Obama ran his campaign on the desire of the American people for Change. They had had majority Republican government and Obama argued that the American people wanted change. They certainly are not happy with Obama or the Democrats today. They might have wanted change but now it's clear they don't what the change that Obama has given them.
Canada has not had majority Conservative government. Harper and the Conservatives have lead two minority governments, putting forward 5 budgets. That is a reflection of the capacity for Harper to cooperate and conservatives to diplomatically seek solutions all could agree on. Leading a 'minority' goverment is the most difficult parliamentary process. Every desire and every decisions must be worked through with compromise and negotiation. The Liberals and the NDP portray Harper as 'authoritarian'. Chretien was 'authoritarian.' Mulroney was authoritarian. Harper is not. How can he lead 2 minority governments for a total of 5 years as the tyrant and autocrat he is deceitfully portrayed as in the media. Minority leaders are the most democratic and that's been what Harper is.
However, here again are the liberals trying to use hackneyed American campaigning saying that they represent 'change'. Liberals held power in government for decades ever spending and ever expanding the beaurocracy and ever destroying the fabric of democracy with their constant "political correctness". Harper and the Conservatives brought in democratic oversight on the Supreme Court Judges who under the Liberals seemed a rule of their own. When the Liberals and NDP 'stonewalled' and used "passive aggressive' techniques to get 'drama queen' points in media, Harper used the parliamentary procedure of 'piroquing' parliament. He forced parliament to act and caused the opposition to get on with government business rather than politicking. Every step of the way Ignatieff has acted as a consumate academic and politician (it being said that the politics of the Ivory Tower make mainstream politics look lame). Finally the 'contempt of parliament' like 'contempt of court' attack which is classic 'political correctness'.
It's like saying you used a bad word. It's never been used in Canadian parliament. John A. Macdonald never stooped so low and neither did MacKenzie King. Even Chretien and Mulroney who were not averse to speaking contemptuously of each other ever considered such a low blow. Now that it's been done no doubt every prime minister and his party will be found in 'contempt of parliament' in the future thanks to Ignatieff's contribution to the Canadian parliamentary scene. . "Contempt of parliament' is a 'drama queen' Ignatieff technique to get election. It was never ever meant in parliament for this purpose. The use of 'piroquing' as Harper used it was what that parliamentary democratic process was for. .
The fact is, Canadians do want change. They don't want 'change for the worse' though. They want government that isn't like what Ignatieff or Layton are offering. They don't want the waste of money on politics. They didn't want this election called by Layton and Ignatieff. They don't want more taxes. They want to be part of the safety and stability that have been offered through the minority government of Harper. They will vote Conservative. A majority conservative goverrment will ensure economic recovery. Thanks to the Conservatives we are not Ireland or Greece. Inflation is controlled. We are internationally reknowned. We are as Canadians relatively safe. We are seeing the economy improve with more jobs and hope for the future.
The way to destroy the international trust that Canada has established is to start reneging on deals, giving money a way willy nilly to Liberal cronies/ Canadians don't want "Change for the Worse" by any means. Don't the Liberals and NDP get that? Change for the better would be a Conservative Majority.