harper's irrational reality

Excellent article by Murray Dobbin in The Tyee.  Should read the whole piece. 

Real insight as to what harper is, why he does what he does -

Dismissive to the point of contempt, Harper gives the impression that the facts are little more than an irrelevant annoyance -- just another opposition tactic aimed at interfering with his agenda.  

...Creating the new irrational reality is Stephen Harper's great re-engineering project. Social engineering was the right's favourite epithet for all the years it was in the political wilderness. Libertarians like Harper really believe that the so-called welfare state was the result of a virtual conspiracy of Liberal (and liberal) politicians and humanist bureaucrats. As such, turning back the clock on the activist state is legitimate even if the vast majority now support it.

Dobbin's article is especially good because he moves on the solutions for Canadians and the opposition who do not want our country and lives re-shaped according to harper's messed up psyche.

The appeal to the irrational will not work if the economy begins to tank. This is one area where Opposition forces need to focus and not get distracted by Harper's efforts to keep his base happy.

In harper's world, we are Legion

There's harper, the god who knows better than we do what is good for us.  He makes some rules but being god is himself above them.  If he lies, it's not a lie.  It's simply that we can't presume to know his ways.  They are mysterious, and they are all part of his plan.

To be allowed to bask in the radiance of his glory, followers can sin, lie, cheat, but they must be completely obedient and loyal, and love him above all others, without question or criticism.

Then there is the devil, and he is Legion.  That's everyone else.

harper needs Legion because he can then take credit for all that's good, while blaming Legion for anything he messes up.

harper promised Senate reform.  Still promises it.  Gains support from his base by promising it, and if it ever comes, will take credit for it.

Meanwhile, rather than reforming it, he uses it for personal political gain by appointing cronies not only to keep their butt licking loyalty, but to have another powerful tool, paid for by Legion, to shove through his godly will.

Sure, the optics are bad, sure his recent appointments are so contrary to what he promises and so blatantly partisan and wasteful, but one who sits high in harper-god's favour tells us it's really Legion's fault, and it's up to Legion to reform the Senate.

Mr. Kenney responded to criticism, notably by some provincial premiers, of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision to appoint three losing candidates in the May 2 election to the upper chamber of Parliament.

Critics said the move shows the Tories can’t be trusted to reform the chamber.  Speaking on CTV’s Question Period, Mr. Kenney said: “(The provinces) can fix this by bringing in provincial elections for senators.”

So harper-god wants to reform the Senate, but it's really the provinces holding things up.

As to needing three more ass kissers appointed to the Senate under the pretense harper-god needs a majority there to reform the Senate (when he already has a majority there), we simply can't presume to know his ways.

Hey media - about that “spouse who stays in a dysfunctional relationship under the misguided notion” he can change...

I was such a spouse, so you can fuck right off when you whine and use that as an excuse for having backed harper.  Sure, now that his atrocities are so in everyone’s face that you can’t hide his bestiality or your own black eyes, you seek to gather your shredded slef-esteem by pointing out how utterly vile his actions are since being elected, but your garments are so threadbare from years and years of defending him it’s ludicrous.

And you dare blame us for adding to your beatings.  Us, the ones who have been trying to shake some sense of responsibility into you for years.

   T hose who are now beating up the media, including the media themselves, for their supposedly off-base and out-of-touch coverage of the federal election campaign are missing a key element.  It's how good Stephen Harper truly is at ruthless, calculating politics.

   If the media made any mistake, it wasn't to focus on Harper's cynical calculations leading up to and during the campaign.   But if media made a mistake, it's the same one made by the spouse who stays in a dysfunctional relationship under the misguided notion that "Everyone else thinks he's a great guy," and "Somehow I can change him."

We never missed that key element, fuckwads.  How dare you?  How often have we written about that very thing.  Warned, pleaded, sought whatever means we could to expose what was never really concealed?  Wrote lengthy pieces supported with a great deal of research and careful links to information going back years?  How often did we on the Net challenges harper’s claims and bring out his ruthlessness when you failed to do so?

You made the monster.  And you can’t claim the abuse spouse excuse.  With knowledge comes responsibility, for one thing.  You had greater access to information than we had, and we figured it out and acted accordingly.  You are an industry that is supposed to look at and report things objectively, not get all involved like a wife struggling to hold together the fantasy of a marriage.

