|
Kenny Logins posted:Is it possible for someone to start a new thread on Canadian pro/anti-monarchism? I'd really like to read everyone's thoughts for and against, but I don't think they quite fit in this megathread. The question of whether Canada should keep the Queen in her current role, reduce it or abolish it altogether is certainly heavy enough for its own thread. There actually was a constitutional monarchy thread in D&D a month or two ago pretty much exactly along these lines, but I'm not sure what happened to it. edit: oh, here it is.
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I'm just saying that I'm pretty sure that, assuming the Queen is oppressive in some way, I, an English speaking Albertan, is oppressed to roughly the same extent as a French speaking Quebecker. Now this statement is arguably true. Historically this has not been the case, as our francoposters have laid out rather concisely. I can understand them being ambivalent at best about the British monarchy because of that history, especially in response to arguments in favour of the monarchy based on tradition and links to history. (I'm a monarchist, if not a particularly fervent one as my reasons mostly boil down to "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" and a burning dislike for the idea of turning what is effectively a patriotic symbol/figurehead and/or Nationalism Escape Valve into another football for partisan electoral politics.)
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I don't understand this argument at all. The monarch's duties are all entirely devolved to the GG already, and our governments have been remarkably adult and non-partisan (Ray Hnatyshyn aside) in their appointments. If we become a republic with the exact same institutions and wite-out applied to everywhere it says "her majesty's" in our laws, I don't see why suddenly PMs would start appointing Patrick Brazeaus to the GG spot rather than the David Johnstons and Michaëlle Jeans they've been appointing up to now. Given the trend in our politics today I do not imagine that the GG-as-Queen's-representative would be replaced with another appointed figurehead. You're right that if they endeavoured to change as little as possible, then it wouldn't do anything practically to just erase the polite fiction that the Queen matters in our politics today. But Canada doesn't really do incremental constitutional change outside the courts. It's either sweeping panaceas or stasis, these days, and all the replacements for the current head of state mechanism are either identical in practice (as you point out) or, in my view, actively worse. So I tend to fall on the leave it alone side.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Imperator Justinium Trudeaux, First of His Name. Would unironically rather have this than him as PM. From each according to his ability and all that.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Also Stéphane Dion came out in favour of an elected empowered Senate today, so I don't even know what the gently caress these guys are playing at, but now is not the time for a policy debate. In politics when the other guys is on the ground bleeding you don't dust yourself off and try to elevate the conversation, you put your boot on his neck and make sure he stays down. "Stephane Dion came out in favour of an elected empowered Senate" is a really...odd reading of what he actually said. Not to pick on you specifically, the media coverage of that particular interview has been awful, as is sadly typical for everything Dion says. Specifically, this bit: quote:"An elected Senate would be powerful," Dion said. "A Senate, when you have good people in it, well-chosen by the prime minister, may help the country." is more saying that an elected Senate would be powerful OR a Senate with good people in it, well-chosen by the PM (and therefore not elected), could help the country. As he said (and focused on) in the interview, our current PM raises an issue of whether he has the honesty or judgment to choose Senators for the good of the country rather than the good of the party. He didn't, to my reading, make any judgment on which track of reform would be better, only that reform needs to happen. Admittedly I am a Dion fanboy and tend to give him the benefit of the doubt when a story breaks suggesting he's said something that makes no sense. If only because he should have been PM today, goddamnit. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 14:40
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:How is he the quote for the federal NDP? Is he Her Majesty's Opposition's Sports Critic? Is he also an MP? What am I missing here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Dub%C3%A9 (yes, he's an MP, yes he's the NDP sports critic, but he was one of the candidates the NDP plucked out of McGill in 2011 so missing who he is is likely understandable.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:Yea man, dude is off his rocker. I just wish we would have known before we endorsed him as our candidate last election. I'm happy, doesn't gently caress with our Majority and he was a loose cannon. Peter Julian is probably thinking wishfully, but he makes a good point that that majority is down to 8 seats. Wells' First Rule and all, I doubt there are nine more disgruntled backbenchers out there that would vote to topple Harper, but this seems to me like a blow to what's become the government's weak spot, and it might shake some more of the true believers loose. We'll see. In equal opportunity bad news - well, remember how we (mostly Nomenklatura, PBUH) used to say that after Martin backstabbed Chretien, all the best and most underhanded LPC operatives moved to Queen's Park? Welll.... CBC posted:Senior staff members in the offices of both the Ontario energy minister and former premier Dalton McGuinty intentionally deleted emails about the cancellation of gas plants in Oakville and Mississauga, according to the province's privacy commissioner.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:They are rocking the boat, but they all know God drat well they won't be re-elected when the next election comes around so they wanna stick it out as long as possible. Well, you're obviously closer to the CPC caucus than I am, but I grew up out West and I know the kinds of people who voted these guys in. Just because the rural Prairies won't vote Liberal doesn't mean that half of these guys couldn't run for NeoReform and win anyway, if they're pushed hard enough. Obviously they'd end up in Opposition but the past seven years have convinced me that most of them would be happier there. (In that vein, I would really suggest to that PMO comms guy on Twitter that he stop trying to goad Rathgeber into a byelection, because the odds are very good he will win one handily and we all know the media would turn it into a referendum on The Harper Government's transparency record, which is almost certainly the last thing your bosses should want.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
