05.29.2014 09:09 PM

In Friday’s Sun: coalition volition

It was Kathleen Wynne’s campaign event, but it was also a testament to Stephen Harper’s political skills.

Let us explain. There the Ontario Liberal leader was, on Wednesday: in a Toronto–area classroom, a gaggle of smiling kindergarten kids gathered behind her. She was there to announce something or the other, but it doesn’t really matter what it was. What matters is the following exchange between Wynne and the assembled news media, when she was asked about the governing Liberals’ relationship with the New Democrats.

Said Wynne: “I’m not going to pre-empt the decision of people on June 12. I’m just not going to do that.”

A reporter, sounding amazed, interjected: “You’re NOT ruling out a coalition?”

Wynne responded right away, cheerfully stepping into the yawning chasm that Stephen Harper has carved out of our political culture.

“I’m not ruling out anything,” she said, and you could almost hear the air go out of that classroom. Wynne had twice refused to rule out THAT. She hadn’t said THAT, true, but her meaning was clear. She was ready to consider THAT.

And, THAT, of course, is the word that Stephen Harper, through a lot of hard work and no small amount of dishonesty, has rendered completely radioactive: COALITION. In other places, in other countries, “coalition” is a perfectly sensible way of governing oneself. In Israel, a nation many of us rather admire, they do it all the time. So too in other democracies.

But in Canada, no. Here, Harper has transformed “coalition” into something that is fundamentally anti-democratic. Here, coalitions are akin to revolution; they are anathema. To save his skin, Harper has successfully persuaded many people that coalitions are illegitimate – despite having agitated for one in 2004, when he was in Opposition. Once in power, it became lots of dark warnings about “a coalition of Liberals, separatists and socialists.” That sort of thing. It worked.

Kathleen Wynne was right to refuse to rule out a coalition with the NDP, following Ontario’s election June 12 conclusion. But, in politics, right is rarely the same thing as smart. In other words, she made a big mistake, one Ontarians are likely to be hearing quite a bit about in the coming days. Three reasons.

One, Wynne has been bombarding the airwaves with anti-NDP attack ads for weeks. She has even (rashly) gone to the trouble of narrating the attacks ads herself. How can she expect voters to now understand her sudden desire to leap into bed with Andrea Horwath? To many, it makes no sense. Either the NDP is a threat to democracy, or they are a partner in governing. They cannot be both.

Two, Wynne has effectively given Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak an excellent way to change the channel on his current dilemma. At the campaign’s outset, you see, Hudak announced his “million jobs plan,” and who can be against creating a million jobs? But then, immediately thereafter, the PC leader also declared his intention to fire 100,000 public servants.

To voters, that didn’t make much sense. How can you say you are going to create a lot of jobs, and then simultaneously flush a lot of jobs?

Wynne’s surprise announcement gives a relieved Hudak a stick with which he will beat the Liberals, and change the aforementioned channel on his own problems.

Thirdly, and finally, Wynne’s timing was terrible. One should never, ever indulge in coalition-talk around elections (ask Stephane Dion). For one thing, it suggests to everyone that you think you are going to lose. For another, it looks like you are trying to circumvent the people’s will with a dirty backroom deal.

Kathleen Wynne was, as noted, quite entitled to talk up coalitions. But that doesn’t mean she hasn’t just handed an undeserved victory to her opponent.

Ask Stephen Harper. He knows.


  1. Joe says:

    In all honesty I believe that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc made coalitions toxic not PM Harper. PM Harper was able to exploit the feelings of many Canadians who felt that the ‘coalition’ was attempting a palace coup. IF the coalition had been arranged before the PM had been called and sworn in then the feeling of improper overthrow of legitimate government would not have been a factor. On the other hand maybe a Liberal NDP coalition in Ontario is exactly what the people want and as such Wynne’s speculation may free people to vote strategically so they don’t split the vote and allow the PCs to win.

