06.02.2010 10:07 AM

Coalition poll! Vote now!

There’s quite a bit of coverage of this issue today, so I thought I would put together another one of my Highly Scientific and Fair™ online polls.

I’m counting on you being a Liberal.  Reformatories aren’t allowed to vote, because we know all of them are against it.  (Because the prospect of a unified Centre-Left scares them shitless, among other things.)

Comments are open, naturally.  Beer and popcorn are gratis if the “no” side somehow wins!


  1. Terry Wilcox says:

    If we can’t unite the left, can we at least get the ball rolling on a new angry-right political party to split the right?

    • Warren says:

      You’re a genius. Let’s do it!

    • Michael Watkins says:

      Split the right would be fun, but I think they are too happy being in power to bite right now. Anyway you’d probably need several parties to draw enough away, the DBDP (Drill Baby Drill Party, Jim Prentice to lead), the PCKWBFYP (Puritan Canadians Know What Is Best For You Party, Stockwell Day has his day, again), and the GBTOTPP (Gimme Back That Old Time Populism Party, for teary eyed Reformers lamenting what has been lost, leader unknown) abd let’s not forget the NRANORTH (Barely an acronym, Breitkreuz and Glover co-lead). What’s left will be a slightly hollowed out CPC (Republicans Are A Shining Light Party, led by Stephen “populism is for ninnies” Harper).

      PS: I hope I qualify to vote. I certainly won’t be voting for the CPC in my riding any time soon. Isn’t what the non Liberal card carrying public thinks of the alternative the most important view, anyway? Give me a good alternative to the CPC and I’ll vote for that choice. I’d be happier in doing so if I knew it was going to oust Harper.

      If you want to dismiss my vote, deduct one from the all-out merger total, which was my choice because the meaning of party has become greatly diminished anyway. Any Dalton Camp-ian romanticism I once held over the importance of political parties has long since been dissolved.

      PSPS: topical, somewhat related:


      Flanagan expounds on what he considers as successful steps in the 1990’s to present evolution of Canadian conservative party politics : suck ’em with pretend populism by Manning yet control the agenda to get just what you want; skip over the forgettable Day; leading to the final chapter where Harper is applauded for developing an iron grip on the *entire* party, stripping away any pretence of being a populist party or even acknowledging the membership, except at monthly fund-raising moments. Hand virtually total control over policy, party, and financing to Harper. Award senator seats to henchman Plett and accomplice Gerstein. You’ve got to keep flogging increasingly shrill propaganda at the masses to get them to keep emptying their wallets to feed the permanent election machinery.

    • William M says:

      We need a federal WildRose Party…for the true conservatives duped by Harper’s dance to the middle.

      • Reality.Bites says:

        Let’s see how “true conservative” they are after they take power, if they ever do. What IS it about Alberta conservatives? They get the sold the same bill of goods over and over and over again and they never figure it out, they just switch en masse to a different gang of con men. They’ll tell you what you want to hear to get your money and comittment, but they can’t actually govern with the idiotic policies that get Alberta conservative excited.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      Terry Wilcox,

      It’s called Wild Rose Alliance — and it’s eventually coming to a federal theatre near you! Isn’t that right, Stephen?

  2. bc says:

    As per your request, I did not vote.

    But I must clear up one point. Conservatives are NOT scared of a Left-wing coalition. Personally, I’m convinced that such a move would result in a further decline of the Liberal party. You’ve somehow managed to survive Mr. Dithers, Dion and Professor Ignatieff without giving the Conservatives a majority government…but a massive change in direction like this could just well do it.

    • Elizabeth says:

      I’m a Liberal, and I’m afraid that a move like this would start a real decline. For one thing, the merger, whatever it’s called – would start out with a sinkhole waiting to happen. There would be constant infighting. Really, I’d rather a coalition with the Bloc, because I like them more just as politicians – but that’s not going to happen.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Meaning – that I like Duceppe, and a few other Bloc members – they are definitely not afraid to say it like it is.
        A coalition of any kind is going to be fraught with problems, personality and philosophical clashes, and power struggles, and too much energy would be wasted on that. The Liberals have to focus on the goal and not waste time on this. Bigger issues have been conquered, with more challenges, it’s not impossible.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:


          Amen, to that!

        • Dave12 says:

          Curious Elizabeth, how does Deceit tell it like it is? I take it because the Bloc’s only purpose is to destroy Canada and steal our tax dollars while doing it this is the correct way to go? Mind you I think you have something here as the Liberals actually have the same plan!

          • Elizabeth says:

            The Bloc cannot “destroy” (which is a dumb word to use) Canada without the permission of the people of Quebec. They have been elected by democratic process, the same as everyone else. At the moment, it doesn’t appear that Quebeckers are interested in “destroying” Canada. Meanwhile – we’re wasting that section of Parliament by allowing politicians to play on imaginary fears that this group of people can “destroy” Canada.

