Poll: Bush still blamed for economy

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
"All right, then what is the mechanism for removing a rogue PM from the office, one who is clearly guilty of serious offenses?"

That is generally a crock of bullsh*t anyway, perceived "serious" offenses by opportunistic opposition.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
212
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Nah, better with an unregistered rope. Rope burns aren't traceable. :lol::lol::lol:

I know a family named Lynch.....
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
In the end, that power comes form the mindless masses. We insist on voting party instead of candidate. As a result, the MP who knows this knows that if he wants to retain his seat, he must suck up to the PM. However, that is not legal power but de-facto power given by the mindless masses. If people voted for the best candidate instead of for his party, then candidates would be less scared to voice their ideas, knowing that being booted from Caucus would not necessarily end his career as an MP at least. This would weaken the position of the PM substantially. Officially though, the PM's power is mostly limited to his one vote as MP in Parliament.

Ah, but then the mindless masses would actually have to have a mind. Sadly, this is not likely to happen and people will keep on voting for the party that will do them the least amount of good.

Canada, and most other democratic nations are pretty much stuck with the party system for several reasons.
1. Parties are easier to understand than individual candidates. Candidates you actually have to meet to understand them; with parties you just have to have a vague idea about their policies.
2. Parties have enormous financial power and can easily outspend independent candidates.
3. Independent candidates are largely ineffectual when it comes to getting anything done.
4. Voters prefer to be part of a movement. Parties represent such a movement; individuals do not.
5. Independent candidates cannot muster the army of campaign workers and supporters necessary to be successful in modern politics.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Our PM is still not above the law, confidence vote or not, impeachment or not. And he still needs a majority in the House to get any new bill through. Add to that that, even if he stays within the law, and manages to sit around in a grid-locked parliament, he still has to answer to his constituents come the following election.

PM may not be above the law, but you still haven’t answered my question. If there is not a no confidence motion mechanism, how do you remove a rogue PM, who has committed serious crimes such as treason from the office? Would you be happy for him to serve out his four year term and then be turfed out of the office by voters? That doesn’t make sense.

There has to be a mechanism for removing a PM from office if he has committed serious crimes, similar to impeachment. If you have no mechanism to remove a PM from the office, then you get a true dictator (if only for four years).
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
"All right, then what is the mechanism for removing a rogue PM from the office, one who is clearly guilty of serious offenses?"

That is generally a crock of bullsh*t anyway, perceived "serious" offenses by opportunistic opposition.

So what you are saying is that you would be happy if we didn't have any no confidence motion mechanism? That PM could do anything he wants, behave any way he wants for four years? Commit any crimes he wants, break any laws for four years?

Then you are looking at a true dictatorship, similar to Iraq or North Korea, if only for four years. There doesn't exist a democracy in the world which doesn't have a mechanism for removing the leader from pwoer.