If an election had been held last month

A Liberal-NDP accord?


Eric Grenier has posted the polling averages for September. In terms of the popular vote, it’s a 32/30/25 split for the Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats, but if you plug that into Eric’s seat projection model, it’s a 136/115/70 split with the Conservatives leading.

We are two years out from an election, but the Throne Speech is still a day away and there’s not much to talk about except the select items the Conservatives have leaked for the purposes of generating their preferred discussion, so feel free to spend this free time considering what that sort of result in 2015 would mean.

In the opinion of the amateur constitutional scholar who currently occupies the Prime Minister’s Office, “losers” don’t get to form government. But in this scenario, the Liberals would have “won” the popular vote. And the Liberals and New Democrats, meanwhile, would also have a majority of the seats between them.

The result would be something like the outcome of the 1985 Ontario election, when the Progressive Conservatives won the most seats, but the Liberals won the popular vote. The result of that was that a non-confidence motion was moved against the incumbent PC government and the lieutenant governor invited David Peterson, the Liberal leader, to form a government, which he was able to do as a result of an accord between the Liberals and New Democrats.


If an election had been held last month

  1. My god: Wherry cannot stop thinking about ways for getting Liberals back into power! Two more years of waiting, Wherry! Oh, how time must crawl by for the likes of you………:)))

    • I have to admit, Wherry is one of the better non bias writers and commenters in the media today. you cant have all the papers to be like the Nat Post, G@M, Sun, and ezra. We still need some non bias writers. If your that angry with the author my friend, you should read a copy of harpers new hockey book when it comes out in november. it might settle you down a bit.

      • “Wherry is one of the better non bias writers and commenters in the media today.”
        Best unintentional humour of the day.

        • Where was the bias, for instance, in this piece?

          Seems like he stated a bunch of facts and drew some parallels without offering an opinion.

          I have to wonder why you read a journo you find loathsome and biased.

  2. If wishes were horses
    Beggars would ride:
    If turnips were bayonets
    I would wear one by my side

  3. Wherry’s scenario would also be a lot like the 1972 federal election — which resulted in a minority government and a Liberal-NDP agreement to keep Trudeau the Elder in power (Trudeau actually won two fewer seats than the Tories under Stanfield, as I recall). Dippers should beware of Liberals bearing gifts — Trudeau the Elder called a snap election two years later, and the NDP were crushed like bugs and shown the door.

    • Correction, I was mistaken: in 1972, Trudeau’s Liberals won 109 seats, the PCs 107. An added complication back then was the old Creditistes from Quebec, who went the way of the dodo bird a few years later (once again, getting crushed after conspiring with Trudeau the Elder to get Him back into power — do you see a pattern here?).

  4. LOL Congrats Wherry….you’ve put the Cons in a panic!

    • Note Emilian logic: if people with whom she disagrees are making lots of posts here, it’s proof that they’re “in a panic”. If Emily is making lots of posts here, it’s just another quotidian day at the computer.

      • I don’t care how many posts people do…..counting is a Con OCD problem

        It’s the panic in the posts that made me laugh.

        PS: quotidian means daily

        • You’re reaching on “quotidian” Emily, it has the broader meaning of commonplace.

          Well there’s nothing commonplace about you as far as I can see. At 8,960 posted idiocies and counting I figure you’re likely about as loopy as it gets.

          So, I’ll speak to Rocky, because he obviously doesn’t know you like we do and hasn’t yet realized that you’re nothing but a low left butt scoundrel up to no good.

          • Have you seen Francien’s numbers? Just saying. And if you did one of those – word clouds? – Justin, double dipping, Justin double dipping, Justine, double dipping…

          • In Emily’s defense (now there’s something I hope to never say again…) quotidian means “daily” in French. Perhaps she was thinking of the French definition.
            At 8,960 posted idiocies and counting Keep in mind that that’s only under her pen name “EmilyOne.” She made many more posts under previous names “OriginalEmily” and others.

          • Mike, if either one of us ever comes to a conclusion we know what she’s thinking we’d better start looking around to see if we can get a good deal on a couple of straight jackets.

            On the postings, I’ve had it in the back of my mind that a bottom line for this wacko is probably somewhere around 25 to 30 thousand.

            There’s a Ford hater over on NP right now using two names with a total of about 28,000.

            What a laugh!

  5. the Throne Speech is still a day away and there’s not much to talk about

    Well, there’s this

    “Freeland: Sadly for me and for you, I’m not an economic genius.”

