Thursday, May 18, 2006

Guest Blogging - Carolyn Bennett

Liberal Leadership candidate Carolyn Bennett has offered to guest blog on this site and I thought I'd take her up on the offer since it's far too nice outside for me to actually think up and write a post myself. I gave her the topic of democratic reform and how technology is affecting the political process. If any of the other 11 candidates want to tackle either of those topics or something similar, I'll gladly toss their posts up here too. And now, over to you Carolyn:

Prescription for the Democratic Deficit

I remember once in a national caucus meeting complaining how unacceptable it was that for many, their first experience with partisan politics was to sign a box saying that they had paid for their membership themselves - when they hadn't! I remember then saying that when we go and teach democracy in the third world, we don't teach this!

We have to practice what we preach. We have to regain the confidence of Canadians in our democratic institutions - our party, our parliament, and our electoral system.

I was at the breakfast at the National Press Club this a.m. with Rick Anderson and his Fireweed Democracy Project, Fair Vote Canada and Susan Pigott from the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform in Ontario. I was very impressed with the fireweed initiative, particularly the Demokistan Case Study that beautifully asks: "if the fictional ‘Demokistan Charter' is not democratic enough for Demokistan, is it good enough for Canada?"

Last weekend at the LPCO AGM, we hosted a dialogue for those with a thirst for democracy. We served smoothies - drinks with substance!! Had a great turn-out and lots asking for more! There are 4 components....Citizen Engagement, Parliamentary Reform, Party Reform and Electoral Reform. We must move forward on all four.

The prescription for a democratic deficit begins with one thing...a true belief that we will get better policy and be better able to implement great policy if we include the people affected. We must never be seen to be consulting when it is clear that we have already made up our minds - some sort of obligation to public occupational therapy. It only stokes the destructive forces of cynicism. There must be what Frank Graves at EKOS has called 'assured listening'. Participants must know that they've been heard even if the decision taken is not what they had asked for. As Stephen Coleman, the guru of e-democracy has said, people don't want to govern they just want to be heard. It must engender 2-way accountability.

Those of you who participate in online dialogues on these blogs are already incredibly engaged citizens. Thank you. Over the next few weeks I will be launching a robust online policy discussion, please stay in touch.

We need to begin a process that will become central to a modern Liberal party that will be connected from sea to sea to sea ... Allowing great public policy to bubble up from the trenches, find consensus and resonate with Canadians.

Allons Y !!!

You can also take a look at the paper I wrote in 2003 during the leadership race -Rx for the Democratic Deficit.

UPDATE: Carolyn jumps into the Lion's Den in the comments section.


  • You voted against the Afghanistan mission last night for partisan purposes. That puts you on the bottom of my list of people who I think could address the democratic deficit. What about a partisan deficit? Do you support policies for canada, or just policies for the Liberal party?

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 1:34 p.m.  

  • Riley, Carolyn's disgraceful behaviour on voting like a partisan bonehead started way back with the Hep C issue.
    The Liberal party believes that everything-from local nominations and delegate selection to the federal government and Senate-should be controlled by a small group of powerful behind-the-scenes Liberals. Bennett can't figure out she's in the wrong party.

    By Blogger nuna d. above, at 1:42 p.m.  

  • Dr. Bennet, a former client of yours wants answers from you. I'll take this mother's word and believe, for a moment, that you at least have been a good doctor. But the days of all the virtues that you were feel so distant now. I know it has become your job to not yield to anything, especially not Conservatives. I just wanted to make a note on how sad it sometimes (often?) is to see politics corrupt people.

    Have a nice career.

    By Blogger Steve L., at 1:50 p.m.  

  • I just can't believe that Dr. Bennett believes so whole heartedly in democratic reform after she strongly supported Paul Martin's "democratic reform" initiatives which were a joke on all Canadians.

    True principled Liberals displayed their support of Canada last night like Ignatieff and dare I even say it, Scott Brison. Bennett showed she is willing to blow whatever way the wind does, whether it was in 2003, or last night.

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 1:53 p.m.  

  • Steve,

    Just read your link about Dr. Bennett's quote that Harper was "condemning children to a life of crime".
    Wow. Politics of the absurd... that's the way we win elections right?

