• http://twitter.com/pfthurley Peter Thurley

    Stephen,

    I think it’s disingenuous to draw on the proposed policy that WAS to be discussed by the NDP at a policy conference. You’ve been involved in partisan politics long enough to know that resolutions proposed for debate at a policy convention do not comprise party policy. Members across the country propose possible policies, and together, we decide which ones we want to discuss on the floor. If it never made it to the convention floor for discussion, if there was no vote, then it is patently false to suggest that it represents the policy of the New Democratic Party, when in fact it represents the views of a select few individuals.

    I enjoy reading what you write, even if it infuriates me at times. But please, for the love of all things good, don’t present the views of another political party in a specific way when you know full well that it constitutes a misrepresentation of the policies of that party.

    Best,

    Peter Thurley
    NDP Candidate, Kitchener Centre

  • http://www.stephentaylor.ca Stephen Taylor

    ok, let’s talk about Pat Martin and Thomas Mulcair’s comments. What is the current caucus opinion of the monarchy? I’ve tried to round out various senior positions on the monarchy.

  • http://www.stephentaylor.ca Stephen Taylor

    Yes, parties are complex. I’ve brought to the fore all recent utterances on the monarchy from various parties and leadership. Leadership also being very important here. I also ponder the mood of Canadians in general and whether the indifference expressed by Ignatieff in particular is reflective of the mood. Don’t worry too much about the NDP resolution… I remember breaking news of it as it was leaked and as it then shamed the party prior to their convention.

    Yes, parties have different views internally as well. I hope that you’ll appreciate Layton’s quote on this.

  • http://www.stephentaylor.ca Stephen Taylor

    I hope that you’ll appreciate the addition of Layton’s quote. It seems a bit disconnected from the comments of his fellow caucus colleagues today. Leadership matters as they say…

  • batb

    I value the Monarchy.

    I wish Prince William and Kate Middleton all the very best. They have a far better chance of being happy together than William’s mother and father. They know each other far better and it appears that Miss Middleton knows how to handle the glare and the howls of the media jackals.

    Don’t Members of Parliament have to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen of Canada? MPs who meanmouth the Monarchy need to get a life. Until Canada becomes a Republic, we have a Queen, we also have Kings, and we have a Governor General. That’s being Canadian.

    You don’t like it? Start your own country.

  • Jjmccullough

    Thanks for the link! I asked Layton that question specifically to counter the “NDP is anti-monarchy” myth. Every federal party in Canada is monarchist to some degree, just as every prime minister has been. The Bloc isn’t even actively republican, they’re just indifferent to the whole debate as a “Canadian internal matter.”

    But, to answer your specific questions:
    If the parties seem disinterested in the monarchy they are absolutely reflecting Canadian opinion, which, in the latest polls I’ve seen, showed over 50% support for ending our ties to the Crown when Elizabeth II dies or abdicates. If the Conservatives are embracing it, in turn, they are practicing terrible politics, since polls have repeatedly shown that Conservative voters are actually statistically MORE likely to favor republicanism than NDP or Liberal supporters.

    This whole idea that the Crown represents any important or necessary element of the Canadian identity is, in short, not born out by any sort of measurable reality. I agree that there are other important issues to address, but one day the Queen will die, and when that day comes Canada should have a succession plan in place to transition this country into some sort of republic, in tune with popular opinion.

  • http://twitter.com/eapr9 eapr9

    It will be constitutionallz almost impossible to change the role of the Crown. I think changing the role of the Monarchz in Our constitution would be in the words of senator cools constituitional vandalism. Our szstem works no need to change it.

  • http://twitter.com/eapr9 eapr9

    It will be constitutionallz almost impossible to change the role of the Crown. I think changing the role of the Monarchz in Our constitution would be in the words of senator cools constituitional vandalism. Our szstem works no need to change it.

  • batb

    The reason the percentage of Canadians who, apparently, want to end ties to the Crown is, in large part, because they don’t know our history and they’ve been beguiled by the bigoted, class-envy warfare/propaganda of the CBC and other media outlets. An over 50-year campaign to undermine the Crown in Canada, with nothing to back it up but class envy and socialist Kant, will usually have the effect of swaying the opinions of a poorly educated populace. Our public school systems have been taken over by the secular humanists who would say they’re against the Monarchy, any Monarchy.