    This is Justin Trudeau’s economics guru. Admitting that she is in fact “not an economics genius”. Maybe we could talk about why Justin Trudeau is appointing someone who would admit such a thing to such a position?

    Oh yeah…that whole “making the Liberals look bad” thing is not welcome here. Sorry about that.

    There’s always lots of things to talk about Wherry, if you’re willing to open your mind a little more and look beyond the “how can we trash the Conservatives today” stuff you usually peddle and actually work on all the news.

    • Mmmm neither her nor Justin said she was. Neither does her bio.

      Where do you get stuff like this?

        • Being on an economic committee isn’t the same as being an economic genius….or even guru.

          She’s a journalist who’s written extensively about global financial matters….as you’d know if you kept up.


          So get lost, liar.

          • Oh, come on.
            People don’t get these positions without at least a sniff at the Nobel.

            For example, Gary Goodyear was a well known science genius and guru before taking on his portfolio, and Rona Ambrose pioneered a new brain surgery procedure before coming to her current job.
            Can you image the scandal if we found out either one them wasn’t the genius/guru we thought they were?

          • LOL yes, Goodyear was my favorite….but the new guy isn’t any better.

            It’s just stunning how many unqualified people we have in govt!

          • Chrystia Freeland still needs her parents to co-sign for a mortgage!

            Chrystia Freeland is 44 or 45 years old!!

          • She quit her job to run for office, so is technically unemployed.

          • What’s your point?

          • Standard bank procedure. It’s what they’d do with anyone else.

          • So why does she not have a job?

          • She resigned her job to run for office.

          • Why did she quit her job before she had another one?

          • She is running for public office. She can’t do that while keeping her journalism job.

          • She couldn’t run for her nomination while keeping her job? And she wants to be our new Canadian economic adviser? She can’t do two things during the same time frame?

            Or was she so certain that she would win the nomination? Interesting, eh!

          • She has the nomination. She is running for MP. That’s an enormous amount of work ahead of her, and can’t be done along with a regular job….especially her job.

            She won’t be ‘our new Canadian economic adviser’…..she’ll be on an economic committee in opposition

          • She has the nomination. I knew that.

            She will be running as a Liberal candidate as soon as a by-election will be called in Rae’s old riding. I knew that too.

            But it can’t be done along with a regular job. Now, that is news.

            She will be an economic adviser to Justin Trudeau and Justin Trudeau will be our next PM, right! So why quarrel with the contents of my posts, EmilyOne. Aren’t you sure JT will be the next PM? You are not sure? Now that is news also. :))

          • Hardly news….standard procedure.

            I was just waiting to see how many posts it would take for your ‘Justin lustin’ to come up again. You were slow tonight.

          • I understand, EmilyOne: you don’t want to say that JT will be our next PM. You have your doubts about him but you don’t want to express that doubt publicly. I understand.

          • LOL now you’re doing the ‘silly little girl’ routine. This is why nobody usually bothers talking to you

          • Silly little girl routine is being like EmilyOne.

            I would like to be like EmilyOne and say Bye, bye and never mean it…:))

            Can you do that routine one more time for me, EmilyOne. I love it so much. Please do it for me one more time.

          • Then you wonder why people think you’re an idiot, and never usually talk to you.

            Tonight I thought I’d be nice to you, but I see there’s no point


          • Ciao (will she now mean it???) Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe. Maybe not!

            (I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but people DO actually respond to my posts. That’s too bad, don’t you think EmilyOne? Wouldn’t you like to have the comment boards all to yourself? :)))

          • Justin could keep his job and run for office and once in office he could even keep his old job. Justin could do it. Why not his economic adviser?

          • a) sorry Francie, that didn’t happen

            b) she isn’t his economic adviser

          • Yes, she is his economic adviser. Stay up with the news, eh!

            And yes, JT did keep his job while running for office AND he kept his old job while being paid an MP salary. Everyone knows that, even Justin has admitted that much. Are you blind and deaf?

          • No hon she is not…..she’s on an economic committee in opposition. We already went over that earlier with John G

            Justin was not working as a teacher while running for office. He did public speaking same as many others.

          • Read the papers much, EmilyOne? Or do you just read here what Wherry lays out for you and consider that to be reality? Probably.

            Funny, most people here on Macleans would swear by it that Justin kept his job as public speaker when being a paid MP.

            You don’t agree with them then. Interesting.

          • Francien, I think her employer would find it untenable for her to run for office under their employment. Even Duffy had the decency to resign his CTV job before working full time as a Conservative fundraiser and part time Senator.

