“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald

KCCCC Day 4: Ottawa talks about Ottawa. Plus ca change, etc.

Unidentified children pray for a Conservative victory, because then they won’t need to attend math class anymore.

Meanwhile, Harper announces he will be using a pull wagon as his campaign bus.

118 Responses to “KCCCC Day 4: Ottawa talks about Ottawa. Plus ca change, etc.

  1. Stevie Y says:

    A coalition cartoon i think you might enjoy Mr. Kinsella!


  2. MississaugaLibPeter says:

    I guess no more Harper Government invites for Tom.

    And is that Lauren in the photo op? What is the status out there? Or can we expect a repeat of the most recent French presidential election where both Sarkozy and his challenger Royal started divorce proceedings almost immediately after the much needed photo ops and perceptions were no longer needed?

    I believe if it is actually Lauren and she is being used as a photo op, the question is fair game. If it is not her, my apologies to all for bringing it up. WK please delete this comment if that is the case.

    • James says:

      I don’t agree that the question is fair game at all – no matter what the circumstances of thier marriage, what is between them is between them and none of our g-damn business. She can support him politically no matter who she is. Leave them alone. I say this as someone who wants him gone.

    • Ted says:

      Families are off limits. Period. Even if Harper regularly uses his wife and kids as campaign props.

      And what you hint at in your comment is way way off limits.

      And completely irrelevant.

    • Ottawacon says:

      The funnies thing about that dumb rumour is how the fact that she shows up at functions with Baird and Kenney is somehow trotted out as ‘evidence’. Not sure what that would be evidence of…

      Tories should stay the hell off the Zsuzsanna(sp?) shots, Grits should leave this one alone. I am guessing neither really will, when they do get their minds off the absurd coalition story.

      • Ted says:

        The Conservatives have already made fun of or attacked Ignatieff’s wife and Ignatieff’s dad and granddad.

        I haven’t seen the Liberals say anything about Harper’s family at all. And I don’t think they will.

        • The Other Jim says:

          Making fun of someone’s name is stupid and juvenile.
          Challenging the economic status of someone’s long deceased grandfather is petty and pointless.

          Neither are remotely comparable to spreading unsubstantiated rumours about someone’s marriage.

          • Ted says:

            I agree with that. It’s dispicable.

            I was certainly not comparing the attacks. I was only comparing the two parties: attacking families is OK for Conservatives; the Liberals have not attacked the families of Conservatives though.

          • reformatory says:

            HarryS, The Other Jim et al. STOP going to BAT for these CONS. They are the most distasteful bunch to ever be close to power. They have no morals or ethics. Scandal after scandal. I’m telling you .. there gonna catch up to them. MI is all too classy to start with half of the low blows thrown at him and his family from the Steve Harper REGIME and Entourage, which you are a part of. That is not something to be proud of.

    • MississaugaLibPeter says:

      Fair, honest discourse between Liberals here. I am impressed.

      And like a good Liberal, I am big enough to be able to apologize now for the insinuation (without feeling I am going to be viewed as weak afterwards).

      Unfortunately, as I have complained previously, there is no ability to delete/edit comments here. Thus one (I) must be more careful when they (I) press “Submit Comment”.

    • JStanton says:

      It’s fair game, so long as Mr. Harper continues to use Lauren as a prop to suggest something about himself that is not true.

      Mr. Harper has consistently followed a pattern of misrepresentation, deceit and lies, so he should get a free pass no longer.

      But this the job of journalists to expose though.


      • Ted says:

        I would say even then families are off topic and off limit.

        The only exceptions is if:

        1. the spouse injects him or herself into the campaign as an active spokesperson or some other substantial active and public role

        2. the spouse’s own conduct is in question (like receiving a contract from the government).

        That’s it.

        The health of a marriage is 268% off topic.

        • JStanton says:

          I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we follow Mr. Harper’s own example, and go after his family.

          What I am suggesting is that Mr. Harper is the architect of his own misrepresentations, deceits and lies, and that he needs to be held accountable for them.

          I find it curious that the general public is held to higher standards by some, than is Mr. Harper.


          • Ted says:

            Maybe I misunderstood your “fair game” comment then.

            I took it to be a response to the criticism of MississaugaLibPeter’s insinuation that Harper’s marriage was in trouble and it was fair to talk about it.

            It isn’t.

      • James says:

        What is he using Mrs Harper as a prop to suggest about himself that’s not true? While you’re at it, what are the Lotto Max number for next Friday?

    • I thought this blog was monitored for just this sort of dreck.

  3. JenS says:

    1) The girls don’t get the ponies until 2028, and only then if Mars falls into perfect alignment with a yet-undiscovered planet.

