[Big Papa Goat]

It's going to be tough for there to be another majority government of any kind in the coming years I think. The Liberals are a basket-case, and nobody's going to get anywhere in Quebec now.
I forget if it was Jack Layton or Ed Broadbent or Bob Rae, or maybe all three who said that if the Harper government brings in any good ideas to the budget in January that they agree with they'll include them in their coalition's budget as well. Which is them saying explicitly that defeating the government has nothing to do with policy at this point, it's just about how Harper is completly unfit to govern in their eyes. Now I know AChimp just gave us the grade 10 social studies lesson in parlimentary democracy, but at the end of the day, most people do vote for the leader of the party when they go to the polls. It's definitely one of, and often the single most important factor in voter decisions, and it is always more important than anything to do with the particular local representative they vote for. And a fairly substantial plurality of the Canadian population thought that Harper was the best leader for the country. If the opposition wants to paint Harper like some kind of demonic meglaomaniacal tyrant that is so much the representation of evil that it has become morally impossible to compromise with him, then what does that say about the people who voted for him? It seems to me that it's always a pretty divisive move to use such harshly dualistic rhetoric about a politician. It's one thing to describe a politician as incompetent or perhaps even as corrupt, but calling your opponent evil and explicitly rejecting any possibility of compromising or negotiating with him is a dangerous thing to do.