And “everyone else thinks he’s a great guy?”  Excuse me?  Hello?  Hell-fucking-o?  How many years has steve been barely holding 33% in the polls?  How many articles did your soret write about people just not trusting him or warming to him?  How many of us - you know, the ones who make up the rest of “everybody” shouted how utterly dangerous the man was then and how much worse he’d be with a majority?

And finally, you claim you thought that “somehow you can change him?”  Are you really so unprofessional?  Of course you are, and you prove it again with this whiny piece where you claim it isn’t your fault you sucked up to the tyrant, endorsed him, played not into his hands but right along with him, willingly.

How can a spineless bunch like you change your master?  You bowed and crawled and bobbed in his dust for a few crumbs, grumbling now and then but still parroting the lines he fed you.

You were his creatures, and from this article and other recent ones, it appears many of you still are.

One could bemoan the promotion of the thuggish John Baird to Foreign Affairs or Tony Clement as Treasury Board chair, but it should be noted that these two are at least among Harper's most politically talented ministers.

Really?  Talented? 

Ministers of modest competence -say a Gerry Ritz in Agriculture -can remain in cabinet as long as they are willing to be partisan pit bulls who savagely defend Harper's policy that bump up against the interests even of stakeholders in their portfolio.        

Modest competence?  Ritz? 

Excuse me for not linking to the proof of the absurdities of your statements, but really, what’s the point?  You have no respect for truth anyway.

Back to that abused spouse who is far, far better than you guys can ever be.  Once she realizes the douchebag was playing her as he abused her, she pulls it together, if not for herself, then for those she’s responsible for.  She gets informed, gets help, gets the hell out of there.  And having done that, she assesses the past relationship and looks at her role in it, determined never to make the same mistakes.  She doesn’t whine and blame others for her part in the bad marriage or in propping up the douchebag.

She doesn’t claim all men women are as dysfunctional as she was around the douchebag.  Rather, she looks to them to understand how they could see through the prick while she failed to in order that she learn a better approach in sizing up people in her life.

As someone who lived through a dysfunctional, abusive relationship, I learned many things.  One of them is that the douchebag is not the only tyrant out there.  You learn to watch for signs.  You may think I’m talking about the master strategist whose butt you have your noses up, but I’m talking about you, the media.  You are useless, opportunistic sycophants, lazy on top of all the rest, pompous, self-righteous, and far to quick to blame others while doing little to reform your own behaviour.

So don’t expect me, or the many like me who are so very angry in the role you played and continue to play in propping up and excusing harper to have any belief in what you write, to think you play a role of any value to the building of our nation, that you have any respect for truth, and that you are likely to change.

We have dealt with the abuse and know that types like harper, and types like you don’t change.  You don’t have the emotional or psychological equipment for that.

About that media speculation over steve relaxing, spontaneously turning into something akin to human

I’d say giving every single Canadian an unabashed fuck you before the House even sits, and not having the courtesy of announcing it personally should pretty much slap all of you incredibly stupid people upside the head.

(photo)


In the party where liars and criminals are elevated, why not losers?  Even two-time losers?

Stephen Harper wasted no time in bringing back three defeated candidates, appointing former Quebec cabinet minister Josée Verner to the Senate and reappointing Larry Smith and Fabian Manning.

Smith and Fabian - you remember?  Those two harper appointed senators who used their time as senators to prep for their MP campaigns, quit the senate to run, then were rejected by voters?

Can you think of a more unapologetic screw you to all of us?

Can anyone seriously still doubt that steve has absolutely no sense of ethics?

This is what we face for the next four years.  Longer, much longer if the press in particular keeps treating him like a mildly disobedient golden child, gently chiding him while bragging to all who will listen just how terrific and oh so special he is. 

Oh...and you journalists who want to make amends by keeping tabs?  Kind of need access to the guy you all endorsed for that.

Minutes after he finished answering questions from reporters about his cabinet shuffle, the Prime Minister’s Office sent out a release announcing the three appointments. So Mr. Harper did not have to address the issue in public.

I am anxiously waiting to hear about steve’s plans for senate reform.  Really.  Just so excited.