    If Dr. Bennett reads these comments, I'd love to know how children will be condemned to a life of crime because of a tax credit. For the record, I'd rather have a child-care program than the 1200 bucks, but saying it will lead to crime?? Come on.

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 1:57 p.m.  

  • Riddle me this:

    How can Liberal MPs, who committed the Canadian military to a war a mere six months ago, suddenly decide that the war is a bad idea?

    How can former Liberal Cabinet members?

    Did the Liberals truly believe that the mission in Afghanistan would be over in a year?

    By Blogger godot10, at 2:04 p.m.  

  • This is not something that I have consistently witnessed you fighting for passionately in the HoC. Not to mention, it would be very unfortunate, if you played crass politics with such an important issue like the democratic deficit. We all remember how far it got this guy.

    And in the meantime, I hope your intentions are legitimate, because if they're not, I would advise you to please stop now before you do Gordon Gibson, Preston Manning and Rick Anderson anymore of a disservice.

    By Blogger scott, at 2:33 p.m.  

  • I'd agree with anonymous, Bill Graham deserves a lot of credit for voting with his heart. I don't think people on this blog are necessarily conservative, I know I've voted Liberal all my life til this past election. People are fed up with phonies. They want real people with real ideas. Because of her background I think Bennett could have been a real person, but she chose partisan tactics and rhetoric.

    Ignatieff chose principle, and thats why I am now leaning towards him for leadership. I had initially supported Dion for his very effective support of Afghanistan but he blew that, then Kennedy was my top pic til I met him and he was unfriendly. Ignatieff seems to be the only boat left in the water that isn't driven on partisan fuel.

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 2:34 p.m.  

  • Dr. Bennett,

    Your right, people who blog are well engaged in the process... we also notice when people make statements like "its a good thing their building more prisons, because that's where children are headed, because the Toris don't have a daycare system for them".

    Smart one Dr. Bennett, really smart.

    Other than Calgary Grit, who's a great guy and a very congenial host, you'd best start on your apology speech, because after what you and your cronies did while still in Government, there's not a lot of good will or votes towards you people out here in Oil land.

    Especially with the condesending, arrogant attitude you people constantly allow to creep out on the national stage.

    Good luck on your race... you really need it.

    By Blogger Joe Calgary, at 2:48 p.m.  

  • Hey Dr. Chickeepoo! Tell me, this democracy binge and purge you're on. Did you ever bring it up with David Herle, Mike Robinson and Tim Murphy when you were begging for a cabinet seat? Did you bring it up after you got to the Privy Council? Or was it just all about you at that point?

    Feel free to reply in these comments, since you are a guest blogger. That's the whole point, ya know. It's sort of like a dialogue, which is quite integral to that democracy thing you've been harping on.

    By Blogger Raymaker, at 2:50 p.m.  

  • As expected, the Tory trolls come marching out of the woodwork.

    Tell me folks, are you trying to tell us all that the Liberals who voted against a non-binding motion that Harper and his Tories thru on Parliament with no notice and little debate are any less partisan then the government? Are you going to try and use the George Bush/Republican slur of "not supporting the troops" for having questions about what exactly the mission is supposed to be about?

    This was an obvious ploy to try and bury this issue and mute public criticism - which has come, I might add, without any party other then the NDP being vocal against it.

    By Blogger Oxford County Liberals, at 3:07 p.m.  

  • Never mind that comment about kids being raised at home being destined for prison, that vote last night was particularly shameful.

    Dr. Bennett, if you have any genuine objections to the current mission in Afghanistan, why did you remain in the cabinet that initiated it in the first place?

    You have proven once again that you are not even remotely suited to our nation's highest elected office.

    And what is most disgraceful of all is that this guy, the Prime Minister who sent our troops to Kandahar in the first place, didn't even have the moral courage to show up for the vote.

    With last night in mind, I can only hope your party remains in the electoral wilderness forever.

    By Blogger BL, at 3:13 p.m.  

  • Oh, and one other question, if I may.

    These two core principles that are very important to you -- building a healthy democracy within the Liberal Party and making a place for strong, experienced women in politics -- are very admirable.

    So, where were you hiding when Sheila Copps was getting shafted in Stoney Creek in 2004?

    Brave and outspoken, indeed.

    By Blogger Raymaker, at 3:17 p.m.  