  3. Paul R. Martin says:

    I also did not vote for obvious reasons, but I noticed that the “beer and popcorn” Martinite is now in the Iggy camp.

  4. Steve says:

    To Liberals:

    Grow a pair and let Harper call an election, anytime!

    If Canadians vote in a majority Reform / Con government, so be it – we’ll have the metastasized former members of the Harris Government ( Flaherty, Celement, Baird, etc.) running the country for another four years. Look how that ultimately worked out for the Ontario Reform /Cons? Back-to-back Liberal majorities.

    To those who vote NDP in ridings where the NDP has no chance of winning and resulting in the Reform/Con being elected as the first past the post, congratulations on your self-indulgent, waste of a vote. You have no right to whine about how awful the Reform /Cons are and what they are doing to the country. You elected them

    • The Tiger says:

      Also didn’t vote, though if I were a progressive, I’d go for the merger.

      But I assume the comment I’m replying to is a vote for “I think being reduced to 40 seats is character-building.”

      (Well, it would be…)

      • Steve says:

        You assume correctly.

        I am a traditional Liberal (i.e the Party that gave Canada a sound banking / financial system that is the envy of the G8/20, budget surpluses – ironically, squandered by the Harper regime, the Clarity Act, etc., all of which were opposed by the NDP).

        What is needed is a clear articulation by any Liberal leader that reaffirm these core Liberal principles, along with the undertaking to remain flexible in the face of future domestic and foreign social and fiscal challenges .

    • Reality.Bites says:

      To be fair, few supporters of ANY party analyze the local chances of the parties before casting their vote. And there are, of course, ridings where the NDP ran second and Liberal voters cost them victory – shouldn’t you be castigating those Liberal voters?

      • Steve says:

        I believe that the wasted 3rd-place NDP vote has given us more Reform /Cons than any 3rd place Liberal votes, especially in Ontario. I stand to be corrected.

        • Reality.Bites says:

          The numbers are irrelevent. What is important is that you went out of your way to insult NDP voters for doing the exactly same thing Liberal partisans do. This is hardly a clever way to win their support in future.

          You DO want their support, don’t you?

          • Steve says:

            Any card-carrying NDP members that I have ever met or heard would and have preferred to stay home rather than support a Liberal candidate who had a chance to out-vote a Conservative candidate.

            Among other successful first-past the post -Tories, Ms. Lois Brown CPC, MP, -Aurora-Newmarket and Mr. Frank Klees, PC, MPP -Aurora-Newmarket – extend their thanks to the local NDP (7-8% of the popular vote), I’m sure.

            Mr. Layton and the NDP were instrumental in handing the Government over to the Tories in 2006, killing a lot of progressive Liberal legislation on the table at the time. The Layton NDP team piled on the claims that Liberals were corrupt and smeared Ralph Goodale during the 2006 election.

            What’s changed?

    • Dave12 says:

      Steve, your right, Ontario has had two Liberal majorities and they have driven our province into its first time have-not status, a $26 billion dollar deficit, taxes through the roof, huge public unions, like the teachers, with 216,000 new hires, 67,000 public employees making over $100k, 30% rise in teachers wages for TDSB in the past 8 years while having a decline of 13.4% in enrolment, $8 billion windfarms while other countries are abandoning these expensive useless monstrosities, disappearing manufacturing, rise of organized crime with 50% of cigarette sales illegal with concommitant closing of 3,500 bankrupt convenience stores, corruption in agencies like the OLG, EHealth, squandering millions, smart meters and on and on.

      Of course when do facts and the destruction of provinces, countries like the PIIGS, starting with Greece or states like California, through the same destructive growth of socialistic governments ever enter the emotional heads of liberals.

      • Steve says:

        Dear Dave12:

        Thanks for sharing Mr. Hudak’s talking points.

        I trust, however, that Ontarians will remember:

        1. the hidden deficit that the Harris regime (stand up and take a bow Mr. Flaherty) passed on to the Ontario Liberal Government, and which the latter retired within their first term;

        2. Tory cronies at the Ontario Hydro trough as at 2003;

        3. that it was the Ontario Liberal Government that put into place the mandatory budget transparency so that the Opposition and every Ontarian can make informed decisions;

        4. Mr. Hudak’s endorsement of disruption and contempt of the Legistlative Assembly proceedings;

        5. Walkerton;

        6. Ipperwash;

        7. The two-faced Federal /Provincial Tory positions (“that was then, this is now”) on the HST;


        Regards and keep up the excellent work in Ottawa to Messrs. Flaherty, Baird and Clement.

  5. Herman Thind says:

    Coalitions should only be considered AFTER we’ve given it our all to win outright. An “accord” to have some election “cooperation” is a great idea. The only reason Cons have won any urban seats in most of Canada (with Alberta and some of Sask as an exception) is due to Lib/Dip vote splitting.