The new Canada

Now Canada can be hated for war-mongering as well.

As the Libyan war enters its third month the Defence Department has quietly ordered more than 1,300 laser-guided smart bombs.

These are for the Libyan campaign.  The one where Canada’s involvement was supposed to be limited to securing air space.

Of course, king steve isn’t telling his precious citizens what we are paying for those bombs.  So let’s go to the U.S., as usual, to see what we will be paying through some fucking tax or other to kill a bunch of brown people -

John Pike, director of the Washington-based defence think-tank GlobalSecurity.org said the smart bomb cost about $100,000 each.

That’s 130 million, over and above what we have already spent on what we have dropped so far.  And that isn’t likely to be the end of the dollar cost in kicking Libya’s ass.  Being all tough on the world stage.  Trying to show big, tough US of A that we can fight, too.

"What kind of war did Canada think it was going to fight? Did they think this war was going to be over quickly or that the Americans would drop all the bombs?" (Said Pike)

Well, Mr. Pike, yes.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said shortly after the bombing campaign started in mid-March that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's days were numbered. "He simply will not last very long," Harper predicted.

Harper is, after all, a master strategist.  He said we would not have a recession and...ok...he said the Chalk River nuclear plant would not fail and...oh...

Anyway, forget all that.  Winning a majority clears the slate.  Tabula rasa.

So harper can start fresh with a bunch of new wrong calls.

But Gadhafi's forces are holding their own against the largely untrained rebel forces and the ongoing NATO bombing campaign.

As for that promise to engage Canada only in securing air space -

Britain's top military official, Gen. Sir David Richards, recently called for an increase in the bombing campaign, suggesting NATO should start hitting Libyan infrastructure. Shortly after he made that comment, NATO jets bombed a key oil terminal in the country.

Nice.  Maybe all the people working at the terminal were rabid, murdering Gadhafi supporters.

Oh, fuck off.

Canada’s national media now have four years to redeem themselves by keeping tabs on the strongest government the country has seen in nearly a decade.

You need a soul to be redeemed, you bunch of whores.  Post-election news shows that hasn't changed.


Not much repentance there when you blame others, anyway -

Ms. Hébert criticized social media as a political distraction that side-tracked discussions of ground level issues and party platform details.

If you journalists would do your fucking jobs the way you should, social media would not feel so inclined to bring up things like obvious lies we are being told, showing the truth behind the false claims, explaining why certain election claims are a bunch of crap.

So shove your whining up your collective asses.  As for keeping tabs on the strongest, most dictatorial government Canada has seen yet, you simpering sycophants who helped put it in power haven't a chance:

The prevailing view that emerged was that political reporting would become more challenging and more vital in the next four years of the Conservative majority government.

Mr. Alboim suggested that there is less of an incentive for bureaucrats to blow the whistle on governmental impropriety under a majority, adding that the opposition parties’ severely limited ability to raise issues of accountability and transparency in the House would necessitate more in-depth reportage.

Be afraid.

The party that thrives on spreading false fears is engineering a true reason to be afraid.  But of course, they won’t open this piece of legislation for debate, nor will they be honest to Canadians as to how it will affect us.

The package is benignly nicknamed “lawful access,” but isn’t benign.  If the Conservatives move forward with it, it would feature a three-pronged approach focused on information disclosure, mandated surveillance technologies, and new police powers.   

(Emphasis mine)

The first prong mandates the disclosure of Internet provider customer information without court oversight...The new system would require the disclosure of customer name, address, phone number, e-mail address, Internet protocol address, and a series of device identification numbers.

The second prong requires Internet providers to re-work their networks to allow for real-time surveillance...These include the power to intercept communications, to isolate the communications to a particular individual, and to engage in multiple simultaneous interceptions.

Having obtained customer information without court oversight and mandated Internet surveillance capabilities, the third prong creates a several new police powers designed to obtain access to the surveillance data.

Lawful access raises genuine privacy and free speech concerns, particularly given the fact the government has never provided adequate evidence on the need for it, it has never been subject to committee review, and it would cost millions to implement yet there has been no disclosure on who would actually pay for it. Given this, it is not surprising that every  privacy commissioner in Canada has signed a joint letter expressing their concerns.

