150th Gettysburg Address

[Wolfshade]

Yes indeedy, and quite a number of republics have their president do just that head of state / rubber stamp office as a check/balance to the elected PM and government. The big difference is while a president can bring whatever law they like into pass the queen can only bring those which are brought to her.

[Nabterayl]

The big difference is while a president can bring whatever law they like into pass the queen can only bring those which are brought to her.

How do you mean that? I don't actually know much about how other republics work, but in our republic, the president actually has the exact same restriction. A bill does not become law unless both houses of Congress have passed it and the president signs it, or (departure from British practice here, I think), in the event the president declines to sign it, a supermajority of both houses of Congress will suffice. But the president has no power to introduce bills in the first place.

What he can do (and these days, often does) is say, "If Congress were to pass a bill that looked like this, I would sign it," and he can say to the leaders of his party in Congress, "You should introduce a bill that looks like this, or I will make sure the public knows it's not my fault it hasn't happened yet," but if Congress stands firm and refuses to pass the bill, there's nothing the president can do about it. I gather that Her Majesty could do something like this as well, but given past practice it would be quite a shock (as it was when our presidents started doing it on a regular basis, though I imagine the shock would be bigger for you).

[Wolfshade]

Oh, I thought that they could, hence the furore over "obama-care". Or is that a case of the president's party introduced the bill on his behest?

[Nabterayl]

Yeah, it's a case of the party doing something at his behest, as is pretty much every other accomplishment that is attributed to an American president. If you read American political news closer than you have any reason to do you might occasionally hear about Senate Majority Leader Reid (head of the Democratic Party in the Senate) refusing to do something that Obama wants him to - that's the president running up against the fact that he can't actually initiate any legislative action. Obamacare is Obamacare because the president made it known that he wanted it done, and there was just enough of a sense in Congress that the people wanted it too for Congressional Democrats to do it.

EDIT: There are some things the president can do on his own initiative, in his role as head of the executive branch. If something can be done by an executive bureau or department or agency, then the president has the power to order that bureau, department, or agency to do it. If a statute says, "And the Department of X [a department of the executive branch] shall issue regulations consistent with this statute," then the president can order the Department of X to do whatever he wants so long as it's within the wiggle-room allowed by the statute. But anything requiring a new law has to begin in Congress. I guess the closest UK analogy there would be the PM rather than the Crown, right?

[Wolfshade]

No, the Prime Minster wields both legislative and executive powers rather than them being seperated. So he can introduce bills on his own. Though obviously requires party support to do so.

[Nabterayl]

Interesting ... so who is the titular head of your executive departments? If somebody wanted to order an executive bureau (say, the people in charge of investigating and prosecuting criminal cases at a national level or the people in charge of collecting taxes) to do something that bureau had the power to do, but was currently not doing (or stop doing something that they currently are doing, but are not required by statute to do), who is the highest-placed official with that power? The PM? Could the Queen (theoretically) order the appropriate minister to make it so?

[Denzark]

Denzark, am I understanding you correctly that Her Majesty actually has more political power than she (and I guess her predecessors) are in the habit of using? It sounds like she could probably influence politics quite a bit under her accepted powers, if she decided it was worth the system shock to society of dusting them off.

That is my understanding - actually she never uses anything and signs off everything brought to her. I think there must be an understanding in some areas of what she won't do. Such as the creation of knights. The vast majority are political appointees - by which I mean even if it is someone getting a knighthood for sport or whatever, that will have been put forward by politicians/civil service headed by politicians. But whereas it is common for ex-Prime Ministers to be knighted, it sure as hell won't happen to Tony Blair yet...

[Wolfshade]

If I understand the question:

There are two types of departments, Ministerial and Non-Ministerial, the executive agencies are the departments that sit just below these ministries.

Ministerial departments are headed by the Secretary of State (SoS) for X, for example the Ministry of Justice is headed by The Rt Hon. Chris Grayling, MP, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor. They are usually members of the cabinet (the ruling party or coalition).
Non-ministerial departments are headed by senior civil servants and are usually departments which are supposed to be apolitical like the serious fraud office.

These executive agencies then act with a degree of autonomy to fulfil their specific mandate.

So for example the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory is run by a senior civil servant and is the executive agency of the Ministry of Defence which is run by the Secretary of State for Defence. There is also the permanent secretary who runs the department (with this being the ministry of defence it has an additional role as Chief of Defence Staff, who is the most senior military commander, the Queen retains the title of "Commander in Chief" but this is enacted through the CoD). The SoS provides the political will and steering to the permanent secretary who then gets the job done.

So, the titular head is the SoS, who enacts the will of parliament/cabinet of which s/he is a member of. Any instruction would probably go through the Whips Office. It is the Prime Minister who can create SoS and therefore alter the remit.

The SoS are formerly, though never referred to as Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for X. But they are from the cabinet which is appointed by teh PM not the Queen.

The permanent secretaries role is more administrative, it is to ensure that money granted by the government is spent appropriately, so it is these permanent secretaries that can be called into question by Parliamentary Committees.

[Nabterayl]

So ... am I correct that the Queen formally appoints and dismisses the heads of ministerial departments, even if in reality I assume she appoints whoever the PM asks/advises her to? If somebody wanted to order an SoS to do something (nothing unlawful, just instruct him or her to alter the department's behavior in accordance with some new policy), am I correct that:

1. The Prime Minister could do so, even if not of the SoS' party, ultimately backing that up with the power to get the SoS dismissed (technically, ask the Queen to fire the SoS, which the Queen need not do but in reality would) if s/he didn't comply?
2. The SoS' party leader (possibly through his or her whip) could sort of do so, ultimately backing that up with the usual ways you enforce intra-party discipline.
3. The Queen could do so (though wouldn't) do so, ultimately backing that up with the power to dismiss the SoS?

[Wolfshade]

No, the Queen only appoints the PM. It is the PM who then assembles his cabinet/appoints heads of ministerial departments.
There are two mechanisms that a SoS will be mandated to do something, usually, it will be from the PM (formally, though obviously he has his advisers, one of whom would be the relevant SoS, also the Queen could advise) or extraordinarily if the Common's Select committee finds something amiss.
The SoS will always belong to the ruling party (or dominant coalition) so the SoS's party leader will be the PM.
The Queen cannot directly interfere with the way a department is run, they can advise the PM of what they think and indeed she holds a weekly meeting with the PM and has done so since her coronation where they talk about undocumented things. It is not her job to enforce or enact policy, just enact law (and those laws which are brought to her to sign which have successfully passed through the Commons and Lords).