  2. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Have to differ on this, with all due respect…

    The precise moment when “coalition” became toxic was the specter of Dion, Layton and Duceppe sitting at the table, announcing their intentions, and shaking hands on the deal. All three had just lost an election, and each had lost decisively.

    Canadians were outraged at their shameless audacity and rank self-serving opportunism. All the more compounded by the fact that Canada, along with the rest of western world, was facing the singularly most menacing economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression. A time when the very last thing needed was instability in government and political gamesmanship that assuredly would have ensued.

    Within mere days, the CPC rose to 55% in polling.

    Of course Harper capitalized on that down the road, it was a gift. What political leader worth even half his salt wouldn’t?


    • Brammer says:

      With all due respect, Layton, Dion and Duceppe had not “just lost an election”. They in fact won their seats, as did all the sitting members of their parties.

      Point is, many other governments around the world choose to organize themselves as a coalition in order to make it work for the people (and yes, this is done after, not before, the election).

      Unfortunately, and I think this is Warren’s point, Harper’s media machine successfully made the word “coalition” toxic in Canada.

      • Lance says:

        So Italy, Spain, and Greece, with the backroom dealing of it’s dozen political parties and pizza like Parliaments is what we should aspire to?

        Would you really relish parties like Golden Dawn potentially holding the balance of power in any coalition scenario? Too absurd of a scenario? What about political parties whose whole raison d’etre is the breakup of the country?

        Yeah, thanks but no thanks.

        • que sera sera says:

          I expect one would have to have at least some basic knowledge of our Westminster Parliamentary procedures to understand that Canada can legally be governed by a coalition – also, Italy, Spain and/or Greece are not countries that embrace the Westminster Parliament style of government.

          Apparently Harper & his groupies never let their complete ignorance of the subject at hand prevent them from spouting off irrelevant inanities in increasingly pathetic attempts to advance their illegitimate and toxic agenda.

          Good grief ……. The lunatics are running the asylum.

          • Lance says:

            So not Italy, Spain, or Greece or anything “Westminster”. These are governments that I see referred to all of the time when people who hate Harper bloviate about the illegitimacy of our current government as if other Canadian parties never formed a government likewise. Are there any other countries with a parliamentary government that are traditionally run with coalitions that do not apply, or are they any that you would like to cherry-pick in particular?

            Learn to read. Of course a coalition is legal; I wasn’t ever suggesting otherwise was I? Will it be desirable, even acceptable? That is another question. It sure was not the last time it was tried federally.

            And don’t make the erroneous assumption that I am automatically a Harper supporter just because I detect the waft of bullshit, regardless of the political stripe. M’kay?

          • que sera sera says:

            Lance, I only assume you’re an idiot due to your vapid commentary, not because of whatever politics of convenience you claim on an ad hoc basis.

            And with the volume of bullshite you shovel daily on this website, it’s clear your sniffer is fucking broke. Equally ineffective at detecting bullshit as a waft of integrity, intelligence, humility or rational discourse.


          • FlyingSquirrel says:

            @Lance – New Zealand has a Westminster system and has had coalitions and/or confidence-and-supply agreements ever since they instituted proportional representation. I’m not an expert on NZ politics, but I think their parliaments generally run their full term without the governments collapsing or losing votes of confidence. And the UK is currently operating under one, though the Lib Dems may be about to pay dearly for it next year.

            I’m a left-leaning American who reads this site out of curiosity about Canadian politics, but in some ways I think multiparty coalition governments with PR may actually be a little more fair and democratic. If only 40% of the population votes for Party X, then that suggests that, at the very least, a majority have some serious doubts about Party X’s leadership and policies, so it might actually be more representative of the public’s will for Party X to have to bargain with other parties to govern. Plus, having 3rd and 4th alternatives in the picture might help prevent the two largest parties from betting the farm on scorched-earth negative campaigning against each other.