  • My little Rainbow don't give one holler about no democratic deficit - she wants a gun and to help daddy rob banks.

    thanks to my wife whose can barely read, gots no shoes and sticks to her knitten at home, my little Rainbow gets taught how to aim and fire by my little lady.

    will yours early learning teach 'em how to rob banks like I's plannin' to do?

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 3:22 p.m.  

  • Hey Guys
    Know what.
    This is a great idea of CG's and Dr Bennetts.
    It has the potential to create a discussion.
    The outright hostility to Bennett on this blog is a little sad.
    If I was her I would not bother to answer anything.
    Next thing you know it will all be Gomery, Gomery, Gomery.
    Lets actually discuss what she is talking about in her post.

    By Blogger Aristo, at 3:32 p.m.  

  • hey aristo,

    go ahead.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 3:38 p.m.  

  • On the topic of the vote, I don't think it's fair to say that those who voted for are unprincipled and those who voted against aren't. Or vice versa.

    The Liberals who voted against extending the mission may have had objections on voting on a motion with no details or plan. Or they may have felt Canadian troops are better served in Darfur than Afghanistan.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 4:07 p.m.  

  • OK, I will repeat what some have asked here already.

    Dr Bennett given the record of failure on the part of the Martin government to deal with any aspects of these issues can you give us one positive concrete step/policy/action that you would put forward to deal with Citizen Engagement?

    2)How do we know that "practice what we preach" is not hollow rhetoric ala Martin but rather you have substantive plans to follow through on these ideas.

    By Blogger Aristo, at 4:09 p.m.  

  • All,

    I'd really like to see if Bennett would come on here and post some rebuttles. I don't think any of us are being "trolls" I am simply interested in why she voted against the mission, how she supports democratic reform now, but didn't speak up under the Martin government when she was in cabinet.

    As for Scott Tribe, the EASY way out is to throw George Bush's name around like a rag-doll whenever left-wingers want to scare people. "Bush-style" debate and all this garbage. I'm interested in facts not fiction Scotty. George Bush had nothing to do with this debate, or with the vote. Get over it.

    Anywho, very interested to see if Carolyn replies to some of the comments on this blog. It was a great idea for her to guest blog, I'd love to see her stick to it.

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 4:29 p.m.  

  • sorry, but how can someone talk about democratic deficits and use such hyperbolic language like Dr. Bennett's home-raised children are future criminals?

    In fact, I actually believe she may have some kernel of a thought behind that.

    But, she chose not to engage the debate constructively. She chose to insult the families of nearly 50% of children in Canada. She chose to pursue a divisive discourse.

    How do we shrink the democratic deficit if everytime someone disagrees with the Liberal Party they are cast as evil, non-patriotic, abominations that should be exiled to Hans Island?

    As for last nights vote - don't get me started.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 4:37 p.m.  

  • Riley:

    George Bush has everything to do with the debate when Stephen Harper accuses those who voted against the mission or who have questions about what Harper proposed as being "against the troops". This is, as I said, what the Republicans did and still try to do to those who question the Iraq debacle.

    And then folks come on here and have the gall to criticize Bennett and the other Libeals who voted against the motion as being "partisan"

    Talk about pot calling the kettle black.

    By the way Riley, I'm one of those "lefties" who supported sending the troops to Afghanistan, and I've no particular objection to them staying 2 years longer - I'm just taking issue with how the Tories went about doing it trying to use it to their political advantage and simultaneously trying to sweep it under the rug as an issue.

    By Blogger Oxford County Liberals, at 4:54 p.m.  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Dale Kirby, at 4:56 p.m.  

  • Don't worry about the vote Carolyn, some Canadians are capable of thinking for themselves and appreciate keeping a bush-dog under leash. Harper is barking well to Bush's command and he'll get a fair bit more obedience training from George so it's good to know someone will stand up for Canada.

    By Blogger foottothefire, at 4:57 p.m.  

  • Did Harpo break any promises today? As of yesterday, he was 2 4 2.

    By Blogger Dale Kirby, at 4:57 p.m.  

  • You know something Scott, in the United States they speak english too. Are you suggesting that any words Bush uses can't be used by Canadians? The debate and vote were just that; a debate and vote. WHo cares when they were scheduled it's not like the Afghan mission is breaking news. Good politicians vote on principle, the likes of Bennett vote on partisan aspirations. You either support the mission, or you don't. You can't say I support it but not tonight cause we didn't have enough time to discuss. Folks, we deployed there FOUR years ago... not enough time to learn about Afghanistan by now?

