06.08.2010 12:40 PM

Poll: majority favours coalition/cooperation

Half favour Grit NDP co operation but no consensus on how: Poll
Source: The Canadian Press
Jun 8, 2010 13:09
By Joan Bryden


OTTAWA, Ont. – A new poll suggests more than half of Canadians favour some sort of co-operation between the federal Liberals and New Democrats.

But The Canadian Press-Harris Decima survey indicates there’s no consensus on what form that co-operation should take.

Twenty-eight per cent of those surveyed favoured a non-compete pact between the two parties, wherein they would agree not to run candidates against each other in some ridings across the country.

Fourteen per cent favoured a Liberal-NDP coalition government after the next election, while 13 per cent said they’d prefer an outright merger of the two parties prior to the election.

Another 30 per cent – including 50 per cent of Conservative supporters – said they would rather that the two parties not co-operate at all. [Conservatives fear losing: stop the presses, etc. – Ed.]

The telephone survey of just over 1,000 Canadians was conducted June 3-6 and is considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times in 20.

The poll comes amid a resurgence of interest among Liberals about finding some way co-operate with the NDP. Interest has been fuelled by tepid poll numbers and the recent installation of a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in Britain.

A number of Liberal luminaries – including former prime minister Jean Chretien – have mused about the merits of combining Liberal and NDP forces to defeat Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.

UPDATE: And I did an interview with the nice young guys at The Mark about the subject. CBC’s The National tonight, too. Wish I’d had this poll beforehand!

UPDATE: This is sure interesting.


  1. James Bow says:

    Thanks for posting this, Warren. I do appreciate it, even though I still have to chuckle at some of it. I mean:

    NEWS FLASH: Most Canadians would actually like their politicians to do something constructive for a change. Except for about half of the supporters of the political party that might be dethroned as the result of such cooperation.

    Really, do they need a yardstick to measure this sort of thing?

    • That’s not what it says at all! The highest number you get is 50% of Conservatives wanting a merger. The next highest is 28% calling for cooperation. Only 14% support a coalition or outright merger. I think this survey should be the final nail in the coffin to all this coalition/merger talk for Liberals who want a shot during the next election.

  2. Rummi says:

    “NNW: Conservatives would form coalition Tory MP
    NB Tory MP Rodney Weston told a NB talk radio host Tuesday afternoon that if the need arose after the next federal election, the Conservative Party would form a coalition government…”

    “50 per cent of Conservative supporters _ said they would rather that the two parties not co-operate at all.”

    A + B = …

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      Beware that hot, latin menage-à-deux. More than likely far too overwhelming for your average, somewhat staid Conservative!

      • allegra fortissima says:

        LOL, that’s a good one, Son of Ireland. Actually, it’s of inestimable worth.

        You don’t mind if I quote you on the odd occasion, do you?

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:

          Allegra Fortissima,

          Thank you. You flatter me. As you wish. But I think you should know that I could bite right through nails after seeing the party once again do a Harper-inspired bendover…I’m heading on hiatus for an extended period. It just isn’t worth it as long as the leadership is intent on doing everything humanly possible to appear weaker each passing day — not to mention week — than the one before. Talk about D-E-N-S-E. Seesh. Was there ever any hope to begin with? I’m really starting to wonder why Warren even bothers to care so deeply…

          • allegra fortissima says:

            “A Harper-inspired bendover”? I don’t think so, Sir. The party will be stronger once it takes a strong stand on new opportunities, just watch. Anything else will weaken the party.

            Why Warren even bothers to care so deeply…? Because he is not only a true son of Ireland but also a true son of Canada.

            And a true gentleman, as some have mentioned here before (unless he shoots half a bagel through his nose at the breakfast table, yikes).

            And how many of his enemies here just wish to be just like him! I used to call this kind of envious male behaviour “Pierre Elliot Trudeau Syndrome” – might as well call it “Warren Kinsella Syndrome” from now on:)

            Gentlemen, have a wonderful day!

