appointment of the new Prime Minister or the reconstruction of the Ministry if the incumbents won the election.

The only major variation from the normal model was when the Second World War coalition broke up just before the 1945 election. Winston Churchill, as the leader of the largest party in the 1935-1945 Parliament, formed a caretaker government from his own Conservatives and the small groups which had backed them before 1940.

However it is important to note that a caretaker government has all the powers of a normal government. It is just a constitutional convention, not a legally enforceable rule, that the caretakers do not use the full powers of the state.

We have never had a deadlock of the sort Belgium is experiencing. In a majoritarian system there is normally a single party with a clear majority and a recognised leader, so the monarch has a very simple task in identifying the person who is to be Prime Minister.

Even if there is no majority party the conventions seem to be fairly agreed. The government in office can, if it wishes, continue in office until the new House of Commons votes it down.

If the outgoing Prime Minister resigns or is defeated in Parliament, then the leader of the largest opposition party gets the next invitation to form a government. There is a sort of implicit combination of the two roles you get in the Belgian system, of someone investigating the possibilities for a new government and someone trying to form it.

There are some precedents, from the days before universal suffrage and party election of leaders, where the monarch just chose somebody. It seems that in 1894, when the Liberal leader W.E. Gladstone retired, Queen Victoria just appointed the Earl of Rosebery as Prime Minister without bothering to consult the other Liberal leaders to see if they wanted him. This may have contributed to the ineffective nature of the Rosebery Ministry, with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor (and leader of the Commons) not being on speaking terms.

There are even older precedents, from the days of the factional politics of the eighteenth century, when the monarch sometimes did ask an elder statesman to see if he could help form a new Ministry.

 

by Gary J on Tue Dec 4th, 2007 at 11:04:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series