Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

They are conspiring as we speak

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, September 3, 2010 11:40am - 0 Comments

More from the Prime Minister’s swing through southwestern Ontario.

“Don’t let anyone ever tell you they are not a coalition — they work together on everything,” he said.

Harper accused the three other parties of “obstruction for the sake of obstruction.” They should never be given the chance to govern Canada, he said. ”We have to defeat the coalition and ensure that we have a Conservative majority that can keep this country moving forward.”

Tags: coalition, coalition government, Kitchener, london, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

Lord Kitchener's Own

they work together on everything

Whereas, make no mistake, we will work together on NOTHING. We're pure as the driven snow. No working together with other parties for us. It's us against them. Vote for us, or vote for madness and anarchy!!! Communists and traitors at the reigns. Dogs and cats living together.

Madness I tell you!!!

Ryan

It's true though. It's right (conservatives) versus wrong (everyone else). Right versus left? Not anymore.
DBM

So that's how you do sarcasm on these boards.

؟

Lord Kitchener's Own

Of course, the problem is never folks' inability to be sarcastic on these boards. The problem is one can't always tell when they are and when they aren't!

Good catch.

McC_

Dr. Peter Venkman: This [country] is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
[Electorate]: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

Lord Kitchener's Own

Just for the record, I hope no one thinks I plagiarized!

I kinda assume everybody knows that dogs and cats line, and where it comes from.

McC_

I figured as much, I just love reliving the whole exchange (I almost added this when you alluded to dogs and cats in another post earlier this week)

LdKitchenersOwn

It is a great moment.

Mike T.

Vile.
PeteTong

Fear-mongering quotes like this remind me of a German leader circa mid-1930s. I'm not saying he has shares the ideology or the intentions but it certainly is alarming.

PeteTong

And I should add that I am a Mike Harris-loving conservative!
Lord Kitchener's Own

Wow, Godwin's law three comments in?

That seems counterproductive.

John D

I saw Duceppe helping Iggy paint his garage last weekend. The horror.

Charles H.

It fell apart pretty early on though. Iggy wanted a nice Liberal red, while Duceppe wanted a more Quebec bleu.
http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

As long as they were both wearing cheese factor hair nets…

E_B_

Mr. Harper?

Please stop doing this; you are really starting to scare me. I thought it was enough that the crackpot extreme element in your party are afraid of state/police takeovers, which is clearly why they are against registering guns or filling in census forms.

However, when even you keep talking about conspiracies and state takeovers by traitorous conspirators, I get really nervous.

Please, please stop this daft pandering to the tinfoil helmet crowd.

http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

It really does get to the heart of the question. Is Harper stupid, or the most meretricious Canadian pol ever?

Twisted_Mentat

As someone who has/is doing Political Science in University, I wish Stephen Harper would stop blatantly lying about what a coalition is.

If he keeps promoting this, it's kind of sad that someone could be so dough-headed about the political system they run.

Mike T.

He's managed to push political discussion – and quite possibly politics itself – in this country to a level so low it shouldn't be thought possible.

Blacktop

Wow! A real live Poly Sci major! So this is the laboratory. A coalition is any arrangement before, during, or after an election. A coalition in Harper's book is pure evil and almost conspiring. A coalition is where the Liberals turn the tables on the NDP and promise them a major cabinet seat and then give them Secretary of State for Women's Affairs.

harrylimelives

Intentional density should be opposed at all times…

D-R

“obstruction for the sake of obstruction.”

Pot. Kettle. Black.
Out There

A couple of interesting neighbouring paragraphs in the linked Winnipeg Free Press article:

"There are others in Parliament . . . who couldn't care less about balancing the budget," Harper said.

He bragged about his government's spending on the military, arguing the opposition always speaks against such investments.

I may be missing something, but don't these two paragraphs contradict one another?

I find it frustrating that the Conservatives' campaign platform is based on a distortion. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc have never formed a coalition or threatened to – the Liberals and NDP did consider forming a coalition that the Bloc agreed to support. There would have been no Bloc representation in this planned coalition. Of course, such a distinction is either not clear to Conservative supporters, or is being willfully ignored.

Harper's statement that "they work together on everything" seems tinged with paranoia, at least from this distance. The man really seems to think that his opponents are his enemies (which is rapidly becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy).

