• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2011 - The Aftermath for the Leaders

PPCLI Guy said:
Sign me up!

Ditto. Socially liberal, fiscally responsible sounds about like my position. I'm not a citizen yet, so I couldn't vote, but I do worry that with a majority, the Conservatives will try to "roll back" some of those things that make Canada CANADA to this immigrant. Things like health care, marriage equality, abortion rights, etc. I sure hope they see it as political suicide and don't attempt it. I also have a hard time believing that Harper can separate his religious beliefs (which he is more than entitled to) from his politics...
 
Well it wasn't a problem when at least 2 Liberal, RC, Prime Ministers were in Office...Why should it be with the current PM?
 
Jacko has to stay on . . .  he has important work to do.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/cartoon/editorial-cartoons-may-2011/article2006332/?from=2010333

 
acooper, you sound like you have been indoctrinated!

If you think the new government  will be bad for you IAW your indoctrination, then I recommend that you get your Bucket List in order and execute.

Thirty-nine to forty percent of Canadian citizens voted for Mr. Harper and his party's policies. It can be stated that another forty percent or so were happy with the status quo (Mr. Harper) and did not vote. Either way the newly elected government has a large majority.

In this election Canadian citizens voted for their vision of Canada. Apparently
not those things that make Canada CANADA to this immigrant
 
Rifleman62 said:
acooper, you sound like you have been indoctrinated!

If you think the new government  will be bad for you IAW your indoctrination, then I recommend that you get your Bucket List in order and execute.

Thirty-nine to forty percent of Canadian citizens voted for Mr. Harper and his party's policies. It can be stated that another forty percent or so were happy with the status quo (Mr. Harper) and did not vote. Either way the newly elected government has a large majority.

In this election Canadian citizens voted for their vision of Canada. Apparently

My thoughts exactly.
 
Discussions of country-shopping aside and returning to the main theme of this thread:  Leaders and leadership

dapaterson said:
And that is perhaps the most troubling failure of his leadership.  Good leaders plan to ensure succession - with sufficient depth that if Bloggins leaves there's still another one or two in the wings.

A PM should be grooming successors within the party.

As a result of this election I think you could safely add three names to the leadership pool:

Alexander;
Trottier;
Adams (Eve);

And both Prentice and MacKay are young enough to take another stab at leadership after Harper retires in 4 to 8 years.
 
Th acid test for the "new" Conservative party will be the election of its next leader.  There are still very real fissures between the Reform and PC sides of the party; the next leader could well split the party again.

 
dapaterson said:
Th acid test for the "new" Conservative party will be the election of its next leader.  There are still very real fissures between the Reform and PC sides of the party; the next leader could well split the party again.

Indeed,  as could the Waffle/Socialist (dare I say Quebec) Caucus split the NDP from its Unionist/CCF factions.  Or Blue and Orange Liberals (Manley vs Rae).  All parties have internal tensions. 

A chap name of David Fischer Hackett in a book called Albion's seed tracked modern US voting patterns to 17th century England.  I personally feel he stopped too soon and that you can track cultural tendencies back through Huguenot-Guise, Albret-Valois, Anjou-Capet, Carolingian-Ottonian, Franco-Saxon........animus.

It is not that the differences disappear.  It is that they are managed.  Harper manages those differences.  Laurier, King and St-Laurent managed their internal differences.  The secret for both the Liberals and the Tories will be to find conciliatory managers that still manage to hew to a recognized set of principles.
 
Kirkhill said:
  The secret for both the Liberals and the Tories will be to find conciliatory managers that still manage to hew to a recognized set of principles.

And that's were I find we have a problem in Canada.....all we have are "Managers". This country has a large deficit when it comes to having "Leaders". And there is a big difference between the two words.

lead·er/ˈlēdər/Noun
1. The person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country.
2. A person followed by others.

man·ag·er/ˈmanijər/Noun
1. A person responsible for controlling or administering all or part of a company or similar organization: "the sales manager".
 
Sorry Larry,

I don't want a Leader.  I just want a manager.  I don't want to be told where to go, what to do and what to think.  I get enough of that in my life without hiring someone to add to the misery. 

