Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Why do people care who the party leader is/does anyway? It's not like they are but a mere fraction of what the governing party does.

The American cult of personality has crept into Canadian politics I suppose.

What on earth makes you think this is a new phenomenon? People have always cared when the leader does, and the leader has always had the greatest impact on government. Right back to Confederation.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Curious, why do people put so much faith in debates? Because it shows that a person can think on their feet? Who cares? Wouldn't you prefer them to think about more reasonably well thought out answers?

I for one second this thought. Government doesn't need off the cuff answers to questions. They need well thought out researched opinions/answers.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

The CPC are somewhat competitive in the Quebec City region. They could realistically get 10+ seats if things go well for them. As for the Bloc, they should do better than last election, it would be hard for them to do worse.


I don't think anyone is saying that. Trudeau and May haven't ruled out any debates that I know of and Duceppe will surely be in for any French debates. Harper has said he won't attend the consortium debates but hasn't ruled anything else out that I know of. Mulcair is kind of up in the air at this point.

I think the most interesting angle of the debates is that Harper intends to done only one in French, and Mulcair almost has to do more than that, right? Also Harper is skipping the debate on women (I think), and again you have to think Mulcair wants to be there. I see why Mulcair wants to take this position of only showing up when Harper does, but there are a couple of spots where this is interesting and maybe somewhat ill-advised.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I for one second this thought. Government doesn't need off the cuff answers to questions. They need well thought out researched opinions/answers.

Government needs that, but people tend to have short attention spans and want instant answers. The debate is what won Notley the Premiership in Alberta.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That's what I thought. I can't imagine the liberals would allow that to happen - a Harper / Mulcair debate presupposes that these are the only two realistic choices for PM and reduces everyone else to an also-ran.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Slava

What have you seen from Harper that makes you think he has great debating skill? His creepy robotic stare at the camera? His completely uncharismatic delivery?

I think that the CPC is more worried about Trudeau than they care to admit. If he has charisma and doesn't look foolish against Harper not once or twice but 5-7 times on national TV that suddenly thrusts him back into the race, which is disaster for them.

Call me crazy, but I'm more concerned about what someone says rather than how he says it.

Charisma counts for something in politics. But for me, it counts for very little.

Substance, substance, substance.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Everyone says charisma doesn't matter but whether you acknowledge it or are even aware of it, you have cognitive biases that mandate its importance to your impressions of someone.

[2Stonedbirds]

Sure. And after the honeymoon is over you begin to look at what they do. What they stand for. Important things.

I don't care if Trudeau uses conditioner after shampoo or how many times he can say "middle class", he's simply hasn't shown me enough yet to be a competent leader.

At least Mulcair appears to have a spine and a actual thought process when he speaks.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Call me crazy, but I'm more concerned about what someone says rather than how he says it.

Charisma counts for something in politics. But for me, it counts for very little.

Substance, substance, substance.

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Sure. And after the honeymoon is over you begin to look at what they do. What they stand for. Important things.

I don't care if Trudeau uses conditioner after shampoo or how many times he can say "middle class", he's simply hasn't shown me enough yet to be a competent leader.

At least Mulcair appears to have a spine and a actual thought process when he speaks.

I bet. Weird that you are focused on his hair, but apparently don't care

There is nothing wrong with judging a book by its cover by the way; that's why books have covers in the first place.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Why do people care who the party leader is/does anyway? It's not like they are but a mere fraction of what the governing party does.

The American cult of personality has crept into Canadian politics I suppose.

The Prime Minister of Canada has substantially more power (relatively speaking) than the President of the USA. The PM controls the executive and legislative branches, the President only controls the executive branch. That's why its so hard to get significant legislation passed in the USA.

[GP_Matt]

I think we should include an essay portion to the debate.
Give them all the same question, lock them in a room for two hours and see what comes out.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I really don't get why people keep harping on this. How is it possible to go soft on something that has 0% chance of happening. BC is done with it. There is zero appetite for that pipeline to go through here, and Clark is avoiding it like the plague because it's a political hand grenade.