          • Ah, yes, decency! Justin Trudeau kept his job while he was running for the nomination and while he was a paid MP. I guess you are proud of that.

          • Sounds to me like Bob Rae is back

            When Bob was Premier of Ontario my poor old grandmother always worried that Bob would steal, Lily, her cleaning lady and make her Industry Minister.

            What Bob did do though was appoint a guy named Peter North as Minister of Tourism. Unfortunately for Bob it turned out that prior to getting elected North, who lived in London, had never before been to Toronto.

            So, “it looks like deja vue all over again.” On the plus side Justine has a nicer hair-do than Bob had.

          • Oh good, you two have met. Now you can be silly together.

            Francie writes sex novels, Jamboy Walton is a stalker. Perfect combo.

          • I heard that when Liberal lawyers run for office most of them are having trouble making a living off little old ladies and are only one step ahead of being pinched for borrowing money from their client trust funds.

            There’s one not many people would be willing to bet against.

          • This could be the dumbest question on here yet.

          • Do you consider it the dumbest question because you can’t answer it? That must be it, eh! :))

        • Did the NatPo piece you linked to get edited?
          Strangely, it says that she’s a journalist and author.
          Hope you got a screenshot – this could be another Media Party coverup.

    • Childish selective editing John – is that all you’ve got?

    • Harper claims to be an economist but we all know that to be obviously untrue. His lousy economic record proves it.

      • So what part of his economic record is lousy?

        • All of it.

        • Well, to start with, there was his absolute failure to see the 2008 recession, even when everyone else had already called it…

        • Putting the country into a deficit even before the recession?

          • You mean that deficit that even Wherry has conceded will likely be gone by 2015. You mean that deficit that occurred as a result of a stimulus spending program that was supported and approved by all parties — in fact a program that they insisted the government implement. That deficit.
            So I’m curious — are you saying there wouldn’t have been any deficit had the Liberals or Dippers been in power in 2008?

          • No I mean the deficit that the Conservatives put us into before there was a recession, that deficit.

          • The deficit before the not-going-to-happen recession? The recession that was really just more of a good opportunity to pick up some cheap stocks?
            There’s your geniuses and gurus.

          • For “you” the recession was nothing more than an opportunity to pick up some cheap stocks. Your “screw everybody else in the Country” attitude is typical of Conservative geniuses though.

          • LOL. Good one!

          • For you observers of political discourse – this is known as the passive aggressive buck passing technique.

          • I’m guessing the Liberals would not have cut the GST by 2%, which would have improved the budget balance by about $15 billion per year. We would have about $75 billion less debt today, ceteris paribus, since 2008.

        • Allowing Jim Flaherty anywhere close to a decision making capacity in Finance?

          • Oh, you mean the Jim Flaherty who is now projected to take us out of deficit and into surplus. Yes, that Jim Flaherty.

          • The Jim Flaherty who claimed as Ontario Finance Minister there was a surplus but what subsequently found not to be true, that Jim Flaherty. Makes you wonder about the veracity of his current claims.

          • Since you mentioned Ontario, let`s talk about how impressive the several Liberal Finance ministers under McGuinty and Wynne have been over the past 10 years. Such a booming economy here that they can spend a billion dollars moving around gas plants to buy an election with taxpayer money.

          • Have they made any claims of surpluses that were later found to be untrue?

          • So if they lie about different stuff, that makes them good people.

          • That is idiotic !

          • Nothing to do with this.

          • I could give a frigging dam about what’s happening in Ontario, I live in BC and I care about what the
            Federal government is doing. I have my own gripes about the B.C. governments(s) -don’t get me started, but that is not the topic. Citing the track record of a now Federal minister,who is a former Provincial minister is totally relevant.

          • You seem to be confusing Jim Flaherty with third party economists like Stephen Gordon (referenced in a post by that well-known Conbot Aaron Wherry) who are predicting that we will be in surplus by 2015. Are you predicting that we will not be in surplus by 2015 then?

          • I estimate, with near certainty, the CPC will CLAIM a surplus exists, at a point suspiciously close to the 2015 election.

      • He has a degree in economics, are you suggesting that he faked that? And what lousy economic record are you referring to? The fact that Canada went through the “great recession” almost without even noticing there was a recession? Do you remember how many people lost their homes in the US in the late 2000’s? Are you aware of the trouble that’s still wreaking havoc in Europe and the US?

