Monday, August 30, 2010

Layton sucks and blows on registry, but with pizazz

Follow the bouncing-ball. Jack Layton had a press conference on the gun registry today where he confirmed he can’t get his rural MPs to support what has long been NDP party policy and support the gun registry.


He doesn’t want to whip his caucus, because it seems likely some of them wouldn’t fall into line if he tried. I know the NDP insists its long-held principle they don’t whip private members bills (PMB), but in fact we all know this is only a Conservative government bill masquerading as a PMB to exploit that fact. As an aside, one wonders just what trickery the Conservatives could push through this loophole if they wanted to.

Still, Jack doesn’t want to be seen as doing nothing while his MPs kill the gun registry. So today he proposed a private member’s bill that would reform the registry. Coincidentally, his reforms are pretty much the same as the reforms proposed by the Liberals in April, reforms the NDP and its surrogates have been spending the last four months attacking as insufficient. The one notable difference is that the Liberals would enact the reforms when in government while voting to keep the registry now, while the NDP would introduce a private members bill as soon as it can this fall. Their hope is the reforms will convince their rural MPs to vote for the registry.

Sounds great, right? Sure. I liked these reforms when the Liberals proposed them in April, so I still like them now. I’m quite surprised it has taken the NDP this long to try to find a compromise, with an 11th-hour desperation play. While it’d be nice if Jack had said “great ideas Michael, now let’s take them one step further” instead of throwing bricks, I’m a glass half-full kinda guy.

But there’s just one thing: the vote to kill the registry will come well before Layton could possibly see his bill in the house. Layton’s answer to that?
Mr. Layton was pressed by reporters on how he expects this bill to become a reality, when Ms. Hoeppner’s bill is lined up for a vote so soon after Parliament resumes. He suggested that if all parties come onside, they could use the bill as a basis to reach a solution — presumably meaning that Ms. Hoeppner’s bill would either be amended or would die.

“There’s no good reason why we shouldn’t be able to sit down with goodwill and open minds. There’s no good reason why we shouldn’t be able to build solutions that bring us together.”
Now I’m certainly no government spokesperson. I’ll leave that dubious honour to Dimitri Soudas. But if Layton is seriously expecting the Conservatives to agree to kill the Hoeppner bill and get onboard with reforms to the registry they rejected when proposed by the Liberals in April, I expect they won’t find the government’s response to be favourable. They might even tell Layton “it’s our party’s policy not to interfere with private members bills” with a little smile. If the NDP is counting on Conservative help here, they’re dreaming.

Which means the vote to kill the registry will come long before a hypothetical NDP private members bill reforming it could ever see the light of day. And needless to say, if the registry is killed any bill to reform it dies as well.

So, that means NDP MPs will be faced with a choice, the same choice they’ve had all along: do they vote to kill the registry next month, or do they vote to keep it based on the promise of future reforms, either by a private member’s bill or by a new government.

For the Liberal caucus, it’s the latter. The choice has been made. Their leader, Michael Igntieff, has convinced them to support keeping the registry now by promising specific reforms by a future Liberal government.

Now it’s up to Layton to convince his caucus to do the same. He made an interesting comment here:
Mr. Layton was also critical of Mr. Ignatieff, who last April proposed many of the compromises that the NDP is now suggesting. The difference, said Mr. Layton, is that Ignatieff is saying he would make the conciliatory changes to the registry if the Liberals win the next election.

“But Liberal MPs are parliamentarians now,” said Mr. Layton. “Not parliamentarians in waiting. They need to act now.”
Yes Jack, and the vote on killing the registry will come first, and your MPs are parliamentarians now too. And you're not a leader-in-waiting either. So the question still remains: can you convince your MPs to accept a compromise or not? And if you can’t, will you whip them or will you let your MPs kill the registry?

This is a test of leadership Jack and, to paraphrase yourself, you need to act now.

