Coyne v. Wells on whether the Liberals really want an election

A video podcast with Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells


Download | Feed | iTunes


Coyne v. Wells on whether the Liberals really want an election

  1. Ordinarily I look forward to elections but I feel a tremendous amount of ennui when I think of one potentially happening in a few weeks. There are no issues, parties/pols are afraid to say anything of interest, it will be a colossal bore.

    I don't think the scandals affecting Cons at moment will hurt much because they have not done anything particularly egregious when compared to what's occurred in Parliament over the past decade or two. Scandals are esoteric, only of interest to those of us who obsess about politics, and they won't swing many votes away from Cons.

    And I think it was Wells who was saying that Libs expect to gain 20-30 seats because they are all around good people and electorate will notice this during campaign and reward Libs suitably. If that is Lib belief, they are even more deluded than I previously thought.

    • "… they have not done anything particularly egregious when compared to what's occurred in Parliament over the past decade or two. Scandals are esoteric, only of interest to those of us who obsess about politics,…"

      Famous last words no doubt for some libs around the time of Adscam. I've always found it difficult to get my head around the burning desire of some people to see our politics progress.

  2. The Liberals NEED an election, they need to get rid of Ignatieff, he is not electable, not now, next year, five years, he will never be elected in this country.

    I've heard he can't get fired and he won't pull a Campbell and quit for the good of the party. election seems to be the only way.

    • Fair enough. So there's an election next month, who should be running for the Liberals?


      • Did Bob Rae ever officially renounce a future candidacy?

        • H_O, I hope he gets a shot he deserves it!

      • I personally like Daniel Leblanc, though he did get all Baird on us this week on QP, he was purple.

        I do believe Rae deserves a shot, he is a really good politician, I like Gerard Kennedy too.

        I just hope that we are not insulted with JT, I had hopes because of the wonderful legacy that he has, but so far it has not shown it, hopefully he will grow in to it.

        And one thing though they should not hurry to try to defeat government too soon, just let it be a become a strong party first,become good opposition, not just oppose because you do not like them.

        And elect the new leader the right way, go thru the whole process, it does pay off.

    • And after him the next guy wont be electable for some other egregious unforgivable reason…in the opinion of Harper…see a pattern yet. I think we should let canadians make up their own mind on this one, eh?

      • Ok I am going to try again my comment dissapeared. And I reply about 10 hours ago.

      • So Here I go again,

        This my take on it as you all know I am in Corporate Public Relations and Advertising, it has nothing to do with politics, it is about strategy, I was explaining this analogy to an intern from my office, I hope it helps.

        About 20 years ago, there was a very famous advertising campaign for a product I am sure most of you remember called Crystal Pepsi, I am sure most of you remember it, well the older crowd.

        Pepsico thought that the clear concept would work great for several reasons, caffeine free, the clear alternative to colas, peole would think of it as healthy, more pure, etc.

        It had a wonderful response with their test markets, so they went ahead with a very strong advertising campaign a very cool one, cool slogan YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN A TASTE LIKE THIS, Sammy Hagar singing RIGHT ONE, great images etc..

        • cont…

          Just wanted to check it was posting…

        • It was a hit first because it was something innovative, people was attracted to the option but it fade really fast, Pepsico tried to reintroduce it with a citrus flavour but failed, the company started to goign down with it, their shares falling, so guess what the drink became history!

          David Novak credited with introducing the crystal drink concept, had this to say,

          I was a tremendous learning experience. I still think it is the best idea I ever had, and the worst executed. A lot of times as a leader you think, THEY DO NOT GET IT, THEY DO NOT SEE MY VISION. People were saying we should stop an address some issues along the way, and they were right. It would have been nice if Id made sure the PRODUCT TASTED GOOD. Once you have a great idea and you blow it, you do not get a chance to resurrect it.

          What Novak said is exactly what is happening to the Liberal Party.

          • I know this story well because when we are in this business you always learn from the biggest failures.

