A coalition? Don’t we have one already?

PAUL WELLS: While Merkel’s coalition looks off-balance, Harper seems to be doing fine with Ignatieff as junior coalition partner

by Paul Wells on Friday, July 2, 2010 9:00am - 128 Comments

Sean Kilpatrick/CP

Canada remains a model of stability and progress. Two years ago I wrote that our government was a “Grand Coalition” modelled on Chancellor Angela Merkel’s in Germany. The two main centrist parties, Conservative and Liberal, ensured that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s legislative agenda would pass. Fringe parties didn’t like it but could only grumble. Harper’s junior coalition partners, the Liberals, were steadfast in their support for the major elements of the Harper agenda.

Today, little has changed, at least in Canada. In Germany, an election led Merkel to replace her Grand Coalition with an off-balance one, centre-right and further-right, and its inherent instability is making her life complicated. In Canada, an election had no such effect. Harper and his junior coalition partner, Michael Ignatieff, are too smart to be thrown off balance. So, just before he welcomed the world’s leaders and southern Ontario’s riot police to the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Harper permitted himself to revel in the Conservative-Liberal coalition’s latest accomplishments. “I think in the end we actually got some pretty good results,” Harper told reporters from Reuters. “Particularly in the closing days. As you know, we got the budget implementation bill through.”

One bill? That’s all he has to show for a year’s strife? But this was no ordinary bill. “The budget bill was wide-ranging legislation that had a lot, not just of important budgetary measures, but important measures for the Canadian economy. So I think the passage of the budget bill, in and of itself, made the parliamentary sessions productive.”

He listed other measures the opposition had caved on, like refugee-system reform and a measure making it harder for convicts to get pardons. (The opposition never fails to collapse in the face of each new Conservative tough-on-crime measure. Harper should recognize their contribution by hanging photos of Ignatieff and Jack Layton in every new federal prison.)

But the budget was the main ingredient. “I know we’ve been criticized for how much was in that budget bill,” Harper said. “But putting a lot in that budget bill effectively ensured—passing it ensured a productive parliamentary session.” This was a slip-up, I believe, for it marked the first time Harper admitted he used the implementation bill to smuggle a bunch of other stuff into law.

And what an impressive list of achievements it was. Bill C-9 enabled all the usual taxing and spending, but it also removed new energy projects from the purview of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and gave the job for assessing them to the National Energy Board. To make that move even while the world’s attention was transfixed by the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico was quite a feat. Harper couldn’t have done it without the Liberal members of his coalition.

Throw in provisions for the sale of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and an end to the Canada Post monopoly on overseas mail. The Canada Post plan was introduced as a separate, stand-alone bill in 2008 and 2009, only to die on the Order Paper when Harper called the 2008 election and prorogued Parliament a year later.

When the 900-page Budget Implementation Act, with amendments to five dozen laws, passed the Commons early in June because not enough Liberals showed up to vote against it, Liberal Sen. Pierrette Ringuette swore it wouldn’t be the same story in the Senate. “The Liberal senators are not rubber-stampers of the leadership,” Ringuette said. “We have a mandate to do sober second review of legislation for Canadians, and we will fulfill our responsibility.”

Then the Budget Implementation Act passed the Senate later in June because not enough Liberals showed up to vote against it.

So even though Ottawa is rife with rumours this summer, yet again, that Harper will contrive a reason to trigger an election in the autumn, there’s no reason to doubt something else that he told Reuters, which is that he doesn’t want one. If an election goes really well for him, he’ll be Prime Minister when it’s over. But he’s Prime Minister already. And he’s really the Prime Minister. Another evergreen Ottawa myth asserts that Harper is somehow unfulfilled without a parliamentary majority. But he has had a majority for four years, thanks to a succession of not-ready-for-prime-time Liberals. Every budget he has ever whipped up has passed with Liberal votes.

