Commnet on: Toronto Star, "Political power is national but economic power is globalPolitical power is national but economic power is global", Angelo Persichilli
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/671644
There is only one source of power – people. For example without people the multi-nationals are empty shells with no place to go and nothing to do. The multi-nationals need people to work in their companies. They need people to ‘consume’ their products. Governments and rulers hold office at the ‘please’ of the people. If 15% of the people are animated to remove a government or ruler their days are numbered - time and time again we have seen this illustrated. Wealth is defined in terms of the wants, desires and needs of the people. Power is the ability to get people to do what you want. People do not need governments to extend their reach more internationally, they merely need to stand up and be counted.
29 July, 2009
- Con’d Again!
Posted to: Toronto Star, "Compared with last year's bullish caucus meeting, this week's retreat expected to be more 'grounded', Bruce Campion-Smith, Jul 27, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/672195
If Jim Flaherty says the recession is over then, I suggest everyone hunker down for some more bad times. One need only look at everything Flaherty, Harper and the Cons have been saying for the last two years to conclude if Harper or Flaherty say it, it just isn’t right.
Also, it may be that the economy might expand a bit, but what about all the damage and suffering that has already been, and will be, inflicted. It is something like saying that Katrina is over – maybe, but what about New Orleans. With Harper, Flaherty and the Con’s sink or swim, every person for themselves approach, I would think there is a lot of people in Canada that are not cheering Carney’s proclamation, even if it is not partisan.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/672195
If Jim Flaherty says the recession is over then, I suggest everyone hunker down for some more bad times. One need only look at everything Flaherty, Harper and the Cons have been saying for the last two years to conclude if Harper or Flaherty say it, it just isn’t right.
Also, it may be that the economy might expand a bit, but what about all the damage and suffering that has already been, and will be, inflicted. It is something like saying that Katrina is over – maybe, but what about New Orleans. With Harper, Flaherty and the Con’s sink or swim, every person for themselves approach, I would think there is a lot of people in Canada that are not cheering Carney’s proclamation, even if it is not partisan.
- I want my Canada back
Posted (p.7) to: Globe and Mail, “Four blocks shape Canadian politics”, Jeffery Simpson, 28 Jul.’09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/until-something-changes-the-road-to-majority-is-blocked/article1234181/
In our modern world, polls have replaced entrails readings and “Canadians now tell pollsters that they prefer majority government” is a harbinger of the change in the dynamics manifesting our current political constellation (away from the 4 ‘blocks’ as Simpson calls them).
Underlying this shift is the question that, presumably, a lot of Canadians (2/3rds anyway) are asking themselves: “Isn’t time we stopped the damage being done by Harper and the Con’s to Canada and our way of life”.
Any political analysis of when there will likely be an election and what will be at play must, in my opinion, take this into account.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/until-something-changes-the-road-to-majority-is-blocked/article1234181/
In our modern world, polls have replaced entrails readings and “Canadians now tell pollsters that they prefer majority government” is a harbinger of the change in the dynamics manifesting our current political constellation (away from the 4 ‘blocks’ as Simpson calls them).
Underlying this shift is the question that, presumably, a lot of Canadians (2/3rds anyway) are asking themselves: “Isn’t time we stopped the damage being done by Harper and the Con’s to Canada and our way of life”.
Any political analysis of when there will likely be an election and what will be at play must, in my opinion, take this into account.
22 July, 2009
- Rock on Iggie
Posted to: Globe and Mail, “Ignatieff plays fast and loose with liberal creed”, Neil Reynolds, 22 Jul.’09
To me, for any open, free and tolerant society:
The Purpose is:
to build a nation where everyone can attain their potential
and join together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection;
through:
informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all.
(Lloyd MacIlquham)
It seems to me that the Liberal values run along these lines.
However, Harper and the Con's extreme right wing brand of conservatism is very much a sink-or-swim, laisser faire, I'm big-you're small, every one for themselves approach.
Certainly "A liberal's disagreement with conservatives comes down to this: We both seek freedom but liberals believe no one can achieve it alone" captures this essential difference between the Liberal Party and Harper and the Cons’. Rock on Iggie.
To me, for any open, free and tolerant society:
The Purpose is:
to build a nation where everyone can attain their potential
and join together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection;
through:
informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all.
(Lloyd MacIlquham)
It seems to me that the Liberal values run along these lines.