Its called confederation. If we're part of a country with the federal government having jurisdiction over pipelines crossing provincial boundaries for international commerce, why should BC pretend they have a veto? They don't if the feds decide to flex their muscle.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Delgar

The Prime Minister of Canada has substantially more power (relatively speaking) than the President of the USA. The PM controls the executive and legislative branches, the President only controls the executive branch. That's why its so hard to get significant legislation passed in the USA.

We have had 1 PM in 12 years. That is ludacris. The most an American president can serve is 2 terms of 4 years. It's no wonder we are called a tinpot dictatorship.

[2Stonedbirds]

I bet. Weird that you are focused on his hair, but apparently don't care

There is nothing wrong with judging a book by its cover by the way; that's why books have covers in the first place.

Says the guy focused on Harpers eyes and uncharismatic delivery.

You bring up charisma, as if there are not other things to be worried about; IE policy, ability to orate off the cuff; I commented on his hair to show exactly how little I care for his charisma.

The thought of that airhead representing us at a table that will include the likes of Putin has me reeling.

Spin that and ignore my point for all you can if it so suits you.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

We have had 1 PM in 12 years. That is ludacris. The most an American president can serve is 2 terms of 4 years. It's no wonder we are called a tinpot dictatorship.

I'd rather have what we have than be in a situation where someone who is actually good for the country being pushed aside purely because they've completed a pre-determined set term. Why is 12 years ludicrous? It takes that long or longer for any policies to really be felt on any real scale anyway.

Imagine the US if Clinton had remained president instead of Bush. I would argue the world would actually be quite different. Yes, I think the Bush admin did that much damage.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Delgar

The Prime Minister of Canada has substantially more power (relatively speaking) than the President of the USA. The PM controls the executive and legislative branches, the President only controls the executive branch. That's why its so hard to get significant legislation passed in the USA.

Yes and no. The PM can make appointments that do not require approval of the House of Commons (which of course is really a bad thing), whereas the President always needs approval for appointments. But the President is the only one of the two who can personally stop things from happening, or can personally make things happen. There is no veto or executive order for the PM. He must have enough votes in house to make it happen, unlike the President who can defeat bills with up to 65-35 votes against what the President wants. And of course the President is commander in chief of the military whereas in Canada it's....the Governor General (or the Queen, if you'd prefer). I'd say the PM has more influence than the President, not more than power.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think the most interesting angle of the debates is that Harper intends to done only one in French, and Mulcair almost has to do more than that, right?

Can't remember the source but I read that Harper will do at least 2 in French, possibly 3, and up to 7 total debates. He for sure won't do just 1 in French, he's been working hard on Quebec for years now. He starts pretty much every speech in French.

[FlamesAddiction]

A former BOC governor discusses the Canadian economy and why conservative financial policy is doing more harm than good at the moment.

http://www.bnn.ca/Video/player.aspx?vid=671595

[Daradon]

I would argue that who the leader is means a great deal. They lay out the vision for the party. Yes, there's consultation and collaboration, but the majority of the direction comes from leader. That can even vart based on the actual leadet. Some are very open to ideas, others are so against, they caise fractures in their own party. Plus MP's have to vote along party lines 98 percent of the time.

I'd actually argue that an individual MP taking care of his constistuants to his best ability is more of a myth than the party leader being just another MP. There's plenty of times a low level MP has had to go against his riding to vote party lines.

Has nothing to do with cult of personality or American style politics.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

What on earth makes you think this is a new phenomenon? People have always cared when the leader does, and the leader has always had the greatest impact on government. Right back to Confederation.

Originally Posted by Delgar

The Prime Minister of Canada has substantially more power (relatively speaking) than the President of the USA. The PM controls the executive and legislative branches, the President only controls the executive branch. That's why its so hard to get significant legislation passed in the USA.

This is beside the point that voting for (or against) a leader rather than for (or against) a party is bat#### crazy. Ideology should be far more relevant than the singular (albeit important) entity.