mr. unhsib posted:More Rob Ford goodness today - Toronto Star tracked down the house the photo was taken, it's a known drug house right around the corner from Don Boscoe: The Star, Gawker, and the Globe all tracked down that house on, apparently, the same day. I imagine reporters tripping over each other like something out of a slapstick comedy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
Since we parsed Ford's denials to hell and back, I will be fair and believe that Thomson will be posting a cat video, until approximately 11:59am EST tomorrow morning.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Some of the talk in the 3 shares of that post suggest she's got the straight up cash to pick it up. I don't know anything about this person or Women's Post, though she does look familiar. You might remember Sarah Thomson from this famous civic election or this best-selling sexual harassment allegation. (tl;dr: spite. Sweet, delicious spite.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
I hope there isn't. Maybe our opposition can finally learn to stop interrupting the government when they're self-destructing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
Shofixti posted:This article has to be a troll. I've never heard of this Brian Lee Crowley guy until now but some of the statements in here are ridiculous. The comments are genuinely more intelligent and reasonable than the lead articlw. How often does that happen?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Alctel posted:I've never heard of that 'hold two weeks pay' thing at all Ironically enough, the only time I've ever run into it was when I was temping for a federal agency two years ago. (the first month was a pain but after that it's hardly the apocalypse.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Faux Shoah posted:Obviously the reserve warranted assistance too but to criticize the scale of the response to a disaster in one of Canada's largest cities compared with a reserve of under 1000 people is more than a little ridiculous. THC was criticizing the character of the response in Attawapiskat, not the scale. Though to be fair, there's really no (or at least very limited) way for even the craziest small-government conservative to blame "your town was suddenly half-drowned by torrential rains" on the victims' mismanagement, whereas a slow-burning housing crisis can be spun that way if one is inclined to try. It's kind of apples-to-oranges I think: a better analogy is probably the Quebec flood response compare/contrast that was posted by OSI bean dip last page. (I suppose one could theoretically chalk that up to racism too!). edit: or alternatively, check if anyone is sending auditors instead of aid to Siksika or Tsuu T'ina. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
Good news from the Red Chamber for once (or UNELECTED STOOGES SUBVERTING THE WILL OF PARLIAMENT  , your choice.):The Twitter Press Gallery is reporting that the Senate has amended the Tory union disclosure bill C-377 and sent it back to the House. Senator Segal, no friend of the bill, got enough of his fellow Tories to vote yes on his amendments to narrow the bill's requirements - the Globe has details here if you haven't hit your paywall limit this month yet. tl;dr posted:The bill from Conservative MP Russ Hiebert aimed to force unions to disclose all payments made by unions to outside groups or individuals worth $5,000 or more. The bill also sought to force unions to disclose the names and salaries of all employees who are paid more than $100,000. That second reporting threshhold may sound familiar to you! (it certainly will to Brent Rathgeber). Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It'd be nice if appointing someone to the Senate was closer to how we appoint people to the Supreme Court. That would probably increase the confidence a lot of people feel in the senate because while it isn't at all democratic its at least a set of procedures based on clear rules and precedents rather than just reflecting the whim of the Prime Minister. Thia would be my ideal, a chamber of the accomplished in all kinds of fields now that we (theoretically) value achievement more than bloodlines. But I imagine it would be hard to do with such a generalist chamber (hell, it is hard to do with the Supreme Court: while that process has procedures and traditions the criteria aren't even remotely objective, nor could they be.) The weird irony of the Senate, the House, and responsible government as it is practiced in Canada is that the House are theoretically chosen by the people for their ideals, but are in practice put into that position due to their partisanship, and remain in the position to be chosen by party loyalty (barring high profile independents like Nunziata/Casey/Rathgeber-to-be, who tend to gain that profile via prior loyalty until they reach some breaking point or other.) Without that loyalty, they lose out on speaking assignments, prominence and power within the Commons, and eventually, their nominations to even run under the party banner. Without that loyalty, the credible argument goes, the Government would fall and mere anarchy would be loosed upon the world. Would you have that on your conscience, Mr or Ms Trained Seal? Raised taxes, socialists and separatists living together, mass