ReeferMadness

I know. It's called leadership - and it's something we haven't seen in this country for a long time.

I don't hate anyone. However I do deplore that people trying to make some sort of hero or some sad misunderstood victim out of Harper. He's a sad, despotic micro-manager who treated almost every democratic institution everything outside of his party as the enemy and became many of the things he spoke out against before he was in government. But good on you for self-identifying as a hater. That's the first step.

The loony conspiracy theory was that Iraq had WMD. Of course even that theory was only for the gullible sheep. The decision makers knew Saddam didn't have anything otherwise they never would have attacked. The people who decided to attack Iraq weren't just war criminals; they were idiots to boot. They honestly thought that the Iraqi people were going to welcome the heroes with open arms. The result is ISIS. Now we're supposed to believe that the same behavior that brought us ISIS is going to get rid of ISIS. Lunacy.

Harper has proved the old adage that right wingers believe that governments can't do anything well and then elect governments who prove themselves right.

Spare yourself. I pointed out that any leader can be portrayed in a positive light by someone who is sufficiently ideologically motivated. The people who are now working overtime trying to salvage Harper's reputation are being pathetic. Anyone who can honestly call Harper a great leader should study up on the art of leadership.

If I did that, it would make me look hyperbolic - but I didn't.

I never compared him with Hitler or Stalin - I just used them as extreme examples of how people will distort circumstances or focus on particular elements to defend any leader. People have found ways to glorify Hitler and Stalin so it's understandable that people can find ways to portray Harper as a great leader.

Do you think an arrogant tone makes you look smart? Or just arrogant?

Don't recall that. When did she do that? And why?

Canada will be under huge international pressure to do something meaningful on climate change. Whether they can do that without affecting the oil sands remains to be seen. And the oil sands are already getting hammered by the price of oil It may recover or it may not. That depends on whether the world economy grows faster than the switch away from fossil fuels.

Who? Kim Campbell?

Is that what I said?

These things are case by case. The 1984 loss was attributed to built up frustration and fatigue with Pierre Trudeau who had been PM almost continuously since 1969. So, clearly the Liberals thought they they could win with Turner. With Harper, at the end it was clear that most of the frustration was directed at him and he had to go. And, BTW. By 1993, Canadians were so fed up with Mulroney that they turned on him from both the left and the right; and the Progressive Conservatives under poor Kim Campbell got just 2 seats.

That's called alternative vote and is favored by Trudeau. It's not a proportional system and tends to favor centrist parties (who tend to get the 2nd vote). Since it doesn't produce proportional results, it doesn't belong in this discussion.

They're not part of the caucus going permanently, they're part of the post mortem. Read the article - it says it's a normal practice. I can think of a few reasons: 1. They will have valuable input in terms of why the party failed. You learn more from failure than from success. 2. A lot of them will be unhappy with the party. You want to give them an opportunity to vent so they won't go to the press. 3. It's an opportunity for the party to heal. Unsuccessful candidates don't just disappear, a lot of them will remain active in the party.

Personally, I'd rather history dealt with him honestly. We can't improve if we can't admit our mistakes. Still, I've heard people claim that Hitler was a great leader who saved Germany but just went mad at the end and less than a year ago, a huge crowd celebrated Stalin's 135th birthday so I'm sure there will be lots of people who will be in permanent denial about Harper too.

This just in Even in defeat, the Harper gang can't bring itself to admit that it was the problem. If it can't deal with defeat honestly, the party doesn't deserve - and shouldn't expect - to be returned to power.

Seems like revisionism to me. If he's a lifelong politics geek, then he would surely understand that government isn't a corporation and the institutions that he treated like enemies (the courts, the press, the opposition, the foreign service the civil service) all have valid roles that may not be in lockstep with his. I think that once he was elected, Harper gradually became a secretive autocrat with a bunker mentality. You can't blame all of that on social awkwardness.

I just hope that people are well informed enough to not get drawn into alternative vote. It could actually be worse than what we have now.

I don't understand why Trudeau promised such a small cabinet. He has a crapload of promises to keep and I would think he needs a bigger team of senior people. I know a lot of people would jump on him for it but this is one promise that I would be happy to see broken. Conversely, I don't understand why Harper had such a huge cabinet when all of the decisions were made in the PMO.

You won't do that with policies and tax breaks that are aimed at the 3% of the population that separates a minority 35% government from a 'majority' 38%. PR is only part of the solution but you're not going to get a grandiose brand new political culture overnight. PR will build a culture that is more inclined to cooperation and compromise than what we have today. You need to be a bit more careful about how badly you malign the opposition if you know you're going to have to build a coalition with them next month. No system will ever implement solutions that will make everyone happy. I would favor reorganizing our entire political institutions if it were possible but it isn't. So, PR is a step in the right direction. And even getting it in will be a momentous undertaking. It's a mistake to assume that PR will result in perpetual centre-left coalitions. Things change and parties adapt. Parties are vote getting machines and they will change according to the new realities. The benefits of PR are that it will require broader support to pass legislation and that new ideas from what people like to refer to as "fringe parties" (ie the Green Party) will enter public discourse. So, take a look at the last 4 years and tell me what benefit we got out of the majority government. Harper treated everyone like the enemy - the opposition, the press, the civil service, the foreign service, the Supreme Court, officers of parliament, Elections Canada. And in the end, the Muslim community. He used his majority to push through legislation that he must have known was unconstitutional and would be bounced by the SCC. I'm not suggesting that a majority government is responsible for Harper's bunker mentality and bad behavior but it did enable him to keep a government alive that defnitely should have ended earlier.

Yup. Gary Goodyear was said to be a creationist. And the last guy, whose name escapes me, was an insurance executive. Maybe this time we could get someone who understands science. Crazy idea, I know.

Harper's done. I'm glad he's done. He deserved to be done. Here's a quote from the comments section of the National Post: I recommend that Conservatives do a better job of choosing their next leader.

I would say that if a party gets most of the seats with less than 40% of the vote, we all lost.

Proportional representation is neither going to save us from ourselves nor cause the downfall of civilization. It's just a way of providing democratic representation that is more reflective of how people actually vote. It's true that minority and coalition governments have to compromise but isn't that what governing should be about? People seem to look at elections as some sort of auction where the different parties bid against each other. Then they want to hold the government to account by checking off how many of the bid items were delivered. This sort of 'consumer democracy' is what destroys the concept of citizenship and leads to cynicism. You should vote for a party or candidate because you believe they have values that reflect yours. It's unreasonable to expect that even a majority government can predict 4 years in advance what it should do. Things change and I want a government to lead, not just tick off their election promises. Representative democracy means trusting someone else to act for you. If you can't do that, all that's left is direct democracy. Be careful what you wish for.