Stephen Harper A Contemptible Liar

No attack ads need to be created to defeat Stephen Harper this election, he has done it too himself.

Stephen Harper and his government; the Harper Government (c)(tm)(r) were found in contempt of parliament. a fact he continues to dismiss.

Harper government held in contempt of Parliament

The fact is his is the first government ever to fall because of a charge of contempt of parliament, and he cannot dismiss that historical fact!

This is the first time a Canadian Government has fallen on Contempt of Parliament, and marks a first for a national government anywhere in the Commonwealth of fifty-four states.

Then he was exposed as a Liar on day one of the election when he claimed that creating a coalition government to replace a minority government that had lost the support of Parliament was 'illegitimate'. Conveniently forgetting that is exactly what he proposed to do in 2004.

Duceppe's message is clear: Harper is a liar

So when it comes to issues of trust and ethics, after five years the Harpercrites have caught up with the Liberals, who fell after 13 years in power because of these kind of ethical failures.

So folks if you don't like Steve and his politics or his political cronies, like Bruce Carson, then just get out those felt pens and add 'contemptible liar', to any Harper posters you see, after all its called truth in advertising for a reason.

Contemtible Liar

Harper Conservatives Don’t Understand Meaning of “Contempt” by Kevin Parkinson – March 27, 2011 |

Even as Prime Minister Harper gave his somber faced farewell speech in the lobby of the House of Commons last Friday, he refused to acknowledge why his government was defeated. By thus refusing, Harper ironically piled on even more contempt for Canadians and their right to know how this government operates. He gave his typical, unimaginative speech attacking the Opposition parties for calling an election, for which the Conservatives have already spent $26 million of taxpayer money in pre-election spending.

If you look back at Harper’s 5 years in power, almost always he has tried to govern as if he had a majority. He has kept information secret not just from parliament but also from the media. Look at the Afghan prisoner debacle, the refusal to stick to his fixed election policy, the secret plan to build mega prisons with a failing crime rate. The list goes on.

Harper’s decision to prorogue parliament should give him the title as King of Contempt. To use a parliamentary statute to protect the Conservative party from defeat in the House has to be one of the most cowardly acts of his tenure. Another irony is, of course, that his popularity actually increased while the House was being prorogued and was empty. As the polls concluded at that time, parliament was irrelevant to Canadians. And that’s the way Harper likes it. He does not want to answer to Canadians.

Contempt

It was a motion whose time had come, perhaps not soon enough. The Harpercrites have been in contempt of Parliament since they first became a minority government in 2006, it just finally caught up with them. And they have not been scandal free since. Once in power they threw out the last vestiges of their Reform Party platform for the expediency of maintaining power at all costs.They had become the very Mulroney Conservatives that Reform had been formed against.

Canadian Government, Beset by Scandal, Collapses

C. E. S. Franks, an authority on Canadian parliamentary practice who is professor emeritus of political science at Queen’s University in Ontario, said it was the first time a Canadian government had been found in contempt of Parliament. Eight individuals have been found in contempt, he said.

Professor Franks said the Conservatives deserved credit for their economic record and for governing “reasonably competently,” but he was very critical of the government’s approach to politics.

“It’s treated Parliament like the enemy,” he said.

Walkom: Yes, contempt of Parliament does matter

But there is a bitterness to this prime minister that has infected his entire caucus. All politicians are partisan by definition. Harper’s partisanship is over the top. He not only disagrees with Canadians who are liberals and left-leaners. He seems to despise them.

All of this was manifest before he took over the merged Conservative Party. In those days, he disparaged what he called the moral failings of liberals, calling them nihilists bent on the destruction of western values.

In power, his rhetoric was often more restrained. But as former nuclear regulator Linda Keen found, those he believed tainted by Liberalism could expect no mercy. Keen was axed in 2007 because she insisted that Canadian nuclear plants have back-up power systems — systems we now know that Japan’s ill-fated Fukushima reactors famously lacked.

But her real sin was to have been appointed to by a previous Liberal government. That, Harper suggested, made her inherently untrustworthy.

Opposition MPs and others who had the temerity to disagree with the government were given equally short shrift. Canadians who questioned Ottawa’s handling of Afghan prisoners were treated as traitors. Richard Colvin, the veteran diplomat who testified to this mistreatment, was savagely and personally attacked.