And in concert with the Liberals, Stephen Harper is changing this country. He was able to gut environmental oversight of energy projects in the middle of a historic energy-sector environmental disaster. He is stuffing the nation’s prisons like Christmas geese. He spent $1 billion turning the country’s biggest city into a demonstration of the necessity (if not, ahem, the effectiveness) of tough policing against thugs, rabble, bicyclists and other miscreants. Inside the riot zone, with the world watching, he stared down Barack Obama in a debate over continued fiscal stimulus vs. relative budgetary restraint. He gets to name Supreme Court justices. He gets to name a new governor general. He’s in charge of nominations to every board and agency.

So when Liberals debate the wisdom of coalition government, it would be well for them to remember they are already in one. And when they debate the worth of Michael Ignatieff to Liberals, they will perhaps be heartened to learn that Conservatives are tremendously fond of him.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/psiclone psiclone

    What my boy Stevie should do is recognize the Igsters contribution and make him deputy PM! – maybe this way he could actually look like a potential leader and get some opportunity not to like the perennial loser and whiner and grumbler of all things conservative.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

      When the distraction is this obvious, it lessens the effect of the shiny object. Try harder.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/WernerPatels WernerPatels

      I generally agree with your suggestion. Look, deep down inside, Iggy is a conservative — or a "classical liberal" — but he's certainly not a "Liberal". He's in the wrong party, which means his heart isn't really in it.

      Iggy is a rightie, not a leftie.

  • Anon 001

    Ah, but Inkless, how do you explain Iggy's "on-probation" and "your time's up" ultimatums to Harper? Are you suggesting that they have a certain Dwight Schrute quality to them?

    Would a coalition partner ever make those threats, you know, without expecting or getting something back in return? The Liberals are still the opposition party. That's got to count for something.

  • Style

    A key plank of the Conservative-Liberal coalition has been the war in Afghanistan – not just the duration and conduct of Canada's military engagement but also their recent decision to withold documents about Afghan detainees from Parliament. I don't think it's fair to overlook the LIberals' contribution on this crucial issue.

    • Mike T.

      That's true to a point. It's a bit like blaming the cops who didn't find the videos before Karla Homolka made her plea bargain – both acted badly, but one was much much worse.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

        I think this whole detainee document thing has made them look equally bad. The opposition parties aren't even giving an explanation as to why Canadians aren't getting an explanation.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

          The Liberal and Conservative parties would prefer not to share legal and Cabinet documents with the other parties or the public. In a dispute concerning whether Cabinet decisions under both governments conformed to international law, what further explanation do you need?

        • Mike T.

          REally? Have you been following it?

  • Derek

    This is a great column! Now I wonder when it is going to dawn on Ignatieff and a few other Liberals that they are being way too cheap a date for Harper. They are supporting virtually the entire Harper agenda and not even getting a share of the glory and the patronage. Ignatieff must look with envy at his opposite number in the UK Nick Clegg. Clegg not only props up David Cameron, but he also gets to be Deputy PM and get a higher salary and several LibDem MPs also get fancy titles and a share of patronage to throw around…I wonder whether after the next election Ignatieff will demand to be Deputy PM and Foreign Minister under Harper?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

      I'm sure he will, if his party comes in third, like his UK counterpart's…

      • RayK

        Exactly. As long as the Liberals finish in second place their political incentive to look as though they're Harper primary opponent will outweigh their personal and policy incentives to demand concessions.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/WernerPatels WernerPatels

      The envy factor must indeed be great, particularly as Clegg is a distant relative of our Iggy.

  • Emily

    Which is why none of our 'leaders' are going anywhere in the polls, and why fewer and fewer Canadians bother to vote anymore.

  • Riley Hennessey

    "He really is the Prime Minister".

    Wells has made this point a few times, and I like it because what he is essentially telling the Liberals is while they laugh and joke and huff and puff, Harper remains in 24 Sussex – four and a half years later. For me, the quote highlights that the Liberals have never woken up to that chilly Tuesday morning, January 24th to see a Conservative Minority government splash across the headlines of national newspapers.

    I really believe that if the Liberal Party were to wake up and comprehend the reality of Jan 24, 2006 (meaning that they lost and lost for a reason) they would right their course and subsequently develop a process for how to regain government. That is a party I would actually like to see, and could gain my vote. There's a great line from Batman Begins that Liberals should learn. "Why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves back up." Plus, Batman's pretty cool.