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:

          Allegra Fortissima,

          You know my views on a coalition or merger. But that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m right. My post had nothing to do with that — I’m just tired of seeing our party bend over almost every time there is a confidence vote. We should have joined the NDP and BQ and sunk this GD government on budget implementation.

          I haven’t changed. I still want that federal election YESTERDAY. Sadly, I don’t seem to have much fellow Liberal company…

  3. Marc L says:

    The most irrelevant poll ever. Ask Liberal supporters if they would like to see their party in power with the help of the NDP. Of course they would! From what I understand from this debate, that’s all Liberal supporters care about — power. It doesn’t matter what for. Or how. As long as they get it. Ask NDP supporters whether they would like to see their party in power, even if that means sharing the stage with the Liberals. Of course they would. They may have policies and views, but they are rejected by the vast majority of Canadians. This way, they will get to taste power as well without actually having to appeal to more than 18% of the electorate. And, they get to pull the Liberals away from the centre, where they should be, and towards the left. Of course that will add up to more than 50%.

    It’s good for the Liberals. It’s good for the NDP. It’s bad for the country. But why should you care about that?

    • Elizabeth says:

      You do know that Harper is the most power-hungry politician in the history of the country, right? He not only wants to be a majority Prime Minister, he wants to get rid of all other Parliamentarians, he wants to destroy other political parties.

      Power – that’s his reason for getting into politics in the first place. The revenge of the un-cool.

      • No,we don’t all know that.In fact I suggest that old man Trudeau was the most power hungry……remember the war measures act.To suggest that both he and his disciple,Chretian,did not wield absolute power over their MP’s is ludicrous.
        Your ongoing,frantic ravings and rantings against our prime minister is what is un-cool around here.

      • Marc L says:

        Gimme a break. Don’t you remember the Liberal government under Chretien being referred to as “the friendly dictatorship?’. Exaggeration? Of course. But to say Liberal governments were any different on that front is ludicrous.

        My problem with the current Liberals is that they want power, but they don’t seem to know what for. They have no program or policies. It’s power for power’s sake.

      • Mike says:

        This is nonsense Elizabeth! Harper is a reluctant leader. But, at least he’s a leader with principles he’s prepared to fight for.
        The same can’t be said of recent Grits who truly believe they are the Natural Governing Party and are prepared to do or say whatever it takes to resume their annointed position.
        The Liberals haven’t had a leader since Pierre Trudeau. Chretien was a political animal who understood how to wield and maintain power while embracing whatever policies the polls supported that day. They didn’t call Martin “Mr. Dithers” for no reason. And, the only reason Ignatieff, and the pretender Rae, are in Ottawa is opportunism. Neither one would have put their name on a ballot if the Liberals had found another Chretien-like strongman. Or a principled Trudeau.

        • Dennis says:

          Mike, you’ve only managed to squeeze 4 Conservative talking points in here (though I count the “reluctant leader” and “leader with principles” as two each because of their giggle value). Keep at it, you’ll get there.

  4. Michael Watkins says:

    The important take away from that poll is that more than half of the Canadian public want to see *something* happen with the NDP and Liberals. They don’t know if the NDP and Liberals should get married or are just going to shack up with one another for a while, but the best part is they don’t care. Even discounting potential Conservative mischief makers in the numbers, a majority of those for the choice would matter directly, approve.

    They are saying “give us the choice, somehow, and we’ll vote for it”.

    That’s a terrific sign.

    I like to think that their opinion indicates indication they have a better read on the real prospects for a Conservative majority in the next election than do the current leadership of the Liberal party and probably the NDP should be lumped in there too at this point. I hope that changes.

    • keyrocks says:

      Yes, the Canadian public wants to see something happen and, since they haven’t seen much from the LPC, some are definitely willing to consider an NDP-Liberal coalition… or some form of ‘common-law’ relationship… after an election. So we’ll need to wait till the election passes to see if they can sleep together for a bit. (Yaawwnn)

  5. Andrew says:

    I’d be curious to see the actual questions asked and what type of Likert Scale was used for possible answers.

    PS. I am not looking for any bias, partisanship…just curious, aren’t you?

