myata

OK, that was the third calling and I have to assume that you have no answer to that clearly stated question. No other democracy of the first world grants its executive the privilege to shut down the Parliament for extended periods of time and at will, leaving it completely free of any oversight or accountability, whether under thin guise of "Royal Prerogative" or any other centuries old mumbo jumbo. True, that makes us unique among the democracies of the developed world just as was said all along. You can certainly take comfort that it "does not undermine principles" or the "orignal", it depends entirely on which principles or the original you want to notice and which - not, but the fact, the reality of the matter will remain exactly the same principles or not, that no other advanced democracy still allows such a ridiculous disbalance of political power in favour of the executive. It worked so far due to quite unique combination of factors here (federative structure, remoteness, lack of conflicts or population pressures) but as said, reliance on dumb luck can only be stretched so far and there's always first time for those who just won't learn on mistakes of others.

And still no answer, and so again: In which of aforementioned "Westminister" countries, or any other first world democracies, constitutional framework allows a minority PM to shut down the Parliament for up to one full year at a time, and at any time of their choosing? Looks like "Westminister" means different things in different places. In some, it's about real checks and balances and division of powers. In others, token "supremacy" (of Parliament), while in practice near complete and unchecked domination of the executive. To say that the former "Westminister" is just like the latter one would be just like saying that appointed viceroy is the same as elected President or Chair of legislature. Which we already did, so I'm not really surprised.

No, it was a precise question but it appears that as soon as it comes to those, a sudden bout of obtusive disease (or is it temporary hearling loss?) strikes right out of the blue. But not to worry, for your conventience I'll repeat it one more time: In which of aforementioned "Westminister" countries, or any other first world democracies, constitutional framework allows a minority PM to shut down the Parliament for up to one full year at a time, and at any time of their choosing? Please attempt your best to stay on subject this time around.

No, eh? No such example? Would it imply that Canada's Westminister system where every minority PM could kick and shut down the Parliament at will, is something entirely different from e.g. Ireland's or India's? Or because unelected viceroy is "similar" to elected President, "Westiminister" system where PM is limited only by the reach of his/her (political) fantasms would be exactly the same as those in which they are bound by strict constitutional processes, checks and balances?

Nice try there, speaking for me (next time maybe you could try something of your own?). But here's the thing, why hiding behind that generic and meaningless "Westminister system" (because unlike us here, every single country mentioned in your list has redefined that system in some practical way), instead try to name another first world democracy where a minority government could obstruct, ignore and shut down the Parliament at will, just like it has been recently demonstrated by our honourable PM here?

Now it does indeed begin to sound like that broken telephone. No, no argument from me here, in this system that thing is indeed the sole, only and the one meangful tool of holding the government to any kind of accountability and responsibility. Agreed, confirmed, and closed? And when and if that tool is impracttical, inconvenint or impossible to use, like e.g. in case an election happened last month and nobody wants it again, nor would it make any sense? Then that simple math that you neglected in high school so fully giving yourself to the studies of our glorious and past history, would have told you that the number of meaningful working tools to hold the government to any kind of account quickly and obviously comes down to: 1 - 1 = 0, zero, zilch, yada and nada. That's correct, that would be the full and true worth of Parliamentary supremacy, government resposibily and accountability when THE ONE TRUE INSTRUMENT OF DEMOCRACY couldn't be applied, for any practical reasons. And, most surprisingly, in a full agreement with our observations of reality. Parliamentary oversight, where are you? Hello-oooooooo? This is the best democratic system in the world, AKA holding all your democratic eggs in one "Motion of Confidence" basket, courtesy of the late British Empire (which itself as pretty much everybody else, including Austratia, New Zealand, India and Ireland has long moved on. Leaving us here along with maybe Jamaica to carefully treasure and preserve the precious political realities of the past long past for the benefit and bewilderment of the posterity).

