...the fact Yuku drops your posts when it decides you've logged out when doing a reply (with no way of retrieving the text once you hit the "log in
again" screen) is incredibly annoying.
Anyway, a condensed version of what I just posted:
The Liberals do not have a history of knifing the guy in charge for not winning majorities. Lester Pearson only won minorities and yet retired a respected
statesman, Pierre Trudeau left (twice) on his own decision, Turner led the party to its biggest electoral defeat in history and still was not turfed out until
he lost again (giving the Tories another majority) four years later, Chretien never did anything but win majorities, and Martin left, of his own accord and in
a speech he made election night which startled everybody, after running two disastrous campaigns in a row after being initially favoured to win both times.
Meanwhile, the Progressive Conservatives actually did knife Joe Clark in the back for not being a winning enough leader. The Canadian Alliance turfed Preston
Manning out of the party he created in favour of someone more photogenic, and then dropped Stockwell Day for running one mediocre campaign. So I'd say the
various right-wing parties have significantly more of a history of this behaviour than the Liberals in the last 40 years.
As for the Green Party, if you believe their dedication to environmental issues is genuine (they're hardly a one-issue party, though - in fact, the rest of
their platform is moderately right-wing), then it makes sense for them to suggest voting for Liberals in ridings where only Liberals have a chance to beat the
Conservative candidates, because the Liberals under Dion are obviously an order of magnitude more environmentally friendly than Harper's Conservatives.
However, I think doing it in that way was unwise, since it simply fed the perception that the Liberals were weak and couldn't win on their own; instead,
promoting the Green Shift (with their own advice and critiques) would probably have worked better.
again" screen) is incredibly annoying.
Anyway, a condensed version of what I just posted:
The Liberals do not have a history of knifing the guy in charge for not winning majorities. Lester Pearson only won minorities and yet retired a respected
statesman, Pierre Trudeau left (twice) on his own decision, Turner led the party to its biggest electoral defeat in history and still was not turfed out until
he lost again (giving the Tories another majority) four years later, Chretien never did anything but win majorities, and Martin left, of his own accord and in
a speech he made election night which startled everybody, after running two disastrous campaigns in a row after being initially favoured to win both times.
Meanwhile, the Progressive Conservatives actually did knife Joe Clark in the back for not being a winning enough leader. The Canadian Alliance turfed Preston
Manning out of the party he created in favour of someone more photogenic, and then dropped Stockwell Day for running one mediocre campaign. So I'd say the
various right-wing parties have significantly more of a history of this behaviour than the Liberals in the last 40 years.
As for the Green Party, if you believe their dedication to environmental issues is genuine (they're hardly a one-issue party, though - in fact, the rest of
their platform is moderately right-wing), then it makes sense for them to suggest voting for Liberals in ridings where only Liberals have a chance to beat the
Conservative candidates, because the Liberals under Dion are obviously an order of magnitude more environmentally friendly than Harper's Conservatives.
However, I think doing it in that way was unwise, since it simply fed the perception that the Liberals were weak and couldn't win on their own; instead,
promoting the Green Shift (with their own advice and critiques) would probably have worked better.