myata

So informative and well argumented, cheers!

Harper already made changes to the policy on death penalty, without any consultation in the Parliament, and in contradiction to Canada's law (which does not allow death penalty). You can certainly wait for a tell-all omen. But don't say that Harper's socially conservative views don't come through in his policies.

That would be up to him to report - in a party committed to openness and transparency. If he did explain, and CBC did not report the reason, I'm eagerly awaiting a complaint / investigation and correction. I wouldn't be betting a lot on it though, as this is not the first incident of CPC candidates refusing to speak to the media. As there're steps leading to them. Societies do not descend into problems all of a sudden, but it surely begins with abandoning rigorous,open and transparent process of questioning candidates to hold power. All of the candidates attended it as well. As they've been at the CBC interview this morning. More of openness, democracy, is better, unless you think otherwise. As I said, the report did not mention any previous committments, and all other candidates were able to attend.

Tell him to loosen up, and stop being such a control freak instead. To segnosaur: 1) The program did not mention any reason for his refusal. I'm 100% sure of that. 2) "Feeling" danger in an open public discussion is exactly what worries me most in the Harper's conservatives. Perhaps there's something they don't want public to know, either about the candidate, or the party's platform? Why else would a party avoid public / media discussions, on many occasions, in favour of controlled limited message from the center? Isn't that exactly what we don't like about other, less democratic societies? 3) There's no way to tell what works for everybody, but for me debates do provide new insights into positions / views and ideas of candidates and their parties. Being an established part of the democratic process, every time anybody attempts to bypass it should be a serious warning sign to everybody.

That may very well be so, but this isn't about what's good for Harper, or his party. It's what good for Canada. By refusing to participate, openly and transparently, in the democratic political process, Harper's party is showing disrespect and contempt to the very idea of functioning democracy.

One'd hope so, but unfortunately, it hasn't always been the case. Sometimes people overlook offenses to democratic process for promises of this / that, fear, etc. It's our's and ours only responsibilty to keep the democracy alive and well. That includes keeping all parties in check and to the standard of openness and transparency.

As yet another conservative candidate refused to take part in a public meeting with other candidates in the riding, the pattern of disappearance of conservative candidates from public becomes 1) established and 2) somewhat of concern. This is because, as we all know, a real, functioning, democracy is more than people putting a mark on a piece of paper. It's lot more than this simple, and in itself, potentially quite meaningless act (e.g. if people have little clue about the names printed on the piece of paper) and one of the important factors that transform a meaningless routine into a functioning democracy is openness and transparency of the political process. Which not in the least means openness of the parties and representatives about their intentions, ideas, platforms, etc and possibility to discuss those intentions, platforms, etc in a free discussion. This possibility is quite seriously and negatively affected if one or more of the parties withdraw from open and transparent political process. I.e. would not make their platform available in sufficient detail or time for meaningful discussion; restrain party representatives from participating in the democratic forums; avoid or restrict the contact or availability of information to free media or public. As we know by multiple examples, allowing a group or a party, exhibiting such behaviour, access to power may result in serious, and sometimes dramatic consequences for the entire society. Though these dramatic incidents are rare and unlikely, non democratic behaviour of any one party should be a matter of concern for the voters, and should be strongly discouraged. If we want to keep our democracy well and functioning, in practice and not only on paper. Reference: CBC Radio Ottawa Morning, today, 7.30-8.00 am: candidates discussion in Ottawa's Orleans riding. Conservative candidate Gallipeau - apologies for possible misspelling - declined invitation

Really? Any support for this statement? Or did you perchance confuse with conservative candidates who routinely refuse to make public statements or appear on the media, and strong possibility exists (as discussed on CBC Ottawa morning a few days back) that only selected Conservatives are allowed to speak freely to voice their own opinions. That may very well be your opinion, but the reality, fact, is that majoritary system is not compatible, in principle, with the variety of electoral choice. Binary (i.e one or the other) choice on one side (Rep/Dem; Labour/Tory; LPC/CPC); or system reform, that guarantees broader choice, on the other. Unfortunately, no other options are viable or possible. Progressive vote split 2/3/4 ways = blank ticket for the conservatives. System reform can only be brought about by a broad coalition for democratic progress.

