[afransen]

Do you think Harper's tenure has been beneficial for our democratic institutions? So far, he's muddied the water on how our westminster parliamentary democracy works, prorogued parliament to avoid a confidence motion he was imminently going to lose, abused confidence motions by making every bill for two or three years one and created a handbook for shutting down committees. He's also refused to comply with parliamentary orders to produce documents and persons on three different occasions.

Do you think it's hyperbole to say that he's done harm to our institutions? I think it's apt.

You can say you admire him for 'getting stuff done', and his 'resourcefulness', but then you're tacitly acknowledging that the ends justify the means, and that is one hell of a slippery slope into a moral quagmire. So, I have no qualms about criticizing politicians on the way they go about achieving their goals.

 

[Tewder]

I think the commentary and criticism is fair and useful... I'm just not sure the hyperbole is. Harper hasn't damaged any institutions. They are still there. If the opposition has chosen not to exercise certain mechanisms of parliament it is simply because of their own political strategizing not to do so (doesn't this make them complicit then?)... but now an election has been called. Democracy is at work. It's up to Canadians to decide if Harper's shenanigans need to be punished or if a little more latitude is being tolerated so that a minority leader can still actually lead.

 

[TonyV]

I can't vote for the Liberals. Bob Rae is my local candidate and voting him out of the premier's office was one of my key motivators for obtaining Canadian citizenship back in the 1990s. Problem with the Liberals is that you don't know what you're going to get, too much flip flopping. At least with the Dippers and Cons you know what you're going to get. The lack of predictability will hurt the Liberal's chances.

What Bob Rae had to do during that recession is pale compared to the actions that governments have had to resort to during the the recent economic downturn: stimulus spending, whose cost will be borne by future generations.

I am presently fearing a Conservative majority and then, courts stacked with right-wingers. Normally, I vote Liberal, and I am in Toronto Centre where Liberal means Bob Rae *. This time around, however, I may park my vote with the NDP, only because Bob Rae is yesterday's guy and has no chance of winning the inevitable forthcoming Liberal leadership convention to pick up where Iggy left off. No chance at all ... he would lose in the same manner as he lost last time (filthy tactics on the convention floor).

I am starting to think that there may be some credibility to the so-called "NDP surge" because I have never considered voting for them before and if I can do that, so can other voters. Let's see what happens. There is your measure of just how useless Iggy really is.

* I expect Bob Rae to win Toronto Centre handily.

 

[GraphicMatt]

If the NDP surge holds, it's going to lead to some good post-election analysis. I think the CPC's anti-Ignatieff attack ads (which started over a year ago) pushed a lot of would-be Liberal voters over to the NDP, who the Cons have been ignoring up until this week. Couple that with Quebec's new embrace for the NDP and we suddenly live in a world where "Prime Minister Jack Layton" isn't a punchline.

 

[old boy]

If the NDP surge holds, it's going to lead to some good post-election analysis. I think the CPC's anti-Ignatieff attack ads (which started over a year ago) pushed a lot of would-be Liberal voters over to the NDP, who the Cons have been ignoring up until this week. Couple that with Quebec's new embrace for the NDP and we suddenly live in a world where "Prime Minister Jack Layton" isn't a punchline.

Asymmetrical federalism is the carrot shown by born- again Jack to the Quebecois. Thanks Jack. You have to wonder how much more asymmetrical this country can get. , but if it gets you more votes...

 

[Urban Shocker]

Well, it can't get much more asymmetrical than it is now - policy as dictated to Harper by U.S. corporate interests.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't think it's the NDP, in so much as it's Iggy. A huge chunk of my family who consistently vote Liberal are actually voting Conservative this time around. Because they don't like Iggy. I wouldn't be surprised if the same mentality is drawing more left-leaning voters to Jack.

 

[kEiThZ]

Do you think Harper's tenure has been beneficial for our democratic institutions? So far, he's muddied the water on how our westminster parliamentary democracy works, prorogued parliament to avoid a confidence motion he was imminently going to lose, abused confidence motions by making every bill for two or three years one and created a handbook for shutting down committees. He's also refused to comply with parliamentary orders to produce documents and persons on three different occasions.

I honestly believe that Chretien and the Rat Pack would have acted in a similar fashion if they were handed the same set of cards. Politics is politics. But other than a few choice policies (particularly on social issues), this government has not been anywhere near as right-wing or ideological as people feared they would be. Indeed, their downfall is the very pragmatism (albeit practised ruthlessly), that people feared they would not possess.

