SpankyMcFarland

The cover-up made it big. And the fact that it is part of a pattern of such bad behaviour in the Senate and PMO. The PM's responses on this matter have even shown to be factually inaccurate on multiple occasions calling his credibility into question - never a small matter.

The narcissism of small differences. Talk to the PFJ about the JPF and you'll get the same response.

I think people will vote how they want, though, in the end, no matter what I say. Or maybe I have powers I am unaware of? So, speaking strictly for me, getting Stephen Joseph Harper's smirking mug off my TV screen matters more than anything else. I was sick of Chrétien by the end but SJH revolted me from day one. I can't find one person in my constituency who will actually defend him. The local Conservatives start shuffling and looking at their shoes when the subject of him comes up. They know how unpopular he is down here in Newfoundland. The local PC MHA is running federally for Mr. Harper's outfit and he will be royally thrashed as he knows full well. In this constituency, the chance of a Conservative sneaking in through a split in the anti-SJH vote is mercifully slim.

Lots of blame to go round. I would put Assad number one, a guy who has strong Christian support BTW.

I wouldn't say Christians are that much more endangered than anybody else. It's not exactly safe for anybody over there.

The US had no choice but to sign the deal in the end. I'd say a lot of Republican Senators are quietly pleased they can tell their donors they fought like heck to stop it to no avail. Iran had split the coalition and the rest of the world was going to abandon sanctions, leaving the US in a potential Cuba situation again.

If I look at the degree of criticism of the PM from MPs of his own party, I would rank the following countries thus in descending order: 1. Australia. 2. Ireland. 3. UK. 4. Canada. The other three are nowhere near Canada. In Oz, there's always some sort of plot afoot to unseat the boss. Both Kenny and Cameron have had to reassure their MPs they will not seek third terms. For the true believers of Reform, Harper has indeed brought power but there must be some disappointment on govt accountability and transparency, the Senate and social issues?

Any government in more than two terms tends to become more corrupt and authoritarian. Ten years is too long for any leader in a democracy.

PR won't solve the central Westminster problem, the shifting of power to the PMO. Ireland has STV which ensures that seats match votes well but it has exactly the same issue in its parliament with the executive that the UK, Canada and Australasia have. Harper, brilliant Nixonian that he is, has made the issue far more obvious but he did not create it. The fight for reform is complicated by a feeling among the general public that federal politics is no longer of much importance.

I won't vote NDP because they have no chance of beating the Harper candidate in my constituency. All anti-Harper voters should think this way and avoid splitting the vote.

He was going to get hammered in the provincial election against John Haggie and I see no hope for him at all in the federal election either. Perhaps he'll get a Senate seat down the road for taking one for the team?

It's a tricky one because the better the detection mechanisms are, the more corruption we will seem to have. I think we are doing pretty well in most parts of the country.

Perhaps but: 1. Not as much. 2. He's not running for a fourth term. 3. Two wrongs etc. etc. Mulcair may be the least worst alternative. We certainly know what the worst is. A fourth term would be absurd for Harper given that he has never commanded a majority of the vote. In Ireland, Britain or Australia, I cannot imagine any current leader having the gall to even say he would try to do that and the Yanks don't let it happen for good reason.

I wasn't so shocked by Del Mastro's offence - many a politician must be tempted to spend a little more than they should, His cardinal sin was playing hardball with the judge and rejecting a reasonable deal. The Sona case is more troubling. I do not believe a junior operative did all that on his own.

That depends on the PR system. Some, like STV, don't have that rule so small parties do get in. But that's what the people vote for. They get should what they want in my view. Otherwise we should just appoint the leader of the party with the biggest vote as PM and not bother with parliament at all. Coalitions are a way of ensuring that government represents most voters, something that hasn't happened in this country since Brian Mulroney for crying out loud. Coalitions restrain the despotic tendencies of party leaders when they get power, they encourage compromise and they are clearly part of the British parliamentary tradition because one just happened in Britain.

You don't challenge the point I made, then? Chrétien is a retired geezer somewhere but Harper still rules us and is very fond of playing a macho role on the Middle East. He should admit he was wrong about Iraq because it affects current policy.

FPTP only works in a two party contest. Beyond that, it delivers ridiculously distorted results.

Anybody who watched May's performance in the debate could not call her a one issue politician.

It rewards parties in proportion to the votes cast. I cannot think of anything fairer or more democratic than that. If you are a Conservative in much of Atlantic Canada, you will be wasting your time voting in this election. And the pols know this. They don't bother visiting the safe seats. Some votes matter more than others under FPTP.The current govt has nowhere near a majority of the popular vote. Most voters did not want it. What sort of silly result is that?

Kind of has already. The govt in Kiev should let them go if they want to be under Putin's boot.

What is the point of an election if candidates won't explain themselves? Why bother with all this expensive democracy stuff?

Harper loudly called for us to join the Iraq war. I'd like to hear an apology for that before I take his opinion seriously on any military matter.

The concentration of power in the PMO has been getting worse for a long time in every country that uses the British system. It is now reaching ridiculous levels, as we have seen in the Duffy trial, with Senators asking staffers what they are allowed to say and do. Technology has made instant control over all party members possible. Those who are rightly concerned with this disturbing phenomenon need to talk to like-minded souls in other countries to pool the best ideas. The British seem far more vocal than we are about this crisis and their MPs are much more jealous of their freedoms. Canadian MPs, by contrast, have become a waste of money between elections, a bunch of mindless bobbleheads reciting their scripts. So Chrétien was bad but Harper is worse. At least Chrétien had active rivals and critics in the party. Compare that with the cowed sycophants in Dear Leader's team. This is NOT how the Reform Party was supposed to govern.

Even a person from the same party elected to the post of GG would carry more authority than an appointee.

Sorry. How does it do that? PR more closely matches the number of MPs with total votes cast which is fairer. That would be my point.