I knew it was coming, but
I think a little piece of my soul died when I heard Peter Mansbridge say “Prime Minister Stephen Harper.”
See also:
-
Archives
Categories
Links
-
Powered by Wordpress 2.9.2
Shade of Gray theme by Graviton.
I think a little piece of my soul died when I heard Peter Mansbridge say “Prime Minister Stephen Harper.”
Rach on 23 Jan 2006 at 11:47 pm #
Oh, me too. Sigh.
New mantra: “COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE.”
brenda on 24 Jan 2006 at 1:26 am #
I know it’s not so bad. But STILL. “Prime Minister Harper.” It makes me feel all icky.
Rach on 24 Jan 2006 at 2:11 am #
As it should.
ICK>
Julian on 27 Jan 2006 at 1:22 pm #
It really weirds me out every time I read a news article which talks about our new Prime Minister-elect. The layout of Parliament now doesn’t bother me all that much, to be honest, but Harper as Prime Minister just seems like something out of bizarro-Canada.
Lemon on 30 Jan 2006 at 1:29 am #
Well, if a couple of the Conservative agenda points go through, then “Prime Minister” will return to it’s intended position as the powerless-without-support team captain instead of the pseudo-president Cretien turned it into.
Honestly, Canada needs to stop voting like they’re Americans.
Lemon on 30 Jan 2006 at 1:30 am #
Oh, before anyone gets on my case, I voted NDP.
brenda on 30 Jan 2006 at 11:29 pm #
…Yeah, but you live in Calgary, so it was kind a (!) moot point. Are you in Kenney’s riding or Harper’s?
What do you mean voting like Americans? For the party leader as opposed to the candidate? Canadians have always voted by party allegiance.
Lemon on 30 Jan 2006 at 11:53 pm #
Kenny’s riding :-(
I met the guy, he’s a total chump.
Since it is a moot point around these parts, a lot of people I know voted based on who needs the money next time around.
The whole Canadian voting process is a little bungled up since it’s been done against it’s own grain for a very long time. The way the system is set up is almost a little self-defeating as it’s meant that the local candidate be elected, not the party leader, but the best way to campaign is by banding together as parties, and the Executive branch is selected from the party with the most seats… so yeah. The primary way to alleviate that is to separate the Executive and House elections, but then it’s even more like the American system and so the situation doesn’t really change.
Regardless, I think the current set-up is pretty good: unpopular leaders in power with a minority rule have to work harder, or they get the boot. Just like Paul Martin.
Wrenkin on 31 Jan 2006 at 12:10 am #
I’m not sure that separate executive and legislative elections would be such a great idea. Whatever your opinions on the monarchy, I like the idea of a Governor General in that the head of state is depoliticized. You might not like Clarkson buying herself a new kitchen or traipsing around the arctic, but she wasn’t able to declare war on anyone. The parliament (ok, the Prime Minister in this day and age of declaration-free wars) does that.
In the United States you get all this BS about having to stand behind the President in times of war, as if he were the embodiment of the American spirit and that his election had imbued all subsequent decisions over the course of the next four years with an unquestionable regal authority. The Canadian system at least tries to emphasize the nature of the MPs as public servants. Yes, the Cabinet has tons of power, but only the most foolish would believe the Liberals purposeful conflaguration of their party and the state.
brenda on 31 Jan 2006 at 1:04 am #
Lemon: I thought so; Harper’s the other side of McLeod I guess? I remember seeing signs at some point when I was home. Kenney was my MP back in the day. He was a chump then and is still a chump now. He was like, Stockwell Day’s greatest champion.
What Alex said. Paul Martin was especially shameless about the whole Liberal=Canadian BS. Which is why no one liked him.