Not only is the substance problematic, but the attempt to fast track lawful access virtually guarantees that it will not be fully vetted. For example, over the past few weeks there has been mounting concern that the legislation would also create new criminal liability for hyperlinking to content that incites hatred and for using anonymous or false names online.

As we cheered on countries who used social media to spread the desire for change and allowed people to organize, our own government plans to control freedom of speech here, on the Net in particular.

This is no big surprise since it has been one of the few areas where harper could not control dissent.  Social media has not been kind to him, and with good reason.  With nearly every newspaper supporting the harper regime, it has been left to the Net users to expose the serious abuses of his government and the obvious direction in which he is taking our country against the will of most Canadians.

Youtube has been especially unfriendly to the master strategist.  It is a powerful social engine due to brief messaging tightly scripted, presented with visuals.

A few months ago, several articles came out about limitations public servants are subject to during elections.  While the purpose of the legislation is to assure that public servants remain non-partisan and take a moment to assess their involvement with politics before over-stepping bounds, such limitations were deemed undemocratic, stifling public servants’ rights to be actively engaged in politics.

This access act would stifle every Canadian and do so without justification, without providing those silenced with recourse, without oversight agencies protecting individual privacy or freedom of speech rights.

Meanwhile, the harper government has just made sure it can deny access to its own doings.

In a major decision, the court decided that Canada’s Access to Information Act does not apply to the records controlled by the people at the top of the government’s power pyramid: the prime minister, cabinet ministers, and their staffs.  And though the current Conservative government promised in the 2006 election campaign to ensure that ministers’ offices would be subject to the access law, it fought that principle in court.

We can see where this is going.  The harper regime can operate in secrecy as it plans major changes that affect us all, while any person who questions or criticizes - as is not only our right, but our responsibility in a democracy - will be silenced, perhaps even charged.

With a majority, harper will slide the lawful access legislation through easily since there is no longer an opposition that can vote him down.  He owns the Senate majority as well, so forget sober second thought or in-depth review working out the legalities or fairness of the act.  Harper will bury this in another omnibus crime Bill that will allow even the little bit of debate in the House to turn to the usual harper dishonesty of criticizing opposition to parts of the Bill as criticism to the more benign parts he puts in for window dressing.


And silencing dissent, stopping the sharing of information, making criticism criminal...that's just the beginning.  There are reasons why leaders like harper want to control information and discussion at all levels.  They want to make sure we don't have any chance of opposing what he knows will be highly unpopular changes to our country, our way of life, our very rights in order to pursue his own very narrow, backwards, extremist view of what Canada should be and how Canadians should live, even at very personal levels of religion, marriage, rights, and how we spend our money.

Smoke ‘em while you got ‘em, because our days of free speech and activism on the Net are numbered.  The very people who have been resisting this type of tyranny will be the first to be silenced.

Maybe if you say “I wish” three times and there really is a Never-Never Land the Liberal party will cease to exist

But that’s not the case.  The losses the party suffered in the last election and being shoved into third place has finally forced it to do what it should have done in 2006: take time to listen to what Canadians want and make changes accordingly.

Why be bound by their old regulations that state they need to select a new leader within six months?  There should be flexibility to allow for unusual circumstances like the current ones.  The party needs to examine how it selects its leaders, needs to engage party members more in the selection, and right now it needs to take a close look at what the party will represent, so it would be ridiculous to select a leader until that is done.

The Liberal party needs to take its time rebuilding or it will grab onto the same old problems that drove so many supporters elsewhere.  It has a great opportunity to determine what it should represent to Canadians since there won’t be another election for at least four years and the NDP carries the weight of official opposition. 

The party needed weeding out and needed to be so shaken that it must face the reality that it can’t continue to be the same party our parents may have supported.  It has a chance now to become a new, exciting party that can capture the hope and imagination of Canadians.

I had pulled my support awhile ago because it was leaning too far rights and had become stale, grabbing onto the same old ways and people.   I actually have some hope, now, that it will finally change.  We’ll see.  I read that membership is up, so some people must figure it has a future.

The party needs to show it is committed not only to reform in its own ranks, but beyond as well if it wants to give voters a party that offers hope and change.  This would be a good place to start -

Advocates of voting reform want some form of proportional representation that they say would more fairly represent the wishes of voters than the traditional firstpast-the-post system where the winner of the most seats forms the government.

