The Road to Jerusalem

Today, Jack Layton will be laid to rest.

Some may find it odd that sometimes a man's most vociferous critics may be the ones who admire them the most.

I won't pretend I respeceted or admired Jack Layton any more than anyone else.

Nor will I pretend that the long mourning period observed by Layton's followers hasn't been more than a little off-putting. Perhaps even as off-putting as John Diefenbaker's funeral.

But the long mourning period did give me the opportunity to do something that Christie Blatchford didn't do when she wrote her graceless -- but not altogether unjustifiable -- comments: think long and hard about it.

My thoughts continually take me back to the evening of May 2, 2011, when the Conservative Party won a majority government. In the middle of finding the bottom of a celebratory bottle of Jack Daniels, I took some time out to pray for Layton's health. It was actually the first time I prayed for a politician's health. Strangely, it was the first time I had actually considered praying for the health of a politician.

At the time, it just seemed like the right thing to do.

It was entirely natural that my thoughts when back to that when Layton announced that he was stepping back -- temporarily -- to fight a new cancer. Many media commentators could tell right away that there was good reason to be concerned.

Once again, I prayed for Layton's health. Sadly, those prayers weren't answered.

But it also occurs to me that I may have been praying for the wrong thing. I'm reminded of a tale Evander Holyfield related in his book, Becoming Holyfield, regarding the passing of his mother. She had been in a car accident, and arrived at hospital in a coma.

Trying to focus on his training, Holyfield asked a close spiritual advisor what he should do. He was told to pray for the right thing to happen.

Those who have experienced a family member passing away from cancer -- this author has witnessed two family members die of the disease, and has had four others successfully fight it off, the youngest at the age of two years old -- understand full well how painful fighting terminal cancer is. Sometimes, the cancer cannot be beaten. The best thing to hope for is a quick, painless, merciful passing.

The specific details regarding Layton's final days are not of public knowledge. This is as it should be. We don't know how much pain Layton was suffering before his passing. His friends and family do, and that's information best reserved for themselves.

I take some comfort in hoping that Layton's passing was a peaceful one, and in hoping that he didn't suffer.

If he did, I take comfort in knowing that his passing at least ended that suffering. And although I disagree with Layton's politics, I admire Layton's character, and firmly believe he's in a much better place now.

If Layton's passing ended a period of suffering, it was the right thing to happen. It's a sad thing nonetheless, but there's comfort to be taken from it.

Jack Layton has followed Tommy Douglas down the road to Jerusalem. There is no doubt in my heart that he arrived safely.

The Transformation is Nearly Complete

NDP nearly completed transition into Jacques' Bloc

Federalist NDP supporters across Canada -- especially in the rest of Canada -- should be getting nervous.

Very nervous.

Since arriving as the official opposition on the crest of the infamous orange wave sweeping through Quebec, the NDP is appearing less and less like its former self every day; and more and more like the Bloc Quebecois.

As NDP leader Jack Layton and Quebec lieutenant Thomas Mulcair addressed the Quebec wing of the party, Mulcair adopted the traditional language policy of the Bloc Quebecois: one of lingual supremacy.

This has seeped into the NDP's positions almost to the extent of the traditional BQ hostility to immigrants.

“People who choose Quebec, because an immigrant is not forced to come to Quebec, must understand that they will learn and their children will learn French over and above all,” Mulcair declared.

Mulcair justified this hostility as a means of securing federalism in Quebec.

“As federalists, we have always understood that the best way to preserve Quebec’s place in Canada is to ensure that Quebecers feel secure with their language and culture,” he added.

But securing the French language and culture in Quebec cannot realistically be accomplished by isolating it and promoting it above all others. Nor can Mulcair expect to mandate that every word an immigrant family speaks, or their children learns, be French.

It isn't in this new hostility to immigrant communities that the NDP's transformation lies. The Sherbrooke Declaration also holds that a 50% +1 vote is sufficient to secure sovereignty, and that the clarity act -- ensuring that separatists cannot attempt to win sovereignty on the back of an ambiguous or deceptive qeustion -- should be abolished.

Jack Layton calls it "treating Quebec with respect". The rest of Canada should recognize taht there is a difference between treating Quebec with respect and openly pandering to separatists.

The transformation of the NDP from a federalist party into the Bloc du jours should concern a great many Canadians.

Good Luck With That, Stephane

Stephane Dion wants his legacy back

Like Chevy Chase in Memoirs of an Invisible Man declaring "I want my molecules back!", Stephane Dion is making demands of the Canadian political class.

He wants his legacy back. His separatist-fighting legacy.

In an op-ed appearing in the Ottawa Citizen, Dion is offering a lecture to NDP leader Jack Layton about why 50% +1 is an unacceptable threshold for a separatist mandate in a sovereignty referendum.

In a nutshell, Dion's argument is that the oui majority in a seccession vote must be large enough to allow the negotiation process to move forward with certainty, and must be able to withstand periodic shifts in public opinion:

"There are two fundamental reasons why negotiations for secession should be contingent on a clear majority. The first is that serious and irreversible decisions that affect future generations should be made by consensus, not on the basis of a weak and uncertain majority, not on the basis of a result which might have been different if the vote had been held the day before or the day after. There is no doubt that secession is something serious and probably irreversible since it is nearly impossible to rebuild a country after it has been broken. Such an action affects future generations and has serious consequences for all of the citizens of the country being broken up.

The second reason is that, even with all the goodwill in the world, negotiating the separation of a modern state would inevitably be difficult and fraught with pitfalls. What must not happen is that, while negotiators are working on a separation agreement, the majority should change its mind and decide to oppose secession. That would be an untenable situation. That is why the process should only be undertaken if there is a sufficiently large majority that will last through the inevitable difficulties of negotiation."

Dion makes a very strong argument. Unfortunately, Dion still has to own up to his role in attempting to form a coalition government with the NDP that would have mortgaged the Canadian government to the Bloc Quebecois.

While the Liberals publicly boasted that the Bloc had voluntarily taken separatism off the table for 18 months, and that they had refused to give in to Bloc demands on language law.

However, the NDP had been walking the BQ line on Bill 101 all along, and are walking it still.

In 2008, the coalition's right hand ignored what the left hand had been doing. Now that the left hand no longer needs the right hand at all, it seems that all bets are off.