            And Ignatieff has ALWAYS been crystal pepsi, from the moment they had to convince him to come back. He is not electable and never will he is and will always be crystal pepsi. (again check above Novaks comment, it fits like a globe), to be fair this is not all Ignatieffs fault is the LP mostly.

            I know you are thinking well, this is advertising nothing to do with it, au contraire, it does, politics is 50% politics – 50% advertising, it would be wonderful if they could spend their whole focus and time to just lead the country but that is not the case, far from it.

            I could tell you exactly step by step why their startegy has failed (but that is why they pay me the big bucks, just kidding!) instead I am going to tell you why the conservative ads work so well.

          • The conservative ads work well because people identifies with them,

            Just visiting – it is about authenticity. 
            Here for himself – convinience, he is here to be PM, nothing else

            Well you get the idea, it is about strategy, timing and content, conservatives were faster and to the point.
            The conservatives did not make Ignatieff unauthentic or here for his own convinience, he did that because they are facts, that is his story for better or for worse, he came to Canada to be PM after 30 something years away, (and I am not saying this because I am pro Harper, so save it, this are the facts, we could be talking about cheech and chong or pepsi or coke) so this narrative works, plus the LP is making tons of mistakes.

          • My bet is that the Liberal party will loose the way KC did in 93 or fairly close, it will be big though.

            That is why when he threatened to defeat the government, the cons numbers are going up so when the actual election gets on the way, it is going to skyrocket, and we are seeing it, numbers that everyone has hard time believing them.

            Now, I do not think it is a bad thing for the Liberal party to go, remember from the ashes the the Phoenix was born, it is time to reevaluate the whole thing and start the right way ELECT A LEADER (bad strategy and they are paying for that one) is not the end of the world or Canada : )

          • No these are not the "facts", they are the "facts" ™ as told to you by the "Harper Government" propaganda machine. He has worked in Canadian Academia (UBC), the UK, and the US for many years simply because that is the NATURE of academia. Many leading Canadian scientists, intellectuals, artists, etc have lived or continue to live outside Canada. Does this make the "less Canadian"? What a stupid, myopic viewpoint. Ignatieff has had an outstanding career in academia and is an international leader in the realm of political theory. His resume makes Harper look like an unaccomplished RUBE with zero understanding of the world outside his Calgary office (which in fact, is the truth and explains his abysmal and laughable performance on the international stage). You are, madame, a complete ignoramus if you buy into Harper's laughable claims that Ignatieff is somehow "less of a Canadian" than you or I. Harper is the anti-Canadian par excellence. It is just a shame that at any given time, 36% of the electorate are too ignorant and/or brainwashed to see him for what he is.

          • Not less canadian, I've never said that!

            Less AUTHENTIC, you bet!

          • While I agree with you, Franz, the ads definitely took their toll. They set up an image of Iggy that he has had a hard time dispelling. The man is not terribly telegenic, and he has not articulated a clear alternate vision for the country; he has largely focussed on attacking Harper. There's lots to attack, but I think he should have left that to party henchmen and instead focussed on showing what the Libs would do if in power.

            Iggy's speeches should have been on policy; he should have introduced alternate legislation (there are enough non-CPC MPs to pass private bills if they are sound ones; preseting them – even if struck down – would show their intended direction and that they are a serious alternative).

            Now it's too late; I just hope they can continue to hold Harper to a minority while they replace Iggy and regroup.

          • Yeah, I agree, they have to be smart with their ads though, because if they go too negative it will backfire too, ironic isn't it? Harper gets away with it, but they can't!

            If I could give them some advice,I will telll them to focus on the beauty of Parliament and a democracy, without even talking about Harper, about how they have learned from past mistakes and want a new start, and willing to listen to canadians needs in a very simple humble way.

            At this point they have nothing too lose!

      • This is not about Harper is about the Liberal Party and their strategy, as long as they keep going like this, nothing will change.

