Democracy at work in Canada - Page 4

Agathon · December 19, 2003, 21:52

The Governor General sacked the Whitlam government in Australia without just cause.

That was a coup by constitutional means.

KrazyHorse · December 19, 2003, 21:59

Quote:

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
However, knowing your political background KH I assume you're trying to infer that the monarch would actively interfere; I can assure you that is utter nonsense.

I'm not a republican (small "r"), so I don't know what you mean by "knowing your political background". I might be one if I was British due to a heavier taxpayer burden, but as it stands I'm the only socialist monarchist I know.

KrazyHorse · December 19, 2003, 22:00

But when it comes to the House of Lords, all hereditatry seats should have disappeared a long time ago...

notyoueither · December 19, 2003, 22:26

KH might also be mistaking a row in Canada between MacKenzie King and then GG Lord Byng. There was a row that involved parties other than the Liberals and avoiding an election. I can look it up if anyone cares.

notyoueither · December 19, 2003, 22:28

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
...I'm the only socialist monarchist I know.

We're all coming out. Asher votes for Boris, I'm a Tory, and you're a monarchist. Quite a year.

Who's next, and what will be the bombshell?

Agathon · December 19, 2003, 22:36

I like Christina Aguleira

KrazyHorse · December 19, 2003, 22:37

I've always freely admitted my preferences. This one stems from a feeling that it's a tradition which:

a) doesn't really cost us anything
b) doesn't actually interfere with our sovereignty or democratic government
c) gives me something to chuckle about

Go see my previous discussions with Asher on this subject. He hates the monarchy, IIRC.

*End Is Forever* · December 19, 2003, 22:38

Quote:

I might be one if I was British due to a heavier taxpayer burden

The Royals cost us peanuts... it's something like 50p per household per annum, and the amount of income through tourism etc that is brought in far, far exceeds that... so they don't really cost us anything. Far more cost effective than an elected head-of-state.

Also, apologies; I guess I just assumed you'd be a republican...

KrazyHorse · December 19, 2003, 22:44

Quote:

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*

The Royals cost us peanuts... it's something like 50p per household per annum, and the amount of income through tourism etc that is brought in far, far exceeds that... so they don't really cost us anything. Far more cost effective than an elected head-of-state.

Also, apologies; I guess I just assumed you'd be a republican...

Yah, but in my world they wouldn't have all that personal wealth to draw on, so they'd cost more upkeep.

Agathon · December 19, 2003, 22:46

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I've always freely admitted my preferences. This one stems from a feeling that it's a tradition which:

a) doesn't really cost us anything
b) doesn't actually interfere with our sovereignty or democratic government
c) gives me something to chuckle about.

You forgot to add that it makes sure that the selection of a head of state is excluded from the political process and politicians generally.

*End Is Forever* · December 19, 2003, 22:50

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Yah, but in my world they wouldn't have all that personal wealth to draw on, so they'd cost more upkeep.

Their wealth is largely asset-based, and I suppose would be mostly seen to "belong to the nation"; I've yet to see them sell off any palaces to pay for upkeep.

*End Is Forever* · December 19, 2003, 22:51

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I've always freely admitted my preferences. This one stems from a feeling that it's a tradition which:

a) doesn't really cost us anything
b) doesn't actually interfere with our sovereignty or democratic government
c) gives me something to chuckle about

Go see my previous discussions with Asher on this subject. He hates the monarchy, IIRC.

That sounds like pragmatism... that's not very socialist!

KrazyHorse · December 19, 2003, 23:05

Quote:

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*

Their wealth is largely asset-based, and I suppose would be mostly seen to "belong to the nation"; I've yet to see them sell off any palaces to pay for upkeep.

I'm assuming they also have hordes of cash in the bank. Polo horses aren't cheap, you know.

KrazyHorse · December 19, 2003, 23:07

Socialism is very pragmatic, especially mine.

Hmmm...let's see...who is a hundred dollars worth more to: a poor person or a rich person? Let's give the hundred dollars to the poor person then. Who is a hundred dollars worth more to: a slightly less poor person or a slightly less rich person? Repeat as often as necessary.