Molly

Your perspective, Dancer, but not mine. I'm not seeking agreement or validation from you, so on this, there really isn't much room for debate . However, I DON'T want to see such a thing. Trudeaumania was irrational, and the mania element of it was not a a thing of which we should be proud. Utility is a valid reason, but I don' see 'utility' as being the reason for the shifts I indicated. I see ignorance and disinformation as the cause... and that's why it saddens me.

It may be 'a valid, and very important tool' Molly, but do you REALLY believe that more Canadians would approve of being handed a coalition of parties that lost an election than would not? If they had a decent understanding of our parliamentary system, they'd realize that a coalition could only be formed by representatives who won an election. We don't elect parties. We elect individuals.

(Is a bunkin something like a moran?)

Those poor legitimate Conservatives against the whole illegitimate world, eh? They have the valid right to dictate all nuance of all policy based on the support of 37.65% of the people who weren't too disgusted to vote.

Simple math should tell you that the Liberals are incapable of 'bringing the government down'. I wish that they had that much power, but they simply don't. So you tell me- who might be 'bringing the government down'?

That's a valid question. I see a great deal of drift... of folks expecting binding referenda, of attacking the validity of the senate, of committing more and more to party over the principles of those parties... even the growing incivility and mendacity of attack ads, as being representative of 'republic style'. It's more public expectation/ failure of convention, than crap like the laughable term-limits legislation. When the customs of our parliamentary democracy are (wrongly) vilified to the point of falling out of use, then we have lost something, and when we adopt attitudes that have no great place here, we have lost more. The presidential-form idolatry of leadership/ failure of party policy binding those leaders/ governance by poll rather than by philosophy is repugnant to me, and I percieve it as un-Canadian. I would say both the GG and the senate are of steadily diminishing authourity, as are individual MPs, since the power of parties is so steadily growing.... Will that do for an answer? Didn't think so.

No, it isn't. In the first place, neither of those parties has the resources to run continuous campaigns. In the second place, since neither will ever govern, their interest/benefit lies in negotiating whatever incremental change they can get... by threatening to bring down government, but not by doing it. It's a simple straighforward fact that if Harper wants to keep the wheels under this government, it's easily done. There are two parties, both of which would eagerly respond if tossed of any bone at all. Layton is all but rolling over to offer his throat while whining 'Please, please, please give me an excuse to prop you." If we go to election, it's because the CPC wants to.

I'm disappointed that he has ruled it out. I understand strategically why-- it was extremely unlikely in any event, and there are many, far more important things to be talked about during a campaign-- but as unlikely as it might have been, it's a valid, and very important tool in the chest, now and in the future. I fear that that this stupid posturing will have long-term influence--that we've just taken another large step toward republic-style governance, and IMO, that's not a good thing.

I wouldn't want to see the Bloc disincluded. There are anglophones in PQ for who have Bloc candidates on their ballots, but there are also plenty of folks like me outside that province, who want to see how the others respond to what the Bloc has to say. We are, after all, electing national governance, and not just on the basis of short-term, local effect. That dynamic is no small beans. (For that matter, I was glad to see Elizabeth May involved last time, too, though I see far less justification for her presence. She honestly did add to the usefulness of the exercize. ) edit to add: If the debate is reduced to "Harper vs. Ignatieff" I likely wouldn't bother to watch it at all, because it would just be a long-winded rerun of the ad campaigns that are almost impossible to avoid. Pure horserace- no enlightenment- not even honestly representation of real world interactions between them.

Yep. Let the very unlikeable personality reveal itself as still being very unlikeable. Dion felt the need to react to the baiting. Ignatieff, I think, has the poise to just raise a disapproving eyebrow at 'the squalling brat', without becoming flustered by it.

Jerry, Jerry.... so sober when you should be giggling. A little bit of obviously tongue-in-cheek hyperbole is a great way to start the day. Better than All Bran.

Fair enough. I wouldn't take that tip of the hat to Flaherty and his financial management as an indication that there will be such a dispersed target, though, should an election be forthcoming.

Straw man. It's a rhetorical question that only the dishonest or the absurdly hubris-ridden would give a yes or no answer to. If you have any question as to its being on the list of the possible.... it is. You know that. I know that. Everyone else knows that. But of course, the Conservatives have actually proceeded to flog it in ad after ad- it's not a question any more, and it must be costing them a fortune- as a given, which it is not. You, I and everyone else knows that, too. Which basically means that the Conservatives are spending a fortune on ads that do more to make themselves out as liars, alarmists, cads.... than they do to actually harm Ignatieff. I sincerely hope they continue to flog it right to voting day!

Jerry, to suggest that the quality of ministers has no bearing on the quality of the government, or on the credibility of the guy who chose them (and who chose him) ... is stunning. What's more, any suggestion that the actions and predictions of the finance minister are not highly representative of the government itself, it's strategies, both political and managerial, and its competence .... is equally stunning. 'Unacceptably bad' is just that- unacceptably bad. An old volleyball coach of mine used to say, "If what you are doing isn't working, try something else. " (In binary terms, the only available change in outcome is 'better'.)

I call 'em as I see 'em.

"Mr. Flaherty has a credibility problem..." said Ignatieff. There's the understatement of the decade!

Sure.... and they can eliminate the human rights commission, close the border to all immigrants who aren't pink,Christian and english-speaking, bring the bible back to the schools, spend us into glorious wealth, lock up every child who misbehaves, deport separatists, outlaw abortion entirely, and privatize everything from the highway system to the nuclear safety commission..... politicize the judiciary , the senate, police and military, and give industry an unfettered hand to poison every square inch of the country. If they manage to chase those damned women out of the workforce and back into the kitchen where they belong, so much the better. Utopia.

Have you not been listening to 'what they have been saying' for the last several years? I have.

LOL The only reason he backed off is because it was a non-starter from the getgo. I do fully understand that in politics, what's popular is more important than what's true.... but smirking, bald-faced liars, moral derelicts with a 'holier than-thou' attitude and a dirty mean streak have never been any too popular with me. .....hence my unwillingness to vote Conservative any time soon.

Since when do 'platforms' tell you much about what a party will do when in office? Cynicism alert: If all you base a vote on is what you learn during a campaign, then you aren't well enough informed to be trusted with a vote.

So... choose to elect someone who values the national interest over party interest. The ball is in the voters court. We get the government we deserve... the one we choose.

Whatever else one may think of Harper, he is a master at reversing position, and having folks ignore that he has done so.... a master of vilifying things that he doeseagerly, without a second thought or a backward glance.

No, what drove many folks screaming yellow zonkers was the idea of a coalition seizing power AFTER an election, seizing power from whoever got the most seats, albeit still in a minority situation, without the people being allowed to vote on it. Bill.... that is precisely what Harper proposed in his own note to the GG. Not 'something a little bit like it'; not 'something called by the same word, but actually different' . It is PRECISELY the same thing. He was EXACTLY proposing that the Conservatives, Bloc and NDP join forces to govern, siezing power AFTER an election, from the Liberals who had the most seats, without the people being allowed to vote on it. No difference, no nuance, no 'yeah but...'! It was 100%, unadulterated, the exact thing that you say 'drove many folks screaming yellow zonkers'. If you can see a difference, then tell me what that difference is, because from every angle I look at it, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!

Yes, there are many things that are deeply immoral, and beyond the pale for anyone with the faintest shred of integrity..... yet manage to slide under the legal bar. That defection is one of 'em... in terms of parliamentary legitimacy. I still question whether it constitutes a legal fraud with respect to the voters of that riding... but that question is doomed never to be addressed. Water under the bridge insofar as there will be no prosecution, but present and compelling in terms of what it says about the moral character of our Prime Minister.

You beat me, Small C. Denying access to elections doesn't stop them from taking the easy way out--- rather it gives them all the ultimate easy way out of functioning responsibly.