And I wonder: what would Harper do if the opposition joined forces and evicted him from office? I think that he would be outraged enough to whip up civil unrest among his supporters in an attempt to create a Tea Party North. I have no idea what would happen after that, but I am sure it wouldn't be good.

Jenn_

Well, since he's been trying to whip up a Tea Party North all summer–and the opposition HASN'T joined forces, I think he'd do more than that. You don't suppose there'd be "soldiers in our streets", do you? Because apart from the scariness, and the pretty-much end of the country as we know it, that would be kinda funny.
http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

Regarding the first part of your comment, I think the goal is to try to turn us into the U.S., where military spending, tax cuts, and prisons don't count as spending taxpayers' money.

ZestyMordant

I feel quite strongly that we'll see an election in the fall. Liberals are committed to showing more spine this session, and Harper is talking as if the election is tomorrow.

If that's the case, I think Harper's "coalition or majority" strategy will be counterproductive, especially this early. It will just further erode his credibility (even among his supporters) unless he actually starts polling like a majority, which isn't likely. Opposition parties voting against the government will not be enough to convince anyone that there is a coalition out there.

Blacktop

Yeah. They want to get the loser out of the way.

harrylimelives

Harper's good at dodgeball, you say?

Blue

I know it is difficult for some not to become emotional about this coalition talk but let`s try to be rational about this for a moment.

Supposing, during the last election campaign, the Libs , NDP, and Bloc all said to the electorate: We would like you all to vote for us but if somehow the Conservatives win the election and attempt to pass a Bill eliminating the Vote Subsidy, we will, all three of us, gang up on them and try to persuade the GG to allow us to take over the gov`t.
Do you think that may have influenced how some people voted ?

Emmett

You mean for the Conservatives because getting rid of the Vote Subsidy is a damn good idea?

Emmett

Not to say I'M doing so… but I digress…
Blacktop

Get rid of it. We have already done this one. The losers lost.

Out There

In a minority parliament, a coalition between two or more parties is always a possibility. It's happening in Britain and Australia even now. But every political party is trying to become the government without having to resort to forming a coalition.

we will, all three of us, gang up on them and try to persuade the GG to allow us to take over the gov`t

It's not the opposition's fault that Harper's party can't play nicely with others and is incapable of finding common ground with any other Canadian political party. That's the occupational hazard of being extreme ideologues.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Sure, but if they'd come out and said "if the Tories manage to win more than 35% of your votes we'll just roll up in a ball and let them do whatever they like" that would have influenced how some people voted too.

And if aliens had landed from another planet, I think that would have had an effect as well.

Blue

But I think the reason the opp. parties used to attempt the coalition was so lame that, on hindsight, it makes it look like a blatant power grab and that will stick in the minds of the voters.
If Harper had been proposing we escalate our involvement in Afghanistan by roaming into the hills of Pakistan, or if he had been proposing a massive cutback in health care, or if the alien thingy you propose was happening, then you form a coalition and stop him but not for a stupid vote subsidy that had only been in place for a few years.

Stewart_Smith

Please point to when during the campaign, Harper argued for the elimination of the earned $ per vote while retaining the government-handout for donation component of party financing.

The power grab was Harper's, the opposition formed a coallition to make him back down, he did, the coalition went away.
Mike T.

fortunately what you think is hardly the deciding factor.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Well, fair enough, but still, their reasoning aside (because it's legally immaterial) forming a coalition was completely legitimate, and plenty of Toires and Tory supporters act like it was some attempted coup d'etat. The larger point I think that needs to be kept in mind is that we have a Parliamentary system. If 160 or so of our Parliamentarians want to form a government because they don't like what the other 147 Parliamentarians propose to do, FINE. That's how our entire system of government works. I just can't get my head around this notion that it was a "blatant power grab" for a majority of Parliamentarians to suggest that they be allowed to exercise their power. The power is SUPPOSED to be held by a majority of Parliament.

Personally, I just can't stand the holier than thou attitude from a PM and a Party that's never managed to garner the support of 40% of the electorate in an election. When more than 60% of voters voted for some other party, and all of those other parties are on one side of you (in terms of the political spectrum) OF COURSE they're almost always going to work together to stop you from implementing policies that they all disagree with. That's what the voters sent them all there to do!!!
Blue

You are right Stewart, Harper did not mention the vote-subsidy thing on the campaign last time, but c`mon,
$i.95 per vote is hardly worhty of an unprecedented attempt to take control of a recently elected gov`t.