UPDATE: Now with video, where the media openly laugh at Layton's feeble rationalizations. I hope his caucus takes him more seriously.


Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

33 comments:

Robert McClelland said...

Aren't you in favour of letting the gun registry die?

Jeff Jedras said...

Robert,

I was. But I feel that the reforms proposed by the Liberals in April, and by Layton today, address the bulk of the concerns that I had with the registry.

I feel that these reforms are an acceptable compromise between the legitimate concerns of rural Canadians with the current system while still considering the legitimate concerns of urban Canadians.

Ignatieff got his caucus behind these reforms. I sincerely hope that Layton can do the same.

Because as interesting as it would be to campaign on this in urban Canada, I'd rather the registry live (and be reformed) than have this as a political wedge.

Robert McClelland said...

Well your concerns with the gun registry were that long guns were not excluded.

I think there would be a lot more support for the registry with long guns excluded...
Let’s recognize the legitimate concerns of rural Canadians by get the long guns out


Neither Ignatieff's nor Laytons proposal would exclude long guns from being registered.

Jeff Jedras said...

I'm willing to compromise, for the reasons I stated here and back in April.

Removing them entirely isn't a compromise between two positions, it is one of the positions.

If you can't envision any compromise you would accept, that's certainly valid as well.

Issachar said...

Come on Jeff, it's no secret that the government loves this bill. But beyond that, is there anything that makes this a government bill and not a private members bill?

Yes, the PMB is in line with government policy. So what? Is there a rule that PMB's can't be in line with government policy?

A tradition against whipping votes on PMB's would be greatly diminished if it turned into a tradition against whipping PMB's except when the leader says that they're too much in line with government policy. (i.e. we're against whipping PMB's, except when we're for it.)

The fact of the matter is that some NDP MP's don't support the registry. Some Liberals don't support it either. I suspect that both share your opposition to including long guns in it.

The difference between the NDP and the Liberals here is that Mr. Ignatieff is chooosing to whip his MP's on this and effectively say that the party's support of the registry is more important than what MP's might think or want and what their constituents might want. This isn't evil, it's just what whipping a vote means. It's what leaders do on issues that our fundamental to the party. Supporting the registry is apparently fundamental to being a Liberal in Mr. Ignatieff's eyes.

By contrast Mr. Layton supports the registry, but has not overruled his own MP's on the subject and ordered them to ignore their own wishes and the wishes of their constituents. Supporting the registry isn't fundamental to being an NDP MP. (Not surprising as it wasn't an NDP creation.)

.
The big difference I see between Mr. Ignatieff's and Mr. Layton's is that if you oppose the registry, you can support Mr. Layton without reservation.

If you support the registry you can't support Mr. Ignatieff without reservation. You can only support his decision IF you think that the registry is so important that it's okay tell MP's to ignore constituents and their own beliefs and vote the party line.

Jeff Jedras said...

Actually issachar, it's important to note that first Ignatieff worked with his caucus to find an acceptable compromise position, and then he decided to whip it. Without the compromise to bring those that votes to kill onside, they wouldn't have whipped because it wouldn't have worked.

On the PMB, this is an obvious ploy by the government and if you can't plainly see that, I can't help you. Principle om PMBs is great, but it will be exploited. And it is being exploited.

Anyway, in the end, the NDP is free to say we will not whip any vote and our members can vote for whatever they want on anything. That's fine. Just don't pretend you stand for certain things as a party. The NDP has liked in the past pretend that it, as a party, is committed to the registry and to gun control. It's members passed policy at convention to that affect.

So you can go ahead and let your MPs kill it. Just don't pretend anymore that you're a party that stands for the registry or gun control. And be prepared for people to wonder what other things the NDP likes to say it stands for but, when push comes to shove, may be willing to push over the side for political expediency.

Robert said...