        • Sadly, I agree. As much as I want Harper defeated (I genuinely believe he is bad for the country), the Libs aren't presenting themselves as a desirable alternative.

    • We get that you don't personally like the guy, but you have yet to offer any kind of substantive criticism. He hasn't even led the party through an election, so although your concern-trolling is mildly distracting, it's ultimately kind of questionable. Why should he go? Seriously?

      • On the contarry I like him, he is just not a good political leader, I posted my opinion above!

      • Kaplan, what part of "make sure it tastes good" don't you get? Ignatieff was wooed to return to lead the country, not the party, because the old school Liberals are STILL convinced they are the "natural governing party" and it is their God-given right. Prime Ministers aren't ever "appointed" (okay, technically they are by the GG but only after their party wins the majority of the votes, or at least the most seats in the House). The whole "appointed" thing leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

        • I tend not base my political calculations around 1980s advertisements for one. I know it sounds really cool to base everything on a simple concept – but seriously? What works for soft drinks doesn't necessarily translate to complex and shifting political environment. The analogy of Crystal Pepsi as Ignatieff is perhaps the most lunkheaded thing I've heard.

          Conservative ads have worked well in defining Ignatieff. And he's been largely unable to get his message out for a number of reasons. His party's still financially decrepit, and he's the leader of the opposition, who largely struggles in any parliament to set and sustain the agenda. Despite what the Warren Kinsellas of the world say, you can't boil everything down to a simple answer.

          Once an election starts, despite all the backroom planning and punditry on what the ballot question will be, the dynamic will change. Campaigns always change, and pivot on unforseeable issues. Plus, Ignatieff will earn far different media coverage. Not all of it will be positive, and he's still untested as a gladhanding politician, but remember that Harper will be out there in less rarified air than he's in now. The playing field will be levelled a little more, and the Conservatives will be far less able to control the message of the day than they are now. Coupled with the unknowns of day-to-day campaigning, I'm expecting Ignatieff and the Liberals will do far better than people are expecting.

          • No, the field won't be levelled not even a little. And this thinking is why the Liberal Party is not going anywhere. He is not going to fare well at all, he is done, he will be out with or without an election.

          • By the way, you get it was an analogy, but if you will like I can tell you step by step where their mistakes have been connecting to people. In a perfect word it would be all about the issues, and that is all our elected leaders would dedicate their time in office to do, unfortunately that perfect world does not exist and they have to sell their ideas to the people over and over, everyday.

    • Claudia,
      This is a great documentary. It traces precisely these strategies of consumer advertising into politics, and the problems that occur with that movement of advertising as the motor of mass democracy. Seemed appropriate.

      Re Ignatieff: With any luck his lack of political strength would begin disentangle the concentration of power in the PMO as it re-styles itself as an executive branch. Wishful thinking perhaps.

      • Yes it is pretty good, I've seen it before.

        I think for Ignatieff is too late but the Liberal party is a new beginning and they need to clean house, I do like the word re- style much better that re-invent.

    • Why should we Canadians have to pay 350 Mill so your party can get a new leader. A leadership campaign at Canada's expense. This is the kind of attitude we have come to expect from you Liberals. How about you get your party to slip him the knife. That's good Liberal Tradition is it not? Liberals need to take responsibility for placing an unelected individual at the head of its party. Don't do it on my dime and out time.

      • Correction, "our time"

      • I agree with what you say, but I think the Tories also know they have a good shot for a majority.

  3. Liberals calling an election on ethics , heh .

  4. Harper is attempting the "dual-rope-a-dope". Exhaust the outrage of the Liberals and their media-allied hordes before the writ is dropped, and desensitize the general public as much as possible to that outrage before the election. Because there will just be more of it during the election.

    If Harper holds his core 35% in the pre-writ polls after the pummelling, the Liberals will enter the campaign somewhat demoralized.

