I agree with you that we have to do this on our own, but honestly I felt better after listening to the King's remarks. It's lonely here on this side of the ocean with madmen as our only neighbours. I was happy to accept the flowers thrown across the Atlantic.
It’s all good I’m with you it was not a thing for me but maybe it was good for all the reasons you enumerate. The nicest thing I saw today was about how the PM, the GG and the King and Queen could all be out smiling, greeting, chatting comfortably with the public (yesterday) and it was safe and open and fine. That is a truly beautiful part of the democracy and safety of Canada so long may it be so!
The King was brought in to remind us and everyone else of the source of our path to democracy, linkage to treaties with many Indifemous people, the source of our institutions and how radically different we are to the US. That you cannot see that suggests you need to decompress a bit more and get your perspective back. Your opinion and evaluation has been super important to me for a long time, but...
Evan, your response is full of vitriol and anger. So sorry you are in this state. I hope things get better for you and you get back to being an insightful professional.
So he cannot defend his position and temper so others have to defend it? I tried it. I embraced it. Not anwell founded position or defense. And honestly, I generally agree but don't on this one thing.
You might try embracing alternate positions politely offered.
The last time a monarch gave a throne speech it was Elizabeth II in 1977. The time between then and now has been marked by the Americanization of Canada as we moved together on industrial and monetary policy.
Yesterday marked the official end to that process and I believe that was Carney’s full intent. It is a turning away from the US and towards Europe.
I am an ambivalent monarchist—I don’t really care about King Charles but I do like very much the constitutional monarchy we enjoy, and our connection to the UK is still strong.
So, good politics, good symbolism to start the Carney era.
If you were expecting more, I invite you, Evan, to go back to previous Speeches from the Throne. It's not supposed to be entertaining, though compared to some I have watched in my many years, this one was remarkable in every way. Also, as this official parliamentary link ⤵️ reveals and introduces, the details in the Throne Speech are to be about the new governments' view of the status/ condition of the country and then follows an "indication"/ summary of it's legislation plans. This was exactly the case yesterday.
Sorry you were disappointed but that's the way it has been for 45 parliaments.
I apologize for being obtuse - a chronic condition, to be certain.
Evan, are you against having the King to read the speech because you don't like to monarchy, you wish us to be a republic, we called on Chuck when we were in trouble with DJT, you're pissed because he cheated on Diana, or what?
Truthfully, while I am certain you must have enumerated your reason(s), I simply missed them. My query is quite serious as I am interested in your opinion. I may - or may not, who knows? - agree with your opinion but if I don't know your reasons, I am unable to respond.
The truth is, when Carney was first chosen as LPC leader I expected him to call on Chuck for the Throne speech. I expected that, not because I felt it was a good idea or a bad one but because Carney is an anglophile and we haven't had a monarch read the Throne since, what? 1957? So, it seemed to me that it would be a way for Carney to try to keep up with the (British branch, you know!) Joneses and to make his own modest mark.
As for the speech, I found it sadly lacking. No real detail; it could have been / was campaign promises with precisely that much specificity. Fact is that I really, really would have like specifics of plans. I mean, no budget for six months, a Throne that says nothing, but a crisis in the country, so, whyever would anyone worry, right?
Oh, and please, please, the why that you don't seem to like the monarchy and/or Chuck.
I think Canada has more identity, more of its own personality than we recognize. We are so small, so overshadowed by the monster to the south, the monster that dominates so many things (culture, economics, foreign policy, etc). I think the monster is mortally wounded (self-inflicted) and, as Carney said, there are opportunities for allies and partners elsewhere. I think we will begin to find more about ourselves as we look further afield. I actually think Europeans (generally) know us in a very different way than the Excited States. This will be enlightening.
So he is allowed and opinion but a polite response is inappropriate. Cool. And the response is personal and chippy. Sometimes a debate starts with disagreement.
I agree with you that we have to do this on our own, but honestly I felt better after listening to the King's remarks. It's lonely here on this side of the ocean with madmen as our only neighbours. I was happy to accept the flowers thrown across the Atlantic.
It’s all good I’m with you it was not a thing for me but maybe it was good for all the reasons you enumerate. The nicest thing I saw today was about how the PM, the GG and the King and Queen could all be out smiling, greeting, chatting comfortably with the public (yesterday) and it was safe and open and fine. That is a truly beautiful part of the democracy and safety of Canada so long may it be so!