    Liberals don’t need to lose our centrist identity. Most of our success over the past century is due to our “in the middle” stand on things. Canadians are a moderate nation. We SHOULD run from the left (as we have always done), but govern with the practicality of a moderate/centrist political movement which considers “the real world” and what happens in it as an influence on Canada and our governing decisions.

    • James Curran says:

      Yep. Agreed. Admitting defeat before the battle is usually not a great way to rally the troops. Or, in this case, convince a single Candian that the Liberal Party is anywhere near ready to govern.

      • wilson says:

        And of course, Canadians haven’t been paying attention and will believe what ever they are told!!!
        Sarcasm off, it’s too late for posturing.
        Canadians know a vote for Liberals if necessary, is not neccessarily a vote for Liberals but for a coalition with Dippers.
        There has been no turning back for the LPC since the signing of the coalition agreement, December 1, 2008.

    • Bill Templeman says:

      Herman, this time around we do not have the luxury of playing “wait-and-see” politics. We (those voters who voted for a party other than the Conservatives) cannot afford to hold onto our pride and see if our own party can win outright. All the numbers show that the result of such an experiment will be another Harper minority, if not his dreaded majority. The consequences for our environment, our stature in the world, the arts, innovation, our social fabric and our most vulnerable citizens would be severe.

      I voted for a merger in Warren’s survey here, but I could also live with an election agreement or strategic voting strategy with the NDP and Green supporters. Lest we forget, those of us living in Ontario remember the damage Conservative radicals can do when they get power. And some of those Common Sense radicals are in Harper’s cabinet.

  6. MississaugaPeter says:

    Where is none of the above.

    The Liberal Party was down to 40 seats in 1984 (vs. 31 for the NDP) and I don’t recall this stupidity.

    If Ignatieff is such a bad leader, why is he not replaced? This is ridiculous.

    This Coalition idea is going to backfire. Why? Because many Liberal folks like me, who are in the Centre, will on election day either stay home or vote Conservative before they accept their vote is going to enhance the NDP fanatics.

    Just like many Red Tories joined the Liberals, many Blue Grits will stay at home on election day, or join the Conservatives.

    You think Liberal donations are not adequate, I guarantee this Coalition talk will put Liberal donations below the NDP next quarter.

    • MississaugaPeter says:

      BTW, this focus on Coalition is going to take the $1B security expense boondoogle off the mastheads.

      Good Job Folks!

      If I was Harper, I would not be able to thank you enough for your unsolicited help.

  7. john sullivan says:

    and I believe the BLOC should be included as they are still canadians and count in this country, and Gilles may be the smartest of all.

    • James Curran says:

      One way or the other, they have to be on somebody’s side. They aren’t going away anytime soon

    • Elizabeth says:

      I think so too. It’s a waste of brain power (kinda clearly lacking on the other side of the floor some days) not to have them involved in this.
      They often fight issues that are for the benefit of all Canadians, and seem to be able to strike at the heart of the matter.

      There are more similarities than differences between Quebeckers and Albertans. Too bad politicians have been able to play the regions against each other for their own strategic purposes, and nobody ever stopped it. Ignatieff is the first politician I’ve ever seen who does not play region against region.

      I always suspected that if Ignatieff were to become PM, he’d do something about making the Bloc run a candidate in every riding in Canada.

  8. Scott Tribe says:

    I prefer a variation of the options you’ve listed (though I voted for one of the choices anyhow); and that’s to do what they did in the UK; state that the party is running to win as many seats as possible and to win a majority if possible (which is what all parties publicly stated every time they were asked about coalition possibilities post-election).

    If things turn out post election that no one wins a majority, then come out and say you’ll explore all options for getting a stable government into place.

  9. Catherine says:

    I’m a conservative and not against fighting an election against a coalition at all. I welcome it actually.
    It will be fun watching who the coalition picks to oppose Harper in a debate. Given the egos to choose from betweeen Rae, Ignatieff and Layton watching them fight it out would be worth the dalliance.

    I say let it happen. Let it happen publicly and in full view of voters.

  10. erik says:

    I don’t know what to think. I think that this is a debate our partty needs to have, but what you’re talking about is the redefining of Canadian progressive politics. This isn’t something to rush into just because a few polls arrent looking too good for us right now.

    I’m not against the idean but I’m not convinced it’s the right thing to do, either.

  11. Marc says:

    The quickest way to a Conservative majority is to merge with the NDP.

    Having said that, maybe in the long run a Con majority would be a good thing – they would finally get the chance to do whatever they wanted to (although you could argue they are in that position today, with no real opposition). A few years of totally unrestrained Harper would convince Canadians that it’s time to set them back to two seats again.

    However, there must be a reasonable alternative at that point, and there sure isn’t one now.

