I think we do need an election. There are a lot of issues in our country which are not being discussed. Maybe some of the following would be debated in an election campaign.

Garth Turner (former M.P.) posted the following on his blog yesterday:

You may know I�m not happy with the direction of the country�s finances. I worry about the long-term and harsh consequences of expedient actions being taken today. I�m concerned we�re diving into debt without a rescue line to get out � no roadmap for the coming years.

I�ve warned here about the consequences on families of the higher rates and stiffer taxes which will arrive. My feeling is the current political class cares more about avoiding a depression on their watch than preventing one in the future.

Equally, I�m saddened at the lack of attention being given to a looming retirement crisis. Nobody can live on the CPP. Corporate pensions are disappearing and others face a funding crisis. Personal savings rates have cratered and governments are doing nothing that I can see to address this. Even calling a national retirement conference or appointing an investigative body would be a start. Strikes me that we need a ministry of long-term thinking, and less concern about building prisons in Kandahar.

Of course, we have a demographic wave to deal with as the biggest population group gets set to rearrange the economy. And what of the economic impacts of H1N1, or climate change? Until you understand some basics like the disintegration of the American empire, peak oil, the looming global food shortage or the dangers of an unbridled and unregulated OTC derivatives market, you probably don�t deserve to be running a country.

http://www.greaterfool.ca/2009/09/01/starbucks-epiphany/

Mr. Harper is a pol. with no insight or foresight. His only mandate is to stay in power as long as he can and by any means that he can. He claims to be a Christian yet does not even adhere to the Ten Commandments. THOU SHALT NOT LIE. Nuff said.

Never *misunderestimate* your opponents, Mr. Harris! Do so at your own peril!

It may not be the perfect time for an election but we sorely need a change. Never have I seen a government that is so blatantly dismissive of the wishes and needs of the majority of Canadians.

Denaljo, claims of people that they are Christians are a dime a dozen. They are nothing but empty words if they are not backed up by acting in accordance with the principles of their faith.

Dick Harris is wrong as I am one person that would love an election.
Im tired of the conservatives and Harper

What we need is a Conservative majority. The current situation requires the government to make deals with lefties and seperatists. Not a very amicable situation.

Of course Dick Harris doesn't want an election... even though he'd probably win anyways because he runs against nobodies and socialists.

I think it would be good if individual elections could be triggered on a per riding basis and that would be much more helpful for accountability... rather then these politicians that hide under the skirt of their party for their free ride to the good life.

Politicians regardless of party, are not allowed a voice of their own, unless they make it to the top of the party. Otherwise they dare not step out of line, or they will loose party backing, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that independents don't score a lot of seats.

Political parties want to be in power so that they can adjust legislation, and directives to reward party faithful. It is a no brainer, that the first chance opposition parties see that they many have any chance in an election they will crash the country into another election. The possible damage to the economy at this critical time will not be considered in the choice.

Our political system seems to only work with a majority, political parties do not work with one another unless they are not in a position to force another election.

When I hear parties deciding to take down governments at earliest opportunity, means they are not even going to look at the legislation before voting against it, hardly in the spirit of cooperation.

Perhaps we need a run off system, where we either vote for the party in order of preference (or lack of disdain), or have multiple elections, where the party with the least total votes, is eliminated, and then we go to the next round, until one party has a majority.

Looking at the sins of both the Conservatives, and the Liberals it is hard to choose.

The conservatives have made their share of blunders, but then again, anything the have done as a minority, would not have passed without the liberals.

Both the liberals and Conservatives have had majorities in the past where we can see their true colors, I think I might do a little search on line, and see who we have to thank for some of the really bad legislation, and who racked up the huge national debt we have today. While I am at it, I am going to see who has funneled the most money into Quebec to try to buy their votes . . . Might take some time.

Even if an election were held and the Liberals happened to win a majority, the Conservatives have been stock piling the Senate with Conservative "friends", and nothing would get done.

Harper is quoted as saying.. "It is my intention to have senators in there that will support the elected government and will stop blocking our significant legislations."

This is the same (lying) man who stated that the Senate was a 19th century relic and that he would not name unelected people to the Senate.

So far has appointed 27 unelected people to the Senate this year alone.

