Scotty

Change our Constitution? What a godawful mess that would be. Just to START, let me suggest that a proportional representation would require that the seats be allocated on a proportional basis. Does it seem like I'm stating the obvious? How do you get Quebec to agree that if they are 22% of the population they will only get 22% of the seats? Because I, for one, would insist on that. We might let the little provinces have a little bit more than their numbers deserve, but not one of the big two.

There is a federal precedent, too. Ed Broadbent supported Pierre Trudeau in a minority parliament.

Nobody cares except the politically fixated. No one is worried about Harper doing a deal with the BQ and Layton, not today, and not next year. People ARE worried about Ignatieff doing a deal with the BQ and Layton. That's why they don't really care what Harper signed or didn't sign years ago.

This is so much nonsense, you know. The fact the media focused on one story over another has absolutely nothing to do with their political ideology. We are in the era of infotainment, and the media is focusing on whatever they think the viewers will find to be the most interesting. And most Canadians are underwhelmed by the 'historic' nature of this contempt business. They see it as nothing more than petty bickering between the opposition and the government. And the only reason there was a 'historic' vote of contempt is because never before was a combined opposition so politically irresponsible as to officially vote in a 'contempt of parliament' charge against a minority government. Oh yes, yes, the government was also pig-headedly stupid in not doing as parliament ordered, for parliament is supreme. But still and all, in the entire history of English parliamentary systems around the world, do you really and honestly believe that the Tories not turning over all the estimated costs of prisons to be built is the most shocking breach of tradition and law EVER? I think not. The public doesn't see that as a huge and awful, world shattering event and pretty much figures the opposition were just using it as an excuse to force an election. It bores them and so the media found a better show, the squirming, uncomfortable, uncertain foolishness of Ignatieff's doing his pathetic dance around the direct question of a coalition.

In what way would a left thinking progressive think voting Green would be better than voting NDP?

Well.. not everyone. Some people, clearly...

Then they're pretty bloody stupid.

Are you seriously going to try to suggest to me that if the Liberals got into power they would be any different? They will be quick to cooperate with a Conservative opposition and give them all the information they need as quickly as they can in order to let the Tories score political points off them? This is the point I've been trying to make when people say the Tories are this or the Tories are that. The answer is "Yeah, so? What do you expect me to do, vote in a party which is easily as bad or worse at the same thing?" At least the Tories are moderately competent at running the country, and seem far less inclined to passing out my money to their buddies. I rarely felt that way about the last two Liberal administrations.

May I observe that it does not appear to be signed at all?

Can I say it's pretty goddam strange to see erstwhile federalists cheering on Duceppe and hoping his separatist party gets more seats and votes.

Meh. Let's just say I make a distinction between theft and political games. As for "contempt of parliament" I've watched twenty years of Liberal governments show just how much contempt they can lavish on Parliament, and many of the MPs and Cabinet ministers from that last one are in Ignatieff's caucus now. I think Rex put it well. Why are we having an election? According to the Liberals, it’s because Stephen Harper is choking Canadian democracy, and, most of all, because he treats Parliament with contempt. That’s ripe from the Liberal party. When it enjoyed unrivalled electoral sway, as it seemingly did forever, it inscribed the A in Autocratic. It was led by Pierre Trudeau, who thought so much of Parliament that he described its elected members as “nobodies.” Rex Murphy

Daily settlement prices for nickel??

As I pointed out earlier, when faced with only two choices you make the choice of which is best - or which is least worst. And by any reasonable definition, outright stealing money to give to your friends counts for a lot more than giving a dying man an insurance policy.

Not when they have such a creditable case that they presumed it was legal. Remember that one judge has already sided with them. That doesn't exactly make it an open and shut case. And you know this is going up the ladder to the SC. Did he steal public money like Jean Chretien did? Did he give out contacts for non-existent work and then get kickbacks for it like Jean Chretien did? No? Then it's not corruption.

The Chretien government lives on as long as so many of its members, including cabinet ministers, figure so prominently in the current Liberal caucus. If Ignatieff were to get rid of them all then I'd stop talking about the Chretien government.

No, it's not. And it wouldn't be even if the Tories didn't have a very creditable legal case to say it was entirely legal. Patronage, while I don't like it, isn't corruption either - necessarily. That is, appointing a political supporter to a position is not corruption, legal or moral, as long as it's a real job. On the other hand when Jean Chretien invented a pretend job for the previous speaker of the house and gave him a million taxpayer dollars for it then THAT's corruption, moral if not legal.

So what? If they have any chance in A riding why don't they at least open a riding office? Do you think the Liberals have riding offices in every Quebec riding, even the ones where they don't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected?

It reflects badly on the Liberals that they aren't at least trying in those few ridings. If Alberta will elect an NDPer it will elect a Liberal.

All I'm saying is a poster who doesn't even know who our health minister is displays such a poor grasp of political knowledge that one can reasonably infer his political opinions lack any real base.

Even the very opnioninated parliamentary budget officer had to confess that was something of an educated guess, as he didn't have the proper material to work with. The Defense department buracracy has been somewhat unusually scathing in their reaction to his numbers. But in any event, you are going to get the fighters, whether it's the Tories or Liberals. The Liberals started the purchase ten years back, and their only reason for opposition now is tactical, as a political ploy.

That sort of parsing of phrases might please academics and politicians but it sure as hell pisses off the voters.

Makes one wonder why Ignateiff pushed for an election at this time. Was he just tired of it all, saw no hope of improvement and wanted to get it over with so he could go back to Harvard?

Living in the past accomplishes nothing. I'll certain admit that many native tribes are replete with sad stories from the past. But the truth is no nation, no ethnic group that I'm aware of, can't claim horror stories from their past. All groups have experienced war, famine, pestilence, defeat, occupation, etc. It's pointless to worry over it at this point in time. Be grateful that those who came into your land didn't annihilate you, as happened to many groups in the past. Be grateful you live in a wealthy nation which gives you all the rights of other citizens, and even a bit more, and move on.

And how long do you expect such a coalition to last?

No one will believe him if the Tories fall on the throne speech or first budget. It will be assumed he was lying all the time and there'll be a huge surge of anger towards him.