    As for NDP Pat Martin’s comment: ““I’m more interested in the Osborne family than the royal family,” no surprise here. The NDP have their own monarchy in the Duke and Duchess of Downtown (Toronto), their very own Jack Layton and Olivia Chow who last year spent substantially over $1,000,000 of Canadian taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars, well above the average expenditure of most sitting MPs — and they live closer to Ottawa than most MPs.

    This is the couple who purports to champion “working class families.” Yeah, sure, Jack and Olivia. The only championing they do is rub their palms together as they spend the hard-earned tax dollars of their constituents.

    Mmmhmmm. The NDP’s own royal family doesn’t like any competition.

  • Liz J

    Love the Monarchy, the best system in the world today. Is it perfect? No, what is? Is the royal Family perfect? No, they’re human.

    I sure hope no one ever takes anything that comes out of Pat Martin’s mouth seriously. He’s either seeking attention or he’s royally ****** up.

  • Liz J

    Love the Monarchy, the best system in the world today. Is it perfect? No, what is? Is the royal Family perfect? No, they’re human.

    I sure hope no one ever takes anything that comes out of Pat Martin’s mouth seriously. He’s either seeking attention or he’s royally ****** up.

  • Anonymous

    Immanuel Kant wasn’t a socialist.

    Wow Stephen, nothing brings out the old ‘n crusty like a monarchy thread.

  • Jjmccullough

    Your comments remind me of Premier Campbell’s defense of the HST: if only the public UNDERSTOOD it, surely they’d love it!

    Monarchy is one of the easiest things in the world to understand. You have a random family, and they get to spawn king and queen because they come from “royal blood,” which is some magical thing the rest of us don’t have. It doesn’t take much to conclude that this is a fairly absurd system for determining who gets to be your head of state.

  • http://twitter.com/pfthurley Peter Thurley

    Stephen,

    I do appreciate the addition of Layton’s quote, though my quibble isn’t so much with the position of the NDP on the Monarchy as much as it is on the characterization of that position.

    As for the disconnected views, it seems to me that individual members are allowed to hold their own views on a variety of subjects and, presumably, speak on behalf of their constituents. Libby Davies’ views on drug policy, for instance, reflect her views and the views of her constituents, and she will often speak of them as an MP. That said, they do not reflect the current policy of the New Democratic Party, writ large. Just because someone is the leader of a party does not mean they should have the ability to stifle the individual views of members, provided caucus decisions are respected. Instead a leader is charged with guiding the discussion, ensuring that caucus decisions are respected, and acting as the chief spokesperson on official policy.

    Unfortunately this style of leadership seems to have entirely evaded our Prime Minister.

  • batb

    I’m not referring to the person, I’m referring to political psychobabble sometimes referred to as “k/Kant.”

    Old and crusty? I guess that’s why you’re here, kenn2.

    You don’t like royalty? Socialists, Communists simply replace Kings and Queens by Dictators whose “subjects’ are usually worse off than when they had a Monarchy. Secular Kings and Queens have all the same trappings as hereditary royalty, they just don’t have the crown jewels.

    But, don’t worry. They’ll find a way to get them.

  • batb

    What I said to kenn2.

    Look at Layton and Chow and Layton’s son, Mike, who just got elected to Toronto Council. You don’t think this “random family” isn’t behaving like the royalty you so despise? Look at Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the young Prince Justin. Look at Count Ignatieff and his pedigree and how he got to be the unelected leader of the disloyal Opposition– might we say he was “the next in line” to inherit the Liberal crown?

    Take your pick: hereditary royalty or secular politicians who behave like royalty?

  • Anonymous

    Uh, then the word is cant.

    Like you said, a poorly educated populace

  • batb

    gimbol, as much as I admire your sentiments and I, too, would like to see an end to the kind of media circus that surrounded Diana, it’s not going to happen vis a vis Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding.

    The British public would go ballistic and, let’s face it, a Royal Wedding is a huge boon to tourism. The British Royals are not unaware of this and would never deprive the Brits and the rest of the world of a Royal Spectacle. You’ve got to hand it to British Royalty: They know how to handle spectacles and have all of the props to make them blazing successes.

    As far as their private lives are concerned, there’s already been years of the British and world press respecting William’s and Harry’s privacy far more than they ever did their mother’s or father’s.