However, Harper and the Con's extreme right wing brand of conservatism is very much a sink-or-swim, laisser faire, I'm big-you're small, every one for themselves approach.
Certainly "A liberal's disagreement with conservatives comes down to this: We both seek freedom but liberals believe no one can achieve it alone" captures this essential difference between the Liberal Party and Harper and the Cons’. Rock on Iggie.
18 July, 2009
– let get the bull out of the china shop.
posted to MacLeans, “Bogus’ peacekeeping?”, Nancy Macdonald, 18 Jul.’09
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/17/%E2%80%98bogus%E2%80%99-peacekeeping/
A human right advocate on the International scale criticizing a country for a perceived lack of will to depart from self absorption and take a leading role in the fight against inhumanity globally in the post 9-11 era – so, what more can you want. Sounds like he was doing his job.
Clearly, Ignatieff has a very in depth, comprehensive and clear understanding of the dynamics of international affairs. Harper and the Con’s have shown us the opposite.
In this fragile, complex age of globalization not only of economies and human suffering but nuclear and terrorist threats I choose Ignatieff – let get the bull out of the china shop.
Lloyd MacIlquham, cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/17/%E2%80%98bogus%E2%80%99-peacekeeping/
A human right advocate on the International scale criticizing a country for a perceived lack of will to depart from self absorption and take a leading role in the fight against inhumanity globally in the post 9-11 era – so, what more can you want. Sounds like he was doing his job.
Clearly, Ignatieff has a very in depth, comprehensive and clear understanding of the dynamics of international affairs. Harper and the Con’s have shown us the opposite.
In this fragile, complex age of globalization not only of economies and human suffering but nuclear and terrorist threats I choose Ignatieff – let get the bull out of the china shop.
Lloyd MacIlquham, cicblog.com/comments.html
15 July, 2009
- Harper and the Cons are very, very scary socially and politically
Posted to Globe and Mail, Column, Jeffrey Simpson, 15 Jul.’09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-very-scary-pm-i-dont-believe-that-any-taxes-are-good-taxes/article1216778/
Stephen Harper: You know, there's two schools in economics on this. One is that there are some good taxes and the other is that no taxes are good taxes. I'm in the latter category. I don't believe that any taxes are good taxes.
(Stephen Harper, July 10 )
Jeffery Simpson: But anyone who says “no taxes are good taxes” and “I don't believe that any taxes are good taxes” is wrong economically, and very, very scary socially and politically
(Jeffery Simpson, G&M, 15 Jul.'09)
National Post: Needless to say, unravelling the long-run political and economic thought of Rev. Simpson is little like looking for consistency in papal encyclicals. Yesterday he again criticized Mr. Harper for cutting the GST. He has already called the GST cut "dumb, dumb," and now sees it as part of Mr. Harper's "scary, scary" tax policies, the product of his "right-wing ideological" tax cutting ways. The problem, he said, is that "the GST was the wrong tax to cut, as almost every qualified economist in the country has underscored."
(Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, Wednesday, July 15, 2009)
**********
The National Post today (15 July) attacks Simpson for this article, suggesting that he is inconsistent since when the GST was first being introduced Simpson was against it. But, now he is saying that it was a mistake to reduce it by 2%.
Many people spoke out against the GST when it was being introduced and many made very good points. Our open free and democratic system allows for this and in fact requires it.
The GST was, and is, a bad tax, as implemented, and we were, in retrospect, con’d by Mulnony and the PC government regarding its benefits.
The problem is that the GST tax cost billions of dollars to implement and after a number of years has become so embedded into our economies and government (1% = 6 billion in revenue !!!) that upon study it is very, very difficult to get rid of and very disruptive of our economy and implementation of government programs. Reducing the GST by 2% is generally considered, from what I can see, read and experience, as being essentially useless in stimulating the Canadian economy and removes from the Federal coffers $12 billion a year in revenues. It was, manifestly, introduced by Harper and the Con’s for its optics.
Sober Second Thought:
The GST tax highlights the damage that can be done by a particular government when they introduce a particular policy, and this was done by the right of middle, Progressive Conservative, party. It is ‘very, very scary socially and politically’ to think what damage an extreme right wing party like Harper and the Con’s can do. (The National Post article refers to it as “Brian Mulroney Conserviatives”. They may have be con’s but they were not Con’s – ask the right honourable Joe Clarke, Brian Mulroney, Bill Davis, et al.).