  5. I think the choices outlined for the voters are a bit more complicated than Messieurs Coyne and Wells explain. It's not just the Conservative handling of the economy on the one hand, and their "Nixonian" tactics on the other. It's also about leadership on the one hand, and the so-called "Nixonian" tactics not even coming close to being Nixonian on the other.

    Let me explain this latter point.

    Not much of what the Conservatives have done has been egregious. Let's look at Oda. What did she do? She fibbed about the process that led to the withholding of funds — a decision they ultimately stuck with all along — to a group no one has ever heard of before for an amount that must be so small that it's hardly every mentioned.

    In other words, people are listening, since the media is running blaring headlines about it, but it's hard to see what exactly all the fuss is about. A politician made a clumsy lie. The horror! Next.

    And on and on it goes. I follow politics, and I still don't know what's so bad about the so-called "in and out" affair. The Conservatives didn't even hide it, presumably because they thought it was legal. And it happened two elections ago. They stopped doing it, in part to be on the safe side. What else is there to be done?

    It will take a serious scandal for this government to be tainted as being corrupt, just as it did with the Liberals. The latter's big scandal was one of Canadian history's biggest, and their smaller scandals were bigger than the current government's are, and even those small Liberal ones didn't ultimately hurt Chretien.

    Outside of the bubble of the Ottawa elites, people don't understand what all the fuss is about. But they do think Harper is tough and that he's working on the economy, crime issues, and so on. If the opposition tries to preempt the budget with a motion involving these frequent but minor scandals, Harper will accuse the coalition of trying to grab power again, voters will believe him, and we'll probably have our first Conservative majority in a generation. Easy peasy.

    • Not that I agree with it all, but good post.

  6. "from cow-pie to cow-pie" Good one AC, lol!!!

    Speaking of Clinton, "it's the economy, stupid" still applies, none of the current cow-pies are going to stick. TD today said the deficit for the 2011-12 financial year will shrink to $21.7 billion, or $8.1 billion below the official fall projection, and they upgraded this years GDP forecast to three per cent = more taxes for Ottawa. Flaherty's Irish eyes will be smiling at budget time.

    Can't see the Liberals gaining many seats because Ignatieff keeps going down, down, down. http://www.visioncritical.com/public-opinion/6042

    So what does Harper have to do to get the Press Gallery to "like" him?? Which belly need rubbing??

  7. I disagree with the sentiments suggesting Ignatieff is unelectable. Iggy is an okay leader, but as some of the Liberals Wells talked to suggested, he has not been able to showcase himself in the pre-writ period. The impressions Canadians have of him are based primarily on attack ads, and probably the lingering effects of their impressions of Dion. This is such a low bar that it is hard to imagine it falling and easy to imagine it rising in the course of a campaign. I mean Ignatieff would have to sing the star-spangled banner while waterboarding somebody to live up to his image. Even bumbling Dion went up in the polls after the leader debates. During the election, due to campaign spending limits, the Liberals will be on equal footing with the Tories (perhaps a bit less than equal due to a weaker party organization, but close).

    The reason Ignatieff is currently in a bad position has little to do with his failure to press the advantage on this or that minor scandal. Rather, he is behind because he has largely conceded to the Conservative line that:
    -the stimulus saved the economy
    -the recession wasn't their fault

    His focus on the deficit is counterproductive as well. If he is serious about the deficit (which is the result of a stimulus program he pushed for), he will have to stick to his corporate tax cut position, which, though not unpopular in itself, can easily be represented as an instance of Ignatieff desiring higher taxes.

    Ignatieff's winning argument is the same one Reagan used: are you better off than you were five years ago? Growth has been sluggish, unemployment is higher, and there may be structural weaknesses in the Canadian economy (high consumer debt, an impending downturn in commodities). Is it fair to blame the Tories on these questions? Maybe not, but its a winning set of issues.