It's admirable that Stephane Dion is standing up to Jack Layton on his soft-on-separatism positions now. But Dion knew full well that Layton was soft on separatism before he tried to bring the NDP and Bloc together in a vain attempt (vain in every sense of the word) to snatch power away from the Tories.

That's why Dion will likely never recapture his tainted legacy as a separatist fighter. When all the political chips were on the table, he revealled to Canadians that he can be every bit as soft on separatism as Jack Layton clearly is.

In 2008, and as it pertains to the fight against separatism, Stephane Dion has made himself Canada's invisible man.

The NDP in Quebec: Jacques' Bloc

NDP revisiting their Bill 101 backstabbing bill

Even a week after an election that delivered a Conservative majority government -- as opposed to a Liberal/NDP/Bloc Quebecois coalition -- the NDP is continuing to send Canadians further signs that the country very narrowly averted a catastrophe in 2008.

Canadians remember it well: Liberal leader Stephane Dion, having been firmly rebuked by the Canadian electorate, teamed up with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe in a desperate bid to save their per-vote subsidy.

They've still never told Canadians precisely what were the terms of their deal with the Bloc Quebecois -- who was not to be formally a part of the coalition, but still signed onto the formal agreement that would have birthed it.

But there is one thing we do know, courtesy of Liberal Party lead negotiator Marlene Jennings. It's been mentioned on this blog many times before, but in light of recent news, warrants being mentioned again.

The Bloc Quebecois had demanded that Bill 101 -- the infamous French-only sign law -- be applied to federally-regulated industries. The Liberal Party said no.

What Jennings seemingly never accounted for was that the NDP had already said yes. She already knew as much. She knew it before the Liberals and NDP ever came together to form that coalition.

Now, through the promised reintroduction of a private member's bill that would apply "elements of Bill 101" to federally-regulated industries in Quebec. The bill was up prior to the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of the 2011 election. Jack Layton promises it will be back.

“It’s a very, very important law,” Layton declared.

The Bill, which originated with Thomas Mulcair, is allegedly meant to protect the right of workers in federally-regulated industries to communicate in French, without denying Anglophone employees the right to communicate in English.

The problem with all of this is that such a bill hasn't been necessary since the 1970s.

In reality, the bill is about something different: about the NDP supplanting the routed Bloc Quebecois as the voice of Quebecois nationalism.

“It’s obviously a political play to appeal to nationalists,” said associate director of the University of Ottawa Graduate School of Public and International Affairs Robert Asselin. “But in terms of feasibility, it’s a very irresponsible promise.”

“The country has moved forward on linguistic issues,” Asselin said. “It is not as confrontational as it used to be.”

But to Jack Layton, this detail may come second to the reality that, for the NDP, defeating the Bloc Quebecois may not be enough. Now that the NDP has seized control of the electoral coaliton that had previously sustained the Bloc Quebecois, it seems the NDP wants to render it permanent.

It isn't enough that the NDP defeated the Bloc Quebecois. It seemingly wants to become the Bloc Quebecois. With one seeming separatist MP (Pierre-Luc Dusseault) in the mix, this may be more than idle speculation: it may be only a matter of time.

Jacques Layton Has Some 'Splainin To Do...

Is the NDP a federalist party or not?

After becoming Leader of the Official Opposition, Jack Layton should be in seventh heaven.

Instead, he must feel like he's in the fifth ring of hell.

In the days since the 2011 election, his Quebec lieutenant, Thomas Mulcair, has embarrassed the party by suggesting a conspiracy is afoot beneath the reported death of Osama Bin Laden. Reports indicate that another one of his new Quebec MPs (or at least someone in her campaign) may have committed electoral fraud.

Now, it seems that one of his Quebec MPs may be a separatist. 19 year-old Pierre-Luc Dusseault -- the youngest MP in Canadian history -- declared that separatism is not dead during an interview with a Toronto radio station.

He then went on to declare that "sovereignty will be done."

"In my campaign, I said sovereignty will be done in Quebec and Quebeckers will decide if Quebec wants to be a country," Dusseault announced. "And waiting for this moment, I said, 'Why not give us a real government that is good for us?' And we will respect sovereignty in the NDP."

It's important to note that this wasn't merely Dusseault playing the soft-separatist in Quebec. This was Dusseault trumpeting what seem to be separatist views in the self-declared capital of the good ol' ROC.

Charles Adler previously spoke about Dusseault's remark, but the NDP is already trying to pull a rhetorical bait-and-switch.

"NDP spinners in Ottawa will say that Adler and other right-wingers are taking him out of context," Adler wrote. "Umm no. I am taking him at his word."

As Adler points out, this is a stark challenge to the notion that the NDP's ascension in Quebec marks a weakening of Quebec separatism.

"The politically correct interpretation of the Orange Surge was that it was about many things," Adler wrote. "But most important to Canada, we were told it was about a rejection of separatism in Quebec."

Yet we have Pierre-Luc Dusseault whom, it may seem, may simply be a Bloc Quebecois MP wrapped in orange instead of teal.

Is the NDP still actually a federalist party? Or have they been harbouring separatists within their ranks for as long as they've been pushing for this surge in Quebec?

Jack Layton, Pierre-Luc Dusseault and the NDP owe Canadians some answers. If Dusseault has truly been taken out of context -- and given his comments, it's hard to see how he could have been -- it's up to the NDP to require Dusseault to better-explain what his comments are to mean.

In the meantime, it's hard to ignore the very real possibility that Pierre-Luc Dusseault is a BQ in the NDP's clothing.

NDP's Hidden Agenda Nestled in Their Hidden Constitution

Jack Layton should be kept the hell away from Canadian Constitution

When NDP leader Jack Layton recognizes the problems the Canadian Constitution poses for Canadian unity, he should be commended for his presence of thought.

That doesn't mean he should be allowed anywhere near the Constitution itself.

First, there's the question of how much Layton would give up to please Gilles Duceppe, the Bloc Quebecois, and the rest of the Quebec separatist movement. Considering that Layton was the organizational force behind the 2008 coalition government, it hardly seems unfair to speculate.

For his own part, Duceppe would very much like to know precisely what it is they might be talking about.

"When there's a problem, usually you have a solution," Duceppe remarked. "So where is the solution then?"

"I said that I would judge every proposal from wherever it comes from the New Democrats or the Liberals," he continued. "I see nothing being proposed at the moment, except to say, well, we'll have to settle that issue."