  12. scott says:

    I’m too honest not to tell you. I voted for the coalition of the stupid but I’m a conservative and a coalition would give my party free ride to majority-ville; something, I believe, this country desperately needs in the years ahead. Subtract my vote if need be, sorry, and good luck with that! 😀

  13. JH says:

    Good one Mr. Sullivan – I have often thought that Mr. Duceppe (other than the separatist thingy) has often shown more class than any of the present and former PMs and leaders put together. And despite my critics I still think a merger with Layton as leader is the road to power for the Natural Governing Party. No doubt the back room boys can figure out a way to dump him later in favour of Rae. Maybe we’ll have a Conservative type ‘Night of the Long Knives!’

  14. Hugh says:

    I’m not allowed to vote but I will comment.

    Liberals have now been out of power for four and a half years. This is so disconcerting to them that they are willing to merge with another party that most of them have ridiculed/hated for more than 50 years, so that they can regain power. Nothing speaks to the soul of the Liberal Party more than that.

    • Michael Watkins says:

      Hugh, I would hope you’d agree that your comment could fit another context easily:

      ‘Western “conservatives” have now been out of power for a decade. This is so disconcerting to them that they are willing to merge with another party that most of them have ridiculed/hated for most of the last twenty years, so they can regain power. Nothing speaks to the soul of the Conservative Party more than that.’

      I would add that a vocal majority of the Reform/CA absolutely hated the PC Party and everything they believed it stood for, calling them in the most disparaging of tones as a party of the “mushy middle” or “Liberal lite”, yet these same folks have meekly stood by while virtually every single important principle and precept of the Reform Party – things so important to that crowd that they were willing to split away from the original “conservative” party – have been dumped in a lake, encased in concrete, never to be seen from again.

      Chief villain in this? Stephen Harper.

      • Hugh says:

        I would sort of agree…

        The point I was trying to make was not that sometimes you have to deal or compromise with your enemies or those that you do not like. My objection is primarily with the timing.

        Differences in degree, if large enough become differences in kind. Hardly anyone owns nothing and Bill Gates doesn’t own everything. Nonetheless we distinguish between rich and poor.

        Liberals have been in power for most the last century. They have been out of power for 4.5 years. That they are now willing to compromise with those they have fought with/ridiculed for a long time, in order to return to power says something profound about them.

  15. Joseph says:

    Scott Reid, previously of Hurly-Burly fame, has been the most vocal opponent of coalition talk. On CBC the other day, he was also strangely supportive of Brian Mulroney. Odd that.

  16. Matt says:

    I prefer none of the above. Instead, I prefer doing a better job of establishing the LPC as THE ONLY party that can occupy the centre, the way Chretien and Martin did (for the most part), with socially progressive policies and fiscally conservative economic policy. We did it before, we can do it again. Being at 28% in the polls is not the end of the world or any reason to trash 100+ years of a successful Liberal brand.

    Talking about a coalition and merger will hurt us in the next election. Harper will say: how can we trust you won’t team up AFTER the election like you tried once before? That alone might propel him to a majority. Is that REALLY what you want?

  17. Emily says:

    Harper, after 4 years of aiming at an empty field, still can’t muster a majority. He has his base, and that’s it.

    Most voters favour other parties, all of them more progressive than his.

    Except the vote on the ‘left’ is split amongst several parties, leaving Harper running the country.

    This is not rocket science.

  18. Jeff Jedras says:

    I think you’re missing an option, Warren. I don’t believe in any kind of talks pre-election. Just don’t rule out a coalition, as Team Iggy is doing (and Scott Reid is back now, what up with that?). The more we talk about a coalition now, the more we encourage our vote to bleed to the NDP. Ruling it out entirely though removes it as an option should we want to pursue it later.

    Don’t talk about it, run to win, don’t rule anything out. That’s my vote.

  19. e says:

    co-operation that is well defined is the way

  20. Andrew says:

    I didn’t join the Liberal Party to merge with a bunch of unrealistic (socially and economically) clowns. I thought the Party of Chretien and Martin was centrist. Look at their track record of running the country. I think (hope) Ignatieff is trying to emulate this.

    It seems like some vocal activists of Party are flirting with the Socialists. If you have a problem with a centrist view of being a Liberal, leave the Party and join the NDP. The prize is in the Middle, not on the extremes.

    • e says:

      i’m a blue liberal and believe cooperation from centre left to centre right serves that end – in present circumstances

      • AmandaM says:

        I agree with Andrew. The tent is almost too big as it is. While I think we need the way left and the way right for the health of our democracy and debate, sometimes I think our Liberal Big Tent (tm?) is at a critical mass. Merging with the Dippers? If the guys who are in charge right now can’t see how awful of an idea that is, I just don’t know what to say.

        However, perhaps this is just silly summer politics with nothing else to talk about. Let’s hope.

  21. Elizabeth says:

    None of the above.

  22. The Tiger says:

    What counts as a win, for the beer and popcorn?

    40 seats winning a majority, or 40 seats taking a plurality?

    Because we’re in the latter scenario right now…

  23. matt says:

    how are any of the options mutually exclusive options?

