ReeferMadness

Based on this comment, I think we can all get behind you volunteering to be first. That's a start.

Harper is an awful leader - in so many ways. But there are much worse people than Harper out there. The point is that our system lacks sufficient checks and balances to prevent them from exercising almost unchecked power. Harper may not be a dictator; but he has implemented changes in law and convention that would make it much easier for a dictator to take power. And the Queen isn't going to stop them.

Oooh, I see. It's OK that our Prime Minister misrepresents our system of governance. You think that the views of the Prime Minister, who exercises power that a president could only dream of, aren't important because.... the media is there to hold him accountable? The same media that he holds in such contempt he barely acknowledges them? Is that what you're telling me?

The Queen "lets go" of "her countries" for the same reason that Harper has refused to let his degenerates introduce a law banning abortion - she knows it will go badly for her. She has a sweet gig - wealth and celebrity status and she knows if she ever tries to exercise her power, she will lose it. So, let's agree that the monarchy is a pointless anachronism that's worth nothing because it will always choose the least controversial course of action. If I hear "bound by convention" one more time, I'm going to gag. Every time an election produces a close result, a gaggle of constitutional experts gather around and offer differing opinions about what should happen. Why? Well, that's because we don't have rules, we have "precedents" and "conventions". So you keep saying; but you offer curiously little actual evidence. Or are you going to regale us about all those books you read? Exactly. Which leaves her as a pointless figurehead.

And yet, we can have a federal leaders debate where the PM misrepresents the rules and the other leaders don't contradict him. So, when our PM can go on national TV and misrepresent out system to the entire country and nobody corrects him, I guess that just more proof that our system is abso-bloody-lutely perfect!!!

This is absolutely true and bears repeating. As more and more of the political power has been sucked into the PMO, it's only good fortune and the integrity of some outstanding individuals (like Kevin Page and Beverly McLaughlin) that prevent it from degenerating. A good system should protect us from bad people. In our case, we seem to have a bad system that works only due to the integrity of outstanding individuals.

I think the answer is simple. The main interest of the Queen and the Royal Family is sustaining the monarchy. If the Queen actually takes action, then the people on the wrong side of that action will start to howl about how she is meddling in the internal affairs of a country. And people who don't care for the monarchy will use that to suggest the institution is archaic and has outlived its usefulness (as it is and has). So, the Queen will sit back and allow people to assume and argue she is a force for stability.

If the system were simpler and intuitive, more people would understand it. And if the rules were clearly laid out and written down, we'd be less likely to have the type of constitutional crisis we had in 2008. You know, the one where the ruling political party deliberately lied to the people and gained political advantage from doing it. Honestly, it's hard to avoid seeing the problems. You seem to have your head stuck in the sand deep enough to manage though.

Hahahaha Is that really a serious question??? How much of what you learned in Grade 10 do you remember? I was a good student and I remember practically nothing. I know what I know because of what I read. It's true mostly because the rules are arcane, archaic and often counter-intuitive. And Canadians get most of their understanding of politics in the same place they get most of their understanding of law - from watching American TV shows.

I don't know whether you're playing dumb or if you and smallc and others around here are really that ignorant of the facts. There are studies that show that most Canadians don't even have a basic understanding of how their system works. I've posted them several times in the past and I'm not going to look them up again. In 2008, Harper was able to exploit that lack of understanding to his advantage. I don't think that it's an exaggeration to suggest that our unnecessarily convoluted and archaic system is a material part of the reason that Harper is still in power today. So go ahead and bury your head deeper in the sand. If you pretend everything is fine, then it is.

In 2008, the Conservatives were able to exploit Canadians' ignorance of their own political system to gain a political advantage. This isn't some theoretical argument. Canadians actually believe that coalition governments, which are perfectly acceptable according to our system of governance, are somehow illegitimate. So, while you tell yourself if up to each person to educate himself or herself, the ignorance of the people is preventing the system from working properly. And consider this. It's bad enough that most of the important decisions are made by Harper and the PMO. The election on October 19 will be conducted by an agency headed by an Harper appointee. If there is any lack of clarity as to who should govern, the decision will be made by another Harper appointee, not according to rules that are constitutionally agreed but by parliamentary convention that dates back hundreds of years. And if the opposition doesn't agree, where do they go? To an elderly monarch in another country? Or maybe to a supreme court where 7 of the 9 members are also Harper appointees? If Stalin designed the rules of democracy, I can imagine they wouldn't be much different.

It sounds like you and your fiancee have had a harrowing experience. The answer to her question is no country is just one thing. Canada has always had its share of xenophobes. Since 911, it's been much easier for leaders like Harper, who really don't like or trust the common folk, to use that fear to put in rules allowing police and border guards to do pretty much as they please. If you're fortunate enough to live in a riding that is not "represented" (a term a use very loosely) by a Conservative MP, you could try taking your case to an MP. Or, if your case is really as cut and dried as you make it sound, you could try taking it to the media. To be blunt, I would not do that if your fiancee is from a Muslim country or looks/sounds like she might be from a Muslim country. Good luck.

Yes. And the definition of excellent democracy is any system that allows transition of power without shooting.

It's not accurate; but as we've seen, the rules matter less than what people believe to be the rules.

You're equating an elected official with a 'rubber stamp'? And do you think that's the only other way? And if the PM is supposed to be accountable to Parliament, then why not actually have a formal election of the PM by secret ballot of parliamentarians? At least, that would be some indication to people of how things are supposed to work. Or are you saying you prefer a system that nobody understands?

Another arcane piece of evidence indicting an anachronistic system that nobody understands. And any democratic system that isn't understood by the people who it purports to represent is broken beyond repair.

That's not what he said. He said he won't sit as PM if he doesn't have the most seats. That's a plurality, not necessarily a majority.

And in Canada, nobody understands that aside from a relative handful of people. Don't you remember when the Conservatives accused the other parties of staging a coup?

Doubt it. Canadians can hardly be bothered to pay attention to what is going on in the election.

So you didn't. I'm not sure why you answered, though. It seems like there are a few people here who are about a half step away from hate speech. I think they should just say what they think instead of dancing a half step away.

You asked me if they were coming here to work. Yes, I think they're coming here to work. I think they're coming to build a life where they don't have to live in a war zone. Now tell me what you think they're coming here to do. Or are you afraid the answer is going to remove any doubt of what type of person you are?

Don't back out now, buddy. Have the guts to say what you mean. You asked me if I thought they were coming here to work. What do you think they're coming here to do?

So called people? Can you elaborate what you mean by that term? And do you think Canada has too many poor people or too many brown people? Or maybe you meant too many Muslims?

Why do you think they are coming?

Clearly, someone who is an expert at appealing to and bring out the worst in people. In other words, a perfect fit for Harper's Conservatives.