SpankyMcFarland

It is clearly in the interests of the state for the public to be well informed on the health of candidates on an ongoing basis. There are numerous examples in US and foreign history of serious illnesses being concealed. We are not talking about ordinary private individuals here but people who wish to be elected to an extraordinarily stressful and responsible job that controls a vast nuclear arsenal. Such a person is too important to have any expectation of privacy. The public will get used to hearing about blood pressure and diabetes in short order. On financial disclosure, Senator Lindsey Graham intends to introduce a bill to ensure that this be mandatory for the next election and that nobody can pull a Trump again.

Nobody is barred from releasing their own records and there is no good reason not to. As I have already mentioned, history is replete with dangerously ill leaders who should not have been working. This is 'suddenly' a problem with Trump because he has refused to release relevant financial and health records, unlike his predecessors from both parties. IMO both Clinton and Trump should have been more candid on the health front: https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-09-13/do-presidential-candidates-have-right-keep-their-health-private And then we have the issue of tax returns where Trump has failed completely. It's probably more important than with any previous candidate to see those returns, given what we know already.

I would be grateful if you could explain what you mean there. To me, Chong seems unusually candid on what he would like to see with regard to parliamentary reform e.g. committees etc. By any reasonable Canadian standard, I am not a 'leftist', having voted for PC and Liberal candidates over the years. By MLW standards, however..... Why are only leftists smug? I don't think I have ever accused anybody of being that. Anyway, it's hardly the biggest sin in the world.

That's a pretty sad post from an American. What would Reagan think? How low do you want the bar? Remember the shining city on a hill? I would like to see such demands of every candidate in every country. It ain't going to happen any time soon but the US should not dumb down IMO. Trump's appointment of family members to govt positions is a retrograde step, not only for the US but for the world. It's reminiscent of current Asian and African practice. I fear we humans are heading to a future of unemployment, oligarchy and mass surveillance. America offers some hope but that is beginning to flicker.

FDR? His Presidency is equidistant between us and the American Civil War. I would hope we would have moved on a bit since then, this being the Information Age and all. Potential leaders of any country should fully disclose their medical and financial records. The US is still a leader in open government but Trump has set a worrying precedent on many fronts, including such disclosure.

I would say yes. Apart from Adanauer there have been very few leaders over 75 who were worth keeping. Churchill should have been put out to pasture. The leader is far more important than any company executive. There should at the very least be complete and ongoing disclosure of all medical records. It's quite extraordinary that an overweight septuagenerian like Trump has released so little info.

Big difference between FFS docs (esp. specialists like ophthalmologists, radiologists, cardiologists, dermatologists) and real businessmen in Canada - competition on price. Your regular businessman can go bust tomorrow if a new guy undercuts his prices, and the 'new guy' can be in China or Bangladesh. That can't happen with doctors for insured services. Bankrupt doctors get that way by ignoring CRA for years, very different from owning a restaurant, say, where ruin is constantly around the corner. BTW I know of one bankrupt doctor who went heliskiing near Whistler DURING his bankruptcy. Doctors often go on about costs - some of these are real bricks and mortar things and others are strictly for the taxman to park a fortune in the corporation. In some regions, radiologists and anesthesiologists have no equipment costs and pay a small hospital office fee but I suspect their tax returns contain mountains of other 'expenses'. To any doc who complains of costs I say, show us your return and let us be the judge of how fairly you pay the company directors who happen to be in your family. We have the silly Sunshine List out again and the major medical earners are exempted and laughing. I actually know of a radiologist who literally laughed about it: makes a fortune (more than nearly anybody on the list) for 40 weeks work a year, pays very little tax up front in his corporation and is never mentioned in the newspapers. My solution? Many things. Firstly, unleash lads like Argus on those tax returns and give them the power to recommend sensible legal reform. Secondly, get real about medical pay. Many provinces are basically bust at this point. If docs threaten to leave, call their bluff. Thirdly, put all doctors who bill over 100k on the List. That is for starters.