So you voted conservative because you hate taxes...

You believe your hard earned money should not go into government coffers.  You are outraged at being gouged by governments through taxes.  Harper is supposed to fix all of that because harper believes there is no sch thing as a good tax, and you believe him.  Harper keeps his promises, right?

May 2004:  Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper said he wouldn't apply the GST to the portion of gas prices that exceeds 85 cents a litre.  The move wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime, he explained, because there's no way budgets were calculated with such high prices in mind.

"These are revenues that no one foresaw even a few months ago. We are only depriving Ottawa of a massive windfall it didn't count on and that it doesn't need," Harper said in Winnipeg on Monday.

A Conservative government would also eliminate the tax-on-tax that drives many motorists crazy, he said. The federal excise tax currently rolled into pre-GST fuel prices would be made GST-exempt.  "I think the main thing is that Canadians know that their government isn't trying to gouge them at the same time they're having trouble affording the cost of filling their tank."

Sounds good.  Problem is, we passed the 85 cent marker a long time ago.  I know steve has been busy undermining democracy and all, but now that he has a majority and doesn’t have to spend so much time creating attack ads and finding ways to circumvent legitimate Parliamentary opposition or legislation, he’ll get right on that 7 year old promise, right?  The 2% GST cut doesn't come close to relief on gas prices that have nearly doubled since his promise was made.

If the Conservatives keep their promise to balance the federal government's books by 2014, they'll have to give partial credit to drivers paying plenty to fill their gas tanks.

"It's not just the oil companies that are doing well out of this thing," says economist Andrew Graham of Queen's University in Kingston, Ont.  "It's the government (too) because its tax revenues are going to increase because of what we're paying (to fill) the gas tank."  Graham suggests that shot of revenue is part of the solution to the $40 billion federal deficit.

Oh...

So remember every time you gas up and are outraged at what you have to pay, you voted conservative.

At least call him on it.

And of course, there’s no point in asking the press why they aren’t reminding harper of this promise.  After all, they endorsed the prick.

Andrew Coyne plays let’s pretend

Let’s pretend nearly every major paper, having endorsed harper in the last election, was being neutral and responsible.

Let’s pretend that harper keeps his promises.

Let’s pretend harper is not a control freak by nature and that now that he has a majority, he will suddenly become reasonable, respect democracy, no longer use whatever means - legal or not - at his disposal to stay in power.

A third priority: democratic reform.  This may seem unlikely, given the Tories’ abysmal record to date. But a majority might soften Stephen Harper’s control-freak tendencies: moreover, a reform package might make an attractive late-term offering, as the next election approaches.

But look through their past platforms, and you find some other interesting nuggets. Banning partisan advertising by government departments (heavens, does that still go on?). Cleaning up party nomination and leadership races, including a system of voter registration. Ensuring that candidates are the choice of their local riding association, not party leaders. Making all votes in the House of Commons, outside of the budget and main estimates, free votes. And this, from 2004: “We will also look at new proposals for allowing greater direct democracy and changing the electoral system used to elect members of Parliament.” Perhaps a royal commission, reporting back in two years?

But a government that accomplished even half of these reforms could make a fair claim to have earned a second majority.

Dude, he won his Parliamentary (but not real) majority by controlling the media (that includes you, Coyne), by contravening TB regulations and legislation and using departmental sites for partisan purposes, whipping votes, intimidating his own members, ousting any who opposed him, disengaging the public from the democratic process, insisting over and over that Canadians don’t care about how democracy functions.

Harper won the last election largely by breaking the rules and encouraging public apathy and ignorance.  Having his prize at last, can you seriously hypothesize that he will now risk it by allowing any voice but his own to be heard?

But you know that already, since you are one of his political whores.

Friday nite ode to the critters

go at it, guys

About those "kids..."

First of all, people should stop referring to them as kids.  The young politicians elected on May 2nd are adults.  Young adults, but certainly not kids.  This word difference matters because it is causing people to mix two very separate issues:  age and qualifications.

Some use the term "kids" to imply that they aren't qualified simply because of their age.  That's, of course, nonsense.  Many younger people have managed to pack a lot of experience, education, and knowledge into a few years.