NO the NDP has plenty of things it stands for. Those things are passed at convention and MPs are forced to adhere to them. You wouldn't know about this form of party democracy because the Liberals had a convention with out discussing any resolutions because the party and its members don't stand for anything.

You want to point to the resolution the NDP MEMBERS passed about the gun registry?

Jeff Jedras said...

Perhaps I will Robert after you admit this.

the Liberals had a convention with out discussing any resolutions

...is complete BS. Unless, of course, my memory of being in the convention hall last year, discussing and voting on resolutions, was implanted by an elite team led by Leo Dicaprio and Ellen Page.

leftdog said...

Once again we get to see the true nature of Liberal blogging priorities .. and that is to mount attacks on the New Democratic Party. Most Lib bloggers on Prog blogs would rather see Harper remain in power if there is any possibility that the New Dem seat count will increase.

Where I come from, we have an old saying .. 'Liberal / Tory .. same old story'.

These ongoing attacks on Layton are well orchestrated by the Federal Liberal Caucus office and the usual Liberal suspects are all falling in line.

They forget to tell you the fact that 8 Lib MP's have already voted with Harper to kill the registry. They seem to think that Iggy's 'whip' will change that ... HA! We will see!

This whole 'Layton bashing' exercise over the last week proves exactly how nervous the Liberals continue to be over New Democrat inroads into their vote.

Have a nice day! :)

Robert said...

OH you got up for that 2 hours of voting on the future of our country. Awesome. Wait a three day convention with only 32 resolutions almost all of which were in the red book almost 20 years ago?

No wonder no one can convince me to vote Liberal.

Steve V said...

"Once again we get to see the true nature of Liberal blogging priorities .. and that is to mount attacks on the New Democratic Party."

Playing the martyr from the world's biggest glass house. LMAO.

Demosthenes said...

Cute. The NDPers pulled a reversal here that's almost as neat as the ones that Conservatives and Republicans regularly pull, by trying to make it about the other guy, rather than themselves.

The issue here is abundantly simple. The NDP routinely whips votes on issues that they deem vitally important. They whipped same-sex marriage, for example, because they deemed that vitally important. Same with budget bills, education, crime, all sorts of stuff. That isn't "spin", it's simple reality.

If Layton has decided that he will not whip this vote, then he is saying that the gun registry isn't a priority. That the NDP as an organization doesn't really care if it lives or dies. If it lives, great, then here's how it can be reformed. If it doesn't, oh well, no biggie.

That's the heart of the matter. Nothing Jeff says changes that. Nothing the Liberals say changes that. They're irrelevant here. It's all about Jack, and the simple fact that Jack's choice not to whip on gun control is a choice to not care about gun control. "No biggie".

Sure, that might play in rural ridings. But I imagine, rhetoric judo or not, that the city dwellers will have something to say about that.

Jeff Jedras said...

You know leftdog, I feel exactly the same way about you. The only difference between us is I don't whine when someone takes issue with my party.

Only 32? And just minutes ago you were insisting vehemently it was 0. Don't ever change, Robert.

Robert said...

Demosthenes THE NDP HAS NEVER WHIPPED A PRIVATE MEMBERS BILL! Don't tell me about other bills they whipped tell me about private members bills.

Well those 32 don't really count when they have been a part of your parties "plans" from 1993 onward. I mean you had what 12 years or so to do them and you didn't did you? You going to the convention in 2011 to pass another resolution on a National Child care Plan you will never impliment? How about getting rid of poverity in 20 years that isn't something you haven't brought up in a long time.

Skinny Dipper said...

The problem is not who is right or wrong. It's the optics of who is right or wrong.

Even though this bill officially a private member's bill, it has Harper's fingerprints on it. As the prime minister, Harper has a lot of power to appoint MPs to cabinet and different committees. That is why all the Conservatives are in line with their leader on this PMB. Layton has very few levers of power to wield at his NDP MPs. He knows it. His only power is one of persuasion. Layton should have offered his amendments a few months ago. That way, the NDP MPs who supported the Conservative private member's bill could have reasons to oppose the bill while at the same time state that each MP is voting with his/her conscience.