Layton has pretty much dodged any questions he's been asked about this issue. And there may be a good reason why: it seems the NDP doesn't do well with Constitutions, particularly its own.

As Terence Corcoran explains in a column in the Financial Post, the NDP Constitution is essentially a secret document. It's not typically made available to be viewed by the general public, although it is available to party members.

However, through the investigative work of CBC's Leslie MacKinnon, the "core principles of democratic socialism", as outlined in the document, has become public knoweldge:

"*That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit;

*To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary, the extension of the principle of social ownership….

*The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty."

To anyone who's paid so much as passing attention to Canadian politics, this is no surprise. It was more of a public secret -- one widely known by the general public, slthough not publicly acknowledged.

It presents an image of a party that is far, far more ambitious than it ever lets on; a party that would fundamentally re-shape Canadian society if ever given the opportunity. It's an image of a party that is about far more than improving health care for Canadians; it's about transforming Canada into a far-left utopia.

It seems unwise to assume that if Layton were ever to lay his pen to the Constitution he wouldn't do everything in his power to entrench intrusive big-state socialism upon Canadians on a permanent basis.

Whether or not Layton could actually get the job done -- by getting the Provinces to agree -- is another matter entirely. Layton would have to be delicate in order to avoid encroaching upon Provincial jurisdiction, or at least to make it seem like he isn't.

Most importantly, Jack Layton should be kept as far away from the Constitution as possible.

The Unfortuante Ugly Side of the Jack Layton Massage Parlour Story...

...is the unfortunate ugly side of his party

Yesterday, during the closing days of the 2011 Election campaign, a story broke chronicling how NDP leader Jack Layton was caught -- naked -- in a Toronto massage parlour that was suspected of being a bawdy house.

Reportedly, police were in the parlour investigating reports that underage Asian girls were performing sex acts there.

For his own part, Layton says that he didn't know anything untoward was happening in the massage parlour in question. Frankly, there's very little reason to doubt him.

"I went for a massage at a community clinic," Layton explained. "The police advised it wasn't the greatest place to be, so I left and I never went back."

Layton's wife, Olivia Chow, hasn't been taken by even the slightest bit of surprise at the news.

"I knew about this appointment, as I always do. No one was more surprised than my husband when the police informed him of allegations of potential wrong doing at this establishment," she declared. "He told me about the incident after it happened. Any insinuation of wrongdoing on the part of my husband is completely and utterly false."

As it pertains to this story, there's really only two: one, that the media knew about this story for quite a while and refused to report it; the other is that it serves to direct attention toward the soft, ugly underbelly of the NDP.

As these matters so often do, it has to do with Vancouver-East MP Libby Davies.

In 2009, Davies voted against a bill that would have strengthened Canada's laws on human trafficking.

Davies did so out of her ideological opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing, apparently not understanding that human traffickers simply belong in prison. Full stop, and end of conversation.

For his own part, Layton voted in favour of that very bill. He understands this issue, and made the right decision.

Yet that he counts Libby Davies among the deputy leaders of his party leaves the NDP with questions to answer about this issue.

Frankly, when underage Asian girls turn up at bawdy houses in Canada, they're there because they're victims of human trafficking.

When Jack Layton is found in such an establishment, here's there because he doesn't really know what's going on there. That's not really his fault. Yet Libby Davies voted against making it easier to shut such establishments down. That is her fault, and Layton must call on her to answer for it.

It's too late to remove Libby Davies as the NDP candidate in Vancouver-East -- which, frankly, would be the right decision. Anyone who would vote against human trafficking legislation is not worthy to sit in Parliament. Keeping her as an NDP candidate is simply grossly irresponsible.

But, at the very least, Jack Layton can demote her promptly on May 2 -- something that should have been done two years ago.

Jack Layton For Leader of the Opposition

...lined up against a Harper majority

Ever since Prime Minister Stephen Harper led the Conservative Party to power in 2006, one word has been considered scandalous if so much as uttered by a Conservative:

Majority.

This has, of course, been driven as much by Liberal panic-mongering as anything else. But now, with the 2011 federal election steadily slipping away from the Liberals, they're working as hard as they can to make a certain word scandalous if so much as uttered by the NDP:

Leader. As in, "of the Opposition".

Following what appeared to be stagnating numbers early in the campaign, the NDP surge -- particularly in Quebec -- has had tongues wagging across Canada.

Michael Ignatieff, for one, is not happy about it.

"Come on, folks, let's be serious," Ignatieff implored. "We've got to choose a government on the 2nd of May; we can't choose a bunch of Boy Scouts on this issue."

Which is actually rather ironic when you think about it: Ignatieff and his fellow opposition leaders essentially told the Canadian public that they toppled the Harper government because they weren't Boy Scouts.

According to Ignatieff, what matters is that Canadians vote for the Liberals in order to avoid returning Stephen Harper to power.

"If you vote for Mr Layton, you're going to get a Harper minority government." Ignatieff forecasted. "If you vote for Mr Duceppe, you're going to get a Harper minority government."

Which, again, is funny when you think about it. To most people, Quebeckers shouldn't vote for the Bloc Quebecois because they're separatists. To Ignatieff, it's because not Quebeckers voting for the Bloc is good for him.

It's the kind of sentiment that gives ample cause for doubt about whether or not Ignatieff is fit to continue as Leader of the Opposition.

But while Ignatieff's stock is fading, another opposition leader continues to gather momentum in the leadership department. And, no, it isn't Gilles Duceppe.

That leader is Jack Layton. Speaking recently on the campaign trail, Layton indicated sound juggment on a matter of intense importance to Canadians: the Constitution.

Layton indicated that he would be open to re-opening the Constitution in order to secure Quebec's assent to that document. And as opposed to Pierre Trudeau, who rammed the Constitution through while a separatist government was in power in Quebec, Layton wants to wait until "the winning conditions for Canada in Quebec" exist.

Needless to say, Layton is gambling. Canadians don't exactly look back on the last rounds of Constitutional wranglings -- the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords -- with fond memories.

Yet Layton is clearly well-attuned to the problems the state of Canada's Constitution -- with Quebec not a signatory to that document -- pose to the country.

"What we're saying is that at some point in the future the whole issue of the fact that Quebec hasn't signed on to our Constitution has got to be dealt with," Layton remarked. "But the first step is getting rid of the Stephen Harper government and putting in place a government that can actually work with not only the people of Quebec, but right across the country, and stop this division that we've been getting for far too long."

