Keepitsimple

Pulling the wool over - how? By continually telling us that the global economy is fragile and we ourselves have big challenges ahead? Balanced budgets in of themselves are not that important.....one or two or three billion over or under - or more correctly - under one percent of the annual budget....is not a good or bad thing. It's the commitment to spend within our means that's important. But of course, Harper has made a target of himself because he said he'd balance the budget......and of course, the anti-Conservative crowd want to see him fail - even if it does amount to a half of one percent of the budget. It's no exaggeration to say that many are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect that Canada may be almost in recession. How sad. I'll say it again - be careful what you wish for.

The op-ed shows exactly why people should exercise extreme caution when evaluating alternatives. The nastiness of the Left - as often demonstrated by Union-backed "demonstrations" should be of concern to all of us. If you'd like your country - our country - cowtowing to Union interests like Ontario has.....go ahead and vote for the NDP. Many may not like Harper. Many may not like the current edition of the Liberals led by Justin Trudeau.......but turning this country over to an protectionist, Quebec-centric, union affiliated government is not the brightest move one can make. But hey, the people get to speak - and if that's what they want, that's what we'll get.....just be careful what you wish for.

Then you'll readily understand that the continual downgrading of Ontario's credit-rating gives proof to how the McGuinty/Wynne Liberals have been - and continue to be a massive brake on the Canadian economy.

Funny how there was so much speculation that Harper would break his own election law and call an early election. With that analysis proven wrong and Harper honouring the fixed-election date was little for the Left to be indignant about - right? Nope. Now the hounds are out in their Faux-outrage splendour........ because the election cycle is too long! http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/11/09/why_stephen_harper_will_call_an_early_election.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-2015-will-harper-spring-forward-or-fall-back-on-fixed-date-1.2776175 http://news.nationalpost.com/news/fall-election-or-spring-election-a-pros-and-cons-list-for-stephen-harper

It's one of the things that I actually admire about the man - and one that all good leaders possess. Give MPs the freedom to express themselves and reach consensus behind the scenes.....but when all is said and done, the party takes a united stand......and I have no doubt that some of the "stands" are not completely to Harper's liking. But I have to agree, the droning talking points are frustrating. It would appear that Justin Trudeau either follows his advisors - or impetuously adopts a "my way or the highway" attitude. With the NDP trying desperately to shed its socialist tendencies, it would also appear that Tom Mulcair might be the most controlling of the three leaders.

It's foolish to compare a 78 day election cycle with the minimum 37 day cycle. It's more appropriate to compare it to what used to be the more usual 55 to 65 day cycle and by doing that, it takes a lot of steam out of this faux-outrage story. It was really only Jean Chretien who made use of the short cycle - because he could arbitrarily pick the date where he had the most advantage.....and boy, did he ever. As for the Conservatives having more money - get over it. The other parties have had 10 years to get with it....but the truth is, either the parties are incompetent at raising funds - or they can't get people to believe in their policies enough to contribute......and neither case bodes well for them being the government.

I've always been a Jason Kenney fan - he speaks clearly and is smart enough to think on his feet....one of the few that Harper gives almost complete freedom to. When he talks - he talks in substance - and makes sense.

That's the point......where is the rule that says an election cycle must be the minimum? Democracy shouldn't be for cheapskates and as I've shown - 37 day cycles are not the norm anymore because of the fixed election date. Times have changed with the fixed election date. The days of calling a snap election when everything favours the government are over. Is that what you'd like to go back to? The opposition now has 78 days to make it's case for why it should replace the Harper government. That seems more than fair. Give it some thought......

Good reason......I don't claim to know if it's accurate - but many people vote for local reasons. Thanks for sharing yours.

Take a deep breath because you are not going to like this....... Your (and the Star's) analysis that the long election cycle will cost an extra $100 million of more is misguided - but of course that's completely unintentional . That figure comes from using a 37 day cycle - which is only one day more than the minimum allowed. Jean Chretien used 37 days three times because he knew he had the opposition in disarray and at his mercy (those dastardly Liberals) - but prior to that, it was more like 55 or 60 day cycles on a regular basis.....and when you compare that to the 78 day cycle we are now faced with now, the difference is relatively small. Funny how some people seem to put a price on democracy.... Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Canada

Naivitee. Every party will be accused of that and it will never change! The biggest, fattest, most disgusting example of REAL squandering and lies is the McGuinty/Wynne government right here in Ontario.

Why don't you enlighten us? Several posters - including me - have said we've voted Liberal in the past but with the playing field as it is, we're stuck on Conservatives. I know it's more than just me that was very disappointed that Marc Garneau was not elected leader - to give everyone a viable alternative to Stephen Harper. Tom Mulcair and the NDP are not everyone's cup of tea but I can understand the attraction by a considerable slice of the population. Given all that, why are you so afraid to just say where you stand right now - and where you've stood in the past. Add some substance to your profile so we're not monotonously replying to a one-trick anti-Harper pony. Have you ever voted Conservative?

What electoral result would you like to see?.........and can you point out three major "changes" you would like to see from this new government - from a policy viewpoint that will move Canada forward? In other words - what are we doing wrong now that the "new guys" will fix?

Decent points Argus. I'll anxiously await the topic "Why I'll be voting NDP"......and "Why I'll be voting Liberal" to see if anyone is honest enough to state their convictions - as opposed to the typical emotional anti-Harper ranting....

They are hosted by McLeans, Globe & Mail, the Monk Debates, TVA, and one more French Language debate not yet finalized. Don't worry about national coverage. The major networks (The Consortium) have always bragged that they showed the debates as a "Public Service". Now, they don't even have to spend money to host and produce them - just send a film crew (or share the cost amongst them) and have pre and post debate coverage.............so Canadians should expect that these honourable networks will televise all of them from coast to coast - as they normally would. After all, why wouldn't they? Where else can they attract a million-plus viewers at such a low cost?

Again - stop making stuff up and then make more stuff up to try and cover your tracks. Again - quit while you're behind.

You're making stuff up again and now you're trying to weasel out of your drive-by comments. Poochy clearly said..... THERE ARE NO MANDATORY DEBATES.......what could be clearer? Stop making stuff up and wasting everybody's time..

Why don't you clear it up for me?............... I'll readily apologize if I've missed something.

There's a comprehension problem here - and it ain't mine. How you can be wrong so many times is a tribute to something, but I'm not sure what. How can you "seem to assume" mandatory debates when it was so very clearly stated:

Then why did you initiate things with another of your inane comments (#193)....????

That was Topaz's question.........

Why would you say that?

.....and when nothing comes of it, will you finally keep your trap shut?

You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself. Quit while you're behind.

And I guess that means the NDP and Liberals got 20% or less of eligible voters. What's your point?