Harper said he preferred an elected senate, but he is not able to change that in the current situation (too many Liberals that would not support that) so the only thing Harper can do is put as many conservatives in the senate as possible - it is what the Liberals did when they were in power. So it goes back and forth.
Also the Conservative gov't didn't have alot of choices in how they handled the economic situation - remember if he didn't come up with a budget that satisfied the Liberals and NDP - they would have forced a coalition or election. It was really more of a Liberal budget.
All you folks complaining about the Conservative government - remember these decisions were basically forced on the current government.

I'm wondering if the liberal supports will cry rivers about wasted money for elections like they did last fall? You remember that don't you? All sorts of liberal supporters whined that the last election was just a waste of 350 million. So what's this considered? Possibly another useless election one year later.

I don't WANT an election, but I think we need one!
Government is no longer working, (again) and the opposition is stonewalling everything they can!
Canadians know that,and I think the Liberals will get their self-serving heads handed to them, if an election is in fact even called.
It will probably also cost Jack Layton his job once for all, and he knows that too.
I doubt he will support the Liberals in defeating the Harper government.
Ignatieff alienates people with his arrogance, and I think the rank and file Liberal party members are aware of that.
I am no Harper fan,but I think he and the Conservatives may just pull off a majority win if we go to the polls again anytime soon.
There is a lot of political anger out there towards these self-serving twits,and this childish behavior in goverment is the cause of it.
The Liberals have simply p**ssed of far too many canadains with their childish behavior and they have not been able to sell "King Iggy" to the people of Canada.
They are a big part of the problem, and that is keeping government from working effectively.
If it takes an election to correct that,let's get at it!

Sure, bring on another election. What happens when we elect yet another minority conservative government?

Politicans are politicians no matter what stripe. They are opportunists. There are few who are not in it for themselves. They have a drive to win and they have won and they will do almost anything to win.

Then there are those who are like Ted Kennedy who come in a league all by themselves.

Here is a quote from Harper: "I haven't met a single Canadian who is saying they want to see an election right now. I just don't find that,"

He can probably say that honestly. Why?
Well, for one reason, he used the words "an election right now". To me that means dissolve parliament this week or next and call an election.

For another, it means he is lying since he is sitting accross from Ignatieff's party in the House and he has certainly met them, they are all Canadians as far as I know, and most of them want an election at the first opportunity ... but maybe not "right now".

As far as his daily life goes, he surrounds himself with like minded people, as politicians typically do to keep their spirits up. Anyone who is not like minded would typically be too nice to tell him to his face he needs to dissolve parliament.

An utterly stupid and meaningless comment. But hey, any of the other 300+ in the House say things like that every day they are in front of a microphone and they think millions care about their words.

So then there is Ignatieff. "We will hold Stephen Harper to account and we will oppose his government in Parliament." Hey man, is that not what the "opposition" is supposed to be doing? That is the system. If they and the other two parties are not doing that, then they are not doing their job.

And then he also said this: "I cannot support this government any further," Ignatieff said to cheers and wild applause, following a meeting with his Liberal caucus, which is on retreat in Sudbury, Ont.

Hey, it is a retreat. A Liberal retreat. Not a Conservative retreat. You have to keep the people who support you happy. This is a new leader who is on a steep learning curve. As he learns, and as he thinks he has the support he needs, he will get more feisty. What do you expect?

Then come the words from the press: "Sources have told CTV News that the Liberals will put forward a non-confidence motion to force an election this fall -- although they need the support of the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois for that to happen."
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090831/tories_election_090901/20090901?hub=CanadaAM

So there you go. Back to coalition thinking time? I doubt that the Conservatives are going to make a major blunder to allow the Liberals to slide back in on an "anything but the Conservatives" ticket.

Who are these "sources" anyway? Harper's plants? People who think they are Liberal insiders but are not?

Read this article: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/08/27/liberal-election-ei-0827.html for a bit of a better analysis of the realities of where the power comes from within a party.

From that article: "Senior Liberals are signalling they're unlikely to use their first opportunity, in early October, to pull the plug on Stephen Harper's minority government." and "Smith suggested Liberals are in no rush to topple the government at the first opportunity.

"I don't think there's a presumption that every time there's an opportunity to have an election that you have to do it. We still want to see Parliament work," he said.

"You can't push the election button every time � I think that is irresponsible."

So, I question reporters who say things such as: " The Federal Liberals say they will head back into the House of Commons looking to topple the minority government of Stephen Harper at the earliest possible opportunity."

Where is the quote where they say that? It sounds to me like the church pew thing. Whisper a story in someone's ear on one end, and then see what that story sounds like from the person on the other end of the pew as it was passed along to all those sitting on the pew in between.

