“Unless something quite unexpected occurs, the Conservatives’ virtual majority will become a real one whenever the next election is held and a new template will be in place for the foreseeable political future.”

Granted, Bliss is of the conservative persuasion, but this doesn’t seem to colour his analysis; sadly, it’s bang on.

In addition to blocking an open nomination meeting in Outremont and with it the candidacy of the riding’s former, long-serving Liberal MP, it has also been reported — briefly and without even the mildest of critiques — Denis Coderre has pressured four other sitting Liberal MPs in Montreal to resign before the next election.

While the irony is rich, the results are tragic.

To wit, two of the MPs cited, Raymonde Folco and Lize Zirac are women, which would be unremarkable were it not for the fact that both Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Coderre have said Mr. Cauchon will not be allowed to contest the nomination in Outremont because the riding is being held for — wait for it — a woman.

Worse still, rumour has it Coderre has further cited the need for “new blood” as his reason for strong-arming Folco and Zirac out of their jobs.

Granted, Folco has been an MP for about 12 years, which Mr. Coderre can personally attest is a long time to be a Member of Parliament, considering he too was elected in 1997.

But Zirac? Her name may be unfamiliar to many outside of LaSalle-Emard. That’s because she was first elected in — wait for it — 2008. Evidently, while she has been an MP for less than a year, Zirac (like Coderre’s Class of ’97 alum, Folco) has already grown old and tired.

However, Coderre’s plans for a more youthful, estrogen-rich Liberal Caucus also means, for Coderre at least, the MPs for Pierrefonds–Dollard and St. Laurent–Cartierville, Dr. Bernard Patry and the Honourable Stephane Dion, must go.

For a party that has seen its federal presence in Quebec reduced substantially in recent years, and polls currently indicating that presence won’t increase much any time soon, one would think the Liberals’ Quebec Lieutenant would want to keep those few MPs from Quebec who have a proven record of getting elected.

Not so, apparently.

What is particularly disturbing about Coderre’s thuggish strategy isn’t so much the zeal with which he is pursuing it, but the lack of oversight — of sober second thought — his boss, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, is bringing to it.

Ignatieff’s silence on these matters is at least disturbing and is at most shameful, especially when it comes to how Coderre has been allowed to treat a former Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Say what you will about Dion (it’s probably been said already), but surely he deserves better than this?

Surely, a man who has dedicated so much of his life to public service — to Canada and its unity; to the planet and its future — deserves more than a, “thank you very much, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

Shame.

Seriously, while we generally disdain schadenfreude (karma’s a bitch), former MP and flamboyant tie afficionado Rahim Jaffer is making it very difficult for us to resist the urge to point and laugh.

Of course, he’s “devastated.”

Aren’t politicians always sorry — when they get caught?

Just ask Rahim’s former seat-mate Tom Likuwski.

However, we do wonder whether endorsing the orgiastic economic bailout that saw the Canadian taxpayer take a 12% stake in GM creates the kind of green jobs Michael Ignatieff promotes in the ad.

Still, if the only criticism of the ad from the chattering classes concerns the authenticity of the forest and its whereabouts in Canada (courtesy of that paragon of serious political journalism), we think the Liberals, like Stella, might just be getting their groove back.

Sure, we’re delighted the Liberals are spending some of that newly-earned cash on a national ad campaign; the first to feature Mr. Ignatieff at the helm. Undoubtedly, these ads have been tested and re-tested with focus groups to ensure they push the right buttons, motivating critical demographic groups near and dear to Liberals’ hearts (committed partisans, women, the upper-middle class, urbanites). Still, it’s hard not to wonder if the Liberals’ opening salvo in what has been, until now, a one-sided paid ad war will be enough to counter the months of negative personal attacks lobbed by the Harper Conservatives. (Ads, we recall, that took direct aim at Ignatieff’s commitment to the top job.)

We’re especially concerned because the English ad actually plays into the Harper Conservatives’ meme, Ignatieff the Foreigner. In the ad, Ignatieff acknowledges, “wherever I’ve worked, I’ve met Canadians who are the best the world has to offer.” This, to those like us who enjoy splitting hairs, isn’t the same as saying, “wherever I’ve travelled in Canada, I’ve met Canadians at barbeques and in town halls that yadda, yadda, yadda.”

Moreover, during a time when the economy has taken a hit, Canadians’ confidence shaken, a healthcare revolution simmering south of the border, reassuring Canadians that we need a government that, “gets [Canadians'] ideas to market” and, “reaches out to India and China,” doesn’t really seem to smack of the kind of “jobs, jobs, jobs” common sense the previous Liberal government was known for.

Is “marketing ideas” and “partnering with Chindia” going to excite that precious electoral belt between Windsor and Montreal? Let’s hope so.

Then again, we’re not the experts: I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before the kayaking wunderkind issues a statement touting the affect these ads have had on the Liberals’ bottom line.

We look forward to receiving that email.

To support his argument, Simpson asks, “what’s fair about allowing a party with no seats, or 10 per cent of the popular vote, to receive the same exposure to viewers/voters as parties with more than 100 seats, or 150 seats, and almost 40 per cent of the vote?”

Indeed, on a gut level, he may have a point. But determining who can and cannot participate in the forthcoming leaders’ debates should not be decided by network executives’ guts (leave them to rely on such cunning instinct when programming Canadian prime time!). Rather, as Simpson himself argues, network executives should “establish criteria about who should be invited to debate and why” in a manner that is fair.

However, he neglects to mention the public subsidy, enshrined in law by the former Liberal (Chrétien) government. That legislation, which bans corporate and union donations and puts a cap on the amount of money individuals may donate to political parties, provides for a taxpayer-funded subsidy to those political parties that acheive a certain percentage of the vote in an election.

Network executives would be wise to use that legislation as their guide when devising criteria for the forthcoming leaders’ debates. What could be fairer and more transparent than inviting only those political parties to the debates that are subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer? It would be unfair to the taxpayer to exclude a party supported with their tax dollars. And by that score, the Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, Bloc and, yes, the Greens should all be invited to participate in the next election’s leaders’ debates.

It may be crowded, sure; but, that’s the system we’ve got. Excluding certain parties’ leaders simply because doing otherwise renders a less civilized debate than the Americans’ Presidential ones not only ignores the vapidity and futility of said Americans’ debates, but it also foolishly attempts to whitewash the complexity and colour of our system. Far better network executives improve the format of the debates than tinker with the number of participants.

Besides, the kitchen table format used in the last election — derided by Simpson, quelle surprise — is a delightfully honest starting point from which this year’s format should be based. After all, it replicates the format in which Canadian families from coast to coast discuss the issues that matter to them, debate various topics of the day, relate to one another as husband, wife, brother, sister, loved one, neighbour, friend, citizen.

Replicating that format for the leaders’ debates might be messy; someone might shout, another might take a pot shot, yet another might try to change the topic. Surely that’s a format Canadians are familiar with, recognize, understand?

And in an age when politics (and, ahem, newspapers, Jeffrey) are becoming less and less appealing to “average” Canadians, isn’t it time politicians started reaching out to, and communcating with citizens in a format they themselves use?