I don't know if I'd trust them with a majority. But I really don't mind how this minority is coming along. I would hope though, that the Opposition actually pushed the government more. I'd like to see the Opposition take some principled stands, even if it forced an election.

 

[kEiThZ]

Well, it can't get much more asymmetrical than it is now - policy as dictated to Harper by U.S. corporate interests.

That's such a tired canard. Is there any politician from the right that leftists won't paint with that brush?

And why US corporate interests? No confidence in Bay Street?

 

[Urban Shocker]

I honestly believe that Chretien and the Rat Pack would have acted in a similar fashion if they were handed the same set of cards. Politics is politics. But other than a few choice policies (particularly on social issues), this government has not been anywhere near as right-wing or ideological as people feared they would be. Indeed, their downfall is the very pragmatism (albeit practised ruthlessly), that people feared they would not possess.

I don't know if I'd trust them with a majority. But I really don't mind how this minority is coming along. I would hope though, that the Opposition actually pushed the government more. I'd like to see the Opposition take some principled stands, even if it forced an election.

Their downfall wasn't pragmatism - Harper precipitated the election in order to get a majority in order for them to be their true right-wing selves. But you're right about the Liberals - being an opportunistic infection they'll spread out like a nasty rash to become faux-Tories if it suits them.

 

[Urban Shocker]

And why US corporate interests? No confidence in Bay Street?

Because that's where the Republican audiences that lap up Harper's description of Canada as a failed socialist state are.

 

[TonyV]

Here I am in Bob Rae's riding, Toronto Centre, trying to recall any sign of a pitch from Mr. Rae during the current campaign. Does it not appear that Rae is simply taking victory for granted? He was really handed a plum when Graham quit politics.

Toronto Centre will stay in Liberal hands, I am more than sure of that (so is Bob) but I think that there will be a significantly lower margin of votes in his favour, thanks to the NDP surge.

Let's see if we're all lemmings.

 

[old boy]

Their downfall wasn't pragmatism - Harper precipitated the election in order to get a majority in order for them to be their true right-wing selves. But you're right about the Liberals - being an opportunistic infection they'll spread out like a nasty rash to become faux-Tories if it suits them.

Well, you are the Urban Shocker after all. Never heard the Liberals, or those who may vote for that party, being quite described as an " opportunistic infection " before, - nicely dismissive of a large section of the Canadian middle ranks not born to any particular party . Clearly bombast and hyperbole isn't solely the domain of the extreme right.

 

[grey]

They're a centrist party that shifts in whichever direction is expected to attract more votes at any given time. Is it really such a stretch to call that opportunism?

 

[kEiThZ]

Their downfall wasn't pragmatism - Harper precipitated the election in order to get a majority in order for them to be their true right-wing selves. But you're right about the Liberals - being an opportunistic infection they'll spread out like a nasty rash to become faux-Tories if it suits them.

Oh come on. You're acting like there hasn't been a minority PM in history who didn't want to take a shot at getting majority. Why is it only Harper being labelled as opportunistic? If the Liberals were up in the polls and they precipitated the election would be accusing them of being opportunistic and seeking to impose a centre-left agenda?

Politics is politics. PMs of minority governments will always do their best to seek a majority. I don't see anything wrong with that. Though personally, I'm just not one of those people who complains about elections. I'd rather live in a country that has 'too many' elections than none at all.

Because that's where the Republican audiences that lap up Harper's description of Canada as a failed socialist state are.

And somehow, I suspect, that Harper has long since had to suffer the taste of his foot in his mouth with regards to those comments.

I'm no fan of Harper. But I find this predilection to bring up comments made by politicians from decades ago disturbing. Where would great leaders like Trudeau have been, if we had judged them according to their comments in their younger, more ideological years? Or god forbid, imagine judging a politician like Churchill. In my opinion, it's this constant desire to judge and never forgive the past that gives us mediocre politicians today who never learn anything because they are too afraid to make a mistake publicly that will be held against them for decades to come.

Experience works to temper the ideologue. And I suspect, having tasted power, Harper is no different than his predecessors in this regard. He may have specifics he wants to rejig. But I highly doubt that he's on some crusade to dismantle the socialist state. Nor could he, if he tried. Majority or not.