[maest]

A failure like this would immediately trigger reelections in the UK. It's a strong incentive to not shut down the government.

There is no serious incentive to avoid this in the US. In fact, you're incentivised to be complicit in the shutdown and then blame the other party.

[rainsford]

One incentive that could work in the US without having to completely change how elections work would be for the government to actually shut down when it runs out of money. Shut downs are only remotely politically viable because nearly all the parts of the government that people regularly rely on more or less keep working.

This means the public backlash from shutting down the government is significantly muted, and it gives the opportunity for some less intelligent people to point to it as proof the government doesn't actually do anything. But it only works because the government basically forces employees in those roles to work for free with the promise of being eventually paid at some point, which is pretty weird when you really think about it.

Consider an alternate version of events where the government running out of money means all government functions immediately cease. No airport security, no air traffic control. Federal law enforcement goes home. The military stands down. Every federal government function stops October 1st since there was no longer any money to pay for it. Not only would the government not still be shut down, it never would have shut down since the impact would be so immediate and so significant that politicians would never risk it actually happening.

[nelox]

Indeed. In Australia, a government was once dismissed after failing to pass supply bills in the Senate (Supply bills allocate money to the government). The Governor-General resolved the deadlock by dissolving Parliament and calling an election. The event is known as “The Dismissal”. It remains one of the key examples of the Governor-General’s reserve powers in action.

[digitalPhonix]

This was an example of foreign interference (from where exactly is likely to remain unknown[0]); not an apolitical governor general stabilising the political system.

[0] https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/new-light-shed-on-australias...

[ghoul2]

Isn't this "as intended" in the westminster-style system? The govt is formed by MPs from the majority party (or alliance). By definition they MUST be able to pass ALL money bills, which only require a simple majority. Any failure to pass a money bill is equivalent to the govt no longer holding a majority support in parliament. And that means either the king/president/govgen invites someone else from the current parliament who they have good reason to believe DOES (potentially) have support of majority of the parliament, or dissolve the parliament and call fresh elections if there is no such majority.

I am not quite sure why an action with such a clear established precedent be considered foreign interference? or was it the case that there WAS a suitable candidate with a possible majority but they were NOT invited by the govgen to try and win a trust vote in parliament?

[defrost]

It was very much an edge case, with one of Whitlam's senators on leave and recent changes to territory rules giving additional senators to the opposition party (as I recall ...) the ability to block supply appeared suddenly out of the blue.

Whitlam did move to call an election (rather than be sacked) which likely would have removed the blocked supply threat as he was at the time an extremely popular PM in Australia (loved by the common masses, despised by many elites) .. and when attending the Queens Repreresentative (the Governor General) to advise about calling an election .. he was removed by the G-G.

Strictly speaking the "as intended" outcome should have been to resolve a looming (not yet happened) supply crisis by allowing the people of Australia to vote, instead the government of the day (Whitlam's) was removed on a technical reading against the spirit of intended resolution.

There's a peer comment here that linked to a 2020 article on the finally released royal correspondance that's worth a read. The US influence angle has merit also, they had weight in the game for sure, how much and whether it tipped the balance is debatable.

Literally reams of contraversay here, the G-G acted autonomously and likely to save his own neck as Whitlam intended to replace the G-G, additionally many outside powers (the UK and the US) were whispering in the ears of those with levers to pull seeking to dump Whitlam; he was returning real power to the people, providing socialised health and education to the masses, asking questions about the role of secret American bases on AU soil, etc.

This was, indeed, extremely serious stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4jfR2u_9Kk

[ytoawwhra92]

The Dismissal is not an example of the Australian system working as intended.

[Esophagus4]

In general, this is by design in The States.

The system is setup to prevent political opportunism and provide predictability and rigidity of the system at the expense of being slower to respond to constituents.

The incentive is still there, it’s just a few years off in the next election.

(That being said… sighing loudly as he gestures around him at all the political opportunism…)

[mock-possum]

Yeah that sounded a lot more viable before we had our faces rubbed in what a political party in control of all the machinery of the country could get away with in the space of one election cycle.

[nekusar]

> There is no serious incentive to avoid this in the US. In fact, you're incentivised to be complicit in the shutdown and then blame the other party.

Which is precisely what's happening.

Im frankly done with the children bickering. But in all seriousness, neither party really cares about us. Republicans are engorged with the tech neofascists, and the democrats are caught up with special interest du jour, with a healthy smattering of surveillance as well.

Ive seen how the governments (local, state, federal) operate. It's fucked, and its going to be a long time to fix it, if possible.

Not sure what my plans are, honestly. Take it as I can, i guess.

[blooalien]

> It's fucked, and its going to be a long time to fix it, if possible.

There's no fixing this. We've allowed the most psychotic lunatics on planet Earth control over the most absolutely insane weapons of mass destruction and all the armies and police, and those people have already decided amongst themselves that their little game of "he who dies with the most money wins" is far more important than all the life on Earth.