- To Harper and His Ideologically Based Policies, 'Realities are Irrelevant'

Reply Posted: 4:11 PM on January 31, 2011

See Posting below:

Reply to - dan1114 (3:24 PM on January 31, 2011):


I think this article very clearly in a logical and rational form, debunks the Harper, Flaherty claims about the benefits of the corporate tax cuts, especially if one's priority is creating job, stimulating the economy and encouraging investment.

Also, for the record, as I recall, the Liberals in fact did not support the tax cuts in the '07 budget vote. At the time of the vote there were approx 6 Liberals in the Chamber, the Liberal Whip requested that others who had arrived after the doors were closed be allowed in to vote and were refused. Those Liberals allowed to vote voted against it.

The above is neither here nor there because:

Quite frankly that was then and this is now.

Anyone that thinks that Canada's economy and circumstances are the same ought not be allowed to vote on the upcoming budget, let alone be part of the government proposing it.

And, that is the point. Harper, Flaherty and the Con's are simply too extremist, too ideological to moderate their policies based on the underlying realities.

That is a fundamental distinction of being ideological - The policy is not based on the realities but on the emotions of a few. When the times and circumstances change their policies stay the same simply because to ideologically based policies the realities are irrelevant.

Pragmatic based policies are, by definition, based on the underlying realities and are flexible enough to change with the demands of the times.


Ideologically based policies are relics of a distant 'dank ages' and a modern, commercially based, tolerant society is simply far too complex and changes far too rapidly to be run on an ideological basis.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- If creating Jobs is Your Priority - Give Harper the Boot - It's Just That Simple

Posted: 1:15 PM on January 31, 2011
Economy Lab: Five reasons to say no to more corporate tax cuts, Armine Yalnizyan, Globe and Mail Blog, January 28, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/the-economists/five-reasons-
to-say-no-to-more-corporate-tax-cuts/article1886449/

[Harper Corp Tax Cuts! Huh! Good God y'all, What are they good for? Absolutely nothing, Say it again . . . (parody: Edwin Starr – War)]

Wow!

The rational approach.

Refreshing!

Perhaps Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty, John Baird and any other Con that thinks they're up to it might respond in kind (rationally that is), point-by-point. I mean other than the simply emotional spewing out of platitudes like they will create jobs.

Now that would be refreshing.

However, don't hold your breath.

The Corporate tax cuts by Harper and the Con's is ideologically based to placate the core of die-hard (33) right-wing , extremist supporters, epi-centred in Alberta - the Moderate Majority (66%), i.e. Canadians, be dam[redacted]ed. As long as the Moderate Majority do not consolidate, Harper will be able to, and will, continue. If he were to get a majority all I can say is "God save Canada".

Of the Corporations that can benefit at all from these tax cuts, a very significant % are international with, themselves, a very significant part of the ownership - and ultimate beneficiaries of the cuts - outside Canada. In other words for each dollar in such tax cuts only a per-centage - and I suggest this article reveals that this per-centage is not very big at all, goes back to creating jobs in Canada.

It's just that simple.


"Canada's debt increasing by $200 billion from 2007 - '08 to '15 - '16, is assuming Canada stays on its current course - you know, 'steady as she goes', without the opposition 'seizing the wheel'.

It represents a 50% increase in our debt, in 5 short years, with Harper and Flaherty at the helm.

Keep in mind that the revenues lost by the reduction in GST ($12b/yr) and the corporate tax reduction ($6b/yr) as well as the subsidies to the oil sands corp's ($1.4b) will make up approx half of this debt increase ($12+$6+$1.4=$19.4 X 5 yrs = $100b) and when you consider financing costs it's probably more like 2/3rds - thanks Steve, thanks Jim, thanks Stockwell.

It is not clear that this projected increase includes the $10's b's in increased prison facilities (oh, my mistake, it's the Provinces that must pay - that makes me feel a lot better) or the $16b and counting for the F-35's, etc..

So, it's the Con policies, not the stimulus spending, that will cause this catastrophic mushrooming of debt with Harper and the Con's at the helm.

And, this debt will have been incurred for no other reason than Harper and the Con's efforts to buy their way into power and maintain it so they may tear Canada asunder and drag us to the extreme right.

Our children and our children's children will be paying for this 'Conversion to Con'ism' for generations."
(posted: 4 Nov.'10 - cicblog.com/comments.htm)

Those who have held stewardship before us worked and sacrificed hard to build, and were vigilant to maintain, a nation, separate unto ourselves, for which we can all be proud.
Let us do the same and hand off to our children a Canada that we all can be proud of and not something for which our children, burdened with the crippling effects of Con'ism, will regret that we were ever given a chance at the helm.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Wouldn't It Be Better for Everyone to Simply Pull Harper's Mandate

Posted: 11:30 AM on January 29, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Tories yank truth-stretching
anti-Ignatieff ads after 24 hours, Daniel Leblanc, Globe and Mail, January 28, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-yank-truth-stretching-anti-ignatieff-ads-after-24-hours/article1886745/

Seems that Harper and the con's have been doing a lot of ad pulling lately.

Another pulled ad: Harper working late in the PM's office. I wonder why they would pull that. Perhaps it was drawing Canadians' attention to the fact that the likes of Harper was running this country.

I don't think the Con's really care of the attack ads are inaccurate, dishonest or deceitful - they are not intended to convey factual information.

That is what the Flanagan Fundamental Principle of Con'ism is all about - “It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible". It need only contain strong emotional and be devoid of rational content.

These attack ads are deigned to arousing the (33%) die-hard core of right wing extremist supporters of Harper, epi-centred in Alberta, because from them flows the money and support and with them as long as the Moderate Majority don't consolidate Harper feels confident of at least remaining in power.

And if the attack ads con a few more people in here and there, who knows, perhaps a majority - in which case: God save Canada!

They are also intended to seep into the Canadian political psyche to create a general feeling of doubt about Ignatieff and the Liberals.

One thing that must be kept in mind is the relative easy and celerity with which they are able to crank this stuff out - just wait for the election we will be seeing this kind of thing on a daily, if not hourly, basis.

The reason the Con's pulled this ad is because, in fact, it back fired on them.

One need only read all the posting to see that "Yes, Yes, Yes"is an extremely powerful slogan - beautify in its elegance, simplicity, flexibility of application and power of the message.

For example:
"The Harper attack ads give rise to the following insightful political question:

So, What's Wrong About Being Passionate About Giving Harper the Boot anyway? - I mean other than it being not 'Right' (ideologically as opposed to morally that is)

- Is Harper and his attack ads dishonest, deceitful and an insult to the Intelligence and Integrity of all Canadians' - Yes, Yes, Yes,

- Is it an embarrassment to have Harper our Prime Minister, not only amongst ourselves but on the International stage as well - Yes, Yes, Yes

- Is Harper PM because of the 33% core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epi-centre in Alberta - Yes, Yes, Yes"

(cicblog.com/comments.htm, 28 Jan.'11)

and it goes on and on and on.

It is an incredible gaff in political propagandizement to have deliberately brought this to the attention of all Canadians and pretty much dared the Liberals to use it.

Now Harper and the Con's are saying that they didn't intend it for TV and hey, anyways, it's true - Yah, 'Right'!

First, you can't take anything a Con says at face value, this is but one more example amongst countless.

Also, it seems to me that if they really wanted to mitigate damage they might admit they stepped over the line apologize both to Ignatieff and the Canadian people for insulting his and our intelligence and integrity and prey that it doesn't go down in political history as one of the most potent campaign slogans ever.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- We need 65 F-35's like we need a $16 billion dollar and counting hole in the fiscal well-being of Canada.

Submitted: 7:29am, PST, 28 Jan.'11 CVBC News
F-35s, Afghanistan dominate defence talks, January 27, 2011, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2011/01/27/mackay-gates-f35.html

Gates "my hope is, for all of our sakes, our partners continue to move forward with us on this program."

Oh, that's what he said.

I though Gates said:

"Our partners are needed, obviously, because the more quantity you buy, the price-per-copy will drop,"

Well, that doesn't square.

Either we need the 65 F-35's in order to save the US some money or we need it for our country's security, now which is it Mr. Gates.

Oh and by the way, did I mention you simply cannot take anything Peter MacKay says at face value as he has demonstrated time and time again.

"We need this aircraft," like we need a $16 billion dollar and counting hole in the fiscal well-being of Canada.

Reality check - the reasons Gates, and the US military-industrial complex is so concerned about the F-35's is all their trouble. They simply are not measuring up to all the hype about their 'eye-watering technology' (which only God, and Peter MacKay, knows why in the world Canada would need that anyway) - although they are more than meeting the projected 'eye-watering' costs.

And as far as job creation: If the $16 billion stays in Canada, 100% goes to job creation, in Canada, as opposed to buying the 65 F-35's and being throw a few crumbs here and there, if we're lucky, with most of the $16 billion going to creating jobs in the US.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- So What's Wrong About Being Passionate About Giving Harper the Boot anyway?