        • Get real, Ricky. An undergraduate degree in economics doesn’t make anyone an economist.

          • A Masters is a graduate degree.
            But indeed, it doesn’t make him an economist.

          • Harper’s never claimed to be an economist. Nobodies ever claimed that Harper was an economist.

            Justin Trudeau is also not an economist, neither is his pal Freeland, she’s a writer. Do you want to go through everybody in Canada who’s not an economist and feel you’re making some type of point?

          • Many of his supporters claim he is a ‘Trained Economist’

            BTW: ‘training’ to my ears is a silly term for an economist; it makes it sound like the person was taught how to operate the Slurpee machine at a depanneur. I suppose the PM’s supporters use that term instead of ‘degreed’ or ‘educated’ to make his life experience sound closer to that of one of their targeted demographic groups (I believe it was Doug the guy who owns his own small renovation business or some such)

          • I’ve never heard Stevie call himself an economist but he doesn’t need to, because his shills and acolytes rarely miss an opportunity to cite his bona fides in the discipline, as if he were. All part of the Cult of Stevie, if you will.

          • I’m pretty sure he has called himself an economist. something like “I’m no politician, I’m just an economist, etc.”

        • He cheated at elections so he probably cheated on his exams too. He seems quite comfortable breaking the law and has surrounded himself with criminals like Bruce Carson.

      • In fairness, I don’t think Harper has ever claimed to be an economist.

        • I kinda was wondering why he took a job as a mail room boy after getting his degree. Perhaps he cheated on his exams like he cheated on elections and knew he was too incompetent to hold a job as an economist. Well he’s been outed now.

          • Harper BAD.
            You forgot to add that while in the mailroom, he was torturing kittens and poisoning puppies.

          • Truth is that even if Harper did that….you’d still vote for him.

          • Like I did last election. Oh that’s right, I didn’t.

          • Yes you did.

          • I didn’t realize that Joyce Murray, MP was a Conservative. But apparently, according to Emily, she is. That’s funny, because in the voting booth, when I put my “X” beside her name, it said she was a Liberal. Perhaps this is yet another egregious example of Conservative election fraud.

          • The only fraud here is you.

            Name GritsRock. MO Smack Libs constantly

            Claim…to be a Lib

            Result Liar.

          • I think lots of hard-core Liberal partisans are huge douches. Doesn’t prevent me from voting for the party on occasion, especially when I think that party is fielding the better candidate. It’s called having an open mind, Emily. You ought to try it.

          • Um….I’m the one who doesn’t have a political party….who would prefer a technocracy….and who mentally lives in the 23rd century…..

            Don’t talk to me about open mindedness. LOL

          • “and who mentally lives in the 23rd century”
            That might explain a lot, actually.

          • It’s the Star Trek era…..something we would already be in if not for religion, and other moronic ideology.

          • Oh, geez – Star Trek? It was a tv show.

          • Somewhere apparently there’s a photo of a younger Stephen Harper in a Star Trek outfit.

            Probably with a red shirt.

          • You should see the one of Kathleen McWhinnie dressed up as a Klingon.

            And I heard there might even be one of little Justine dressed up as a Tribble.

            Thanks Emily, good one.

          • Emily would rather go with open virtue instead.

          • Good for you, getting the loyalists back to words they understand like – ‘huge douches’ As a non-Conservative are we allowed to think some Con party members and their supporters are, as you like to say, ‘huge douches’ . – just asking for a friend…

          • Yeah, but you were just crediting her for her stellar performance as a member of the BC Liberals.

          • huh? Your comment makes no sense whatsoever.

          • She was the Rona Ambrose of the Campbell government – come on. Oh wait – I am starting to see the appeal…

          • True. It only makes sense if you’re a low-information voter with no clue about the fiscal record of BC governments.

          • Hoping for an Emerson-like floor crossing were you? No wonder you’re so bitter.

          • Wow, what a withering refutation.

          • Really pulling out the big words today, Bean – you’re making your comrades look bad.

          • Yet another withering refutation. Keep ’em coming.

          • You are so popular amongst the ‘guests’ – it’s as if the minute you comment, they show up to give you the thumbs up.

    • Better to pretend to genius than be realistic about your abilities? You should look up the Dunning–Kruger effect.

      Keep in mind we have exactly zero economics ‘geniuses’ in our federal cabinet today. I don’t expect them to be competitive for the Nobel prize, either. I expect them to be versed in economic theory.

