0
The Liberals were in power in 2009. This answer is for Canada / British Columbia.
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Jordan
Beau
FranThe Parliament is led by a coalition of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party. This is unusual in the UK (though common in some European countries) and happened because in the 2010 election, the Conservatives did not win enough seats to win the majority, and so joined forces with a smaller group of Liberal Democrats.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Which has more power us senate house of representatives UK house of lords or the UK house of commons?
lower house
What is the employment rate in England?
The UK, Great Britain, currently has more of their people in work than at any time in its history. That was then.... when I wrote the above..., things are going to be tough.
Is Australia still tied to Britain's legal and political systems?
Yes and no.The last real legal and/or political tie to Britain was severed on 3 March 1986, when the Australia Acts came into effect. The Australia Acts declared that Australia had the status of a Sovereign, Independent and Federal Nation.The nation still retains Elizabeth II as head of state, but her position as Australia's head of state is a completely separate position from her position as the head of state of any other country, including the UK. What the Australia Act effectively did was remove the ability of the British Government to make laws for Australia and removed the last legal link with the UK by abolishing the right of appeal to the judicial committee of the Privy Council.Some might say Australia is still on a path to independence as we are still technically ruled by the British monarchy, even though that monarchy does not have any right to interfere with Australian laws. Currently, Australia chooses to remain in the Commonwealth. It has not yet elected to go down the path of republicanism.
Can a Canadian Prime minister be Impeached?
This is a tricky question actually... Technically yes, but in Practice no. Reasons for "technically yes": Parliament retains the power to impeach anyone. Impeachment is just a process where the legislature charges a person with an unlawful act, tries them for it and if convicted levies a penalty (removal from office in the US, but in other countries includes fines or Jail time). Canada has both a written and an unwritten constitution, the unwritten parts are inherited from Britain because our constitution is "similar in principle" to the UK's. Basically if the UK parliament has the power so does ours. The UK's parliament has the power of impeachment, but they haven't used it in over 200 years! The last one was Henry Dundas in 1806. But we and they could dust it off if the need arises. Reason for in practice "no": It just doesn't fit into our political system. The government must maintain the confidence of the house of commons. How could a PM claim to still hold it if that same house just ordered him to stand trial? Why would parliament choose to use the archaic impeachment process, when it is far easier to win a vote of non-confidence and accomplish the same thing? Parliament doesn't actually have the power to remove the PM directly, that power being in the hands of the Governor General. It could issue declarations of non-confidence, it could throw the PM in jail. But still it is a request to the GG - who would be arguably bound to accept it.
Why is the UK so pro-Turkish?
UK seems to be pro-Turkish for those that are Turcophobic.
