From: Gene McAloon 

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:35:46 -0400, "Dave Ings"
 wrote:

>At least one of the "inadequacies" of the Parliamentary
system is in fact
>one of its strengths: in normal circumstances it provides a series of
>"rotating dictatorships" which has the considerable advantage
that you can
>actually get things done effectively, unlike the by-design gridlock system
>the US has.

As I have pointed out in the past, the parliamentary system is about the
closest thing to a dictatorship you can have and still call it a democracy.
Your "rolling dictatorships" puts it another way, but gets the
idea across. That you would think that an argument in favor of the
parliamentary system strikes me as odd indeed.

Yes, your Senate is a worthless bit of absurdity as presently configured.
That is to be expected in that it is patterned after the worthless bit of
absurdity, the Brit House of Lords. And yes, there is much talk of giving
it more power on the US Senate model. Blair has already gone a small step
or two in that direction and so will your country. Government reform is a
political issue in both countries, particularly Britain, and in both cases
the reforms proposed are on the US model.

It is not the liberal Canadians who oppose such reforms even if they are on
the US model, but rather conservative, nativist Canadians who deeply fear
that US culture will swamp Canada's Brit heritage. Poor souls.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5