Office of the Prime Minister

[ExFlyer]

2 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Some even take it a step further, they want to eliminate division by bringing open democracy like in ancient Greece @myata.

Open democracy in city-states like Athens. While it is indeed a remarkable historical development, implementing a direct democracy model similar to ancient Greece in a modern context, particularly in a large population like in 2023, poses significant challenges.

In ancient Greece, the population of city-states was relatively small, allowing citizens to gather in the central assembly to directly participate in decision-making. However, the world has evolved since then, and the complexities of modern societies, coupled with the sheer number of people, make direct democracy difficult to apply, not to mention the international warfare, as I heard another theory here to bring in-lobbying cameras, that would be gold for a foreign adversary. 

Personally, the system we have now presents a very good balance. Sure, some PMs are unpopular, but I would make a rule of 2 terms though, I still can't believe Trudeau is running, and if he wins then we are going into uncharted territories, too much power to this man and his fans underneath and we will see traces of American reactionism here, as you can see some are already exhibiting it. It will get even worse, if the liberals get another term, this is why is important for men like @myata to think about these things that he has some control over bringing stability to a system. 

I agree ancient Athens democracy was open but, it was basically governing a city.

Yes, ancient Greece wandered far and wide but , outside of the city of Athens, it was governed by intimidation and military.

I have for a long time said that we should be like the Americans and allow only 2 terms as leader. In provincial, municipal as well as federal leadership politics.

[Queenmandy85]

35 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And if you're seriously proposing we go back to being a monarchy, i think that's been tried before and abandoned.

We never stopped being a Monarchy It has worked very well for us. 

What can I say; I am a militant Monarchist. (But, I am also a realist.)

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We never stopped being a Monarchy It has worked very well for us. 

We did stop. We're a constitutional democracy. The king has no power or authority here in reality.

10 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What can I say; I am a militant Monarchist. (But, I am also a realist.)

Well fair enough but there are some serious problems in practical terms these days

I'm pretty sure justin THINKS he's king if that helps.

[Queenmandy85]

On 6/1/2023 at 11:47 AM, CdnFox said:

We did stop. We're a constitutional democracy. The king has no power or authority here in reality.

We are a Constitutional Monarchy. You are confusing power with authority. King Charles has more authority that a President of the US. He has the authority to declare war, which the President of the US does not have. (not that that has stopped them.)

Authority is the right to make decisions. Power is the ability to cary out the decisions. The Prime Minister has the power, but, not the authority. He has no constitutional standing.

The King of Canada does not have the authority to vote taxation. That is the authority reserved to Parliament and that is where the leverage is.

Constitutional Monarchy is the best system of government ever devised. You only have to look ate the quality of life in Norway, New Zealand, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands. In Canada, we have a King who is well educated and has had 60 years of training. In the 1000 years just since the ascention of William I, there have been over 40 monarchs, of whom, seven have been disappointing. Seven out of 43, over the last thousand years. I can't think of 7 Presidents of the US in the last 240 years who were any good.

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We are a Constitutional Monarchy. You are confusing power with authority.

Authority with no power is no authority.

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

King Charles has more authority that a President of the US. He has the authority to declare war, which the President of the US does not have. (not that that has stopped them.)

Not for us he doesn't.  If he declared war on someone and we didn't agree - we ain't going.

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Authority is the right to make decisions. Power is the ability to cary out the decisions.

There is no such thing as the right to make decisions without the power to carry it out.

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The Prime Minister has the power, but, not the authority. He has no constitutional standing.

Prime ministers have sent our people to war many times.

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 

Constitutional Monarchy is the best system of government ever devised. You only have to look ate the quality of life in Norway, New Zealand, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands. In Canada, we have a King who is well educated and has had 60 years of training.

 

Lizzie was a great queen and i was quite fond of her - but if she hadn't existed then canada would be pretty much the same. She brought nothing to our table.

The position of GG is very important but we appoint that and we don't really need a queen or king to make that work.

