As I sit and write this, the prime minister has not called the election, but he is widely expected to do so.
What this means is 11 weeks of campaigning, of lawn signs and pamphlets, of television commercials and political debates, and of rhetoric by political pundits - including myself.
It also means an election campaign which is roughly double the length necessary. I do hope voters who tire of the hype during this silly season will remember who made the decision to subject them to this barrage.
After all, if Mr. Harper is given another majority, he will see a long election campaign as a successful tool for re-election and next time round it will be even longer. Soon we will have the scenario that we see south of the border where the members of Congress are in perpetual campaign mode to the detriment of the countries business.
In any case, the increased length of the campaign is not to give us more time to decide on our candidate of choice nor to engage in debate about the important issues of the day.
It is simply that the Conservative majority has rigged the Election Act to allow for significantly more spending - to the tune of $5 million per week - in a longer election. Their view seems to be the party with the most money wins.
But it will ensure that we stop seeing the silly ads promoting the childcare benefit and other government programs. The government will stop trying to convince us of their munificence while giving us back our own money.
And the government introduced many of these perceptual money giveaways just before calling the election so people won't realize the amount such largesse will cost them. Most economists view the government's handouts with a great deal of skepticism, pointing out that when taxes come due, the majority of Canadians will be only marginally ahead.
Yes, we are in for a two and a half month run to the polls.
Last week, I found myself defending the rights of the individual against societal rights in a discussion. It is not a position that I am uncomfortable taking but it was unusual given the nature of the exchange.
The argument discussions led me to thinking this election could be framed in just such a manner - where do we draw the line in making decisions about the rights of the individual versus the rights of society?
On one side, we have the Conservative Party of Canada, whose guiding principles are expressed as beliefs, which state:
"A belief it is the responsibility of individuals to provide for themselves, their families and their dependents, while recognizing that government must respond to those who require assistance and compassion;
"A belief that the purpose of Canada as a nation state and its government, guided by reflective and prudent leadership, is to create a climate wherein individual initiative is rewarded, excellence is pursued, security and privacy of the individual is provided and prosperity is guaranteed by a free competitive market economy."
Fair enough. I don't think any other party would quibble with the sentiment.
Indeed, the Liberal Party its documents says:
"The Liberal Party of Canada is dedicated to the principles that have historically sustained the Party: individual freedom, responsibility and human dignity in the framework of a just society, and political freedom in the framework of meaningful participation by all persons."
But where the parties do differ is around the concept of a just society.
It would seem from the Conservative party's documents that there just society is predicated on religious considerations. For example:
"A belief in the freedom of the individual, including freedom of speech, worship and assembly."
Contrast this with the New Democratic Party which states:
"New Democrats seek a future that brings together the best of the insights and objectives of Canadians who, within the social democratic and democratic socialist traditions, have worked through farmer, labour, co-operative, feminist, human rights and environmental movements, and with First Nations, Mtis and Inuit peoples, to build a more just, equal, and sustainable Canada within a global community dedicated to the same goals."
Inherently, it would appear the line dividing the Conservatives from the rest of Canada is where they draw the line with respect to individual rights. What are the causes for which we should be collectively fighting.
I know that what I have said above is an over-simplification. There is more to the parties than just their views on the individual versus society. But it is a big part of the way each party defines itself.
Over the next 11 weeks, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. And who knows? With an early election call, we might just have a chance to really see the differences.