You`re right Mike, What you or I think, matters little.

And LKO, you`re right about how the Parliamentary system works but the problem with your numbers is the fact that the gov`t has so many more MP`s then the next closest party—143 to 77. That may have been the main reason that the majority of Canadians at the time rejected the coalition.

McC_

There's was also the matter that this was an Economic and Fiscal Update that was denying the recession Canada was already in and forecasting balanced budgets that were already coming unbalanced. The Government also came out of nowhere proposing things like removing the public service's right to strike (when new contracts to 2011 had already been agreed to by most of the unions) and attacking pay equity in the public service. These were very strange (non sequitor?) proposals given the EFU's claims that the fiscal framework was sound, and I think they were made expressly to provoke the opposition just as much as the per-vote subsidy.
Blue

—-All good discussion points for Committee Hearings or even Parliament, but not worthy of the forming of an overnight Coalition for the purpose of taking over the government.
gottabesaid

I dunno… completely misrepresenting the state of the economy and the government's books seems pretty serious to me.
Out There

In a minority Parliament, any group of parties that collectively form a majority can defeat the current government and attempt to form a government of their own. It's part of the rules of the game. They don't have to have a reason to do so (though it might be a good idea to have one, for the next election).

It hasn't happened in Canada very often because most parties usually want to try to go it alone – but, then, this is the first time in Canadian history that we have had perpetual minority government.
Blue

It`s probably also the first time in history that the Liberal Party could not depend on a large block of seats either from Quebec or Ontario. And to make matters worse for them, the Conservatives have a large block from the West every election. And then there`s the BQ.
Maybe it`s these circumstances that have influenced your new found love of coalitions and the rules of the game.
McC_

Well it gets into English Civil War territory: Parliament approves all spending by the Crown. In order for Parliament to properly exercise its role, the Crown must provide Parliament with accurate information about the Crown's finances. The Economic and Fiscal Update is one of the key instances of that dialogue. If the Government of the day deliberately misleads Parliament as to the state of the Crown's finances then that Government is undermining Parliament's confidence in its moral authority to act on behalf of the Crown, and would deserve to be sanctioned by Parliament.
http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

This is exactly the point; they were terrifyingly ignorant about what was going on, and how to deal with it.

You can claim it was just political cover for desperation about the per vote subsidy, but then you're just questioning anything anyone does. And if it had JUST been the subsidy, we wouldn't have had the attempt to replace the PM.

Blue

I`m not opposed to a coalition gov`t. I just wish there was a sensible way to propose one the way things stand now. But as long as there is fifty-some BQ taking up one-sixth of the space in the HoC, I don`t see how it can be done, especially with the Conservatives almost guaranteed a large block of seats.

If magically there was no BQ, then I would say go for it, Take the right wing of the Liberal Party and the Conservatives together against the NDP–Green–Liberal coalition and fight it out. I could see good government coming out of that—probably predominately Conservative.

Thwim

Supposing we don't let you get away with lying to frame the question, and point out that the reason for the coalition was because Harper had just put forward an FU that contained absolutely no stimulus as we were entering into a recession, and that the per-vote subsidy reason you put forward was flatly denied by all parties. I think that might influence how people think to answer you.. if they do at all.

Emily

It's past time someone went to fetch the cat- bell.
oferwadham

If that's "obstruction for the sake of obstruction", then what kind of obstruction is John Baird's bellicose committee appearance, or the secret binder on how to keep committees from doing anything?

Obstruction for the sake of entertainment? Obstruction for the sake of freedom from obstruction? Obstruction for the sake of Jesus?
Style

Could I just get a quick headcount of all those Liberal voters who are hoping for a New Democratic government, albeit one that includes the Liberals? I would like to know how many New Democrat membership forms we should be printing up.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Do even New Democrats really think they'll win more seats in the next election than the Liberals, do you think? Isn't that even more optimistic than the Liberals thinking they might win more seats than the Tories?

I think the more interesting question is how many Liberals would vote NDP in ridings where the NDP are the traditional second place finisher to the Tories, if there was some sort of cooperation? I don't know what the answer would be, but it's the more interesting (and imho more relevant) question to ask.