  24. Michael Bussiere says:

    The only group to spoil the spirit of the non-partisan Prorogation Rally in January was the NDP. They showed up with orange-everything everywhere and completely showed their true colours. They are as hyper-partisan as Harper and I reject any cooperation whatsoever DURING an election. After in a minority situation is quite another matter.

    • Sandra says:

      I wish everyone would just keep quiet about it for a while. It plays right into Harper’s hands. The media, bloggers, etc. are talking about this instead of some very serious issues regarding Harper. You’re helping Harper change the channel, again.

      Enough already!

      Even in the UK this wasn’t discussed until an election campaign was underway.

      • AmandaM says:

        I heart Sandra. 😀

      • Brian says:

        I agree. Once they started talking about mergers rather than solutions, it took the two conservative parties a decade to get over it.

        If only the time wasted on this could be spent finding something for Ignatieff to talk about besides whatever the Conservatives did wrong today.

    • e says:

      same in Victoria, although Denise Savoie was more balanced… that is one reason i favour cooperation over coaltion

  25. Winnipegger says:

    Nothing formal, only after-the-election coalition agreements such as in the UK. Keep the Liberal Party the Liberal Party… I think that, within the next decade (especially if the Harper Cons win another election and govern from the centre), an Alberta First or Western Canada bloc-type party or is going to be born on the federal level (perhaps out of the Wildrose gang). The Cons will lose a substantial amount of seats in Alberta to the new harder-right party, and the Liberal Party could then enjoy a centre-right vote split and govern without the NDP.

    There is a reason why the Harper Cons are afraid to even breath the word “wildrose.”

  26. parnel says:

    I note the cons can’t keep away as requested. I voted for election cooperation.

  27. GARC says:

    Uggh, do the fricking math! The Bloc are guaranteed 40 seats, the Cons 60 seats in Alta that leaves approx. 200 seats to try and win a slim majority. Not to mention the fact that Ontario is usually split three ways, but keep waiting for the next messiah to raise the Libs from the dead. Gimme a break. Next think about the economics, MPs, candidates and ridings cant afford to keep having elections every two years and that’s the situation we are in for years to come. Liberal MPs and riding associations are already in financial trouble. Enjoy being in opposition for years to come, while Harper takes apart our country an inch at a time, but at least you kept your principles.

    What did Trudeau say…reason over passion…

    • Michael Watkins says:

      Hear hear! Only the math is even worse than it seems. Of those 200 remaining, a great many are already Conservative strong holds. In the West, Liberal support is patchy and under attack in what used to be safe(r) urban seats.

      For example, in Vancouver – a Conservative shut out for some time – Harper could pick up two seats, perhaps three, if a Liberal campaign goes truly sour. At this point I believe he will pick up at least one.

      Perhaps aided somewhat by Dion’s poor showing, Ujjal Dosanjh in what should have been a safe contest almost lost (judicial recount and a margin of only 22 freakin’ votes) to a total newbie, an unknown (Wai Young) whose own campaign team did not expect to do so well and who had been hidden (like most BC Conservative newbie candidates) from the media, on orders from Blue High Command, for the entire campaign.

      A surprisingly close race developed in Vancouver-Kingsway, which hasn’t **legitimately** elected a conservative since the 1950’s and which positively revolted over the David Emerson affair. A last minute drop-in candidate, a young dude who was a riding president for the CPC in an suburb riding, managed a hugely surprising and respectable showing. My riding, I saw him work hard at it and he got results.

      Vancouver-Quadra could swing the other way, if the CPC fields the right candidate.

      Quadra and South are winnable by the CPC, Kingsway, likely not.

      To those who say “run the campaign as Liberals” and only after consider coalition, that’s presumptuous thinking folks. You are assuming that there’ll be seats sufficient to do a deal. Given the current state of opposition affairs, that does not seem like a safe proposition at all.

  28. I fear that this whole coalition will have one major result – split the Liberal Party in half. Then we’ll really be like the UK with two side parties winning elections and one small centrist party never holding government.

  29. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    My impression is that the pro-coalition people are looking to a leadership change. They seem to have only one person in mind. Nothing like changing leaders — at least as often as our shirts. Talk about political stability, not to mention credibility.

    We can go left and lose. Or we can hug the center and win, or lose. Personally, I’m for staying with the captain and heading for our traditional lifeboats.

    But hey, it’s really not for me to decide alone. Membership feedback would seem to be essential from this point forward.

  30. Cam says:

    I voted for a merger – let’s go.

    What are we waiting for??

  31. Scott says:

    Although I clicked my mouse button for a gLib-Ndipper merger as the least harmful of WK’s multiple choice instapoll options, such an eventuality would require a strategically ept convention and a unifying leadership contest (think back to the reformatory-pc merger musical chairs cotillion).

    …imagine a leftover lefties grudge match between Layton (whose situational judgement is sound but has no intellectual spark) and Rae (whose situational judgement is consistently haywire but has sound ideas he actually believes in).