As I wrote on other blogs, if enough NDP MPs support the Conservative motion to pass it (even if it is only four or five NDP MPs), the NDP will be accused by the other parties in opposing protection for women and other vulnerable groups.

Yes, the NDP can have a free vote. However, voters will not care about the NDP's free votes in the next election. The gun registry and women's safety will be of more concern.

Ted Betts said...

Hey folks, can we just stop the pretence of this being a private member's bill. It isn't.

The Conservatives promised to scrap the gun registry during the 2006 and the 2008 election. Why haven't they introduced any bill to do so? Because they got one of their MPs to do so for them.

How else do we know that this is a government bill and not a PMB? How many PMB enjoy the support of 100% of the government MPs? or have many of the government's cabinet ministers and lead security/rural point people out on the hustings and talk shows discussing it and not just the private member?

Oh, and then there's Harper's slip of the tongue in Miramichi when he said "as you know, we have put a bill forward to end the long gun registry".

So come on.

Even if you want to try that weak rationalization, you have a party that has a significant number of its caucus who are not tough on guns. Over one quarter of the NDP caucus is going to help to bring down the gun registry. The NDP cannot even claim that it, as a party, is in favour of serious gun control when it takes the position that it does - no whipped vote because of semantics that help us hide - and so many do not share its leader's view on this policy.

Robert said...

The gun registry is not a gun control mechanism. Unless it is used to collect the guns legal gun owners have. Is that what you are suggesting and what the Liberals have planned?

Otherwise it does nothing to "control" guns in anyway. That is a false argument.

Ted Betts said...

Robert:

As the police have noted: registering a gun is an important part of gun safety and responsible gun ownership.

So yes indeed and absolutely it is a part of gun control.

CanadianSense said...

When Ignatieff killed the coalition, he ended any chance to reconcile with Jack.

The Democrats led by Layton may not be interested in returning those seats won in 2008 back to the Liberals.

If the NDP have learned from previous NDP parties to not save the Liberals, they may overtake them in the next two election cycles.

It does not matter if this is a private members bill, the NDP have their own internal polling and strategists and don't need to save the Liberal Party from the dustbin of history.

The LGR won't hurt the NDP in the cities as threatened by the Liberals.

Robert said...

Please explain to me how the gun registry is a part of gun control. Tell me how it controls guns at all?

Issachar said...

I'm sure Mr. Ignatieff did work with his caucus to find a compromise. I assume that he'd do that. He seems like that kind of guy to me.

I'm sure there was disagreement at the end as well. (That's how life is.) If he'd found a compromise that was everyone's first choice, there would have been no need to whip the vote. Like I said, whipping a vote isn't evil. It's just what leaders do on issues they believe are fundamental to representing the party. Mr. Ignatieff is clearly saying that support for the registry (with his proposed changes) is fundamental to being a Liberal MP.

Free votes on PMB's is apparently fundamental to being an NDP MP. It doesn't mean anything more than that.

.
As for the PMB being a government ploy, that's certainly possible. It's also quite possible that we've got Conservative MP's really want to kill the registry and know that Mr. Harper wasn't going to spend the political capital to do it. They certainly wouldn't be the first Conservatives to want Mr. Harper to be more Conservative. (Budget deficit anyone?) :P Mr. Harper is not stopping them, and I'm sure he's thrilled. But that doesn't mean it's not a PMB.

But, if you're looking at Mr. Harper's political advantage, the registry is worth at least as much alive as dead. It's a constant reminder to opponents of the gun registry to avoid voting Liberal. If it went away, it would be one less stick to beat the Liberals with when he needs support from the Conservative base.

Of course it's possible that it's all a Harper plot. But it's still a PMB. And apparently the NDP has never whipped those.