    Also, I say this as a proud Chretien Liberal but anybody who starts accusing Harper of breaking promises never read the Liberal Red Book of 1993. I mean seriously folks, who's the pot and who's the kettle here?

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 5:15 p.m.  

  • Ms. Bennett: the correct spelling is "allons-y" (hyphen!). Back to those French books for you, eh?

    By Blogger George, at 5:35 p.m.  

  • She didn't mean all Canadian parents, the reference was to those offsproings of Conservatives. (It must hurt giving birth to a conservative - fat head and all.)

    By Blogger foottothefire, at 6:04 p.m.  

  • "Typical right wing Chicken Hawks love war, but they would never think of signing up to fight."

    Everyone is looking forward to the left wing signing up for the mission in Sudan. We're going to miss Layton and Keith Martin. And you might want to lay off the "Chicken Hawk" phrase condidering Bill Graham's preferences.

    By Blogger nuna d. above, at 6:09 p.m.  

  • Talk About the Law of Unintended Consequences...
    Carolyn Bennett was a Founder of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada. She promised to work within the government to bring fair treatment to those poisoned by the Red Cross and Health Canada.
    Then she abandoned the victims to vote against a Reform Party motion to compensate these people harmed by the government.
    She begged delegates at the Hep C AGM to not be activists, and then she turned her back and got back in Chretien's pocket.

    By Blogger Lemon, at 6:10 p.m.  

  • A TV commentator at the time said she looked like she had swallowed a live rat...
    Sounds kinda cannibalistic...
    If ya don't know how you'd vote, then you aren't a person of conviction either. (With all respect).

    By Blogger Lemon, at 6:44 p.m.  

  • they say we Tory bloggers are bad, but we're aren't talking about how hard people get whipped!

    did she get "whipped hard" last night?

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 7:27 p.m.  

  • "firstly....on my vote...last night's 6 hour debate and vote on something so important...something Holland debated for months....with it's citizens exactly what we mean by democratic deficit...."

    Oh. And you did exactly what to address that issue while sitting in PMPM's cabinet, or before when sitting on Da Liddle Guy's back bench? I don't recall any "debate with its citizens" in Canada over Afghanistan until the 'take notice' debate last November.

    How long have we been in Afgahanistan? How long did you ignore the questions you are claiming need to be addressed now?

    By Blogger deaner, at 8:18 p.m.  

  • I have never voted against my principles !!! I continued fighting for Hep C ... and as soon as I was in cabinet I was able to help change the policy ....I should blog the Hep C story..
    You have a bad memory - unless your principles were to betray the Hep C Victims. I was there, Dr. Bennett, and you did nothing in cabinet to change the policy. It was public pressure, and Da Bosses desire to get the story off the front pages."

    By Blogger Lemon, at 8:50 p.m.  

  • Well let me just say that a bunch of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

    You've taken a post that should have created discussion about the issue at hand - and have once again turned it into a sniping match between Liberals and Conservatives. Or between supporters of one leader over another.

    YOU are the people who give politics a bad name.

    By Blogger Shawn, at 9:14 p.m.  

  • Dr. Bennett,

    I really appreciate you coming on here to retort some of our comments. It shows some gusto I'll give you that and you deserve credit.

    However your comments on the vote are pretty hollow. Afghanistan is nothing new. It's also the first time we had a vote on the issue. It is the THIRD time we have had a debate on the subject however and I fail to see how so many "questions remain".

    Furthermore, since all house leaders of each party AGREED to the vote and debate, how was it an abuse of parliament? Did you not know we were in Afghanistan? Did the Liberals not agree to a debate and vote? Was this the first time we've discussed Afghanistan?

    Finally, since you don't vote against your principles, what are yours on our foreign policy? Do you not support our mission in Afghanistan or were you simply voting AGAINST Harper?

    Again, I really appreciate you taking the time to address these comments. I did not notice you speak during last nights vote but I may have missed it.

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 9:50 p.m.  

  • Thanks for taking the time to respond Carolyn,

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 10:30 p.m.  