    2) That’s SH’s dream family: Mom stays at home and home schools her children and the idea of $1,500 not to go back to work is really tempting, because she’s not uppity enough to get a job that pays much more than that.

    • The Other Jim says:

      Yeah, because only meek, subjugated women who can’t get real jobs stay home with their kids. Nice.

      • JenS says:

        I’m a stay-at-home mom, jackass. But nice try at altering the meaning of what I said.

        • The Other Jim says:

          It is certainly what you insinuated.

          • JenS says:

            No, it is certainly not. My reply was in answer to WK’s comment about why the kids aren’t in school, and was a comment on Harper’s ideal family, not on stay-at-home moms. I’ve been on both sides of that, and abhor the divide. As my feminist mother says, that fight wad fought to allow women choice, not to say only one choice is OK. But I don’t see that as matching Harper’s ideal.bMb

          • The Other Jim says:

            Fair enough. Mea culpa and apologies.

      • scot says:

        You definitely have a streak of asshole in you Other Jim. Sad that, in a Liberal.

        • The Other Jim says:

          Indeed, I do. Thankfully, a modicum of self-awareness and a willingness to admit when I’m wrong elevates me from being a full-on asshole like yourself.

          • scot says:

            You do that often,elevate yourself?

          • reformatory says:

            HarryS. Other Jim, A Hole… come again?

            correction… he aint no Liberal.. most probably a TROL, and CON lackey being paid to spew thoughts and ideas. I guess the end result is have the populace rear more right.

            Don’t buy it folks………

          • scot says:

            You see that Other Jim. Even thought I’m pretty sure you said you were a Liberal, here we have Reformatory calling you a con troll. What does that tell you.

  4. Robert Jago says:

    They’re not in school, because thanks to BC Liberal cutbacks we ended up with 2 weeks of Spring break this year.

  5. Joe says:

    Well, my kids are home-schooled and they get breaks. Just sayin’…

  6. Gord Tulk says:

    Green grass…

  7. Gord Tulk says:

    1. Coalition will be the underscore for the rest of the campaign resuming it crescendo near the end. 83% of canadians think it’s in the cards. (btw Warren I thought you were going to publish a column in favour of an ND/lpc coalition this week.)

    2. Dr. Flanagan’s words were wildly torqued – one headline uses the term coalition – a term he never uses. As Chantal hebert wrote yesterday, it was loloSH’s duty to send a letter to the GG.

    And as I have stated before – it is perfectly fine to form a coalition. The problem for the LPC is that the type they would form – a facsimile of the one they organized in 2008 – is not what they are a campaigning for and it is not what canadians want. Thus if there is a minority AND they do coalesce either formally or informally with the BQ/ND it will be politically illegitimate.

    3. Income-splitting will be the greatest election promise of all time. It will peel off many disenfranchised suburban and urban liberals and they will move to their new political family the CPC. Income-splitting is something an lpc that included John Manley and frank McKenna would not only support but would have proposed. Interesting that the lpc really isn’t attacking the idea – just the implementation timeline.

    4. Nanos tracker starts tomorrow…

    5. Green grass…

  8. Ted says:

    Small correction, with respect, Warren.

    The Liberals – i.e. the Liberal campaign, not Liberal supporters and commenters – are not talking about the coalition.

    They respond to questions from the media, as they should (witness the response to the gaffe on Friday), but they are not bringing it up. They clearly have a plan and platform and so far are surprisingly focused.

  9. Gord Tulk says:

    Sorry, point four threw me off.

    Harper and the cpc won the day hands down. Income-splitting will be hugely popular – ESP among women. And it provides excellent discussion material for on the doorsteps.

    • MCBellecourt says:

      Not after the ‘fine print’ is brought front and center. A single-income nuclear family making under a bit over $41K gets zippidy-doo-dah. While a single income family making approx. $70K/yr might save around $3K in taxes, a family in which Mom and Dad both work, pulling in the same income, gets–you guessed it–zippidy-doo-dah–and there is no accounting for daycare costs because that stupid $100.mo stipend is TAXABLE.

      Single parent families will not be eligible for income splitting.

      The families that need the help the most get NOTHING.

      And, NOBODY gets ANYTHING until after the budget is balanced–like that’ll ever happen with this “Conservative” government.

      This promise is nothing but a whitewash and a distraction.

    • Ted says:

      Income splitting will be hugely popular.

      Income splitting as Harper has proposed is dead on arrival.