We also have some people using the term "kids" to excuse things that have nothing to do with age: "the kids are alright," "give the kids a chance," all implying that any criticism is due to their age and/or should be tempered because of their age.

You can't have it both ways.  If age doesn't matter - and I don't believe it should - then the same expectations when it comes to qualifications for new candidates should apply to them as they would to any newcomer.  If you start excusing them because they are "kids," then you are saying that they are not as capable as the real gown-ups, in which case they shouldn't be representing Canadians in Parliament.

Another problem with going on about the kids is that serious issues get lost in the whole quit picking on the kids thing.  As kirbycairo pointed out to me, the problems with token candidates in write-off ridings would not have come out as it did if so many of the winners had not been so young.

That's true, but it doesn't mean we should dodge the problems that surfaced (nor is kirbycairo suggesting that).  There are problems with parties running candidates who aren't properly screened, not suitable to the riding they are running in, candidates who don't bother campaigning, and lack of engagement with and from the public.  Those aren't age issues, and they aren't limited to any one party.

As for young people running and winning, terrific.  We should demand the same from them we would of any candidate, though, or eventually, after a few more elections, overall quality could suffer.

Having younger, qualified politicians is a very good thing.  It encourages more young people to be involved in politics; it helps represent needs and will of the younger segment of society; it delivers a new perspective.

h/t Dammit Janet!  for another example of the invisible candidate phenomenon.  A CPC member, in this case.

“We’ve only seen her photo — is she a real person?”

“I know it’s starting to be a problem. She must come out quickly,” Louiseville Mayor Guy Richard told the Star. “She needs to show herself here. Otherwise the party must quickly make a decision. We are demanding answers.”



And before anyone jumps all over me saying she's just a kid, give her a chance - she's 27 years old.  And age has nothing to do with it. When running in an election, presenting your name as someone who wants to represent a constituency, you should not have to go into hiding to be groomed after the fact.

This is ridiculous.

gee, stevie, I thought you said you weren't going to make any big changes

That didn't take long, did it?


The day after a historic election, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz stirred up a group of farmers by saying that he is pushing to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. In a statement to Global News, he said: “It’s time for Parliament to support Western Canadian farmers’ freedom to market their grain and pass legislation to end the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly.”

And the CONs' idea of giving the farmers freedom is to remove their right to vote on the single-desk mandate of the Wheat Board. 

But (wheat farmer Bill) Toews said that means farmers won’t get fair prices, and jobs will likely be lost.  “Winnipeg has a fair amount to lose, that’s for sure,” Toews said.

Toews said the ultimate decision should not be made in Ottawa.  “It should be farmers that make the decision, not government; we've stressed that over the years,” Toews said.

Sure,  but Big Daddy knows best, and now Big Daddy has a majority and will do as he damn well pleases.

Why I don't want the Liberals to just lay down and die or merge with the NDP

I don't always vote Liberal, and I certainly don't agree with everything they do.  But I have to disagree with what some bloggers are saying about the Liberals and whether or not they should be gobbled up by the Great Cthulhu for all eternity.

It was an environmental activist/lawyer who was instrumental in shaping some positive environmental laws in the U.S. who got me to understand why the centrist view and work is essential in making change.  She explained that you have one group on the right, another on the left, and this great void in between.  The right and left have very different views and interests.  They are the opposite extremes, and unless they meet each other part way, really try to grasp how as passionate and committed they are to what they want and believe, so is the other side to their own views and wants.

You'll never get everyone or even a significant number from the other side to agree to all you want, and they aren't going to win you over either.  Somewhere there needs to be some compromise that both sides can accept, some agreement that will benefit the largest number of people possible.  Without being open to a degree of compromise, we are left with two very different groups constantly battling, sometimes gaining ground only to lose it again.  And a hell of a lot of vicious attacks from both sides.

The hated Liberal party is a centrist party.  It will shift more right at times, and more left other times which is why the conservatives call them socialists (P.E. Trudeau being the biggest bastard pinko of all time) and the NDP saying they are the same as conservatives.