    It also has to be said that Diana courted a great deal of the publicity that came her way. She was an unstable person who craved the limelight and being beautiful and photogenic didn’t lessen the media glare. William and Kate are much more likely to stay behind closed doors and mete out photo ops sparingly, something that Princess Diana rarely did.

  • batb

    gimbol, as much as I admire your sentiments and I, too, would like to see an end to the kind of media circus that surrounded Diana, it’s not going to happen vis a vis Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding.

    The British public would go ballistic and, let’s face it, a Royal Wedding is a huge boon to tourism. The British Royals are not unaware of this and would never deprive the Brits and the rest of the world of a Royal Spectacle. You’ve got to hand it to British Royalty: They know how to handle spectacles and have all of the props to make them blazing successes.

    As far as their private lives are concerned, there’s already been years of the British and world press respecting William’s and Harry’s privacy far more than they ever did their mother’s or father’s.

    It also has to be said that Diana courted a great deal of the publicity that came her way. She was an unstable person who craved the limelight and being beautiful and photogenic didn’t lessen the media glare. William and Kate are much more likely to stay behind closed doors and mete out photo ops sparingly, something that Princess Diana rarely did.

  • Anonymous

    Large Man: Who’s that then?

    Dead Collector: I dunno. Must be a king.

    Large Man: Why?

    Dead Collector: He hasn’t got sh!t all over him.

    King Arthur: I am your king.

    Peasant Woman: Well, I didn’t vote for you.

    King Arthur: You don’t vote for kings.

    Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?

    [Angelic music plays… ]

    King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.

    Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

    Arthur: Be quiet!

    Dennis the Peasant: You can’t expect to wield supreme power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

    Arthur: [grabs Dennis] Shut up! Will you shut up?!

    Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!

    Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!

    Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I’m being repressed!

    Arthur: Bloody Peasant!

  • batb

    Thank you, kenn2. You do come in handy occasionally. :-)

  • batb

    Didn’t the Communists have problems with “the peasants”? Didn’t Stalin starve a few million of them in the Ukraine?

    When it comes to peasants, Royals don’t have a monopoly on disdain. Name me a king or queen who has been responsible for the murder of millions of peasants within the time span of a few years.

  • batb

    Anybody?

  • Anonymous

    Dick Cheney.

  • batb

    Dick Cheney is neither a king nor a queen.

    So, what (the hell) are you talking about?

  • Anonymous

    He is responsible for many many deaths, and he wasn’t elected (in 2000). That’s just about a king.

  • Liz J

    What a helluva thing to say.

  • batb

    Liz, kenn2’s grasping at straws: straw kings to knock over?

    Pathetic.

    Again, I offer for your consideration, kenn2, Canada’s very own Duke and Duchess of Kensington. What are your thoughts on their having spent more of the taxpayers’ dollars in the past year than any other MPs in the HOC?

    Apparently, they’re both “for” working families (whatever the hell that means; all families I know are working families), obviously so that they can scoop up their tax dollars to support their, obviously, opulent lifestyle (that must be some bike Jack rides to work).

  • batb

    Liz, kenn2’s grasping at straws: straw kings to knock over?

    Pathetic.

    Again, I offer for your consideration, kenn2, Canada’s very own Duke and Duchess of Kensington. What are your thoughts on their having spent more of the taxpayers’ dollars in the past year than any other MPs in the HOC?

    Apparently, they’re both “for” working families (whatever the hell that means; all families I know are working families), obviously so that they can scoop up their tax dollars to support their, obviously, opulent lifestyle (that must be some bike Jack rides to work).

  • Liz J

    Wonder if Jack and Olivia have fur lined helmets and bum warmers for those winter bike rides to work for “the people”? Now I might have some respect for them if they’d even ride a tandem bike, it would save money, they’d only need two snow tires instead of four.

  • Liz J

    Wonder if Jack and Olivia have fur lined helmets and bum warmers for those winter bike rides to work for “the people”? Now I might have some respect for them if they’d even ride a tandem bike, it would save money, they’d only need two snow tires instead of four.

  • Liz J

    So this young couple, Kate and William remind Iggy of when HE got engaged. We can only assume that happened in England some years ago and he does have something in common with our current royal family, divorce, but c’mon, you’re speaking on behalf of Canadians, forget about Me, Myself and I.

    Good Gawd spare us Iggy, we know you think you are royalty, that’s been the big hurdle you can’t get over.