Would Tories use an Ignatieff clip out of context? ‘Yes! Yes! Yes!’ , Jane Taber, Globe and Mail, January 27, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/would-tories-use-an-ignatieff-clip-out-of-context-yes-yes-yes/article1885230/comments/
[Opps - Jane Taber again - oh well. My last two weren't pulled so perhaps there's hope, yet]
The Harper attack ads give rise to the following insightful political question:

So, What's Wrong About Being Passionate About Giving Harper the Boot anyway? - I mean other than it being not 'Right' (ideologically as opposed to morally that is)

- Is Harper and his attack ads dishonest, deceitful and an insult to the Intelligence and Integrity of all Canadians' - Yes, Yes, Yes,

. . . see my post below . . .

- Send Harper Back from Whence He Came - Yes, Yes, Yes

- Have Canadians had enough of Harper and his gang of Con's - You tell me.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Send Harper Back from Whence He Came - Yes, Yes, Yes

Submitted: 6:22am, PST 28 Jan.'11 Winnipeg Free Press
Latest round of Tory attack ads spark backlash, Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press, 01/27/2011
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/critics-question-new-round-of-tory-attack-ads-114753854.html

Ignatieff's Yes, Yes, Yes Speech

So What's Wrong About Being Passionate About Giving Harper the Boot anyway

- Is Harper and his attack ads dishonest, deceitful and an insult to the Intelligence and Integrity of all Canadians' - Yes, Yes, Yes,

- Is it an embarrassment to have Harper our Prime Minister, not only amongst ourselves but on the International stage as well - Yes, Yes, Yes

- Is Harper PM because of the 33% core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters, epi-centre in Alberta - Yes, Yes, Yes

- And because the Moderate Majority (66%) are not consolidated in giving him the boot - Yes, Yes,Yes

- Have Stephen Harper and the Con's built the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in recent history - Yes, Yes, Yes

- Is Harper only interested in power, obtaining and maintaining it, Canada and Canadians be dam[redacted]ed - Yes, Yes, Yes

- Is Harper a Right Wing Extremist Ideology, bent on tearing asunder Canada and what our forefathers through their blood, sweat and tears built - Yes, Yes, Yes

- Do we want our children to be proud of what we pass on to them, and not regret that we ever let Harper have a hand at the helm - Yes, Yes, Yes

- Is Harper the only PM in the history of this great and proud (up till now, anyway) nation we call Canada that to all the above questions we must say "Yes, Yes, Yes" - Yes, Yes, Yes

- Have Canadians had enough of Harper and his gang of Con's - You tell me.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper's 'Tough on Crime' position is an Insult to the Intelligence and Integrity of all Canadians.

Posted: 7:52am, PST, 27 Jan.'11
Coalition of churches condemns Ottawa’s justice plan
GLORIA GALLOWAY
OTTAWA— From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011 9:04PM EST
Last updated Thursday, Jan. 27, 2011 7:39AM EST
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/coalition-of-churches-condemns-ottawas-justice-plan/article1884171/

Harper:

“Canadians want to be able to feel safe in their homes and communities, and that means that the bad guys need to be taken out of circulation. Does that cost money? Yes. Is it worth it? Just ask a victim.”

"just ask a victim"

We, all Canadians, are victims of Harper ideology and the rhetoric, obfuscation, misinformation, misrepresentation, and propaganda spewing from Harper, Toews and all the Con's.

For example: "'Under the previous system, criminals – including convicted terrorists – were sometimes released the day after their sentencing. This is unacceptable to Canadians,' said Christopher McCluskey, who added that the government has extended financial support to victims.

I don't know who McCluskey is but perhaps he could tell us just example how many 'convicted terrorists' he is referring to and their circumstance so we all could decide whether the 10's of billions of dollars are really worth it.

This is obviously just a play on people fears and emotions and an insult to the intelligence and integrity of all Canadians.

Harper and the Con's "Tough on Crime" is no more than an emotional appeal to the Con's right wing voter base - the ones that keep him in office as long as the Moderate Majority do not consolidate.

Harper's approach is deliberately devoid of logic, rationality and fact based policy development. That is why the Harper approach is to lengthen the jail terms of offenders rather than do something that will actually reduce crime - a G.W. Bush agenda, manifestly demonstrated to be a complete disaster

The disaster Bush made of the US is a prime example of just how much damage can be done when the wrong person is leading the country, something every Canadian ought to think seriously about in the next election

Harper and the Con's have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report released by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al, in late September, "A Flawed Compass"

The response by the Con’s: “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC)

Harper is totally disregarding the facts and basing his position on shear Ideology, extreme right wing at that

He is not basing it on what is best for Canadians, but on irrational fear mongering and self-righteous hypocrisy, dragging us back to the Dark Ages with hints of the Inquisition, and Canada be Dam[redacted]ed. Is burning at the stake "cruel and unusual" for witches???

"'We are trying to educate the public and the people in our churches about this,' said Lorraine Berzins, co-ordinator of analysis for the CCJC, who worked in Canada’s federal penitentiaries for 14 years. [CCJC = The Church Council on Justice and Corrections, a 39-year-old coalition for justice reform that represents 11 of the largest Christian denominations]

'It goes so much against all the evidence about what keeps communities safe, and it does so much harm, and they are going to spend so much money, that it’s really surprising that there isn’t more opposition.'

Hopefully with articles like this and efforts like that of the CCJC everyone in Canada will bring their attention to this matter and if they do I am certain there will be more opposition, much more opposition.

However, with Harper in power it just don't matter.

And, if Harper were to get a majority then, God Save Canada.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html (6 Nov.'09)

- Harper Attack Ads - an Insult to the Intelligence and Integrity of all Canadians

Submitted: 9:42 AM on January 27, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Only 15 per cent of Canadians follow politics, but Liberals see hope in the other 85, Jane Taber, The Globe and Mail, 27 Jan.'11
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/only-15-per-cent-of-canadians-follow-federal-politics-but-liberal-pollster-sees-hope-in-the-other-85/article1883878/

[Opps - Jane Taber again - oh well. My last one wasn't pulled so perhaps there's hope, yet]

"only 15 per cent of the Canadian electorate is paying attention to federal politics."

I would be very careful about interpreting that.

For one thing is "paying attention to politics" the same thing as "being influenced by the Harper attack ads".

If one is using the buying a new care comparison, you need only look at the impact the media reports on the Toyota recalls and safety concerns had on the general 'psyche' of the car driving public.

When it comes time to decide what car to buy they have already in their general car related impressions buried in their subconscious this 'feeling' that Toyota is not a good car. One need only look at the car sales since these media reports started coming out.

The buyer may very well not even dredge these negative feelings up from their unconscious to review and analyze their truth and current applicability in the cold hard light of logic and reality. They simply say, "mummm, I don't know about Toyota, I'm not sure they are a good for the job".

That is why Harper and the Con's spend millions well in advance of campaigns. Harper is not stupid, the attack ads are not a waste of money. They are, however, an insult to the intelligence and integrity of all Canadians

That is what the Flanagan Fundamental Principle of Con'ism is all about - “It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible". It need only contain strong emotional and be devoid of rational content

The unconscious negative impact of the Harper attack ads can explains the Dion phenomenon - he was negatively defined before the election was ever called. That can explains why Ignatieff gets such poor support under leadership.

This phenomenon is also at the heart of the viscous person attacks on the integrity of those that dare to say anything Harper and the Con's don't like.

The high emotional content and negativity also play out very well with the right-wing extremist nature of the 33% die-hard Con supporters, epi-centred in Alberta. It acts as a rallying cry encouraging them to respond with contributions and support. The truth or reality of the attacks have nothing to do with it.

When people are inundated with the negativity well in advance of an election they are not focusing on it. That is a bad thing, not good. Since, they may not look at it under the cold hard reality of truth and facts, except only superficially - i.e. is it plausible, but simply and unconsciously 'file it away' in their unconscious to be looked at when it is relevant - i.e during an election. When the time comes what rises up from the unconscious is this the general negativity of the original message and it may very well never by analyzed rationally.

It seems to me studies have shown that attack ads must be countered within 48 hours in order to counteract the psychological impact.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

Ignatieff v. Harper - Simply No Comparison

Submitted: 1:50am, PST, 26 Jan.'11 Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/927316--travers-attack-ads-expose-deepest-harper-fears?bn=1
Ottawa gearing up for spring election, By James Travers

If you put Ignatieff's Resume side-by-side with Harper's there is simply no comparison - Harper and the Con's know this.

If you put what Ignatieff has written side-by-side with Harper's there, again, is no comparison - Harper and the Con's know this.

If you put what Ignatieff and the Liberal stand for side-by-side with what Harper and the Con's stand for there is, once again, no comparison.

Travers makes a good point when he explains that the attack ads are revealing of Harper's fears. There is absolutely no doubt that the attack ads are an attempt to minimize Ignatieff and the Liberals strengths and distract Canadians from a cool, composed and rational comparison between Ignatieff and Harper, between the Liberals and the Con's and as a strategy not only does it makes sense, it is vital.

