cybercoma Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Why should the direct elected PM be responsible to the parliament? Just by definition?Why should a CEO be responsible to their shareholders? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 This thread is bad. It shows such terrible ignorance about the fundamentals of our system of government that it makes me question whether or not some people should be allowed to vote at all. Do you see the fundamental faults of the system? Do you have ever, if not never, think to improve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 The reason the Tory MP and perhaps other MPs, don't stand up to the leader, especially in Harper's case is THEY like their job and if u go against Harper, u are out of a job.They're not out of a job. A PM can't force a byelection in a riding and they can't fire an MP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 This thread is bad. It shows such terrible ignorance about the fundamentals of our system of government that it makes me question whether or not some people should be allowed to vote at all. Lol, I admire Smallc for having the patience to try to explain basic civics over and over on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Do you see the fundamental faults of the system? Do you have ever, if not never, think to improve?Explain to me the fundamental flaws because right now I see the fundamental flaw of your suggestion; namely, it creates gridlock between the executive and legislative branches of governments and may actually be worse than the gridlock we see in the US. You want an elected Prime Minister who would then appoint cabinet ministers...all unelected. So now you have an individual with absolute power in the executive with an unelected executive and it has absolutely no accountability to the democratically elected representatives of the people. It utterly destroys all accountability from the executive, save for 4 days every 16 years. It's a terrible suggestion and is completely at odds with the functioning of our government and current institutions. It's entirely unworkable. As Smallc suggested, you could have an elected president replace the governor general. However, even that would have to be re-worked because it would be incredibly dangerous to give the reserve powers to a partisan office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Why should a CEO be responsible to their shareholders? The original shareholder is the people. And the MPs are directors the people chose them by votes for legislative function, and the PM is the CEO the people chose her or him for executive function. The people want the two functions be well separated for the most benefits of the people as original shareholders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) No. You want them well separated, not the people, and you haven't made a case as to why they should be in our current system. What you're proposing involves a mass overhaul of our entire legislative process. Edited August 27, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) I'm glad someone else took over who's willing to put more effort in than me. Edited August 27, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Lol, I admire Smallc for having the patience to try to explain basic civics over and over on here. Thanks for your patience. This is a thinking about how to deal with the issues of our Canadian political system altogether. I hope you take part in the thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Explain to me the fundamental flaws because right now I see the fundamental flaw of your suggestion; namely, it creates gridlock between the executive and legislative branches of governments and may actually be worse than the gridlock we see in the US. You want an elected Prime Minister who would then appoint cabinet ministers...all unelected. So now you have an individual with absolute power in the executive with an unelected executive and it has absolutely no accountability to the democratically elected representatives of the people. It utterly destroys all accountability from the executive, save for 4 days every 16 years. It's a terrible suggestion and is completely at odds with the functioning of our government and current institutions. It's entirely unworkable. As Smallc suggested, you could have an elected president replace the governor general. However, even that would have to be re-worked because it would be incredibly dangerous to give the reserve powers to a partisan office. Please read my topic carefully and my references, and then you know why I make this suggestion, and I expect to discuss with you after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 The Crown is the CEO. The Prime Minister is appointed by, and works for the Crown to ensure the Ministry functions in a manner that maintains the confidence of Parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 The Crown is the CEO. The Crown is the company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Thanks for your patience. This is a thinking about how to deal with the issues of our Canadian political system altogether. I hope you take part in the thinking. I thought about it but it seems clear enough to me that Smallc and cybercoma have already identified the problems with your suggestion. There are problems with our system but I think your suggestions would make them worse, not better. What you are describing is a President, not a Prime Minister. This works, insofar as it works, in the US because they have an entirely different system of government with checks and balances built into it that are not present in a Parliamentary system. Without those, the system would be a disaster. And, even then, there are real problems with gridlock in the US system. Also, this is the definition of republic in my dictionary, which would exclude Canada: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 No. You want them well separated, not the people, and you haven't made a case as to why they should be in our current system. What you're proposing involves a mass overhaul of our entire legislative process. Yes, I as one of the people want them well separated. We are in the information era, we can see what the consequences of the current system might be in the future. We should try to avoid those consequences, that is why "a mass overhaul of our entire legislative process" is needed. I will create a new topic, there I will explain everything on a higher level than here, and welcome you to discuss there once I will have created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) I thought about it but it seems clear enough to me that Smallc and cybercoma have already identified the problems with your suggestion. There are problems with our system but I think your suggestions would make them worse, not better. What you are describing is a President, not a Prime Minister. This works, insofar as it works, in the US because they have an entirely different system of government with checks and balances built into it that are not present in a Parliamentary system. Without those, the system would be a disaster. And, even then, there are real problems with gridlock in the US system. Also, this is the definition of republic in my dictionary, which would exclude Canada: Ok. Let us away from the big issues, which I will create a new topic, and now let us discuss the definition of republic. My reference: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic Here the definition of a republic: ​A republic is a representative democracy with a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority. According to this definition, Canada is a republic, but is very weak. The reason: unwritten constitutional conventions give "the predominant role and influence played by the Prime Minister of Canada"​, but "the Charter only states these rights and freedoms in very general terms" , and "their precise meaning is interpreted and clarified by the Canadian judiciary (and, in particular, the Supreme Court of Canada)." My reference: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/canadian-constitution-introduction-canada-s-constitutional-framework And, "In Canada party discipline is much more acute than in other western democracies. In the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, representatives enjoy considerably more freedom from their parties. Canadian MPs, however, are expected to follow the direction set by their parties' leadership and caucus — even when that direction is in opposition to their views or the demands of their constituents."