    • Orson Bean

      You're right — there's still a huge element of denial in the standard LPC mindset these days. Many of them see this status quo as just some bad dream, from which they will wake up and be inhabiting their rightful place 24 Sussex, same as it ever was.

      • ddd

        But how could they ever build their party without being in power?

    • Maureen

      The only way that the LPC to regain power is to do a massive reversal of everything they have created in the last 50 years – their policies have created a country where their governments thinks they know better about everything than ordinary Canadians – from how our health should be delivered, from how business should be run, from how Canadians should think (through the infamous HRC) etc. etc. etc Unfortunately far too many Canadians have now ceded any responsibility for anything in their lives – somehow the government should save you from every poor decision that you have made in your life. Invest with some guy off the street without any due diligence on your part and the government should reimburse you! Live your life so that you eat poor unhealthy food and no exercise, but demand that the government provide you with any and all health care services! Don't bother to even think about your retirement income, but insist that the government somehow solve the problem. On and on and on.

  • Mike T.

    They should have taken a stand on Afghanistan withdrawal, or more recently providing abortion funding for Africa. Harper could have been put on the wrong side on both of those, giving the Libs their best shot possible.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

      The coalition took a clear stand on both those issues – delaying the withdrawal of our troops and excluding abortion funding from Canada's G8 commitment. If the Liberals want to break the coalition and side with the New Democratic Party, they are free to do so.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Mike514 Mike514

      "providing abortion funding for Africa."

      If I'm not mistaken, the Liberals defeated their own motion for including abortion in the government's maternal health initiative.

      Sometimes, controversial issues don't divide neatly between party lines, but manage to divide the parties themselves.

  • jarrid

    Why do the Liberals support the Conservative agenda?

    The same reason they've been doing it since the January 23, 2006 election. They fear an election.

    Why do they fear an election? Because they're always behind in the polls.

    Why are they always behind in the polls? Because the Conservatives are by and large providing good government. Until the Conservatives slip up, the Liberals have basically no choice but to bide their time.

    Wells failed to predict that the Conservatives would force an election in October 2008. It's not out of the realm of possiblity that they'll force an election in the fall, although the circumstances this go around are less clear than in October 2008. Wells may be right this time.

    • Emily

      After 4 years the Cons aren't ahead in the polls either.

      • Riley Hennessey

        And yes Harper remains Prime Minister…. maybe a second read of the above column could job your memory?

        • Riley Hennessey

          Look at the typos in that retort. My bad. I can't even joust properly on comment boards! What do I know hah.

        • Emily

          Well no one is aware of that, including Harper. The Liberals always remain the main topic….for Cons and everyone else.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

            Emily……"The Liberals always remain the main topic…..for Cons and everyone else,"

            That's because nobody can believe how the mighty have fallen. Three dud leaders in a row, no policies that anybody cares about and an appointed leader who keeps putting both feet in his mouth at the same time and who the Liberal caucus wish would just go away.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

            It's true. The mighty do fall. Sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly.

            Why, just imagine if you could hold your morning policy breifing in the backseat of a taxi.
            Coming up next,year the "Liberal Reform" party is born, gains seats and in 10 years merges to become the Canadian Liberal Alliance Party.

            CLAP, for short.

            I know, it's far-fetched, but this IS Canada, after all.

    • Anon Liberal

      "Why are they always behind in the polls? Because the Conservatives are by and large providing good government."
      —————————

      BWA-HA! HA! HA! HA!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    If an election goes really well for him, he’ll be Prime Minister when it’s over. But he’s Prime Minister already.

    That's true enough. But the opposition still has to be in greater fear of an election in the near future, for they don't yet have the same $-capital to blow on an election that would lead pretty close to the result we have already. NEITHER leading party likely wants to bother with an election right now, each having the same reason: not much would change except the expense and energy wasted on a campaign.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

      I'll tell you who is scared of the next election: Harper.

      I have to say that very few pundits have picked up on this. The only one that I've seen writing on this very point is Jeff Simpson. There is a reason why this guy stands head/shoulders above the others.

