It has been metioned to me that there is no provision in the October 6 Proclamation for switching parties once a subject has registered with a party.
If I were issuing an opinion from the bench on the matter as the chief judicial official of the realm, I would instantly point out that, while there are no provisions for party-switching, there aren't any restrictions, either.
The matter being as simple as that, I won't bother to robe and mount the bench. In my opinion, the matter is clearly a personal one. Any subject should feel free to bolt his party's benches and cross the aisle as he sees fit (not that I recommend doing so on a whim or making a habit of it).
"But I don't like my party or the other one!"
Then connive to refashion/rename/reinvent the party you belong to. Or connive to take advantage of the various legislative tools in the realm to get what you want. This is Hanover, not China. Use your wits and the tools which our system of government provides.
I'll say no more.
This brings up another interesting question.
Why even have political parties in the first place?
Because people like them. It worked.
<_<
The arguments in favour of parties usually have something to do with collective action, the development of distinct policy alternatives, promoting some envigourating political conflict...
Political Parties serve a meaningful purpose, that is the collective of like minded individuals for a common political objective seeking to create meaningful change. As such parties form and are created as the logical evolution of that idea in order to ensure that business is done. In a parliamentary democracy that becomes even more necessary to ensure that a given agenda has the chance to flourish. Even if Parties in name were not formed they would be created in purpose through necessity because without that collective will you would rather see the deadlock that ensues through people not trying working together but to there own political prospects to ensure survival and no common good would have the chance to prosper.
As to the subject of switching parties, which is a horrible term (I prefer the much more noble sounding term of Crossing the Floor), this is the check against a party system to allow for individuality and individual belief's to have the ultimate say over the party system. As assuredly as the Party has the power to suspend or revoke membership in a given caucus so the individual has the opportunity to leave on their own accord to sit with another party or an independent to ensure they have the chance to follow their conscience. This is not a slight against a party system nor should it be used to question the need, want or necessity of a party system but rather a precedent that ensures the long term well being and questioning of agenda's within a political system. Within the Parliamentary Democratic traditions there is nothing more necessary then that.
Mr. McIntyre, until I see you wearing a wig as fabulous as this one, I don't want to hear you correcting my terminology!
<_<
Until you become a expert on Constitutional Parliamentary Democracy's, the traditions and precedents involved, I don't want to hear you complaining that I am correcting your terminology
The ugly Canadian has spoken...
The King's escaped again. Will the guards kindly hasten to Ellicott Square to return him to the safety of the Palace.
We try to keep him locked up in the ivory tower, but he's one of those "George III" types, you know.
Quote:Until you become a expert on Constitutional Parliamentary Democracy's, the traditions and precedents involved, I don't want to hear you complaining that I am correcting your terminology.
Until you, Canadian heretic, learn the difference between plural forms and possessives, don't disgrace the provinces by correcting anyone in print!
Until you learn that you look silly in wigs don't correct anyone else on anything.