Quebec isn't the only waning hole in the country's Constitutional unity. Canada's First Nations have yet to achieve a satisfactory position within the British North America Act.

But if Layton is going to be involved in Constitutional negotiations, it's imperative that those negotiations take place under a Conservative government. If Layton is able to direct such constitutional discussions from the driver's seat, God only knows what kind of disaster will ensue.

One could rest assured that Layton would do everything he can to institutionalize some rather extreme leftist principles in the Constitution. The idea of Libby Davies with a pen at the Constitutional table should send a chill down the spines of any thinking Canadian. (Read: not the kind who vote for Davies.)

All this being said, the Constitution is a key issue for Canada, whether Canadians welcome it or not. Jack Layton's understanding of this is another key marker demonstrating that he's ready to sit in the Opposition's big chair.

Jack Layton would make an excellent Leader of the Opposition... opposing a Stephen Harper majority government.

Jack Layton Takes a Page From the Nick Clegg Playbook

Layton rules out an immediate coalition attempt

Even as the Liberal Party ramps up desperate efforts to make canadians believe Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have a hidden agenda, Canadians have kept in mind who has the real hidden agenda:

It's been Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP leader Jack Layton. That hidden agenda is a coalition.

Ignatieff has insisted that there is no coalition. Canadians have been having a hard time believing him.

But if Layton is being honest with Canadians following his most recent pronouncement -- that he will not attempt to form a coalition immediately after the election -- he may face the prospect of needing to find himself a new dance partner.

"There have been no discussions about that," Layton insisted. "[Harper] gets the first shot. The question will be: Is he willing to work with other parties?"

That's every bit as valid a question as the question whether or not the other parties are willing to work with Harper. But beyond that fundamental reality, it at least may seem that Layton is following the lead of Britain's Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party.

When the 2010 British election ended in an effective stalemate between the David Cameron-led British Tories and the Gordon Brown-led Labour Party, Clegg was effectively put into the position to decide the next government. There was a very strong caveat: British political culture favours governments that control a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, and so that party would have to partner with his Lib Dems in a coalition.

Clegg determined that the Conservatives, having won the largest portion of seats, would get the first opportunity to make a deal. They were successful.

Canada's political culture does not make the same demand. In a "hung Parliament" situation, it's typically been accepted that whichever party holds a plurality would have the opportunity to govern. Only once in Canadian history has the pluarlity-winning party been rebuked by a larger coalition.

Then again, Layton may not be on the level. In 2008, he was in touch with the Bloc Quebecois very quickly laying the groundwork for the spectacular failure of the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition.

If Stephen Harper and the Conservatives fall short of a majority on May 2, it will be up to Canadians to hold Layton to his word, and at least give the Tories an opportunity to govern before trying to hatch a coalition.

Michael Ignatieff and His Coalition Stooges

Does Olivia Chow Actually Understand How Parliament Works?

Olivia Chow says Tory Senators should be working to pass legislation... when there is no legislation to pass

Following sightings of some Conservative Senators on the campaign trail, Trinity-Spadina MP Olivia Chow is crying dirty pool.

Chow has even taken to posting "Not Wanted" posters in her riding featuring photos of Senator Mike Duffy campaigning for Tory candidates. She's calling for NDP supporters to photograph campaigning Senators and send the photos to her campaign.

Chow insists that taxpayer dollars should not pay Senators to campaign for their Party's candidates.

“Why should taxpayers foot the bill for this?” Chow mused. “The Senators should be working to pass bills to help people instead of campaigning. ...These people are supposed to be passing important bills for all Canadians.”

Which, frankly, makes one wonder if Olivia Chow has any idea whatsoever what happens in Parliament when an election is called. The first thing that happens is that Parliament is adjourned. That means that any bills that have not yet been passed by the Senate and received Royal Assent die on the order paper.

Simply put, the Senators couldn't be working to pass bills that help people, because there are no longer any bills to pass.

If Chow were more noted for her thoughts on Senate reform, one would expect Chow to offer some kind of idea on how to make passing bills during election time a possibility: such as any bills that have passed the committee stage, and all their readings in the House of Commons to continue being debated in the Senate during an election.

Then again, as Mrs Jack Layton, Chow's idea of reforming the Senate is to abolish it. So we should expect no such suggestions.

This is unfortunate because Chow actually has a very good point. It's not right that Senators -- representing any party -- should be able to campaign on the public dime.

“This is not right and it is not fair,” she complained. Again, she's actually right about that.

There are two clear solutions: the first is that Senators should stop receiving paycheques once an election is called; paycheques that should not resume until after the election is over. Likewise, all the perks that come with being a Senator, including their travel and hospitality allowances, should be suspended.

But there's a better reform yet: Canadians could also be deciding which Senate candidate to vote for, as these Senators could potentially be worrying about an election campaign of their very own.

That's yet another reform that Olivia Chow seems to have no time for. But for largely-empty complaining, she seems to have all the time in the world.

Jack Layton Moves to Violate Charter Rights of Gangs

Layton to deny gangs their freedom of associaton

...At least that's what Jack Layton and the NDP would be insisting if the Conservative Party had proposed the anti-gang plan recently put forth by the NDP.

Under the plan, the NDP would invest $100 million in prevention programs, $150 million in hiring and training additional police officers, and make it illegal for gangs to recruit new members.

Which is actually an excellent policy. Then agian, when the Conservative government moved to eliminate the contentious 2-for-1 sentencing credit, the opposition parties claimed it was a violation of prisoners' charter rights.

A bizarre argument if ever there was one, but no less bizarre than an argument that the freedom of association rights of criminal organizations should be protected. Why should the NDP make one, and not the other?

All joking about the NDP's inconsistent approach to crime aside, the anti-gang policy is a very fine policy that all of Canada's political parties should emulate.

"Gang violence is a national problem that requires Canadian leadership," Layton announced. "Prevention is the key tool to stamp out street crime at its source."

Of course Canada still needs to invest responsibly in the measures to be used when prevention fails; for those who don't know, those would be called prisons, and the NDP has opposed building more of those.

The Utter Cluelessness of Jack Layton & the NDP

Conservatives can't work with NDP on long-gun registry

When it appeared that Candice Hoeppner's private members bill would find enough support from the NDP to pass, NDP leader Jack Layton went to work to find enough votes to keep the registry alive.