      See for yourself:
      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/sure…

      • Orson Bean

        I don't think the Conservatives will necessarily win the next election. Under the right circumstances, I could see the Liberals even winning a plurality of seats. But having said that, while Simpson makes some valid points in his article, I don't go looking to Jeffrey Simpson for objective, unbiased reporting on Harper and his party. It's quite clear, from reading Simpson's columns over the last couple of years, that he deeply loathes Harper, and it affects Simpson's judgment. You'd practially have to take a pair of rusty pliers and start pulling Simpson's teeth out sans anaesthetic to get him to say anything positive about Harper or his government.

        If Harper won another minority next time out, I don't think there'd be any huge groundswell of support within the CPC to remove him as leader. I think most people in the CPC realize that under the current circumstances (especially witht he BQ having a lock on a huge number of Quebec seats), being in power with a minority ain't all that bad.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

          Orson Bean……don't forget Simpson's son or daughter works for the Liberal party in its headquarters. So much for independent analysis.

          The fact is even if the next election results in a Conservative minority Harper will remain as leader and PM until such time as he decides to resign and move on.

          Trouble with the Liberals they simply can't find a way to out politic him. So they have to invent ways like a coalition or merger with the NDP.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

          Don't exaggerate, Orson. The pliers won't have to be rusty.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

        There is a reason why this guy [Jeffrey Simpson] stands head/shoulders above the others.

        That's pretty funny.

      • jarrid

        I've never sound you so desperate and histrionic before PJ. Get a grip.

        It's common knowledge that Jeffrey Simpson's best days are behind him. He used to have decent government inside sources years ago which gave his columns a certain relevance despite their sometimes fawning quality but those sources dried up a few administrations ago.

        He'll be put out to pasture soon I assume.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

          "I've never sound you so desperate and histrionic before PJ. Get a grip. "

          Coming from you, that is a serious compliment.

          "He'll be put out to pasture soon I assume."

          lol!

  • Dan

    I don't believe its correct to say that, "Every budget he has ever whipped up has passed with Liberal votes."

    The Bloc helped pass the first two budgets as the Conservatives attacked the "fiscal imbalance." Although according to circa 2005 Stephen Harper something that passes only because of help from the Bloc "lacks in legitimacy" so I'm not sure that those two budget actually count.

    I believe the Liberals for their part have only helped pass the three more recent budgets that have resulted in deficits.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

      And don't forget that Harper had to rewrite the last budget to suit the Liberals for fear of losing power.

  • jarrid

    Wells is basically correct on this: we have a de facto Grand Coaltion.

    That said, and as I pointed out in my earlier comment above, the Liberals would turn on a dime as soon as they think they could eke out a minority win in the polls.

    Would the Liberals govern much differently than how the Conservatives are governing presently? No. But they have to convince those on the left – the soft NDP voters – that they would.

    The present situation really is a Catch-22 for the Liberals. They need the Conservatives to give them a break – and so far, Harper is giving them any.

    If anything, and Wells agrees with this, Harper, by staying in power as long as he has, is getting stronger and less prone to make critical mistakes.

    You can say what you want about Stephen Harper, but one thing is clear – he's no Joe Clark. He's a competent and formidable politician. He's a political strategist of the first order: the political equivalent of a chess grandmaster.

    • Emily

      More like a poor poker player in the dark.

      • Orson Bean

        Jarrid's right about Clark, though. Tactically and strategically, Joe Clark was possibly the stupidest federal party leader in the history of Canadian politics.

        • Emily

          No, you've just swallowed talking points.

          • Orson Bean

            I worked for the old PC party when Clark was around. He's obtuse, stubborn and given over to massive denial in the face of reality. Exhibit A: "We will govern as though we have a majority". Six months later, he was booted out of power.

            He did a decent and commendable job as a senior cabinet minister in the subsequent Mulroney governments. It's like the Peter Principle — that's as far as he should have ascended. He did not have the political smarts to be an effective and successful party leader — you need a certain Macchiavellian streak to be able to thrive in that role, and all successful federal party leaders have had that streak in them.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    Mr. Wells is being a very naughty little boy. I like it.

    • Mike T.

      It seems strange to say this because of the two of us I am the pro-gay rights one here, but this might not be the best place to discuss your proclivities. :)

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

        You're right. It is strange. Next.