  • Thank Dr. Bennett like I said I do appreciate your comments and it's pretty admirable to say the least that you're commenting from your Blackberry...

    just don't go giving away stock tips to baystreet like Brison.. haha oops! Just so you know, you rank WAYYYY above him and Volpe on my list of leadership candidates. You at least have commupance!

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 10:42 p.m.  

  • There's just something about Dr. Bennett's comments that make me think of Scott Brison, mere days before the income trust story...

    Anyways, Dr. Bennett, I'd like to bring up a commentary that includes a delectable quote from you a couple weeks ago:

    Human Resources Minister Diane Finley slammed Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett, who had dismissed the government plan to create child-care spaces as inadequate, for implying in a television interview that parents who want to raise their children at home will be “bringing up future criminals.”
    Ms. Bennett, a feisty family doctor who is seeking the leadership of the Liberal party, insisted research shows that for every dollar spent on early learning and childhood, “we will save $7 later in special education and corrections, and you know that.”

    You really said that eh? I was raised at home, I turned out OK and I don't need any special education training. Same with all of my sisters, none of whom have a criminal record either. I'm pretty sure that my cousins who were raised at home aren't mentally deficient or escaped convicts either. Now, we McAdams are a special and exceptional bunch, no doubt about that, but to suggest that a generation of dumbasses and criminals is in the offing because the rest of the young Canadians out there don't get to go to a fancy government-run daycare is not only presumptuous but it is insulting to every parent. Why doesn't you just bring up the "beer and popcorn" line that has served your party so well in the recent past?
    It is this type of "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" attitude that really puts me off. I remarked to a couple of colleagues during the election campaign that it was if Canada woke up one morning and decided to have a national daycare program as an urgent necessity. I don't buy it. Your party has made it a crusade since January 24th to have a "national day care program;" where was all this pomp and circumstance in the 11 years you had a majority government or the two years in which you had a minority government?
    Parents have been experts at raising kids a lot longer than the researchers have been devising ways to raise kids. Don't want to put your kids in state-run daycare? Might as well arrest you now for harbouring a soon-to-be-known criminal. I don't even have a kid yet, but maybe I'll raise him/her at home. Perhaps you'd have the RCMP launch a pre-emptive strike and just put me in jail now and save the trouble? Give me a break!
    The Liberals have this outrage that the Conservative plan for child care only gives parents $1200 a year so that they can make their choice; it's not meant to be a 100% subsidy, that's not how Conservatives (neo-liberal economists) operate, and all those rich parents in Vancouver & Toronto with double incomes and massive houses and luxury cars who are complaining about the high costs of their daycare centre are missing the point entirely. Maybe instead of adding the extra bathroom in the guest house they could focus more on their children's development? I don't have kids, but if I did, I'd be more than happy to receive the Harper kiddie bucks and make my own decisions, say thanks for the extra help, and be on my way to the bank to drop the money into an RESP so that my kid can go to university (which reminds me, thanks for not putting enough money into post-secondary education), than have to be compelled to drop my kid off at some multi-billion dollar government entity. What happened to the days when Liberals didn't feel it was their duty to interfere in the bedrooms of Canadians? Now it's the whole house they want to get involved with.
    Further, given that you are a declared candidate in the Liberal leadership race, you're risking alienating that segment of the Liberal Party who may not believe that just because the government isn't babysitting their kids, the little ones are going to turn into criminals. I was always on the right wing of the party when I was a member, and if I heard a comment like that you can bet you wouldn't be getting my support. Since I'm no longer a member, you don't have it anyways but, along with your vote in Parliament last night you've certainly shot yourself in the foot with some who may have otherwise.
    It is interesting that you bring up the already-cliched line that you had only six hours to debate on extending the Afghanistan mission. If that was and is such a problem for you, why didn't you insist that your caucus colleagues and allies not waste at least an hour of said debate by raising that very point countless times? Every single time somebody made the argument that there were only six hours, they took time away from that six hours to actually debate. Do you not see the inconsistency in dragging out that line?

    Thanks for coming out and making yourself available for the blogging community, I look forward to hearing a response from you.

    By Blogger RGM, at 10:57 p.m.  

  • must admit, Dr. Bennett appears to enjoy seeing us fumble around. Quite leaderly, if you ask me. (Even if her thoughts on at-home child-rearing are much too hostile for me to stomach).

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 11:03 p.m.  

