“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

The Senate is an anti-democratic abomination. Always has been, always will be.

I don’t give a damn how difficult it is. Abolish it.

And if that proves too difficult, stop appointing Senators to it. I’d vote for a PM who’d promise to do that. Any stripe.

26 Responses to “The Senate is an anti-democratic abomination. Always has been, always will be.”

  1. John Morse says:

    I am certain the entire NDP party will be very pleased to welcome you aboard, Warren. I for one am elated by this news.

  2. Chubsy Ubsy says:

    But what about `sober second thought`, Warren? Alright…who threw that tomato?

    • bluegreenblogger says:

      The few Senators I have known seldom had a sober first thought. Having the occasional tipple doesn’t impair their ability to serve as senators though.

  3. Les Miller says:

    I’m with you all the way on this one.

  4. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    There are very few checks left — the judiciary is in the process of being…circumscribed. The Senate has a reputation as a rubber stamp but in some instances it has managed to put on a brake. I don’t know that I want to see that go, just yet.

  5. Merrill Smith says:

    I always like David Lewis’s proposal to cut their pay to $1 a year. How many would bother to accept the job and show up for work?

  6. Corey says:

    A full stop to appointing senators would be problematic I think… if there are no senators, then Parliament couldn’t pass legislation…

  7. Robert K says:

    Once upon a time the YLM (young Libs of MB) called on sitting senators to resign and run for election. The senior government Senator of the day in MB (Gil Molgat) didn’t think it a bad idea… The Libs in the RoC thought MB Libs were crazy.

  8. Robert K. says:

    Once upon a time the Young Liberals of Manitoba publicly called on all sitting Senators to resign and stand for election. The Senior Liberal Senator at the time (Gil Molgat) didn’t think it a bad idea. Senior Libs in the RoC thought MB Young Libs were crazy and told them as much.

  9. !o! says:


    I always thought it was pretty hypocritical of Harper to harp on how terrible the Senate is, and then appoint record number of Senators.

  10. Michael Bussiere says:

    Frankly, if one is going to argue to abolish the Senate, then it is time to discuss abolishing the current Head of State. Neither are democratic, representative institutions. Both are remnants of another era. The value of the work of both is dubious at best. At least the Senate attends to real business on occasion. At least the Senate is made up of citizens, many of whom have had distinguished careers. The Monarchy, on the other hand, is built upon ethnic and religious denominational exclusivity, has established its place through vicious historical agression, denies all outsiders entry, and is in no way representative of Canada in the 21st century.
    So why talk about abolishing the Senate, and have Harper promote the hell out of the Monarchy at the same time?

  11. Iris Mclean says:

    Maybe it’s time for an audit of every senator’s expenses.
    Better yet, just lay them all off and let them collect EI for a year.

  12. GPAlta says:

    I believe strongly in Canada having one house of parliament elected according to proportional representation, and one elected to represent local ridings. No simple house can do both at once, and the House of Commons is already doing the second quite respectably, so I think it is obvious that the Senate needs to be changed to a PR election model.

    The only change from the system we have now is for each party to generate a ranked list of senate candidates prior to the general election, and we’d be ready to go.

    The balance of power between the two houses could be simple (have the same number of seats in each house, and require an overall majority in parliament – in essence, a single house) or complex (u.s. style), but whatever it turned out to be, it would be useful to try to balance Canadian’s aggregate philosophies against each riding’s local issues. What we have for a senate now is of no use whatsoever.

  13. frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib says:

    The words of Cromwell come to mind: “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately… Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”
    Of course he was talking about the English rump parliament at the time…..but its still fitting for today’s senate…..

  14. J.H. says:

    I can understand how no PM would want to leave a majority of an oppositon party in power in the upper house. How about cutting their salaries etc. and agreeing no more would be appointed period? It would seem an all-party deal could be possible as all of them are paying lip service to the idea of reform. This could work while on the road to abolishment.

  15. Ty says:

    (1)It’s borderline unconstitutional not to appoint Senators.

    (2) The current election idea would give NS more seats than BC.

    (3) Anyone who proposes EEE should be shot out of a cannon.

    Just dump it, it’s worth the effort.

  16. bluegreenblogger says:

    I say that the Senate does not do any harm. I would even say that a relatively powerless Senate does actually do some good. they slow down legislation, and basically ensure that a second group of eyes get clapped on each piece of legislation. Once upon a time, the Senate would routinely clean up shoddy language and ambiguities in pending legislation, and send back really contentious legislation s few times, just to make sure that Parliament really really meant it. They were appointed for life, so they would be beholden to no-one, but their power was accordingly circumscribed. I do not want a second house that has any meaningful legislative power, but neither do I want to live with an un-restrained Parliament. I guess a term limit would be ok, and would get rid of some of the blatant deadwood, but then Senators who wanted a subsequent career would be beholden to their political masters after all. As unpopular as it may be at this moment in time, I do not buy into the flavour of the month that somehow our democracy is imperilled by an appointed senate. I would be content if nothing changed.

    • Mackenzie says:

      No harm? A house full of unelected, partisan people? A Conservative majority government and a majority in the senate by appointment? That seems harmful to me. The old boys club needs to go. Perhaps a non-partisan committee could be struck that is responsible for slowing down and giving these bills a good read. Having your boys rush your omnibus bills into law is undemocratic; it’s dangerous; and it’s bullshit.

      • bluegreenblogger says:

        Dude, the appointed senate does not introduce legislation. They cannot alter legislation without Parliament approving their changes. They have nothing to do with whether an omnibus bill passes or not. The most they could do is shine a light on it by slowing it down a bit. It wouldn’t make much difference if the Senate was majority Liberal, or Conservative, or Rhinocerous party. They would still perform the same function of reviewing legislation, and making some noise when they did not like something. They really do not do any harm to anyone, except the fact that they cost some dough to run. The same functions could probably be performed by civil servants I guess, but why bother.

  17. Ty says:

    Because, of course, caring about one problem means you can’t care about another.

Leave a Reply