      - you don’t get it for at least 5 years, and certainly not until after the next election
      - you don’t get it if there is any deficit (has Harper shown even the slightest bit of fiscal prudence at any time in 5 years?)
      - you don’t get it if you are not really wealthy
      - you don’t get it if Harper doesn’t get a majority
      - you don’t get it if the lower income spouse isn’t a lot a lot lower than the higher income spouse
      - you don’t get it if you have a kid in university, have to stay at home to take care of an adult child with disabilities or a parent
      - you don’t get any assistance if you are divorced or a single parent

      Every article I’ve read about this focuses on the “catches” and all the “strings attached”. In a CTV interview yesterday with a stay-at-home mom, she was really excited about it but then quite put out maybe even pissed when she found out the details.

      Her question: why is he promising this now? Exactly.

    • fritz says:

      Gord: the policy may be good and it may be popular with women but almost all the discussion to date on the topic is about timing and not the policy itself. When a policy discussion, and all the press coverage, is all about the process of the timing of the implementation then you are losing the battle.

    • nic coivert says:

      Income splitting would be popular if

      a) Harper was trustworthy

      b) if it wasn’t at the end of a very long stick, ie Deficit reduction over at least 5 years

      c) it wasn’t poisoned by the fact that only families with two parents are eligible. Again this is Harper imposing his ideology on the world. His definition of the family is a stay at home mom and a working dad, others need not apply. You can always count on Steve to kick people when they’re down.

      Also, as the Cons drop in the polls and it becomes apparent they won’t get that coveted majority, those people who may be induced to support them will blink and the hallucination will be gone. Harper minority- bye bye five year plan. And really, are most people willing to wait 5 years to save 100 dollars a month, especially after the Health Accord is gutted, this is what would happen under a Harper majority. I really doubt it.

  10. VH says:

    Warren you write: “My friend Tom Flanagan shows, once again, why (a) he’s honest”

    Look, Tom Flanagan may be many things but the person who wrote this piece wanting to bring back discrimination saying it’s time to “right some wrongs” is anything but an honest broker.

    Small sample, he writes “There is discrimination in the private sector, but it is self-liquidating over time because of the costs it imposes on discriminators” …which of course if it were actually true, 100 years after “emancipation” there wouldn’t have been the need for Rosa Parks on the bus and there wouldn’t be pictures like this and this (at Woolworth’s)floating around.

    Can’t a brother just get a meal?

    Anyways, he’s apparently your “friend”, so maybe it’s time for an intervention? I’m just sayin’.

  11. Gord Tulk says:

    Meant point five. Need to get to somewhere warm. The view out the kitchen window could be Siberia in January – not exaggerating.

  12. Dave Roberts says:

    I’m not a big fan of any politician making promises that go beyond their potential mandate as Harper has done. Why was it then acceptable by governments past and present to make claims of decreasing CO2 emissions to a given level by 2050? Odd how no one ever seemed to criticize that timeline.

    • Ted says:

      That’s a bit different because the promise entailed taking some action now, during that PMs term, in order to reach that end goal.

      Maybe off to talk about 2050, but not off in the same way as Harper’s maybe someday promise.

      • Dave Roberts says:

        A 2050 timeline is so far off in the future almost no measurable steps even need to be taken in a 4 year mandate. In Harper’s case if the deficit isn’t reduced or eliminated over the 4 year period he and his party would be held to account by the electorate in the next election.

        • Ted says:

          Like I said, it’s off or even ridiculous to talk about 2050 like it’s ridiculous to talk about promises two elections from now.

          However, the “2050″ was not a promise. It was a silly too far out goal. You can’t look at that in isolation because it was not talked about in isolation it was always talked about in terms of what the party was planning to do NOW in the next term. So you would be able to measure what they said they would do NOW.

  13. Dude Love says:

    I think the coalition issue will dog the Liberals and Ignatieff for some time, even though he said no. In the policy framework, the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada will adhere to this agreement until June 30, 2011 unless renewed. The Bloc Québécois will adhere to this agreement until June 30, 2010 unless renewed.

    So, you can say no now, but then say we had an agreement and we need to abide by that agreement.


    • Ted says:

      The Liberals and the NDP already rejected the coalition agreement. The Bloc never signed it.

        • Ted says:

          Nope. They did not sign the coalition agreement. Please stop spreading that lie.

          The Bloc agreed not to bring down a Dion-led “loser” government, just like they agreed not to bring down a Harper-led “loser” government in 2004. The one and only difference is that they wrote it down so as to be transparent and open this time.

          • H Holmes says:

            Thats not true.

            They signed this agreement, which is the coalition agreement

          • Ted says:

            HH: Give it a rest. Duceppe did not sign the coalition agreement. He was not part of the coalition. Period. Duceppe in 2008 was only agreeing to do what he was going to do for Harper in 2004.