Two general points first: 1. A simple fact of majoritary system is that it tends to limit the choice. Unite and survive, or split and suffer. Until this is changed, alternative vote, protest vote, etc achieves only one thing: sthrengthens the position of the part of electorate that is more united. 2. There's (much) more common between the positions of "progressive" parties, than them and Concervatives. All want to see real and promt action on the environment. All support social programs. The politicians in the progress coalition will have to come to an agreement on particular issues. If necessary, with a prompt from their electorate. So, the real choice in your riding (remember majoritary?) is between NDP and who? correct, CPC. So, by taking your vote from NDP candidate, you're helping Concervatives. In the majoritary system, no matter how many parties are in the play, the only meaningful choice is between the top two contenders. The rest does not matter one grain. Smaller parties, that routinely take disproportionately smaller number of seats than their share of the popular vote, would naturally be on board (NDP, Greens). Bigger jaggernauts (Liberals, BQ in Quebec) would need to be convinced by the progressive electorate: vote for change, or we'll abandon you. The bottom line is: in the majoritary system, popular vote does not matter. Choice does not matter. If we want more choice, the system has to be changed. And the only way it can be changes is through a broad coalition of representatives for progress.

Quebec has already quite calmed down long before Harper came to power. What other new and fresh ideas did he bring to this country, so that it'd really matter he'd get his majority? I don't really see any major new undertaking, idea, project that'd go differently with CPC's desired majority. I think it's much simplier. Harper is a control freak and he desires power for power's own sake.

Indeed, asking people for their opinions (and respecting them) - a big no-no! Isn't the guy at top supposed to tell each and every line his minions ever say? Maybe even what they think? Shouldn't his recordings be played at all public meetings, to simplify the matters once and for all? But here's the deal. The change has to come. And in the current situation it will not come through a win of one party. Because parties that have chance of winning a majority won't be interested. The change has to come through a coalition of progressive representatives for change. Vote for progress - and it may happen.

Right, he better have time for writing laws he's not going to follow. Or talking about supporting agendas important to Canadians (like environment), he knows he's not going to do anything about. How the leader of the country manages his time. Courtesy of CPC.

Which of the platforms did you mean in particular, Argus? It's very easy (but so telling of conservative's shall we say, for the mildest of the words, oversimplified strategies) to make these useless general statements, accompanied by a big scary "vote for me or else....".

I think Harper's bunch may have the exclusive patent for slinging mud, ploys, and such so now they will SUE.

Not at all. What I'm saying is that all of the above, plus, in some (many) aspects of their policies, BQ, all represent different parts, grades of the same progressive electorate of the country. To continue jostle for small gain here and there, while the opposition is united under one banner, is no less then a suicide. Maybe not in the principle of things, but most certainly under this present majoritary system. Split vote = huge advantage to the opposition. Not to notice this simple fact is to be blind. And because this time around we do not have cosy Bay street boys to push the politicians in the right direction, the task mush be done by us. Ourselves. We need to elect as many progressive representatives to form a majority, then make them work together for the good of the country. Regardless of their particular tone or hue. And the first item on the agenda would be to reform the electoral system for more fair representation of population. Realistically, no single party majority government will be interested in even introducing the idea. A coalition of progressive parties, elected specificially for that purpose, could, and very well. Of course, shadows and scarecrows put up here and there, could scare us and make us go for the status quo. And that's OK. What we do is what we get. This is addressed to those who are interested in, and not afraid of the positive change.