At one point, when it looked like his government might be defeated, Harper simply shut down the Commons.

And while Harper flippantly dismisses the contempt charges against his governance and government, he continues to abuse his power by claiming as the outgoing PM that any form of Minority coalition government is 'illegitimate', in particular the one formed in 2008 after the fall election when he and his government refused to accept there was a recession and that they had to do something about it.

"Canadians need to understand clearly, without any ambiguity: unless Canadians elect a stable, national majority, Mr. Ignatieff will form a coalition with the NDP and Bloc Québécois," Harper said. "They tried it before. It is clear they will try it again. And, next time, if given the chance, they will do it in a way that no one will be able to stop."

"Imagine a coalition of arch-centralists and Quebec sovereignists trying to work together," Harper said. "The only thing they'll be able to agree on is to spend more money and to raise taxes to pay for it. We've all got too much at stake. Now is not the time for political instability."

Of course that was 2008 and he was in power. In 2004 then Liberal PM Paul Martin had a minority government and a coalition was formed by Harper, Duceppe and Layton against the Martin government. It was legitimate and legal then but not now says Harper.

Harper wanted 2004 coalition: Duceppe

Duceppe says Harper lying

OTTAWA - Stephen Harper is warning that the Liberals will form a coalition with the NDP and Bloc Quebecois if the May 2 federal election results in a minority government. But when he was Opposition leader, Harper didn't seem to mind the idea of governing with the support of the NDP and Bloc. Here's the text of a letter Harper and his fellow opposition leaders sent to the Governor General in 2004:

September 9, 2004

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,

C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.

Governor General

Rideau Hall

1 Sussex Drive

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.

Leader of the Opposition

Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.

Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.

Leader of the New Democratic Party

Harper has always had contempt for Parliament, when he was a Reform MP and even more so as spokesman for the right wing business lobby NCC, but no more so than over the past five years in power when he acted like he had a majority not a minority.

Now he tries to run an election campaign to become King of Canada with a Conservative majority that does not reflect the values of the vast majority of Canadians.

1984 And Now Election 2011

Warren Kinsella who used to be a Liberal Party Insider, and of course therefore a HACK, now works for the right wing conservative mouthpiece; Quebecor/SUN media, so today he declares that the election campaign is over before it begins.

Nineteen Eighty-Four wasn’t just the title of a good book by George Orwell.

It’s also a useful reminder of what may be about to happen to the Liberals and NDP in the coming election campaign.

You remember: Sept. 4, 1984, and Brian Mulroney sweeps to a massive parliamentary majority. The once-great Liberal Party — the Natural Governing Party, no less — is reduced to a paltry 40 seats.

Conservatives, up to 43%. Liberals, down to 24%. NDP, unchanged at 16%.

And if you just look at voting preferences of those absolutely certain to trek to polling stations, according to Ipsos, the Cons go up to 45%, and the Grits slide to 23%.

To put it in context, that gap is perilously close (or identical) to the 22 points that separated Mulroney and John Turner in 1984’s Gritterdammerung. Result: Tories, 211 seats, NDP 30 seats, and Grits the aforementioned 40.

So, is Michael Ignatieff this generation’s John Turner?

Of course he is but the political differences of the times are also significant. And Kinsella's prognosis is also questionable.

First in 1984 there was a great debate, a big issue that the election was to be fought over; nothing less than Free Trade.

There is no big issue in this election.

Second there was the appointment of Liberal hacks to the Senate just before the election call, which gave Mulroney his chance to defeat Turner in the debates when he challenged him to simply not appoint the Liberal hacks to the senate. "You had a choice Mr. Turner'. It was the zinger in the Leaders debate.

The NDP, the CLC trade unions and the Left had made Free Trade the issue for the election and had for two years prior. The Liberals seeing an issue which carried votes, opportunistically decided to become Anti-Free Trade hoping to get votes from the Left as the only Natural Governing Party.

In the Leaders Debate the NDP Leader Ed Broadbent carried the day as statesman, while Mulroney and Turner went at it hammer and tong. It was Mulrony who got in the election zinger.

What Kinsella fails to aknowledge is that in 1984 the NDP got enough seats, in fact increased their seats to 30, that had there been a minority government it would behoove them to ask for their support.