            You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

            Here is a copy of the coalition agreement. Notice that there are only two signatures only.

            What you keep flashing up is the support agreement in which Layton and Duceppe agree not to topple the Dion government. Which is basically exactly what they were agreeing to do in 2004 when Harper wanted to become a loser forming a government without an election and with the support of the “separatists and socialists”.

          • H Holmes says:

            The liberals and NDP needed form a coalition with the Bloc or they would not have enough votes.

            Hense the second agreement.
            Liberal-NDP: 114
            Conservatives: 143

            You can interpret it anyway you want, but the coalition had to included the Bloc or else the governor general would not let the NDP-Liberal coalition alone govern.

            The conservatives in 2004 would have formed a minority with only the NDP and would only have had to them in a coalition to be the minority party
            Liberal: 135
            NDP-Conservative: 153

          • Ted says:

            Now you are really out in space Holmes.

            Does Harper have a coalition with any party? No? Then how on earth can he govern???

            Harper needed the support of the other parties to become PM without an election which is why they had a support agreement or “co-opposition accord” or co-operlition or whatever you want to call it. You can’t change facts to suit current political needs, bud.

            You are also changing the subject. You asserted that Duceppe was part of the coalition and signed the coalition agreement. Obviously, he did no such thing and you’ve been caught out in a lie.

          • h holmes says:

            Calling someone a liar is a bit strong especially when there is a signed document between all three parties.

            That document is what myself and most of canada including all of the major news sources claim is the coalition agreement.

            AS the links I posted were directly from the CBC

            Not some conservative web blog.

            You are revising history.

            As for my last post you didn’t read it.

            A party needs the plurality of votes to form government.

            The liberal led coalition would not have a had plurality of votes without the bloc support.
            Therefore GG would not have granted an NDP Liberal coalition the right to govern.

          • Ted says:

            Sorry but you can “think” it is a coalition agreement all that you want. It simply is not. You’ve bought into the Conservative spin and it is deliberately false.

            It is in writing the same support agreement that Harper and Layton and Duceppe worked out in 2004.

            As for revising history, you revise history and revise our Constitution. Can you show me where it says only those who have a plurality can govern? Are you saying that the Peterson government in in 1985 was unconstitutional? Or in Manitoba?

            Are you saying that Stephen Harper was dead wrong in 1997 when he advocated for a coalition of the loser parties to form a government even if the Liberals had more seats? I know Harper is desperately trying to backpeddle and revise that history and the history of 2004, but no one is buying it.

          • H Holmes says:

            The liberal NDP agreement in 1985 had the plurality of seats, therefore they had the right to govern.

            The liberals could not form government without a formal agreement, with the NDP.

            That is the same as the liberal progressives in 1926.

            I guess the thought of a formal coalition versus a written agreement, troubles you.

            For me there is no real difference, an agreement is signed that lets one group govern.
            The fact is that without the bloc they would not form government and that’s why all the major papers lists them in the coalition “agreement”. Inlcuding the Star and CBC.

            Except you.

    • The Other Jim says:

      But where is the damn birth certificate!?!?!?!?!?!?!

  14. Dom says:

    W, is this a fact?

    “On Friday March 25, 2011 the Canadian House of Commons found Prime Minister Stephen Harper guilty of contempt of Parliament. According to parliamentary law, contempt of parliament is a federal crime. Being that Harper has been found guilty of a crime Harper is barred from seeking re-election on May 2, 2011. No federal government or cabinet minister has ever been found in contempt before.”


    • The Other Jim says:

      No. Bev Oda was the only individual found in contempt of Parliament. The Conservative Party was also collectively found in contempt. Stephen Harper was not individually found in contempt.

      • Ted says:

        Actually, Bev Oda was almost found in contempt but it never came back to the House as a result of dissolution.

        Peter McKay was also almost found in contempt on the detainee documents.

        What you could say is that it was clear she was in contempt, or that the Speaker indicated she was prima facie (i.e. obviously) in contempt, or that the committee recommended she be found in contempt, but you can’t say that she was found in contempt by Parliament.

        The government however was found in contempt.

    • The Other Jim says:

      Further, Parliament cannot find someone guilty of a crime, only the courts can. Some of the confusion may stem from the fact that Parliament can censure someone who has been found in contempt, and such censures could potentially include jail time. This is not the same as being found guilty of a crime.