  6. Catherine says:

    Judging by your response Warren to The Mark person it sure doesn’t sound like you’re as convinced of the NDP-Liberal merge as the poll suggests. Given that the NDP is on an upward momentum at the moment and the Ignatieff led Liberals continuing in the other direction, Layton would be stupid not to hold his ground and continue to let Ignatieff slide, fight an election on his own and see if he can’t end up with official opposition status.

    If the NDP line up with the Greens they’d be more of a formidable opposition than the Ignatieff led Liberals are now.

    I thought your response firmly on middle ground and well done, just not convincing I think and in doing so not looking too much for or against the idea which is a nice place to be if the idea tanks or takes off.

  7. Sandra says:

    Look back at the Pearson/Douglas days – that’s what would work. But, we have a problem – Layton is no Tommy Douglas.

  8. Robert says:

    I don’t have insight into the Lib or NDP party, their history or traditions and frankly, I could give a damn. I do know the only parties with vision, intelligence, education, informed opinion and GOD DAMNED COMMON SENSE, are found in the NDP and Liberals.
    I also do know, as most Canadians know, the center and left of this country has been split into two self-defeating parties, and it’s annoying as hell. A merger would wipe Harperites off the map forever; I know it, you know it and as I said, so do most Canadians.
    Isn’t it time we put OUR COUNTRY, FIRST?

    • MCBellecourt says:

      Hear, hear, Robert!! You put into words what I’ve been thinking all week.

      I was deeply saddened to read about what is happening with cancer patients in Edmonton, AB., and to me, that is the beginning of the end of the Canadian healthcare system as we know it. I also know that the Harperrhoids are rubbing their hands in glee at the news.

      If I were to list everything the Harperrhoids were doing to the people of this great country, I’d have to write a book.

      I am open to the idea of a merger, and Michael Ignatieff has to be open to it as well. We, the majority, can NOT afford to fail.

  9. Emily says:

    Merge the two parties into the Lib-Dems, say thank you and farewell to Layton and Ignatieff, and put Dominic LeBlanc in charge. It’s the French turn anyway.

    Then a non-confidence motion.

    Bye-bye Harper.

  10. Steve T says:

    As you probably know, this is ALL over the news now. Thing is, the CBC is presenting it as “Liberals and NDP discuss merger”. Not a coalition, but an actual merger (a la Alliance / PC).

    Not to throw cold water on this, but I think you just lost a large portion of “blue Liberals”, which may form more of your base than you expect. You certainly aren’t likely to get many “red Tories” now that you’re in bed with the Dippers.

    It’s important to note that your “…majority of Canadians…” favoured a coalition or cooperation, not a merger. Parlaying that into support for a new more-left Liberal party is going to be challenging.

    • FiscalTim says:

      Exactly. Most liberals would be aghast with the realization that their policies are more in synch with the dreaded Tories than with the NDP. Didn’t Jack want to pull us out of NATO? Wasn’t Jack enemy #1 to Warren a year ago? How things change when the lust of power kicks in.

      If you ignore for a moment the Stephen Harper image that the Liberals have concocted (such as mandating Sunday school for all and making abortions illegal) and instead look at the centrist he has become, his polices are not significantly different from the Liberals under Paul Martin. Whoever controls the center will win the next election; any new party combined with the NDP will ultimately have to move further left. Canada would rather have a fiscal conservative (like Paul Martin, or *gasp*, Harper) focused on creating jobs instead of a tree hugger like Dion.

      • robert says:

        Red, Blue, shmoo. The lines’, evaporate when real governance is at hand. The internet has brought a growing understanding of government at work behind the scenes; how mandarins becomes the source of information, option, education and direction for monetary and fiscal policy, foreign relations and law. Real parties bring in men and women of qualification of experience who are intimidated by the civil service. Real parties are comprised of those people who don’t live and lead in a world of superstition, ignorance and appeal to the lowest common denominator. Real parties don’t trade off the likes of guns against cops with fallacious sophistry.
        Get on with a melding of the two educated, experienced parties.