And even more importantly in 1984 there was NO Bloc Quebecois. In fact the BQ would originate out of the Mulroney Conservative government, a fact the current Conservative Government would like you to forget, even as they carry on in Mulroney's footsteps when it comes to gaining support in Quebec.

The Conservatives and Liberals want to have two party politics, ala the Republicans and Democrats in the US ,Conservatives and Labour in the UK.

Unlike the 1984 election this election is not about three parties but four parties. Three in English Canada and an additional Quebec based Party. By having four parties, with Quebec solidaly BQ,

The Harper Conservatives have decided to focus on the rural township votes, as they have in Western Canada, that is where their base is.

The urban cities is where the fight goes three ways, if not four. The NDP is currently more popular in Quebec than the Liberals, a historic first.

This election is about Leadership, and that is the only thing it has in common with 1984, Turner was weak, Mulroney was brash and Broadbent was conciliatory.

With the BQ there will be no repeat of 1984, we will once again have a minority government. But will it be Conservative or Liberal? The NDP is then the best place to park your vote, since Layton shows he is PM material, even more that his opponents, and if Harper has any chance so does Layton, even if it is as Leader of the Opposition.

The Liberals under Ignatieff, as they were under Turner, are toast and on that Kinsella and I agree.

Michael Ignatieff was once hailed in Liberal circles as the second coming of Pierre Trudeau. Now his challenge is to shake off the perception he's an outsider interested only in adding another ornament to his well-adorned resume.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Ignatieff+lost+lustre/4504351/story.html#ixzz1HfM9fqGI

Guergis Going Going Gone?

An interesting group of media pundits like Lorne Gunter, right wing bon vivant for Canwest, the Hill Times, the Globe and Mail and the editorial board of her home town paper are urging the PM to Fire Helena Guergis for her recent temper tantrum.

The Toronto Star also points out she was a failure at the UN meeting on Women despite being the Minister for the Status of Women. She was in fact an apologist for the anti-feminist REAL WOMAN agenda of the Harpocrite government.

Methinks that some folks are worried not only about her flipping out in public and ranting at airport workers, but that perhaps this also has something to do with hubby, the former Edmonton Strathcona MP Rahim Jaffer who was busted for drunk driving and possession of cocaine.

It's not just her recent actions that are an embarrassment to the government but also hubby who has yet to stand trial. When he does, she will be gone.....

Globe and Mail

Rahim Jaffer case heads for plea bargain

Globe and Mail - ‎Feb 23, 2010‎

A dejected Rahim Jaffer gives the thumbs up after falling behind in the Edmonton-Strathcona riding at Tory headquarters on Oct. 14, 2008. ...

Today Is Election Day

Bill C-16

Subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament, a general election must be held on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following a previous general election, with the first general election to be held on Monday, October 19, 2009.

Well okay it should have been today, except that Harper took us into an election early, violating his own law. Instead in a cynical ploy to grab power the Harpocrites ran an election saying there was no recession, they would not raise taxes nor would they have a budget deficit...my my how things changed after they were elected with another minority government and the economy crashed.

Harper then prorogued the government within two months of that election in order to avoid being ousted by an opposition coalition, while still denying there was a recession.

Today with the threat of another election still in the air one has to ask why the rush last fall if not for the fact that actually the Harpocrites have been ready for an election since they won a minority in 2006. Every day is election day for them. They are not ruling as a government but as a party running a party campaign around the economic issues they denied were a reality last fall.

However if we take the PM at his own word well perhaps we should have had an election today. But that's just a technicality...

Harper says recession is no time for an election -

Harper says recession over only in technical sense

And despite all the political platitudes offered at the time it turns out that Canada's fixed election date did turn out to be an illusion........

