junior43
Active Member
interesting thought, though I'm not sure if the comparison is apt. Prorogation as a means to avoid a scheduled non-confidence vote was, and is, unheard of in practice. Leadership changes between elections are, on the other hand, quite common.
And frankly I do agree that a leader who has not lead the party in an actual election does have a lesser mandate than one who has, but I feel that all the "unelected" talk is disingenuous spin, and sound bite politics. Like PM Harper trying to paint a coalition government as illegitimate.
I agree with you entirely, comparisons not perfect, but follow along.
Harper's prorogation was a first (and still legal), but at least he followed up with a general election, allowing everyone to decide on it and his government.
McGuinty's bailing out is unique in the fact it hasn't happened that quickly in over a century, making it unique in current times, but no election after his prorogation (still totally legal).
And to the detriment of us all, sound bite politics rules the day (not here on UT obviously, a severe majority of people here are far more knowledgeable than your average voter). It's completely and utterly wrong, but that's the nature of modern society. People are more concerned about who Miley Cyrus twerked (or whatever the f@ck the word is), than what Harper, Ford or McGuinty have actually done.
Gotta go now, entering my personal Rod Ford zone..........(very drunk)