  11. Iris Mclean says:

    “Conservative budget passes final Commons vote thanks to 30 Liberal absentees”
    We need an official opposition. We don’t have one. I am absolutely disgusted with the federal Liberals. How many more years are these gutless twerps going to prop up the Reformatories while at the same time bitch and squawk about what the Harper gang is doing? I am a Liberal supporter, but not for much longer.

  12. Sean says:

    I’ve personally knocked on thousands of doors for Blue Liberals, Red Liberals Orange Liberals and Green Liberals. Dalton McGuinty, Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Stephane Dion and many local candidates at every level… Discussing this is absolutely the right thing to do. Sometimes, I use the (non political) folks I work with as a barometer for what is happening out there…. With them it is a very, very popular idea…. and these people tend to be negative about all things political. Actually, I think we will find that it is mostly Ottawa insiders with an axe to grind who are against it…

    Also…. I’m kind of amazed that attention seems to be swirling around “outraged Liberals” like Herle and Reid… The group I’d really expect to be going ape sh%t is the NDP… Can’t wait for the madness to unfold on that side in the next few days!

    Finally, I know it is the early stages, but a communications strategy needs to be planned out soon before things spin completely out of control… IE, its not about “destroying the legacy of the Liberal Party”, it is about the “future”, about “compromise”, about Canada and the “Canadian Way” – using our differences as our strengths.

    • Michael Watkins says:

      Somewhere recently I ran across a blog post which summed up how I feel so perfectly about the challenges and opportunities of some new political structure forming that I wished I’d written it myself. If I can find the post, I’ll link it in here.

      Put fast and far more poorly by me, the writer challenged readers to think about their parties not as living individual and permanent beings but as tools to achieve objectives for our country. Party structures do come and go, and the changes over time just become part of the narrative of some future evolution of what we now believe is permanent. Nothing truly is so.

      But the ideas and spirit and aspirations that like minded people carry is long lived and can be delivered upon by whatever political organization bests makes sense for the country. We’ve got to let go of “me” and grasp hold of “we”. Corny, I know, but it is true.

      Elections are not the only times Canadians can make change. Let’s hope the royal “we” are all up for whatever is coming down the road.

  13. Mike London says:

    I think it’s a great idea. The key will be to find a leader that is able to contain the fringe elements within both parties. As examples, the Svend Robinsons in the NDP, and Tom Wappels in the Liberal Party.

    The Conservatives have mostly managed to keep a lid on their bimbos, and Harper can at least be commended for that.

  14. Catherine says:

    Warren – all the CBC did was air the differences between the Martin and Chretien camps for the public to remember and Herle seems to have taken the bait.

    Steve T. makes excellent points.

  15. H Holmes says:

    Instead of concentrated liberal message about the negative aspects of spending at the G8.
    Something most Canadians care about, we have the mini coup being the headline story.

    And poeple wonder why the numbers continue to drop for the liberal party.

    It appears to me the best and brightest have dropped Ignatieff, This was even quicker then for Dion.

    I can”t see how we can have a strong party when it is still splintered in half.

    A pox on all the leaders houses.

    • Susan L says:

      Yes, I am not really sure what all this talk about mergers really serves. Neither the NDP or the Liberals ever really rejected it as a concept in the first place……

      I am amazed that the ‘war room’ expert hasn’t seen that he is being played like a fine fiddle. The talk of coalitions came about a few weeks ago in the Conservative daily info alerts…….it was a bit puzzling why all of a sudden they kept accusing the other parties of ‘evil coalitions’ but now it is clear…….to cause mischief and to ensure that Liberal party cohesion never happens and that we fight leadership battles waiting for a messiah that will never appear.

      Hint to Kinsella – Chretien was cool, but his day is past……get over it, people will never trust him again.

  16. Joe H says:

    This is the worst idea ever and shows our sense of history is so small it would fit into a Twitter message.
    Throw away 143 years of history because of two losses I think that is shocking.

    • Michael Watkins says:

      Do you think the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada really threw away 136 years of history (as of 2003) when it merged with the Canadian Alliance?