There is something to the idea that among the biggest stumbling blocks to Liberal-NDP election cooperation are A) The NDP don't really have to worry much about ever having to implement any of the policies that they run on, and B) The NDP don't appear at all interested in changing that fact if it means cooperating with another (larger) party.

Keep in mind that, of course, I acknowledge that the Liberals are every bit as big a stumbling block to such a cooperation as the NDP (for example, how many Liberals leave for the Tories rather than partner up with the NDP?), I'm just focusing on the NDP here in response to your focus on the Liberals.

I for one would vote ABC if it mattered, but I live in Toronto, and in my riding I could vote Tory and it wouldn't help the Tories.

Andrew (not PorC)

So, Parliament is dysfunctional, the opposition parties are not playing ball, Canada needs strong, unopposed leadership at this uncertain time… Harper should be calling Rideau Hall in approx 4 days time. Another Thanksgiving Election!
LdKitchenersOwn

you live in Toronto and you vote Liberal

Just for the sake of clarity, I've voted for three different parties in the last three federal elections, though yes, one of those was a Liberal. I'm not quite so predictable as "someone who votes Liberal".

I'm pretty predictable as "someone who doesn't vote Conservative" though, although I may have even strayed on that one once, though not federally.

Style

It's a personal failing of mine, but I can't understand why anyone would vote Liberal in Toronto – unless you have Bob Rae as your MP, then i can sort of see the appeal of doing it once. What is the point of sending a Liberal MP to Ottawa over a New Democratic one?

Thwim

Because the Liberal candidate might be a better MP for your riding?
Anybody who votes based on the party over the candidate (or worse, based on the history of how their family has always voted) is an idiot.

Anybody who does so is sacrificing their chance at getting an MP who really represents them rather than the party. Be fluid with your vote. Let the candidates *know* that you're fluid with your vote, because the only real pressure voters actually have is that of taking our votes (and thus their jobs) away.

Hell, if my MP was a better candidate than a horses ass, and absolutely everybody else who ran was a horses ass, I'd probably hold my nose and vote for him.. even though he's conservative. Of course, being in this riding, one that most people vote based on peer pressure rather than anything approaching analysis, who I vote for matters about as much as Stephen Harper's word.

Style

We have pretty strong party discipline in Canada so it's not clear to me how an individual MP is supposed to represent you rather than the party. I can understand why, on the doorstep, an MP might want to appear to agree with you on many things, but, in Ottawa, it's the party platform and its fundamental principles that decide important votes. And candidate choice isn't exogenous of party support in a riding – if the Conservative vote strengthens, you'll have a stronger Conservative candidate. So, voting for the party you prefer, and persuading others to do so, will bring in stronger candidates for that party.

Holly Stick

`You write as if you think dishonesty is the norm. It isn't.
Thwim

The current slate of MPs from Alberta refutes you. Rob Anders specifically and especially.
Style

When you have all the ridings in a province, you must end up scraping the bottom of the barrel of candidates eventually.
Thwim

Make up your mind. Either a strengthened vote brings better candidates, or it ends up scraping the bottom of the barrel. Because you can't get much stronger of a vote in Alberta than the CPC.

I suggest that it's the latter. Why? Because when its well known that one party has basically a lock on the seats you don't just get the principled person running for the position or the person with great ideas, you get the corrupt, the inept, the stupid, and those who would have difficulty making their living elsewhere. And since, if we're going by your logic, we've already established that the voters are not doing any significant analysis of the candidates for the federal election, what on earth makes you think they'd do any significant analysis in something as small as a candidate nomination (and that's completely ignoring the reality of the CPC nomination process (see Rob Anders again) which essentially makes the riding associations puppets of the PM).

Or in other words:

Stupid in -> Stupid out.
Style

Safe seats can be used either to parachute in Cabinet stars or to reward party hacks. But let's try your analysis, which Conservative backbencher do you prefer over Rob Anders? How would federal politics be different if there were two of that MP instead?
Thwim

Pretty much any of them, to be honest. But that's not saying anything of note, because none of them have done anything that impress me, it's just that Anders is so easily definable as a crap MP. So how would they be different? I don't think they would be, because I can't think of any of them that were elected because they were the right candidate as opposed to they were the CPC candidate.