It makes for good press. Gets the rabble rousers going. Who planted the story is my question?

"Government is no longer working, (again) and the opposition is stonewalling everything they can!"

Examples please.

What amazes me is how this country is chugging along in not too bad a shape INSPITE of the endless shenanigans of the politicians!

People get up in the morning, they go to work and often work long and hard hours, they show initiative and optimism...raise their families and pay their taxes, bills and mortgages. They look forward to having a vacation...

Politicians rely on that and take it for granted.

Three cheers for the people and a big thumbs down for the politicians!

"Sure, bring on another election. What happens when we elect yet another minority conservative government?"

This will probably be the outcome. However, it would likely be a smaller minority, since I can't see the new Liberal leader doing as poorly as the old one. And if Harper can't get a majority this time, or at least get a stronger minority, he's done.

That's why he doesn't want an election now... because his next will be his last, and he wants to draw it out.

I'll go for the election as well.
both federal and provincial....

Enjoy the lowest voter turnout in history. Most people don't give a damn.

"Local M.P. Says Liberal Talk of Election Is Foolish"

And, as loyal members of the opposition, should they not keep the governing party's nose to the grindstone?

Look at Charle's post which brings forward some issues that are out there:

1. I�m concerned we�re diving into debt without a rescue line to get out � no roadmap for the coming years.

2. My feeling is the current political class cares more about avoiding a depression on their watch than preventing one in the future.

3. I�m saddened at the lack of attention being given to a looming retirement crisis.

4. Strikes me that we need a ministry of long-term thinking, and less concern about building prisons in Kandahar.

5. we have a demographic wave to deal with as the biggest population group gets set to rearrange the economy.

6. And what of the economic impacts of H1N1,

7. economic impacts or climate change?

8. Until you understand some basics like the disintegration of the American empire, peak oil, the looming global food shortage or the dangers of an unbridled and unregulated OTC derivatives market, you probably don�t deserve to be running a country.

So where are the Conservatives going with that? Where are the other parties going with that. Many of these are non partisan issues, or they should be. But do these parties look at them in that way.

Of Course not! It is not in this country's culture. It is not in this country's culture to have union representation on Boards. We are a country of working out our differences by opposing each other rather than working collaboratively.

If Iggy changes his mind and cannot pull an election out of a hat this fall, then he sure will look sillier. A guy like that can only cry wolf and get away with it once or twice. I await.

Who is or what is a Dick harris? I wasn't even aware that Cariboo-PG even had an MP. Never hear anythng from him.

Who's fault is that yours or his?

"Who's fault is that yours or his?"

His. He's been an MP for 16 years and is still a backbencher? Ridiculous.

The perpetual re-election of Dick Harris is Exhibit 1 of PGers' contentment with mediocrity.

With over 300 members of Parliment at least 75% have to sit in the back benches. Dick Harris just happens to be one on them.

What would be the alternative??? 305 Cabinet Ministers.

For those who dont like Harris. Tough luck. He has been elected for 16 years, and he will be elected again in the next election if he runs. If you dont like it vote against him. Who cares what you do????

Garth Turner is a twit. Enough said.

I guess when we refer to Ignatieff as **Iggy** this gives us a nice warm feeling and makes us think that we are close to him. Fact is he is not sure where the hell Canada is, and he sure as hell has no idea where Prince George is, and who we are.

Ignatieff has spent the last 30 years in Britian and the USA. He was approached by the Liberal party to return to Canada and eventually run for Prime Minister. He condecended to do so. He is so full of himself, that it is almost impossible to listen to anything he says.

Most people critcize Harper and the Conservative Government about how bad a job they are doing, however when they are pressed for specifics, they have trouble coming up with anything. The truth of the matter is, is that Harper and his party have been knocked in the press for a long time, and those who cannot distinguish the difference between hyperbole and fact, now beleive the BS they have been hearing.

Bottom line. Harper is probably the best Prime Minister that this Country has had in many years. His feet are on the ground, he was born in Ontario, and raised in Calgary, he is a true blue Canadian, and has the interests of the Country at heart.

That is more than you can say for the others. Clayton, opportunistic Socialist,
Ignatieff, opportunistic British, American, Canadian, supporter of the Irag war, among other things, or Duceppe, a so called separatist that gets paid by the Federal Government, and basically stays in Politics because it pays well.

You wont do any better than Harper, so its time to wake up and smell the roses.

