Scotty

The Indians lost. Get over it.

The Liberals are not talking about NOT buying new jets. All they're saying is they want a couple of expensive years of red tape, bureaucracy and studies first. As for corporate tax cuts, Ignatieff has been a very strong proponent of them for years. His opposition now smells very much like an opportunistic effort at poaching NDP votes. And people don't care what prisons cost, so long as the criminals are kept away from them.

You actually haven't been around long enough to know anything about my politics or preferences, you know. If it seems that I'm heavily supporting Harper, you might take this as an indication, not of my awe of Harper, but of what a poor, poor choice Ignatieff has made himself.

I'm not sure the Canadian people really want skinflints, not if it costs them all the programs they support. And it isn't like Ignatieff has made much realistic noise about saving money himself.

Despite all the piddling little pseudo-scandals the opposition has tried to make a fuss of, none have resonated with the populace at large. Harper is still considered a very honest prime minister leading a very honest government. Sure they've played games around accountability issues, but nobody thinks they're raiding the cash box like the Liberals did.

You can suggest Harper deceived people all you like it's not going to change the fact that Ignateieff needs to come clean about this coalition business and pronto. None of the commentators on tonight's news cared a damn about the contempt of parliament thing. All they were talking about was Ignatieff's floundering attempt at dodging answers about the coalition. Heck, the reporter who was arguing with him and trying to pin him down was from the Toronto Star, and you just don't get a more liberal-friendly media source than that. If the STAR starts making Ignatieff look like an idiot, imagine what the rest of the press will do!

As I recall, that was during some sort of drunken college party, was it not, full of half dressed people acting stupidly?

Hey Jack, did you watch the networks this evening? You would have lost count of the number of times the reporters and commentators said coalition, and how they were scratching their heads at Ignatieff's idiotic performance when he was asked about it by the press.

Then let him have the courage to say so.

Charter Rights under another name, or Charter Rights has found a friend.

I'm more than willing to have an impressive academic like you educate me. Would you like to draw on your own vast knowledge and expertise and delver up a brief lecture which will impress us all on YOUR knowledge?

Nobody asked Harper his plans in that regard. However, Ignatieff will be asked, and asked, and asked and asked again until he makes a firm denial or affirmative. And the more desperately he flounders in his efforts to not answer the more suspicious many voters will be of his intentions and honesty.

If someone asks Harper if he will ever prorogue parliament I"m sure he'll say "Perhaps, if circumstances warrant it. It's been done often enough by every government in history, after all." And if someone asks Ignatieff if he will consider a coalition government with the separatists he'll say "There'a a blue door and a red door!" and leave in a huff while everyone scratches their heads in confusion.

Then Ignatieff will have no problem making a casual statement that yes, in the event his party fails to secure enough votes, it will discuss a coalition with other parties, including the BQ.

Absolutely not true. Even in jurisdictions where coalitions are routine you'll see parties announcing that on no account and under no circumstances will they accept X-party into any such coalition. But regardless, this is not any country. This is Canada, where coalitions are virtually unknown, and where a sizable number of Canadians, including a sizable number of Liberal and potential Liberal voters, don't want to vote for a party which will consider a coalition with the BQ.

You're ignoring the fact the voters are basing their feelings based on OUR traditions. We don't bloody care what the Belgians or Germans do. And oh, btw, if I was to try and describe the European coalition governments over the past ten or twenty years, the words I'd use would be: weak, disorganized, incompetent, flustered, confused, and corrupt. The Europeans cant' do a goddam thing on their own. They wanted the Americans to get off their high horse and stop browbeating everyone, but they can't operate without them because no one in Europe can make a decision without appealing to forty seven different parties. Honestly, if the Russians decided to invade Europe, the war would be over before the Europeans managed to get all their meetings done to decide how or when or even if they ought to respond.

You don't think someone considering voting Liberal deserves to know that this party is strongly considering a coalition with separatists and socialists? You've pretty strongly inferred above that many of those who would vote Liberal would refuse if they knew a coalition was being considered, so what you're saying is that you believe the Liberals, and other parties, should lie to the voters about their intent.

No, he hasn't been. In fact, it looks like he's dodging a clear answer.

The odds against any such coalition lasting even one year are pretty steep. And all three parties would know that. Which means they would all three be looking to make themselves look good to their supporters and potential supporters. The NDP can't be seen as sell-outs, so they would need to zealously pursue their agenda in exchange for support. The BQ can't be seen as sell-outs either. They're all for Quebec, none for Canada. They need to wring as much money and power for Quebec as possible. And keep in mind that everything they get damages the Liberals, and to some extent, the NDP in the eyes of the rest of Canada, in the election which will soon follow. It also damages the Liberals in that improving the fortunes of the BQ damages the Liberals in Quebec. Also, everything the NDP accomplishes, every program or initiative they get enacted, helps them at the expense of the Liberals in any following election. So all you guys salivating at the prospect of your party getting into power in a coalition should realize you could be trading very short term gain for very long term pain. In other words, such a coalition, as shaky and short-term as it's likely to be, has the potential for disastrous electoral reverses for the Liberals, and to a lesser extent, the NDP and BQ. And bear in mind that with all three of them known as 'the government' the only other alternative to 'the government' becomes to the Tories, which means a lot of support could be headed their way if people don't like this coalition government.

Get used to it. It's a sound political strategy. And it will lead to increasing pressure on Ignatieff to flat out promise there will be no coalition - or at least, no coalition with the separatists. The more he resists making that statement the more doubt there will be in people's minds about just what they're voting for.

Unless there's a very drastic seat change they won't have the numbers

I suspect a few weeks of listening to Ignatieff will persuade them to get out to the polls.

I don't like activist judges myself. But there is a difference between a judge very clearly enunciating a specifically stated Charter right, and a judge inferring and then writing in that right.

Given your party's repeatedly stated disdain for anything and everything said or done by the UN should you really be citing them to justify your repeated complaints about the phrase?

It's a utilitarian phrase occasionally useful in statistical studies, government programs, and discussions like this one.