  8. If you try and merge one or two of the themes of AC/PW you come up with a dozy of a conundrum. AC correctly states there is a pretty solid opinion in the country that govt has handled the economy well. But at the same time there is this conflicting opinion that govt is not on the right track[ presumably naughty boy stuff] How to relieve this dissonance? Well, my common would tell me, behave better and share your toys with the other boys and girls – problem solved; everyone happy, no more need for uncle Millikin to be the heavy – happy times for all.[ Well, maybe liberals a little sad?]
    Now Wells' theory comes into play[ bad boy] It turns out Steve doesn't think the rules at the kindergarden or the folks who run it are giving him -equal love and hugs – never will in fact; he's so sure of it he continues to throw tantrums and scare the other kids anyway. What to do with little Steve? Humour him? Hasn't helped much so far ad besides it's a minority KG, other kids got rights too What to do? Change the rules? Ignore the tamtrums? Or let Big Daddy and Moma voter sort it out?

    • I guess no one went for my KG shtick – no matter. However, it does raise the more interesting question of whether SH will, or indeed can change what is essentially his nature. If all he can do is double or hunkerdown whenever he faces either a crisis or a choice of obeying the spirit of the rules, or just being a little more empathetic in his dealings with opposing points of view; If he's simply not wired for a more collegial style of minority governance.Then how can this all end in anything other then tears or prolonged guerrila warfare for the remainder of what ever term the people of Canada see fit to give him?

      • Oops…did a switcheroo on IDs.

      • I don't know if he can change his strategy (nature, they intertwind there) but if he doesn't change it will be what brings him down, his own stupidity.

  9. I have to say i'm a little perturbed with Andrew. Is he sending us mixed messages, or am i not listening hard enough? On the one hand he he's delivering stirring fire and brimstone "Our Democracy is at stake" stuff on a pretty regular basis – much of which i applaud[ and not merely for partisan reasons…i share his stated concerns] ; yet on the verge of a possible reckoning, he's now convinced it's all nothing more than a a plot to embarrass the poor NDP on the part of those ever duplicitous Liberals.
    Do i take it you merely upset enough to want the govt to behave better[ reasonable enough] or are you not upset enough to think it's worth throwing the bums out? It's a serious question. because i'm starting to wonder just how serious you are about all this really. I'm not accusing you of naked bias, not at all, nor am i trying to goad you into picking a side; Just questioning your seriousness.[ i suppose that's a serious enough charge in itself? ]
    I have a feeling your answer might be: perhaps i should be asking the liberals how serous they are? Now i've gone and made myself feel bad.

    • You are mixing together two questions:

      1) Should there be an election? Yeah, why the hell not: an election over ethics and accountability (if it were that) would be a terrific thing, provided the parties actually brought something to the table other than just "throw the bums out". We keep doing that, only to elect a bunch of new bums.

      2) Will there be an election? Nyuh-uh. Which means all that talk of "electoral fraud" was just that: talk.

      • thx for replying.

        It appears to me at any rate my guess at your response was close: Are the oppositon serious enough to DO something, follow through on their rhetoric, not merely posture?

        Point 2 would indeed be a bad outcome. [As Chantal put it the other day, how on earth can you continue to support the govt if you believe the motions you adopt?] and for me at least would confirm my lingering suspicions that the libs have badly drifted away from being a serious party – which i believe once upon a time they were and hope they could be again.[ it being the best currently available fit for my worldview]

        Pont 1.I can only concur. No democratic reform, no point. I continue to hope there's still a vestigial memory somewhere in their DNA ,of the libs in particular, of what we are all doing this democracy thing for. I'm not confident; i'm hopeful.

    • He's full of Sh#T just like you are.

  10. It is interesting that Well's description of Harper has shifted from his being a cold-hearted, über-genius making incremental strategic changes that no-one (but Wells & his readers) know about to Harper being a maladjusted über-genius with paranoid tendencies. It is not that the two are at all inconsistent, just that they emphasize different aspects of his persona with the former being considered quite acceptable in a leader the latter not so much.

    • Unless PW has some sympathy for the "the whole damn liberal establichment is ag'n me…which i sincerely hope he doesn't.