Your rephrasing of what was said doesn't change much, does it? If an election happened recently and people don't want another one, the executive branch will have a free hand (just as we see - if we still can see), and there's nothing in this whole beautiful system to hold it accountable in any way. Thank-you. Forgetting Clinton, are you? Oops. Denying obvious reality is bound to lead to such accidents. Let me tell you that they have: a working system of checks and balances where a President cannot shut the House of Reps at will, nor the House dictate to President how to run the country. Still to come near you, in some distant political future. But it can't keep it accountable or responsible can it? Parliament oversight, hello-ooo? Where are you? No, the token and standard of modern democracy, for everybody to aspire to. Already addressed. Elected president is very similar to a birthright Monarch or appointed viceroy. All are human, after all. You lost me here. Are you saying that we have "relatively weak" executive too? Have you looked out that window, of late? Well, thank you, but as you noticed I attempted to summarize the state of affairs (and our discussion) without going on sidetracks of reasons and possibilities. Being able to see the actual state of affairs as they are is the first and critical step in any change. And if seeing these serious flaws, the country still does not want the change I think my diagnosis may have a dole of truth. It shouldn't hurt to look in the mirror once in a while should it? You lost me again (or just parrotting tired old stuff having nothing more to add). Didn't I say awhile back that both elections and functional political process have important place in a modern democracy? One can't go to elections every time a government screws up for the obvious reasons of losing all interest and participation in the process, and obviously no democracy could exist without free elections. Try to understand, it's the AND and not OR as in some binary visions of the world. Well you had a chance to address each one of my statements specifically and in detail, and you choose to hide behind these generic accusations. Doesn't speak much for your position does it? My advice: try to see the meaning of things as they are abstracting from irrelevant details as they are written in containers and mega bookshelves of those glancy books and posters. If we had functional independent federal watchdogs, we would see them in work, now. If we had an independent and supreme Parliament, it would be working now, making laws and keeping the government in check. This is the reality as it is and as opposed to the glancy coloured picture books good for use only on the JRK level of political discussion.

Wait, let me confirm that I heard it right: replacing birthright King or unelected appointee with a figure elected by full popular vote is a "similar" system? OMG. If that would be the level of our discussion, then indeed I can't see what more is there left to discuss, because birthright King is now democratic President, Monarchy is Democracy, Lack of any meanigful checks or balances is Vibrant and Triumphant Democracy, being muzzled, kicked and shut at will means Supremacy of the Parliament, and so on as per that glancy shiny book you and Bambino were reading since Jr K and that safely replaced for you the stark reality you could see right out your very window and that even came close to knocking you on your head, but it'll take more, much more some serious crisis or calamity to just notice the obvious and start moving our ar.. to make even minor meaningful change.

I said already that I'm not in favour of "executive" prorogations in principle, so this one is wrong and it just cost McGuinty's Liberals my vote. Despite the obvious difference with above mentioned Harper's case, that holding a majority they could simply have run this through the Parliament. Anyways these kind of tactical plays in nothing but an abuse of Parliament and in a responsible Parliamentary democracy should be a thing of long past. Neither branch of power should be allowed to interfere with and ultimately, shut out the other it's a travesty and ridicule of democratic process still possible, of all democracies of the world, probably only here and in Jamaica.

Indeed, I see that there's fewer and fewer of meaningful points to discuss. I think we have established and agreed that the current system through whatever historical convolutions which can be left outside of this discussion, formally affords the executive power significant powers and privileges that would be hard to impossible to justify from the position of modern, responsible democracy (i.e balance of power, closely defined constitutional process and checks and balances to prevent abuses by any one branch). We also established that the only checks on that disproportionally unbalanced executive power is an unlikely intervention by unelected appointee of the same government they're supposed to keep in check, or popular will via election. Understanding that most electorates this included are averse to frequent elections, this leaves that same unelected appointee as the only meaningful check on the work of the government for extended periods of time. We have found out that other than a few obscure Caribbean democracies like Jamaica, almost every other functional (as opposed to fictional or token) democracy has moved on to a more sophisticated form of political system, with better defined political roles, processes and division of powers. And finally, we also established that as it exists now, the system is almost impossible to modify. At this point, assuming that the analysis is correct as you would admit it, I rest my case. There's no point in arguing whether its the best, very good, working or sucking system as it depends on the viewers' framework of reference. We can keep it and enjoy the warm attachement to the ages past. Or we can move forward and fix what doesn't make sense in this age anymore. In the array of evolutionary choices each one has a merit, and a definite result. In a few generations we may very well find out what our disinterest, fear of change and attachement to the dusty old ways and traditions has in store for us.