hysteria? I agree that Senators are commonly appointed as a reward for party loyalty. Effectively, though, while Senators get to their positions through loyalty, they are unlike MPs in that they keep their positions whether they are loyal or not, and so the PMO cannot exercise the same leverage on them. It is through the security of their tenure that the Senate Tory caucus gains the independence to defy the Prime Minister more often (if less prominently) than the House Tory caucus does, to act from premises beyond the short-term political caluclus. Which is precisely what Fine-able Offense and I keep pointing out examples of, to help supply a counternarrative to the usual run of news story. Now, obviously there are other ways to do what the Senate ideally does, and the House does not have to be as it currently is, (and we'll see if MPs ever find the backbone to reassert its authority given that the Speaker has basically dared them to assert themselves and take it). But I have consistently argued that the problem is not the institutional structures of the House or the Senate, except insofar as those structures have both lent too much power to the executive. edit: oh jesus christ this was way longer than I thought.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The "rest of the world"? By which you apparently mean "America" and their super functional and highly desirable upper chamber? No, I think he means the dysfunctional hellholes that are France, Spain, Germany, and Italy (for examples that can't blame it on Westminster.) Okay, Italiy is dysfunctional but I wouldn't blame it on their elected upper chamber. (edit: Wikipedia has a brief summary of what's running where.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
mr. unhsib posted:Disagree that electing the Senate is easier than abolishing it, and disagree that electing the Senate is also more radical than abolishing it. It's not clear what you're even saying here, but the process for getting to an elected Senate (unless we're talking about "submitting recommendations" that the PM can just ignore like fixed election dates) is at the very best only slightly easier than abolishing it, and both are in "lol no" territory given the constitutional practicalities. For all intents and purposes they're identical process-wise and Sloth is perfectly right to treat them that way. I think bicameralism can be useful in the "second opinion" sense, but that second opinion has to be meaningfully distinct, and how that power functions in relation to the primary opinion is critically important. Whether it's "representative of subordinate governments" like the Bundesrat or the original conception of the US Senate, or "sober second thought" like the ideal Canadian Senate or the modern Lords, or some other conception, it can't just be a rehash of the original body. You may have mocked that simple formula for redundancy but it makes sense. If you have two bodies explicitly designed to step on each other's toes you will get nothing good. Distinguish them or kill one. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Not buying the callow reductionism of this to a partisan issue either, I knew the Senate was bullshit back when in my misbegotten time as a Dion supporter and it's abolishment has been backed by the likes of Dalton McGuinty and Brad Wall, on the other hand most of those favouring an elected Senate in this thread are hardly card carrying Conservatives. Honestly if we can reduce this to any stupid generalization it's "technocrats versus democrats", which is understandable because that's the root of our disagreement. You and Pinterest put a much higher value on democracy in and of itself than I (and I assume Fine-able, but obviously I can only speak for myself) do, and so something that's salvageable to me is intolerable to you. I doubt either of us will really change that basic of a premise, so if we were having this out at one of our pub nights I'd say "agree to disagree", but since this is D&D I'll just say "until next time."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The incessant complaining about NDP partisanship in this thread is really weird. There are plenty of biases on display in here but slavish consistency to the NDP platform certainly isn't one of them. Who in this thread has ever rabidly defended the current incarnation of the NDP? I think people are using "NDP partisanship" as shorthand for "the Canadian equivalent of the constant leftier-than-thou dogpile that characterises the rest of the forum". This is inaccurate as hell for several reasons, but whatcha gonna do.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Wait, do we know that the guns seized were unsecured? I thought they legally had to be locked up at all times anyway? My sister has a dinky rear end biathlon rifle, and even that is stored in a locked case with a trigger lock, and the ammunition stored elsewhere. That's what the cops are saying, yeah, and considering there were plenty of people defying the evac order, there were still people around who might have been able to take them. So I sympathise with the rationale for seizing them but it'll probably do more harm than good. Edit: I'd like to say "surely they wouldn't be dumb enough to try and charge anyone for this," but well, RCMP. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Should be pointed out that Marjory Lebreton and James Moore are both huge lying sacks of poo poo since they both trotted out the Wright acted alone defence. I guess they were just desperate to keep a lid on those details while QP was still live. A few more questions may be asked about LeBreton's resignation (literally two days ago) as Government Senate Leader now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
The depressing part is that this is actually a better outcome than I expected.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Polievre as Minister of State (Democratic Reform) There is a god and he has a sick sense of humour.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
