Does a Leadership change really mean anything?
For a portion of the voters out there its the Policies. What size is that portion?
For a portion of the voters out there its the Parties Charisma. What size is that portion?
Steven Harper had no say in the Party Polices but yet he must represent each Policy. It was the Party Members at the Montreal Policy Meeting that voted on each Policy and the exact wording to be descriptive. - For this then a Leadership change means nothing. Now to be fair one must take into account those who think that the Leader and his immediate staff have the ability to "Delphi" the Party supporters to "his" way of Policy interpretations. This with the reverse Delphi of supporters onto the Leader. In this sense a Leader accepts the Party Members larger influence while accepts that his own is minimized.
To have ones Party Members blame the Leader for not getting the Policies out assumes that the Parties Policies would be widely accepted to the the point of a majority win if an election were held. Is it not a fallacy to believe, to believe one, and therefore ones policies to be correct if after X amount of time the general electorate does not? There are many ways for the electorate to read and hear a Parties Policies. The Leader is just one means. The Party would be contradicting itself to assume that the Party Policies our out in the Public domain and not being accepted, and therefore are not all emcompassing of the electorate, and then turn around and blame the Leader for not getting out the Policies any further, all the while not being accepted. To say the Leader is the tipping point of acceptance of ones Policies would also mean that the Policies are not as widely accepted as the Party Members fully believe. Contradictions in beliefs I muse is causing confusion and therefore frustration.
Party Charisma, having the electorate feel that they should jump onto your bandwagon can be quite compelling. I read an interesting quote from a contributor over at Small Dead Animals that we should try to make it, "cool to be conservative". The Conservative Partys' only hope here is MacKay. How many electorate would follow MacKay to the end of the Earth? Let alone Harper? Harper or the Members managed to get a young Caucus elected. They tried to exploit this as a means of showing young, hip, cool, and in touch. Did it work? No. Why? I am sure I could find young people representing any segment of beliefs and policies I want. But are they of my beliefs and policies? Are they hip and cool beliefs and policies? The Party showed a shallowness of image when they portrayed their youthfullness to the electorate, and the electorate saw the shallowness. Now if this same young caucus had the youthfull, hip, and in touch policies to go with it, no problem. Its the Party Policies again, not the Leader that has hamstrung them.
Once again I muse its the Policies, not the Leader.
Its the Policies not the media.
The Leader represents Policies which do not represent the majority of the Public.
One final comparison, look at the NDP Policies. They represent a small minority of the electorate, and that is all they will ever get, even when they had a leader such as Broadbent and the present telegenic Layton.
Its always up to the challeger to "prove" their Policies to the electorate to unseat the ruling. It is this proof of Policies where the electorate decide who to vote for. I do not see the Conservatives dealing with any specific Policy in detail meaning that in general it can be interpreted any way they see fit and leaves a taste of unproven vagueness in the mouths of the electorate.
The libs get the vote by default through maintaining the status quo.
cheers :) majere.
For a portion of the voters out there its the Parties Charisma. What size is that portion?
Steven Harper had no say in the Party Polices but yet he must represent each Policy. It was the Party Members at the Montreal Policy Meeting that voted on each Policy and the exact wording to be descriptive. - For this then a Leadership change means nothing. Now to be fair one must take into account those who think that the Leader and his immediate staff have the ability to "Delphi" the Party supporters to "his" way of Policy interpretations. This with the reverse Delphi of supporters onto the Leader. In this sense a Leader accepts the Party Members larger influence while accepts that his own is minimized.
To have ones Party Members blame the Leader for not getting the Policies out assumes that the Parties Policies would be widely accepted to the the point of a majority win if an election were held. Is it not a fallacy to believe, to believe one, and therefore ones policies to be correct if after X amount of time the general electorate does not? There are many ways for the electorate to read and hear a Parties Policies. The Leader is just one means. The Party would be contradicting itself to assume that the Party Policies our out in the Public domain and not being accepted, and therefore are not all emcompassing of the electorate, and then turn around and blame the Leader for not getting out the Policies any further, all the while not being accepted. To say the Leader is the tipping point of acceptance of ones Policies would also mean that the Policies are not as widely accepted as the Party Members fully believe. Contradictions in beliefs I muse is causing confusion and therefore frustration.
Party Charisma, having the electorate feel that they should jump onto your bandwagon can be quite compelling. I read an interesting quote from a contributor over at Small Dead Animals that we should try to make it, "cool to be conservative". The Conservative Partys' only hope here is MacKay. How many electorate would follow MacKay to the end of the Earth? Let alone Harper? Harper or the Members managed to get a young Caucus elected. They tried to exploit this as a means of showing young, hip, cool, and in touch. Did it work? No. Why? I am sure I could find young people representing any segment of beliefs and policies I want. But are they of my beliefs and policies? Are they hip and cool beliefs and policies? The Party showed a shallowness of image when they portrayed their youthfullness to the electorate, and the electorate saw the shallowness. Now if this same young caucus had the youthfull, hip, and in touch policies to go with it, no problem. Its the Party Policies again, not the Leader that has hamstrung them.
Once again I muse its the Policies, not the Leader.
Its the Policies not the media.
The Leader represents Policies which do not represent the majority of the Public.
One final comparison, look at the NDP Policies. They represent a small minority of the electorate, and that is all they will ever get, even when they had a leader such as Broadbent and the present telegenic Layton.
Its always up to the challeger to "prove" their Policies to the electorate to unseat the ruling. It is this proof of Policies where the electorate decide who to vote for. I do not see the Conservatives dealing with any specific Policy in detail meaning that in general it can be interpreted any way they see fit and leaves a taste of unproven vagueness in the mouths of the electorate.
The libs get the vote by default through maintaining the status quo.
cheers :) majere.