He didn't whip the vote, as many advocates of the long-gun regsitry insisted he should, but he seems to have found the votes.

Yet, as it turns out, Layton's fantasies don't end with the alleged necessity of maintaining the registry. Layton continues to fantasize that the Conservative Party would be able to work with him to "fix" the registry.

"I said to the Prime Minister today as well as in a conversation last week, ‘Why don't we work together here? You haven't got the numbers now to simply eliminate it,'" Layton said. "'So let's work to try to fix it and address some of those legitimate issues that are being raised by people who are law-abiding gun owners and hunters and farmers.'"

What Layton clearly doesn't understand is that, as pertains to gun control and the long-gun registry, there's nothing to talk about. There is simply no way that the Conservative Party -- who acknowledge reality as it relates to the long-gun registry -- could work wirh the NDP on the matter, who do not.

It's as simple as that.

Particularly, the Conservatives cannot be expected to work with people who won't debate the matter in good faith.

Layton and the other supporters of the long-gun registry have long realized that there are no facts that support maintaining the registry: not a single, solitary, one.

They can't afford to publicly admit that the long-gun registry has never prevented a single crime, and has never saved a single life. Not one.

Instead, proponents of the long-gun registry have relied on fear mongering, emotional blackmail, and smear tactics in order to make their case.


Consider the following exchanges from the very same meeting of the Public Safety Committee in which Dr Gary Mauser utterly demolished defenses of the long-gun registry.

The first is between Dr Mauser and Marlene Jennings:

"Jennings - ...Have you received funding from the NRA for any of your studies or research work?

Dr Mauser - Yes, I have. When I first began researching--

Jennings - Thank you.

Dr Mauser - I got $400.

Jennings - Have you contributed to the Conservative Party of Canada, or its predecessor the Canadian Alliance, or its predecessor the Reform Party of Canada?

Dr Mauser - I have contributed to the Conservative Party, the Reform Party, the NDP, and the Liberals."

Jennings attempts a rather blatant guilt-by-association argument. She knows her base well, and must imagine that a donation to the Reform Party, and the receipt of a donation from the NRA would be rather damning for Dr Mauser.

Unfortunately for Jennings, what she uncovered was a donation scarcely sufficient to keep the lights on for a major research project, and a former Reform Party donor who had also given to her own party.

In the midst of a debate that is supposed to be contested based on facts, this is far from a significant bombshell.

But Jennings' buffoonery nothing compared to that of Bloc Quebecois MP Maria Mourani:

"Mourani - Mr Mauser, I would like short answers please. Is this in fact you in this photograph, with a handgun?

Dr Mauser - That's me and that's my handgun.

Mourani - What kind of gun is it?

Dr Mauser - It is a Smith & Wesson revolver.

Mourani - Is it registered?

Dr Mauser - Well, of course.

Mourani - How many weapons do you own?

Dr Mauser - I'm not sure. It varies.

Mourani - You do not remember how many guns you own? How many long guns do you own?

Dr Mauser - I don't remember. It varies.

Mourani - All right, you own firearms, but you do not remember how many you have?

Dr Mauser - I'm getting old.

Mourani - You are not, however, too old to carry such a gun.

Dr Mauser - That would be a few more years from now.

Mourani - Where was this photograph taken?

Dr Mauser - About 20 years ago.

Mourani - But where?

Dr Mauser - You can see that I'm a lot younger there.

Mourani - Yes, but where? Was it at home? It looks like it was at home, not at a firing range or at a shooting school. Am I right? It is at your house.

Dr Mauser - That's my house.

Mourani - Excellent. And what were you shooting at? What were you having fun shooting at? Who were you putting on this show for?

The Chair - Mrs Mourani, you have to relate this to the long-gun registry.

Mourani - I apologize, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I will explain why.

Dr Mauser - You will notice, first of all, that I'm not firing. Secondly, the finger is not in the trigger guard. Thirdly, the photographer asked me to pose like this and I resisted, but obviously I should have resisted harder.

Mourani - You did put up a struggle, my dear sir. But, you are the expert advisor as far as firearms are concerned. I must admit to you that I am scared."

In all fairness, Maria Mourani does seem like the sensitive type: sensitive enough to be frightened by a 20-year-old photograph. That, seeing as how she introduced it into committee, one could presume she herself dug up for that purpose.

And evidently sensitive enough to stoop to ad hominem attacks on an expert at whose assessment of the facts she seems to despair.

Which reminds one what this is allegedly supposed to be about: it's supposed to be about the facts. Mark Holland insists that the Conservatives simply don't care about them.

Yet when a doctor of criminology shows up to the Public Safety Committee and lays out facts that are extremely inconvenient for proponents of the long-gun registry, the facts seem to be the last thing Holland, Jennings, Mourani et al are concerned with:

Their language becomes not that of a factual debate, but that of vindictive personal attack, vicious character assasination, and shameless melodrama.

There is a reason for this: the facts simply do not favour their cause. It doesn't prevent gun crime. It doesn't save lives. It's a cosmetic gun control measure that demonstrably doesn't protect Canadians.

Truthfully speaking, the long gun registry has become the cause celibre of far-left demagogues who can't bring themselves to get tough on crime, so instead opt to get tough on the law-abiding.

Jack Layton has, unsurprisingly, decided to throw in with that lot. The Conservatives couldn't work with him on this issue, even if they wanted to.

Let Canadians Put Their Money Where the Opposition's Mouth Is

Liberals, NDP demand "emergency debate" on long form census

With all the fervour surrounding the Conservative Party's decision to transform Canada's mandatory long-form census into a voluntary long-form census, the opposition has decided that the matter is quite the emergency.

In fact, they're calling for an emergency debate in the House of Commons.

NDP leader Jack Layton accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of an ideological opposition to the kind of government action information from the long form census has supported.

"Mr Harper doesn't believe in government action so he would prefer not to see the facts about what's going on in Canada," Layton insisted. "I think that's the more sinister dimension of this pigheaded approach they're taking."

Liberal deputy leader Bob Rae echoed Layton's sentiments.

“When the fish rots, it rots from the head,” Rae remarked. “It’s very, very clear that this is a problem with Mr Harper. This is a problem with the way Mr Harper’s government conducts itself, it’s the way its staff conduct themselves. And it’s the way they talk to the Canadian people.”

