2 things -
first of all, this election is neither pathetic nor a waste of money. we have a deeply divided electorate, and a pm who wants to try to secure a majority while also being found in contempt of parliament - a historic first in the history of our country. the fact that the house lost confidence in the government is the exercise of parliamentary democracy. if anyone really thinks that this is a watse of time, i have no idea what to say. people around the world fight for the opportunity to have a parliament that works this way, and we shun it when it happens for us... mind boggling. at the same time we have an opposition that wants an election too, and it's widely supported by much of the voting public. we are at a fascinating moment politically as the country is being divided by region and by social ideology. it is critical that we take the time to assess where we are. if there is significant change, then the electorate has spoken and it was important. if not, and if we just end up in the same place afterwards it sends all sorts of important messages -
-that the conservative momentum is still not enough to govern (likely ending the leadership of stephen harper)
-that the electorate has still not forgotten the excesses of the last liberal regime
-that we have a fundamental urban-rural split that must be mended for the country to really move forward
-that our electoral system needs to be changed
-that certain kinds of crises are not important to the public
-that the leadership of all parties needs to change to make any real progress
whatever the outcome, this exercise of our only democratic involvement is hugely important. we are rarely asked to participate. how this can possibly be an inconvenience once every 3 years is astonishing to me. and the cost, quite simply, is not a burden on this country. the g20, which many people here supported, cost far more than this election will, and canada gained nothing from that. the contempt finding was a critical moment in the governance of our country. you simply cannot ignore that or it sets a precedent about what kind of transparency is fundamental to our democracy. it requires an election so that the people can voice their stance on whether this is an issue that they think necessitates change. if we are not given that opportunity we completely fail at holding our leadership accountable. surely this exercise of the basic democratic principle is worth spending money on.
second, and this is directed at jeff, i'd love to hear a reason for your distaste for ignatieff. i am not a liberal supporter and don't plan on voting for them this year, so this is not an attempt to defend my man or anything. i absolutely don't understand this nonsense about him as a person, and i have yet to hear one convincing argument as to why he should be considered to be untrustworthy or deserving of ridicule. is there a policy standpoint that bothers you? maybe just one or two examples of something actually related to government that would impact your analysis of him? or is this just an irrational hate?
Last edited by 'trane; 04-01-2011 at 09:28 AM.