  15. HarryR says:

    Mr. K, the prospect of a coalition has legs because it IS a big deal. On Dec 1, 2008 the opposition parties signed an instrument declaring what amounts to an intent to effectively usurp a legitimate government of Canada. That instrument is still valid – until June 30, 2011.
    Today, we are all wondering, why would any political entity be so rash, when trailing so far behind in the polls, to bring down the House? Why seize upon on an issue that has so little resonance with the populace? Here’s a hypothetical scenario. Perhaps it is because the outcome of the election is viewed as irrelevant. Barring the unlikely event of a Con majority, the instrument of ultimate success is already in place. The 2008 accord – still valid – no need to re-declare it – to do would really put the cat among the pigeons! But time is of the essence – June 30th is looming. The budget is too benign to use as a confidence motion – to engineer a fall on that would very likely result in Con majority. What to do? Shucks! We’ll have to go with the contempt for democracy thing!
    Now, Mr. Ignatief and the others can say what they like. Lies, denial and obfuscation are not unknown in Canadian politics – a fact with which the people are painfully aware. The election is a reality and a possible course of action, demonstrating the ultimate contempt for democracy, by the opposition parties is also a reality. THAT is why the spectre of a “Coalition” is a big deal. That’s why it has legs. And that is why it won’t go away!

    • The Other Jim says:

      Dumbest. Post. Ever.

      I realize that this is becoming a “talking point” repeated by individuals of a certain perspective, but it doesn’t hold up to even the most basic logical examination.

      If the three parties still want to form a coalition, they have no need to rush to do so before June 30, 2011. They could simply contest an election, lose it, and then form a coalition under exactly the same terms. A coalition of the losers is no more or less likely on June 29th as on July 1st.

      The “expiry date” of the document was clearly (as with the “Sunshine Accord” between the Ontario Liberals & NDP in 1985) included to provide a stable lifespan for the coalition government that would have seized power in 2008. The date isn’t there as a “let’s do this anytime before it expires”, its there to ensure that once power is taken, the new Prime Minister can govern with relative stability over a time frame to properly implement the new government’s policies.

      What possible point/value would there be in creating a governing coalition that would only exist for six weeks? The Prime Minister would then immediately be held hostage by the junior partners in order to cling to power.

      Honestly, this ranks with “Stephen Harper can’t legally run for parliament” as the stupidest talking point of the day.

      • HarryR says:

        A creditable, demolition of an admittedly frivolous hypothesis, Other Jim. Well stated.

        Irrespective of how or when or if a coalition is martialed, or even if it is not, Mr. Ignatief has demonstrated that he is not averse to seizing power with a coalition of the losing factions. That, in my opinion, demonstrates a far greater contempt for democratic process than that which the opposition saw was fit to bring down the House. I suspect that many Canadians including many dyed-in-the-wool Liberals are not at all comfortable with an alliance with the NDP and the Bloc Q. I think the low polling numbers reflect that. The spectre of a coalition is Mr. Ignatief?s skeleton in the closet and I believe it will continue to haunt him or at least remain a ?talking point? so long as he is Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

    • Ted H. says:

      Hello HarryS, have you changed your name again?

      • reformatory says:

        yah tell me about it– even trolls. How much is he getting paid any? Anybody know the details?

        • reformatory says:

          I meant to say.. tell me about it- enough trolls already. How much is he getting paid? Anybody know the details?

          • The Other Jim says:

            But I don’t get how this sort of stuff helps HarryR and his ilk make their point. The whole “they already have an agreement” talking point doesn’t withstand even the most basic analysis of the situation.

  16. MCBellecourt says:

    I’m going a little bit off-topic, Mr. K., so apologies in advance, but have you seen this yet?


    • dave says:

      Thanks for going off onto this topic…I sure would like to see this topic (and the opportunities this article suggests )more fully debated during this election campaign.

      My squeeze and I watched THE KING’S SPEECH recently, and I looked at the pics of the barrage balloons over London in 1939. I remembered Marshall McLuhan writing about how those barrage balloons were later found to intefere with the initial operation of radar. He said that it was an example of an old technology preventing a new from working the way that it could.
      Sometimes I think that our couple of centuries of fossil fuel dependence has imbedded physical, financial and cultural ‘barrage balloons’ to the extent that we cannot get the alternative technologies to kick in properly.

  17. Ted says:

    No. It is not a fact.

    And I really wish those who are pushing this would stop. It’s ridiculous and barring Harper from running would be a way worse afront to democracy than any of the many many anti-democratic things Harper has done.

    First of all, Harper has not been found “guilty” of anything.

    Second, “contempt” is not a crime.

    Third, Harper has not even been personally found in contempt. Only his government.

    Let it go.

  18. eattv says:

    Is that Laureen on the right, there? She looks like she’d rather be pretty much anywhere else.