I want a good competent Secretary-Treasurer who will manage affairs to my satisfaction.

The chap on the white horse at the head of the parade invariably leaves a trail of steaming ordure through which I must plod.  I'd rather he wasn't there.  The scenery also improves.
 
I quess we differ in our ideas of leadership, I view your definition as a "Boss" to me:

Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. This definition is similar to Northouse's  definition — Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.

 
Personally, I would much rather have a bonafide leader for the nation, one who offers a vision to Canadian of not how to spend money, but more of a philosophical ideal to which Canada should apsire.  Naturally, the devil is in the details, and that needs to be part of any government package, but people like Barack Obama, Adolf Hitler, John F Kennedy get elected not because of their policies, but because of their inspiring nature.

Using Hitler as an example is not meant to compare either Obama or Kennedy with him, but rather as a contrast.  All three were inspiring orators and really knew how to work a crowd.  They understood the pulse of their nations and were able to gain incredible support in their respective rise to power. The Hitler example serves as a warning for the rest of us that no matter how convincing that leader can appear to be, their true message needs examination.  But the first step, no matter what, is to inspire.
 
Fair comment Larry.

However do "Leaders" have to be given power?  If they work by influence then surely they have all the power they need if they have a platform and freedom to speak and associate?  Do we really need to hand them the keys to the treasury as well? 

I'd rather separate the functions..... which brings to mind the division of duties amongst a King/Governor-General and his agent the Prime Minister and Parliament and its agent the Speaker.  King leads, Prime Minister defends, Parliament decides and the Speaker gives voice to Parliament's decisions to the King via the Prime Minister.

King/Speaker/Prime-Minister/Parliament (as keeper of the treasury keys) all roled into one doesn't suit me.  Even if the King pro tem is called a President.

I like the idea of a country of many "Leaders" influencing opinion with the Prime Minister merely taking advice from the populace.

TV - I agree that the precursor to everything is "inspiring" however for me it is enough that the person in question "inspire confidence".  I distrust people that "inspire" mass movements.  They are dangerous. 

Movements should not hinge on the actions of one individual.  Movements should occur over time as populations digest and consider the implications and adapt to the subsequent changes.

The most lasting changes are not those have have been imposed by revolution but those on which evolution has passed judgement.
 
Technoviking said:
Naturally, the devil is in the details, and that needs to be part of any government package, but people like Barack Obama, Adolf Hitler, John F Kennedy get elected not because of their policies, but because of their inspiring nature.

From what I have read of the 1960 election, John F. Kennedy only inspired 49.7% of American voters to elect him, compared to Richard Nixon at 49.6%.
Even that is not without controversy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960#Controversies
 
mariomike said:
From what I have read of the 1960 election, John F. Kennedy only inspired 49.7% of American voters to elect him, compared to Richard Nixon at 49.6%.
Even that is not without controversy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960#Controversies

Once Nov 22 rolled around Nixon didnt mind at all that Kennedy was in.....
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I love the idea of Rae taking some Orange Liberals to the NDP and Brison leading some Blue Liberals to the Conservatives and the Liberals finally getting smart and rebuilding as a party of the 'radical centre:'

1. Fiscally conservative, at least as responsible as the Conservatives;

2. Committed to a big, united Canada with no 'special status' for anyone;

3. Committed to St Laurent's vision of Canada in the world; and

4. Socially liberal, taking e.g. abortion and gay marriage for granted.

I know you know this ERC, but I hope anybody rebuilding the party along those line would do their research right and find out the truth about St-Laurent's vision of Canada in the world: It was premised on strong, professional and recognized military forces as its backbone.

BTW you all, a nice prankster here in Quebec took out a personal ad in a local newspapers. It read: "Seeking Ruth Ellen Brosseau - Please contact Jack". :)
 
Iggy has already landed a job at U of T as a senior lecturer....I forget of what...
 
What a coincidence that a sinecure in academia just happened to come open a couple of days after he lost the election.
 
GAP said:
Iggy has already landed a job at U of T as a senior lecturer....I forget of what...
Politics.

"Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." 
His complete inability to "do" politics has groomed him to teach it.
 
Back
Top