The UK is in for a long, hard road. The complexity of leaving the EU, negotiating a new deal with it and then doing the same for all the other countries of the world make me want to sit down. And as for the UK itself, perhaps Brexit breaks it. The issue of NI hardly figured at all in the mainland debate which tells you what they really think of the province, and the DUP were Christmas turkeys to campaign for Leave against the wishes of the locals. English nationalism is another imponderable. I can't see Ireland leaving the EU, at least not as long as US firms invest there to access that market. Brexit may really hurt Irish farmers in the UK market, though.

75 should be the max. There have been a few exceptions (Adenauer retired at 87!) but in general that should be the limit. Churchill should have retired in 1945 and FDR in 44. Under 60 is ideal for the top job.

Healthcare is not a business just like any other. You can be bankrupted or killed by unnecessary treatment. We have one body and sometimes only one chance to get our treatment right. There are ways to use the marketplace to increase availability of procedures and reduce costs but eternal vigilance is necessary. The whole idea of free choice is overblown. Doctors, drug companies, and hospitals have to be watched very carefully as the North American prescription opioid crisis, a largely avoidable disaster, should surely show us.

Brethrens? I never heard that word before. Surely brethren is the plural form?

I suspect he is too honest for the top job.

In fairness, Bernier is photogenic by regular non-JT standards, O'Leary is a media celeb, Scheer is selfie-worthy and even poor old Kellie has tried to sex up her look, so image does count in the Conservative Party. I still like O'Toole and Raitt the most but O'Toole looks like the one with an outside chance now, a viable challenger for PM if JT's sheen rubs off fast and we start looking for another Joe Clarke. He delivers bad news well and it's hard to get angry with him. Bernier's success really surprises me. That episode with Couillard was tres dodgy and showed poor judgement.

O'Toole is the Garneau candidate - centrist, competent, calming. He's not going to excite anybody.

Chong has too many ideas and he's too principled for high office. He might actually do what he says he's going to do.

People would get used to diabetes, hypertension etc. Our interest in politicians is not that great. As celebs go they are very low-end, Trump excepted. What you don't want to see are things like strokes and septicemia. Again, Trump has broken the excellent US conventions in this regard with his absurdly limited release of health info. It matters a lot in an overweight man of his age. It is said that Reagan never fully recovered from the shooting and may have suffered cerebral damage at that time. That should have been disclosed.

The dire health problems of Churchill and Eden (and FDR for that matter) show why the entire medical records of senior political office holders should be made public on an ongoing basis. I also think that 70 should be the cut-off point for being elected to the top job. It's no place for geezers.

For persons born here, that is a right they have. The government should not be giving that to them as a favour which it can take away. I see this century shaping up as an era of dwindling personal freedom: constant mass surveillance; a government answerable to oligarchs; the disappearance of traditional work for the majority; even citizenship vulnerable to removal for whatever offence the powers that be deem unacceptable.

The combination of immigration, globalization and automation is disrupting a lot of lives. I believe it's not too late for the EU to save itself.

That would be for the Scots to decide. A lot depends on how Brexit works out.

There are separatists in Western Canada too. Any political structure can disappear. In time, they all will.

No, I don't although it would change Atlantic Canada big time. I've no problem with countries breaking up - the US makes it virtually impossible for any state to escape as California may find out - but it's a serious matter. Canada is a bit more protected because we don't have the Russians quite so close to our major cities. Putin wants to see the EU destroyed. He seeks chaos in Europe.

Is that what you say to people in Western Canada when a general election has already been decided in Ontario?

Britain may become Little Britain if things don't go well after Brexit. By the looks of the exit polls so far, the Netherlands won't be leaving the EU any time soon. Le Pen also has a long way to go to win in France. I don't think Germany will leave. The EU may have to be modified but it has been a spectacular success over the last fifty years.

What is this 'awww' thing about? The UK may break up over this which would be regrettable for many.