Layton's solution to the issue seems to hinge on eliminating any jail time for anyone who declines to fill out the mandatory long-form census -- he considers this a compromise, one that the opposition is prepared to pass quickly.

Industry Minister Tony Clement has rejected this as a reasonable compromise. He doesn't believe that any sanction should be applied to those who decline to fill out the long-form census.

In the end, that is half of what this issue will ultimately be about.

The other half is about what Canadians think the role of the government should be, and how much information they think the government needs in order to fulfill that role.

In other words, this is about Canadians putting their money where the opposition's mouth is.

If Canadians agree that the government needs the information contained in the long-form census, they will fill out the forms. If Canadians don't think the government needs such information, they won't.

It really is that simple.

This particularly applies to efforts such as that by the Federation de Communautes Francophones et Acadiennes, a group suing the federal government over its decision to change the long-form census, as well as for the other minority groups declaring that information contained in the long-form census is especially important to them.

Perhaps the idea that giving Canadians this power to shape the size and role of government seems a little too democratic to the opposition. The FCFA have evidently decided that such democracy is equally inconvenient for them.

Of course, the elimination of government means to coerce Canadians into providing information they may think the government doesn't need may be seen as an emergency by the would-be social engineers in the Liberal Party and the NDP.

Other Canadians likely will not agree.

The Hysterics of the Far-Left Anti-Gun Lobby

It's useless to speak logic to those who will not reciprocate

Following news that NDP leader Jack Layton will not whip his MPs to oppose a private member's bill that would abolish the long gun registry, Canada's far-left anti-gun lobby is ratcheting up the pressure on Layton.

As usual, they don't bother to offer any logical arguments -- instead, they insist on appealing to the emotions of Canadians.

At a recent event, Dawson College shooting victim Hayder Khadim, among others, spoke out in frustration.

"It makes me feel like he is playing a political game," Khadim complained. "I mean, in front of us, he is a completely strong advocate of gun control — someone who you feel would be one of the strongest to impose a party line or anything like that, to make sure the gun registry would be saved."

Khadim naturally failed to mention that the weapon Kimveer Gil used to shoot him was a registered firearm. He declined to mention this for an important reason:

Regardless of what Khadim has to say about it, the gun registry didn't prevent Kimveer Gil from planning his assault on Dawson College. It didn't prevent him from clicking the safety off, or pulling the trigger. Nor did help police prevent the shooting, because the shooting was not prevented.

One certainly remembers that the left-wing anti-gun lobby insists that the long gun registry has saved lives. Yet neither they, nor the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, can name a single incident in which the long gun registry prevented a gun crime.

Not one single, solitary case.

Front-line police officers -- who actually respond to and investigate violent crimes -- know this.

The troubling thing is that it should be surprising to find that Hayder Khadim doesn't know this either. After all, the bullet that struck him in the neck -- fired from the barrel of a registered firearm -- should have been a massive reality check for him.

Somehow, it wasn't.

Nor do these facts seemt to sink far into the head of NDP MP Thomas Mulcair.

"I know, as does Mr Layton, that to destroy the gun registry is to destroy lives, so we don't need to be convinced on this," Mulcair announced.

But the tipping point for Mulcair's argument -- and sadly, it tips away from reality -- is that if the long gun registry has never saved a life (although some other measures introduced at the same time as the registry have clearly prevented some gun crimes), then the abolition of the registry cannot be found to destroy lives.

It's merely another emotion-based argument from someone who clearly has little interest in considering this issue logically.

Much like the L'Ecole Polytechnique victims and families, who insist that the long gun registry is a monument to them and their loved ones. Canadians who are interested in discussing gun control logically, however, will offer them a deal.

Build another real monument to the L'Ecole Polytechnique victims, as well as to the Dawson College victims. It will be a real gun control that actually controls guns.

Maybe then these people will finally shut up about their precious long gun registry.

The Annexation of Canadian Values

Dobbin continues to hijack "Canadian values" for the service of the far left

One of the things any observer can expect of Murray Dobbin is that he, like many other denizens of Canada's far left, will continually attempt to annex the concept of Canadian values to their own ends.

He'll forever pick and choose the data that supports his preconceptions, and forever reject any that doesn't support his view.

In the course of an interview with NDP leader Jack Layton, Dobbin makes the depth of this folly perfectly clear when he insists that the NDP ought to be winning majority governments based on the concept of Canadian values.

"I'm someone who is a bit obsessive about values polling, I look at all of them that I can find, and what strikes me is that if the seats in the House of Commons were assigned to parties based on how their policies lined up with Canadian-stated values, the NDP would have a majority," Dobbin begins. "Why do we have a Conservative government when Canadian values actually line up so well with the NDP's values and policies?"

Layton insists that the problem for the NDP is that the electoral system just isn't fair.

"The first reason is that we have an electoral system that permits massive distortions of the public views when it comes to the results, the seats, and therefore the governance," Layton answers. "We've had that for some considerable time, it's just particularly evident right now when you have a government that in two successive elections couldn't get less than 62 per cent of the public to vote against them. Yet they end up with 100 per cent of the power... 100 per cent of the executive power, and maybe something than just a little less than 100 per cent of the legislative power."

Unfortunately for Layton and Dobbin, electoral reform would absolutely not result in an NDP majority.

The NDP's support tends to waver back-and-forth between 15% and 20%. One would be hard-pressed to find an electoral system that could currently produce an NDP minority government, let alone a majority.

It's laughable for Dobbin to suggest that the NDP best reflect's Canada's values, particularly since Canadians themselves -- 80% to 85% of them -- clearly seem to disagree.

The idea seems to be that Dobbin knows the values of Canadians better than Canadians themselves. It's the typical kind of arrogance one expects from the architect of the foiled 2008 coalition attempt -- an architect that refuses to abandon his designs.

In the same sloppy and intellectually lazy manner of many supporters of electoral reform -- particularly proportional representation -- Layton insists that these reforms would fix problems that they simply wouldn't. Such as the appointment of the judiciary.

"They are transforming the judiciary with their appointments so they're rapidly increasing their power in the judicial arm of government as well," Layton says. "So that is why you need proportional representation and why we continue to fight for it and push for it."

The problem for Layton is that imlimenting proportional representation in Canada won't change problems with the way judges are appointed. Rather, changes to the way that judges are appointed -- perhaps requiring the Prime Minister to have his nominations confirmed by Parliament -- would accomplish that.