We don't really live in a monarchy in any practical or meaningful sense. In a symbolic sense we do but thats about it.

[Nationalist]

On 5/31/2023 at 3:15 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

I have lived under a number of Canadian Prime Ministers. None of them have been popular. Some, like Prime Ministers Harper and Trudeau were actively disliked. Prime ministers Diefenbaker and Mulroney, inspite of having the largest majorities in history, were very unpopular. Mike Pearson lead the most scandal ridden government sice the Customs scandal of 1925-6.

Why do we have this position if nobody likes the incumbent? No matter who they recommend for the Governor Generalship, the Senate, the Supreme Court or an investigation into foreign interference in elections, accusations of partisanship and cronyism abound.

I propose that when the incumbent retires or, after the next federal election, a Prime Minister not be appointed. We appoint a ministry but no first minister. Myata would be pleased at the savings. MP's would be free to serve their constituants without the bother of toxic ambition to get into 24 Sussex. In fact, we could let that wreck go and not put any more money into it. Appointments to the Court and the Senate can be given to eminent persons regardless of political affiliations.

There is no Constitutional requirement to have a PM. No amendments are needed. The advantages are great. The disadvantages...I cannot think of any.

 

Interesting idea. Do you think if the leadership is removed, chaos might ensue? I understand that's why military leadership is rarely targeted.

[myata]

On 5/31/2023 at 3:15 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

I propose that when the incumbent retires or, after the next federal election, a Prime Minister not be appointed.

Wow. We should certainly try this idea out. Can't be any worse than the stale and stagnating status quo. If we could.

[CdnFox]

20 minutes ago, myata said:

Wow. We should certainly try this idea out. Can't be any worse than the stale and stagnating status quo. If we could.

It could absolutely be worse and would basically be a disaster.

 

[myata]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

It could absolutely be worse and would basically be a disaster.

Yeah right depends on the measure. I meant, for the democracy. PM in Canada has near dictatorial powers. No checks, few limits.. still.

[Dougie93]

On 6/1/2023 at 12:37 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

 We have a Head of State, who is far more experienced,

indeed

but in HM experience, it is not the role of the monarch to be head of government

HM defends the right, by the supremacy of God and the rule of law

well above the office of Prime Minister, who is merely a gloried bureaucrat

the Sovereign, Head of State & Commander-in-Chief remains above the fray

it would be folly to try to drag HM The King down to the level of ignominious politician

[Queenmandy85]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Authority with no power is no authority.

Most countries separate political power from constitutional authority. As the great Charles Lynch pointed out, the PM doesn't own the power, he just rents it. Germany and Israel are examples of presidents who don't exersize political power but have the authority.

 

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Not for us he doesn't.  If he declared war on someone and we didn't agree - we ain't going.

The King (GG) has the authority to declare war, but if Parliament doesn't vote the taxes to pay for it, we ain't going. What part of constitutional authority and power are you not getting?

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

There is no such thing as the right to make decisions without the power to carry it out.

Again, how is it you are missing the distinction between power and authority? 

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Prime ministers have sent our people to war many times.

Prime Ministers have recommended the King (GG) declare war but the PM has no constitutional standing.

We have a King who is better equipped to govern than any politician. He costs the Canadian taxpayer nothing except for his personal protection detail. Name me one Canadian politician with 60 years of training for the leadership. Pierre Polievre? What qualifies him? Trudeau, not up to the job, but he has nice hair. I would prefer to be governed by someone elected by God than anyone elected by someone like me. You have all read my posts. Do you seriously think anyone I would vote for is qualified to be the personification of Canada? Our King's predecessors have been doing this job, here and in England, for thousands of years. They have done a far better job than politicians like Biden, Xi or Putin?

Because the work load already on the King's shoulders, we need to have a Governor General, but someone of the King's choosing, based on merit and experience. Or, we could have a PM, but one who serves at HM's pleasure.

