The G.G.

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Luce NDs

Well-Known Member
Messages
45,552
Reaction score
3,609
A position of generally designating the presence of a facsimile of an personality that demands much money to function as lowered over the lans ...
 

Mrs.Anteater

Just keep going....
Messages
4,215
Reaction score
2,047
$289000 yearly is a nice salary, and I suppose she doesn’t have to pay rent or her staff from that.
I really think that Canada should do away with this whole monarchy thing. If you look at her powers, even if she is not using them, it is a back door to an undemocratic system.
Supposedly, the Queen has the right to behead any of her “ subjects”. Not that she has done it lately, but I wonder if the subject was a Canadian, if the G.G. would have to do it?
 

Mendalla

Eastern Lowland Gorilla
Messages
30,652
Reaction score
14,464
yes with our government. She is the representative of the head of state
That's more accurate. QE2 is the constitutional head of state. The G-G acts on her behalf unless she happens to be in the country.

To eliminate the GG we either need a monarch who actually lives here or to scrap the whole system in favour of some kind of President, which could be a titular position as in Germany or a real chief executive as France and the US.
 

Lastpointe

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,003
Reaction score
1,453
Learn something every day. I thought the GG was the head of state. Thanks
 

Luce NDs

Well-Known Member
Messages
45,552
Reaction score
3,609
All states head up ... even those festering ... thus lances!

Expect jousting at windmills ...
 
Messages
26,552
Reaction score
3,690
Just because it is that way doesn’t make it necessary. It’s not a law of nature. I meant, is her job actually necessary? Is what she does necessary for her to do, or could anyone do it? If she weren’t there what difference would it make?
 

Luce NDs

Well-Known Member
Messages
45,552
Reaction score
3,609
Just because it is that way doesn’t make it necessary. It’s not a law of nature. I meant, is her job actually necessary? Is what she does necessary for her to do, or could anyone do it? If she weren’t there what difference would it make?
Common attribute is heads are meant to be busted! Tis the way of power and observing corruption in the form of released brains ... brain drain?

Hint: avoid stonewalls!
 

Lastpointe

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,003
Reaction score
1,453
Until you change the constitution it does make her necessary. She opens parliament for one thing

she is a figure head, but part of our constitution. Lots of people want us to stop being a part of the monarchy but it isn’t happening, yet anyway

her Job is ceremonial but it is an important part of our constitution. Which is why the person who has it should be very carefully chosen

recently Adrienne Clarkson was a a huge spender of tax payers money. And apparently still is as An ex GG. That I really don’t quite understand

and of course the controversy About Michel Jean being a separatist wasn’t a good look either
and now this one doesn’t appear to like the job or do the job

it’s interesting for sure
 
Messages
26,552
Reaction score
3,690
Is it that important, though? Anyone can open Parliament. Why not deligate that to the PM and/or Speaker of the House? Or a page for that matter. It's easier than opening duties at Starbucks. In my opinion, unless he or she can override a bad law stuffed in an omnibus bill or something, and put a dangerous rogue PM in his place - Liberal or Conservative - he or she's sort of useless. I didn't see it as Johnson's job to go along with the budding dictator/ theocrat, Harper.

She probably makes quite a lot of money doing some things anyone could do. I mean, even @Mendalla could do them. :whistle::giggle: He volunteered.
 
Last edited:

Mendalla

Eastern Lowland Gorilla
Messages
30,652
Reaction score
14,464
In my opinion, unless he or she can override a bad law stuffed in an omnibus bill or something, and put a dangerous rogue PM in his place - Liberal or Conservative - he or she's sort of useless. I didn't see it as Johnson's job to go along with the budding dictator/ theocrat, Harper.
Look up "King-Byng Thing". We had a G-G who tried to act independently and it nearly triggered a constitutional crisis. If we want an effective head of state rather than a titular one, we need to go to different constitutional model. The Queen has similar powers in Britain to the G-G here (which makes sense since the G-G is just acting in the monarch's place). She cannot refuse to sign a bill that has been approved by both houses. She cannot refuse a request from the PM to dissolve or prorogue Parliament. Our head of state, like the UK's, is a titular/ceremonial role, not a true executive one. The executive power has been taken over by the Privy Council which, in practice, means the Cabinet. We don't separate executive and legislative power here as the US does. Which creates the problem that a majority government is effectively an oligarchy that can only be displaced at the next election. And that's true of all majorities, not just Harper's. There's no checks and balances between elections save if there's a constitutional challenge and the courts get involved.
 

Mendalla

Eastern Lowland Gorilla
Messages
30,652
Reaction score
14,464
The Canadian Encyclopedia's account of the King-Byng "Affair" (I was taught it as the "King-Byng Thing" but maybe my high school history teacher just liked the rhyme).

 

Luce NDs

Well-Known Member
Messages
45,552
Reaction score
3,609
Byng leads to Bingo and the solution to bean gassed! May be proprietary!
 

Luce NDs

Well-Known Member
Messages
45,552
Reaction score
3,609
Give a personality a perceived power and ... something happens!
 
Messages
26,552
Reaction score
3,690
Look up "King-Byng Thing". We had a G-G who tried to act independently and it nearly triggered a constitutional crisis. If we want an effective head of state rather than a titular one, we need to go to different constitutional model. The Queen has similar powers in Britain to the G-G here (which makes sense since the G-G is just acting in the monarch's place). She cannot refuse to sign a bill that has been approved by both houses. She cannot refuse a request from the PM to dissolve or prorogue Parliament. Our head of state, like the UK's, is a titular/ceremonial role, not a true executive one. The executive power has been taken over by the Privy Council which, in practice, means the Cabinet. We don't separate executive and legislative power here as the US does. Which creates the problem that a majority government is effectively an oligarchy that can only be displaced at the next election. And that's true of all majorities, not just Harper's. There's no checks and balances between elections save if there's a constitutional challenge and the courts get involved.
It only matters to political wonks. The newer generation won’t give a s**t. It just looks like an antiquated dog and pony show. We need a government that is functional, democratic, can act quickly, isn’t tied up with ceremonial bulls**t, and has strong oversight protections/ mechanisms for turfing bad laws and creeping dictatorships.
 

Luce NDs

Well-Known Member
Messages
45,552
Reaction score
3,609
Is there a connection between wongs, wangs and RANK productions? Cockles ... rue stirs as the demographics rise ...
 
Top