          • Lance says:

            Lance, I only assume you’re an idiot due to your vapid commentary, not because of whatever politics of convenience you claim on an ad hoc basis. And with the volume of bullshite you shovel daily on this website, it’s clear your sniffer is fucking broke. Equally ineffective at detecting bullshit as a waft of integrity, intelligence, humility or rational discourse. Cheers.

            “Politics of convenience”, eh? How quaint. 🙂 Some of us can be flexible in our thinking and are not are not married to party ideology. I can only assume that you are nothing more than a party hack drone.

            Oh, and if reading what I write displeases you, feel free to give a pass. Or to not respond.


        • Al in Cranbrook says:

          Yeah, sure! Canadians really need to look to Europe for political inspiration and direction regarding democratic process.

          That would be the same Europe where half the nations are on life support, carried by a handful of the rest (okay, I admit this part sounds a little like Canada), and all of them with little more than fond memories of anything remotely resembling sovereignty over their own political affairs and cultural identities, having handed it off to the apparatchiks of the EU, most of whom consider democracy an inconvenience merely to be tolerated. And where one horse fringe parties by any other definition get to sit at the table and pretend they represent more than the half baked ideals of three people out of every hundred, essentially using their leverage to blackmail the adults in the room as to who gets to form a government for the next little while.

          Naturally, a socialist’s wet dream come true: “How much of other peoples money can we spend frivolously in order to buy your support? Speak up fast, ’cause Germany’s hard earned wealth won’t last forever. And keep in mind, we’re really keen on green, if you get my drift.”

          Uh, huh…

          • Al in Cranbrook says:

            Come to think of it, if one substitutes “Germany’s” with “the west’s”, that last paragraph I wrote sounds a little too much like Canada, too.


    • que sera sera says:

      Yes, we can certainly understand how Conservatives are threatened by politicians shaking hands and collaborating to legally govern the country – before or after any election.

      Intelligent Canadians are STILL outraged by Harper’s shameless audacity and rank self-serving opportunism – demonizing and lying about the legal realities of our Westminster Parliamentary system – since his own approach to the GG in 2004 seeking a coalition government himself. All while the media was hootiing shamelessly alongside like a troop of starving baboons fighting for the last papaya in the Senate jungle.

      Toxic turd polishers promoting Conservative politics before democracy: quite “a gift” indeed.

      Like Dallaire vs Duffy, Conservatives keep showing us the caliber of the instability in their government & the depths of their political gamesmanship – along with their complete contempt for Canada and Canadians.


  3. Lance says:

    If Wynne was upfront with those intentions immediately to begin with, and ran on the potential merit of it, than I don’t think that she would be having this issue; nor should she.

    Watching a tired, worn out government, when polls are saying a change is wanted, take second in an election and make a deal with the party that places third (don’t care if it’s PC OR NDP) just to prevent the party that won the most seats to even have a chance to form a government and just to hang on a little longer……..well, there is nothing illegal about it. But it sure would piss a LOT of people off, and rightly so.

    And I respectfully disagree; the comparison to Harper is not apt. If I am not mistaken (and I am more often mistaken that I’d care to admit LOL) the last time a federal coalition was tried was six WEEKS after the 2008 election and AFTER the Throne Speech was already read. If Wynne has copped to the possibility of a coalition initially, then people could vote based on that merit, without the behind the scenes backdoor dealing that was tried in 2008 in Ottawa.

  4. !o! says:

    Great article. Was really genuinely hoping someone would bring this point up.

  5. sezme says:

    The problem is that Harper has convinced a bunch of people that our parliamentary democracy is just like the American system where you can’t just get rid of a duly elected president between elections and effecting such would certainly cause a crisis.

    But we don’t have that system. We elect governments based on parties, not leaders. The party is entitled to have any member serve as prime minister; it doesn’t need to be the party leader. This is of course the structure, not what normally happens. But it’s important to understand the underlying framework to know what’s possible. Likewise it’s perfectly fine in a minority parliament for the opposition parties to defeat the government, and if those parties have enough members and can cooperate enough to govern through a coalition, well I’d say that’s pretty much the definition of democratic.

