Queenmandy85

I do sympatize with you, APC. When I lived in the Kootenays, I felt the same way about the provincial Government. The Premier was from the interior but he reflected the view from Vancouver that once you got east of Hope, you were in Alberta. Your best bet is to influence the nomination process and get better people elected...people with courage and integrity. If you want to know how that is done, let me know.

Smallc wrote "In the real world, it's all about who gets the first shot. I doubt we'll be engaged in a large air battle going forward anyway, and if we are, we won't be alone." Defence policy, unique in the range of goverment policies, must take into account all scenarios particularly the worst case ones. Don't count on anyone coming to our aid. You are correct in getting off the first shot but to achieve air superiority, you need to shoot down most, if not all, the enemy's aircraft. That is possibly in the thousands. Based on 1945 numbers, we are capable of building the Canadian forces up to 2.25 million. We can do that but do we have the desire? If not, shut the whole thing down as a waste of money.

Love the quote. He might have been crazy but...well I guess he was just crazy. If we can't train the pilots, what is the point of buying the aircraft? In 1945 with one-third our current population we had thousands of pilots, very good pilots. If we are unwilling to commit to defence, we should stop wasting money on symbolic gestures. If we seriously want to defend ourselves, we have to emulate the Isrealiis and the Swiss. I confess to being an admirer of Colonel J. Sutherland Brown. Soviet defence expenditure was based on "make it simple, make it cheap and make a lot of it." "If you can't take a joke, you should not have a Defence Budget." Gwynne Dyer, Ideas, CBC, 1980.

APC, have you considered moving to Ontario? Usually, we move to the place that is better than where we are. I loved living in the Kootenays, but I needed work so I moved to Saskatoon. It is cold, but I have my paycheque to keep me warm. If I were keen to have political power, I would move to Central Canada. The power of Central Canada is dictated by Geography. Populations shift for reasons of geography, hence so does power. Geography trumps politics any day of the week. Listen to Shwa. If you want change, get involved with one of the big 2 parties and campaign for a leader who will make a difference. Then, hold her feet to the fire to get what you want. "If it were easy, it wouldn't be fun." me

Forgive me if I repeat what may have already been said, but the problem arises that in a real war, we can anticipate losing 50 to 100 aircraft a day. After two days of combat, we will have lost our air force. It is critical in war to achieve air superiority. We would be better off acquiring aircraft with fewer bells and whistles that are fast, maneuverable and less high maintenance, and buy a lot of them. As was proven in the Battle of Britain, the Arab - Isrealii 6 Day War, and the Falklands, it isn't the plane that is critical, but the pilot. A highly trained pilot in a good plane can beat a good pilot in an excellent plane. "Big armies don't win, good ones do." Marshal Saxe

We must disagree then.

The minority of American Colonists (about one-third) that rebelled against the Crown did so to stiff their creditors in England (Hancock and Adams), and evade taxes designed to pay for the conquest of Quebec to which they were the sole benificiaries. George III was a good and devoted King although his health affected him for a few years, hence, the Regency. He was sympathetic to the Americans but taxes are controlled by Parliament. Most Americans supported the King. Thus the mass migration into Canada. The United Empire Loyalists who "Gave up everything, save Honour."

Fixed election dates tennd to encourage parties to begin the campaign much earlier such as in the States. Political parties are too strong in Canada because leaders can use the power of rewards (Cabinet positions etc.) to force member loyalty. Canadian Premiers and Prime Ministers control their members rather than the other way around. The member is concerned with their political careers. Sorry, it is not a career, it is a service to your country. You have a negative view of our Monarchs. With the exceptions of Richard the Lionheart, Edward II and maybe Richard II, Our Monarchs have been better than our Prime Ministers. 42 Monarchs since Edward the Confessor, with 3 duds; not a bad record.

The Lt. Gov. is the Queen's Representative, appointed by the Queen to govern through a ministry appointed by the Lt. Governor. That ministry is the government, referred to in the Constitution as the Council, or Governor in Council. I'm a militant Monarchist but I am aware that I am in a tiny minority and have no wish to impose my wierd ideas on the realm. In the real world, the problem with fixed election dates is it is inflexible and does not allow for changing condidtions. If the US had our system, Obama would have had to go to the electorate this past year to regain the mandate he had lost. Open election dates keep governments and opposition parties on their toes. Fixed election dates makes them lazy and arrogant.

To tie this into the topic, the Lieutenant Governor would call an election when, in his / her judgement: the Government needs a new mandate; the Government has lost the confidence of the Legislature; the Government has lost the confidence of the electorate. Thus, fixed election dates would not be required as they would inhibit the flexibility governments need.

The Monarch can not be a dictator. Historically, the Crown must have money voted by Parliament before acting. The Queen of Canada has the authority to declare war but she cannot pay for it without monies being voted on by the House of Commons and the Senate. Charles II was continually thwarted in his desire to rebuild the Navy but could not get Parliament to give him the money.

By eliminating the position of premier / Prime Minister, you eliminate the power motive for MLA's. Members would then be able to focus on issues and their ridings rather than the pursuit of power. It would lessen the power of political parties. Appointments made by the Crown through the Governor in Council (such as to the Senate or cabinet) would no longer be based on partisanship. The office of First Minister is a recent experiment and quite possibly expendible. And, yes, I am a serious poster. I've given this a lot of thought. Let's let the Constitution work as it was designed.

Eliminate the positions of premier and Prime Minister. Since they are hardly mentioned in the Constitution, no amendment is required.

It is all moot anyway. Charles will do his his duty and will do it well. I do not understand the antipathy to the Prince of Wales. He has performed well. Had he been permitted to marry the woman he loved, the situation may have been different. Fot those self righteous idiots that blame Charles for remaining faithful to Camilla inspite of being forced into a Marriage of State, think about all those American Presidents that had (and have) mistresses: Wilson, Harding, F.D. Roosvelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy. Probably the only President in the 20th century that did not have a mistress was Richard Nixon. Hopefully, William will become King when his Father dies, but he still can benifit from a few more years of apprenticeship. If not, Harry would make a super King.