[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

https://twitter.com/thebeaverton/status/1509184949487869959?s=21&t=roHXfionWj7JowMvkRnWNg

Dictator to be defeated in election says Conservatives.  The Beaverton

Chrétien maintained himself in power for 12 years without being popular anywhere but in Ontario.

Once a government has a majority, which the CLP has with the support of the NDP, a Prime Minister's Office can do pretty much anything he wants, within the law, and even a little beyond when they manage their cards carefully.  There is no concept of check & balance in our parliamentary system, unlike the US.  Not that it works like a charm in the US, but still, the intent was there at the beginning, at least.

I get it, you don't like our Parliamentary system within the context of a Federal state.  But that does not a dictator make.

[Malthus]

https://twitter.com/thebeaverton/status/1509184949487869959?s=21&t=roHXfionWj7JowMvkRnWNg

Dictator to be defeated in election says Conservatives.  The Beaverton

Chrétien maintained himself in power for 12 years without being popular anywhere but in Ontario.

Once a government has a majority, which the CLP has with the support of the NDP, a Prime Minister's Office can do pretty much anything he wants, within the law, and even a little beyond when they manage their cards carefully.  There is no concept of check & balance in our parliamentary system, unlike the US.  Not that it works like a charm in the US, but still, the intent was there at the beginning, at least.

That's why you need the moral guidance of the Queen as head of state. To keep the system honest.

Finally, you are realizing why you need to br a monarchist. 

[Barrister]

Another former Wilrdrose Party leader, Danielle Smith, is also seeking to become leader of the United Conservative Party.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/danielle-smith-return-politics-sight-on-ucp-leadership-1.6404638

So back in 2014 there was another attempt to merge the Wildrose and PC parties.  Danielle Smith was leader of Wildrose, and leader of the opposition.  PC was unpopular, Wildrose was mostly just popular in the rural areas, and the NDP was on the rise.  So Smith quit as leader and went and joined the PCs together with 7 of her colleagues.

The move was wildly unpopular between both PCs and Wildrose.  Smith failed to get nominated with the PCs for her own seat, Wildrose regrouped under Brian Jean.  In the 2015 election the NDP won, but with Wildrose still as official opposition.

Smith has been a radio talkshow host since then.  Perhaps the bad taste from 2014 has left everyone's mouths.

But of course remember there is no leadership race going on, at least not yet.

[viper37]

But that does not a dictator make.

Not literally, no.

[viper37]

https://twitter.com/thebeaverton/status/1509184949487869959?s=21&t=roHXfionWj7JowMvkRnWNg

Dictator to be defeated in election says Conservatives.  The Beaverton

Chrétien maintained himself in power for 12 years without being popular anywhere but in Ontario.

Once a government has a majority, which the CLP has with the support of the NDP, a Prime Minister's Office can do pretty much anything he wants, within the law, and even a little beyond when they manage their cards carefully.  There is no concept of check & balance in our parliamentary system, unlike the US.  Not that it works like a charm in the US, but still, the intent was there at the beginning, at least.

That's why you need the moral guidance of the Queen as head of state. To keep the system honest.

Finally, you are realizing why you need to br a monarchist. 

Nah.  Try to imagine the moral guidance of someone like Prince Andrew becoming King.

[crazy canuck]

But that does not a dictator make.

Not literally, no.

She said he was literally a dictator - she read out the dictionary definition and said it applied.

[HVC]

https://twitter.com/thebeaverton/status/1509184949487869959?s=21&t=roHXfionWj7JowMvkRnWNg

Dictator to be defeated in election says Conservatives.  The Beaverton

Chrétien maintained himself in power for 12 years without being popular anywhere but in Ontario.

Once a government has a majority, which the CLP has with the support of the NDP, a Prime Minister's Office can do pretty much anything he wants, within the law, and even a little beyond when they manage their cards carefully.  There is no concept of check & balance in our parliamentary system, unlike the US.  Not that it works like a charm in the US, but still, the intent was there at the beginning, at least.

That's why you need the moral guidance of the Queen as head of state. To keep the system honest.

Finally, you are realizing why you need to br a monarchist. 

Nah.  Try to imagine the moral guidance of someone like Prince Andrew becoming King.

If we didn't elect leaders with dubious sexual histories we wanted have half our politicians, why must monarchs be different

Besides he's way out of the running. The worst that would happen is a tragedy would befall us and we'd be stuck with a dumbass stablboys son.

[Barrister]

Nah.  Try to imagine the moral guidance of someone like Prince Andrew becoming King.

In some ways a King Andrew would be an even more effective monarch.

The useful thing about a constitutional monarch is they have significant power, but zero legitimacy.  So for a monarch to use that power against the wishes of the government of the day they could only do so in the very rare case of near-universal dismissal of what the government is trying to do.

[Sheilbh]

The useful thing about a constitutional monarch is they have significant power, but zero legitimacy.  So for a monarch to use that power against the wishes of the government of the day they could only do so in the very rare case of near-universal dismissal of what the government is trying to do.