The Conservatives in the Country have no problem with another election if this is what the opposition want. In fact they are ready and waiting for one, because they feel that this time out they will get a majority.

I suspect that everyone who voted Conservative the last election will vote Conservative this time around, and therefore you are almost gauranteed a minority at least.

Once the election is over, hopefully the Liberal Party will send Ignatieff back to his pseudo job at Harvard University. Its highly unlikely he would stay in this Country unless he had the top job.

How many of those 305 have been there 16 years? How many of those 305 would be happy to spend 16 years on the backbenches?

Big Dick's gold plated pension is guarenteed.

I find it funny that the Liberals want an election because of how the Conservatives have handled the recession, yet the economic rescue package as well as the last budget were essentialy dreamed up by the Liberal/NDP/Seperatist coalition.
Boneheads!

You boys should put on your thinking hats.

In the first place the first 12 of the 16 years the Conservatives were in opposition, and therefore obviously would not be in cabinet. So in essence Harris has only been in Government for 4 years.

Is it all starting to make sense now??? Four years in Government and every year with a minority Government. Jay Hill is the Party Whip, and holds some other post, so we do have some representation in the Cabinet, however as I said before someone has to sit in the back benches.

Using your line of thinking everyone who has been working at UNBC for the past 16 years should be executive vice presidents, and no one should be in lesser positions. Duh????

"Until you understand some basics like the disintegration of the American empire, peak oil, the looming global food shortage or the dangers of an unbridled and unregulated OTC derivatives market, you probably don�t deserve to be running a country."
-----------------------------------------

Until you understand what these are all the "effects" of, and that they're not the "basics" of anything, you definitely don't deserve to be running a country.

But there's no indication that Harper's opponents understand this any better than he does, or Garth Turner does either. So my guess is Harper will continue running the country for quite some time to come. Years, I'd say, and probably with his long cherished majority if the Liberals are foolish enough to force an election this Fall.

It's 'next' recession that will do him in. When that comes, "Finance" will arrange for the election of his successor, likely young Mr. Trudeau. God help us all then!

Obviously you don't have to be in government to not be a backbencher. In all those opposition years, he was never a portfolio critic. The highest duty he has ever held is Party Whip, which is essentially making sure that people show up to vote. Big deal.

To use your UNBC analogy, I bet you that a significant portion of the UNBC staff is in a higher role than they were 16 years ago, if they were even there 16 years ago. Anyone with ambition would have been angling for a promotion, or moved on to bigger and better things.

But not old Dick. He's content to accumulate his pension and allow Harper's in-and-out schemes to be run through his riding.

To be fair though, he really has no reason to try harder. He'll keep getting re-elected, thanks to the majority of PG settling for mediocrity, as noted above.

Oh yeah, I forgot to add that very mature "duhhhh".

If Dick Harris is mediocre, the candidates that run against him in every election are sub-mediocre. It's like they don't even try to put a viable alternative out there.

"If Dick Harris is mediocre, the candidates that run against him in every election are sub-mediocre. It's like they don't even try to put a viable alternative out there."

Agreed. I'm not saying he's a terrible person or doesn't deserve to win. It's just frustrating to have an MP who you only know exists when you see his face on the re-election signs.

It's a catch 22. Any prominent figures in the area won't run against him because his opponents always get demolished, and they don't want to sully their record by losing. But then it's because it's nobodies running against him that they get demolished. Vicious circle and all that.

NEWSFLASH - The next federal Electoon will be held on monday 16th November. Please mark your calendars.

The left wing loonies will get their way and will force an election that no average person wants, and which will cost the country $30Million. However, on the positive side we might manage to get rid of Dick Harris.

This part of the Country was voting Conservative when the Liberals under Chretien and Martin were in their hay day.

In fact they have been voting Conservative or Social Credit on the Federal level as long as I can remember. Seems to me we were sending Social Credit candidates to Ottawa way back in the sixties.

I think that when you look at Jay Hills numbers in the last couple of elections. (He received more votes and defeated his nearest opponents by a higher margin than any place in Canada) and look at Dick Harris's numbers, the only conclusion you can come to is that the majority of people in this area support the Conservatives.

To then suggest that the majority of voters are mediocre, is somewhat puzzling. If the majority is mediocre, then what can be said for the minority. One would assume that a certain percentage of the majority are upstanding citizens of Prince George, so it would logically follow that some of our best Citizens because they vote for Harris are mediocre. Duh???