  19. Leo Fleming says:

    Normally talking about election planks that will take in 5 years time is remarkably stupid. Unless the point is to make the case that the government doesn’t have any money right now. And then hit the Liberals over the head with that when the Libs make all their spending promises. $5 billion for this, $3 billion for that…

    And when the Liberals talk about raising taxes (good job McCallum) then Harper can blast the Liberals for threatening the economic recovery. Raise corporate taxes? “What are you trying to do? Drive jobs out of Canada!!!!” Scrap the new jets? Canada’s in 2 wars right now. “Can’t do that!!”

    Then the Tories can start pointing at Ignatieff’s hidden agenda of forming a minority government with the backing of the tax and spend NDP. It all fits into the Conservative’s narrative – coalition, Libs will raise taxes, spend recklessly, destroy the economy.

  20. Sean says:

    does inc. split plan work for SSM couples?

  21. James says:

    I believe the coalition issue still has juice and mileage to it.

    Coalition is palatable and defensible if the second-place party is VERY close in popular vote to the first-place party. But if the second-place party lags behind by several percentange points, then how has it earned the moral right to govern simply by joining forces with the other losing parties??

    Unlike the academics, constitutional experts and journalists who think coalition is just fine and dandy, the general population is pretty uncomfortable with it. What’s fine in theory isn’t necessarily acceptable in reality.

    • Ted says:

      OK, but if Harper has another minority with all of the same players, and then introduces a throne speech that doesn’t have the support of the House, what kind of moral authority does he have to govern?

      Polls actually show that Canadians are quite comfortable with the idea of a coalition. In fact, a good chunk of us want it to end these minority governments.

      What the polls show is that we really really didn’t want the 2008 coalition. That’s all.

      I think Canadians like the idea of the kind of coalition in Australia, Britain, Ireland, Israel, etc. or in Ontario in 1985. In fact, right now, I think you could say, Canada is the outlier as far as coalitions are concerned.

      • eattv says:

        Gilles should throw another wrench into Harper’s works and tell him that the BQ would be happy to politically support a minority CPC, as it has many times during these past 4 years…

    • Namesake says:

      go home, James: the Libs won’t be forming a coalition, the way the PM is defining it (viz., as the type he didn’t get a chance to do, which includes a signed formal agreement that defines a role for NDP Cabinet Ministers). Period. So it’s like saying, “I don’t think it would be acceptable to Canadians to let anyone immigrate here” — i.e., IRRELEVANT.

      Meanwhile, Harper is out there telling more lies in his presser in SK on small business issues: claiming that the Libs still intend to implement a ’45-day working year to become eligible for EI,’ which’d cost small biz’s plenty in extra premiums — even though MI explicitly RETRACTED that (which was only ever meant to be temporary) about a year ago, when the recession ended.

      • James says:

        According to yesterday’s cover of the Toronto Sun, a paltry 17% believe Iggy’s “no coalition” pledge (so, at 17%, I guess a lot of Liberals don’t believe Iggy either!). The Conservatives should keep this up as a campaign issue. The Liberals are trying to close this matter because they know it terrifies the public.

        • Namesake says:

          But it DOESN’T terrify “the public,” it just terrifies the CPC voters, and that’s just because the CPC deliberately set out about terrifying you about it, which is what they do, as fear-mongers.

          In fact, acc. to some polls, two-thirds of the voters of all the other major parties would be okay with it, as long as there is no formal role for the Bloc, which there wouldn’t be.

          So the only ones you’re frightening is yourselves. You’re just boring and bothering the rest of us, so go away.

          • James says:

            The Liberals and Toronto Star are the fear-mongers. Just read Heather Mallick and the “Letters to the Editor” section in any random issue of the Toronto Star.

            “As long as there is no formal role for the Bloc”. Okay, so the Liberals really do support a coalition after all, which would involve the Bloc to make it become a reality, but the Bloc would have no formal role and would simply act as a prop. (BTW, I don’t believe your reference to “acc. to some polls”; you don’t cite what they are).

            I hope the Conservatives are reading this and hammer away at the coalition issue. This is getting scary.

            I think the Libs should really be focussing their fire and attention at the NDP. They are are your real threat in this election and are siphoning away support.

          • Warren says:

            Were you paid for this post?

          • The Other Jim says:

            I think that Warren is trying to create his own internet meme.

          • Warren says:

            Were you paid for that comment?™

          • Namesake says:

            acc. to the same poll you cited, Bombed, James Bombed:

            “Still, a significant majority of Liberal, NDP and BQ voters support the idea of a coalition government in which MPs from those parties are participants. Leger found that, among those who identify themselves as Liberal supporters, two-thirds “approved” of a Liberal-NDP-BQ coalition. It was the same with the NDP, with two-thirds of that party’s supporters giving such a coalition the thumbs up. Conservative voters are nearly unanimous – 95% – in thinking that a coalition is a terrible idea.”