But Layton's outrage over the appointment of judges who don't share his political values is rather tired. The Liberals did the same for years. The NDP would certainly do the same should they ever manage to win government.

If anything, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's appointments are at least likely to be far less activist and politically invasive than previous appointees. For years, Liberal-appointed judges legislated from the bench. At least Conservative-appointed judges are more likely to respect the fact that laws are made by Parliament, not by the judiciary.

A great many Canadians would likely agree with this idea. Perhaps not Jack Layton.

"Number two, of course, you have the traditional governing parties that have alternated in and out, have had access to the support of the dominant forces in society," Layton continues. "In particular, the largest, most powerful corporate entities, the banks and the oil companies, who seem to be the one constant when it comes to those who benefit by government policies. As the government alternates back and forth between red and blue they are tied to this notion that tax cuts and a shrinking capacity to do things together through our collective enterprises and public services is fundamental."

Likewise, a great many Canadians recognize that large corporations provide a great proporotion of Canada's employment, and that banks help provide a lot of the capital that is necessary to grow the economy.

A great many Canadians recognize that while there should be limits on how much support the government lends to corporations -- the line should be drawn at outright continuing corporate welfare -- what is good for corporations is often good for the economy. What is good for the economy is good for Canadians.

(Not that everything that is good for corporations is good for the economy. The dire under-regulation of the American economy was good for corporations, but bad for the economy. But these conditions aren't present in Canada.)

These are values held by many Canadians that just don't seem to mesh with Dobbin's ideological conception of Canadian values.

Then again, Dobbin continues to refuse to recognize that Canadians rejected the Liberal/NDP/Bloc Quebecois coalition that he himself pushed hard for in the wake of the general election.

Murray Dobbin never learns. It makes one wonder if he even can learn.

Canadians clearly do not share his far left ideological conception of Canadian values. But Dobbin himself will never admit it -- not even to himself.

There's No Reason Why All the Dishonest Cretins Shouldn't Get Theirs

One of the most amusing aspects of dealing with some of the most dedicated lunatics of the far-left blogosphere is how they react when they're called on their own hypocrisy.

A particularly amusing case is that of Sparky, who fancies himself a decicated fighter of conservative hypocrisy.

Yet when one of Sparky's friends is caught like a deer in the headlights on her own hypocrisy -- needling Ezra Levant over self-promotion while overlooking her own shameless self-promotion and peddling an argument founded on a false equivalent (treating Levant placing an ad for his book on his blog as the same as Jack Layton pulling a woman's arm out of the way so he can be seen on TV) -- Sparky's response is actually rather amusing.

It becomes clear that Sparky wants to pretend that Layton wasn't getting rather pushy in his fervent mania to exploit Canada's hockey gold medal for self-promotion. Yet, it's amazing to note that even in a place that is often very friendly to Jack Layton -- like the CBC -- very few people seem to see the matter the way that Sparky does:

That particular comment had been "thumbs up"ed by a margin of five to one by the time it had been screen capped.

Likewise, CBC readers agreed with this comment, 21 to 6 -- a margin of more than three to one.

Moreover, more people seem to recognize that, of all the people at Gretzky's on Sunday afternoon, Layton seemed to be the only one getting so pushy:

That comment was agreed with, 37 to 4 -- a margin of very nearly ten to one.

Nor should one think that it was in any way a coincidence that Layton had himself firmly parked in front of a camera, despite the NDP talking points that the tools at the Groupthink Temple have bought hook, line and sinker.

 

The amusing thing about the entire affair is that it really ought to not be quite such a big deal. One need not defend Layton's actions in order to recognize that, as this reader points out:

Which is where, for the most part, the voice of reason starts to weigh in. Did Layton get a little pushy/grabby with that particular individual? The video speaks for itself. Of course, no one got hurt, and while the incident may say something unflattering about Layton's character, it doesn't substantially discredit him.

So then one may wonder why it is that individuals like Sparky are so desperate to defy the video record of the event in question.

After all, it isn't as if anyone sees the matter the same way that Sparky does. If he can't see Layton's behaviour for what it was, he sorely needs to get his eyes checked.

It is, amusingly, the modus operandi of individuals like Sparky and Audrey. When caught with their pants down, they simply pretend like it didn't happen. In the end, it's actually that uncomfortable facade that will continually keep giving this particualr story new life -- and keep giving them new opportunities to humiliate themselves.

Why Jack Layton Must Survive

Layton's fate will become rhetorical signal for health care

Canadian politics was shaken recently by the news that Jack Layton has been struck with prostrate cancer.

Speaking testaments to the strength and resolve of his character, he has announced his intention to remain on as the leader of the NDP even while receiving treatment for the illness. He has, however, admitted that the illness will slow him down -- at least temporarily.

His father successfully fought the same disease, and doctors report that it has been diagnosed with enough time to (hopefully) successfully treat it.

But even as Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams venturing south of the border for a heart procedure, Layton has reportedly opted to remain in Canada to receive treatment for his ailment.

And even beyond the basic human reason why Layton must survive -- that he is a human being who, despite any disagreement regarding politics, is owed the same consideration as any other morally worthy human being -- this makes Layton's survival crucial.

As the health care debate continues to rage in the United States, events like Williams' plans to be treated in the United States have been dropped into the rhetorical arsenal of those opposing universal health care. The argument is that if Canadian health care can't provide treatment for the head of one of the country's governments, then it isn't a model that the United States should emulate.

This has been troubling enough for supporters of Canada's health care system -- even among many of those who urge the need for some necessary reforms -- if Layton were to die of prostate cancer while in the care of the Canadian public health care system, it would be that much worse.

Fairly or unfairly, Layton's fate will be used to rhetorically judge the Canadian health care system. A successful recovery from what seems to be a comparably routine illness will serve as vindication for Canadian health care. His passing, in turn, would be used to condemn it.

For Jack Layton -- a lifetime advocate of Canada's health care system (some may even suggest that he has often been an apologist for its deficiencies) -- to be used to rhetorically undermine the credibility of Canada's public health care system would be a fate much worse than the death itself.

Whatever becomes of Layton, he deserves much, much better than that.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Glen Pearson - "Collective Mortality"

But Will They Answer the Door?

Opportunity -- in form of Liberal weakness -- knocking for NDP

If hiring Peter Donolo to serve as Chief of Stafff of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition represents Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal party pressing the panic button, they may have pressed it just in time.