Bill C-16 on Fixed Date Elections November 06, 2006 Third Reading in the House of Commons House of Commons, Ottawa Monday, November 6, 2006 Check Against Delivery Introduction Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to begin debate in third reading on Bill C-16 – An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act – which would provide for fixed date elections. First of all, I would like to note that the Bill was carefully reviewed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. A range of expert witnesses has appeared before the Committee and much discussion has taken place. The Committee heard from the Chief Electoral Officer, representatives of political parties, academic experts, as well as me. While I have been informed that there were lively debates on key issues, I am pleased to note that Bill C-16 carried in Committee without amendment. Moreover, while there were some minor differences on some of the details of the Bill, I was struck by the fact that all parties represented in the House of Commons support the fundamental rationale of the Bill. I believe that all parties share the view that elections belong, fundamentally, to citizens. They belong, Mr. Speaker, to the people. All parties agreed with the principle that the timing of elections should not be left to the prime minister but should be set in advance so that all Canadians will know when the next election will occur. Mr. Speaker, today I will begin with a description of the current process for calling general elections and I will discuss some of the difficulties associated with it. This will be followed by a discussion of the many advantages associated with fixed date elections. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to present the specifics of Bill C-16. Current Process Today, it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister, whose government has not lost the confidence of the House of Commons, to determine what he or she regards as a propitious time for an election to renew the government’s mandate. The Prime Minister then requests dissolution of the House from the Governor General and, if the Governor General agrees, he or she proclaims the date of the election. What we have, Mr. Speaker, is a situation where the Prime Minister is able to choose the date of the general election, not based on what is in the best interest of the country, but what is in the interest of his or her party. Bill C-16 will address this problem and will produce a number of other benefits. Advantages of Fixed Date Elections Mr. Speaker, before going into the details of the bill, allow me to discuss the key advantages of fixed date elections. Fixed date elections will provide for greater fairness in election campaigns, greater transparency and predictability, improved governance, higher voter turnout rates, and will help in attracting the best qualified candidates to public life. Fairness First of all, allow me to discuss the issue of fairness. Fixed date elections will help to level the playing field for those seeking election in a general election. With fixed date elections, the timing of general elections will be known to all. Since the date of the next election will be known to all political parties, each party will have an equal opportunity to make preparations for upcoming election campaigns. Instead of the governing party having the advantage of determining when the next election will take place – an advantage they may have over the other parties for several months – all parties will be on an equal footing. And it’s only fair that each party will have equal time to prepare for the next election and know when it will be. Transparency and Predictability Another key advantage of fixed date elections is transparency. Rather than decisions about election dates being made behind closed doors, general election dates will be set in advance as prescribed by this bill. Once this bill is passed, the date of each election will be known by all Canadians. Predictability is also a key advantage of fixed date elections. Canadians and political parties alike will be able to rely on our democratic election system working in an open and predictable fashion for all general elections. Plans can be made on a reliable basis to prepare for, and respond to, fixed date elections. Improved Governance Mr. Speaker, fixed date elections will allow for improved governance. For example, fixed date elections will provide for improved administration of the electoral machinery by Elections Canada. The Chief Electoral Officer, in majority situations, will know with certainty when the next election will occur and will be able to plan accordingly. This will almost certainly involve greater efficiency at Elections Canada and will, therefore, very likely save money for taxpayers. Political parties will also likely save money as they will not have to remain on an ‘election footing’ for extended periods of time. Moreover, fixed date elections will allow for better parliamentary planning. For example, members of parliamentary committees will be able to set out their agendas well in advance, which will make the work of committees, and Parliament as a whole, more efficient. Higher Voter Turnout Rates Yet another reason for adopting fixed date elections is that this measure will likely improve voter turnout because elections will be held in October, except when a government loses the confidence of the House. The weather is generally favourable in most parts of the country. Fewer people are transient. So, for example, most students will not be in transition between home and school at that time and will be able to vote. Moreover, seniors will not be deterred from voting as they might be in colder months. And, of course, citizens will be able to plan in advance to participate in the electoral process, arranging for advanced voting if they plan to be away. An additional benefit is that pre-election campaigns to ‘get out the vote’ will be able to be well prepared, as the organizers will be aware of exactly when the next general election will take place. Candidates Finally, I want to mention an advantage that will have resonance to many of those in this chamber. It is a difficulty with the current system that I have witnessed personally (and something I have mentioned in interviews when Bill C-16 was first introduced). Fixed date elections will help to attract many of the best qualified Canadians into public life because it will be easier to plan their own schedules to enable them to stand for election. For many of our most talented