          • James says:

            Okay, Namesake, then why do two-thirds of Liberals “approve” of a Liberal-NDP-BQ coalition? Because they can’t form a government on their own! So why don’t Liberals just come clean on the matter and simply say to Canadian voters that, yes, they would entertain a coalition, depending on the circumstances?

            Canada is not some sort of toy or plaything. Everything must be on the table in an election campaign.

          • Namesake says:

            Sigh. They — and we’re talking less than two hundred people in the entire country, here, who were ID’d as Liberal supporters who supported this — answered because they were ASKED, a HYPOTHETICAL q.,* and because, as Leger online panelists, they were COMPENSATED for answering it.

            And what has this to do with what the leader of the Party intends to do after the election? Nothing. Nothing at all.

            And to your louder q. below, again, they answered because they were asked a hypothetical q. and because they were compensated to answer it, but, contrary to your less than brilliant deduction, ^NOT because they thought such a coalition would be needed to win;

            … at least, most Liberal supporters did ^NOT appear to feel that way, because (and I know this isn’t your strong suit, so let me help) if you read a little further down into the survey, you’ll see (in q.3) that only 1/3rd of all the LPC supporters think it’s even a serious possibility, much less something that would actually be done
            or even needed. (While one half quite rightly see it as “only a Conservative
            political ploy.” Unlike the 72% of you CPCers the PMO is fooling most of the time.)

            So give it a rest, already; even the heavily pro-CPC QMI Media co. that commissioned this poll thinks that there’s nothing more to see here, and that it’s time to put this BS coalition bogeyman issue to rest and get on with the substantive issues,** and that if the LPC didn’t win but ended up pretty close behind the CPC, that it’d probably be legitimate for them to team up with the NDP if the CPC continued to be jackasses and lost another confidence vote.***

            * Q. “1.a Would you approve or disapprove if the Liberals, Bloc and NDP formed a political
            coalition?” http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/POL/113281ENG.pdf

            ** Coalition issue is a question for losers

            *** Coalition smell test

          • James says:

            Namesake: We’ll agree to disagree. The coalition issue will not be buried. J.

          • Namesake says:

            I’ll agree you’re disagreeable

          • James says:

            How noble of you. When the truth hurts, just attack the messenger!

    • The poster formerly known as James says:

      Dammit – now I’m going to be confused with an astroturfer.

      Fine – I will thusly be known as The poster formerly known as James

      • James says:

        Well, there you go, no surprise there!! And WHY do two-thirds of Liberals support the idea of a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition? BECAUSE THEY CAN’T FORM A GOVERNMENT ENTIRELY ON THEIR OWN. The Liberals are essentially a 416/City of Toronto party.

        So, Namesake, why don’t the Liberals just come clean on the matter and say to Canadian voters that they WILL form a coalition if they come in second place on May 2?? You’re digging yourself into a deeper hole.

  22. dave says:

    The “c’ as in ‘coalition’ kerfuffle has kept the ‘c’ as in ‘contempt’ kerfuffle off of the media.

    Most seem to read the income trust kick in as in 5 years…but the 5 years is when the Conservs claim the deficit is gone, and the income trust reads to me as kicking in only when the deficit is gone. Some other organizations than the Conservs suggest that the Conserv deficit reduction plan is flawed, and the deficit will not be gone in 5 years.

  23. you says:



    Harper is wrong about human smuggling and politic behind it

    and refugee status in world

    refugee is important issue and they may pass from one country to other country

    may using known as human smuggling group as well and put treat and security in thier life to pass this way too

    but draw line of intention of refugee or people come in Canada are different that human smuggle pass illegal law of immigration and visa permit

    this draw line in immigration policy need to clear

    not every refugee need to go jail if they seek reason ofr refugee to live in other country in certain position

    harper also was wrong in treat youth and teens by police force to fix them there is other way to help youth not hurt them

    harper is wrong in israel-US full trust take position as well

  24. DL says:

    If Harper keeps saying that we have a choice between a Conservative majority or an opposition coalition/arrangement – then all he is doing is legitimizing the idea that if the Conservatives fail to win a majority – the election will have to be considered a victory for the opposition parties as a whole!

  25. Kelmcc says:

    Re: kids not in school.

    It’s spring break in MB, perhaps in BC as well?

  26. dave says:

    I liked Duceppe’s comment abouthe ‘split income’ announcement.
    He said that the split income is a budget item.
    If the Conservs did not want an election, then why did they not put income splitting in their budget?