    Shorter version: Conservatives don’t like coalitions because no other party would consider inviting them to form one, and that’s sad for them, but it’s about time they started respecting our Canadian democratic system just a little bit more.

  6. GSW says:

    Let’s consider this improbable but tantalizing scenario developing after the election.

    Wynne and Hudak are still locked in with minorities and Horwath in third place holds the balance of power. Wynne goes to Horwath and asks her for support of another minority Liberal government and Horwath refuses saying that the Liberals must vacate governing because of corruption and mismanagement. Wasn’t that the rationale for the NDP no confidence vote?

    If Horwath does give Wynne her support to continue her minority Liberal government won’t that tar the NDP with the same corruption brush… and Hudak will be shouting that the NDP sold out to the union bosses and abandoned their principled stance for calling the election in the first place?

    Here’s the improbable scenario…. Horwath publicly declares the NDP will not support the disgraced corrupt Liberal government and says that they will entertain supporting a minority PC government provided Hudak relents on his 100,000 public service job chop. Horwath tells Ontarians that the principled NDP will not prop up a corrupted Liberal regime any more and that the Liberals cannot be trusted to carry out their promises anyway. She calls on Wynne to resign her minority government position and let Hudak try to govern Ontario. If Hudak disappoints Horwath she can then pull the plug on the PCs and forces another snap election … going to Ontarians and telling them that both the Liberals and PCs just don’t measure up to govern Ontario effectively or progressively.

    Strange things can happen in politics ….. 😉

  7. Kelly says:

    In our phony electoral system the only legitimate governments are coalitions. Getting all the power from only 37% of the popular vote is a sham democracy. It’s a lie. It’s government by loser. How many times does one have to say it. We have a government that most Canadians never ever wanted. And the peacocks in charge are vandalizing the place. It’s going to take years to undo all the bad policy. There are hundreds of lousy bills to repeal (with luck the courts will keep striking them down and save us some work (Thank you Mr. Trudeau Senior!). Until we have PR — which usually leads to some form of coalition and more consensus — the entire exercise of voting in this country (and the UK and the USA) is an exercise in mass delusion.

    • Lance says:

      In our phony electoral system the only legitimate governments are coalitions. Getting all the power from only 37% of the popular vote is a sham democracy. It’s a lie. It’s government by loser. How many times does one have to say it. We have a government that most Canadians never ever wanted.

      “A lie”? 70% did not vote NDP and 81% did not vote Liberal, yet somehow that adds up to a more legitimate government? Please. Apples+apples do not = oranges, no matter how much you dice it.

      As for it not being one that people wanted, poll after poll stated that such a coalition was very unpopular with the electorate. The Tories even jumped up to 55% in one poll if I am not mistaken.

      And the fact that one of the parties holding a balance of power has, as the whole justification for it’s existence, the break-up of the nation, that doesn’t faze you one iota?

      You can keep your European pizza Parliaments; thanks but no thanks.

  8. Peter McNeil says:

    First time caller, long time lib here in Fort Erie, and believe me its lonely here. The coalition bit is resonating a bit, but only among the already entrenched voters. Life long Libs are going NDP. There is not ONE lawn sign or public land Liberal sign here. Its a 2 horse race (pardon the pun) between Gates and Maves. At any rate, the fact that someone pulled the chute on this riding is making folks in other ridings take note regarding the coalition conspiracy.


  9. Ron Waller says:

    ‘”A reporter, sounding amazed, interjected: “You’re NOT ruling out a coalition?”’

    I don’t know what’s more absurd. Canada’s idea of democracy or its fourth estate.

    BTW, 29 of 34 developed countries use proportional representation and have coalitions all the time. Australia uses ranked ballot voting and has regular coalition governments.

    The (actual) democracies of Western Europe are more stable than our own. Israel is the outlier, not the rule.

    I don’t support Wynne but I applaud her decision to stand up for what little democracy we do have – and our constitution – against sleazy politicians and corporate minions pretending to be journalists.