A recent poll has the NDP holding the support of 19% of Canadians, compared to 24% for the Liberals.

Meanwhile, the Conservative party has maintained the support of 37% of Canadians.

If the Liberals and NDP each continue following this momentum, the NDP could, in time, eclipse the Liberals to, for the first time in history, become the Official Opposition.

Of course this isn't the first time in Canadian history that the NDP have flirted with such heights. Once, briefly before the 1988 election, Ed Broadbent was believed to be in a position to lead his party to a minority government. Even when Broadbent led the party short of that mark, he still led it to its best federal results in history: 43 seats.

Now, under the leadership of Jack Layton -- who has succeeded Broadbent in way that neither Audrey McLaughlin or Alexa McDonough ever could -- the NDP is back on the cusp of some serious federal success.

Opportunity is knocking for the NDP. But will they answer the door?

"If the NDP come forth as a reasonable party with a platform that resonates, I think they could overcome their traditional shackles and go above what they did with Broadbent," explains former Liberal Party President Stephen LeDrew. "There's no question, given the current state of disarray with the Liberals, and the fact that the Liberals have yet to explain why Canadians should vote for the Liberals, that the NDP can see the vacuum in there and if they fill it the right way I think they'll be rewarded."

As LeDrew notes, Liberal weakness alone isn't enough for the NDP.

In order to truly capitalize on the current weakness of the Liberal Party, the NDP has to truly deliver moderate policies and convince broad cores of voters that they have the lunatic fringe in their party under control -- an effort that is invariably foiled at each NDP convention.

"The opportunity that we have is to go to traditional Liberal voters and Progressive Conservative voters and say, politics is changing in this country," agrees NDP national director Brad Lavigne. "The things that you loved about your party for years, progressive values, can now be found in a bigger, modern New Democratic Party under Jack Layton's leadership."

Of course there are risks that come with this kind of approach. In order to court Liberal or progressive conservative voters, the NDP will have to demonstrate that it can not only be progressive, but also conservative. It has to be able to show that it can temper its progressive impulses with fiscal and social responsibility.

Some provincial NDP governments have, in the past, shown that they can accomplish this goal, even if in a flawed manner.

However, some members of the NDP don't seem prepared to accomplish this task. Janice MacKinnon, a former NDP Finance Minister of Saskatchewan, chaulks Tory regional strength up to the NDP's inability to promote its stance on regional issues. Her example is the long-gun registry.

Yet 61% of Canadians outside Quebec believe getting rid of the long-gun registry is a good idea. Only in Quebec did a slim majority support the registry.

Of course with the nature of Canadian politics, "regional issues" is often just another code for "wedge issues". If the NDP wants to campaign across Canada with a wedge issue that will only appeal to Quebeckers, they'll likely find themselves disappointed with the results.

The NDP recently opposed the abolition of the long-gun registry. So this begs an even more important question of whether or not the NDP will answer the door upon which opportuniy is knocking.

The more important question is: can they answer the door?


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Dan Shields - "NDP Soaring in Public Opinion Polls, Tory Party Fading"

ThreeHundredEight - "New AR Poll - 15-point Conservative Lead"

Confidence

Opposition's fiscal support of Harper could paint them into a corner

Michael Ignatieff may be disappointed in a few days' time when he watches his fellow opposition parties vote on the ways and means measure being introduced by the Conservative party.

NDP leader Jack Layton has tenuously voiced his support for the motion -- although he's noted that "the problem with the Conservatives [is that] the press release comes out, but then the devil is in the details."

Now Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe has followed Layton's lead and announced that he will support the bill -- the last fiscal bill the Conservatives will introduce before the Liberals' planned confidence motion at the end of this month (or early in October).

The Conservative party will remain secure in office for at least that time, pushing the time for a possible election back to mid-November or early December.

But there is one thing that even Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff will have to admit when he watches the BQ and NDP prop up the government to fight another day: it undermines any credibility for Ignatieff's own promised non-confidence motion.

In Parliamentary terms, there tends to be a word reserved for the sentiments of the opposition whose fiscal bills they support:

Confidence.

It would be hard for the NDP or Bloc to jump behind a Liberal non-confidence motion when they've been helping that government advance its fiscal agenda -- in this case, extending additional Employment Insurance coverage to long-tenure workers and supplying funds to pay for the Home Renovation Tax Credit.

Regardless of whatever campaign strategy-related goals are actually motivating the Bloc and NDP -- and speculation has been all the rage for weeks -- this dilemma is particularly distressing for Michael Ignatieff.

As Margaret Wente speculates in the Globe and Mail, Ignatieff himself is facing a severe crisis of political identity.

Ignatieff needs to establish himself as a "warrior king" before he gets saddled with the wimpy label applied to his predecessor, Stephane Dion.

Ignatieff once seemed to think that being a warrior king was a lot like being a philosopher king, just with tougher words.

But, as Wente notes, "The trouble is that up till now it's been all talk. You can only bluff and bluster so many times without looking silly."

"It's not hard not to conclude that Canada is a stage set for Mr Ignatieff's fantasy life," Wente continues. "He has always been torn between being a man of letters and a man of action, pulled between the ivory tower and the battlefield. He has spent time in nasty war zones."

Wente notes that Ignatieff lacks the political instincts and the killer instinct to defeat Stephen Harper in an election.

"Stephen Harper does not deserve such luck," she concludes. "His opponent is yet another man who vastly overestimates his own abilities. Mr Ignatieff is looking more and more like Mr. Dion, without the accent."

Like Dion, Ignatieff seemingly cannot only not command the confidence of his fellow oppositon leaders, but is seemingly losing the confidence of his caucus as well.

If the opposition parties cannot muster enough confidence in Michael Ignatieff to support his non-confidence motion they'll essentially be painting themselves into a confidence corner.

If they aren't willing to pull the plug on Harper sooner by voting down his fiscal bills, it will take a matter of substantive consequence later to convince them to vote him down at all.

In the meantime, it seems that Stephen Harper may enjoy greater confidence than Michael Ignatieff does as opposition leader.

That bodes all kinds of troublesome for the would-be philosopher king.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Dan Shields - "The BQ Blinks First"

Counterweights - "'Separatists' will keep Harper minority government alive (once again, with feeling?)"

Chuckman's Choice of Words - "Ignatieff: Can You Trust This Guy?"