  6. Some nice wishful thinking RE: an NDP-Liberal accord. Under this scenario, the NDP would have lost 30 seats. If you look at the regional breakdown, a fair chunk of those seats are in Quebec, and just went to Liberals. Mulcair has way more to fear from a successful Liberal Party (especially under Trudeau) than he does under Harper. Indeed, the NDP got its best result ever in the same election that gave Harper a majority.

    And if you’ve noticed, the junior partner tends not to fare well in coalitions (ideologically they give their larger partner cover, while taking blame for unpopular actions). The Liberal Democrats under Clegg won 23% of the vote (and had polled much higher) in 2010. Now they’re hovering near single digits. Bob Rae didn’t win much from his accord, either. When the accord ended, Ontario saw an election that gave Peterson a massive majority.

    The much-vaunted success of the NDP getting concessions from federal leaders (i.e. the – somewhat inaccurate – story of Tommy Douglas forcing Pearson to enact Medicare) happened without an accord. It makes far more sense to avoid ironclad agreements to support a government. Most governments have points at which they are low in the polls – points when you can demand big concessions (or go to an election, where you’d make gains).

    tldr: forming an accord/coalition is like opting for a fixed rate mortgage in 1982.

    • All true, but the NDP rank and file and supporters hate Harper so much, most of them would be willing to jump into bed with the Liberals just to get rid of Harper. It’ll be attractive to the Dippers in terms of getting to dine at the table of power, plus partaking in the burning of the witch. If the opportunity is offered to them, they will eagerly jump at it. Just like they did with the Dion Debacle.

      • The last time the NDP jumped at the coalition idea was when they were in 3rd place and the Liberals were in 2nd. Those rolls are reversed now. Frankly I think Mulcair would be a little bit insane if he were to hitch his wagon to the unproven and undefined Trudeau. It would pretty much re-define the NDP as a whole. They’d have to abandon all of their socialist principles and likely have to abandon many of their pro-union stances. Essentially, they’d be giving back all of their gains from the last election, and then some.

        • But I thought you Cons were breezing your way into 2015. It almost sounds like you’re ready to build a bunker for Harper.

      • They hate Harper so much that they’d even be willing to do what voters elect them to do – govern?
        Woah. That’s qwazy.

        • If NDP voters want a Liberal government, they have a more direct route than voting NDP… Negotiating on a case-by-case basis is still governing. It’s just a form of governance much more likely to get policy results without sharing any of the inevitable stink that governments accrue over time.

          Gritsrock, the NDP rank-and-file aren’t MP’s, so they won’t be the ones making the call on a coalition/accord. And Harper was hated most by Bloc supporters, few of whom abandoned the party despite seeing their party prop up Harper in most of his confidence votes.

          • Who suggested NDP voters wanted a Liberal government?

      • When you have a Con Cabinet minister denying the rights of underage female rape victims the rights afforded to most women in the Western world, you are going to find people will vote against Harper, just for that.
        Your thoughts – are you for or against teenager rape victim iin third world countries having access to safe abortions?

  7. Hmm…Liberals look to repeat election financing violations that plagued their last leadership campaign.

    Look! Wherry! More stuff to talk abo…

    Oh yeah. Liberals again. Dammit. You’re right, it can be awfully hard to find stuff to talk about when your field of vision is restricted to “Conservatives bad, everyone else good”.

    • Well why wouldn’t the Liberals repeat the same violations? Elections Canada has made it clear that the Liberals won’t be held to the same standards as the other parties, so of course they’ll have a go at it.

      Elections Canada even said there was nothing they could do about breaking this particular rule, so a Liberal leadership candidate would have to have some form of ethics in order to not completely ignore it.

      • Yeah, cuz being unable to pay back leadership campaign loans is just like election fraud.

        • You’ll have to forgive Ricky and John G…..the Con party is in so much deep merde you can hear the screaming from the back rooms clear across the country.

          They don’t know what else to do beyond shrieking and attacking. Gawd knows they have no experience with reason.

          • Coming from a Paragon of unwavering Cartesian logic and reason such as yourself, that is a damning indictment indeed.

          • Ooooh I’ll bet you think that sounds super-intelligent eh?

            The fact you’ve confused math logic with governing a country shows you run with the same bozos who made a mess out of Wall St.

          • Hey Emily, I guess you forgot that Wall Street these days is all the Harvard scumball Democrat friends of Barry Obama, Hillary Cliton, Rahm, and Axelrod.

            Oh and just for fun there’s one plain old Marxist scum ball and FOD (ie Friend of Democrats) George Soros.

