Opinion | Last night's leader debate offered no respite from status quo politics amongst Canada's "great" leaders. In true Parliamentary fashion, our current Prime Minister played aloof and superior, while the opposition dealt in fumbling petulance. Layton (NDP) and Duceppe (Bloc), comfortable in their positions as redundant vote-splitters, offered the clearest policies and attacked evenly against Harper (Conservative) and Ignatieff (Liberal). Layton lambasted Ignatieff's pitiful House attendance record, stating that missing work was not a good prerequisite to getting a promotion. Meanwhile, Duceppe clearly outlined Harper's flip-flopping vision of democracy over the years from opposition to leader.

Harper's presentation as calm and collected was becoming of a Prime Minister, even if his inability to look the opposition in the eyes betrayed his veracity. The problem with Harper's Conservatives is their lack of transparency, and this despite a big hullabaloo over the creation of a Federal Accountability Act back during the post-2006 Election period. Proroguing Parliament may sidestep the debate, but doesn't win you any brownie points. Despite their rise to power due to the Liberal Sponsorship Scandal over a mishandling of $2 million of government contracts (the Commission investigating these funds cost over five times that amount), the Conservatives have been fairly liberal in their own spending. G8 and G20 costs surpassed $1 billion, all in the name of Canadian "prestige". More recently, they announced the intention of purchasing F-35 fighter jets in Canada's largest military acquisition to date: another $9 billion-plus project. Lest we forget allegations of a possible Conservative sponsorship scandal. But why oh why can't the Tory's balance a budget?

And why oh why are Ignatieff's Liberals floundering in the wake of all these generous floating offerings? Could it be Ignatieff is a better writer than he is politician? Could it be that his years outside of the country and (thank you Jack) lack of participation in Canadian politics have stunted his efficacy as a proper debater? Whatever the reason, Ignatieff came off as true Opposition material: retaliatory and desperate. And given the economic climate, more spending is not a win-worthy platform. I have no doubt his knowledge of political concepts and pie charts exceeds that of Harper's, but unless he can convey a clear message in English or French, he'll go the way of Stéphane Dion. That "unless he can" may have come in handy during the Debate. So in a way he has lost already.

The Conservatives' best bet to win a majority is a weak Liberal Party. While I have a feeling the end result of Elections 2011 will be the same (i.e. a Conservative minority), the possibility of a win in the coming years is heightened if another Liberal shake-up fails to produce a charismatic figure (and for heaven's sake, I am not talking I-can-throw-myself-down-stairs-on-purpose Justin Trudeau here). Also, if the can-do Conservatives can improve the management of their own party, show a willingness to walk-the-walk on transparency issues, and genuinely cut in spending, they could be a Party worthy of a majority.

There, of course, remains a big elephant in the room: representation by population (why is the the Green Party with 6.8% of the popular vote has 0 representation. whilst the Bloc with a slightly higher 9.97% gets 49 seats).

How will you vote?