[poquas]

kenmore wrote:

Harper is a tunnel visioned autocrat who wants the crown of Canada.. the little big man syndrome..he doesnt even listen to his advisors.. knows dick about anything. steals speeches and had notes during the debate, which wasnt allowed.. there are other terms to describe his style but its getting boring.. The cons need a leadership review.. and I suspect it wont be long coming.. even Peter Mackay would be an improvement.

That's probably true. Having been a PC supporter in the past, Harper has always been the one I figured was a mistake. He's arrogant beyond any normal person, and can't seem to tone it down when it would help him. Lately he is partisan and just plain mean. Not what I expect to see from the Prime Minister. Frankly, I don't see a front line candidate that would be able to salvage this party after this.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Donny_Brasco wrote:

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Let me point something out here. Not even once in Canadian history has someone taken the position of Prime Minister without seeking a new mandate from the people. Never even once!

They have a mandate - the majority of the seats in the house. So what if it is the first time in History a lame duck PM shit the bed and refused to govern.

They have the seats, the votes and the obligation to their constituents to govern for them to the best of their ability.

The Torys do not have a mandate.

Do they? When Canadians voted for these parties did they know about the possibility of a coalition? Did they know about a 30 billon dollar stimulus package which only has a grand total but no break down of how it will be spent. Did they vote to hand the Bloq an agreement that creates a "mechanism of permanent consultation, empowering the Bloc on every question of importance"?

The Canadian public was never informed of any of these extremely important details. A mandate is more than just a grand total of the seats you hold, it is an approval given by the Canadian people to a government, a vote of confidence if you will.

Again, when in history has someone been newly appointed Prime Minister with out going to the people of Canada and seeking a mandate from them them? Martin had the seats when he took power so why did he call an election shortly after seeking a new mandate if it is only about the number of seats you hold?

[EyeBrock]

By mandate I mean more people voted for the CPC then any other single party by far.


I'd say that was more of a mandate than anybody else or am I being fooled by pure satistics such as seats gained/votes cast?

[dino_bobba_renno]

poquas wrote:

Not true at all. The 1926 precedent (King – Bing) that is setting the tone for what is about to happen now. There have been many that have stepped in to replace a retiring Prime Minister. They don’t usually call an election for a new mandate. They lose a confidence vote and are forced to have another election.

Umm, did you just defeat your own argument? In 1926 an election was held after a vote of non confidence. Again, please refer to any time in Canadian history when a newly appointed Prime Minister has not sought out a mandate from Canadians by calling an election?

[dino_bobba_renno]

EyeBrock wrote:

By mandate I mean more people voted for the CPC then any other single party by far.


I'd say that was more of a mandate than anybody else or am I being fooled by pure satistics such as seats gained/votes cast?

Sorry, qouted the wrong guy . I was refering to Donny

[EyeBrock]

No probs dino!

[Jabrwock]

ryan29 wrote:

i agree can not think of a similar example before . and the fact that this coaliton does not want a new mandate from the voters is disturbing .

Do they need a "new" one though? Other than the corporate taxes rollback and the green shift being dropped, are the coalition's goals any different from those advertised during the election? Would their Speech from the Throne contain anything radically different than what people voted them in to do?

And I still thing the Byrd situation applies. Only that the new PM wasn't able to secure the confidence of the house either. Whether a coalition can do so remains to be seen.

[Jabrwock]

lily wrote:

Coalition governments are always a possibility in the event of a minority. If Canadians didn't know this, they should have.

They have just always (wrongly) assumed that the largest party gets to rule. Instead it's run by the majority of the House, however that is comprised.

http://cagle.com/working/081202/rice.jpg