    • Matt says:

      You know who asked the question do you?

      Please provide the name as I have not seen him identified in the stories I’ve read.

    • FlyingSquirrel says:

      To be fair, Australia is a little different because the (actually quite conservative) Liberal Party and the National Party run *as a coalition* – anyone who votes for them knows that they plan to go into government together and not with the Labor Party. Most constituencies have either a Liberal candidate or a National candidate, but not usually both at once, and with their alternative vote system, even a Liberal/National split in the initial count doesn’t necessarily mean a Labor candidate will run up the middle and win. In Queensland the two have merged into a single party. So I’d argue that the Liberal/National coalitions in Australia are a different sort of arrangement from, say, the current Conservative/LibDem coalition in the UK, or a potential Liberal/NDP coalition in Canada.

      I’m pretty sure most Australian governments since WWII have functioned as majority governments. The 2010-13 Labor minority government under Julia Gillard and (at the very end) Kevin Rudd was the one exception – they relied on the single Green MP and some independents for support without forming a coalition or bringing any non-Labor members into the Cabinet.

      • Ron Waller says:

        Yes, in Australia the “Liberal” party is a right-wing party, just like in the UK the “Labor” party is the right-of-center equivalent of the Canadian “Liberal” party. The Australian “Labor” party is probably not very left wing given the political climate over the past 20 to 30 years that moved the pendulum significantly right, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries.

        But the alternative vote allows 4 right-leaning parties to form an “Anyone But Labor” voting coalition that stops right-leaning seats from going to the left-leaning party because of vote splitting. In 2011, vote splitting allowed Harper to win dozens of center-left ridings giving him 54% of the seats on 40% of the vote.

  10. Swervin' Merv says:

    Although I liked him, history will record it was Ignatieff who made the difference in trashing the coalition idea early in 2009, thinking his short-lived honeymoon would propell the Liberals back to power sooner rather than later–without the need for NDP support. Otherwise, it would have been perfectly legitimate to defeat Harper on his budget and to get the GG to ask the Liberals to form a minority government with formal or informal NDP and Bloc support. Harper retained public support among those who believed he deserved more time, but those will be far fewer in 2015 (if he doesn’t fold before then).

    Media pundits have contributed to turning the coalition issue into a new version of having to proclaim that you are not intending to beat your wife (or partner in the case of Wynne). Damned if you speak it’s name, no matter what your intentions.

    • Ron Waller says:

      Yeah Iggy dumped the coalition and instead chose to prop up the Harper government. That worked out real well for him.

      Perhaps Wynne is smart enough not to put herself in that kind of position, having to prop up a Hudak minority.

      There’s no evidence Harper’s coalition nonsense won him any support in 2011. His campaign was going nowhere until the last minute.

      Iggy really blew the election by handing Harper the economy on a sliver platter. That’s what allowed Harper to get blue Liberals to vote for him and get a fake 40% majority, even though a hapless Dion managed to hold on to that right-leaning vote.

      • Matt says:

        Were Chretien’s majorities “fake” too?

        IIRC his vote percentages were 41% in 1993, 37.5% in 1997 and 42% in 2000.

        Were McGuinty’s majorities “fake”?

        Or are they only fake when a Conservative party gets a majority with under 50.1% of the vote?

        • Al in Cranbrook says:

          The argument is that, if one doesn’t vote CPC, ipso facto one therefore must be left wing. The LPC swung hard left to scoop up these theoretical lefties, hopefully away from the NDP.

          Worked like a hot damn, eh?

          I have a sneaking suspicion the John Manleys that formed the backbone of the LPC, and carried, if not led, them to power for much of the last century, haven’t voted Liberal for quite a while now.

          And I can’t see many of them being convinced otherwise by J.T. any time soon.

        • Ron Waller says:

          In a democracy, a majority means someone or some party has the support of a majority of people. That means 50% of the vote. (Simple majority.)