  • hosertohoosier

    We do not have a grand coalition – we have something better: a flexible parliament. Harper has gotten budgets passed with the Bloc as well as the Liberals more recently; refugee reform took place with the NDP and Bloc; most parties support the criminal justice reforms; EI reform and the accountability act took place with NDP support and so on. In a coalition those kinds of flexible issue-specific alliances would be unlikely to occur because coalition members would have little incentive to cooperate with those outside of the coalition.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

    Like I said, the Harper supporters are oh so happy and we have another summer of the same old, same old, same old.

    Yawn………….

  • PolJunkie

    "Every budget he has ever whipped up has passed with Liberal votes."

    Of course they were. None of these budgets were "conservative" ones. Why would Liberals have a problem with them?

    There's one aspect of this so-called ToryLib coalition that Wells didn't talk about and it is the fact that Harper also had to put Liberal water in his wine.

    Is this the same Harper we knew from his days in Opposition, I ask you?

    The Tories aren't still in power because the Libs propped them up.

    The Tories are still in power because they have refrained from putting forth true Reform policies and have embraced the center in a wannabe Liberal fashion.

    • Emily

      That's because Reform was a non-starter.

      We'll be fully back to the PCs shortly.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

        Nonsense. The PCs are dead and buried. The CPC is very much controlled by the Reformers. They're just keeping a low profile, hoping for a majority so that they can remove their sheep skin.

        • Emily

          You said so yourself without actually calling them by name.

          I agree that there are many Reformers still in there, but they can't run on their policies, and if they tried to implement them with a majority all hell would break loose. They would have no mandate for that.

          • Orson Bean

            Jeez, I'm confused — some left-leaning posters on here claim that the Harper government is turning us into a Bush-clone theocracy. Others claim we're just getting Liberal Partty wine in Tory bottles. Which is it?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/psiclone psiclone

            hit the proverbail nail on the head! … both points are ludicrous and basically are only lame excuses to rationalize losing to us Tories.

  • Observant

    Iggnatieff recently 'consulted' with deputy PM Clegg … presumably on how to consummate a coalition between the Liberals and Conservatives in Canada … because he can't posit a coalition with the socialists and separatists. The only 'coalition' that will be valid in Canada is between the Liberals and Conservatives … so obvious.

    • Emily

      Which would mean Canadians would promptly vote for the only 'opposition' left….which IS left.

      Soooo obvious, Observant.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

      Presumably you say. Hmmm….perhaps they just want to chat now that they've found out they are distant cousins.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

    For myself, the clock did not begin ticking on Ignatieff until after the Liberals were actually in a position to fight an election. The original cause for the Liberals fearing an election post Dion was two-fold. One they were deep in debt and two the Conservatives were rolling in money. Many say that looking at polls before an election is meaningless… most people simply are not paying attention and as a result, public opinion can shift dramatically during an election. However, the same can not be said for financial issues.

    A sidebar to this is that the Conservatives had become quite effective in importing Karl Rove type tatics to use their financial advantage to its fullest. They completely devastated Dion and had some immediate success with the "just visiting" campaign.

    Someone can correct me, but I believe it has been about 1 year that the Liberals have had their financial house in order, although they still lag the Conservative money machine. The "just visiting" campaign has gone stale, and even the "out of touch with regular Canadians" has been passed down to the second rate conservative commentators. Indeed, while the Conservatives were completely effective in defining Stephan Dion for the Canadian public, they have been much less successful with Ignatieff. It isn't that they like Ignatieff, they simply haven't really made any decision. I hope an election comes soon… it is time to roll the dice.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Mike514 Mike514

      had some immediate success with the "just visiting" campaign

      Actually (and correct me if I'm wrong), Ignatieff's polling numbers started to tumble when he decided that Harper's "time is up." It was only after Ignatieff made that comment that the Conservatives rolled out the "Just visiting" ads.

      The Conservatives immediately rolled out anti-Dion ads when Dion was chosen leader. However, with Ignatieff, they waited a few months before issuing attack ads. It was during that time, concluding with Ignatieff's "Your time is up" comment, that Canadians made up their mind about Ignatieff.