Anyone voting for Harper and the Cons, especially in Ontario and Quebec, should take this into consider when voting next time.
(Lloyd MacIlquham, cicblog.com/comments.html, 15 Jul.'09)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-very-scary-pm-i-dont-believe-that-any-taxes-are-good-taxes/article1216778/
Stephen Harper: You know, there's two schools in economics on this. One is that there are some good taxes and the other is that no taxes are good taxes. I'm in the latter category. I don't believe that any taxes are good taxes.
(Stephen Harper, July 10 )
Jeffery Simpson: But anyone who says “no taxes are good taxes” and “I don't believe that any taxes are good taxes” is wrong economically, and very, very scary socially and politically
(Jeffery Simpson, G&M, 15 Jul.'09)
National Post: Needless to say, unravelling the long-run political and economic thought of Rev. Simpson is little like looking for consistency in papal encyclicals. Yesterday he again criticized Mr. Harper for cutting the GST. He has already called the GST cut "dumb, dumb," and now sees it as part of Mr. Harper's "scary, scary" tax policies, the product of his "right-wing ideological" tax cutting ways. The problem, he said, is that "the GST was the wrong tax to cut, as almost every qualified economist in the country has underscored."
(Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, Wednesday, July 15, 2009)
**********
The National Post today (15 July) attacks Simpson for this article, suggesting that he is inconsistent since when the GST was first being introduced Simpson was against it. But, now he is saying that it was a mistake to reduce it by 2%.
Many people spoke out against the GST when it was being introduced and many made very good points. Our open free and democratic system allows for this and in fact requires it.
The GST was, and is, a bad tax, as implemented, and we were, in retrospect, con’d by Mulnony and the PC government regarding its benefits.
The problem is that the GST tax cost billions of dollars to implement and after a number of years has become so embedded into our economies and government (1% = 6 billion in revenue !!!) that upon study it is very, very difficult to get rid of and very disruptive of our economy and implementation of government programs. Reducing the GST by 2% is generally considered, from what I can see, read and experience, as being essentially useless in stimulating the Canadian economy and removes from the Federal coffers $12 billion a year in revenues. It was, manifestly, introduced by Harper and the Con’s for its optics.
Sober Second Thought:
The GST tax highlights the damage that can be done by a particular government when they introduce a particular policy, and this was done by the right of middle, Progressive Conservative, party. It is ‘very, very scary socially and politically’ to think what damage an extreme right wing party like Harper and the Con’s can do. (The National Post article refers to it as “Brian Mulroney Conserviatives”. They may have be con’s but they were not Con’s – ask the right honourable Joe Clarke, Brian Mulroney, Bill Davis, et al.).
Anyone voting for Harper and the Cons, especially in Ontario and Quebec, should take this into consider when voting next time.
(Lloyd MacIlquham, cicblog.com/comments.html, 15 Jul.'09)
14 July, 2009
- James, You’re spinning counterclockwise this time
posted to Toronto Star, 14 Jul.’09, “Michael Ignatieff hurt by his own tactics”, 14 Jul.’09, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/665630#Comments
James, You’re spinning counterclockwise this time.
The problem is that Harper and the Cons have made it very clear that they simply do not compromise. Unless, of course, they are taken to the brink of losing power.
This in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing by Harper and the Cons leaves the Opposition very little leverage except to use the ‘non-confidence’ card.
The best that Ignatieff could do is to force Harper to agree to confidence votes in the future so that even he, Harper, would have some difficulty in shutting parliament down to avoid such again. That’s the realities of the current circumstances. In such context, Ignatieff did exactly the right thing, not only for his own good and the good of the Liberal Party but the good of all Canadians, as time will tell.
Ignatieff this week demonstrated the type of compromise and decisions making that a modern democracy with a complex, open and tolerant, multi-and-competing interest, commerce based society requires. The I’m-right-your-wrong, I’m-big-your-small, sink-or-swim extreme right wing, ideologue approach of Harper, Flaherty and the Cons has no place in it.
(from my posting, 19 Jun.’09)
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/665630#Comments
James, You’re spinning counterclockwise this time.
The problem is that Harper and the Cons have made it very clear that they simply do not compromise. Unless, of course, they are taken to the brink of losing power.