Issachar said...

But this is about the registry and frankly, I'm sick to death of the useless "debate" on this subject and equating it with gun control.

Look at Ted Bett's comment about being "tough on guns". It all sounds very macho, but it's not productive at all. "We're tough on guns", vs. "we're tough on crime", vs. "we're on the side of women", vs. "we're on the side of regular Canadians"... Yes. All very productive. /s

The École Polytechnique massacre is a good example of this. It's brought out as a moral club in support of the registry, but it's completely irrelevent. The gun registry would not have prevented the massacre. Ending the gun registry will not make such massacres more likely.

Gun owners and hunters (I am neither), approve of firearms safety, adequate training and proper screening of people before they are allowed to own firearms. Those are separate issues and the obsession with "register the guns" is clouding that.

Gletscher Eis said...

There are many problems associated with unregistered guns in other jurisdictions.

Tof KW said...

CS wrote:
If the NDP have learned ... to not save the Liberals, they may overtake them in the next two election cycles.

Sure, right after Harper gets his majority ...and the Leafs will win the cup this spring.

- - -

Although I like the new positions that the Libs and now the NDP have taken with the LGR - it's all too little to late. This is how the registry should have been from the beginning. Its death may have a bit of a silver lining for the Grits, in that now they can begin to mend fences with the rural voters; and for urbanites let the NDP + Reformatories be the villains for weakening gun control laws.

CanadianSense said...

TofKW why is history a problem?

David Lewis paid the price at the polls for propping up the 1972 Trudeau Liberals 109 seats vs Stanfield PC 107 seats in short order.

David Lewis lost half his MP's including his seat in 1974.

Layton is playing smart politics and understands how this weakens the Liberal Party.

The NDP picked up some rural seats and have no interest in diverting resources to fight the war chest of CPC and those groups against the registry.

Ask Mark Holland about the TurfMarkholland campaign.

http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/2010/02/jack-layton-playing-is-smart-politics.html

Tof KW said...

CanadianSense said...
TofKW why is history a problem?

Why is logic a problem with you? You still think Harper's winning a majority next time around when all polls over the past year show that's as likely as the Libs winning a majority ...in other words not bloody likely.

But hey, let's use history as you seem to think that helps your case. Since the depression what has been the CCF/NDP high water mark in federal elections? Working with the Libs or not, you think that can overtake a party of confederation? The Leafs winning the cup this season is way more likely. Besides everyone in Ontario still remembers what a bang up job the NDP did here from 1990-95.

Additionally the NDP loses here no matter what they do on the LGR vote. If Layton whips the vote they lose rural seats (if Layton can even control his caucus) and if everyone gets a free vote then they are in trouble in urban ridings (you can bet this will be huge issue for Mulcair in Outremont).


CanadianSense said...
Layton is playing smart politics and understands how this weakens the Liberal Party.

Layton is up a creek and without a paddle. He's playing the only card he has, which is to pretend his compromise on the LGR is being stifled by the Libs and attempting to place the nasty on them for weakening gun control laws. He hopes voters are too stupid to realize that his PMB would require the Conservatives to kill their own bill (now up for the final vote in a matter of days) and support keeping the registry. Or for that matter hoping they forget that the Libs adopted this same compromise position back in April. Why do you think reporters were outright laughing at him yesterday during his presser?

Whatever drugs you're on CS you'd better stop. Aside from them rotting your brain, Harper's got a Law & Order government going on ya know.

CanadianSense said...

Ad hominem attacks don't change the number of votes the Liberals have to save their boondoggle.

Allan Rock, Martin Cauchon wear the responsibility for their policies.

The stunt on Maternal Health, Ignatieff admitted he had a "bad day at the office".

The NDP+CPC+Bloc will gladly benefit from the Liberals wearing another bad day at the office.

The video clip demonstrates the media asking their questions have their own agenda.

The ability of the Liberals to whip their votes is going to be tested again.