Similarly I think it's the incredible weakness of constitutional monarchy that helps it survive. I may be a died in the wool republican, but it makes it almost more challenging to convince people they should want to abolish the monarchy because we could do it at any time and it'd just be a case of passing the laws in parliament.

It wouldn't require a revolution or even huge constitutional turmoil. There's no super-majority or vested interests wiling to fight and die to save the monarchy from the democratic process - which makes it incredibly difficult to persuade people it needs to be abolished

[Barrister]

The useful thing about a constitutional monarch is they have significant power, but zero legitimacy.  So for a monarch to use that power against the wishes of the government of the day they could only do so in the very rare case of near-universal dismissal of what the government is trying to do.

Similarly I think it's the incredible weakness of constitutional monarchy that helps it survive. I may be a died in the wool republican, but it makes it almost more challenging to convince people they should want to abolish the monarchy because we could do it at any time and it'd just be a case of passing the laws in parliament.

It wouldn't require a revolution or even huge constitutional turmoil. There's no super-majority or vested interests wiling to fight and die to save the monarchy from the democratic process - which makes it incredibly difficult to persuade people it needs to be abolished

Would the monarch need to give royal assent to a bill abolishing the monarchy?

[Jacob]

Philosophically I'm a republican, but I'm also a small-c conservative in many cases. Sure abolish the monarchy. What do we do with the gaps it leaves in our system, and how will it be better? Will it be the same? Or worse?

Much as the institution of royalty is morally bankrupt, politically it's pretty inoffensive in our current system.

[Sheilbh]

Would the monarch need to give royal assent to a bill abolishing the monarchy?

Yes - but in the UK the convention is that the monarch has no discretion in granting royal assent.

Although that's been recently discussed in the context of whether the Queen could refuse royal assent to a backbench bill on the advice of her PM, because that was a possibility during the 2017-19 Brexit parliament. The conclusion in academic circles (and apparently supported by the royal household) was that she couldn't and it would be unconstitutional for her to follow the PM's advice.

Understandable that the British monarchy might be willing to risk getting on the wrong side of the government of the day but is chary of crossing parliament

[Barrister]

Would the monarch need to give royal assent to a bill abolishing the monarchy?

Yes - but in the UK the convention is that the monarch has no discretion in granting royal assent.

Although that's been recently discussed in the context of whether the Queen could refuse royal assent to a backbench bill on the advice of her PM, because that was a possibility during the 2017-19 Brexit parliament. The conclusion in academic circles (and apparently supported by the royal household) was that she couldn't and it would be unconstitutional for her to follow the PM's advice.

Understandable that the British monarchy might be willing to risk getting on the wrong side of the government of the day but is chary of crossing parliament

But that'[s exactly what I mean by saying the monarch has great power and zero legitimacy.

It absolutely is the convention that the monarch must give royal assent.  It would be massive news if the monarch refused to do so.  Which is why the monarch would only do so in the most clearest of clear cases.

But it's still useful to have that kind of safety valve in the system.  Let's say the government of the day passes an absolutely insane law.  There are riots in the streets, public opinion polls are running 90% against.  This is where King Andrew feels secure enough to refuse assent and call for new elections.

[Sheilbh]

Philosophically I'm a republican, but I'm also a small-c conservative in many cases. Sure abolish the monarchy. What do we do with the gaps it leaves in our system, and how will it be better? Will it be the same? Or worse?

Much as the institution of royalty is morally bankrupt, politically it's pretty inoffensive in our current system.

Well also I think presidential systems are a little bit less democratic/dangerous to democracy than parliamentary systems. So I'm arguing that the monarchy is wrong in principle and should be abolished, so we can replace it with something basically very similar. I'm aware it's not the most convincing point of view

I suppose the flipside/benefit is that a constitutional president can play more of a role especially as a constitutional guarantor, such as in Germany or Ireland than the monarch, even if they're still pretty constrained.

[crazy canuck]

Philosophically I'm a republican, but I'm also a small-c conservative in many cases. Sure abolish the monarchy. What do we do with the gaps it leaves in our system, and how will it be better? Will it be the same? Or worse?

Much as the institution of royalty is morally bankrupt, politically it's pretty inoffensive in our current system.

Well also I think presidential systems are a little bit less democratic/dangerous to democracy than parliamentary systems. So I'm arguing that the monarchy is wrong in principle and should be abolished, so we can replace it with something basically very similar. I'm aware it's not the most convincing point of view

I suppose the flipside/benefit is that a constitutional president can play more of a role especially as a constitutional guarantor, such as in Germany or Ireland than the monarch, even if they're still pretty constrained.

I would not want to move to that sort of model.  But the other problem is that the crown and more particularly the honour of the crown is an integral part of some of our law.  I am not sure how practical it would be to swap that out for some other placeholder.