Canadians, unfixed election dates make it difficult to plan to enter public life because they simply don’t know when the next election is going to be held. I think fixed date elections can only help in attracting the most qualified individuals to public life. Details of the Bill Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to the details of the bill. 1. Responsible Government Legislation providing for fixed date elections must be structured to meet certain constitutional realities of responsible government. They include: • the requirement that the government have the confidence of the House of Commons; • respecting the Governor General’s constitutional power to dissolve Parliament. The bill before us was drafted carefully to ensure that these constitutional requirements continue to be respected. So, the bill does not in any way change the requirement that the government must maintain the confidence of the House. Moreover, all of the conventions regarding loss of confidence remain intact. In particular, the Prime Minister’s prerogative to advise the Governor General on the dissolution of Parliament is retained, to allow him or her to advise dissolution in the event of a loss of confidence. Moreover, the bill states explicitly that the powers of the Governor General remain unchanged, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion. 2. Modeled After Provincial Legislation As set out in the government’s platform, this bill is modeled after existing provincial fixed date elections legislation. The legislation is very similar to the approach used by British Columbia, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that the legislation in all of these provinces is working – and working well. British Columbia recently had its first fixed date election (May 17, 2005) and Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador will soon have their first fixed date elections (October 4, 2007 and October 9, 2007 respectively). In British Columbia, there was certainly no evidence of what some critics have called a “lame duck government”. 3. Mechanics The government’s bill provides that the date for the next general election is Monday, October 19, 2009. Of course, this will be the date only if the government is able to retain the confidence of the House until that time. So, for example, if the government were to be defeated tomorrow, a general election would be held according to normal practice. However, the subsequent election would be scheduled for the third Monday in October, in the fourth calendar year after that election. And that is the normal model that would be established by this bill. General elections will occur on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following the previous general election. We chose the date very carefully and one of my parliamentary colleagues will provide a full explanation of our choice during the course of this debate. However, in brief, we chose the third Monday in October because it was the date that was likely to maximize voter turnout and to be least likely to conflict with cultural or religious holidays – or with elections in other jurisdictions. 4. Conflicts This raises an additional feature of the bill that I want to bring to your attention – a feature that provides for an alternate election date in the event of a conflict with a date of religious or cultural significance or an election in another jurisdiction. In the current system, the date of the general election is chosen by the government, so it is rare that a polling day is chosen that comes into conflict with a date of cultural or religious significance or with elections in other jurisdictions. However, with the introduction of legislation providing for fixed date elections, there is some possibility that, in the future, the stipulated election date will occasionally be the same as a day of cultural or religious significance or an election in another jurisdiction. The Ontario fixed date elections legislation provides that, if there is a conflict with a day of cultural or religious significance, the Chief Elections Officer may recommend an alternate polling day to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, up to seven days following the day that would otherwise be polling day. Using a variation of the Ontario legislation providing for fixed date elections, our bill empowers the Chief Electoral Officer to recommend an alternate polling day to the Governor in Council should he or she find that the polling day is not suitable for that purpose. The alternate day would be either the Tuesday or the Monday following the Monday that would otherwise be polling day. Allowing alternate polling days to be held on the following Tuesday or Monday is consistent with the current practice of holding elections on a Monday or a Tuesday. Illusory in Nature? Mr. Speaker, some Opposition members had concerns that this bill is illusory in that the Prime Minister can call an election at any point up until the fixed date for the election. However, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has to retain his prerogative to advise dissolution to allow for situations when the government loses the confidence of the House. This is a fundamental principle of our system of responsible government. Moreover, if the bill were to indicate that the Prime Minister could only advise dissolution in the event of a loss of confidence, it would have to define ‘confidence’ and the dissolution of the House of Commons would be justiciable in the courts – something that we certainly do not want. Conclusion Mr. Speaker, this bill providing for fixed date elections is long overdue in Canada. In June, Ipsos-Reid released the results of a poll which showed that 78% of Canadians support the government’s plans to provide for fixed date elections. You may know that the third week in October is already Citizenship Week in this country where we celebrate what it means to be Canadian citizens. Of course, fundamental to being a Canadian citizen is our civic responsibilities, including our duty to vote. It is fitting, then, that general election dates will be set for the third Monday in October. This legislation will provide greater fairness, increased transparency and predictability, improved policy planning, increased voter turnout, and will help to attract the best qualified Canadians to public life. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the House will join with me in supporting it and I look forward to the Bill’s speedy passage in the Senate. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