            That’s the Wall Street mess Emily

            So take another bot shot at that one, if you don’t mind.

          • Ah – did you know that Cruz went to Harvard?

          • Personally I think Cruz might be a Trojan horse but he had nothing to do with Wall Street leaving me with a rather glaring need for an edit on Bob and Princess. Merci

          • Well, you might need to check out his wife – in case you think he actually some kind of radical.

          • Ok thanks! I see her connected at a fairly high level with Goldman Sachs and with anything that might mean. Nothing good, in my opinion

            For the sake of amusement and since you brought it up, my radicals are the Obama, Clinton Ayers, Frankfurt School bunch in the White House and the Marxist Trudeau legacy that we’ve been beating off here since 1968.

            But anything out of me and 50 cents won’t buy you a coffee. :-)

          • “… we’ve been beating off here since 1968.”

            Did you ever consider that there might be a connection with the stalking and misogyny?

          • Note to John g and Ricky – he’s not referring to Jimmy Carter here.

        • Breaking election finance rules is election fraud. It’s the exact same thing.

          • Fraid not.

            Nice attempt though. I’d say a 5.5

          • No.

            Being unable to pay back a loan isn’t fraud.
            Or maybe you can explain to us how she can pay it back but is deliberately not doing so.
            Let’s hear it, NotRick.

  8. I repeat: any government, even one comprised of a coaltion of two or more parties, is legitimate if it commands support of a majority in the House. Period.

    All the handwringing and fingerpointing by those who say otherwise is misleading and irrelevant. When it comes from the Cons, it’s just frantic dissemination of self-serving lies.

    • It’s only legitimate if it’s viewed as such by the public. The public saw the NDP/Lib coalition as a shameless grab for power, thus it was illegitimate in the eyes of the public. Believe it or not, there’s more to democracy than your opinion.

      • You seem to be confusing “legitimate” with “popular”. Which, as the CPC has yet to garner 50% of the vote (meaning they aren’t terribly popular), would render their government illegitimate.

        • Brilliant !
          We Liberals may not know much about the economy, we may not have principles, heck, we may not know where we stand on any issue until we check the wind, but, yes we know the difference between legitimate and popular.
          And dammit, if we can weasel our way back into even a little bit of power, we`ll go for it. So what if it`s not popular to team up with the Greens or NDP or Bloc, just give us the power fix right now. We`ll deal with the fallout later.

          • Seems to me all of Canada is already paying for it. Harper got his majority, didn’t he?

            All I’m asking is that Cons not make up definitions for words. Get a dictionary fer chrissakes!

          • There is no ‘Cons’ in Canadian politics! Take the time to spell the real name of political parties, eh! Or get a dictionary!

          • I know you’re a newcomer but you need to learn the vernacular.

          • Sure there are! Most of them are CPC members (the capital-C ones) but we have con artists in all parties.
            Or maybe I’m referring to the convicts on the government side – I’m OK with a little ambiguity in the interpretation ;-)

      • There is, indeed, more to democracy than my opinion (or yours)…much more. It’s called parliamentary precedent, which has long recognized coalitions as legitimate.

        Your definition of “legitimate” has no constitutional validity, whatsoever.

      • the kicker for most people was making the deal with the separatists – had it been just Stephan and Jack – might have worked – but the photo in front of the par;iament Bldgs with Gilles contaminated everything and allowed the Harper pulled the rug out on them as they thought he didn’t have the guts to pull the plug on them – and as usual they underestimated Harper which is a very common mistake repeated over and over again so far – I don’t think Mulcair willl make the same mistake!!!!!!!

    • It’s interesting to see neuroticdog, erstwhile full-time Harperhater, go out of his way to affirm the legitimacy of the Harper Government.

      • It was legally elected. Where have I ever questioned its legitimacy?

        And I don’t hate Harper. I hate his party, its policies, and its values. And that hatred is far from “erstwhile”, thank you.

      • If you continue with this’Hate Harper’ routine, you’re going to be put into the nutbar bin. You may already be there,

  9. Here is a fascinating scenario folks – lets say next election Justin gets a minority 5 minutes later – Stevie the Hammer and Tommy the Beard go to the GG and say sorry but we have no confidence today then wander outside and have a photo of them signing an agreement whereas Stevie appoints NDP Senators like crazy for four years allowing attrition to eat further into the Liberal count :) – and don’t say it will never happen they said that about Harper seveara times now especially when he pulled the plug going to the polls :)

Sign in to comment.