Ignatieff and the Liberals: "Reason Before Passion" (PierreTrudeau's motto)

Harper and the Con's "Emotion before All Else"

However, these attack ads serve a much greater function - arousing the (33%) die-hard core of right wing extremist supporters of Harper because from them flows the money and support and with them as long as the Moderate Majority don't consolidate Harper feels confident of at least remaining in power

And if the attack ads con a few more people in here and there, who knows, perhaps a majority - in which case: God save Canada


Lloyd MacILquham cicblog

- Lawrence Martin, When You're Right, You're Right (morally, that is) - Shine Your Light

Posted; 10:35 AM on January 25, 2011 Globe and Mail
Five years later, Harper has made Canada more conservative, Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail, Jan. 25, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/five-years-later-harper-has-made-canada-more-conservative/article1881421/

Harper and the Con's are a right wing party at the extreme of Canadian values bent on eliminating the
transfer payments, privatization of health care, tearing Federalism asunder, abdicating to the Provinces and converting Canadians to Con'ism.

As PM, Harper is able to drag, and has been dragging, Canada to the extreme right, tearing asunder what it took our forefather generations to build, through their blood, sweat and tears.

Further, this pervasive and insidious movement to the extreme right is representative of the values of only a small minority of Canadians.

Harper is in this position not because the people of Canada want it. But, for two reasons:

Harper and the Con's have a fierce (die-hard) support by a small polarized fraction (right-wing extremists) of the population but large enough (33%) and focused enough (epi-centred Alberta) to get them in power and maintain it because all the other parties are even more polarized.

And,

With a minority as long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, implement his right wing extremist program and policies.

With a minority these die-hards have cut him some slack since they feel it's better to have Harper in power than not, but with a majority they will expect him to come back home to his roost in the extreme right, and he will - something about a leopard and his spots.

The Healthcare transfer payments come to a head when the current agreement expires in a couple years

Do we want Harper, from now till then, insidiously laying the ground work for such demolition. As Harper himself said "the strengths of a plan are advanced preparation and consistent execution" (Vancouver Sun, 10 Oct.'08)

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper Was A Con Who Feigned He Was a Moderate, But He Knew It Wouldn't Last, … Get Back Loretta (parody: McCartney, Get Back Jojo)

Posted: 10:33 AM on January 24, 2011
Former allies predict 'more aggressive' Harper if Tories snare majority, Jason Fekete, Postmedia News, January 23, 2011
http://www.canada.com/technology/Former+allies+predict+more+aggressive+Harper/4152158/story.html

Stephen Harper has 33% die-hard support, epi-centred in Alberta, that support him pretty much no matter what as long as he tows the extreme right ideological line.

With a minority they have cut him some slack since they feel it's better to have Harper in power than not, but with a majority they will expect him to come back home to his roost in the extreme right, and he will - something about a leopard and his spots.

But no matter what Harper and the Con's cater to the 33% and the rest of Canadians be dam[redacted]ed and with a majority it will only be worse, much worse.

With his 33% die-hard support Harper can afford to target a few 'winnable' ridings to get the majority and it's quite doable, if the 66% Moderate Majority sit back and let him - Remember Vaughan.

In Vaughan a Con was voted in, not because a majority of people in the riding wanted him, but, because of low voter turn out (33%), with 10,000 less Liberals but the Con vote stayed the same.

(did I pass the audition?)

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- In the Next Election Canadians Must Ask Themselves "Is it better to have Harper in power" - It's Just That Simple.

Submitted: 7:10am 24 Jan.'11 The Toronto Star

Harper still fails to inspire, STEPHEN HARPER: "It hasn't always been pretty."
GRAHAM HUGHES/THE CANADIAN PRESS, Jan 22 2011 The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/925687--harper-still-fails-to-inspire

It is not a question of "bolder, more progressive choice"

The 66% Moderate Majority will have to ask themselves "is it better to have Harper in power", or even a Harper majority, simply because Ignatieff may be perceived mot to be 'bold' enough.

Stephen Harper has 33% die-hard support, epi-centred in Alberta, that support him pretty much no matter what as long as he tows the extreme right ideological line. With a minority they have cut him some slack since they feel it's better to have Harper in power than not, but with a majority they will expect him to come back home to his roost in the extreme right.

But no matter what Harper and the Con's cater to the 33% and the rest of Canadians be dam[redacted]ed and with a majority it will only be worse, much worse.

With his 33% die-hard support Harper can afford to target a few 'winnable' ridings to get the majority and it's quite doable, if the 66% Moderate Majority sit back and let him - remember Vaughan.

Any Liberal who takes the GTA for granted and is not fully prepared for an all out fight for seats by Harper and the Con's will be in for a serious shock. The Con's have a very highly developed and well 'oiled' campaigning machine in place throughout all of Canada, the likes of which have never been seen before north-of-the-border. They are quite capable of "kicking butt" in any region if you let them.

Vaughan is a good example of what can happen when Liberal are not mobilized and motivated at the grass roots. A Con was voted in, not because a majority of people in the riding wanted him. But, because of apathy by non-Cons, and in particular Liberals, resulting in a voter turn out of approx 33% and 10,000 less votes for the Liberals. The Con's maintained their vote because they have a core of die-hards who are willing to contribute to their cause both financially and in time. A similar phenom occurred in '08 and we all know what the result of that was.

It is only at the grass roots level, and with common determination, that Harper and his Con's can be put down to defeat and sent back from whence he came.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Newflash: Canadians Hawk Our Shirts While Military Hawks our Country

Posted: 11:59 AM on January 23, 2011
Multibillion-dollar jets buy ‘best value for Canada,’ top soldier says, COLIN FREEZE, Globe and Mail, Jan. 22, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/multibillion-dollar-jets-buy-best-value-for-canada-top-soldier-says/article1879548/comments/

Winslow Wheeler, Center For Defense Information in Washington, D.C., testimony at the Standing Committee on National Defence:

The final unit cost to Canada to purchase: "I can guarantee to you . . . will be well in excess of $70 million . . .

I do not believe it unreasonable to expect a multiplication factor of two."

Cost of Operating the aircraft: " . . . It would not be unreasonable to expect the flying hour costs to double."

Performance:

". . . not a single U.S. stealth aircraft had lived up to its original detectability promises, and the F-35
looks to be no exception."

The F35's weight and smallish wings give sit the maneuverability "roughly equivalent to an American
F-105 fighter-bomber of the Vietnam era".

(Toronto Sun, 23 Jan.'11)

"We are getting the best aircraft at the best price" - I guess what Peter MacKay is saying simply can't stand up to rational analysis or even a minimal, somewhat probing examination.

Shouldn't our military leaders be informed of this. Perhaps they will change their minds about spending so much of Canadian tax payers' money.

Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps told the Standing Committee, 28 Oct.'10

"The F-35 Lightning II is not an unnecessary luxury. It is the right tool, at the best value, to properly do the job that Canada and Canadians want their Air Force to carry out on their behalf."
and,
"You're implying that we don't know what we're doing,"

"Gen. Natynczyk, the Chief of Defence Staff, argued that the state-of-the-art jet fighters are the best deal on the market,"

How is it everyone else seems to know.

Someone better tell Deschamps and Natynczyk before we have to hawk our shirts.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- F35's Will Be Double The Purchase Price, Double The Maintenance Costs and Half the Machine - Stephen, Harper, Tell Us It's Not So,

No Provision for Posting Comments
I think this is my first comment to an article appearing in the Toronto Sun
Read the article it's very enlightening - if you're into truth and reality.

U.S. defence expert tells Canadian MPs: No way to know how much your F-35 program will cost, David Akin, 22 Jan.'11, Toronto Sun
http://www.torontosun.com/blogs/thehill/2011/01/22/16995716.html

Winslow Wheeler, the director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center For Defense
Information in Washington, D.C., releases written testimony he was asked to give to the House of
Commons Standing Committee on National Defence:

The final unit cost to Canada to purchase: "I can guarantee to you . . . will be well in excess of $70 million . . .

I do not believe it unreasonable to expect a multiplication factor of two."

Cost of Operating the aircraft: " . . . It would not be unreasonable to expect the flying hour costs to double."

Performance and that eye watering technology that Peter MacKay, in his infinite wisdom, feels is so important:
". . . not a single U.S. stealth aircraft had lived up to its original detectability promises, and the F-35
looks to be no exception."

The F35's weight and smallish wings give sit the maneuverability "roughly equivalent to an American
F-105 fighter-bomber of the Vietnam era".


" We are getting the best aircraft at the best price." (Oh and by the way, did I mention that Mackay's statement is in Hansard)

The VietNam vintage F-105 would be just as good and much cheaper.

I guess what Peter MacKay is says simply can't stand up to rational analysis or even a minimal, somewhat probing examination.

Shouldn't our military leaders be informed of this. Perhaps they will change their minds about spending so much of Canadian tax payers' money.


Air force chief Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps told the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence, 28 Oct.'10

"The F-35 Lightning II is not an unnecessary luxury. It is the right tool, at the best value, to properly do the job that Canada and Canadians want their Air Force to carry out on their behalf."

Looks like that is simply not the reflective of the realities.