          In Canada, neither MPs or parties are required to earn their power with a majority of the vote.

          So yes it’s absurd to award a 4-year dictatorship to a 40% minority party whether it’s conservative, Liberal or NDP.

          Chretien’s fake majorities were based on: 41.2%, 38.5% & 40.9% of the vote. Like Harper, he was entitled to power he didn’t EARN. It’s time to end welfare for politicians.

      • sezme says:

        Hate to pile on Iggy, so, as much as I despise him, I’ll blame the members of the Liberal party who promoted him against all common sense. Dion certainly got off to a weak start, but dumping him was a mistake of colossal proportions. Personally I would have loved to see the proposed Lib, NDP, BQ coalition succeed or fail on its own merits in parliament. But too many egos got in the way.

  11. Bill Jackson says:

    Somewhere, there was a conversation: “And what did you learn at school today little Johnny?” “We learned how to do a Lee Atwater style plant and have a Conservative operative ask gotcha questions and skewer your opponent!”

    As pointed out, it must be admitted, that while Stephen Harper leveraged THAT, THAT can only exist because a) the Bloc (“separatists”) continue in their bizarre ways e.g. “Quebec Charter” a la Serbian ethnic purification schemes b) as per your last “grumpy caucus” post, the NDP IS riddled with hardcore Marxists (“socialists”) c) the Liberals have all but burned their bridges e.g. the Martinites propensity towards extreme laissez-faireism which only exacerbates a and b. The “progressive” factions continue to provide season after season of low hanging fruit to the Harperites.

    1. You very correctly point out the fundamental importance of message consistency.

    2. In the Conservative world of no wage floors, Tim figures 100 000 100k/year/10 = 1 000 000, 10k/year jobs. For the right, there is no contradiction. Even after the TFW debacle, progressives have yet to grasp how venal this cabal is. Grover Norquist – Jason Kenney’s idol – is fanatical about using “open borders” to destroy all unions and minimum wages and indeed all labour standards.

    3. The wilderness of the backrooms. Who can know it except the fox? At present, progressives remain the hen house.

    • GSW says:

      In a global economy do Canadians want a minimum wage job or no job at all? The reality is that high school dropouts pulling down $60k/year jobs cannot be protected from offshore outsourced workers or from TFW who at least earn taxable wages in Canada. The unionized Left believes it can protect union wage jobs through restrictive isolationism… but that’s like scrambling to the top of the totem pole using others for step support. Of course politicians will exploit the misery of the few in the hope of getting elected and getting a big salary for survival. Grim future unless Canada exploits it’s natural advantage.. i.e. natural resource exports like the oilsands to fill the coffers of our depleting Treasury. No oilsand revenue, no money for social programs, higher taxes, and downward spiral in our altruism to save the planet.

      • Penny Clarke says:

        Agreed, in a global economy, most Canadians must accept that minimum wage is also maximum wage – high school dropouts should be willing to work for bed and food. Restrictive isolationism must end – open borders now! Yes, Canada must exploits its natural resources like the oilsands and industrialize our country to the same degree as China with massive infrastructure projects. Altruism must not get in the way of economic development. To get rich is glorious! Give my regards to Central Leading Group for Propaganda and Ideological Work.

  12. .. excellent catch there.. we’d like to see more similar analysis ! Part way through your article I felt like I was reading an undiscovered Emily Dee research tidbit ! (Pushed to the Left and Loving It) Does ‘coalition’ translate differently when making the hyperjump from Provincial to Federal ‘political speech’? We now know via branding expert Stephen Harpers and his hordes of lawyers that are defending Canada from our military veterans that what Prime Ministers (like Borden) say to the public, or soldiers.. is just loose talk.. frivolous & vexacious. So what spils from lesser provincial lips.. Hudak, Horvath et al.. must be taken with pails of salt… no? Maybe Wynne is setting Hudak up.. putting a stalking horse out there.. agitating him.. while confusing Horvath..

