Which website and policies would that be?
Considering the ignorance you've shown so far it ought to be good for a laugh or two.
Is it time to abolish parliament?
- Thread starter atlanticaparty
- Start date
Which website and policies would that be?
Considering the ignorance you've shown so far it ought to be good for a laugh or two.
I think there's a good arguement to be made that executives in private companies are compensated way above their actual value. Thirty years ago in North America the ratio of earning of the executive suite to the shop floor was 30:1. Now it's over 1000:1 and climbing. The average earning for the head of a major Canadian corporation is $9 million, these jokers make more in a day and a half than most people make in a year.
People can be motivated by more than just greed, part of the problems we have in our political system is the influence lobbyists have over politicians.
I agree that they're overpaid. Fortunately it's the top ten richest people in Canada that pay more than 50% of personal income taxes collected. But anyway, basically we are saying that running the country isn't worth much whereas running Widget's Gadgets is worth bundles.
Since you seem to think you're such an expert on the Canadian political system atlanticaparty and advocate major constitutional changes, I'd be interested in hearing how you'd go about what you suggest here.
To do what you suggest, a party would need to table a bill in Parliment for vote on whether or not to abolish Parliment. Are you starting to see why I think this is such a stupid idea and why you aren't even Canadian.
For a constitutional change of this magnitude, it would also require the unamnimous consent of all the provincial legislatures. Good luck there.
Unless you're suggesting that the party in power(Conservatives) violates the constitution and in effect revolts against the legally appointed Parliment. This is really the only way Parliment would be abolished and I'm not a lawyer but I think advocating this even online would amount to treason. That's another reason I don't think you're a Canadian. I also think it's a hostile act for a person of another country to advocate the destruction of our Parliment. I don't know what your intentions are here, but I really don't think you're friendly towards Canada.
To do what you suggest, a party would need to table a bill in Parliment for vote on whether or not to abolish Parliment. Are you starting to see why I think this is such a stupid idea and why you aren't even Canadian.
For a constitutional change of this magnitude, it would also require the unamnimous consent of all the provincial legislatures. Good luck there.
Unless you're suggesting that the party in power(Conservatives) violates the constitution and in effect revolts against the legally appointed Parliment. This is really the only way Parliment would be abolished and I'm not a lawyer but I think advocating this even online would amount to treason. That's another reason I don't think you're a Canadian. I also think it's a hostile act for a person of another country to advocate the destruction of our Parliment. I don't know what your intentions are here, but I really don't think you're friendly towards Canada.
Check out the post under the 'electoral reform' thread, some of your questions were answered there.
True, the executive in theory is answerable to the parliament as it should be. In actual fact it is not in Canada, power has shifted to the executive since the PMO controls the majority of voting in the house. Parliament no longer has any power.
For the record we do not advocate abolishing parliament.
By asking this question we are suggesting to those who see no need for political reform and who think that parliament is working just 'fine' are;
advocating 'a small ruling class' elected once every few years or so,
that the people (via their reps in parliament) have no right to say ‘no’ to the government,
and that abolishment of the legislature is a logical next step.
We can't promote ourselves in this forum, but google our name and read our policy sections (enjoy yourself), come back and let us know your thoughts.
Like I said if you're a Canadian advocating the destruction of our democracy you're commiting treason. If you're a foreigner doing it, you're commiting a hostile act.
Surely you're not suggesting Bear that we all shouldn't join hands and pray to Sanctus's and Marygaspe's god now are you???
Prayer
It's the only answer just ask Sanctus or Mary....
Guess I'm treasonous then, because I have been advocating turfing this mock-democracy in favor of a direct democracy embedded inside a republic (similar to the Swiss type) for years. Haven't been arrested yet, though. Also, been advocating dumping the monarchy for about the same length of time.
Youre' talking about more democracy not less.
This (insert explextive here) is talking about doing away with democracy altogether.
"advocating 'a small ruling class' elected once every few years or so,
that the people (via their reps in parliament) have no right to say ‘no’ to the government,
and that abolishment of the legislature is a logical next step."
