SpankyMcFarland

Well, Mr. Oliver would have to check out of the nursing home first, Olivia Chow is a little charisma-challenged and Ralph Goodale? Maybe a rival for Paul Martin perhaps. We need more young people, not geezers.

Four left wing parties. One right wing party. The left wing vote is larger. Conservatives are a minority in this country as they are well aware. Their views are different from the majority. And if you can only survive by avoiding votes in Parliament, you are not really playing the game, are you?

You have faith that a person supported by a minority of voters and MPs could hang onto power? Why bother having elections?

So our voting system is ancient. Is that necessarily a recommendation for indefinite use? Do we still have horse-drawn carriages in the gaslit streets? Of course not. FPTP's time has come and gone. It is not fit for purpose when more than two parties are involved. I dislike Harper but that has nothing with my antipathy to FPTP. It simply produces unrepresentative results. If we believe that every vote counts, we should replace it.

They should be classed as dangerous offenders and detained indefinitely.

The LDs in the UK are a small party, VERY much the junior partner, and in some ways to the left of Labour so not natural allies of Cameron at all. Small parties usually suffer badly in coalitions especially if they are from a different part of the political spectrum. We need to get over our neuroses about coalition in Canada. We have four left wing parties and one right wing party, so the Conservatives will be a minority of the popular vote even with a majority of seats. With a minority, they will have about a third of voters. Nothing would be more natural than a coalition of Libs and NDP politically which would represent a majority of voters across the country. If their leaders can't stomach the proposition, then new ones are required. If the Conservatives get a majority of seats, then there will have to be a merger of the two large left wing parties in Canada. FPTP doesn't work well with more than two choices and, for reasons that truly escape me, Canadians seem to want to keep FPTP.

I think we have a responsibility to manage these people ourselves if they were raised in Canada. They are our problem.

But isn't that the game they are supposed to be playing? Without a majority, Harper can only stay PM by avoiding a vote in Parliament. What opponent would feel bad about getting rid of such a person?

Good piece on the citizenship debate here by Kady: http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/kady-if-citizenship-revocation-is-your-ballot-box-issue-you-might-want-to-read-this It would surprise me if at least one foreign country does not revoke citizenship on one of these guys before Canada does. Sending these people back is not exactly a friendly gesture - to the UK for example or 'our ally' (when contracts are involved) Saudi Arabia. What happens when somebody does that to us?

On revoking citizenship of dual citizens, what if the other country gets wind of what's going on and revokes it first? I suspect they are in no pressing need of more jihadis. I heard two lawyers, Jackman and Taub, debating the issue on CBC radio. That poor lady Taub sounded very doddery and made a bunch of irrelevant statements about the Holocaust. A new spokesperson should be sought.

It's all Harper talks about in Quebec any more. And a nice person translates it into English as well.

Parties should not pander. They should put out a platform based on their core beliefs and see who wants to vote for it. Far more objectionable is promising one thing before an election and doing something different afterwards. For the NDP and Liberals, this is a matter of principle, defending pluralism and tolerance in Canada. They know full well they will lose votes because of it. I admire anybody who does that. And I see Andrew Coyne doesn't think too much of this debate either:http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-to-uncover-or-not-to-uncover-why-the-niqab-issue-is-ridiculous

Andrew Coyne's take: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-to-uncover-or-not-to-uncover-why-the-niqab-issue-is-ridiculous

It's a dreadful system, no matter who is in power. It encourages apathy and cynicism and makes incumbents arrogant. Look at the Anders fiasco. Imagine if you are a party loyalist but can't stand the local MP. Under STV, you can vote for another guy in the the same party.

I hope the election is not won on the niqab. That would be a very sad reflection on the maturity of the electorate.

Sona was a patsy who took the fall for others - a much more serious case IMO than Del Mastro's who refused to reach a reasonable deal. Re Duffy, the PMO had to get caught doing something wrong eventually given that it runs the country now, which is the real scandal.One example from too many of a lack of accountability - oversight of CSIS. C-51 was a chance to put the Porter years behind us but the Conservatives blew it. An extraordinary amount of information can now be shared among various agencies and the public has no way of knowing if this will be done appropriately. Only the government will have its privacy protected.

If you have a losing coach, you fire them. You don't say, well, the alternative might be worse. That's a really lame argument for a sports team or a country. Harper has failed UTTERLY to make government more accountable or open. There can be no argument about that. He has definitely made things worse in that regard. Somebody else now deserves a chance. I dislike the phrase 'everyday Canadians' - it is often used in a patronizing way to imply that your average prole doesn't need to concern himself with the big picture. All citizens are affected by a diminution in democracy and that is what we are seeing right now. So after ten years of failure, I am prepared to take a chance on somebody else.

I have done as well financially under Harper as I did under Chretien. I ascribe that to the fact that Canada is a well run country no matter who is in charge. We have had a broad economic consensus on how to run the country since Michael Wilson's time and I expect that to continue regardless of personnel. Then again, my own prosperity depends as much on provincial politics as the federal variety. Ottawa is quite remote from my concerns. What annoys me most about Harper? I have a very long list starting with the PMO and omnibus bills - the usual stuff. My basic concern is the quality of our democracy. I think our parliamentary system is slowly dying.

It's generational. Younger people see social media like talking. To stay away is social death. When enough of them run the parties, such remarks will be viewed more indulgently.

Only a loyalist like yourself is blind to the change in Canada under Harper.

You want ludicrous? Good economic news - look what our great leader has achieved. Bad news - global markets. Now is not the time blah blah... This is the nonsense we have all had to listen to for ten years now. It's the incessant campaigning that drives me mad. EVERYTHING is about getting him re-elected indefinitely.

Read the comments in the Toronto Sun some time and hear what the Harper chorus sounds like. His whole campaign is based on division, riling up the minority who will vote for him, the Cowans of this world. He knows the majority don't like him.

Having a PM is who is not likeable is an issue. We've put up with this for a decade now.

He is an angry man as many who have had to deal with him can attest e.g. Danny Williams. The placid guy facade doesn't even survive a few minutes of Mansbridge.

I'm in lots of things. The only bright spot is US dollar investments because our dollar is tanking as well.