Lots of talk lately about putting partisanship aside.  Well, take a look at our great country and what it has accomplished as far as human rights, strides in equality and quality of life, social programs, financial stability.  It isn't perfect, but people aren't perfect either so it never will be.  But it is still one of the best places to live in the world.  And what party was in power the most over the years we shaped this great country?  As much as the far left and far right hate to admit it, it was the Liberals.  So really, if they are the terrible destructive force that makes people say they should just effing die, why is our country doing as well as it is?

The Liberals didn't shape this country alone, far from it.  Prodded and supported by the NDP, they put through some good legislation.  Prodded and pushed by the conservatives, they did some good things.  And some of the good ideas even came from them.

Because they are a centrist party.

I would never want to see either the conservatives or the NDP fold and die.  They are critical to shaping the range of policies across the spectrum.  And they occasionally take over and shift our country back where it should be and remind Liberals that they have to earn voter confidence like anyone else.  Not a perfect system, but a lot better than the two party, angry, vicious system they have in the U.S.  Can anyone seriously look at the Obama government and say that represents the left?  Eventually, even the left in a two party system will compromise on serious issues or risk never being re-elected.  They have to deal with the realities not only within their own country, but with the world at large.

I'm all for the left uniting to find solutions and to stop the harper bunch for two reasons:  we badly need reform, and the harper party is not the conservative party, not a party that anyone else can work with.  It is intent on changing Canada and Canadians into its own idea of what it thinks we should be based on it's very narrow ideology.  And it has situated itself to do just that, unless the left does work together, get the neo-cons out, and reform our political and electoral systems.

Lots of talk on the Net from the left about working together, but when I read that this party or that party should just die, where's the chance of any cooperation? 

Niles made the following comment to Dammit Janet's post -

Much as I know there's a kneejerk reaction for people to say merge the 'left', isn't that just forcing voters to have fewer choices? Aren't voters resenting that already and just staying home? But short of that, if everyone sulks in their own corner, what changes? 

Exactly, Niles. Not everyone sees conservatives as absolutely wrong in everything, and not everyone thinks the NDP is completely outside of Earth's atmosphere.  There are some who understand that compromise, while not perfect, is necessary if you want to achieve anything in a country that is not an autocracy. I may not share the views of all Canadians, but I do respect their right to have a voice.

Update: Tom Flanagan disagrees with me, so I must be right.

Do the right thing, Layton

Two people whose names appear on the nomination papers for the NDP's newly elected MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau say they never provided their signatures to support her candidacy.

Bad enough that this candidate can't hold an interview in French, never bothered campaigning, and took a trip to Vegas during the election, but if she committed fraud in order to run, Layton needs to oust her and a bi-election should be held.

A lot of people are making light of the rash of candidates - and not all are NDP - who were simply approved so that the party in question had someone representing them in that riding, ridings that were not considered winnable.


That's sloppy, an insult to voters, and not in keeping with a system that is supposed to be based on representation by constituency.


If a party is serious about wanting to represent Canadians energetically, ethically, and to the best of their ability, then they should screen candidates carefully and demand that those candidates perform at a certain level regardless of whether or not they think a riding is winnable.


Seriously.  What the hell is going on?  Are people so afraid of looking like they're NDP haters that they won't point this out?  I'm all for new faces in the House and younger people are refreshing but for Darwin's sake and all that's scientifically sound, it's outrageous that several very inexperienced people ended up in Parliament simply because they were filling empty slots and certain ridings shifted colours unexpectedly.  


We're paying these people.  They should be screened.  They should show some kind of understanding of the system, some political experience even as volunteers, and definitely some history of commitment to the people they hope to represent.


The money is the least of it.  Since these people are going to vote on this that will affect our lives, it is very important that they have the maturity, education, dedication, and ethics to do so.


We all expect that newcomers will have to learn as they go, but this is ridiculous.  They should never be allowed to run without some level of experience in politics.


I wrote a few days ago that lack of experience wasn't that serious,  and that more senior politicians could coach them, but I never expected this number of very inexperienced people, nor this lack of engagement during campaigns.


Accepting these hamburger-helper candidates just to fill slots undermines public engagement as well.  People should be questioning candidates during campaigns.  They should understand local representation.  It's no wonder so many Canadians still think we vote for the Prime Minister.