      What was it Woody Allen said? "Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that someone's not out to get you."

      • There was a portion of the clip (at about the 8:00 mark for about a minute and a half, IIRC) that I didn't quite understand. It had these snippets:

        – Harper believing that he can't win a fair fight
        – because the rules of the fight aren't fair
        – and the list of the folks that have setup this unfair fight
        – and Harper also can't win a fight where the other side has all the information
        – or where both sides have access to perfect information
        – because the information favours the other side
        – and Elections Canada (as well as others parts of the bureaucracy?) is/are filled with Liberal hacks

        What was the point of all that? It's OK to fight unfairly? Harper is paranoid? Information has no place in a policy debate? There is a conspiracy amongst the elites? The elites only represent a tiny minority of people? Even though a majority of people disagree with Harper they should be ingnored?

        I'm so confused. :-)

        • i asked PW this question at one time. His answer as i understood it was Harper really does feel he can't get a fair fight – basically the establishment is liberal. So he has one hand tied behind his back and feels compelled to keep the opp on the back foot -by fair means or foul it would seem. It seems tome to be the classic Nixonian self perpetuating outsider syndrome. And it would explain his constant doubling down whenever he comes up short in the rules department. It's a recipe for not quite achieving a majority since it's unlikely he's ever likely to persuade enough people to see it his way and that sooner or later the establishment may well close ranks on him.

          • Agree, he is going overboard with his nixonian tendencies and they are going to be his downfall.

          • basically the establishment is liberal

            This seems to be sort of a self fulfilling thing…..ie, what is stopping conservatives from entering this establishment thing….is it really true that there are not already some conservatives inside of the establishment….quite a large proportion of the populace are members of the establishment – are their wishes and desires irrelevant?

          • "We don't see the world as it is. We see the worls as we are." Anais Nin

            Interesting questions.I agree , you see what you want to see. I would imagine there are a good number of conservatives in the wider establishment. After all Mulroney was around as PM for almost a decade; trouble seems to be that SH and his gang of Harris cast offs don't regard these folks as conservative enough – or even conservative at all – Remey Beauregard might serve as a case in point?
            As to your last point i honestly don't know – it would probably depend on how you define establishment? My definition is a little coloured by my UK roots where it is traditionally a sort of elite of old families, church and perhaps military.[ although this may be dated. There is so much new money around now.] I think it's quite different in Canada – too Liberal in SH's opinion.

          • …World…guess there are advantages to ID?

  11. The liberals ousting Iggy for more recognizable Bob Rae wouldn't be a good thing for liberals to do. Most Ontario voters remember Bob Rae an NDP premier of Ontario. What they remember are Rae Days, high inflation, overspending and just all negative things about Bob Rae. If Ontario voters won't vote liberal in a federal election, then a good chance conservatives will be voted in with a majority. Bob Rae, albeit recognizable name is not necessarily a good thing for federal liberal party. Frankly it's a bad thing. The new liberal leader should be more defined by someone who has spent most of life living in Canada. How about Ken Dryden as liberal leader; what could be more Canadian then a former NHL player?

    • Dryden is a good man, but a booooooring politician. His nickname among some of the press is Treebeard.

      • LOL!

  12. In-and-out scandal
    Andrew Coyne is geographically confused over what entails local riding advertising compared to national campaign advertising.
    The Conservatives involved 67 ridings, an unusually large number. They also filed false invoices to Elections Canada of fictitious ad spending by the 67 ridings.The invoices are evidence of intent to break campaign funding regulations by 4 senior Conservatives.
    The offence saw the Conservatives come to power in 2006 after spending $1.3 million more on ad campaigning than the opposition parties were allowed to. Beyond this, the Conservatives sued for the tax rebate of $800,000 on the $1.3 million supposedly spent on the ridings.
    Some of this taxpayer-provided rebate, still tied up in court, has yet to be returned by the Conservatives.
    Federal government calls the scandal an “administrative” misunderstanding. Unfortunately for the senior Conservatives facing possible incarceration Canada has no administrative jails.