tags
Canada, Flaherty, politics, Conservatives,consumer spending, tax-credit, , economy, government, Conservatives, Harper, recession, Conference Board of Canada, consumer confidence, Economy, Finance Minister,

Blue Throne Speech

Why am I not surprised?

Throne speech warns of deficit, offers economic plan

No specifics in Tory economic plan

Because the neo-con agenda was about the failure of Keynesianism, except now all the capitalists and their political puppets are Keynesians when the market crashes. And when they applied their neo-con agenda it was during a temporary debt and deficit crisis of their own creation and it exasperated that into a full blown Reagan Recession. A little historical fact they fail to mention.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper moved closer to an about-face on economic policy today, outlining plans to stimulate growth that may run up a budget deficit after vowing to preserve surpluses.
A month after his Conservative Party government strengthened its hand in Parliament while falling short of a majority, Harper outlined his legislative agenda in a so-called Speech from the Throne, the ceremonial opening of a session. He pledged ``support'' for the country's car makers and plans to expedite infrastructure spending.
``In a historic downturn, it would be misguided to commit to a balanced budget in the short term at any cost,'' according to the text of the speech, which by tradition was read by Governor General Michaelle Jean in the country's Parliament, while Harper and other lawmakers listened. ``Ongoing'' deficits, though, would be ``unacceptable,'' Harper said.
Harper, who pledged ahead of his Oct. 14 re-election to maintain a balanced budget, told reporters last week his government may need to provide more stimulus to the world's eighth-largest economy to boost demand amid a global recession.


SEE:
Pinocchio Conservatives
Deja Vu
Business Unionism Offers No Solution To Capitalist Crisis

tags
asset-backed commercial paper ,, gold, homes, mortgages, housing, bubble, US, economy, oil prices, sub-prime mortgage, Wall Street, crash, recession,Bernanke, Inflation, Staglation, Stock-Market, US, Federal-Reserve-Chairman, Oil, gold, commoditiesSmoot-Hawley, protectionism, tariffs, Herbert Hoover, U.S., U.S. economy, Canada, Great Depression, market crash, free trade, recession, Harper, Conservatives, deficit, Government, politics, Flaherty, Budget, GST, politicsCanada, Surplus, Economy, Taxes, EI,

Arts Vote Cost Jaffer His Job

Alberta and Quebec have long been allies in their opposition to the powers of Ottawa. This past election that commonality was shown in the reaction to Harpers Arts and Culture cuts. While pundits focused on Quebec's reaction they overlooked its impact in Alberta. In particular in Festival City; Redmonton.

The defeat of Edmonton Strathcona MP Rahim Jaffer was a direct result of Harpers attack on Arts and Cultural workers. After all Redmonton has a booming arts and culture community, we have the Winspear and the Citadel, the Jubilee, we have arts groups and theatre groups, a major Symphony, Jazz City, the Fringe Festival, an International Childrens Arts Festival, a Buskers Ball, the Edmonton Folk Festival and an International Street Preformers festival, etc, etc.

Edmonton Strathcona itself is one of the cities Arts hub. Known to all as Old Strathcona with its infamous Whyte Avenue at its core, it is the centre of the Theatre community hosting the second largest Fringe Festival in the world. Not only do Edmontonians produce and preform the plays, they are mass of volunteers needed to run the Fringe and the mass of visitors to the Fringe.

Did Harper miss this fact? You bet. When the uproar over his political purging of arts funding mobilized the Arts and Cultural community, it was a nation wide response. Of course the greatest coverage was its impact in Quebec where polls showed Harper's policy led to loss of support for the Conservatives.

But overlooked was its impact here in Redmonton. Harper backpedaled and announced that he had increased Heritage Canada funding, but that of course is tied to politically correct Conservative values, then he annouced increased funding for arts and culture for wait for it....children to take piano and dance lessons. He overlooked the fact that dance classes were already eligable for his childrens athletics tax credit that the government introduced last election. And how does funding piano lessons equate with funding for Symphony orcehstra's, Opera, etc. It doesn't. And so it cost Rahim his job.

Arts voters in Edmonton Strathcona voted strategically. And not only NDP and Liberals but Conservatives as well. When it comes to Edmonton Strathcona which is the Reddest part of Redmonton, we have elected NDP MLA's here. When the provincial Tories run candidates here they have been Red Tories,

Rahim was in a tough fight and he knew it. From the start he did something he has not done in previous elections, put up lawn signs. There were Jaffer signs on my street and my moms street where they had never been before. But like the Liberal signs many were on rental or commercial properties, put their in many cases not by the renters but the landlord.