Indeed I have to fully admit the error of my ways. With inspiring examples of these democracies (and I shouldn't forget to mention other glorious ones to guide and inspire us with sophistication of their system, e.g. Iraq and Afghanstian, anyways), with inspiring examples like that, it was completely wrong of me to say that we are "the only democracy" to copy over another country's political system as is, without even a minor local modification. I'll try qualify my statement maybe by saying "the last and only first world democracy" instead but that too could correct itself quite soon (in historical terms). More later.

Oh yeah those countries.. sorry. Great role models (hard to tell though are they moving to us, or we - to their level). But I thought that in our system GG is simply a ceremonial rubberstamp of the PM? So what good would the "good" (grounding) do to anybody but GG himself, feeling so good about their good grounding? If not and GG is required to play active political role, wouldn't it be like going all the way back in time to Laurier and beyond? I know. But we here seem to be so terrifyingly scared of even an insignificant minuscule change that saying anything like "comprehensive Constitutional reform" would have an effect of a major earthquake on the political landscape. I appreciate your warm feelings, but I already commented on the relation of monarchy and democracy, in the sense that they cannot coexist without one being completely powerless and ceremonial. How could one justify a special and active political role for an individual by birth, while also maintaining the notion of equality? Anyways it's a deviation from the topic. At issue here is not the monarchy per se, but disproportionate and undemocratic privileges granted to the executive branch as a residual effect of our monarchic past. No, it doesn't because (in most advanced democracies) the role of monarch has long been superceded by strict constituonal process, clear division of powers and checks and balances preventing dispropotionate concentration and/or abuse of power by any branch. Without any drastic changes, we could start with removing all executive prerogatives and privileges - except may be to reset the Parliament (with its consent) and recall it on emergency, and instead explicitly define limits and interactions of powers in the Constitution.

Yes but as already mentioned, Australia has proportionally elected Senate. And, it actually has an active debate going about moving on to the republican model, maybe even a referendum, not sure about that. And New Zealand has had proportional elections in all of its legislation for a while now. We here appear to be the last and only sorry democracy of this world that uses foreign political system entirely as is without as much as a minuscule native modification, and then cry "dear William come save us poor and unworthy we're messed up with that system of yours and we just can't figure it out ourselves". I listed my preferences so many times already my tongue is getting sore to repeat it while fingers - to type. But to begin small and practical, how about doing away with those royal/crown, etc privileges, powers and prerogatives that as been explained have nothing to do with operation of modern, independent and responsible democracy?

Of course, the sad, pathetic, bs-itting and such excuses a la "but I believed / didn't know / thought that I knew / my friend was talking about something that made me think that I knew that I believed " are routinely applied by peaceful democracies in cases of questionable peaceful interventions outside of their proper border. Internally they apply more stringent responsibility standards (imagine: "I believed that my evil neighbour was conspiring to strike me in about 45 minutes, no I wasn't 100% absolutely sure that he wasn't thinking of such a thing, so I had no choice but to break into his house and beat him up first"). Sounds entirely believable, rigth? Just like that Bush and Blair pathetic adage...

Probably or maybe, who knows, it's not like you're going to have him pass any sort of examination to find out, will ya? And so, just the royal blood should suffice to get the keys to all those special powers, prerogatives and privileges. Just like it's been since the good times of Kings and Queens, who cares what century it is out there in world, correct?

Oh gimme a big fat break, won't ya please? We had inspection teams criss-crossing Iraq in whichever way they desired, plus satellites plus all kinds of air see and land surveilance. How far could one stretch that "didn't all know" thing before it becomes an obvious bs? Is it really "didn't know" or "refuse to see the obvious truth because it doesn't agree with what I already decided all along"? This is, folks, the democratic peaceful foreign practice at its best and utmost, look and don't blink. The important part there is, I believe so I do, everything else is democratic crap to feed the simpleminded so-easily-convinced-by-generous-dose-of-bs-brainwashing peasant crowd. And then of course you can turn on "the better place" tune. Really. If you can believe that it's right to "go" why shouldn't you do the same with "better place"? Too bad same question couldn't be asked of Saddam himself, for obvious reasons. Could he not also have had some serious "concerns" or "beliefs" that made him do what he had to, himself being a sensitive and reflective human being, please hold me before I spill any more of these tears..

