Well - it looks good now, but we have 2 years for more hell to be unleashed to the point where much of the damage will be permanent. This current "Harper" (not Canadian, or even Conservative, for that matter) government has a few more omnibus bills and corruption scandals to achieve. Morally bankrupt and tenacious, I believe they will do anything - legal or not, to stay in power. It is beyond me why anyone could continue to support this corrupt regime. Polls have been wrong before. (Sorry to be a wet blanket). Hope you're right though.

I'm hoping his numbers go up.

His numbers might go up because he'll make them go up. His team are seasoned fraudsters who are capable of massive dishonesty.

If a new election were called today, I have no clue who I would vote for.  I'm not impressed with any party or leader.  I don't know who the current MP is.  I'll wait until election time, as that's when the most information is best available.

I have to agree with you, chemgal. There's no one on the scene right now who I find at all inspiring. 

I have to agree with you, chemgal. There's no one on the scene right now who I find at all inspiring. 

[/quote

True... seems a bit of a shame when I'm more certain of who I would NOT vote for than who I would.

I always vote by who the local candidates are. Last time I voted Liberal.

I prefer them as a team because of their stand on social issues.

I keep on hearing these sort of thing, but I don't hear Elizabeth May mentioned.

An honest politician, clearly laid out party platform, untouched by scandal. We might be a lot better off if we all abandoned those traditional parties in droves and switched to the Greens.

The Green Party comes across to me as a neo-conservative (small "c") party with an environmental streak. I laugh when people speak of them as part of the so-called "progressive" group of parties.

Elizabeth May was a perennial parachute candidate who flitted from riding to riding until she finally found one that would elect her. She doesn't inspire me, either.

One of the issues that is important to me is medicine.  I don't support the use of snake oil.  That's my biggest problem with the Green Party.

Hi chemgal,

Do you just settle for rusty snakes then? 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Maybe majority governments should be scrapped. There are insufficient safeguards in place to keep a majority from going rogue - and we all know how valuable the Senate is in keeping the "mandate" in check. 

It would be refreshing to see everyone at the table. Might take awhile to get those omnibus bills passed!

Have you actually read their health care platform? While they do want to promote alternative health care, they also want to shift the focus from remediation to prevention, which is something I heartily support. I do see the medical profession in at least some areas making that shift as well, but formal government support would help push things along.

I've been voting Green for some time. Their mix of fiscal conservatism with a focus on the environment and generally taking more responsibility for how we live in the world is a good fit for me.

I do not ever expect to see them in government, but their presence has at least pushed other parties to take some of the issues they focus on seriously.

I do agree that putting them at the liberal end of the spectrum is deceptive. They are really a centrist party, to my mind, leaning conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on the environment and some social issues. They are really competing more with the Liberals than the NDP, in other words, though the NDP's move to the centre is making that space rather crowded now, which may help Harper since his party will be the only one that really stands out (and even they've shifted closer to the centre out of pragmatism).

Mendalla

Hi ninjafaery,

I don't think the problem is majority governments so much as it is the politicians who form the majority.  The problem with politics at present is not actually political so much as it is behavioural.

I disagree.  Until the Canadian Government is ordering Canadian armed forces to fire upon Canadian citizens the ultimate check to any rogue majority is the citizenry itself.  Which is why Harper is riding his majority just as tightly as he did his minority.  He is well aware of the extreme element in the Conservative Party and how that extreme element will provoke moderates to swing away from voting Conservative.

Extreme elements are smart enough to fall for the "shut up for now" ploy because they are smart enough to know that only with a majority behind them can their extreme ideas have a chance of becoming common law.

The only problem with the "shut up for now" strategy is once a majority is realized those who agreed to shut up soon chafe and decide to speak up.  This is noted in Conservative backbenchers complaining about being muzzled.

Which is quite ironic since Senate Reform was a Conservative Party plank some elections back.  Whether or not that is alienating some extreme supporters is beyond my ability to know.  It does seem apparent that folk are looking closely at those Harper has nominated.  It would appear that it is not at all unsual for Harper appointments to the Senate to be of dubious moral virtue.

Some have suggested that this is deliberate.  Harper promised not to appoint unelected Senators and the Provinces refused to elect Senators so . . .Harper agreed to play the patronage game as he typically plays politics.  As dirty as he can get away with.  The theory is that since Canada refused to play his new Senate game he has decided to play the old one for spite.  In that sense Duffy is a punishment to all of Canada for not getting with his reform program.

I wish I could say I find that allegation far-fetched.

I'm not a fan of omnibus legislation simply because it is not actually done for legislative convenience.  It is, more often than not, a ruse.  It hides legislation and hinders actual discussion.  If an act needs an amendment then table a motion to amend the act don't bury it under a pile of "housekeeping."

Grace and peace to you.

John

But the only way to accomplish that would be a pure proportional system which brings liabilities of its own. Witness how extreme left and right parties are sometimes able to get traction by propping up weak governments in countries like Israel where a proportional system is used. Can you imagine Harper kept in power by a coalition with Christian Heritage or Family? The NDP forced into an alliance with the Marxist-Leninists (or whatever the Communists call themselves these days)?

Mendalla

The Green party has no realistic chance of forming the government here in Canada.

Frankly the other problem with a proportional system is that because of the relentless and never-ending cycle of coalition governments, the differences between parties start to blend together and they start to look alike. Also, because of the cycle, decisions about who governs are always made behind the scenes after the election. So, you might vote for Party A, but you really have no idea what you're voting for. You're simply voting to give Party A a little more heft in horse trading that you're never going to see. At least in Canada, if I vote Conservative let's say, I'm reasonably certain that I'm voting for a certain set of policies and that I'm voting to make Stephen Harper Prime Minister. I can generally hold the governing party accountable because they made certain promises, they won, and they have to implement them. If they don't ... well ... there's another election coming up.

Minority governments every now and then keep parties on their toes for the most part, and regular changes in government do the same. For all its weaknesses, I have yet to be convinced that a proportional system is better than what we have right now. Just different.

Yes, although it was a while ago.  It wasn't the only reason why I didn't like the party.  Prevention is great, using homeopathy as treatment or prevention isn't.  I'll take another look at them come election time, but I don't have high expectations.

I don't see approving homeopathy for taxpayer support, but there are many mainstream medical procedures and medications which are also of dubious value in many cases.  The recent fuss in the press around the misuse of MRIs points to one example.  A study done about a decade ago questioned the value of angioplasty for many patients who receive it.  And we have pharmaceutical companies reformulating their medicines to extend patent protection with little or no evidence of any benefit to the user.    One problem with the Green Party is that it is small enough, new enough, and loose enough that a wide variety of interest groups influence policy formation without sufficient review at times.