On last week’s At Issue panel, we pondered whether federal politics had entered “a post-partisan era.” It’s only been a few days, but I think we can safely say the answer is no.



  1. “we pondered whether federal politics had entered “a post-partisan era.”

    Can you tell me at what meeting y’all decided that we needed a “post partisan” era? I thought we just needed more decorum and fewer lies.

      • It’s a talk show which requires stuff to talk about from time to time.

        We’d be better off giving them reading assignments and then expecting oral reports.

  2. As long as the current batch of Conservatives are in power, I think it is safe to say that partisanship will remain as the dominant modus operandi in Ottawa.

  3. Both links go to the same CBC At Issues page.

    Were you perhaps trying to link to the CP article about the oncoming onslaught of Conservative attack ads as noted in this CP article?

  4. Andrew, I think your second link is wrong (it’s the same as the first) so your punchline isn’t quite what I know it can be.

  5. If era is about 30 – 60 days then yes.

      • Judging by another Harper clip-clop/flop-flip (on Cnn yesterday – Canada is just in a “cyclical downturn” that requires “nothing” in the way of special stimulus… and moments ago, the canadian economy faces “significant difficulties”… parse of it what you may, but I do believe Harper has his own Gustav Weler, but this guy won’t shut up.

  6. It think this is just the latest buzzword our “elite” (and lazy) media has borrowed from the Americans. Like bi-partisan, which they throw around without understanding how incoherent its use is in the Canadian context.

  7. we pondered whether federal politics had entered “a post-partisan era.”

    If I’m not mistaken, the last “post-partisan era” ended on November 6, 1867 when George Brown referred to John MacDonald as a professional whore. There hasn’t been one since then.

  8. Well the government sure polished up their image while Obama was in town. Then once he was gone, back to partisan shots as usual. No surprise really.

  9. We have different parties for a reason. All of us don’t see eye-to-eye and thank god for that. Whenever someone’s talking about post-partisan, or bi-partisan, it’s normally a lib who’s really saying stop believing what you believe and agree with me.

    Pols are supposed to argue and bicker with one another while the rest of us decide who we think is right and vote accordingly. When everyone is pretending to get along, our system is not functioning properly and bad policies follow.

  10. I have a question for everyone? what’s wrong with partisanship and why does it have a bad name of late? Another term could be discernment or choice or fan or preference. I think what is happening is that some people are losing what little grip of reality that they had to begin with. I’m a partisan in that there is a party that ascribe myself to agreeing with and vote for .. so what … These trite terms like partisan this or partisan that are to me like a form of playing of supporting a team as in sports say. You yell at the opposing team and call them bums and what not and all along complaining about the referree being blind and such … but none of this is serious (unless you are not a fan but a fanatic) and is only a ritual of the game. It is an important part of the game however as in politics you have opposing views and ideas otherwise why not have just one party this would be the ultimate extrapolation of bi-partisanship coalition like governanance = everyone agrees (except for a little minority here and there) oops what am I saying that’s fascism or tryanny if you will.

    • Well said!

      It’s the silliness of attacking people rather than their positions that turns me off.

  11. I just assumed y’all taped the piece in a bizarro world. The real question is which of you was Bizarro Kramer, and which of you worked for Fed-Ex?

Sign in to comment.