  13. doconnor says:

    “But, in politics, right is rarely the same thing as smart.”

    That is why we have so many problems in our politics.

    People who condemn politicians when they to the right thing is a big part of the problem.

  14. GSW says:

    There seems to be confusion about the legitimacy of the Conservative’s ~40% of the 60% of eligible voters… or only 24% of the total eligible voters. People seem to assume if there was a 100% turnout the Cons would lose and the Liberals or NDP would win. But that’s not how it works in Canada where voters have the democratic right not to vote!

    The 40% who chose not to vote were saying they would graciously accept the decision of those who did vote, and therefore gave the Harper Cons an indirect 40% support and together with their 24% they won a 64% direct and indirect support from Canadians. That’s the democratic reality of the 2011 election and no amount of whining and belly aching rhetoric will change it.

    If you believe our voting system is not democratic enough and requires mandatory voting, the political parties should run on that platform and to see what happens.

    • Lance says:

      The 40% who chose not to vote were saying they would graciously accept the decision of those who did vote, and therefore gave the Harper Cons an indirect 40% support and together with their 24% they won a 64% direct and indirect support from Canadians.

      Very interesting take on that; never thought about it in quite those terms before, especially when you consider that low voter turnout usually favours the Conservatives and that they usually have the most committed voters.

    • que sera sera says:

      What is it about Conservatives and their lousy math?

      Is that why it took Harper 8 years to get an unused economics degree from a mediocre university?

      Or why Canada is groaning under structural debt while the turd polishers simultaneously orgasm over Harper’s economic prowess?



      • GSW says:

        You call my math “lousy” but you don’t provide us with your own math likely because you know you are beaten with reality.

        At least PM Harper has a Masters degree in Economics to help him understand the nation’s fiscal and monetary situation. Trudeau is a failed teacher/engineer/geographer who’s only success was being elected to his first full time job at the age of 36… and then he treated it like a part time job while moonlighting on a speaking circuit and dinging charities for $20,000 a crack!

        Mulcair is a lawyer and has ministerial political experience in Quebec and he seems to be an accomplished debater… something Justin will never be able to do unless he’s scripted by his backroom chums!

        As for the “structural debt”, if Harper had yielded to the demands of the Liberals and NDP during the global recession, the structural debt would have even been higher… and that’s a fact.

        What will be will be The Truth which you find most inconvenient in your hate-filled mind.

      • Matt says:

        This coming from a supporter of a party that has a premier in Ontario that thinks she eliminate the $12.5 billion deficit not only without cutting anything, but by adding $60 billion in new spending over the next 4 years.

        Wynne laid out a challange to Hudak today: Have an independent economist analyze the PC platform. She thought she was pretty clever until a reporter asked her if she’d be willing to do the same with her budget/platform. “Oh, several economists have COMMENTED on our budget” she said. Yeah well commenting on it is very different from analyzing it.

      • Matt says:

        You mean the structural debt your boy Pierre Elliot Trudeau allowed to balloon out of control?

        And here’s something that might shock you:

        None of the parties platforms would stand up to a thorough analysis. NONE.

  15. Joe says:

    The point of coalitions is that they have to be formed before a government is called immediately after an election. In other words the election is held, no one won a majority so the parties horse trade to decide who will support whom in forming a government. This action is legitimate and a legitimate form of democracy. In the case of the NDP?Bloc/Liberal coalition this was not the case. The election was over the Governor General had called and sworn in PM Harper as the PM. The PM had formed a cabinet and had been governing for some time as a minority government which is also a legitimate form of democracy. The coalition sought to have the GG overthrow the duly seated PM in order that they take over which is very near to sedition and thus not a legitimate form of democracy. Had the coalition voted non-confidence, an election be held or the PM stepped aside then it would have been legitimate. However as it was it made the coalition look like a bunch of amateurs and our Westminster Parliament look like a house of fools. I have no problem with coalitions of the left/right or middle but please let them be legitimate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.