      • I'd suggest you read my response, but it was apparently disappeared.

        • I've had comments disappear on me, too. It's not censorship. It's some kind of software glitch. The solution is simple: rewrite your comment and repost it.

          • And the replies too?

            Beyond that, several hours have gone by. I'm not entirely sure I remember it, and the discussion in that thread has moved on since then.

            Also, if someone *did* disappear it, I don't want to get into a post-delete war with an admin. Their forum and all, if they don't want the comment that's fine.. I tread the line of being offensive often enough I fully expect to get slapped down sometimes and don't hold any harsh feelings over it. I'm just concerned that there's no evidence the post and all of its followups were even there. That gets me wondering as to what else we might be missing.

            After all, it's not like Macleans' has a spotless record when it comes to quietly wiping out things they don't like, remember the Michael C. Hall thing?

          • I don't think that a human being deleted your comment thread. It was probably a WordPress, ID, or comment filtering glitch.

            What makes you think otherwise? Was there something in the discussion that was borderline offensive?

          • Thwim you are going all Harper on us here, it not a conspiracy, the darn thing is not working ; )

  13. From The Hill Times – Liberals seem ready to act, but the same article quotes NDP MP Pat Martin, as wanting to wait. Oh the games!!

    "If the committee report does go as far as citing the government with contempt, Liberal MP Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Ont.) said a Liberal motion that could defeat the government would follow immediately. Debate on the motion could go for days, as long as MPs are standing to speak, and could prevent the government from tabling its budget on Tuesday March 22, Mr. Szabo said.

    “It will happen right away, on the 21st, as soon as the committee has reported back, we'll be on our feet,” Mr. Szabo said."

  14. First, Mr. Coyne, I'm impressed by your personal reply to my "In-and-out scandal" comment.
    I've read your suggested piece "Elelctoral fraud? Tell it to the Judge" but the information doesn't influence me to see the Conservative Fund Canada in a more victimized light.
    For 4 senior Conservative members to be possibly facing jail time, to me, is a serious measure of alledged wrongdoing.
    Can you name me opposition members who have been cited for jail time for electoral "gaming"?
    I stand by the understanding that the Conservative national campaign deliberately transfered money to the ridings. To have the ridings quickly transfer the monies back to the national campaign in order to run $1.3 million of ads over the established national advertising cap.
    "Tag lines" to the candidates sounds like hurried names in end credits.
    You imply it was clever manipulaltion by the Conservative Fund, all
    above board. Then why is Elections Canada still hunting it down 5 years later?
    A Liberal agency conspiracy?

  15. Election Canada is just another agency stuffed the the raffers with liberal hacks, as Mr. Harper rightly pointed out during the 2006 election. Anyone with their eyes open in this country can easily see the liberal have stacked the goverment and the courts with their friends and with the help again of their friends in the media try to paint the conservatives as dirty as they are and for the most part its work out well, because with out all the help provided by these liberal hacks they , the liberals wouldn't even be on the radar screen.If Harper gets that majority he will clean up what has become worst problem,liberals running the show even out of goverment.

    • In the past 26 years, half of the time Canada has been led by a Conservative government. The reality is that both the Conservatives and Liberals appoint centrist type individuals to key public service positions. But thank you for admitting that the Liberals are much better at maintaining their presence, even while in opposition.

      If you had wanted right wing nuts making decisions for Canada, you should not have supported the merger with the Progressive Conservatives. While the Reform/Alliance base really wants their extreme right wing agenda put in place, this will not happen under Harper. He wants to govern, not lose power to appease a small minority of knuckledraggers.

  16. It takes a tsunami to make you realise how profoundly petty and horrendously stupid is the national life of our country.

    Well, no, I retract that, it doesn't actually take a tsunami, let me rephrase.

    It takes the two aging adolescents above to make you realise how profoundly petty and horrendously stupid is the national life of our country.

Sign in to comment.