Ignatieff has the MOST to lose for rural MPs refusing to tow the Toronto line.

Ask Denis Coderre how his re election chance have been harmed from distancing himself from the Toronto party.

Many Liberal MPs complained and did not want Dion to visit their riding.

Some Liberal MPs may accept Ignatieff is damage goods. (See leadership Polls).

Liberals are a divided party with a very large financial drop off from 2009.

As I said not of my points are refuted and the political parties are trying to pick off more vulnerable seats currently held by the Liberals.

Tof KW said...

CS said:
Ad hominem attacks don't change the number of votes the Liberals have to save their boondoggle.

And here I was being nice for a change by not actually name-calling. And CS you're a load; you’ve posted plenty of attacks in the past, in addition your record of baffling people with BS …because you certainly can't dazzle them with your brilliance.

Just look at your response - dredging up 10 different topics with almost nothing on topic (say except the Liberals are the root of all evil in your world), all is conjecture / opinion. And most of it defies logic.

As for a response to your questions...

Harper & Layton will wear the responsibility for opposing the police, women and urban voters for loosening gun laws. Say ‘bye bye’ to a CPC majority as long as Harper is leader.

The CPC + LPC + Bloc will benefit from Layton having a bad day at the office. Conservatives get registry scrapped / the Libs lose an albatross around their neck & can begin rebuilding bridges to rural voters while blaming the NDP in urban ridings / the LGR is very popular in Quebec so the Bloc can make hay about standing against Harper + Layton.

Ask Mulcair how his re-election chances have been harmed from Layton absolving himself from gun safety. L’ École Polytechnique is in Outremont riding …in case you didn’t know that already.

The video clip demonstrates the media know Layton is full of it & can’t control his own caucus.

Harper has the MOST to lose for urban CPofC MPs refusing to listen to police, emergency workers, women and urban voters. Say ‘bye bye’ to 10 to 15 MPs from Ontario’s 905, 519 area codes + the Ottawa area. Aside from Mad Max being safe, those Quebec City ridings aren’t looking too good either.


Oh and I have to ask…

Some Liberal MPs may accept Ignatieff is damage goods.

Source? Name one!!!

Liberals are a divided party with a very large financial drop off from 2009.

Source? By the way according to The Pundits Guide (that would be a source) the CPofC’s fundraising is down almost 40% for July from the same time last year. I can’t wait for August numbers.

As I said not of my points are refuted and the political parties are trying to pick off more vulnerable seats currently held by the Liberals.

Hello, I refuted everything you’ve written, and it’s pretty darned easy to do too. Oh, and since you called me out once for a spelling mistake, I’ll point out your grammar errors here. Seriously CS, you’re just embarrassing yourself. Go back to your own blog.

Tof KW said...

CS said:
Ad hominem attacks don't change the number of votes the Liberals have to save their boondoggle.

And here I was being nice for a change by not actually name-calling. And CS you're a load; you’ve posted plenty of attacks in the past, in addition your record of baffling people with BS …because you certainly can't dazzle them with your brilliance.

Just look at your response - dredging up 10 different topics with almost nothing on topic (say except the Liberals are the root of all evil in your world), all is conjecture / opinion. And most of it defies logic.

As for a response to your questions...

Harper & Layton will wear the responsibility for opposing the police, women and urban voters for loosening gun laws. Say ‘bye bye’ to a CPC majority as long as Harper is leader.

The CPC + LPC + Bloc will benefit from Layton having a bad day at the office. Conservatives get registry scrapped / the Libs lose an albatross around their neck & can begin rebuilding bridges to rural voters while blaming the NDP in urban ridings / the LGR is very popular in Quebec so the Bloc can make hay about standing against Harper + Layton.

Ask Mulcair how his re-election chances have been harmed from Layton absolving himself from gun safety. L’ École Polytechnique is in Outremont riding …in case you didn’t know that already.