Lord Kitchener's Own

I can't understand why anyone would vote Liberal in Toronto.

You know, even in Toronto there are people who think the NDP are a bunch of crazy left-wing nutjobs.

Style

Right, which is why the Conservatives want to persuade people the Liberals would include New Democrats in cabinet. If you think the New Democrats are nutjobs, you're not likely to vote for them – even if the Liberal MP ends up finishing third, that might be better than the New Democrat finishing first and having influence over government policy.

hyla9

Oh, as opposed to him and his very regressive Conservatives, who work together in Parliament with the other elected members on NOTHING; refuse to try to reach agreements built on consensus; and either fire / don't renew contracts or cut funding of the civil servants & agencies who dare to give them advice that goes against the Conservative mantra or agenda. The list is getting too long to list (Keen, Colvin, Stats Can & more)

As opposed to him & the Conservatives, who create animosity for the sake of creating animosity & division. Remember? He tried to cut funding to all other opposition groups to cut them off @ the knees; he called art galas "elitist"; he claimed only the intellectual "elite" cared about prorogation and, more recently, the census… Need I go on?

No wonder Parliament is so dysfunctional! Harper & his Conservatives think it is virtuous of them NOT to work together on ANYTHING with other elected Members of Parliament!
http://thebrownretort.blogspot.com Robert Viera

So all the opposition parties are working against the governing party? Shocking!
hyla9

This should be a slogan in the next election:
"Stephen Harper: NOT a team player".

Or what about this as part of the campaign strategy of the opposition parties:
Work Evaluation of Stephen Harper, Employer: the People of Canada.
To sum up: " Can't play nicely with others, not a team player. Can't take constructive criticism. Sabotages those who disagree with him."
Would YOU want to work in Parliament with this kind of employee??!
sea_n_mountains

if this is going to be as enlightened as the run-up to, and campaign of, the next election is going to be, can you please get it over with. I am looking forward to coming home in about 5 more months, but not to this.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Thought:

This is a long way off, if it's even remotely feasible (it almost certainly isn't), but does anyone think that if this keeps up at this pace that eventually Ignatieff and Layton might decide, "Hell if Harper's gonna tar us with the Coalition shtick everywhere he goes anyway, let's just form a formal coalition right now (COMPLETELY without the Bloc) decide which ridings are more likely to have the NDP beat the Tories, which are more likely to have the Liberals beat the Tories, divide them up, and be done with it".

Almost completely impossible I know, but I just like the idea of it because of how funny it would be in that whole "be careful what you wish for" sense.
Bob

The NDP and Libs are going to do everything they can to fight to perception that they're even contemplating a coalition, spending all of their time doing so, failing to offer a real alternative to Harper, and play right into his evil plan.
brooster

I'm pretty sure Harper who, as we now all know, makes the rules would declare the whole arrangement "illegal" and prorogue the election.
Lord Kitchener's Own

LOL.

I don't know if that's really Harper's "evil plan", and I don't discount the possibility that the Liberals could end up winning (a minority) on their own (sorry NDP, just ain't gonna happen for you…) but largely you're absolutely correct of course.

The only reason I'm not really all that concerned is that (imho) Harper's not changing anybody's mind with this. If you didn't already vote Tory last time, is this line of argument going to make you switch your vote? It's arguably a destructive line of rhetoric for the state of the nation's political discourse, but it's also not very useful politically, imho. At best, Harper gets another minority. At worst, people get sick of the constant "fear the opposition bogeyman" rhetoric and IGNATIEFF gets a minority (at very worst for Harper, it's a minority with enough NDP support to just IGNORE THE TORIES… and after a few years of "Stop the Evil Coalition at all costs" rhetoric, even a relatively "blue" Liberal like Ignatieff might be inclined to take the opportunity to have the Tories just sit in a corner for a while).

Unless the plan is "focus on winning another Tory minority", it's not just that this line is distasteful – I just don't think it makes any strategic sense.
ZestyMordant

I totally agree. I think it's a counterproductive argument for Harper. Unless he can convincingly demonstrate the the opposition is forming a coaltion or that he is delivering a majority, he's just further eroding his credibility among his own base.
Twisted_Mentat

I find Bloc bashing tends to turn off Quebec voters; though the Bloc is not loved by all Quebeckers, it can be perceived as a proxy for Quebec on the whole. So to the disinterested and uninvested Quebec voter, bashing the Bloc becomes bashing Quebeckers.

