Originally Posted by Misspolitics

[...]And Iggy did not answer whether he wanted a coalition government when asked. This is clearly not what Canadians want. The majority of Canadians DON'T want an election, it costs way too much.[...]

Hate to burst your bubble but in a news conference today, Iggy clearly stated that he didn't want a coalition government and was in for a majority. That was in the press conference after Harper's statement for the passing of the non-confidence vote.

Also, it's in the charter of rights that there must be elections every 3 to 5 years...you can't not have an election just because its annoying. Best thing that can be said it to put a stricter limit on the funding for the elections in order to try and save some of that money.

Originally Posted by Mickel

This is all a huge waste of money on the part of the government. The opposition parties know that the Conservatives have the lead in polls and will again get another minority, what's the point?

The Liberals will never hold power with Iggy as their leader.

By having Iggy loose in another election, they can then get rid of him and obtain a new leader, and obviously they want to do this sooner rather than later.

Originally Posted by comte

Hate to burst your bubble but in a news conference today, Iggy clearly stated that he didn't want a coalition government and was in for a majority. That was in the press conference after Harper's statement for the passing of the non-confidence vote.

Also, it's in the charter of rights that there must be elections every 3 to 5 years...you can't not have an election just because its annoying. Best thing that can be said it to put a stricter limit on the funding for the elections in order to try and save some of that money.

I wouldn't believe anything Mr. Ignatieff says. He did the same in 09/10. For example:Toronto Star, September 11, 2009, Michael Ignatieff:"Let me be very clear, the Liberal party would not agree to a coalition," he said. "In January we did not support a coalition and we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow." Then Globe and Mail June 6, 2010:“A coalition is legitimate, but my intention, my plan is to form a Liberal government,” Mr. Ignatieff said during a news conference after a meeting with Quebec party members. “I will play the cards the Canadian voters deal. I’m not going to deal with those cards until they are dealt, until they are on the table.” This was NOT EVEN A YEAR after, and he lied.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Yeah! How dare we spend all our money on this damn democracy of ours when we could be spending it on fighter jets and prisons!

MORE FIGHTER JETS, LESS DEMOCRACY!

/sarcasm

No, I've won plenty of discussions against poli sci majors since becoming a student at mac. It just seems people don't do their own research before making uninformed decisions/remarks.

Originally Posted by britb

I'd just like to see a majority something.Minority governments are more about maneuvering around each other than getting things done.

Minority governments aren't exactly efficient, yes. But, while it is highly unlikely that the Conservatives have some bad secret agenda, I am not sure that I would want them wielding that much power.

I say "conservatives" exclusively because they are far more likely than any other to receive a majority vote.

Originally Posted by Misspolitics

And Iggy did not answer whether he wanted a coalition government when asked. This is clearly not what Canadians want. The majority of Canadians DON'T want an election, it costs way too much.

It's true. Majority of Canadians did not want a coalition government. Saw it as undemocratic. The announcement of the upcoming election appears to have annoyed people too, as you've already seen in this thread. Most will likely vote Conservative just to spite the Liberals and NDP. Then again, many people do not like Harper either...

Originally Posted by Misspolitics

I wouldn't believe anything Mr. Ignatieff says. He did the same in 09/10. For example:Toronto Star, September 11, 2009, Michael Ignatieff:"Let me be very clear, the Liberal party would not agree to a coalition," he said. "In January we did not support a coalition and we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow." Then Globe and Mail June 6, 2010:“A coalition is legitimate, but my intention, my plan is to form a Liberal government,” Mr. Ignatieff said during a news conference after a meeting with Quebec party members. “I will play the cards the Canadian voters deal. I’m not going to deal with those cards until they are dealt, until they are on the table.” This was NOT EVEN A YEAR after, and he lied.

A good idea in September need not seem like a good idea the following June - we should expect the views of our political leaders to change as the political situation changes, not remain the same. It's really unfortunate that every sort of position-change is being equated with so-called 'flip-flopping', and more unfortunate yet that there's voters who then take that illegitimate equation and add their own conclusion (eg. "this was not even a year after, and he lied").

Still, they should not lie to voters. It is wrong to lie to your employer (which I believe we, as the voting population are) They are accountable to us, and if they want to slip out of a situation, he should not have said ---“We will face Parliament with exactly the same team, platform and agenda that we bring to Canadians during this election. What Canadians see in this campaign is what Canadians will get if we are asked to form government." (theglobeandmail.com) instead saying they "might" or "we'll see" By saying no then going back shows a lack of commitment (this is applied to any politician). A person's word is still everything to the majority of Canadians, including myself and a person who flips back and forth doesn't deserve to run this country.