I saw many comments about other candidates and how poorly they were screened - the racist guy in Quebec, (Liberal), the guy with Tamil ties (CPC), and I agree.  They should not have been allowed to run.  All parties must be held to the same standards.


Some of these newcomers are probably fine, will become very good, but it shouldn't be a game of chance.  They should all meet certain standards.


Damn!

and a few we're so much better off without

Jean Pierre Blackburn, Josee Verner, Lawrence Cannon (!!! :) ), Gary Lunn, Dona Cadman.

Some big losses

I don't mean big names, here, I mean excellent people who are what we can only wish most politicians were like.  Very sad that most of these experienced, dedicated politicians lost to token candidates with no experience who ran little to no campaign.

There are so many, but here are a few that come to mind:

Nicole Demers -  tireless defender of the rights of the underprivileged. 

Gerard Kennedy - the kind of heart any party should have, integrity, intelligence

Richard Nadeau - energetic, passionate, intelligent, defender of the public service and the little guy

Gilles Duceppe - excellent politician with class, integrity, passion.

Raymonde Folco - vocal defender of women and children’s rights

Tony Rota - low profile in the House but worked very hard for his constituents, really grasped that he worked for them

Marlene Jennings - defender of human rights, tough lady

Martha Hall Findlay - integrity, intelligence, balance, strength

Larry Bagnell - another politician who represented his constituents with passion and long, long hours

I'll let this eloquent gent summarize

h/t Impolitical
(might as well keep blogging until harper shuts us down)

so the NDP is going to hold the CONs to account

this should be...interesting.  Because steve responds so well to accusations of wrongdoing, words and threats that can't be backed up with actions.

Welcome to the official opposition.

Where you now get to explain why the opposition is so ineffectual.

And this time, you are up against not only a party that doesn't give a damn about Parliament, procedure, legislation, accountability, transparency, but a majority government as well with a CPC dominated Senate.

And we Canadians get to suffer the consequences as the divide between rich and poor grows, as the very things that help us through dark times are hacked to bits - such as the arts, education, free speech, as we go more and more in debt paying for military equipment we don't need, wars we shouldn't be involved in, prisons that will only increase crime rates.

That's probably why I can't find anything to rejoice over right now.

Dark night, long night, but not eternal

So next time, I will tell you to fuck off if you talk to me about the evils of strategic voting.

For those who grieve tonight because of how a number becomes a majority when it doesn't represent a majority...40:60...

A weakend CPC minority has an upside

Was talking to one o my co-pilots today and she said with things the way they are in the polls right now, she'd rather see a CON minority - much weakened, o course, and this is why:

A weakened CON minority would force the opposition to work together to oust harper through some sort of coalition.  It would also force them to learn to work together and show the public that this is not only possible, but preferable to a dysfunctional CPC minority that refuses to respect Parliament and the validity of the other elected members' votes and input.

Should an NDP (or even Liberal) minority take the day - I add Liberals here because, even though they have no chance this time around, I'd eel the same way about them in the current political climate - then that minority government might be more interested in holding onto power than putting through badly needed changes, and CPC would fight them every step.  They'd also have to deal with a CPC dominated Senate blocking everything, making them looks useless and amateurish.

Having to form some type of coalition would be more likely to bring on reform more quickly as well.  Time will be an issue, and the left won't want things to go back to where a right wing party can rule as a majority with less than 1/3 of the popular vote.

I seriously doubt a weakened harper minority would last more than a few weeks, so harper and co. would be out as well, and Canadians would learn a little more about how Parliament works.

Having said that, I will be dancing in the street tonight if NDP wins with a minority, but in this case, a weakened harper minority won't be the nightmare it has been these past 5 years.

go save democracy

stunned media is clueless

really, is this the photo you'd put along with your endorsement?

Prissy as the pearl clutching bunch that follow him.

let's zoom in on the master strategist's face.

creepy, creepy dude.

“Hard News and Straight Talk for the Tories”

Right.  Sure.

Stunned Media is backing...hang on...here it comes...harper!

Trying to appear unbiased but blowing it completely with ultra-partisan outright lies - poorly written - they offer a stern warning to pevie-stevie:

(I)t's the taxpayers who foot every bill, and Harper must respect this undeniable fact unequivocally.  Otherwise, we will go for his political throat like no dog on a bone ever seen.