    Duceppe is sure going after Conservs in Quebec, and some of his stuff can apply in the rest of the country.

  27. The Doctor says:

    I totally agree with WK that Iggy looks good campaigning, compared to Harper. Iggy looks relaxed, smiles, seems informal etc. Funny that Margaret Wente, whom Liberals usually loathe, writes today in the Globe that she finds harper’s coming across as this Mr. Grim and No Fun on the campaign trail. But looking at yesterday’s news clips, I agree. One potential problem for Team Liberal though — I wonder if that clip with Iggy shouting “I LOVE ELECTIONS!” will end up in a CPC attack ad.

  28. conoisseur says:

    Even the National Post says the Reformatories should drop the silly coalition talk and get on with real issues. Now that`s impressive !!

    • Namesake says:

      not James & some of these other diehard Harpies, tho’ — they’ll be talking about it for 40 more years, like those abandoned Japanese soldiers isolated on Pacific islands, still fighting WW-II for decades after it’s over.

    • The Doctor says:

      The NP’s right though (no pun intended). Harper’s made his point, there’s some political value to it, but he risks looking patently ridiculous, even to the most casual observers of politics. It’s wearing thin, and the fact that the NP is saying so is all the proof you need.

      • Mark in Ontario says:

        This media obsession with coalitions is starting to get creepy. I almost believe Mr Harper phoned Flanagan and asked him to say something to the press. Now the media is obsessing about what Mr Harper thought about coalitions in 1997, when Jean Chretien was PM, Paul Martin the loyal Finance Minister, Preston Manning the Opposition Leader and Ignatieff a BBC TV host in London. Bonus for the Conservatives. No mention anywhere of “historic contempt of parliament rulings”, in-and-out, Bev Oda, Carson’s girlfriend, blah, blah. I imagine the staffers in the Conservative War Room have bets about how long they can keep this coalition obsession in the media going.

        The “free beer and popcorn money for high-schoolers” announcement was interesting. If you are going to intrude into provincial jurisdiction (education) hopefully you have cleared it with the provinces. The Liberal war room clarification that Quebec CEGEP students wouldn’t profit because they will be discriminated against (they will get their $4000 over 5 years, not four) tells me they didn’t talk to Jean Charest’s people first. Maybe Denis Coderre was right when he was fired as Quebec lieutenant because he said Ignatieff was controlled by Toronto big-shots who know nothing about Quebec. For everyone else, well, students who don’t generally vote will like free money but their parents who do vote won’t like the cancellation of the Education Tax Credit which is transferable to them.

        Best media lines for today go to Magaret Wente in the Globe and Mail:

        “In other times, Mr. Ignatieff might have had a shot. He’s a far better leader than Stéphane Dion was (and is also intelligible in English). He’s much smarter and more credible than some prime ministers we’ve had. (Kim Campbell, anyone?) But everything is stacked against him. The centre-right is united, the centre-left is split and the Liberals have virtually lost Quebec. The ruling party hasn’t worn out its welcome yet (it hasn’t been in office long enough), and none of its various scandals involve large bags of cash…. It’s a perfect storm for Iggy, and my [downtown Toronto] friends can’t rescue him. The only question is how many seats the Liberals will lose.”

  29. Hazel McCallion, mayor of Mississauga, is definitely way past her political prime. She must be La Prima Donna of politics.

  30. Gord Tulk says:

    Fun with numbers:

    The leger poll on support for a coalition: On rt hand side of page: http://www.legermarketing.com/eng/

    If you take out the undecideds (as most polls do)

    In The ROC 66% disapprove,

    In Quebec 38% disapprove

    assuming Que is 25% of canada’s population, the total for all of Canada is:

    59% disapprove, 41 approve.

    • Stuart says:

      You missed the part where the question was whether the Liberals, NDP, AND Bloc should form a coalition. The discussion was always just the Liberals and NDP forming a coalition, so the numbers for just the two have got to be higher when you take out the fear of the “separatists” gaining power. You also missed this tidbit: “While 95% of Conservative supporters disapprove, two in three Liberal, NDP and Bloc supporters approve of the idea.”

      So the vast majority of people who disapprove of the idea of a non-Conservative government are Conservatives. Not very surprising.

      Y’know, when the idea was initially floated back in 2008 my knee-jerk reaction was that it was a bad idea and I’ve kept that opinion. But the more and more it gets talked about the more it’s growing on me. Having the conversation out there might end up backfiring for Harper if it gets more and more people will be comfortable with the idea as a way for getting some sanity back in Ottawa.

Leave a Reply