  • Well glad to see Dr. Bennett take the time to respond and engage in debate here. I certainly don't get a sense of someone who feels superior or owed power and leadership.

    She's not the candidate I'm supporting, but I'm impressed.

    By Blogger Shawn, at 11:56 p.m.  

  • Please, Ms. Bennett, improve on your French spelling!

    By Blogger George, at 12:10 a.m.  

  • Dr. Bennett -- sometime constituent of yours who volunteered for Peter Kent's campaign during this last go-around.

    I'm impressed by your willingness to face the sometimes-harsh crowd of commenters in the blogosphere. Best of luck in the leadership race.

    [I'm sticking by Harper and the Conservatives. But it's nice to see someone who's willing to put herself out there.]

    By Blogger The Tiger, at 12:54 a.m.  

  • Carolyn, as usual you've evaded a very important question, given your well-orchestrated anguish about the lack of strong, experienced women in politics.

    Why didn't you speak up for democracy and women when Sheila Copps was getting the shaft from within her own party?

    By Blogger Raymaker, at 1:09 a.m.  

  • Ms. Bennett wrote:
    //firstly....on my vote...last night's 6 hour debate and vote on something so important...something Holland debated for months....with it's citizens exactly what we mean by democratic deficit.... last night's vote was an abuse of parliament...//

    Neither the Chretien or Martin allowed a vote at all.

    Sending troops to war is not a frivolous decision. A few short months ago, you were part of a Cabinet and party that committed Canadian troops to a war. A few short months later with your vote last night, "Oops...we made a mistake".

    How can a person (this applies to several of the candidates) who so frivolously commits troops to war be considered competent to be leader of Canada?

    Yes...Harper was playing games, but he offered Parliament more than the Chretien and Martin governments did, by offering a vote. If the war is such a bad idea, why were you a member of the Martin cabinet?
    Why did you (and Dion, and Volpe) not resign from cabinet when he committed Canada to an expanded military mission in Afghanistan.

    Harper gave a simple leadership test to the Liberal candidates. The Liberals committed Canada to a military role in Afghanistan. The vote last night asked the question, when the Liberals made that commitment, was it a frivolous decision or a serious one.

    By Blogger godot10, at 8:41 a.m.  

  • Matt's post above is entirely accurate.

    We've been in Afghanistan for a while now this is nothing new. While we've only been in Khandahar for less than a year, it too is not new. Each party agreed to this debate and vote.

    Matt's also right about the "Bush bad" argument. How sad is it that OUR own commitments are derided solely based on being linked to our neighbor. Can we not argue issues based on our own values and opinions without pulling "Bush" into everything as a catch-all defence?

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 10:52 a.m.  

  • Carolyn, for the third time:

    Where were you when Sheila Copps was getting the shaft in the spring of 2004?

    It's an important question considering the dual issues involved are so integral to your core message.

    C'mon. Don't be a coward.

    By Blogger Raymaker, at 1:05 p.m.  

  • As if Carolyn Bennett knows how to post a comment. You guys are arguing with one of her staffers.

    "..... ..... ........"

    By Blogger Michael Fox, at 7:58 p.m.  

  • Calgary,

    you are just spreading her crap, the assumption was she would answer questions and I see none of that.

    Sure it was Carolyn making a statement but I'd like to see her truly debate a subject with someone who is living through the crap she gives us...

    this is not worth finishing, I can read Carolyn's crap anyday.

    By Blogger Sara, at 9:39 p.m.  

  • feeling hungry? order a freshly baked pizza call 020 8341 1115 now!

    By Blogger smartbuild, at 12:37 a.m.  

  • feeling hungry? order a freshly baked pizza call 020 8341 1115 now!

    By Blogger smartbuild, at 12:52 a.m.  

  • feeling hungry? order a freshly baked pizza call 020 8341 1115 now!

    By Blogger smartbuild, at 1:20 a.m.  

  • Hi, you have a great blog here, congratulations.

    I have a whole food market houston blog. It pretty much covers whole food market houston related stuff.

    Please take a look when you have a moment

    By Blogger editor, at 6:26 a.m.  

  • By Blogger raybanoutlet001, at 11:43 p.m.  

  • By Blogger yanmaneee, at 10:24 p.m.  

  • By Blogger yanmaneee, at 11:35 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home