Talk:Reserve power

message: This section seems to be anti-US when referring to the end of WWII, the Japanese Surrender, and Japan's new constitution. The part in question: This is because after the Nuclear Bomb (Atomic Bombs) drop on japan in World War 2. The Japanese Empire surrender to the United State and was forced to sign the Constitution of Japan isn't grammatically correct either. This section should be reworded, and changed to a neutral point of view. --Msl5046 12:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan

message: - Re: 2) The refusal to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister. This was last reputedly done in 1910 (but George V later changed his mind), but certainly not within the past century. If you mean the past century to be the twentieth, 1910 was in the past century. If you mean the past century to be the last hundred years, everything after 1905 (including the year 1910) is within the past century. This statement is self-contradictory, and should be reworded.
:The change has now been made.
- Re: 1) The appointment of a prime minister. This was last done in 1974 when Parliament was hung and the Queen appointed Harold Wilson as prime minister. As far as I am aware, the reigning monarch uses this reserve power following each and every election: by convention he or she invites the leader of the party winning the most seats to Buckingham Palace and asks him or her to become Prime Minister of the new government. If this is correct then this section of the article is inaccurate. Can someone confirm this and make the edit if necessary? - Hux 12:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: United Kingdom

message: I propose to remove the statement that the Queen or a Governor-General can dissolve Parliament against the advice of his/her ministers. The Proclamation for Dissolving the present Parliament and Declaring the Calling of Another is always issued "by and with the Advice of Our Privy Council"  , and similarly art. 32 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia provides that writs for elections have to be issued by the Governor-General in Council. These cannot therefore be reserve powers. The Queen / Governor-General can refuse to dissolve Parliament, but the only way the Queen or a Governor-General can force the dissolution of Parliament and call another against the advice of ministers is by dismissing the Government and appointing a caretaker Prime Minister who promises to advise such a proclamation, as Malcolm Fraser did in 1975. Andrew Yong 17:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dissolution of Parliament

message: This article is written in a very confusing way.  Are the enumerated powers supposed to be reserve powers?  If so, some of this is clearly wrong as the royal prerogative is not in any sense a reserve power.  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Prerogative

message: To appoint a Prime Minister of her own choosing. This was last done in Britain in 1963 when Elizabeth II appointed Sir Alec Douglas-Home as Prime Minister.
I thought she appointed him because Harold Macmillan, by the outgoing Prime Minister, formally recommended that she send for him. There may not have been a formal process for selecting a leader but there were certainly soundings and the "customary process".
(1974)
The Queen then asked Harold Wilson, leader of the Labour Party, which had the largest number of seats in the Commons but not a majority, to attempt to form a government with the support of the Liberals). Wilson agreed, on condition that, if the arrangement with the Liberals broke down, the Queen would dissolve parliament and call a new election, rather than give the Liberals the opportunity to offer their support to, or even form a coalition government with, the Conservatives.
I don't think there was ever any formal agreement between Labour & Liberals - indeed I recall reading that Wilson told Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe quite clearly that they were not needed. The bit about a new election seems to be a mangling of the story Wilson's press secretary Joe Haine recalled to Alan Clark (reproduced in a letter in the paperback edition of Clark's The Tories: Conservatives and the nation state 1922-1997) that the government discretely asked the Palace if a dissolution of Parliament and a general election would be granted in the event of a defeat on the initial Queen's Speech. This was in turn conveyed to the Conservatives who subsequently did not force a division on the speech at all. But this was after Wilson had accepted office and was also a means to stop the Conservatives forcing the issue, not to keep the Liberals in toe. Indeed given Labour's historic scepticism about coalitionism (MacDonald left deep scars), it would be very odd for Labour to seek formal agreements at first - rather they would try to govern alone and seek a majority at the first opportunity. (The later Lib-Lab pact was negotiated after some years in office to overcome existing difficulties once governing alone had been shown to be so difficult in practice.) Timrollpickering 06:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK (again) 

message: There are reserve powers such as veto: by constitutional reasons, send to the constitutional court; by political reasons, up to three times. and also dissolution of assembly etc. The president does not hold any executive power.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.180.84 (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portugal 

message: I've added fact tags to relevant parts of the New Zealand section, largely because they appear to contradict the Cabinet Manual, specifically that the Governor-General is still bound by the convention of responsible government ("The Queen reigns but the government rules so long as it has the support of the House of Representatives"). I'd be interested to see anything that backs the proposition that a Governor-General can dismiss a Prime Minister who still has the confidence of the House. --LJ Holden 00:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand 

message: Since this article will be read by americans in addition to other English speakers, I changed the work "tabled" to "introduced." The word "tabled" is actually more proper in context, but in american usage, to "table" a bill is to kill it. I feel it is better to use the unambiguous "introduce" in place of the correct term in this case. See WP:VNE -Arch dude (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tabled", with apologies to Correct British usage. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Reserve power. 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/20090225161729/http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/01/65/70/DMarkwell.pdf to http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/01/65/70/DMarkwell.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220124432/http://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/library/lt-gov/bowen.htm to https://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/library/lt-gov/bowen.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19991009163331/http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/cabinet/manual/intro.html to http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/cabinet/manual/intro.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108011424/http://www.islandsbusiness.com/news/tuvalu/1636/tuvalus-opposition-waiting-to-hear-from-gg/ to http://www.islandsbusiness.com/news/tuvalu/1636/tuvalus-opposition-waiting-to-hear-from-gg/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053503/http://www.islandsbusiness.com/news/tuvalu/1725/tuvalus-parliament-convenes-july-30/ to http://www.islandsbusiness.com/news/tuvalu/1725/tuvalus-parliament-convenes-july-30/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified