Bryan

ToadBrother, As someone who takes democracy very seriously, I find the degree to which you continue to defend the status quo with regards to Constitutional Monarchies disturbing. A monarchy is the exact opposite of democracy, it is a dictatorship. The constitution itself is a manifesto for that dictatorship. Real or ceremonial, allowed or not, a government that finds ways to undermine that is a good thing for every one. It's real democracy in action where the elected representatives are able to govern without being beholden to the dictates that were borne out of a dictatorship. The consequence that matters is the voters, not a dusty piece of paper or a crusty monarch.

Why would we want him? He lead the party that drove us to form our own.

Actually, CARP is already on that list. Susan Eng in particular.

One of the few things that I think the US does right is actually HIRING the best person for the job for the important cabinet positions, rather than simply appoint someone because they got elected. What if the people you (as a PM) would want to head a given department are not the ones that got elected? You're forced to use someone you know damn-well is in over their heads? I shudder to think how bad this could go with our divided Parliament, but I think that in theory, we should at least look at ALL elected members to see who is best at a given position, and offer the cabinet post to the one who could actually do it. I know people got really upset with David Emerson, but I think that was a great example of how things should get done.

This line made me spit my cola all over the keyboard:

The thing about Prince George is that the Liberals know that they have no chance. One might see parachuting Sangreeta Lalli in as a crass move, or trying to pull something over. The truth is, they couldn't get anyone to waste their time and money running. They needed a paper candidate, so they grabbed a like minded UBC student because at least she'll have some energy and naive enthusiasm. It's not like it'll make a difference on voting day, and at least Lalli gets some experience.

Guergis has been an irritation in the CPC since the beginning,her removal was long overdue, the allegations (true or not) were just the final straw. They were serious enough that the PM had to distance himself from her and let the RCMP handle it. That she was exonerated by the RCMP doesn't change the fact that she was never a team player to begin with. I'd never say never as to her coming back into the CPC fold, but she's not doing herself any favours by crying about it on TV. The best thing she could do is take her lumps, worry about getting re-elected, then prove that she's a good little "independent conservative" by voting with the CPC, and being quiet otherwise. If she can't at least do that, she's just burning her own bridge. For now all I see is:

EKOS' polling has been haywire this year. I'm not sure what's happening, but they think that voter intentions nation-wide are shifted several points left compared to the other major polls. I don't think anyone believes their numbers right now. I'm inclined to just throw out both EKOS and Compas (who are showing the opposite shift) as having undetermined problems with their methodologies, and look only at the others.

Only just now?

I already answered that. When it allows the losers to interfere with the governance by the winner, yes I do think is a bad thing.

I doubt it, He's probably looking forward to Monday.

There is no 62% It was 38% - 26% voting percentage and 143-77 seats between the guys actually running for PM. Almost twice as many seats as the next closest guy. There were also other losers who were never in the running did even worse.

Absolutely, as long as that vote is carried out properly.

And yet, come May 3, he's still going to be the Prime Minister, so all of it will have just been window dressing. When it allows the losers to dictate policy and procedure to the winner, yes.

I can't emphasize enough how much this point is actually a huge reason why my Conservative support is so strong right now. They found a way in a minority to stand up to the parties that lost. The constant complaining of "but you can't do that" only serves to make me like it more. Other minority governments have been timid and far too accommodating to the opposition. This one ruled like it had a majority anyway, it shows strength and leadership. "I don't care that you guys have more members in the house than I do, I'm the Prime Minister, and this is how it's going to be". That's balls, and that's what I want from my leader.

I really wish the media would stop interjecting this trivial "gotcha" stuff against any of the leaders. If a nobody candidate or worker said something, I guess it's interesting for us to discuss here, but does it mean anything about the leaders? I don't think so.

That's huge. Harper's approval rating is now more than double his closest rival. Ignatieff's still third too. Stephen Harper – 122.8 (27.9) Jack Layton – 57.3 (0.2) Michael Ignatieff – 52.7 (3.1) Gilles Duceppe – 13.8 (-0.6) Elizabeth May – 4.1 (-2.8) It's amazing to me how often we hear the media and the left saying that Harper is the problem, yet the public at large says that they like him so much more than his party.

Get it straight, he eats kittens. Here he is right before lunch: http://www.dailyseagull.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/stephen-harper-kitten1.jpg

Sigh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

What they did was leave billions of dollars obligations to things like health care, education, infrastructure, and the military unpaid, and left the next government with the bill. That's not fiscal management, it's gross negligence.

Yes it most certainly does.

First, it's not how I feel, or even what I think they will or even should do. I'm just talking about what I know for a fact is one of the proposed plans they are working on. A plan that does not involve ammending the constitution The idea is to pass legislation that says the Prime Minister must consult with the provinces before "recommending" a senator to the Governor General. There are various degrees to which that consultation might be worded so as to say that if an elected senator is available, that's what they should recommend. That's what I mean by the easy part, passing the law (as long as there is a majority). What I mean by the difficult part, is getting the provinces on board without "forcing" them, and without touching the constitution. The idea is to do it incrementally using more carrot than stick, much like the way the HST is happening. It's not ideal, and not only will it take a long time, you don't know what the provinces will demand to get on board. So the PM consults the provinces, the province recommends the guy the elected, the PM then recommends that guy as his choice to the GG. The Statute of Westminster 1931 already compels the GG to accept the PM's advice, so whether ANY of that is constitutional or not is rendered irrelevant. The wrench that could blow the whole thing up of course, is the very real probability that getting Quebec onboard would involve some extreme extortion on their part.

That is complete horseshit. Abdicating your obligations and leaving the bills unpaid so you can pretend you have a surplus is not fiscal prudence. Try that with your mortgage and see if the bank thinks you're a good fiscal manager. In his book, Chretien himself said that Martin was an incompetent finance minister.

Where in my statement that you quoted do I say "amend the constitution"?

THAT is the real story. If the CPC campaign worker was objecting to the polling, it sure as hell had nothing to do with the fact that students were voting, it's that what the University of Guelph (which has a track record for anti-Conservative activism) did was highly irregular, and potentially illegal. Elections Canada also has a track record of looking the other way when such irregularities happen. The parties have scrutineers at the polls for a reason, and one of their jobs is to put a stop to polling that is being conducted in an irregular manner. I've done the scrutineering at the polls before. We made sure we had people supervising the whole process, and some of us actually did have to do exactly what Michael Sona did: block access to the ballot box and call in a complaint to Elections Canada.