Originally Posted by Misspolitics

...we are asked to form government." (theglobeandmail.com) ...

Best.In-text citation.Ever.

But seriously, I have to agree with Mahratta - I wouldn't say this is lying, its just the group changing their position over time - I don't see nothing wrong with that.

i don't feel as though it is really fair to attack the government for its defence and other spending. I mean in order to be a part of NORAD and NATO governments have to provide a certain level of spending on defence initiatives. what would you have us do, leave these organizations and turn our back on our biggest ally the US? comparing social spending with defence budgets is like comparing apples with oranges because the government spends far more money on social programs than it does on the military and if it didnt raise this spending sometime than the US and other NATO allies would come in and dictate this for us.

I believe that Harper is probably the best guy we have right now to be Prime Minister. I feel he would be a good leader, but I cannot agree on his policies at all.

A Conservative majority would scare the ****ing crap out of me. Since the 'merger' of the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance and the PC party, there is hardly a real centre-right choice anymore, so I am forced to the Liberals even though I can't trust them either. Not Iggy, anyway.

Originally Posted by temptingf8

I believe that Harper is probably the best guy we have right now to be Prime Minister. I feel he would be a good leader, but I cannot agree on his policies at all.

A Conservative majority would scare the ****ing crap out of me. Since the 'merger' of the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance and the PC party, there is hardly a real centre-right choice anymore, so I am forced to the Liberals even though I can't trust them either. Not Iggy, anyway.

These are basically exactly my feelings about the current political climate

Originally Posted by Deegs14

Best.In-text citation.Ever.

But seriously, I have to agree with Mahratta - I wouldn't say this is lying, its just the group changing their position over time - I don't see nothing wrong with that.

It was on the main page, so that's what it was. I thought it was quite funny.

I don't care which party wins as long as it is a minority.
I think minorities are better than majorities, it means that the country has a far say in what happens. When their is a majority that party can do what ever it likes, and we can't do anything about it.
I don't think that we should vote for our prime minister based on seats. I think the system should be set up so that you vote for your riding and for a prime minister, not where you vote for your riding and that tells you who it prime minister.
The government should not be allowed to spend our money on ads.
The conservatives have not been doing a very good job in my opinion.
-Calling the government "The Harper Government", It is the government of CANADA not HARPER.
-Taking away from daycare money, so that parents have to stay home to take care of their children rather than work.
-Waste our money of ads that put down the other parties. (They do this even in non election times.)
-Most of their opinions are against mine, but it is their own opinion.
There is more but I have to get back to work now.

Originally Posted by JLG 15

I don't care which party wins as long as it is a minority.
I think minorities are better than majorities, it means that the country has a far say in what happens. When their is a majority that party can do what ever it likes, and we can't do anything about it.
I don't think that we should vote for our prime minister based on seats. I think the system should be set up so that you vote for your riding and for a prime minister, not where you vote for your riding and that tells you who it prime minister.
The government should not be allowed to spend our money on ads.
The conservatives have not been doing a very good job in my opinion.
-Calling the government "The Harper Government", It is the government of CANADA not HARPER.
-Taking away from daycare money, so that parents have to stay home to take care of their children rather than work.
-Waste our money of ads that put down the other parties. (They do this even in non election times.)
-Most of their opinions are against mine, but it is their own opinion.
There is more but I have to get back to work now.

Okay. First of all, minorities, on average cost way more than majorities because you have to please the other parties, and this costs money especially during budget time. Secondly, the money being spent by parties is mostly from private donations given to them from members and they approve of these ads. Lastly, I don't want to pay to take care of someone else's children. If they cannot afford to look after their children, then maybe they should either save their money for daycare, etc. I should not be forced to pay more taxes just so that a child can go to daycare. There is a lot more I would like to respond about but this is the top three.

Harper recently said something along the lines of "Being in contempt of parliament is not a campaign issue. Citizens don't care about that."

I'm trying to find the source but I'm having trouble. Someone help me out?
That really sealed the deal for me. I can't even wrap my mind around why he would say that. I normally wouldn't be so against the Conservatives, but all the things they have done since they've been in power just rubs me the wrong way (G20, proroguing Parliament, long form census, "The Harper Government", etc.) He just makes me nervous as a Prime Minister, and I would feel better with any other party in his place.

Maybe not the Bloc, but anybody else.