And,

"We don't want to end up with this costing us $32 billion someday," said Parti Quebecois defence critic Claude Bachand.

Deschamps became testy when Bachand pressed him to provide to MPs, behind closed doors if necessary, classified information about the F-35's technical capabilities.

"You're implying that we don't know what we're doing," Deschamps told him. "Please don't tell us that we don't know what we're doing."

How is it everyone else seems to know.

Someone better tell Deschamps.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Mr. Mulroney, What Are You Suggesting. Harper? Do "Big Things"? - God Save Canada!

Posted: 11:52 AM on January 22, 2011 & 11:57 AM on January 22, 2011 The Globe and Mail

Mulroney’s advice to Harper: Do something big, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail, January 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mulroneys-advice-to-harper-do-something-big/article1879648/


***
Jane Taber? - Ooops!, it seems my posting get taken down with alarming regularity when Jane Taber is the author.

I sometimes suspect it has been using the phrase:

"Harper and the Con's are supported by a core of die-hard right wing, extremist supporters (33% - under review for downward adjustment) epi-centred in Alberta that provide the funds and support that keep him in power. "
- go figure???.

However, given its 'Rightness' perhaps she, or whoever it is, has other reasons.

Mea Culpa: I sneezed once, ok it was a few times, while writing a post to one of her articles, which just happened to be, in my opinion, some inane thing . . . ah ah aaaa "Lame Saber" chooo, sorry sneezed (see: - Dear Jane Taber . . . ah ah aaaa "Lame Saber" chooo, sorry sneezed, Dec. 12, 2009) .
I received approx. 225 "thumbs down" in approx 10 minutes or so on that one - think she is holding a grudge.

I didn't do either this time, so let's see what happens.

***

The biggest fear all Canadians should have is if Harper does do some " transformational things" and "transform" our country.

This is especially in the area of Health care.

We all know what that would mean - elimination of Health Care, elimination of transfer payments, dismantling of Federal policies and abdication of responsibility of the Federal government.

All the things that make this country a great place to live in, be born in, grow up in, to be proud to say "I'm Canadian" would be torn asunder, everything our forefathers built with their blood, sweat and tears undone.

There are a number of fundamental differences between Mulroney and Harper.

- Mulroney was, simply, manifestly not right wing extremist. Mulroney was right of centre, there is no doubt about that, and I disagreed, strongly on occasion, with many of his policies and/or their implementation. Mulroney did do some 'big' things that did have a big impact, the wisdom of their implementation dubious, but they were not extremist.

- Mulroney acted, apparently, in what he though was for Canada and all Canadians. Harper acts for the benefit of a few, 33% die-hard supporters that keep him in office. Mulroney had majorities, and if I recall quite sizable ones at that.

With Harper, a consolidation of the Moderate Majority would put him out of office. Harper knows this and so must do everything to obscure, obstruct, obfuscate, lest he "awaken the giant".

Mulroney was quite open, it seemed, except the part about when he was, instead of being in control was, in reality, rolling the dice regarding Canada's fate.

Harper knows what he wants and is ruthlessly, systematically, albeit surreptitiously, going about implementing it.

"On the economy, he [Mulroney] credits Mr. Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty with being competent managers of the 'public interest'.”

So, does that mean Mulroney agrees with the two point reduction in GST, the policies changes on income trusts, the $10 billions on increased prison facilities, the billion or so on the G-20 - and putting it in downtown Toronto thus exposing it to the trashing, the $16 billions and counting for F-35's, etc., perhaps he could clarify that.

Also, just what does "competent" mean and why should we settle for such mediocrity.

Chrétien, Martin and the Liberals did an outstanding job, what Mulroney is referring to as 'remarkable, big, transformational' on the economy, digging us out of the hole he, Mulroney, himslef put us in (perhaps that explains the nature of his comments on this) and putting Canada's fiscal and economic condition in great shape - strong enough that Harper, Flaherty and the Con's could simply 'do nothing' (in Flaherty's words) and not have our economy ruined - knowing when to leave tings alone can be leadership, can't it?

- Mulroney was considered an environmental champion. Harper is the opposite, the oil profits must flow (albeit mostly outside Canada) , environment be dam[redacted]ed.

- Mulroney was PC = Progressive Conservative. Harper is a Conservative. There is nothing Progressive about Harper, his ideology or the Con Party. The Conservative Party is not a continuation of the Progressive Conservative party and I challenge anyone, Mulroney included, to state, categorically, otherwise.

If Harper were to get a majority he would do "big things" and we, as Canadians, all of us, should be afraid, really afraid.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- it is not "Harper's democratic record" it's Canada's Democratic Record while Harper is in office and it's abhorrent

Submitted: 6:55am, 7:05am & 7:18am, PST, 21 Jan.'11 The Toronto Star
Harper’s democratic record wins little praise, Richard J. Brennan, The Toronto Star, Jan 21 2011
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/925601--harper-s-democratic-record-wins-little-praise?bn=1

"Harper’s democratic record wins little praise"

It should be pointed out that it is not "Harper's democratic record" it's Canada's democratic record while Harper is in office.

Referring to it as Harper's implies that somehow Harper 'owns the place' and it is his to do with as he pleases and he pleases to be undemocratic. Harper is the custodian of Canada's democracy and as such has failed us terribly and has seriously betrayed our trust and his duties.

It also isn't "well Chrétien was the same". This is simply obscuring and obfuscation intended to deflect the proper apportionment of blame and responsibility. Chrétien was not the same, clear and simple and perhaps anyone that so suggest might give examples from the Chrétien era that are even in the same order of magnitude.

It is easy to say this is such and even make a good media bite and gain an individual some national attention and perhaps even promote themself, or whatever they may be hawking at the time, but Canadian democracy is too serious too important to too many people to be trifled with in such fashion.

PierreTrudeau's motto, "Reason Before Passion"

Perhaps it should be modified to fit the current context, "Reason Before Self-interest"

And, what happened to JFK's: "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country".

Somehow the passage of time has played tricks on our memories and these great sentiments have got turned inside out.

"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(Robert Marleau, previous information commissioner).

Why are Harper and the Con's so steeped in deception, obscuration, obfuscation, obstruction, hypocrisy and to such a degree you simply can not take Harper and his Con's at their words for anything. The only thing we can be confident of is when Harper or any of the Con's assert something, we need look somewhere else for the truth.

It must be something about a well informed public that Harper and the Con's don't like, that's the rational inference. My guess is that people will start to realize what's going on with Harper and the Con's and see them for what they really are - rightwing extremist ideologues with the good a a few at heart, and vote intelligently. I can see why Harper would find that undesirable.
Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.

The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Its obstruction and obscuration, and in the extreme, by Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for this.

Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, preserve individual integrity and ensure true Democracy and without which no amount legislation can guaranty these things and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- A Harper promise! Huh! Good God y'all, What is it good for? Absolutely nothing, Say it again . . . (parody: Edwin Starr – War)

Not Submitted - funniest thing, when I first read the article it indicated that comments were allowed, now it seems not and that icon seems to have disappeared - go figure, hope its not me.
Opinion.Signs of life for death penalty, John Ivison, National Post, 20 Jan.'11
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Signs+life+death+penalty/4135660/story.html

and,
Posted: 10:55 AM on January 20, 2011
"PM’s remarks rekindle debate on the death penalty"
DANIEL LEBLANC, 19 jan.'11, G&M
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pms-remarks-rekindle-debate-on-the-death-penalty/article1876507/

The Prime Minister "has kept all the promises he intended to keep" - you've got that Right, Ivison (NP, 20 Jan.'11)

The question is just exactly to whom did he make those promises and what those promises are. Everything Harper does is for hyper-partisan reasons, catering to the 33% right wing extremist, die-hards that keep him in power much to the detriment of Canada as a nation and the 66% Moderate Majority.

What Harper said regarding the death penalty:

"Well, I personally think there are times when capital punishment is appropriate.

"But I've also committed that I'm not, you know, in the next Parliament, I'm not, no plans to bring that issue forward."

One need only look at the Bill to get rid of the Long Gun Registry. Despite it being such a strong issue for Harper and the Con' and for such a long time, Harper still had it introduced via a private member's bill in order to avoid any negative backlash and the agony of defeat.

One need only look at the notoriety the perpetrator received to see that if Harper and the Con's obtained a majority, there would be a fight amongst Con's to see who was the first to introduce a private member's bill to bring the death penalty back - of course there would be the consolation prize of a private member's bill to criminalize abortion.

A Harper promise! Huh! Good God y'all, What is it good for? Absolutely nothing, Say it again . . . (parody: Edwin Starr – War)

Even if there were no private member's bill the chances are high he would simply break this promise.

"An Angus Reid poll in 2009 suggested 62% of respondents supported the death penalty for murder, against just 29% who opposed it. Nearly one-third of Canadians would support capital punishment for rape and 17% backed the death penalty for kidnappers."