      Of course, I could be wrong.

    • Orson Bean

      I agree with Stewart to the extent that, with a good election campaign (consisting, IMO, of one or more catchy policy planks in a sort of Red Book Redux), the Liberals could win the next election with Iggy at the helm (much more likely a plurality than a majority though). I don't hear ordinary people on the street express visceral dislike for Iggy or anything like that.

      It seems that Donolo and the LPC brain trust are thinking along these lines — they're said on more than one occasion that they're more or less keeping their policy & platform cards close to their vest until the next election campaign.

      But even if they won back power, that wouldn't necessarily do much to remedy some other long-term problems that they have, such as their chronic weakness west of Ontario sans Vancouver. And the new electoral seat re-distribution will onloy make that problem worse.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

      Indeed, while the Conservatives were completely effective in defining Stephan Dion for the Canadian public, they have been much less successful with Ignatieff.

      When the guy keeps redefining himself on just about every issue of substance every couple of weeks, it gets kind of hard to define him at all…

  • orval

    The big surprise of election night 2006 was not the Conservative minority victory but the immediate resignation of Paul Martin. At that moment, Martin had total control of a Liberal party that was in good shape in terms of organization and financing. He had no challengers (Tobin and Manley were long gone, McKenna was Ambassador to USA). There was no reason for him to leave.

    On election night, he should have said: "I accept the verdict of the voters. Adscam should never have happened, and I accept full responsibility for it. I will make the necessary corrections in the Liberal Party of Canada, and then be ready to once again go to the people with my vision of Canada's great future. In the meantime, I will work with other parties in Parliament, in particular the NDP, to ensure that our achievements, such as the Kelowna Accord and our improvements to EI, medicare and Canada Pension Plan are enacted. I will work with the Prime Minister to ensure our troops overseas, whom I sent to Kandahar, have the full and unwavering support they need from the Government of Canada to accomplish their mission. I thank Canadians for having this opportunity to serve you, and I pledge that I will earn your trust so that I may continue serve you and this magnificent country as Prime Minister. Thank you, merci beaucoup, et a la prochaine."

    The Liberal Party is still suffering from being abandoned by Paul Martin. This was Harper's great stroke of unexpected good luck.

  • brooster

    As an aging left-center pragmatist, I loathe everything that Harper stands for. But I won't vote for the Liberals, either, as long as Ignatieff is their "leader". He is unprincipled in his constant concessions to the Harper agenda and his waffling makes Paul Martin look rash and impulsive in decision-making. Harper and Ignatieff, together, are the reason a growing number of voters are treating the ballot box like the blue box – a place were waste paper is deposited.

  • Kaplan

    Has Maclean's reported on the CEAA/NEB issue prior to today? I looked through Lexis Nexis and found nothing, but I might have missed something.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

    Well said Paul. We Conservatives do love our Ignatieff don't we. He is such a klutz.. Now he says the Queen has an magnificient sense of the "absurd". Can this guy saying nothing without looking like a fool.
    The Libs continue to be afraid of their own shadows because they know that an election will see them continue on the opposition benches with Ignatieff heading back to Harvard. Bring on the next saviour of the Liberal party.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

      Who's the fool? Sense of the absurd is a type of humour.

      Hollimn, relax a little. You're over doing it.

      • Reba

        Not when you're a BRIT, (American, Russian, wanna be Canadian??Yikes!) speaking to YOUR QUEEN. The guy looked like a mannequin today and he has no business PRETENDING any longer that he could run my country.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

          Hey, she invited Ignatieff for a meeting. Ignatieff looked very comfortable. He's met her before and is used to meeting with people of that level.

          He is Canadian – born in Canada and has a Canadian citizenship – so cut out the crappy Tory talking points.

          Harper's the one that looks awkward. Besides, there a protocol when meeting the Queen that they all have to meet which makes meetings with the Queen extremely formal.

          And, it's not only your country.

          Personally, I don't look at the Queen like a possession.

          • hollinm

            OntarioTown……..yes…you jump right to the defense of the Russian Count. We know he is a Canadian by birth. However, it is one thing to be born in a country it is quite another thing when you leave that country for 34 years. While away you criticize your birth country i.e. the French, the flag etc etc, call yourself an American and even a Brit depending on where you are living missing the opportunity to help your birth country solve the difficult issues that have arisen over that 34 years..