The King was brought in to remind us and everyone else of the source of our path to democracy, linkage to treaties with many Indifemous people, the source of our institutions and how radically different we are to the US. That you cannot see that suggests you need to decompress a bit more and get your perspective back. Your opinion and evaluation has been super important to me for a long time, but...
If you can’t take one contrary opinion then clearly my opinion has never meant shit to you
So. You are entitled to your opinion, to be mean spirited and dismissive, and I cannot question your position. Not a good look.
Thank you for reinforcing my observation.
Dominion Day still has a nice ring. I miss Queen Elizabeth. Call me nostalgic, but never a Conservative.
Evan, your response is full of vitriol and anger. So sorry you are in this state. I hope things get better for you and you get back to being an insightful professional.
Ah no.
Scrimshaw never holds back and owns his crap.
I appreciate how his mind argues with itself.
This is how journalists, no matter how provocative, get our attention and make us think.
Responding with a judgement is not good enough for me
FYI I push back a lot on his ideas.
But it makes me think about constructive, concrete, and creative criticism.
You might want to try it
Judgement is really easy.
So he cannot defend his position and temper so others have to defend it? I tried it. I embraced it. Not anwell founded position or defense. And honestly, I generally agree but don't on this one thing.
You might try embracing alternate positions politely offered.
The last time a monarch gave a throne speech it was Elizabeth II in 1977. The time between then and now has been marked by the Americanization of Canada as we moved together on industrial and monetary policy.
Yesterday marked the official end to that process and I believe that was Carney’s full intent. It is a turning away from the US and towards Europe.
I am an ambivalent monarchist—I don’t really care about King Charles but I do like very much the constitutional monarchy we enjoy, and our connection to the UK is still strong.
So, good politics, good symbolism to start the Carney era.
If you were expecting more, I invite you, Evan, to go back to previous Speeches from the Throne. It's not supposed to be entertaining, though compared to some I have watched in my many years, this one was remarkable in every way. Also, as this official parliamentary link ⤵️ reveals and introduces, the details in the Throne Speech are to be about the new governments' view of the status/ condition of the country and then follows an "indication"/ summary of it's legislation plans. This was exactly the case yesterday.
Sorry you were disappointed but that's the way it has been for 45 parliaments.
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/ParlInfo/default/en_CA/Parliament/throneSpeech
I apologize for being obtuse - a chronic condition, to be certain.
Evan, are you against having the King to read the speech because you don't like to monarchy, you wish us to be a republic, we called on Chuck when we were in trouble with DJT, you're pissed because he cheated on Diana, or what?
Truthfully, while I am certain you must have enumerated your reason(s), I simply missed them. My query is quite serious as I am interested in your opinion. I may - or may not, who knows? - agree with your opinion but if I don't know your reasons, I am unable to respond.
The truth is, when Carney was first chosen as LPC leader I expected him to call on Chuck for the Throne speech. I expected that, not because I felt it was a good idea or a bad one but because Carney is an anglophile and we haven't had a monarch read the Throne since, what? 1957? So, it seemed to me that it would be a way for Carney to try to keep up with the (British branch, you know!) Joneses and to make his own modest mark.
As for the speech, I found it sadly lacking. No real detail; it could have been / was campaign promises with precisely that much specificity. Fact is that I really, really would have like specifics of plans. I mean, no budget for six months, a Throne that says nothing, but a crisis in the country, so, whyever would anyone worry, right?
Oh, and please, please, the why that you don't seem to like the monarchy and/or Chuck.
Thank you.
I think Canada has more identity, more of its own personality than we recognize. We are so small, so overshadowed by the monster to the south, the monster that dominates so many things (culture, economics, foreign policy, etc). I think the monster is mortally wounded (self-inflicted) and, as Carney said, there are opportunities for allies and partners elsewhere. I think we will begin to find more about ourselves as we look further afield. I actually think Europeans (generally) know us in a very different way than the Excited States. This will be enlightening.
So he is allowed and opinion but a polite response is inappropriate. Cool. And the response is personal and chippy. Sometimes a debate starts with disagreement.