This in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing by Harper and the Cons leaves the Opposition very little leverage except to use the ‘non-confidence’ card.
The best that Ignatieff could do is to force Harper to agree to confidence votes in the future so that even he, Harper, would have some difficulty in shutting parliament down to avoid such again. That’s the realities of the current circumstances. In such context, Ignatieff did exactly the right thing, not only for his own good and the good of the Liberal Party but the good of all Canadians, as time will tell.
Ignatieff this week demonstrated the type of compromise and decisions making that a modern democracy with a complex, open and tolerant, multi-and-competing interest, commerce based society requires. The I’m-right-your-wrong, I’m-big-your-small, sink-or-swim extreme right wing, ideologue approach of Harper, Flaherty and the Cons has no place in it.
(from my posting, 19 Jun.’09)
13 July, 2009
- It is very revealing that Harper and the Cons would turn to Roman politics for justification of their extremely negative attack ads
posted to: Globe and mail, “Have the Liberals gone soft? Why are they upset over attack ads?”, 13 Jul.’09, Tom Flanigan
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/have-the-liberals-gone-soft-why-are-they-upset-over-attack-ads/article1214605/
Hi Tom,
Good comparison, Tom.
- It is very revealing that Harper and the Cons would turn to Roman politics for justification of their extremely negative attack ads and other political methodologies.
Ever since the advent of Christianity, we have not turned to the Romans for our moral instructions.
The Roman method of politics lead to dictatorship and finally degradation and ruin. Not the best example for political instruction. As far as I can see for the last 2000 years our society has considered the Roman Republic and her politics corrupt in the extreme. Enter stage right Bush and Harper.
In fact Harper and the Cons have developed and employ a propaganda machine the likes of which have not been seen in recent democratic countries.
There is no comparison between the current application of negative ads by Harper and the Cons and anything previously employed. To suggest so conveniently muddies the waters, which is likely the intention.
I think most people remember the Mulroney years and if I were a Con I would be very reluctant to bring that period to the attention of the voters.
It would be interesting to hear your answer on the following two questions:
- Other than the extreme right wing elements in our society is there anyone supporting the use of the type of negative ads that Harper and the Cons are employing?
- As Scott Reid suggested last week. Are all these articles by yourself, Preston Manning, et al, as well as the literature being sent out in Quebec at the taxpayers’ expense some kind of effort to identify the extreme right wing elements in our society?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/have-the-liberals-gone-soft-why-are-they-upset-over-attack-ads/article1214605/
Hi Tom,
Good comparison, Tom.
- It is very revealing that Harper and the Cons would turn to Roman politics for justification of their extremely negative attack ads and other political methodologies.
Ever since the advent of Christianity, we have not turned to the Romans for our moral instructions.
The Roman method of politics lead to dictatorship and finally degradation and ruin. Not the best example for political instruction. As far as I can see for the last 2000 years our society has considered the Roman Republic and her politics corrupt in the extreme. Enter stage right Bush and Harper.
In fact Harper and the Cons have developed and employ a propaganda machine the likes of which have not been seen in recent democratic countries.
There is no comparison between the current application of negative ads by Harper and the Cons and anything previously employed. To suggest so conveniently muddies the waters, which is likely the intention.
I think most people remember the Mulroney years and if I were a Con I would be very reluctant to bring that period to the attention of the voters.
It would be interesting to hear your answer on the following two questions:
- Other than the extreme right wing elements in our society is there anyone supporting the use of the type of negative ads that Harper and the Cons are employing?
- As Scott Reid suggested last week. Are all these articles by yourself, Preston Manning, et al, as well as the literature being sent out in Quebec at the taxpayers’ expense some kind of effort to identify the extreme right wing elements in our society?
- Godsave Canada, if Harper were to lead Senate reform.
Posted to: Gloabe and mail, “Sober, effective and democratically legitimate”, 13 Jul.’09, Globe Editorial
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/sober-effective-and-democratically-legitimate/article1215814/
Godspeed Harper???
- Godsave Canada, if Harper were to lead Senate reform.
Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament (all aspects, including in Champers and Committee), the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.
Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.
It would be interesting to know who wrote this ‘opinion’ and what political affiliations, connections they have.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/sober-effective-and-democratically-legitimate/article1215814/
Godspeed Harper???
- Godsave Canada, if Harper were to lead Senate reform.
Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament (all aspects, including in Champers and Committee), the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.
Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.
It would be interesting to know who wrote this ‘opinion’ and what political affiliations, connections they have.
12 July, 2009
- How much more damage must be done by Harper and the Cons to Canada and our society before they get the boot.
Posted to: G&M, “PM apologizes for Ignatieff attack”, 11 Jul.’09, Brian Laghi and Campbell Clark
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pm-apologizes-for-ignatieff-attack/article1213930/
Harper, once more is using the international stage to promote himself and the Con’s at home in Canada and not to properly represent Canada in one of the most important meeting of Western leaders in a generation.
To make a personal attack on the leader of the opposition in Canada had absolutely no place at the G8 meeting. It should be an eyebrow raiser for all Canadians. Harper ought not to have raised this in his speech even if it were correctly attributed to Mr. Ignatieff.
His total lack of respect for the importance of the meeting and the participants is also clearly demonstrated when he appeared late for the photo. This, of course, is totally unacceptable. There is concerns that he may have been late deliberately to demonstrate to Canadians that he is the ‘boss’ at the meeting.
Once again an assistant of Harper is being blamed. It seems to me that this is a general scenario with Harper. In may be that an assistant gave him the misinformation but Harper ought to have the good judgment not to refer to it at all given it was at an international conference, and the G8 to boot.
Clearly Harper has no consideration for comity and protocol on the international stage. His only concern is political self-interest.
- How much more damage must be done by Harper and the Cons to Canada and our society before they get the boot.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pm-apologizes-for-ignatieff-attack/article1213930/
Harper, once more is using the international stage to promote himself and the Con’s at home in Canada and not to properly represent Canada in one of the most important meeting of Western leaders in a generation.
To make a personal attack on the leader of the opposition in Canada had absolutely no place at the G8 meeting. It should be an eyebrow raiser for all Canadians. Harper ought not to have raised this in his speech even if it were correctly attributed to Mr. Ignatieff.
His total lack of respect for the importance of the meeting and the participants is also clearly demonstrated when he appeared late for the photo. This, of course, is totally unacceptable. There is concerns that he may have been late deliberately to demonstrate to Canadians that he is the ‘boss’ at the meeting.
Once again an assistant of Harper is being blamed. It seems to me that this is a general scenario with Harper. In may be that an assistant gave him the misinformation but Harper ought to have the good judgment not to refer to it at all given it was at an international conference, and the G8 to boot.
Clearly Harper has no consideration for comity and protocol on the international stage. His only concern is political self-interest.
- How much more damage must be done by Harper and the Cons to Canada and our society before they get the boot.
02 July, 2009
- Preston, if you really want to restore confidence in Parliament – simple:
Get rid of Harper and the Con’s
Get rid of Harper and the Con’s
Posted to: Globe and Mail, “It's time for a fresh start in Parliament”, 2 July, 2009, Preston Manning
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/its-time-for-a-fresh-start-in-parliament/article1202622/
Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament (all aspects, including in Champers and Committee), the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.
Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.
The legislation that Harper and the Cons have introduced is a hodge-podge intended not to generally promote any ideology, Conservative or otherwise, or address any serious social issues but are self-serving and/or designed for their ‘optics’ no matter how obviously bad they are (e.g., Flaherty ‘Fiscal Update’ last December and the reduction in GST). Clearly, the ‘more’ is not the ‘better’.
You suggest, “some agreement to alter the ‘confidence convention,’ so the only condition on which a government could be defeated in the House would be on an explicit motion of no-confidence moved for that purpose.” Clearly that would entrench Harper that much more, Preston, perhaps that is why you are suggesting it.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/its-time-for-a-fresh-start-in-parliament/article1202622/
Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament (all aspects, including in Champers and Committee), the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.
Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.
The legislation that Harper and the Cons have introduced is a hodge-podge intended not to generally promote any ideology, Conservative or otherwise, or address any serious social issues but are self-serving and/or designed for their ‘optics’ no matter how obviously bad they are (e.g., Flaherty ‘Fiscal Update’ last December and the reduction in GST). Clearly, the ‘more’ is not the ‘better’.
You suggest, “some agreement to alter the ‘confidence convention,’ so the only condition on which a government could be defeated in the House would be on an explicit motion of no-confidence moved for that purpose.” Clearly that would entrench Harper that much more, Preston, perhaps that is why you are suggesting it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)