    …along with a third and perhaps a fourth-place rt-of-centre traditional grit party regular plus a Quebec candidate–all three of whom end up pulling out of the newly merged coalition entity along with their supporters to sit as contra/indy Libs of varying stripes–liberal on some social policy issues, regionalists on others and mostly fiscally conservative.

    The problem with a mooted Ndip-gLib merger is that unlike the LibDems in the UK (who could easily have found themselves with 75-80 seats had strategic voting gambits not kicked in) the CaNdippers and the gLibs once merged together could not bring to the table two solid, complementary, formerly separate-but-stable voting base mosaics that once fused would aggregate thereby producing solid, consensus-driven, compatible, winnable, near-majority voting constituencies across the regions.

  32. Mark says:

    Smalldeadanimals and their goons highjacked the poll, don`t take the number one result as any sort of any indication as to what people think. Kate is nuts, but we all know that. I support a merger.

  33. Ian says:

    I voted Liberal a few times and even NDP in Ontario when Bob Rae became Premiere.

    However I am NOW a conservative voter and DID put my pick in for the last option. Please remove my one vote as per your request so I don’t assist in sending your poll “horribly wrong.” Sorry about that.

    Oh, and this is probably the latest in a series of bad moves by the Liberals. Sorry. Just seems true to say.

    All the best.


  34. steve says:

    hahaha – damn, it must suck to be a Liberal.

    the “natural governing party” is no longer so; now they’re not even a party of ideas, they are just in it to win. challenge to everyone: name me ONE innovative iggy proposal that isn’t just the opposite of whatever harper is doing.

    he (and layton and pierre or jacques or whatever his name is) are too busy desperately figuring out how they can get power, since canadians are purposefully REJECTING all three of them in a way they can’t even remember.

    “what? canadians don’t like us? well, we’ll show them! coalition! ha ha!!”

    what a bunch of sad sacks.

    get over yourselves, Liberals. step back, regroup, and shoot to be the somewhat dignified party you once were.

  35. Marc L says:

    I’m not a Liberal or a Conservative. I tend to have conservative views on economic issues and liberal views on social issues. I could vote Liberal on a fiscally responible relatively conservative economic platform (

  36. Anne Peterson says:

    I am an NDP and I favour an election cooperation agreement. If they amalgamated I would vote for them. If the Bloc was included I would vote for them too. I would vote for anyone who could defeat the conservatives. Iam too familiar with the social democracies of northern Europe to be too fiscally conservative. But if the present government stays in power I am totally fiscally conservative because they spend so stupidly and wastefully and unethically. I am against stupid spending.

    • Elizabeth says:

      I guess I have to say that anything that will remove Harper from office in a significant way, like down to 2 seats – I’d vote for.

  37. Anne Peterson says:

    Speaking of Alberta, my mother’s family came to Alberta in 1882 and my father’s in 1892 and none of them ever voted for conservatives or any conservative-like entity. I have lived just across the border from Alberta all my adult life and have spent it appalled by their choices. They will end up Oklahoma north and some day they will say, “We should have listened to Trudeau”, but you can’t tell them anything. They only listen to the oily people from down near Calgary. And there are a lot of conservatives poking thier noses in here, aren’t there?

  38. Hugh Harford says:

    If I were an NDP blogger, I might suggest a poll like:

    O – Do you favour putting the Liberals out of their misery in the next election?
    O – Do you remember a single progressive thing any Liberal government has ever done without the NDP pushing them in that direction?
    O – Do you think Liberals are capable of being loyal to anyone but Bay Street?
    O – Is Iggy as bad a leader as Dion was and the next poor schmuck will be and do you care?
    O – Is strategic voting now finally going to mean voting for the NDP in winnable ridings instead of following that tramp Basil Hargrove’s misguided advice?

  39. This idea is premature. The Liberals are the natural ruling party of Canada, and will return to their position soon enough.

    With those ten thousand newly minted Haitian-Canadian voters safely resident in Montreal, you can be confident of several ridings there. The economy is about to recover from the recession, and once people head back to work they will forget their selfish self interests and think about how good it feels to take off the invisible back pack of white privilege and pay taxes for social programs.

    The people have faith in Global Warming, Diversity, Multi-Culturalism, and Bi-lingualism. The Libs will have a majority after the next election. With adequate funding restored to the CBC, the truth about Global Warming, the economic benefits of Diversity, etcetera, will get out. There will never be a conservative government again. After the new majority Liberal government puts through an illegal immigrant amnesty (we are due for another one), then you can add another 100,000 Liberal voters.

    Have some faith in your party, Warren. It is not like there is a bourgeois revolution brewing out there.

  40. Liz J says:

    The option I support is not listed on your poll.

    I favour having an election first and then negotiating a coalition government if the voters deliver a hung parliament. I want all parties to be open to working in coalition, but I don’t want them to merge.