Monarchy gives us continuity, stability and tradition. Canada has been a monarchy since the settlement of Quebec. Unlike every other country under the reign of King Charles, Queen Elizabeth was only our second longest reigning monarch. Canada had the longest serving Monarch in history, anywhere. King Louis XIV.

Sorry about this. I need to cut back on my coffee. ? 

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

indeed

but in HM experience, it is not the role of the monarch to be head of government

HM defends the right, by the supremacy of God and the rule of law

well above the office of Prime Minister, who is merely a gloried bureaucrat

the Sovereign, Head of State & Commander-in-Chief remains above the fray

it would be folly to try to drag HM The King down to the level of ignominious politician

Now, that is a good point.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Yeah right depends on the measure. I meant, for the democracy. PM in Canada has near dictatorial powers. No checks, few limits.. still.

Sure but there's simple fixes to that which don't involve turning the country into a leaderless rudderless mess.

One of the simplest is change the required votes in the house so that SOME bills require more than 50 percent to pass. Imagine if money bills always required 66 percent to pass. That would give the back benchers more power and the opposition too, you might have a majority in the house but still not be able to pass some bills and be forced to an election if you don't have broader support.  That KIND of idea makes more sense.

[myata]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

One of the simplest is change the required votes in the house so that SOME bills require more than 50 percent to pass. Imagine if money bills always required 66 percent to pass.

And the other one that's simple, makes sense and used by overwhelming majority of democracies is proportional representation. Simple really:

Why, by virtue of some voodoo magic, representation" of interests in the government should be drastically different from that in the country?

No, there's no rational answer. Just another of only in Canada things.

[Dougie93]

On 6/1/2023 at 12:37 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

The entire nation should say of prayer of thanks that I switched to pottery. At least, when I'm in the studio, I can't do any harm.

no harm done in being a Loyalist, a Royalist, a Monarchist of British North America

you'll live forever, when the Pipers play

[Moonlight Graham]

On 5/31/2023 at 5:24 PM, TreeBeard said:

You may want to read it again.  

Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada

Quote

Not outlined in any constitutional document, the office exists only per long-established convention (originating in Canada's former colonial power, the United Kingdom) that stipulates the monarch's representative, the governor general, must select as prime minister the person most likely to command the confidence of the elected House of Commons; this individual is typically the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in that chamber

Isn't it sad how little Canadians know about their country and how their government works?  The Great Liberal Party Project!

Edited June 11, 2023 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

On 5/31/2023 at 8:40 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

The Cabinet makes the day to day decisions. We already have the Governor General who would oversee the Cabinet deliberations and make those decisions that require urgent attention. The PM is redundant.

The GG is unelected and has little legitimacy in a democracy to make any policy decisions whatever, and therefore they do not.  If you want to live under the policies decided by kings and queens then build a time machine and travel back 1000 years to another country.

On 5/31/2023 at 8:40 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Why do we need a PM?  Nobody seems to like or respect whomever in in that role. It's existance tempts challengers to spent time fighting their way up the ladder rather an devoting their energies to doing what we elect them to do. For those who crave the extra prestige, there is still the cabinet positions, but their appointments will be based more on merit than partisan politics.

I tend to agree.  The US solved this problem by having the President have executive functions only (like fast decisions needed during war or security threats) and able to choose their cabinet outside of the legislature, with only limited power to veto bills that weren't passed with a supermajority.

Therefore, we could elect our GG or remove the PM from the legislature, or something else to lessen the hierarchical power of the PM and our legislature that decide our laws.  The PM has too much power.

[TreeBeard]

On 5/31/2023 at 2:21 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

The PM and their role is written nowhere in our constitution.

Read it. 
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/FullText.html

 

The PM is mentioned in the Constitution Act.  Do I need to quote the sections, or can you do a search?  ? 

 

[myata]

Why do you want to go through such convolutions? Why can't we have a representative body that actually represents the country?

6 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

The PM is mentioned in the Constitution Act.

Right. And in Canada, it means eternal and immutable. The dinosaurs know. Good luck!

