Saying hi!

[Damocles]

Well since we don't have that here than there's no reason.

Yeah, but it is politics...

They seem assured of their rights because of precedent. I hate that idea, new precedent isn't that hard to make. I like that we have certain ideas presented as the center of government without reserve.

[Said1]

I don't believe that they have less than a six year "term". Like the UK they are allowed to call elections when they are sure of their party's success and their continuation in power. Of course Said1 or anybody with more knowledge can correct me.

Yes, that's accurate, but I'm saying there are no limits on the number of terms as long as they have their party's support. That's what I mean by no term limits. I should be clearer, I just assume everyone knows what I mean.

I don't believe that they have a written constitution either.

Yes we do have a written constitution (constitution Act), but there are parts that fall in line with British tradition and are unwritten. Part 1 is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, outlining civil rights and liberties - Part 3, exclusivly for aboriginals. It contains a new ammending formula etc, etc. And I'll stop there.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The British don't really have a constitution, IMHO. What the call a constitution is more like what we would call a deeply revered law. But their "constitution" is in no way embedded or protected from ammending. Many casual bills make ammendments and exceptions to it all the time.

The British government is modeled on the concept of legislative supremacy. The legislature is omnipotent in power and unchecked.

The house of Lords is technically a check but an extremely weak one, as they can only delay bills for about six months, after which there is another vote in the Commons. This has on occasion caused the government to reconsider bills if the debate on the bill in that time proves it to be extremely unpopular, but you can see how weak Lords is. Mostly the Lords just rubber stamp everything. And Britian is thinking about abolishing the house anyway.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

And in Britian, the indivdual legislature doesn't really matter. It's more like they have 635 robots, a prime minister, and two shadow prime ministers.

[SouthernBelle82]

But watching the Parliament argue can be fun!

And in Britian, the indivdual legislature doesn't really matter. It's more like they have 635 robots, a prime minister, and two shadow prime ministers.

[Damocles]

But watching the Parliament argue can be fun!

It's like watching Rugby, almost totally incomprehensible with occasional flashes of something you recognize as football mixed in...

[SouthernBelle82]

Lol true. I just like to watch them shout and yell. Better than our Congress and Senate. ZZzzzz!

It's like watching Rugby, almost totally incomprehensible with occasional flashes of something you recognize as football mixed in...

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Order blows. American's are too stiff.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The place in the world with the harshest party discipline, I think, would be Canada. All of the votes all the time are boted on by party bloc. If a person in a party disagrees and votes against it, he's thrown out.

Of course, there are the political systems with party lists. In those, I guess, party discipline is stronger, because the party directly appoints members to sit in parliament.

[Said1]

The British don't really have a constitution, IMHO. What the call a constitution is more like what we would call a deeply revered law. But their "constitution" is in no way embedded or protected from ammending. Many casual bills make ammendments and exceptions to it all the time.

Precisley. It's uncodefied, fluid. Ours is too, IMHO, given the new amending formula. It's not that easy to carry out, but it can be done. It's even easier if changes only affect one province.

The house of Lords is technically a check but an extremely weak one, as they can only delay bills for about six months, after which there is another vote in the Commons. This has on occasion caused the government to reconsider bills if the debate on the bill in that time proves it to be extremely unpopular, but you can see how weak Lords is. Mostly the Lords just rubber stamp everything. And Britian is thinking about abolishing the house anyway.

Instead of House of Lords, we have Senators - same powers - 9 months (i think) instead of 6. Lots of them are retired journalist buddies of ex-pms.

As for you party voting analogy, correct again. Voting against your party is career suicided. Same with switching parties.

[Waterbaby]

Precisley. It's uncodefied, fluid. Ours is too, IMHO, given the new amending formula. It's not that easy to carry out, but it can be done. It's even easier if changes only affect one province.

"Fluid"

That's a nice way to put it. Boy, wouldn't of all the dictator presidents we've had in the past have loved it if our constitution were "fluid".

Instead of House of Lords, we have Senators - same powers - 9 months (i think) instead of 6. Lots of them are retired journalist buddies of ex-pms.

The senate of Canada is pretty much a joke. I really like the House of Lords better. Something in the way the two are constructed make for very different results. All the Canadian senate does is rubber stamp at a cost of a few dozen million a year.

As for you party voting analogy, correct again. Voting against your party is career suicided. Same with switching parties.

That's such an odd thing. In America, politicians are more likely than not praised for their political independence. I don't know how you guys tolerate such wishy washys.

As for you party voting analogy, correct again. Voting against your party is career suicided. Same with switching parties.