      It did not. The history and lineage of a party go with the people. The party is not an HQ and a bunch of cliquey insiders defending turf by citing history and calling on the ghosts of the past. The party is the people and its supporters and a party is there to win and implement ideas. Sometimes that means joining forces with others.

      That has happened before in the Conservative Party’s past, and it happened before in the Liberal Party’s past too.

      Let’s be realistic: The only party capable of forming a majority government in Canada in the next decade is the Conservative Party. If Liberals are unwilling to reach out to other Canadians that they can broker agreement with, they’ll take the place of Brown and Blake’s liberal-reformers, or the stretch where Mackenzie, Blake and Laurier were out for almost two decades.

      What secret weapon do Liberals have to bring about a sudden change in their fortunes, one that can overcome the regionally weak support for the party in vast stretches of the country, or overcome the inability to raise funds competitively (and the real potential of election subsidies disappearing, certainly after a Harper majority they will)?

      You can’t propose new programs of substance, because Harper has (intentionally to block this gambit) slashed the Canadian treasury to the bone, forcing Liberals to advocate for tax increases to do anything new. Good luck selling that.

      Going along the same road will deliver continual erosion of your base and regional footprint. That too is a lesson from the CA and PC parties. What you need are more people and better regional coverage. Brokering a deal gives you that and in the process brings on side a large chunk of the Canadian electorate.

      Ok, you are right, some mythical unbroken historical lineage is so much more important than that. 😉

    • Fx says:

      The current state of pollictics has changed over 143 years. The fact that the right has united into 1 and there are currently 4 parties splitting votes on the right has forced the hand. I personally think that waiting for the results of the next election is futile. We know the next election will result in more of the same. I would rather see action taken now. Unfortunately, I don’t think Iggy is the man for the job. The best he can do with inaction is to remain the leader of the opposition…I won’t even talk about the worst case scenario.

  17. parnel says:

    All this has done is to allow the refortmatory liars and spendthrifts to change the page. The Libs as is are in striking range of the cons in terms of support. They simply need to put some more heat on Harper personally with attack ads on his style and it will pay huge dividends.

    WK is wrong on this issue.

    • Catherine says:

      and how do propose the Libs. pay for all of those attack ads parnel…with NDP loot? Why sink the party when the right thing to do for the Liberals is to start fresh and let the ground support elect their supported leader and redefine the party on its own merits….including that long history? I’m a conservative who became one after what Bob Rae did to Ontario. That he’s doing the same to the Liberals is going to push more like me to the conservatives, in Ontario it’s almost a guarantee.

      • parnel says:

        Catherine, They will pay for them the same way Tories do.

        The rest of your stuff is nonsense and makes you sound like a life long reformatort.

        • Speaking as a Conservative…..I really hope(for the good of the country) that the liberal strategists take heed of what Parnel says and follows his advice.
          This person never lets political objectivism(whatever that may be) and common sense get in the way of a good anti government(anti Conservative) rant.

        • Catherine says:

          don’t look now parnel but Mr. Ignatieff just threw Warren under the proverbial bus. That’s just not smart.

          Oh, and I seem to recall Warren saying in his The Mark interview that he Libs. haven’t figured out how to master the fundraising thing yet based on the new guidelines.
          So how, short of those brown bags we’ve all heard about, will the LPOC get funds if not depending on NDP coffers?

          Anyway, water under the bridge today as Iggy, with that Rae cat behind him telling the Canada and Canadians that there will be no merger.

        • Elizabeth says:

          “Reformatort”. Was that intentional? 🙂

          • parnel says:

            Absolutely it was intentional!!! HARPERCRITE CULTURE OF DECEIT is also intentional.

    • Michael Watkins says:

      WK is wrong on what issue, Parnel?

      Is he wrong about Liberal electoral chances? You’ve got no data to back up a claim otherwise. Is he wrong about the political wilderness Liberals would be in if (when) Harper get’s a majority and immediately proceeds to eliminate the election subsidy?

      Throughout this I haven’t been able to figure out if this “something more than coalition” talk has been nothing more than a revival of the Martin-Chretien camp wars. Frankly, I don’t much care if there are other motivations in play, because my own opinion is that the opposition needs to do something radically different than they are doing now or they’ll be in opposition for most of this decade, if not much longer.