    I understand that the old line Liberals can only see the big tent approach, get a big enough tent and get everybody inside, but that is not the way forward with the new generation of voters. I have no problem with the Liberals leading a coalition government, but I want the other partners in there pushing forward their ideals. Not pushing intractably, but with firmness and willingness to negotiate and build compromise.

    Canadians believe in multiculturalism, not making everyone the same as you but respecting differences and working together with respect, openness and willingness to see other people’s point of view. THAT is the kind of attitude we want to see from our politicians too. Everyone doesn’t have to become a Liberal in order to work with the Liberals where there is common ground.

    • Scott says:

      Last but not least…Liz J’s proposed way forward is of course the only sensible proposal.

      In order to get to that post-electoral step, howver, both the gLibs and Ndippers need separately held political conventions to approve coalition participation and guide their respective leadership corps.

      In the case of the gLibs, a snap leadership contest done through the media and a one-member one-vote process conducted via the internet with a new leader proposing a way forward and a broad national vison with inclusive policies that could be accomodated in a subsequent coalition situation would markedly improve the gLibs’ chances of being in the absolute driver’s seat (and not subject to capricious & tendentious ultimata) in any coalition arrangement.

      So, as you say to loved ones, ‘Drive carefully’ but for God’s sake do get in the car & get going now!

  41. Michael H Anderson says:

    Oh yes, absolutely! To see both parties simultaneously implode will move millions of Canadians to tears of joy. Do it – yesterday, if possible.

    Fenris, you really ARE a Badwulf! 😉 And Warren – you’re what we call a lobotmized, turkey-f*cking imbecile.

    • Warren says:

      Thanks, Mr. Anderson. I’m guessing you aren’t sending me a Christmas card again this year.

      Anyone who wants to send Burnaby’s Mr. Anderson their very best wishes can do so at michael.emspace@gmail.com. And his webby address is

      Let’s send him love, people! Sounds like he needs it.

      And a home address would be helpful, for those who want to extend their best wishes the old fashioned way!

  42. Kerry Donnelly says:

    Kinsella, you are a complete mama’s boy douche and this poll gone wrong proves it.

    • Warren says:

      Thanks Kerry! Folks who want to say hi to Kerry can pop him a line at designkpd@comcast.net – where he works. His webby address, if that doesn’t work, is

      Here’s Kerry:

      My name is Kerry Donnelly and I live in Hollywood, Florida.

      I am a political refugee from the Socialist State of Canada. My e-mail address is towerpro@comcast.net

      Unlike many I am willing to back up my rhetoric with real action and by that I don’t mean signing meaningless petitions ala Hans Brix intended for elite governmental kleptocrats. I welcome and encourage communications with like-minded freedom loving Canadian patriots everywhere.

      Not anonymous anymore.

      No, you’re not!

  43. Michael H Anderson says:

    Are you threatening me, you stupid FUCK? Are you inciting others to track me down and perform “old-fashioned” acts of LIBERAL violence?

    This response of yours is being sent immediately to your handers in the Party as well as the RCMP and web registrars.

  44. Michael H Anderson says:

    Youre day is bound to speed up Warren, not to worry.

  45. Michael H Anderson says:

    Speaking of morons, I don’t live in Burnaby, dumbass. And you really need to stop publishing people’s IP addresses – it’s unethical and whiny and cowardly.

  46. Is this you, Warren?

    469 Earl St
    Kingston, ON K7L 2K2

    here’s a little more from Whois and ARIN:

    IP Address: (ARIN & RIPE IP search)
    Record Type: Domain Name
    Server Type: Apache 1
    Lock Status: clientTransferProhibited
    WebSite Status: Active

    Registration Service Provided By: Domain Registry of Canada
    Contact: support@droc.ca

    Domain name: warrenkinsella.com

    Registrant Contact:
    Warren Kinsella
    Private Registration
    PO Box 4577
    ON, L3R 5M7 CA

    Administrative Contact:
    Warren Kinsella
    Private Registration
    PO Box 4577
    ON, L3R 5M7 CA

    Technical Contact:
    Warren Kinsella
    Private Registration
    PO Box 4577
    ON, L3R 5M7 CA

    Update date: 2009-07-13
    Expiration date: 2012-07-17

    Server Type:
    IP Address:

    IP Location:
    United States – California – Culver City – Media Temple Inc

    …so I guess that makes us even – couldn’t be arsed with the rest of it. I used a junk email address since I know what sort of cloth shit like you are cut from. And good luck finding me, you ignorant cowardly son of a bitch.

  47. Michael H Anderson says:

    For you to criticize my grammar and spelling is like a fat wet turd criticizing Westminster Abbey. So thanks, I think.

    Always good to see leftards advocating the tracking down and harming of their adversaries. Maybe one day I’ll pay you a visit, Warren, and we can see how well you fare on your own. 😉

  48. Michael H Anderson says:

    Is that actually a picture of you in the margin near your posts? Looks to me as if my grandmother could take you apart, fuckstick. No wonder you want your toadies to do the job for you.