The video clip demonstrates the media know Layton is full of it & can’t control his own caucus.

Harper has the MOST to lose for urban CPofC MPs refusing to listen to police, emergency workers, women and urban voters. Say ‘bye bye’ to 10 to 15 MPs from Ontario’s 905, 519 area codes + the Ottawa area. Aside from Mad Max being safe, those Quebec City ridings aren’t looking too good either.

Oh and I have to ask…
Some Liberal MPs may accept Ignatieff is damage goods.

Source? Name one!!!

Liberals are a divided party with a very large financial drop off from 2009.

Source? By the way according to The Pundits Guide (that would be a source) the CPofC’s fundraising is down almost 40% for July from the same time last year. I can’t wait for August numbers.

As I said not of my points are refuted and the political parties are trying to pick off more vulnerable seats currently held by the Liberals.

Hello, I refuted everything you’ve written, and it’s pretty darned easy to do too. Oh, and since you called me out once for a spelling mistake, I’ll point out your grammar errors. Seriously CS, you’re just embarrassing yourself. Go back to your own blog.

Tof KW said...

CS said:
Ad hominem attacks don't change the number of votes the Liberals have to save their boondoggle.

And here I was being nice for a change by not actually name-calling. And CS you're a load; you’ve posted plenty of attacks in the past, in addition your record of baffling people with BS …because you certainly can't dazzle them with your brilliance.

Just look at your response - dredging up 10 different topics with almost nothing on topic (say except the Liberals are the root of all evil in your world), all is conjecture / opinion. And most of it defies logic.

As for a response to your questions...

Harper & Layton will wear the responsibility for opposing the police, women and urban voters for loosening gun laws. Say ‘bye bye’ to a CPC majority as long as Harper is leader.

The CPC + LPC + Bloc will benefit from Layton having a bad day at the office. Conservatives get registry scrapped / the Libs lose an albatross around their neck & can begin rebuilding bridges to rural voters while blaming the NDP in urban ridings / the LGR is very popular in Quebec so the Bloc can make hay about standing against Harper + Layton.

Ask Mulcair how his re-election chances have been harmed from Layton absolving himself from gun safety. L’ École Polytechnique is in Outremont riding …in case you didn’t know that already.

The video clip demonstrates the media know Layton is full of it & can’t control his own caucus.

Harper has the MOST to lose for urban CPofC MPs refusing to listen to police, emergency workers, women and urban voters. Say ‘bye bye’ to 10 to 15 MPs from Ontario’s 905, 519 area codes + the Ottawa area. Aside from Mad Max being safe, those Quebec City ridings aren’t looking too good either.

Tof KW said...

Oh and CS I have to ask…

Some Liberal MPs may accept Ignatieff is damage goods.

Source? Name one!!!

Liberals are a divided party with a very large financial drop off from 2009.

Source? By the way according to The Pundits Guide (that would be a source) the CPofC’s fundraising is down almost 40% for July from the same time last year. I can’t wait for August numbers.

As I said not of my points are refuted and the political parties are trying to pick off more vulnerable seats currently held by the Liberals.

Hello, I refuted everything you’ve written, and it’s pretty darned easy to do too. Oh, and since you called me out once for a spelling mistake, I’ll point out your grammar errors here. Seriously CS, you’re just embarrassing yourself. Go back to your own blog.

Tof KW said...

Apologies for the multiple posts, this blogie thingie kept telling me the first two were too long, seems they got posted regardless of the error screen. Gotta love the interweb.

Regardless of my lack of internet skills, I'm patiently waiting for CS's next spazz-out out of multiple, unrelated, off-topic, opinion-based 'truthiness' showing the Liberals are responsible for all that is wrong in the world.

Jeff Jedras said...

This comment thread had veered sharply off topic, and I'm closing it off to further comments that don't relate to the registry. Please feel free to continue your other debates elsewhere.