      In the interest of disclosure, although I hated the Martin-Chretien fan club war because it gave the CA / CPC / Harper a free ride, I am fully on side with the insurgents, er, I mean the Chretien folks. I didn’t much like the establishment in the PC Party, and I sure as hell don’t like the establishment in the Conservative Party. I guess I tend to be inclined to side with underdogs and little guys.

      • Catherine says:

        No worries Michael. The party faithful are always the last to be alerted to an implosion and self-induced exile.

  18. Ted H. says:

    This talk of Liberal-NDP merger or coalition and the underlying criticism of the Liberal leader is unfortunate at this time. It makes the Liberal Party the news when all focus should be on the excessive spending of the Conservative government relative to the G8/G20 including all the pork barrel projects in Tony Clement’s riding.

    • parnel says:

      It seems to me the press is not as interested in the Libs as the lakegate “scandal” seems to give them ore to write about. The PMO is continuously trying to feed the IGGY story and maybe the press might be smartning up. The lakegate issue is getting legs under it and it will be interesting to see the enxt polls.

      All reports are that the PMO is full panic mode over this as it violates their connection to the base and makes them look like the clowns they are

  19. Karl says:

    And why not a coalition with the NDP? When a politically correct, opportunistic socialist like Kinsella can pass himself off as a “Liberal,” you know there is know difference between the two parties anyway. The Liberals & NDP should be merged and given an accurate, descriptive name, like the Canadian Socialist Party. Political power is what matters to the likes of Kinsella, not principle.

    • Warren says:

      But what do you really feel, Karl?

      Comrade Kinsella

      • Winston Higgs says:

        You realize, of course, a merger would require Liberals to tone down their apparel so as not to show up us stylistically-challenged Dippers (Ann McGrath and Pat Martin excluded – geez, how’d he get to be so flashy!)

        Try wearing more browns and greens and you may wish to reconsider the oft-maligned corduroy sports jacket. On the upside, Liberals would gain way more “cred-by-association” which will entitle them to wear a Weakerthans T-shirt without feeling guilty, although I suspect John K. Samson is hurling into blue box somewhere after watching your interview with Wendy yesterday.

    • Elizabeth says:

      I think this is a case of Tory “mirroring”. Seeing your own problems, faults – in your opponents, and then arguing with yourself.

  20. Michael Watkins says:

    The Hill Times article appears to misstate things – the currently available record for liberaldemocrats.ca does not point to any individual or party, and the record hasn’t been updated recently.

    $ whois liberaldemocrats.ca
    Domain name: liberaldemocrats.ca
    Domain status: EXIST
    Approval date: 2008/12/01
    Renewal date: 2010/12/01
    Updated date: 2009/12/01

    Name: Netfirms, Inc.
    Number: 978850

    It might be a good assumption but the domain name liberaldemocrats.ca could have been registered by anyone, not just the Liberal or New Democrat parties.

    There is also a singular form: liberaldemocrat.ca, registered at a different registrar, also done using the .CA top level domain privacy feature.

    This one is much more recent:

    $ whois liberaldemocrat.ca
    Domain name: liberaldemocrat.ca
    Domain status: EXIST
    Approval date: 2010/06/08
    Renewal date: 2011/06/08
    Updated date: 2010/06/08

    Name: Go Daddy Domains Canada, Inc
    Number: 2316042

    If the original liberaldemocrats.ca was registered on the QT by an insider in either the Liberal or NDP camps or someone sympathetic to either’s cause, just in case the coalition in 2008 flew, then that someone or party has probably been paying for it since “just in case”.

    Alternatively some other jokester or entrepreneur could have bought the domain(s), seeing the potential to embarrass either party or make some money out of the resale of the domain.

    .CA name dispute policy would eventually force ownership into the hands of a new merged party should a new organization be formed, but it would be embarrassing not to have control of the domain(s) from the get go.