I find those stats very hard to believe. But if they're thru then Thank God for the Charter! (That's the Charter of Rights and Freedoms introduced by Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau - the guy with the motto, "Reason Before Passion", I though I would explain that just in case Harper, Toews or any of the other Con's were wonders what the reference was)

Also, if it is true, I find it incredible that Harper would not have a Bill to bring it back, perhaps at first to extreme cases, then gradually to cover more and more cases.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, It's Just That Simple, continued

Continued from below:

Lloyd Macilquham cicblog
3:29 PM on January 19, 2011

To justvisitingnow:

In a Democracy the Prime Minister serves the people, plane and simple. In Canada this is through Parliament. Also, in Canada, the GG is the head of the military.

Political systems where the military serve the person in power are 'dictatorships'.

The Canadian military have no right, nor mandate, to hold a secret agenda, or an agenda that is not for the benefit of Canadians or Canadians' national and International aspirations. The Prime Minister has no right, nor mandate, either to formulate such.

If the F-35 procurement is not in line with the above, the honourable thing to do for the military would be to stand up and state categorically that they do not support it. It does not do for them to keep quiet or even encourage such expenditures simple because they may be the benefactors.

Conversely, simply because it benefits the military does not make it right (morally, although it may be 'Right' ideologically). Simply because it is what Harper wants doesn't make it the aspiration of all Canadians - or at least the Moderate Majority (66%)

Based on public knowledge it is ludicrous to suggest that the F-35's are for the benefit of Canadians or Canadians' national and International aspirations.

As far as spending is concerned there are many matters that take priority over purchasing F-35's that would also entail keeping the money in Canada as well as actually directly benefiting all Canadians and Canada as a nation. I can give you one example that doesn't fit this bill - spending $10's billions of expanding prison facilities.

For examples, see my posts:

" And I dreamed I saw the F-35 stealth jet planes . . . turn into health care, child care, retirement security, post secondary education . . . across our nation (take-off from Joni Mitchell lyrics 'Woodstock')", 29 Dec.'10 & 1 Serp.'10

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, It's Just That Simple

Lloyd Macilquham cicblog
12:16 PM on January 19, 2011
Continued from below:

There'll be no stealth in touting the F-35, Jeffery Simpson
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/therell-be-no-stealth-in-touting-the-f-35/article1875031/

***
WinniMiss wrote:
11:40 AM on January 19, 2011
Llloyd, that blog is uninformed nonsense.

For starters read and ponder, then research the comment by "stkplyr" above.
***

For factual background surely you meant to refer to:

Metasphere , 8:29 AM on January 19, 2011, etc.,
and his reference to the article:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.

Canada doesn't need F-35's for any kind of activity involving our military that has ever been presented to Canadians.

The Canadian military exists to serve the Canadian people not Harper and the Con's, nor the military-industrial establishment or extreme right wing ideology in Canada or the US. They have no right, nor mandate, to insist on equipment that does not match our military activities.

It is the Canadian people that determine what our military objectives and they are not to be determined covertly, by a hand full of people. Simply put, if Canada does require 65 F-35's, then neither Harper, nor the Cons, nor the military are telling us why and that's just not right (morally that is, although it is evidently 'Right').

As far as creating jobs:

$16 b overall cost is low by a long shot.

It is money flowing outside Canada and so benefiting non-Canadians.

If the $16 b were spent inside Canada on things Canadians needed there would be a double benefit:

$16 b in Canadian jobs

plus

$16 value added to Canada.

Then there is the Harper credibility factor and based on his, MacKay's and all the Cons' track record in the last 5 years, I simply do not believe anything Harper says at face value. He will have to show the actual contracts to be reviewed to see exactly what benefit there is and to what extent it can be counted on.

It's just that simple.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper, Keep the $16 Billion in Canada and it Will Generate $16 Billion in Jobs, It's Just That Simple.

Posted: 10:55 AM on January 19, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/therell-be-no-stealth-in-touting-the-f-35/article1875031/

Jeffrey Simpson
There'll be no stealth in touting the F-35
JEFFREY SIMPSON
Simpson makes a very good point when he says that the cost of the 65 F-35's is $16 billion and counting, that it is bound to be much higher due to budget over-runs and replacing planes due to attrition (I wonder if that is likely given it is an offence strike-force fighter jet - the only way they won't get 'lost in action' is if they are never used for the purpose they are designed and in that case their a total write-off, why have them).

Harper is spending $16 billions of Canadians hard earned tax dollars on something that simply does not meet our needs and is way over the top in that category.

At least, neither Harper, MacKay or the military has explained exactly why they are needed by Canada, other than its "eye-watering technology"; and, of course, protect our Northern borders from prop driven Russians

The $16 billion and counting for 65 F-35's is money going outside Canada and for something we just don't need..

That Canada may get $5.6 billion in contracts, and I simply don't take anything Harper says at face value, simply means that $10 billion and counting is going down the drain.

Of course, I guess, if Harper can spend $10 billion in increased prison facilities, and over a billion to throw a party in downtown Toronto, then why not.

Here's a thought, put the money to good use and keep in Canada, it will generate $16 billion in jobs in Canada that way and we, Canadians that is, will benefit from all of it.

It's just that simple.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper's attack ads - kind of an insult to the intelligence and integrity of Canadians, now isn't it.

Submtted: 7:54am & 1:10pm PST, 18 Jan.'11, The Toronto Star

Conservative ads are ‘lowball attacks,’ Ignatieff says, Linda Diebel, Toronto Star, 18 Jan.'11
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/923189--michael-ignatieff-takes-aim-at-new-conservative-attack-ads#article

Stephen Harper's attack ads take the place of setting out in clear and concise form the rational bases his policies on just about everything: $16 billions on F-35's, $10's billions on prisons, hobbling Canada fiscally by reducing reviews by $6 billion per year at a time with the Corporate tax & GST reductions, moving the G20 to downtown Toronto from Tony Clement's riding so it wouldn't get trashed, eliminating the Long Form Census, proroguing Parliament (twice), etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps Harper feels that he does not need to explain himself and his policies.

This is true as long as Harper and the Con's have a core of die-hard supporters (33%); and, the Moderate Majority representing 66% of the people of Canada don't consolidate.

It is these 33% Harper's ads are reaching out to, the 66% that require an explanation he simply is not interested in.

comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog

- Stevo, If You Want to See Where the Jobs Are Created, Follow the Money

Submitted: 8:39 am, PST, 16 Jan.'11 The Toronto Star
Siddiqui: Harper’s temper tantrums costly for Canada, Haroon Siddiqui, Jan 16 2011, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/922353--siddiqui-harper-s-temper-tantrums-costly-for-canada#article


"When you question Stephen Harper’s foreign policy, he attacks your patriotism. When he makes a mistake, he won’t acknowledge it. When he’s losing a debate, he recasts it as cultural warfare between good and evil, and lashes out at critics with little or no regard for facts.

. . .

If allowing the two U.A.E. airlines would cost Canada “tens of thousands of jobs,” as Ottawa says, it needs to show how and where — and how the job losses would stack up against the new jobs created with the proposed expanded services.

. . .

What we have instead from Harper is petulance and demagoguery that will cost Canada dearly."


Viscous Personal Attacks on Those that Dare to Oppose, Gross Exaggerations, Distortions and Misleadings on Claims to Job Creation, "Petulance and Demagoguery"

Doesn't it just make you proud to say Stephen Harper is Our Prime Minister!

The viscous personal attacks by Harper and the Con's isn't limited to foreign policy, it applies right across the board to everything.

Another of the Harper hype is to say if it goes against him and his policies that it will cost Canada tens of thousands of jobs, hundreds of thousands in the case of the F35's and Harper's 3 pt reduction in corporate taxes.

The common thread uniting all these hyperbolic claims is no cold hard facts to establish their veracity, totally ignoring that not doing it the Harper way would likely make more jobs for Canadians, and without the right wing extremist ideology.

The fact is spending money creates jobs. If it is spent inside Canada it will create jobs for Canadians and if it is spent outside Canada it will create jobs for some other country.

It's just that simple.

So for money flowing out of Canada's coffers the issue is whether the money stays in Canada or carries on its merry way outside Canada.

A commonality of the Harper and Con policies is the amount of money going outside the Canadian economy.

The only thing we are certain of for the $16 billions and counting for the F-35's is it will benefit the US, there is no certainty that Canada will get any contracts at all - a result of Harper's total subservience to the US military-industrial complex and the far-right of the US political spectrum.

The Corporate tax reduction increases profits for the already successful corporations, a very significant percentage of which will be flowing outside Canada through foreign ownership.

Then there are the subsidies to the oil sands corp's that Harper so stubbornly defends - just think how much of that flows outside Canada.

It is just that simple.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Surely Our Seniors Are Worth Half a Point - Rock On Iggy.

Submitted: 7:25am, PST, 15 Jan.'11 Winnipeg Free Press
(by the way, it seems they didn't post my comment last time - see below - go figure)
Ignatieff unveils $1-B plan to care for sick, dying, Kevin Rollason, 01/15/2011, Winnipeg Free Press
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/ignatieff-unveils-1-b-plan-to-care-for-sick-dying-113752939.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments

" Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has unveiled plans to help 600,000 Canadian families look after their sick or dying loved ones."

