05.17.2010 03:05 PM

Coalition/cooperation: pot, meet kettle. Black.

This is now.

That was then.

Key message: if Stephen Harper’s Reformatories do it, it’s okay.  If anyone else does it, it’s Satanic.

Clear?

21 Comments

  1. Marc Levesque says:

    If the McGuinty Liberals run huge deficits it’s OK. If the Harper “Reformatories” do it, it’s Satanic.
    You politicos are all the same.

    • Michael Watkins says:

      Forget sides. What do you say about a government who said in the summer of 2008 “we won’t run deficits” leading into an election when they are already running deficits?

      My children, blessed with clear sight and unsullied morals, call that the act of lying.

      Name that politician? Stephen Harper (and his buddy Jimmy Flaherty)

      I guess Satan (or Tom Flanagan) made him do it.

      • Marc L says:

        What does that have to do with it? That doesn’t change the fact that crtiticizing Haper’s deficits and defending McGuinty’s out of the other side of you mouth is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. About lying: didn’t McGuinty promise not to raise taxes, and do exactly that in his first budget?

  2. Riley Hennessey says:

    I agree with Marc. I know Warren is trying to spin this, but come on…. at least stick to your guns. I don’t think Warren supported the coalition either.

    • Warren says:

      I didn’t, principally because of the Bloc involvement stuff.

      But do I favour the centre-left coming together, as the right/far right have done? Depending on the details – and the devil’s always in ’em – yes, I do.

      • Marc L says:

        Do you really want Jack Layton and his party of loonies having a say in how this country is run? The Liberal Party’s problem is not that it needs a coaltion. It needs policies. You need to give people a reason to vote for you. It’s not enough to be non-Harper. You have to have a platform (like in 1993) that tells us what you plan to do once in power — in what direction you want to take the country. Without that, you will never get elected. I don’t see how you could view a coalition with Canada’s ultra-left (you’re not talking British Labour here) as something the country neeeds.

  3. J. Coates says:

    Jeezuz Murphy! Does it ever stop? Can I please run a giant chainsaw along the Manitoba-Ontario border and push the lot into the Atlantic?

    But that might affect what’s left of the cod stock. 🙂

    • Big L Man says:

      I fully agree, but make it the Saskatchewan/Manitoba border and you can all float off into the Pacific. It is alnost laughable when you Albertans think you speak for all of western Canada, Ive got new for you, you speak for Alberta period.

      • The Dude says:

        Actually those people speak for SOUTHERN Alberta. In Edmonton we’re less insane. Actually, Edmonton votes conservative tribally but likes them to act liberal.

  4. Paul R. Martin says:

    What is going on in the Liberal approach to Mrs. Jaffer? Initially the Liberals wanted her head. Now they seem to be defending her. Why haven’t we heard much about a certain MP who had a bit of wine and did not perform the breathalizer test properly? What about a certain MP whose Law firm claimed that said MP acted as a lobbyist for foreign companies? The Liberals have done the Jaffers to death; however, they seem to have ignored these other two MP’s. Is there a double standard at work here?

    As far as the coalition is concerned, it was very unpopular with the general public. Your best bet is to hope that it is forgotten.

    • Jan says:

      Shelly Glover says there’s more, lots more on Guergis. And she is a police officer, don’t ya know, so you can take that to the bank. If the Conservatives want this to stop, they’re not helping.

  5. Debra Davis says:

    Keep an eye what is happening in the UK. The Conservative-Lib Dem coalition is describing itself as the Progressive Partnership after the partnership at Birmingham City Council. Lots going on and it rather exciting.

  6. Lipman says:

    It is time to have a serious conversation about uniting the Left in this country. The danger of the extremist right is simply too great. Harper’s recent pandering to the evangelical/socon crowd reinforces this.

    DL

  7. H Holmes says:

    Appointing over 100 Lords.
    Seems like the UK coalition is really grounded in reality.

    As I stated previously a coalition would not be good for the liberal party.
    The coalition would lose a lot of centre right votes that happen to falling on the liberals presently.

    The liberals can win without a coalition. Why are we throwing in the towel now?

  8. allegra fortissima says:

    My bet is that Britain will have the best government in years to come. Why? Because both political parties will have to compromise and deliver accountability and balance. They have no other choice after the mess Brown left behind.
    In a few months the British will look over the Channel and laugh at France where Nicolas Sarkozy reigns like Louis XIV: “L’Etat c’est moi!”
    Now, why shouldn’t a coalition government work for Canada? “…it [a coalition] was very unpopular with the general public.” This might be true – because coalition governments are a rarity in Canadian History. But times change and changes can be for the better.
    I have both trust in the Liberal Party and the NDP – and I would expect both parties to give their best and only their best for CANADA!

    • wilson says:

      Combined, Libs and Dippers are 41 seats short of a majority….combined, not a mandate to govern.
      To form a coalition government without the BLOC, they (either one of them) need to win EVERY riding that the Cons won with less than 49%.
      And, half of those 41 ridings would need every Lib, Dipper AND Green vote from the 2008 election to do it.

      Even ‘co-operation agreements’ where only a Lib or Dipper MP is run in those 41 ridings, is no guarantee the public would vote the same with a coalition on the horizon.

  9. James Curran says:

    Senator David Smith, a Liberal campaign co-chair, dismissed the allegation, saying Ignatieff signed the coalition, as did all other Liberal MPs because he is “a team player” but has frequently made clear he would not go down that path.

    A spokesman for Ignatieff provided a February 2009 quote in which the Liberal leader said he turned down the chance to lead the coalition “because I felt that it would divide the country.”

    http://www.canada.com/news/doubts+there+support+federal+election/1928910/story.html

  10. James Curran says:

    Maybe, but they’re there to stay for sometime to come. Somebody’s gotta talk to them sooner or later, yes?

  11. dillon says:

    Chretien supported the coalition with the Bloc 110%.

  12. Paul R. Martin says:

    Hello Warren I was just reading the Globe and Mail discussion of the Harris Decima poll that indicates that Michael Ignatieff is by far the least liked leader of a political party. I realize that the Chairman of Harris Decima used to be the PC pollster and has probably been paid at some time to talk on the CBC; however, the poll seems to be accurate. The point I have made before and am making now, is that constantly going negative hurts your popularity. Voters tend to tune you out.
    I have also noticed an apparent organized attempt by some Liberal supporters to manipulate the “thumbs up” and “thumbs down” function in the Globe web site. As the votes are simply not consistent with the political polls, manipulation is almost certainly going on. On the other hand, such manipulation does not work. I have done some work for a small restaurant chain and have noticed similar manipulation of some online restaurant reviews. Restaurant customers routinely ignore this manipulation. Manipulation of on line polls is very amateurish and ineffective. It may make those who are manipulating the on-line votes feel better, but the overall effect is nil.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*