    We’ll see each other before too long I think, Warren. You’re right – I do need a new hobby, and I think pushing your poncey face in in will suffice in the short term. never threaten peiopel you don’t know, Warren – first rule of street fighting, little man.

  49. gramma says:

    I would not want a linking with the NDP as long as Jack Layton is leader. Liberals will come back on their own.

  50. Michael H Anderson says:

    Good luck, monkey-fuckers!

    You see Warren, the problem began when you advocated your bumboys coming to my house. Knowing your kind as I do, that translated as “sodomize and kill his children while he’s as work.”

    That just can’t pass, Warren, sorry. Stinking coward, bit of filth, monkey-fucking bastard. Come get me, leftards! Oh, this is rich!

    • Warren says:

      Customer Service

      Mailing Address
      503 608 7987

      Embedded Spaces Inc

      16468 – 111 Avenue


      Surrey, BC, Canada

      V4N 5G7

      • Bill Templeman says:

        Warren: I read your blog because of the open debate and great exchange of ideas. But I for one have had enough of these keyboard commandos. Free speech is a great thing. But this? I dunno………

  51. Kerry Donnelly says:

    Way to go Kinsella you sack of shit douchebag. It says on your comments page that the e-mail of commenters will not be published, but you did just that. If you cant handle critical comments then maybe you should move back into your Mommy’s basement.

    Fucking liar!

  52. Lyle B says:

    You know what’s wrong with Canadian politics? And why the majority of voters stay home on election days? Partisan politics, and this site and others like it (Small Dead Animals for example) are perfect illustrations of what I mean. It’s childish and nauseating to observe. It stems from Question Period and flows outward to the grassroots membership. I’ve been an avid and non-aligned political observer, and voter, for over 30 years. But I’ve had it to the puking point with the partisan bickering that goes on. It is completely infantile and gets in the way of any meaningful discourse in this country, whether that be in the House of Commons or the coffee shop. I’ve never failed to cast my ballot in an election in my life, but I’m at the point where if I do decide to waste time and fossil fuels to cast my ballot in the future I will be spoiling my ballot.

    GROW UP ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!

    I direct this rant to all parties and their lunatic fringe, er, members … I’m non-partisan.


  53. BL@KBIRD says:

    Do you folks have written permission from the Bloc to be discussing this openly?

  54. hollinm says:

    Go for it Libs. Merger and/or coalition. You have opened the door and now Harper will walk right through it. He said it this morning we do not form coalitions of losers. The Libs have virtually conceded the election to the Conservatives. Now it will be up to Harper to bring in a majority in the next election.

    The anti Harper crowd forgets that the Conservatives won the largest number of seats in Britain. However, when they all have less that the governing party it actually appears to be undemocratic.

  55. lui says:

    I voted anyway, try to gues which way. Liberals in decline are like a cornered animal. Say anything no matter how fundementally unbelievable cause the plebes will by it.
    Sign up the Bloc, its been done before and look at how that worked out Lucienne. Sign up the dippers and you get no property rights in your constitution, great.
    Gimme a Steven Harper led CPC majority please 🙂

  56. The Tiger says:

    I didn’t vote because I’m _not_ a Liberal, and I wanted to see what actual Liberals (and Kinsella fans) thought.

    May do so now, just so that I stop seeing the voting prompt when I revisit the thread.

    For the record: the broad trends are about the same as they were before my fellow Tories crashed it, just with slightly different numbers.

    The first option had the lowest number of votes. The next two tied at 10-15%. Merger and “40 seats ho!” traded off for the lead at about 25% each. (But “40 seats ho!” had the lead most of the time.)


    I’ll say this: the only thing that would make me angry is if Ignatieff pulled a Dion — explicitly disavow the coalition during the campaign, then go for one all the same once the new parliament is called.

  57. wallyj says:

    How would everyone feel if the liberals won about 150 seats,and then the other parties joined together to squeeze your elected representatives out into the cold? The liberals would have less power than Layton,Harper,or Duceppe even though they would have a solid majority outside of Quebec. Is that democracy in action,or is it just downright nauseating?

  58. keyrocks says:

    Seriously folks. Warren’s poll is Warren’s poll on Warren’s blog domain. It’s not a Liberal Party poll. I figure Warren’s just testing the waters and tossing out a bit of nutrient for the bottom feeders and RefCon-trolls. Thanks for the great entertainment.

  59. Brumas says:

    Those who believe that 40 seats = character-building seem to forget that 40 seats = a Harper majority and a Harper majority means that in five years the Canada we know and love will be unrecognisable amd we will have lost whatever respect we’ve managed to hang on to after serial Harper minorities. I for one can’t accept that. The Libs need to defeat Harper and the Ref/Cons ASAP.

Leave a Reply

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