            Suddenly you show up and think you should be the Prime Minister of the country after the back room boys of the Liberal party appoint you leader without the input of the grass roots. He isn't fooling anyone. You can defend him but most Canadians know him for what he is…..a carpetbagger and keep polling him even below Jack Layton.

            You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig.

            I guess Ignatieff has a sense of the absurd as well.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

            I don't know how muchmore Canadian you can be on his mother's side.

            Please, name me one Canadian that doesn't have an ancestry outside of Canada other than our natives.

            hollinm….you are far too excited here. Watch your bloodpressure there guy. Go out and enjoy the nice weekend and perhaps you and Observant shoulldn't spend all your time of every article, political blog with your rants – nothing else to do?

            And, who the hell do you think you are deciding who's Canadian or not? You don't get to decide that.

            Oh, and remember Harper put down his own country speaking at an American Institute conference, a right wing think tank who's members include Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

            Now – calm down

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

            OntarioTown……I am quite calm and I am enjoying myself. Any day I see Ignatieff in the paper is a good day. Any day I see you trying desperately to defend him is also a good day.

            Not to quick today eh. I don't care where he was born and who is mother is. The man had virtually nothing to do with his birth country for 34 years and in fact declared himself an American. We saw it with our own eyes. You should open yours. Yet he arrives back and not having participated in the key events of the country for 34 years wants to be PM. Talk about arrogance.

            Harper may have pointed out the realities of Canada but I certainly don't ever recall him calling himself an American or anything else. Your analogy wreeks of desperation.

            Thank you for your concern about my health. However, I will continue to blog and remind you partisan Liberal hacks that the Liberal party is dying on the vine and its leader is a dud.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

            Oh ya, nothing partisan about you. Bye – this going back and forth with nonsense is BORING

  • http://phantomobserver.com PhantomObserver

    "Bicyclists and other miscreants"?! What, did some careless courier nearly run you over before you penned this column?

  • Nathan

    Dear Paul,

    I hate to point this out, since I normally have a great deal of respect for the quality of your journalism, but your claim that "Every budget he [Harper] has ever whipped up has passed with Liberal votes" is simply inaccurate. Harper's first 2 budgets, Budgets 2006 and 2007, were passed with the support of the Bloc Quebecois; the Liberals voted against both of them.

    Check the parliamentary record: Motion to Adopt Budget 2006 (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBusiness/ChamberVoteDetail.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&Vote=6&GroupBy=party&FltrParl=39&FltrSes=1) and Motion to Adopt Budget 2007 (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBusiness/ChamberVoteDetail.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&Vote=139&GroupBy=party&FltrParl=39&FltrSes=1).

    • Nathan

      Properly functioning links:

      – Budget 2006: www2.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBusiness/ChamberVoteDetail.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&Vote=6&GroupBy=party&FltrParl=39&FltrSes=1

      - Budget 2007: www2.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBusiness/ChamberVoteDetail.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&Vote=139&GroupBy=party&FltrParl=39&FltrSes=1

      • jarrid

        The Liberals were incredibly principled when they figured out that either the Bloc or the NDP would support the government on a particular vote.

        Paul's analysis is basically correct – on a vote by vote basis the Liberals have folded like a dirty shirt.

        We all remember June of last year when Iggy called Harper to the OK Corral and then when Harper showed up, Iggy went scampering for cover like a scared rabbit.

  • George Waugh

    For those who aren't aware the Liberal party itself is a coalition of conservatives and socialists. Some call it a big tent while others call it a big dunce hat. Ignatieff is part of the conservative/blue liberal segment of the Liberal party while Bob former NDP Rae heads up the socialist/red Liberals. The fact that they are weak in the polls, however is probably their main reason for supporting the Conservatives. They do not want another election right now knowing that they will lose. They prefer to wait until they are stronger in the polls. So now we can remove the dunce hat and just call it a big tent!

  • Guesty Guest

    Yeah, but if you mess with Iggy, he will mess with you until he is done. I think he is done.

From Macleans