[I am Groot]

On 5/31/2023 at 8:40 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

The Cabinet makes the day to day decisions. We already have the Governor General who would oversee the Cabinet deliberations and make those decisions that require urgent attention. The PM is redundant

Trudeau's cabinet doesn't get to decide what style of suit they wear without permission from the PMO.

[I am Groot]

On 5/31/2023 at 8:40 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

The Cabinet makes the day to day decisions. We already have the Governor General who would oversee the Cabinet deliberations and make those decisions that require urgent attention. The PM is redundant.

The GG is a nobody selected because she's a native. She was chosen to replace the last one chosen because she was a woman and an astronaut who turned out to be psychotic. The last GG we had who might have been capable of intelligently overseeing cabinet deliberations was Ray Hnatyshyn. And he's been dead for a quarter century.

On 6/1/2023 at 10:26 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

The concept of a Prime Minister is only 302 years old. Not very long in an historical sense.

You want to increase the power of the monarch?

[Queenmandy85]

14 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The GG is a nobody selected because she's a native. She was chosen to replace the last one chosen because she was a woman and an astronaut who turned out to be psychotic. The last GG we had who might have been capable of intelligently overseeing cabinet deliberations was Ray Hnatyshyn. And he's been dead for a quarter century.

You want to increase the power of the monarch?

Yes, exactly. 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Yes, exactly. 

Increase it's power to do what?  I'd like the monarch to have the power to monitor the PMO to ensure the public's interest in safe - along with the authority to present the evidence the public needs to validate and verify this.

Edited June 12, 2023 by eyeball

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Increase it's power to do what?  I'd like the monarch to have the power to monitor the PMO to ensure the public's interest in safe - along with the authority to present the evidence the public needs to validate and verify this.

Restore his power to govern in place of a PM. Due to the logistics of reigning over several nations, a Governor General is essential. However, it should be a person of the King's choosing. (Contrary to what was said previously, Governor General Simon is a very astute, highly intelligent viceroy.) The advantage of Monarchy is it offers stability and continuity able to plan for the long term. Our current system means government policy is dictated by a very short election cycle. It is impossible for a political leader to survive making the hard decisions we need to ensure the future well being of the realm. We have a King who has been trained to govern for 60 years. He does know every Cabinet Minister and likely knows more about this country than most Canadians. He also is better educated than many politicians.

How many years did Trudeau, Harper, or Mulroney train in government and what kind education did they have? Politicians are in office at the whim of a poorly educated electorate. Voters are not stupid, they are just lacking knowledge and often put self interest over the needs of the nation. Voters have a very short vision of the future. We cannot afford that.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[eyeball]

42 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Restore his power to govern in place of a PM. 

That is not what I said at all and nothing else you said addressed what I did say.

I simply said the monarch should have the ability to see what is happening in the PMO and to report that to us.

Whatever it is that being able to see what OUR government is doing that people believe or think will restrict it from governing us needs to be discussed.

If the government doesn't trust us don't you feel it needs to explain why so we can correct whatever it is we're doing wrong?

[Army Guy]

On 6/1/2023 at 10:30 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

I am not advocating we have no leader. The position of Prime Minister is a recent innovation created  as a convenience. The issues that created the post have long since vanished. What can the PM do that a highly trained Governor General can't. 

That is how our current system works. Cabinet makes decisions based on advice from the professional civil service and Parliament.

Get elected, thats what a PM can do and a the governor can't, The PM is the face of Canada, the Governor General is the face of the King...two different roles, that can not be changed in order for our system to work.....Then again some say Justin could be replaced by a clapping monkey, I'd prefer the magic 8 ball myself.

Cabinet is by no means what so ever bound to take advice from public service. this happens all across the board, on all departments that have ministers, take military procurement for instance, it is not the military that makes the choice of what to buy, it is the federal government they control what to buy regardless of advice from DND, like Justin refusal to buy F-35's , and yet that was exactly what the air force wanted...