Canadians are off to the polls again – the fourth time in seven years.
Voters we have spoken with this week have had enough – enough of elections, enough of politics and enough of nonsense.
A snap federal election now, municipal elections held last fall and a provincial campaign already underway has a way of tiring out the voters. As insulting as the sheer number of elections is, the fact is very little in the way of new ideas or concrete policy has bubbled up. Sure the promises have started, but what of substance has been offered in terms of a road map to the future?
Instead, the voters we have chatted with feel forced to choose between the least of the evils being presented. That is hardly a way to build a country, let alone handle the management of day- to-day operations as effectively as possible. And the same circumstances exist at all levels of government. Why do we remain unable to vote for something or someone rather than against same?
It is no secret that the leader and his inner caucus and advisors are responsible for running the show. Back-benchers and those not inside the inner circle are little better than messengers in the grand scheme of things. Often they are viewed as great constituency people, providing exceptional service to residents, but in terms of affecting change, they may as well howl at the moon.
Most importantly though, is that it is those folks who bring in the vote for a party. Through good deeds and service to residents, likeable locals contribute mightily to their team’s win or loss.
The tough pill, however, is maintaining support when a leader has lost the confidence of Canadians.
While no one would know it listening to Mr. Stephen Harper after his meeting with the Governor General, the vote that triggered this election was not about the budget, nor was it about a conspiracy by others to create a coalition. It was instead a result of a motion in front of parliament, comprised of parties and MPs from all across Canada, that the house had lost confidence in Mr. Harper’s government.
We have since learned the information request that prompted the vote was willing to be fulfilled at the 11th hour.
In a parliamentary match of wits, we can only assume Mr. Harper had grown tired of a minority and decided to let the government fall on that, or on the budget had the opposition blinked and accepted the information the government was ready to supply.
How else would this editor, far afield from the halls of power in Ottawa, have known the election was coming on May 2 or 9, before the Governor General had even been approached to call an election?
So, like other Canadians, we will weigh the options in front of us and choose the lesser of evils, despite disliking that phrase so much.
We can only hope that this election, regardless of who forms the next government, will then help make way for a new generation of leaders who are intent upon capturing the imagination of voters – rather than their disdain.