Wow, that would certainly resolve all our constitutional woes. Lacking own head on the shoulders, what could be better than that of another? (and preferrably, a royal one at that)

Now look who's being confused here. Three different versions of reality is as many paragraphs. And all just to confirm that was said already (the Sovereign has the right to refuse any legislation). Thank-you. And what's that, another "non-sequitur" or in plain words, a lame change of subject, distraction? We were talking about our system affording the executive Sovereign far too many powers inconsistent with notions of balance and division of powers, remember? If Jo on the street doesn't like an undemocratic jerk of a government it does not eliminate the problem with the political system that afforded that government the privilege to do it, does it? That's if you follow the letter of the law ("Parliament is supreme!") rather than creative spirit of it ("See you in the court"). But anyways I don't want to go into hypothetical matters, enough is to say that a year without legislature, without any oversight of government whatsoever is an outrage for any system that calls itself a democracy, not to say modern and responsible one, and by your own admission it would be perfectly legal and can happen right here anytime. Clear violation in whose view? Do you recall that by your own admission, the Sovereign (the executive) is also entitled to judge on matters of constitutionality? So situation wouldn't be as clearcut, bringing us all so very close to the exciting possibilities of events like e.g. recently in Honduras. That's right. The balance of power and strict constitutional process common and synonimous with modern democracies is there not as a fancy decoration but for a reason. Some people have learned of the risks of putting all eggs in one (executive) basket. Looks like we still have it in our thrilling political future. Reading from that glancy hystory book of yours, with beautiful stories and pictures of kind and benevolent Kings? Listen, if we can have that GG as Her M rep that is bound to serve always and forever as a perfect guardian angel of honesty and constitutionality, why even bother with all that messy business of democracy in the first place? But right, some people create independent instituions, checks and balances and constitutional processes. We have have an appointee of the Sovereign and hope that in the times of crisis they'd show perfect impartiality and alone defend our democracy. And your hystory is just another non sequitur here, because as everybody knows there're also notions as reason and learning. People don't usually crawl on their fours past early ages of toddlerhood and no more should independent and mature people hang on to the dear relics of their political babyhood. Update our centuries old political system with detailed definitions of powers of each democratic institution, political and constitutional processes guiding checks and balances on powers and precluding abuse thereof? Didn't I say it like many many times already, but you just prefer to not notice thinking that the system is as perfect as can be, and all problems will just solve themselves after a good night's sleep? Yeah, right come back to this Earth. Walking with your back firmly against the future looking into glorious times of Tupper and Laurier and thing that your ways are and always be no less than perfect is one certain recepy to get yourself in the ditch. As said there's first time for everything, and those who won't learn from mistakes of others will do it on their own. You're clearly saying it with an air of "I like all my eggs in one basket". And I think that in matters as complex as running a country that's a wrong answer. Elections aren't a replacement of working political process with balances and division of powers. Yes I thing they should, and if they don't they'll just show more of how inefficient and toothless they are. See, there aren't many steps separating a working democracy from no democracy, they would be 1) political processes, checks and balances between powers; 2) effective Opposition and 3) democratic will of population itself. We don't have #1 here in any meaningful sense, we're down to situation where we do not have #2 either, and so it brings us all the way down to the last step. It may hold for now, but who knows about the next time? I'm not saying here and now, but if the next confident majority government doesn't bring these issues to the table we'll come really close to have our fate settled as that of people who are averted to change and will never effect any. Unless of course it'd be Harpers's majority government, that would also settle our fate.

And yeah, of all the ... (for the lack of better word) who started all kinds of bloody murderous wars in the modern age of this world, has any single one ever come out with anything resembling regret or remorse? Great company there, (less than) honourable Messrs Blair and Bush! And a good lesson to us wordless as ever peasants of this democratic world, next time we go to elect more democratic leaders like that.

