The fact that I’m not necessarily qualified to be a leadership candidate for any of the political parties doesn’t mean I’m any less capable of identifying what I want to see in a leader.
I want strength. Trustworthiness. Charisma. Integrity.
Not a single leader in this election was able to display the above qualities in sufficient measure. They may be great politicians and may have plenty of impressive university degrees, but IMO, they’re craptacular leaders by virtue of their total inability to inspire the populace and get people into the polls. I’d say the election results and lackluster turnout are a good indication that many Canadians feel exactly the way I do.
The wonderful thing about democracy is that I have the right to complain as much as I like about the choices that were made available to me, so long as I also am responsible enough to cast a ballot even when I’m not pleased about those choices.
There’s a theory about politicians that may explain the lack of strength, trustworthiness, etc. - the really competent people are too busy making fortunes in business to bother with politics.
How many minority governments does it take before the Conservatives replace Harper? Are conservatives generally happy with him, or would they try and get someone else (who is perhaps more inspiring/charismatic/trustworthy/looks better in a sweatervest/whatever than Harper) who they think could deliver them a majority?
I’m just wondering who we’ll be seeing at the head of the parties next time around: Dion is gone, and people are already saying it will either be Rae or Ignatieff, and Duceppe, Layton and probably Mae aren’t going anywhere.
I originally said 2010 for the next election, but it will be late in 2010, because no one wants an election during the Olympics.
You have 3 out of 4 with Harper. So he isn’t very charismatic: so what? This ain’t Hollywood. I’d elect a Stephen Hawking-like candidate if I agreed with the policies. Charisma? Leave it for the uninformed.
As but one example, Harper violated his own American-style fixed date election law to call an un-necessary and illegal election that cost the country $300 million dollars in order for him to gain less than ten seats. I find him neither trustworthy nor a man of integrity. He is strong in the same way a schoolyard bully is strong. At least we agree on his charisma.
The fixed date does not, and never has, applied to a minority government. How the heck can you fix an election date when you can be brought down during the next confidence Bill?
Illegal? On what grounds? I haven’t seen that claim in any of the commentary in this morning’s papers. Why did the Canadian electoral body allow it to go ahead if it was illegal?
One of the commentators last night made an interesting comment about the Liberals and how their base is shrinking. Out West it is mostly Conservative with the NDP having as much chance as winning the leftovers as a Liberal. The Bloc is taking over in Quebec and limiting the Liberal base there. In Ontario, the Conservatives are eating away at what was traditional Liberal territory. So, as the population levels grow in the West and power shifts there, what are Liberal plans for the future? Do they just fade away?
Please feel free to blame this on my raging pinko sympathies, but IMO, Stephen Harper is seriously lacking on the trustworthiness front, mostly due to the fact that he seems incapable of looking anyone in the eye. During the debates, he had a case of the shifty eyes that must have had his campaign strategists squirming in their seats.
Even in the Stevie-in-a-Sweatervest commercials, where he’s supposed to be coming across as a benevolent father figure, he’s looking everywhere but at the camera.
And again, if he’s so strong and trustworthy and honest and lacking in nothing but charisma, why is it that his party can’t seem to win a majority government after three elections with Harper at the helm?
There’s a big difference between a government being brought down in a non-confidence motion and a PM making the choice to pursue government dissolution and calling of an election. After all, even a majority government can be brought down in a non-confidence motion if the majority is slim enough and the Whip did not ensure all members would be present to vote. Fair enough to say that the fixed-date legislation does not have applicability in the event of a non-confidence motion. I don’t think anyone would argue that. That is not, however, what happened here.
ETA: I’m not suggesting that what they did violated the fixed date legislation. Just that saying that it could not apply to a minority government by reason of it being a minority alone does not stand up in my opinion.
Upon being elected 2 years ago, Harper passed a law calling for elections exactly ever 4 years, and then ignored it when he called this election. Thing was, the law was totally unconstitutional and has no legal force whatsoever.
Rather like Count Almaviva in The Marriage of Figaro, Mr. Harper regretted giving up his power to call an election at a time of his choosing. Sadly, we had no Figaro to show him up… the shame is ours.
Harper came across as the only grownup of the bunch in the debates. The others were all trying to sell Canadians a pony and slam as much dirt on Conservatives as they could. Harper quietly let them all speak, and never interrupted them even though they took turns tag-teaming the attacks on him. Then when it was his turn, he simply stated the facts, explained that in the real world there are tradeoffs, and tried to explain his rationale for various compromises that must be made.
And the other three behaved like boors, snorting and huffing at him and interrupting him constantly.
Harper won the English debate I watched by a good margin.
Oh, yes, he’s hiding his eyes from the camera. He’s shifty, doncha know. You can just tell by looking at his kind. All the right-thinking people can just smell the shiftiness. Facts don’t matter when you’ve got such heightened powers of perception.
Gee, you think it might have been the huge financial meltdown that hit in the last couple of weeks of the campaign? The miracle is that an incumbent government not only survived the storm but increased in strength. Governments around the world are getting hammered in popularity because the crapstorm hit on their watch.
Had the financial crisis not come along when it did, Harper would have won a solid majority. He was the victim of bad luck more than anything else.