I am not saying its fair, but if you look at how things will work out, if there's any anger on the public's part for having an election it's more likely to be directed away from the incumbent. The only time the public really clamours for an election is when THEY feel that the government is incompetent (through mismanagement or scandal usually). In this case, regardless of how most partisan supporters (like yourself for example) feel, it doesn't seem to be sticking in the public mindset that this government is bad enough that another election is warranted. There's no doubt that some are dissatisfied with the government. But the polls have stayed remarkably consistent. I say remarkable because it's pretty rare that a government polls so consistently through a recession. Like it or not, the biggest change that could occur would be the election of a weak Liberal minority. And I am doubtful that the average Canadian, considers that outcome worthwhile....because trading one minority for another isn't all that big a change for the average Canadian.
Perhaps they'll see it that way. But remember this time last year, as soon as the election was announced, the political parties stopped complaining about the election itself and started campaigning. Unless the election is clearly a grab for power (which this one isn't), the public will just accept there is an election. I don't think the fact there *is* an election will really make a difference on how people vote. Non-political junkies have other things to worry about.
Nevertheless, if Iggy is careful, he should be able to allay any public angst about another election. And he seems set to do that with his double tracked approach (kinda work with the government but keep saying how unworkable it is). But if he screws this up, the risks for him are just as big as that for the PM.
I'm not sure about the last one. Barring Iggy being videotaped reciting the US Pledge of Allegiance *and* Harper rescuing kids from a burning orphanage in Eastern Montreal, the Liberals can only go up (comparing against Dion, this isn't saying much).
Other than that, talk of the CPC imploding is very premature at best. Overall they've succeeded in getting elected, which is something neither the Reform or the PCs could have accomplished alone a decade ago. If they lose, they'll go through the usual in-fighting that political parties go through. It won't be any better or worse than what the Liberals went through during the waning days of the Chretien and post-Martin. But I doubt you'll see them implode. I am fairly sure the conservatives have no desire to hand Canada over for the next decade or two to the Liberals without a fight.
Let's be rational here: the CPC is, essentially, synonymous with Harper. No one can speak, write, or do anything without his permission. He is the glue which holds the party together, and the wish to remake the country is what commands the CPC member loyalty.
If the CPC fails to get a majority, the knives will be out. He gets dumped on the curb. There is no clear successor.
Then what? Ex-PCers grumble that they were ignored during the Harper years, and run a "red tory" candidate for leader. Ex Alliance/Reform people grumble that Harper was a sellout to conservative principles, and get a hard-right candidate for leader. The party is divided and distracted from events in Ottawa. Once one side wins, the other side quits the party en masse. Iggy (either as PM or Opposition leader) decides to have an election in, say, 2011. We're back in 1993.
I'm not saying this will definitely happen, but it should be remembered that the CPC is not a monolithic block no matter how its leader acts.
As for your point about small c conservatives not willing to hand Canada to the Liberals, look south. After Obama's election the Republican Party became increasingly extreme and dominated by old white male cranks who fantasise about Reagan, which is not how you win the White House. They are not willing to hand the White House over to (relatively) left wing Democrats for decades, but they are on that exact path.
