that fact doesn't make our system fallible at the expense of such a void. Our system is fallible like the rest but more so then others. The liberal dictatorship of the last 10 years indicates as such, Canada is a dictatorship all but in name. Our country suffers from such a void, with western alienation to Quebecois rejection; our system has facilitated the regionalism that defines what Canada is today. a checks and balances system is nothing more than duplicity, another layer of bureaucracy that weighs on the ability of government to be effective. How is a check and balance weaken the effectiveness of govt? I assume you believe that passing shit laws, and the 2 billion spent on the gun registry (which was only supposed to cost $2 million) isn’t a gross layer of bureaucracy? What we need to do is strengthen the Senate, the mechanism already exists we just need to empower it. My argument nests with a party's ability to effectively lead - something that is inherantly hindered by a minority government. Canada needs effective govt, efficient govt, and a socially conscience govt. If we are a “democracy” then why not takes people’s opinions into account? Why have this monotonous govt structure like in Orwell’s 1984, all or nothing attitude has never done a nation good.
Bill C-68 (the gun registry) would have been defeated if the Liberals allowed a free vote. I say away with the party whip and party discipline, allow members to vote in accordance to their constituents (a practice employed by our sister legislature in Brittain). No need for radical senate reform. All that does is create another layer of bureaucracy - not to mention a heavy burden on the public purse which would make the $2 b dollar expense of c-68 look like chump change. The Liberals have done a lot of good things during their tenure. Unfortunately, the electorate has a short memory that cries 'what have you done for me lately'.
In response to a much earlier comment about immigration laws: Despotic said: "You don't get ethnic diversity when approximately 90% of Richmond is Chinese." well where the hell would you want to live in canada if you were Chinese and on your way to a better life? of course you would want to live near your fellow country folks. Despotic said: "When our ancestors came to this country, they came with the intention of -becoming- Canadian. I'm beginning to feel like an immigrant in my hometown (not Richmond, and definately not Surrey for the record)." all of these cultures MAKES us Canadian, you dumbass. And of course they should hang on to their heritage and teach ignorant canadians all about it. especially you punk. I taught in South Korea and was happy to be in an area where there were a few Canadian foreigners close by. After seeing first hand how some people live, I would gladly let foreigners into Canada and give them a taste of why it's great to be born in such an amazing country.
Except that this "dictatorship" is on the verge of being dismantled peacefully through the normal democratic process - you're using flamboyant terminology without understanding the meaning of your words. The Liberals remained in power due to skillful politicking, solid policies, and a fragmented opposition. One could argue that any "arrogance" of the Liberals was a result of weak and lame opposition.
No need for radical senate reform. All that does is create another layer of bureaucracy - not to mention a heavy burden on the public purse which would make the $2 b dollar expense of c-68 look like chump change. The Senate doesn’t have to be reformed that much, give me a break. All I insinuated is that she given real powers is that too much to ask? The Senate already exists; all we do is give it real actionable powers. All the mechanisms exist, they have their chambers. The Senate is a waste of money right now, it does nothing. At least we would be paying for something. I really don’t see where your argument is going. The Liberals have done a lot of good things during their tenure. Unfortunately, the electorate has a short memory that cries 'what have you done for me lately'. I agree. Prof: Except that this "dictatorship" is on the verge of being dismantled peacefully through the normal democratic process - you're using flamboyant terminology without understanding the meaning of your words. I understand the meaning of my terms, and I stick by them. No where does it state that dictatorships have to be broken apart my war, and a coup. The country was dominated by one leader and one party for ten years, which really only nominal debates. The decisions were already made; the liberal backbenchers were hardly allowed to vote their own conscience, or that of their constituencies. That is the tyranny of the majority, that’s why I have a innate mistrust of it. One could argue that any "arrogance" of the Liberals was a result of weak and lame opposition. I agree with you there. P.S:http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=622321#post622321
OK... feel free to disregard the fact that that tenure was broken by multiple democratic elections. We were not bound to the Liberals for that whole time - we willingly elected them time and time again. Further, from dictionary.com: So, unless you think the Canadian Constitution counts for nothing, the opposition parties in Parliament are just puppets of the governing party, all our elections are rigged, etc., you are horrendously misusing a term.
I dont mean to but in on a CAnadian argument, (how do you like your new election results?) But the party line is used with abandon here in the UK. I have heard very little of MPS voting the way their constituents might like them to on any important issues. For example, there is something caled a three line whip, when that gets invoked, if your an MP in the party, theyll drag you moaning gently from your hospital bed in order to get you into the lobbies. Every Prime minister I have known (ok, only 3.) has used the party line and whip in every instance they could to pass legislation they personally wanted passed. In many ways the UK system is inferior to the USA system, including in having the party leader, as prime minister, with effectively dictatorial powers.
OK... feel free to disregard the fact that that tenure was broken by multiple democratic elections. We were not bound to the Liberals for that whole time - we willingly elected them time and time again. Exactly did I not mention the dictatorship of the majority? That is really what was going on Canada; this nominal democratic process really was useless. We had 10 years of a Liberal dictatorship, they were basically totalitarian no one could oppose them. You are looking at the term dictatorship from a skewed historical assumption, that dictatorships are bad, and headed by bad men. Dictatorship is neither negative nor positive in its connotation. You are the one who is putting the categorical emotive response to the term. Not me… So, unless you think the Canadian Constitution counts for nothing, With the notwithstanding clause, pretty much. the opposition parties in Parliament are just puppets of the governing party, They aren’t rigged but they are there for show. you are horrendously misusing a term. As are you for trying to limit use of the term because you think it’s “bad”.
So much to comment on, but I'll start here: "a party's effectiveness depends on their ability to lead" It's pretty hard to judge anyone but the Liberals, especially on the federal scale, which it appears you've done. No other party besides the Conservatives has ever led the country, so how can we really judge their abilities to lead? Provincial governments are not a good example, just look at the differences between the old Ontario Conservatives and the Alberta Conservatives. Personally, I'm happy with the election results. I'm looking forward to seeing what will happen with a minority government. Right now, I do think the Liberals are the best equipped to lead, despite all the scandals and infighting. THe rest of hte parties are sorting themselves out. I do, however, think democratic reforms are needed, aka we need proportional representation. If anyone's interested, I voted green. Even though my candidate was an idiot. I wanted to give them some support and see what direction they'll take. Their Conservative leaning do scare me, but we'll see...