What are the chances this "small ruling class" is going to find some convienient excuse for not holding election every few years? He claims that our Parliment that has a legacy reaching farther back the U.S. congress doesn't have the right to enact laws and exercise the same power it has for over a century.
A republic is not a democracy.
Um, yeah, I got the part of implementing a revolving autocracy or oligarchy.
Um, yeah, I got the part of implementing a revolving autocracy or oligarchy.
Once again, there is no executive, that's the American system. We Canadians live in a constitutional monarchy. If the PMO was so powerful, then the Liberals would still be in power. Are you saying that Harper, with the weakest minority in Canadian history, has somehow over the last year strengthened his power to the point where he longer answers to Parliment. I'd be very interested in hearing details on how he did that. So would a majority of Canadians who have their respresentatives on the opposition benches. It would be time for Harper to go.
This is called fascism. Are you saying Harper is a Canadian equivalent to Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. Are you actually calling our PM a Nazi?
You already are promoting yourself here.
Last edited:
I'm all for a more representational government, getting there would be difficult when you've got opportunists like alanticaparty and people like him looking for an opportunity to move in and take over.
Democracy is declining in the world. I think what little we have left should be jeolously guarded. I spent my early years listening to WW II vets talking about what it was like to fight against absolute ***** that wanted to do nothing more than impose their will on others.
Yeah. Listened to a lotta stories myself. Seen enough, too. Had a friend who spent a little more than 4 years as a photographer in El Salvador during Reagan's reign of repugnant ratsh|t. He sent pics now and then.
Personally, I don't like representational democracy at all when people are "represented" by others who are out-of-touch with them. aPAULing Martin's a case in point. That's why he was so ill when he went to see the afteraffects of that big tsunami a few years ago. He couldn't get out of there fast enough. Till then I'd be surprised if he'd ever seen anyone else bleed from a scratch.
Personally, I don't like representational democracy at all when people are "represented" by others who are out-of-touch with them. aPAULing Martin's a case in point. That's why he was so ill when he went to see the afteraffects of that big tsunami a few years ago. He couldn't get out of there fast enough. Till then I'd be surprised if he'd ever seen anyone else bleed from a scratch.
It's brutal what happened in Central and South American. Most of the paramilitaries who did all the killing and disappearing were trained or led by graduates of the U.S. run School of the Americas. Makes me ashamed of my American heritage sometimes.
Lobbyist have taken over our governments to a too large degree. Arms merchants are dictating policy in the U.S. and even foreign governments seem to have more influence over our politicians than average citizens.
I don't think the answer is to appoint a group of strongmen like the person who started this thread is saying. It's just my opinion but I think he's a Neo-Nazi, notice how he says his group can't promote themselves here.
Might be the other side of the coin, too, though. There are autocracies on the left as well as the right.
Wouldn't they wait till Layton was in power before they started talking about doing away with Parliment if they were red.
The impression I get here is that since we have one of the most right-wing PMs in our history, certain radical fringes might see it as an opportunity to come out of the shadows(or sewers).
I just found an atlanticaparty website that's all about Canada becoming a part of the United States, kind of explains why this guy wants to do away with our Parliment.
Talk about a hostile takeover.
Talk about a hostile takeover.
No, no, no.
www.atlanticaparty.ca
We don't like to post the link in the forum because we will be accused of spam (we have already be banned in some other forums).
Whatever term is used for the (PMO+Cabinet+Civil service) is irrelevant. The fact is the function of day to day managing the government and proposing policy is seperate from the oversight function performed by the people's reps. In Canada the governing function has so much subverted the oversight function that it is easy to see them simply as one thing.
A minority parliament does cause the PMO to be concerned somewhat with what parliament has to say. It is the only time in our system that this occurs, and even this restraint is quite weak and it does not occur very often.
That is a straw man argument.
The PM has extensive powers of coercion to dictate policy.
Your Canadian system runs pretty well overall.
Forget the details for a moment, if you can.
Remember policy is people.
You don't have the people right, you won't have the right policy.
Structural changes in the end matter very little.
Forget the details for a moment, if you can.
Remember policy is people.
You don't have the people right, you won't have the right policy.
Structural changes in the end matter very little.