Well, folks, it looks like it'll be awhile before the hard truth finally dawns on our politicians. Like the proverbial little kids in a sandbox, they'll roll, spin and jostle, laughing and well, kidding, oblivious to the world around them. And that's OK, it's their game after all. The hard truth btw is that splitting progressive vote 2/3/4 ways is like presenting Right Hon Mr Harper with his daydreamt and nightwetdreamt of majority on a golden plate with a silver edge. That's the truth. So what does one do in this difficult situation? Hold the nose and ... etc? Here's a better option though: we take it into our own hands. Forget Dion/Layton/May. I don't vote for Dion/Layton/etc. I vote for me. For my understanding and vision of the future of this country. Layton/etc are just agents, vehicles to make it happen. The idea is simple and it is to vote for the progressive candidate that has the best shot to take the riding. At this time and with this stack, I don't really care which of the three/four parties it'll be as long as they're going to do what we want them to do. And that's the deal of the day - because do what we want them to do they will - this time around. Because this time around, the deal is - you're elected there not because you're Liberal / NDP / Green / etc. No. You're elected to make change happen. So as soon as progressive majority in the Parliament is a reality, with or without formal coalition, it'll vote in a new, fairer way to elect our representatives. So that crushing majority with 30% of popular vote could nicely and firmly become a thing of the past. It won't be the full PR right away (and I'm not even sure that full unrestricted PR is necessarily a good thing), but the change must begin. And soon. Otherwise, we're bound to watch the neverending duet of Liberal / Conservative love-hate pair forevermore. So, if you agree, spread the word around. The deal is simple and it's an agreement of people, not politicians. That's what"ll keep it simple and make it work. There's still time, though maybe not awsome lot of it.

I wonder - is it the shortage of speechwriters? Or Conservative ideas??

That's the unfortunate consequence of the majoritary system (on the other side are longer, more stable governments). Only two can survive. Look no further than across the border; or the UK. However, it may be awile for the truth to dawn on politicians. They have federal party status, funding etc, and no Bay street boys to gently or not, push them in the right direction. For those who wouldn't want to wait forever, while toying with "Harper in majority" scenario, the only choice is to take matters into their own hands - i.e to vote for the progressive candidate that is most likely to resist Conservatives in their riding. The alternative is obvious - split progressive vote and massive Harper majority.

I wonder if today's presentation on CBC Ottawa morning was made in an attempt to redeem itself from that episode, or just another "interesting" experimentation. In a 30 min presentation two candidates in two Ottawa ridings - from CPC and NDP, were invited to share their views on taking on long time incumbents in the ridings (as it happened, in both cases, Liberals). As it looked, more than exchanging ideas, candidates were interested in blasting the incumbents, while promoting their own platforms. Only to mention, none of the incumbents were present (I do not believe they were even invited). An interesting, novel approach to informing electorate near election time.

Can't really paint everybody with the same brush without some kind of evidence. What a long way to "reduce" from claims of crystally transparent ethical superiority! Sorry if you misread/misunderstood/etc what was said. It was, once again "up to the courts to decide whether the letter of the law has been broken". There's little doubt that the spirit had been.

I'm glad that you said it and agree with you completely. Misleading (to say the the least) is what Harper's bunch routenily reduces themselves to.

No, only demonstrated one more time their disregard and contempt for the spirit of law. As with Kyoto; gun registry; death penalty; and so on. Hardly a secret to anybody. Yet every time they do it, it should be brought out into the open, over and again, persistently and paistakingly. If we allow laws routinely made to be broken, or circumverted, I won't envy us, or our children. This is the law introduced by Harper's party. And they were the first to break it, in spirit, if not letter (but let the court decide that). What a shameful performance!

It's called Harper's slimy deceptive politicking the prinicipal aim of which is to stick on to the power at all cost and by all means. This is by just one instance, of many. Everybody who cares by now should know very well who we're dealing with here.

I don't know where these folks learned their English, but to me "fixed election date" means just that: the date that is fixed to a certain day, e.g. October 10, 2009. This is what "fixed election date" means in Ontario. And hopefully, everywhere where people use language to say what they mean, rather than deceive. Indeed Chretien may have used the trick but these guys pretended that they made things better since. On paper. Not in reality of their act. To independent: I hope so.

If he said that, it would be yet another dumb thing that he has said. He probably does not understand then that people who vote for Liberals, NDP, Greens want to see positive changes in this country. Whether it happens through "exclusive" management of one party, or coalition work, is less important than the result, i.e positive change itself.