Wow, all Canadians getting together through the Canadian government helping those that need help.

Sounds humanitarian and compassionate, almost what being Canadian had come to mean over the many years and blood, sweat and tears of our forefathers, until Harper and the Con's got hold of power, that is.

Nice alternative. Rock on Iggy!

We must all keep in mind the debt we owe to our seniors. They spent a life time contributing to and building this great nation we call Canada.

Not simply by paying taxes and thus leaving us a legacy of infrastructure that is top in the world (our at least has been).

But, they were the ones that brought in such programs as Health care, Employment Insurance, Pensions, an educational system that has been the envy of the world, an outstanding International reputation as moderate, peace-keepers, and, not the least of which the Charter, that single instrument so important to protecting our civil rights, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

***
Wait a minute, aren't those precisely the policies and values that Harper and the Con's are so against.

"First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it." Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997 (when you read the speech it doesn't sound like he's joking)

"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status." National Post, Dec. 8 2000 p. A18

oh, and by the way did I mention:
Whether Canada ends up as o­ne national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with o­ne national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be." (Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)

. . . mummmm, I wonder, could it be . . .
***

They [our seniors] built this great nation and as they approach the end of their lives, it is certainly the least we can do to assist in ensuring they do so with dignity, surrounded by their loved ones and in the homes in which they lived their lives and raised their families.

Surely this is better than the Harper corporate tax cuts that will only benefit the already well off, and many times not even Canadian, corporations by reducing their taxes even lower than in the US, ideologically based and with no tangle evidence that there would be any real benefit to Canadians overall.

Harper corporate tax cuts reduce the Corporate taxes by 3 points and will cost Canada 6 billion per year. So, Ignatieff's proposal represents a half a point out of the total three point corporate tax reduction.

Now, come on, lets be real.

Would it really hurt Canadian commerce that much to Give Our Seniors Half-a-Point; or, to give other Canadian in need the other 2 and a half points, for that matter.

Those who have held stewardship before us worked and sacrificed hard to build, and were vigilant to maintain, a nation, separate unto ourselves, for which we can all be proud. Let us do the same and hand off to our children a Canada that we all can be proud of and not something for which our children will regret that we were ever given a chance at the helm.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Ignatieff's Two Important Attributes, One He Is and One He Is Not: He Is Moderate; and he is Not Harper

Submitted: 7:09am, PST, 13 Jan.'11 The Toronto Star
Hepburn: Liberals see a way to beat Harper, Jan 12 2011, Bob Hepburn, Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/920926--hepburn-liberals-see-a-way-to-beat-harper#article

". . . Harper has twice shut down Parliament, once because he feared he would lose a budget vote and once because he wants to keep secret the documents that detailed Afghan prisoner abuse.

. . . Harper — virtually on his own — ordered the G20 summit to be held in Toronto, leading to street riots, a fake lake and a $1.2-billion bill.

. . . Harper’s far-right leanings, . . . scrap the gun registry, his refusal to fund safer abortions in developing countries and his approval to spend up to $16 billion for fighter jets that Canada may not have needed."

Stephen Harper's politics lie at the extreme Right of Canadian (and any Western Democracy for that matter) politics, and always has. This article sets out a number of issues in which his position demonstrates this, not the least of which is Health Care, transfer payments and Federal government in general, corporate taxes, abortion, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

With the Healthcare agreement expiring in a couple years - if Harper wins, it will be he who negotiates a new deal with the Provinces, something we should all consider, and very seriously.

Harper's objective is to transform Canada and Canadian society into a right wing ideology, by stealth - as long as he doesn't have a majority that is.

If Harper were to get a majority this transformation would be accelerated so quickly it will leave us all with a chill and our children and our children's children with a much different Canada than that with which we were left, one in which much of the social achievements that were made by our fore-fathers through their blood, sweat and tears will have been tore asunder.

The fundamental problem is:

Harper is kept in power by a core (33% , the Silent Minority) of like minded people that provide the funds and blindly support him - as long as he 'delivers the goods' - much to the detriment of Canada and all Canadians as a whole.

Harper and the Con's know this and take the approach that they can do pretty much what they want as long as they don't precipitate a consolidation of the Moderate Majority (66% Canadians that do not buy into the political extremism of Harper and his Con's) that don't want him or subscribe to what he stands for.

People's general impressions of Ignatieff are really secondary to his two primary attributes, one he is and one he is not:

Ignatieff is Moderate; and, Ignatieff is not Harper.

The fundamental issue in the next election is:

Will the (66%) Moderate Majority consolidate to vote Harper and the Con's out of power.

It's just that simple.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper: Tear Canada Asunder? Just Watch Me!

submitted: 7:02am, PST, 12 Jan.'11 Winnipeg Free Press

- Frances Russel, Turn On Your Light, Let It Shine, Shine, Shine, Shine, Shine on Harper and His Con's

Decentralized Canada would be calamitous, Frances Russell, 01/12/2011, Winnipeg Free Press
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/decentralized-canada-would-be-calamitous-113339059.html


" Before becoming Conservative leader, Harper was president of the National Citizens Coalition, a secretive far-right lobby group founded by millionaire Colin Brown in 1967 to oppose medicare and other "outrages" of the liberal state such as unions, non-white immigration, pay equity, the minimum wage and environmental standards."

. . .

"Should Bernier, and presumably Harper, get their wish and cancel all shared-cost programs, replacing them with individual provincial tax points of vastly unequal value, the social and economic devastation in every province, with the possible exception of Alberta, would be calamitous."



The Healthcare transfer payments come to a head when the current agreement expires in a couple years

do we, as Canadians, really want Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party 'representing our interests at the bargaining table' with Alberta and the other Provinces.

What does the Con ideology say about transfer payments and Healthcare payments (= privatization, for Harper and the Con's). What has it, and Harper, said in the primordial beginnings of the Reform Party and Harper's pre-leadership, and since then.

What do the Provinces, like Alberta, feel about this.

What might the die-hard core of right wing extremists, epi-centre in Alberta (responsible for 33% in support) that keep Harper in power, and the Con coffers bulging, and to which Harper and the Con's policies cater might like to see.

The fundamental objective of Harper and the Con's of eliminating the transfer payments and privatization of health care, tearing Federalism asunder, abdicating to the Provinces and converting Canadians to Con'ism.

And you can betcha this motivation will feature prominently in any Harper or Con, 'negotiations' on Canadian Health Care.

Do we want Harper, from now till then, insidiously laying the ground work for such demolition. As Harper himself said "the strengths of a plan are advanced preparation and consistent execution" (Vancouver Sun, 10 Oct.'08)

Perhaps we should ask all Canadians.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html - 8 Nov.'10: "For Harper and the Con's, Dismantling Transfer Payments and Tearing Our Health Care System Asunder - Collateral Damage, Friendly Fire - I Think Not"


See also: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html, 03 November, 2010,
Harper: Tear Canada Asunder? Just Watch Me!
Posted: 12:51 PM on November 3, 2010:
Tory deficit targets are too optimistic, budget officer says
Bill Curry, Globe and Mail, Nov. 02, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-deficit-targets-are-too-optimistic-budget-officer-says/article1783203/
Harper, Flaherty and the Con's prediction about eliminating the deficit in '14 - '15 (surplus next budget), could come true and Page's concerns over increases transfer payments alleviated by one simple move - get rid of the transfer payments, and privatize healthcare.

Also, if Page is saying that the deficit will not be eliminated by the '15 - '16 budget, but Harper and the Con's are confidently saying it will, but only if we keep them in power. Is it simply a co-incidence that this time-line for eliminating the deficit falls just after the expiry of the Healthcare agreement.

Now, I wonder if Harper and the Con's have ever contemplated this. What does their ideology say about transfer payments and private Healthcare. What has it, and Harper, said in the primordial beginnings of the Reform Party and Harper's pre-leadership.

What do the Provinces, like Alberta, feel about this.

What, pray tell, might the die-hard core of right wing extremists, epi-centre in Alberta (representing 33%) that keep Harper in power, and the Con coffers bulging, and to which Harper and the Con's policies cater (and the rest of Canadians be dam[redacted]ed) might like to see.

What about the Vast Majority of Canadians, is that how we want to balance the books, by eliminating Healthcare and tearing Canada asunder.

Perhaps, we should ask them all.

The Healthcare transfer payments come to a head when the current agreement expires in a couple years, in '13 - '14. At that time, do we, as Canadians, really want Harper and the Con's 'representing our interests at the bargaining table' with Alberta and the other Provinces. Do we want Harper, from now til then, insidiously laying the ground work for such demolition. As Harper himself said "the strengths of a plan are advanced preparation and consistent execution" (Vancouver Sun, 10 Oct.'08)

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Who Is Harper Trying to Con

Submitted: 10:49 & 10:55 AM on January 11, 2011

Canada ranks last in freedom of information: study, Dean Beeby, The Canadian Press, Jan. 09, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-ranks-last-in-freedom-of-information-study/article1863083/comments/

"Only about 16 per cent of the 35,000 requests filed last year resulted in the full disclosure of information, compared with 40 per cent a decade ago, she [Canada's information commissioner Suzanne Legault] noted.