    • Michael Watkins says:

      PS: One assumes the registrant of liberaldemocrats.ca was/is friendly to the Liberal cause, since apparently HTTP requests to the domain were forwarded to liberal.ca. The owner of the domain has turned that function off, presumably today after reading the Hill Times article, and now you just see a NetFirms.ca landing page.

    • bigcitylib says:

      As you say; also, the website does NOT redirect to the official LPoC site. Hill times has bungled this one, I think.

  21. Jane says:


    The link takes you striaght to NetFirms – Perhaps they didn’t renew the domain name.

  22. Paul R. Martin says:

    The Globe & Mail is reporting that Iggy flanked by Rae and Leblanc has denied that merger talks are going on. Mr. Layton also denied that merger talks are going on. He said that it looked as if it was a case of Liberals talking to Liberals. Iggy also said that he did not have a relationship with Mr. Kinsella. I will leave the tea leaf reading to others who better understand the Liberal Party.

    • Paul R. Martin says:

      Further to my earlier comment, The Star is also reporting that Iggy also said tha it is the Conservatives who are on the ropes not the Liberals. At least Issy still seems to have a sense of humour. At least I think that it was a joke. As my captcha code was BS5M, it is possible the Iggy was spouting BS.

    • Michael Watkins says:

      I guess that’s a con joke, right? The NDP sponsor, Fin Donnelly, is a long time defender of environmental protection for BC rivers and spawning grounds. I don’t know him, might not vote for him, but the wild salmon protection *is* a big deal here to us in B.C., even if the provincial arm of the Conservative party, the inaptly named B.C. Liberals, has been doing everything in its power over many years to destroy wild salmon habitat and stocks. Sockeye and other salmon are part of our genetic make up out here, kinda like Alberta beef or Atlantic cod.

      I’m not a big fan of William Shatner but my opinion of him went up a lot today. And I miss former (Liberal) environment minister David Anderson. He could teach you a think or two about fisheries.

  23. kyliep says:

    i haven’t always agreed with mr. kinsella, but i watched him last night on cbc making some very candid, sensible remarks about the difficulties faced by his old party and a possible way to put forth a more progressive/liberal agenda via some sort of cooperation between the Libs and NDP. cbc then cut to david herle, who argued that the Liberal party shouldn’t consider merging with the NDP because the mere thought upsets him and his friends. seems there are those who want to mount an effective opposition and government-in-waiting to harper et al, and those who are still waiting for some magical moment that will catapult the Liberals back into majority territory. anyhow, my hats off to warren kinsella for putting forth some constructive ideas.

  24. Rob H. says:

    Ignatieff states that Warren’s musings are “ridiculous” and adds: “I have no relationship with Warren Kinsella.”

    Wither Warren.. cat got your tongue?

      • Stephen Geigen-Miller says:

        My read on this, based on the coverage I’ve seen, is that Ignatieff specifically denied that talks around a merger were taking place — he didn’t say anything about talks for a coalition, an accord or an electoral non-competition pact.

        • Rob H. says:

          The he did more than just that. He dismissed Warren Kinsella as having any “relationship” with him, which implies something more than semantic differences between them.

          • Elizabeth says:

            Indeed. He dismissed Warren at an earlier date too – in the beginning of his leadership – sort of denied having anything to do with him being there, said it was basically because people who he does know, advised him that WK is a good person to have on board.
            That comment was in response to some news story which I’ve forgotten right now, Ignatieff was asked to comment.

  25. parnel says:

    Paul, maybe captcha knows more about you than you realize

  26. Paul R. Martin says:

    Who knows Parnel! I do admit to failing grade 9 typing. My typing skills still havn’t improved. I made too many typing mistakes earlier. I will be watching Warren with interest.

  27. Rob H. says:


    What tangled webs.

    Warren just threw down a sworn affidavit to CBC:

    In a sworn affidavit, Liberal Party strategist Warren Kinsella says the party’s president, Alfred Apps, told him in May about “high level” discussions with NDP officials about the “creation of a new party.”
    Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/09/liberals-ndp-merger-kinsella.html#ixzz0qOdvmB2U

Leave a Reply

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