I'll agree he's playing a dangerous game; in trying to up his game in Quebec he might be destroying Federalism as a broader electoral option.
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com The Jurist

The one exception I'd note is if Ignatieff gets pressured into denying the possibility of a coalition, and thus reinforces the "bogeyman" line of argument. At that point he'd be easy prey on many levels – as an untrustworthy flip-flopper in the framing of the Cons, and as validating the message that the Cons should be left in power in the eyes of the public.

And one can never rule out the Libs shooting themselves in the foot like that.
Blacktop

A conservative minority is better than a Liberal anything better than an NDP anything better than a COALITION anything better than a conservative majority. No one is really interested in i the stuff you guys banter about. Gun registry? Yawn. I thought we already decided to scrap it. Long Form? Yawn. Who cares but egg heads and Some bloggers on the MacLean''s page. Muslim terrorists? Not here guys cause ole Harper'll see it gets taken care of.. Hurricanes? Red Cross. Earthquakes? Crux Rouge''ll look after .

Hell, I know how to vote whichever way the bloggers and eggheads and Emily don't vote. Yawn.
Lord Kitchener's Own

I wonder sometimes if the Tories (and the ROC generally) just don't realize how many federalist votes the Bloc gets? I TOTALLY agree that Harper risks driving a lot more federalists to the Bloc in the next election (though some would argue that this is his whole plan).
http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

Agree. I think the "proxy" thing may be because it's seen as a belief that Quebecois should be denied the right to vote for a Quebec party, as opposed to just urging them not to.
gottabesaid

Quoth Leader of the Opposition Stephen Harper, circa 2004: "We’ll support the government on issues if it’s essential to the country but our primary responsibility is not to prop up the government, our responsibility is to provide an opposition and an alternative government for Parliament and for Canadians. What the government has to do, if it wants to govern for any length of time, is it must appeal primarily to the third parties in the House of Commons to get them to support it."

Except when the Conservatives are in government then, I guess. Opposing them on anything when they're in power, well that's just obstructionist.
auntie_em_m

as Dippers always say …
danby

I posted this before and I think it still applies:

We are the Liberal Party and we are running to govern Canada. We feel that we can do a better job than the Conservative party and hope that Canadians will follow our campaign, see what we have to offer and support us.
If the election results in another minority government, then we will work to ensure that the voice of our electorate is heard in Parliament.
Make no mistake; we are running to win a majority. But if another party forms a minority government and we simply cannot support the direction they undertake – then one of the options provided by our parliamentary system is to cooperate with other elected MP's who share our vision, and form a government . Let the majority rule.
And we will not let Canadians down by ruling that out.
We will not let families down by ruling that out,
and we will not let Canada down by ruling that out.
If Mr Harper thinks this is about a grab for power, he just doesn't get it. It's not about power. It's not about personal glory. It's about doing what's best for Canada, for today and for tomorrow

This would get Michael Ignatieff out of the corner and allow for some breathing room
LdKitchenersOwn

Hey, I think that's great, it's just that he needs to keep in mind that A) that's not gong to stop Harper from saying "Boo! Coalition!" every five minutes, and B) some Canadians might jump.

I don't think Harper will ever get enough Canadians to jump to get many more seats than he has now, but I didn't think the Liberals could ever be nearly as unpopular under Ignatieff as they got under Dion – so it's not like I'm infallible.

(and yes, it's still me… finally caved and signed up for an IntenseDebate account)
danby

Mr Harper is free to sell his wares – and Canadians are free to shop elsewhere. Me? I won't be shopping conservative as long as Stephen Harper is managing the store, and I don't think I'm alone on this. Sooner or later the conservative party is going to reach the same conclusion and seek new leadership.Will it be a smooth transition or a civil war ala Chretien/Martin?

I think you'll enjoy Intense Debate. The editing feature alone makes it worthwhile, especially for ham fisted typists such as myself. Just watch your step once you get past 100p - I think they deleted Sean!
Phil

Hey!!

You're one of "us"; but look at what they (ID) makes you give up to join….an O, an R two blank spaces and an apostrophe.

Lose Sean, gain LKO, so it goes.