And delays in the release of records continue to grow, with just 56 per cent of requests completed in the legislated 30-day period last year, compared with almost 70 per cent at the start of the decade.

. . .

Parliament did broaden the number of federal institutions covered by the Act, but growing delays and excessive censorship have plagued the system, prompting repeated public scoldings from the last three information commissioners.

At least three government departments are currently under investigation for alleged political interference in the release of documents, which has led to the resignation of a ministerial aid.

. . .

Canada's lost leadership in the world of freedom-of information parallels its reduced standing at global environmental conferences and its recent failure to win a seat on the UN Security Council."

“It was our government that greatly expanded and strengthened the Access to Information Act in 2006.” ???

Who is Stockwell Day trying to con:

The then Access Commissioner John Reid in his scathing emergency report of the proposed legislation stated: "No previous government, since the Access to Information Act came into force in 1983, has put forward a more retrograde and dangerous set of proposals".
He further warned: the Bill would make it easier for the government to cover up wrongdoing; to shield itself from embarrassment; and, to control the flow of information to Canadians (CanWest, 29 Apr.'06)

Even a rocket scientist, unacquainted with the big 'Con', can look at these data:

ATI requests,
Now v. 10 years ago:

- Full disclosure: 16% down from 40%
- Completed in the legislated 30 days: 56% down from 70%

and conclude that Mr. Reid's warnings were well founded and since Harper gained power, Canadians rights to access to information has been seriously curtailed.

In fact the deception, obscuration, obfuscation, obstruction, hypocrisy are so bad that you simply can not take Harper and his Con's at their words for anything.

The only thing we can be confident of is when Harper or any of the Con's assert something, we need look somewhere else for the truth.

Harper's strategy in such curtailment of information is simply to not 'wake the sleeping moderate majority', since

as long as the Harper policies, and his misleading Canadians, do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, mislead.

Unless all Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper will continue to mislead and transform Canada into something Canadians just don't want.

Why are Harper and the Con's so steeped in deception, obscuration, obfuscation, obstruction, hypocrisy and to such a degree you simply can not take Harper and his Con's at their words for anything. The only thing we can be confident of is when Harper or any of the Con's assert something, we need look somewhere else for the truth.

It must be something about a well informed public that Harper and the Con's don't like.
Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.

The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Its obstruction and obscuration, and in the extreme, by Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for this.

"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(Robert Marleau, previous information commissioner).

Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.

Harper and the Con's, of course, know all this.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- The Harper Effect

Submitted: 10:58 AM on January 9, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Employers gain confidence, good jobs stage comeback , Jeromy Torobin, Globe and Mail, Jan. 08, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/employers-gain-confidence-good-jobs-stage-comeback/article1861039/page2/

These 'stats' appear to be thrown into serious doubt by the independent and objective
"Economists at Scotia Capital Inc. questioned whether such a huge rise in Canadian factory employment was really possible, given the tentative environment for exports to the United States".

Also, the significance as an indication of how well our economy is doing is brought into question when you read Carney's lament:
"that only about half of the job growth since the recession was in the private sector and many jobs were 'involuntary part-time.'"

and, the observation
"Indeed, total hours worked have not returned to precrisis levels, and much of the job creation last year was in government jobs or came from self-employment."

The political reality now, brought to our awareness by the Long Forms Census issue, is that with everything coming from any department of this government we must ask ourselves first: is this information likely to give Harper and the Con's a boost; if so, to what extent may we rely on it; and secondly, is there objective, independent verification.

Yes, I know, seeking objective, independent verification sounds a lot like what the Parliamentary Budget Officer did regarding the infrastructure stimulus program - go to those directly involved and ask them, thereby getting independent, objective evidence - and we all know what happened there.

But, that way you get away from the Harper effect (resulting from the viscous attacks by Harper, Flaherty and the other Con's on anyone that dares to stand up and say anything that might not be in line with Harper). Harper and the Con's have had 5 years to create, develop and maintain this insidious atmosphere of influence.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Ignatieff is to 'True Grit' as Harper is to (a) True Hype; (b) True Con; (c) True Hypocrisy (trick questions all 3 answers are Right)

Submissions not allowed (except 'subscribers')
Toronto-area Grit MPs appear divided over Liberals’ strategy on upcoming House budget vote, And GTA Grit MP Mark Holland says he 'doesn’t buy it’ that the Liberals will get their ‘asses kicked’ in the next federal campaign in GTA. Tim Naumetz, Hill Times, Jan 6, 2011
http://www.hilltimes.com/dailyupdate/view/54

Mr. Ignatieff said in one interview voters want to “get rid of this guy [Mr. Harper]...there’s a lot of impatience, anger and disappointment at this government.” In another, he said “we are ready for an election, and we think Canadians are ready for an election.”

Who doesn't want to get rid of Harper. The 66% moderate majority certainly do. Only the die-hard core of right wing extremists representing 33% don't.

Also, Ignatieff making it clear that the Liberals are waiting to see if Harper and the Con's move at all on the Corporate tax cuts to decide of they will support the budget is exactly what the Opposition should be doing, especially in a minority government.

By ignoring what the other parties are demanding, Harper is, in fact, disenfranchising 2/3rd of the Canadian people, to benefit a small but well defined group. The opposition must take such positions in order that the majority may be heard.

Going to the people to find out what Canadians think and feel about the budget and to determine whether an election is wanted is also the right (morally) approach.

On the other hand, any Liberal who takes the GTA for granted and is not fully prepared for an all out fight for seats by Harper and the Con's will be in for a serious shock. The Con's have a very highly developed and well 'oiled' campaigning machine in place throughout all of Canada, the likes of which have never been seen before north-of-the-border. They are quite capable of "kicking butt" in any region if you let them.

Vaughan is a good example of what can happen when Liberal are not mobilized and motivated at the grass roots. A Con was voted in, not because a majority of people in the riding wanted him. But, because of apathy by non-Cons, and in particular Liberals, resulting in a voter turn out of approx 33% and 10,000 less votes for the Liberals. The Con's maintained their vote because they have a core of die-hards who are willing to contribute to their cause both financially and in time. A similar phenom occurred in '08 and we all know what the result of that was.

It is only at the grass roots level, and with common determination, that Harper and his Con's can be put down to defeat and sent back from whence he came.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper the Super-Hype

Posted: 10:42 AM on January 6, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Julian Fantino: Superstar?, Robert Silver, Globe and Mail, January 5, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/silver-powers/julian-fantino-superstar/article1858552/page2/

Fantino won the by-election because of two factors - very low voter turn out (20 points less than the '08 election) and die-hard Con support.

As was pointed out by Ivison, NP, the Con's received about the same number of votes as '08 but the Lib's were down by 10,000. With low voter turn out, having a sector that supports you and votes (with lower maintenance and effort to get them out to vote) can, and likely did, make the difference.

This is nothing to scoff at since the Lib's did so poor in '08 precisely because traditionally Lib voters stayed at home in droves.

However, this does not support the allegation that Fantino is a 'Superstar'.

It does suggest that if Harper had not made Fantino a Minister, his supporters, or possibly even Fantino himself, may have felt somehow let down - which would bode ill in the next election.

This would explain Harper giving Fantino the lowest of the low portfolios.

Also, listening to an interview the day after his win, I got the impression that Fantino was speaking his mind openly (I guess he felt that now that the election was over he could let people know what he thought and stands for) and would take some time before he adjusted to the Harper ways.

So, Harper if he felt compelled to give Fantino a post certainly would not want anything with any kind of profile.

Seniors are important. They are important because they can be in a more vulnerable circumstance in our society for various reasons. They, as with all others in vulnerable circumstances, require society's attention and the government's assistance, no matter whom they choose to vote for.

Any party that might ignore them is letting society down and does so at their peril.

Harper's attention to seniors may be totally partisan and Machiavellian, and the things like the "tough-on-crime" and reduction of GST by 2 points hype's may be all smoke and mirrors, hype designed solely to attract votes with no real substance or consideration for what actually works or what is really needed. But then, that's Harper, now isn't it.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper an Extremist - The Devil You Say, But then, Just Exactly What Does Harper Mean By "we will fight [the coalition] with every means that we have"

Submitted: 7:34am, PST, 5 Jan.'11 The Toronto Star
Harper’s coalition jibes might just create one, Jan 5 2011, Thomas Walkom, Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/916030--walkom-harper-s-coalition-jibes-might-just-create-one

There is no doubt that Harper will crank up to uber-hype on co-alition between the Liberals, NDP and yes even the Block.

It matter not a bit to Harper whether this hype has the least bit of truth to it and it is not designed to win over voters. It doesn't even matter if it sounds plausible or not.

This hyper-rhetoic is aimed precisely at the die-hard, right wing extremists, epi-centred in Alberta that already support Harper and the Con's pretty much no matter what, which registers 33% in the opinion polls.

The other 66% are the moderate majority that don't want Harper running this country and are not likely to vote Con because of talk of a co-alition.

"losers don't get to form coalitions" is not a statement of some kind of universal truth or even Con dogma, it is a political 'call-to-arms' to animate Harper's die-hard supporters to bigger and better support.