Yeah, I mean, considering the Harper Government's Laser Focus on the Economy and Job Creation, you'd think HRSDC/Employment would be an important file, so I didn't read it as a straight demotion, but Kenney's job is going to suck for the next two years and I have to think that was intentional.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
The idea that LPC's last two or three years in office (or their first five years out of office) weren't a protracted leadership battle is hilarious. I'm with THC, for once. The chain of accountability within our political parties is monumentally hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
HookShot posted:That said, I actually do prefer our system of electing leaders. At least our way is somewhat representative of the people's wishes, rather than political game playing between members of parliament. Political game playing between partisans/party members is only more representative of "the people's wishes" than political game-playing among elected MPs if you have a very odd definition of "the people". Basically I'm in favour of anything that empowers MPs vis-a-vis the party leader and party apparatus, because if the PM isn't actually a first-among-equals then, as we are observing, the entire system breaks down.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Maybe something where a majority of caucus can turf the leader but membership appoints the replacement, but I really cannot abide the australian system. It allowed a sociopath to spend three years sabotaging his party's electoral prospects in order to position himself as an alternative leadership candidate, and I typically prefer team players. I could go for something like this, I just think that the very fact that "anonymous Liberal insider" is a meme in this thread suggests that the Australian system does not uniquely enable sociopaths within political parties to undermine their teams for perceived personal gain. At the end of the day, accountability to the people in our political system is meant to flow through MPs, and political parties are a convenient abstraction around that authority. I concede that I'm looking at this mainly through the lens of a governing party (and the concerns I expressed above are irrelevant to parties in opposition), but the current situation where MPs dance to the tune of party leadership or they lose their nominations regardless of what their riding associations say is frankly intolerable.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
a primate posted:Ughhh please tell me this is not a sign of things to come. Premiers Adrian Dix and Danielle Smith tell me that early polls should never be doubted.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
Well, on the other hand they managed to wrap this incident up without any additional murder (or tear-gassing a senile 74-year old, which I'm SURE would have ended well.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
A lot of the time it is actually true, though? (  this is not something to be proud of, US rates from the majors are also awful)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Yeah, thanks for providing the details I was too lazy to. I generally view US and Canadian wireless prices as comaprable (that is, they're both awful) and the US gets inherent advantages due to economies of scale within similarly sized territories. (but we have a thread for wireless bitching so I'll try not to derail further.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
colonel_korn posted:Nothing brightens my day quite like seeing Sun News Network get poo poo on Looking at today's releases in more detail, they're planning to do a review this fall about the rules surrounding the distribution of Canadian news channels - so this isn't over yet?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
Ontario SIU in "not completely useless" shockerCP24 posted:A Toronto police constable who fatally shot a man on a streetcar has been charged with second-degree murder, Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit says.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
Rhobot Mk. II posted:However, nice to see them going through the motions atleast. It's a testament to the awful situation WRT accountability for police violence in Canada that I (at least) am prepared to see even this as a good sign, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Please come back, 41st parliament. I was on Team No Big Deal about prorogation until I saw what it did to this loving thread.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Twiin posted:Christ. I wonder if Harper knew this was going to leak before he prorogued. Parliament wasn't going to be in session for three weeks anyway, though? Assuming for the sake of argument that Harper actually cares about facing questions in the Commons over this poo poo rather than simply ignoring or deflecting them like he's done since 2006, at the time he would have made the decision it was still a safe bet there would be some new shiny disaster for the Opposition to focus on by the time Parliament came back. As long as he has his caucus on side, Harper has nothing to fear from Parliament. If he has to worry about anyone, it's the press, which is why the "proroguing to dodge scandals" narrative has never made any sense to me. The press doesn't shut up because Parliament is closed. JoelJoel posted:Maybe I simply haven't sniffed it out, but has any party, federal or provincial (Quebec aside) said anything about this Charter of Values fiasco? Justone. CTV posted:Justin Trudeau became the first prominent federal politician to oppose Quebec's controversial plan to ban religious headwear for public employees. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Aug 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
I hadn't heard Mulcair's statement or Shory's (though I try not to assume CPC backbenchers speak for the party), so thanks for clearing that up, Pinterest. Trudeau was still first and credit where credit's due for that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:People keep on telling me that Coyne is reasonable but I never see it. Coyne is reasonable*. *as long as he's not talking about economics or in fact anything to do with money.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 01:20
|
|