SpankyMcFarland

He was way ahead in that contest. There was no need to keep the crazy talk going so long. He’ll be asked about that Bitcoin nonsense for a long time to come.

I suppose what is meant is a job outside politics.

Poilievre talked about some wild things during that campaign that entertained his base but will only divide this country more deeply if he keeps at them. The average voter does not want to hear about Bitcoin, banks or convoys. Address things like health care and the absurd price of telecom services in this country and you’ll have a much bigger audience.

I think it reflects a greater insecurity around identity in Canadian anglophones compared to Australasians. We live beside a superpower, speak their language and sound very like them, eat the same food and watch the same sports. The monarchy is something that makes us seem less American. We are not all that familiar with Britain and we certainly don’t sound like them but we need the Crown more than people on the other side of the earth who play cricket and rugby.

Countries are arbitrary and temporary entities. We’ve made them up and we can change them about as we please, or get rid of them entirely. There should be nothing sacred about their structure.

Bit of a stretch in that claim. Only half of William’s force was British, let alone Ulster Scots. Aughrim was the decisive battle and William was supported by the Pope in his endeavours.

I would prefer to get rid of the monarchy altogether but I doubt that would be possible in Canada for a long time to come, mainly because of our constitutional gridlock. If GGs are granted such reserve powers as a check on the executive, to be used very rarely as you point out, they should still be seen as impartial and more than mere servants of the PM. To achieve that, we need a new process of selecting them. A secret ballot of MPs (or MLAs for LGs) might be one way to do this. Not exactly the most pressing problem the country faces, I’ll grant you.

That prorogation was debated extensively by academics. It should not have been a foregone conclusion. Here are examples not of prorogation rejection exactly but of similar situations where the GG (and an LG) exerted their so-called reserve powers. In 1975, the Australian GG actually dismissed the PM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis Two old examples at federal level in Canada: And one more recent and relevant example at provincial level involving a refusal to dissolve the legislature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power#Canada The point is that the GG (or provincial LGs) should not be a rubber stamp agreeing to anything the PM wants. Following the failure of the Crown to stop a recent attempted prorogation by Boris Johnson’s government, the decision was appealed by parliamentarians to the Supreme Court in the UK and was found to be unlawful. I would expect to see similar litigation here in future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_British_prorogation_controversy#Prorogation

We’ve also been lucky that the UK and Canada haven’t a serious falling out on some issue. If that were to happen we’d look rather silly with a Briton as our very part-time head of state. Another weird aspect: until 2013 our head of state or anyone in line for that job couldn’t marry a Catholic. Imagine any other job in the country where that was allowed. When the Brits brought in new legislation back then we were forced to hurriedly follow suit. https://www.cbc.ca/m/text/story_news-canada.html?/ept/html/story/2013/01/25/pol-royal-baby-bill-advancer.html

Not always, neither here nor in other jurisdictions that have a GG. The point is that they should be seen to be as impartial as possible in such situations.

They can be involved in more serious matters like whether or not to prorogue parliament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–2009_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute

That CBC correspondent job in London is one cushy number. The blurb for the biggest news of the year could have been written ten years ago.

That’s certainly something they should know not to say. I think a secret ballot of MPs would be a good way to pick the person from a pool of eligible and deeply vetted candidates. A nationwide contest would be too much. We barely have enough enthusiasm for the elections we have and a secret ballot would keep the PM and party whips out.

The PM can appoint whom he likes which discredits the impartiality of the GG from the get go. The GG should be utterly independent of the PM and owe them nothing. This is the state of affairs in countries with elected non-executive presidents like Ireland, Israel and Germany. The Brits (and us) have no choice in their head of state. It’s the next person up in the family, a weird system. However, it is independent of the PM.

In effect, we already have something very close to the American system, given that the head of our government also appoints the de facto head of state (the GG). Not ideal.

For president or GG, one could have a stringent vetting process for candidates, independent of the PM, to screen out the Payettes of this world, followed by a series of secret ballots of MPs. Some democracy is better than none. It would give us a person based in Canada 24/7 rather than a part-time foreigner.

She was a great head of state who understood her role, and worked within it, so well.

Leaving the institution of monarchy aside for a moment, Britain and Canada were indeed fortunate to have had such an industrious, wise and prudent figurehead. To say she will be missed is an understatement.

That may be legally true but it is not really true. Over the next few weeks we are going to be subjected to a tsunami of allegations regarding how deeply and often the Queen and her successor have thought about Canada.

Imagine how daft that would be. Most Canadians under 40 know very little about Britain or its monarchy and why should they? Given we’re facing the prospect of Charles as king, why not consider other equally zany alternatives: 1. Occultation. Refuse to admit the death of QEII. Just carry on as we were. What would be the difference? 2. Appoint our very own Made in Canada king. I’d say there are lots of outdoorsy European princes who’d love the job, or we could pick a native chief. Either way we’d eliminate sudden constitutional surprises from out foreign, e.g. on succession.

Who’s next is not a great way of choosing a head of state.

Which, of course, is utterly wrong when problems like prorogation come up. The GG should be completely independent of the PM for obvious reasons. If we can’t grow up and get rid of our foreign king, let’s at least have a de facto head of state here chosen by, say, a secret ballot of MPs whom we can trust will stand up to the PM when required.

A person elected by, say, parliament, could be vetted properly, removed relatively easily and have a limited term in office anyway. The notion of having a head of state given to us randomly by a birth lottery, and a foreign one at that, seems to me to be rather outdated at this stage. We could have been facing the prospect of King Andrew.

She did a great job and will be missed. Now we should move on and become a republic.

As hereditary heads of state go, she could not have been better - a paragon of prudence and industry in a very strange and tricky job.