But, when Harper states that:
"we will fight it with every means that we have"
(In Parliament on 2 Dec.'08 and Peter McKay this is in Hansard),

or,

"Friends, a Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois coalition is something we can never let happen to this country."[Stephen Harper - at the annual Con barbeque in Calgary](Winnipeg Free Press, 11 Jul.'10)

all Canadians should be asking themselves, just exactly what does Harper mean by that.


Lloyd MacILquham cicblog comments

- Harper & Flaherty - Sounds Like They're in some kind of Bizarro World where if it's 'Right' it's 'right'.

Submitted: 9:56 & 9:59am, PST, 3 Jan.'11 Toronto Star
Canada’s economy is struggling to keep up with resurgent G7.
The national economy is “running below capacity,” warns Canadian Auto Workers economist Jim Stanford, Jan 2 2011, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/business/recession/article/914737--canada-s-economy-is-struggling-to-keep-up-with-resurgent-g7?bn=1

"Canada averaged a 1.7 per cent advance during the period, beating out Italy’s 1.5, but below every other country in the G7. Germany tops the list with an impressive 6.1 per cent in growth."

Am I reading this 'Right'.

Didn't Stephen Harper, as Prime Minister of Canada, go in front of all Canadians just a few days ago in his New Year's Message and quite 'uncategorically' state:

"While the global recession persists and the economic recovery remains fragile, our Government’s Economic Action Plan is helping Canada emerge from the global economic crisis faster and stronger than most other major industrial countries."
(PM highlights Government’s 2010 accomplishmentsm, 31 Dec.'10
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&featureId=6&pageId=26&id=3861)

But, according to the facts as set out in this article, that can't be 'right' (morally, that is).

So then if we are in second last place with drastically slower growth than countries like Germany, then what in the world is Flaherty talking about when he says that he wants to maintain Canada's economic performance.

Is this some kind of Bizarro World where if it's 'Right' it's 'right'.

Don't tell me that we are all being con'd by Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and the rest of the Con's; that we can't rely on a word they are saying; that everything they say is solely, exclusively and extremely partisan uber-hype.

Then what about Flaherty's recent statement:

“In 2010, it became clear that Canada had emerged from the deepest worldwide economic crisis since the 1930s in relatively good shape,”

Does that mean that, in reality, we are not in such "relatively good shape"

His statement:
“But we are mindful that the recovery is fragile and there are still too many people out of work. " seems to be closer to the truth.

However, it is scary (and a non-sequitur for those who are keeping track) when he uses that to conclude that Canada should be:
"sticking to our plan.” (G&M, 1 Jan.'10)

And what exactly is this Harper 'Master Con Plan' anyway. Is this just a make-over of their "do nothing" economic policies and allow Canada to sink into the unregulated, unmitigated quagmire of laisse-faire, cut-throat capitalism, from which our forefathers, through their blood, sweat and tears took generations raising our society.

And what about the Ontario & Quebec economies anyway, don't they need assistance.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- News Flash: Flaherty Maintains the Liberal Fiscal Strengths Becomes Newsmaker of the Year

Flaherty voted Canadian Press's business newsmaker of 2010, Craig Wong, The Canadian Press, Jan. 01, 2011, The lobe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/flaherty-voted-canadian-presss-business-newsmaker-of-2010/article1855168/

"Finance Minister Jim Flaherty remained the steady hand at the tiller in 2010 on his way to being voted The Canadian Press business newsmaker of the year.
. . .
But despite his success in helping keep the Canadian economy on track, the coming year brings even more challenges for the finance minister as the vast majority of the stimulus spending comes to an end and he faces the task of balancing the budget to meet his target of 2015-16."

"steady hand at the tiller" & "But despite his success in helping keep the Canadian economy on track," are euphemisms for not doing anything.

"“And certainly the infrastructure program, as well as various tax cuts in hindsight, look like they have been very successful in terms of helping to sustain the recovery.” "helping to sustain the recovery."[ Paul Ferley, assistant chief economist at the Royal Bank] - is, again, a euphemism for not having done something to destroy the recovery.

So too, "But despite his success in helping keep the Canadian economy on track,"

“Canada has an excellent reputation for its fiscal performance internationally and I want to maintain that,” Mr. Flaherty said.
Again, "maintain" means to keep it as it is and not to do anything the destroy it.


“In 2010, it became clear that Canada had emerged from the deepest worldwide economic crisis since the 1930s in relatively good shape,” Mr. Flaherty said.

There is no claim here by Flaherty, and rightfully (morally) so, that Canada's performance was due to anything Flaherty or Harper did (Flaherty tried the 'Right' thing for a while - to claim responsibility in Con partisan uber-hype but had to back down after countless times being put in the embarrassing position of being confronted with the realities).

And this is for good reason.

The recession was caused by factors external to Canada. The recovery from recession, once again is external to Canada.

Canada has been able to survive so far because of two factors:

the excellent shape of the economy that that Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin built up over 10 years, which was inherited by Harper and Flaherty;

and,

the exceptional strength of the Canadian banks, which, once again was the direct efforts of the Liberal Party over ten years.

In a nut shell:

What this article is referring to is that the as long as Harper and Flaherty left things alone and didn't destroy what took a generation of Liberal efforts to build Canada would be able to survive the recession, even the fiscal policies Harper & Flaherty brought in, not the least of which was the very negative reduction in GST, were enough to undermine Canada's fiscal and banking strength that are the legacy of the Liberal government. (Perhaps this is the Harper strategy - introduce some hair-brained, yahoo, one-off, extreme Con policies that, albeit harms Canada's fiscal strength are not enough to sink it, and basically maintain things as they found them, then point to these one-off's and say that's the reason everything turned out ok. Now that's a Con-con!)

For this Flaherty takes credit, without any acknowledgment whatsoever for those truly responsible - to the winner go the spoils.

On the other hand, perhaps Flaherty and Harper should be given some credit for not bringing in the full spectrum of Con policies which even he and Harper could see would have smashed Canada against the reefs of unregulated, unmitigated laisse-faire, cut-throat capitalism, as happened with so many other countries in this recession.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper Doing the 'Con-con', Yet Again - Happy New Year- Out With Old & In With the New!

Posted: 12:51 & 12:49 PM on January 1, 2011
Now that the GG and Ignatieff agree on coalition government..., Norman Spector, Globe and Mail Blog, December 27, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/spector-vision/now-that-the-gg-and-ignatieff-agree-on-coalition-government/article1850208/

"a Liberal Democrat coalition with Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s outgoing Labour Party — which had fallen from first to third place in the election -- would have been constitutionally valid, notwithstanding that its political legitimacy would have been seriously called into question. "

Right after the election when the Liberal-Democratic Party and the Labour Party were discussing a co-alition, I don't recall anyone, in the Press or otherwise, in England or here, seriously calling in to question, or calling into question at all, the legitimacy of such a co-alition. In fact, it seemed to me that the Press in England was promoting it as the most likely scenario, everything considered.

Harper's statement that only winners get to form co-alitions was made considerably after the fact and was, in reality, opportunistic, hyper-partisan spin - Harper doing the 'Con-con', yet again (Harper would have been more in place in a bygone era - Vaudville). Harper would not have dared to make such utterances while these initial negotiations were going on for good reason, he would have been put in his place, and quite properly.

Interestingly, the poll referred to at the end of this article suggests that had the Labour and the Liberal-Democrats formed a co-alition, they perhaps would be well ahead in popularity now.

Canadians are starting to realize just how much power the office of Prime Minister has through the Administrative Branch.

Power that is unchecked and unfettered by Parliament.

In actuality Harper has broken the sacred trust of the office of Prime Minister and instead of acting for the benefit of all Canadians and the best interests of Canada, as a nation, has, at all times, acted in an extreme partisan fashion for the benefit of a few, with Canada and Canadians be dam[redacted]ed.

Where is the legitimacy in that.

Harper and the Con's are a right wing party at the extreme of Canadian values. As Prime Minister, Harper is able to drag, and has been dragging, Canada to the extreme right, tearing asunder what it took our forefather generations to build, through their blood, sweat and tears. He is doing it through the administrative branch of government, unbalance by the legislative branch (Parliament).

Further, this pervasive and insidious movement to the extreme right is representative of the values of only a small minority of Canadians.

Harper is in this position not because the people of Canada want it. But, for two reasons:

Harper and the Con's have a fierce (die-hard) support by a small polarized fraction (right-wing extremists) of the population but large enough (33%) and focused enough (epi-centred Alberta) to get them in power and maintain it because all the other parties are even more polarized.

And,

with this 33% die-hard support, as long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, implement his right wing extremist program and policies that are strictly partizan with no concern for the good of Canada and Canadians.

Where is the legitimacy in that. It may be a political reality, but then so are dictatorships, but few claim them legitimate (except those in power, of course).

It is Harper's tearing this county apart that lacks legitimacy and other Parties joining together in a co-alition, whether the Con's finished first or not, is not only legitimate, but necessary if we are to save Canada and our way of life.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html