​ My reference http://mapleleafweb.com/features/house-commons-introduction-canadas-premier-legislative-body So, you see, I consider the whole issues very seriously. I hope you too, for all about our future. Edited August 27, 2015 by Exegesisme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Ok. Let us away from the big issues, which I will create a new topic, and now let us discuss the definition of republic. My reference: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic Here the definition of a republic: ​A republic is a representative democracy with a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority. What is this source? It does not seem authoritative at all. I was quoting from Oxford. Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government(You could include Canada in their first broad definition, only insofar as every representative democracy could be included. This part seems common to me: " The term republic may also be applied to any form of government in which the head of state is not a hereditary monarch.") International Encyclopedia of Political Science: In the substantive sense, "republic" refers to a government in which the supreme power resides not in a monarch or king but in a body of citizens entitled to vote... In addition, the term has referred, in recent times, to a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch but, as a general rule, a president. The point you quote below, on the other hand, is a real problem imo: And, "In Canada party discipline is much more acute than in other western democracies. In the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, representatives enjoy considerably more freedom from their parties. Canadian MPs, however, are expected to follow the direction set by their parties' leadership and caucus — even when that direction is in opposition to their views or the demands of their constituents."​ My reference http://mapleleafweb.com/features/house-commons-introduction-canadas-premier-legislative-body Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 What is this source? It does not seem authoritative at all. I was quoting from Oxford. Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government(You could include Canada in their first broad definition, only insofar as every representative democracy could be included. This part seems common to me: " The term republic may also be applied to any form of government in which the head of state is not a hereditary monarch.") International Encyclopedia of Political Science: The point you quote below, on the other hand, is a real problem imo: And, "In Canada party discipline is much more acute than in other western democracies. In the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, representatives enjoy considerably more freedom from their parties. Canadian MPs, however, are expected to follow the direction set by their parties' leadership and caucus — even when that direction is in opposition to their views or the demands of their constituents."​ My reference http://mapleleafweb.com/features/house-commons-introduction-canadas-premier-legislative-body Now I am in an effort to try to get all these issues fixed. The real problem in you eyes, I see as unconstitutional. Can we fix it through the Supreme Court of Canada? Now I am creating the new topic I promised just now, and we will discuss all issue there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Please read my topic carefully and my references, and then you know why I make this suggestion, and I expect to discuss with you after that.No. I've read your suggestions and I'm telling you that a massive overturning of our entire political structure needs a compelling reason. You need to demonstrate a problem that is at least as big as this solution and you haven't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 The Crown is the company.Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Yes, I as one of the people want them well separated. We are in the information era, we can see what the consequences of the current system might be in the future. We should try to avoid those consequences, that is why "a mass overhaul of our entire legislative process" is needed. I will create a new topic, there I will explain everything on a higher level than here, and welcome you to discuss there once I will have created. Might, maybe, possibly is not a valid reason for a massive overhaul of our entire legislative process. Try again with concrete examples of problems that would be corrected by becoming a republic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Harper is only able to control the CPC caucus because the members let him. They have been held captive by their belief that he will get them re-elected. If you really want to reform Parliament, get out and get MP's elected who are not so venal and chicken. The Queen may appoint the Prime Minister but the PM serves at the pleasure of the Members of Parliament as well as the Crown. That's a lovely sentiment. How do you suggest we find these MP's that are not so venal and chicken? The parties have captured the system and the leaders have captured the parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) No. I've read your suggestions and I'm telling you that a massive overturning of our entire political structure needs a compelling reason. You need to demonstrate a problem that is at least as big as this solution and you haven't. You did not get that deep, and I will take them to the surface on the next topic. Edited August 27, 2015 by Exegesisme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 They're not out of a job. A PM can't force a byelection in a riding and they can't fire an MP. Stop and think then how many of the Tory MPs have left between elections and my own Tory MP said he doesn't want to start trouble because as a back bencher, he didn't want to lose his job. Can the leader do it?? The fear is there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Civis Romanus sum Posted September 6, 2015 Report Share Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) Prior to Stephen Harper's rule, parties actually worked together in committee to improve legislation. MPs were free to voice their thoughts, concerns and ideas within their committee. They did? When did this happen? Some of you people seem to have remarkably short memories. Edited September 6, 2015 by Civis Romanus sum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Civis Romanus sum Posted September 6, 2015 Report Share Posted September 6, 2015 Harper is only able to control the CPC caucus because the members let him. True. And Mulcair is only able to control the NDP caucus because the members let him. And Trudeau is only able to control the Liberal caucus because the members let him. Whipping caucus is not something which began with Harper. You might consider the origin of the title 'party whip' as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.