Good stuff, TB when facing an inconvenient question, changing subject is a prime escape. No worries, I'll highlight every such case exclusively for your convenience. Do you mean that Souvereign's ability to "advise" GG on effecting legislation is explicitly limited to a limited, specific type of bills? I'll certainly be interested to learn that, but would you know it for certain? Or maybe it's just another unspoken convention? Do perchance confuse "have happened" with "possible"? They aren't the one and same thing, as I'm patiently trying to explain, there's always fist time. E.g. prorogation to avoid facing confidence didn't happen till recently, according to your own conclusion, but now we have a proud precedent. Things change and so, one more time (btw this is #1 for avoiding a direct question): can the government shut down the Parliament for as long as it wants? Or it cannot? I'll make a qualification for "one year maximum" (in our situation it'll be till December) though I pretty sure that even then a determined and creative government not unlike we have now could come up with way of extending this limit further, perhaps, much further (according to what I heard on the radio an appeal to Supreme Court on the refusal to hand over documents could take "years"). What if, inspired by previous successes, the government refuses to recall the Parliament and tell opposition the same thing ("see you in the court")? Thanks. Note also that as we established above, suspension could last a full year, and perhaps longer, many things may change in that time. No, as I'm trying to explain, I'm not afraid but consider any side's manipulation of political system to its advantage as incompatible with principles of modern democracy. The ways in which government could use the ability to call an election to its advantage are innumerable and the excuse that it could "bite them" is lame. No, they refused to hand in documents now, and the appeals to courts could take years? Would it be the same idea as with amendment formula, they cannot on paper, and can - and do, very well, in reality? Yes, and not just the Opposition but all who value our democracy should get to it, i.e fixing the system. Australia has an elected, and elected proprtionally Senate, that can initiate legislation. New Zealand has a fully propotional election system. UK's system for whatever it is, is their own, created in their history and by their traditions. But we here may very well be the last democratic nation on this planet that simply took somebody else's political system and blindly copied it to govern itself and at that, copied in such way that it's nearly impossible to modify. You can see in it some kind of democratic confidence, but after sponsorship scandal, Chretien's iron rule and Harpers inroads into prerogative powers, how would you know that it's not just plain senility, apathy and ultimate inability to change? Almost just everybod else already moved by us, so what would it take to gather enough will and determination to actually make the change? Or could it even happen, ever?

How is it going to be "dispensed with" though? Did you forget to elaborate? Should we legislate the way political parties elect their leaders? Or maybe make it mandatory for all MPs to have "spines"? All before addressing that minor and insignificant issue that in our proud and superior version of democracy, ... correct, any PM, whether in minority or majority situation can simply pick up the phone and 1) kill any proposed legislation they don't like; 2) shut down the Parliament for as long as they like; 3) avoid an election they don't like, or call one whenever they like. Not to mention real triffles like refusing access to information to our elected representatives, obstructing the work of Parliament or firing "independent" watchdogs.

Another good example.

What is, then? And if "alone" it does not (put it in danger), does it mean that it shouldn't be fixed - so that next time if and when actually combinded with something else, it actually could (put it in danger)? Of course, I cannot prove nor elaborate any of the above in a direct argument with the poster, so I just prefer these innocent comments about that poster, giving me that feel of victory and superiority I simply cannot achieve in the dispute (for obvious, already mentioned reasons).

I know it's not what was meant by the poster but literal connection is very funny. Indeed one of the critical questions raised by the film is how would an alien (whether a creature from another world or a human being different from you and I) "look right"? And how, based on what parameters and criteria do we decide that.

TB, what would be the point of bringing in all the hystory, I mean how it would help us to fix and improve our political system here and now? The unqualified executive priveleges inherited from 17th centrury are wrong in a modern democracy, just as much as the amendment formula that cannot amend anything for all practical means. If we are to believe that we make the system to serve our society, smoking a pipe and going to sleep in the hope that things will get better in the morning is not an option. We'll have to try ways, solutions and approaches to make things work and fix the system for the better. If we're still back in the colonial mindset, it's made this way by the King across the sea and there's nothing we can do about back - then yes, just too bad.