Linda Duncan ran an excellent campaign, and it was based on building a base through three elections. The NDP made a break through federally in the riding when they ran Malcolm Azania, and broke through the usual two way race between Conservatives and Liberals which had left the party trailing a distant third over the years.

The Azania campaign team stayed on and recruited Linda to run last election. She further consolidated the NDP's second place standing loosing to Jaffer by only 5000 votes, votes that had gone to the non-existant Liberal candidate. In that election it was the Liberals who were the vote spliters.

But this election it was clearly a two way race, and despite his sign campaign Jaffers laziness and arrogance cost him. He did not address the Arts cuts, nor did he distance himself from the Harper arts attacks when Harper insulted all cultural workers and masses of volunteers who support them by calling them elitists. In fact he insulted some of the leading citizens of this city who are proud of the efforts they have put into fund raising for Arts and Culture, including wealth bourgoise like the Winspears who donated to have the Winspear Centre for the Arts built. Opps.

Jafers arrogance was on public display election night when at ten o'clock he got up to announce his imminent victory, which the media mistakenly announced not noticing that their were still 14 polls not counted, polls which included mine which are all strong NDP polls.

He was pulled down from the podium by an aide who told him it wasn't in the bag yet.

When he lost he was at a loss for words for several days, again Jaffer's arrogance was publicly displayed with his refusal to concide the election. He only announced his final defeat the same day he eloped with fellow MP Helen Guergis.

The delicious irony of this is that he appears to be off to Ottawa to live with Helen as her live in Assistant and Helen will have lots of time to spend with Rahim since it is speculated that she is destined for the back bench in the upcoming cabinet shuffle.

Yes Linda Duncan and her team ran a great campaign. But in the end we have to thank Stephen Harper for attacking the Arts and Culture community, it pushed her over the top. And put a bright orange spot in the middle of Blue Alberta.

And this is no minor break through. It shows that the Harpocrites policy of taking Alberta for granted cost them big time in Edmonton Strathcona. Next election that vulnerability could lead to more defeats for the Harpocrites.



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:, Linda Duncan, RahimJaffer, Harper, Conservatives, Cabinet, Government, politics, Edmonton, Alberta, NDP, Liberals, Redmonton, politics, , Liberals, Edmonton Strathcona Claudette Roy,

Pinocchio Conservatives

Remember last election when the Harpocrites said they wouldn't tax Income Trusts? Well this election they said they wouldn't run a deficit. Yep their noses are growing again.....Canada finance minister won't rule out budget deficit



SEE:
Deja Vu

tags
asset-backed commercial paper ,, goldhomes, mortgages, housing, bubble, US, economy, oil prices, sub-prime mortgage, Wall Street, crash, recession,Bernanke, Inflation, Staglation, Stock-Market, US, Federal-Reserve-Chairman, Oil, gold, commoditiesSmoot-Hawley, protectionism, tariffs, Herbert Hoover, U.S., U.S. economy, Canada, Great Depression, market crash, free trade, recession, Harper, Conservatives, deficit, Government, politics, Flaherty, Budget, GST, politicsCanada, Surplus, Economy, Taxes, EI,

Green Shift Tax=GST

The green PM Brian Mulroney gave us the GST a tax on consumers, a regressive tax, one the Liberals promised to abolish but never got around to doing so. Stephne Dion and his Liberals now offer their of the GST with their Green Shift Tax. Again the average Canadian faces another Gouge and Screw Tax aimed at consumption rather than producers/production.
The Liberals new Green Shift is not green but it certainly is a shift, from taxing producers of greenhouse gases to those who consume the products.
In other words same old same old.
Brought to you by the folks who signed Kyoto but who had no plan to deal with it.
The Conservatives have no plan period, so this election anything they do is sheer opportunism; hence their diesel tax reduction. Which will not bring down the prices of your vegetables, furniture, or tropical fish, or anything else transported by truck.
The only party that is actually proposing a Green plan that meets the needs of capitalism is the NDP. New Zealand this week adopted a carbon cap and trade plan, Chicago has a cap and trade commodities market in place, Quebec supports cap and trade, and is creating its own market for it as well, hoping to use its hydro power as a carbon offset against the greenhouse gases produced by more inefficient coal powered utilities in Ontario and of course against the greenhouse gases produced in Alberta and the Wests rapidly expanding oil and gas fields.
Cap and Trade is the Kyoto solution for capitalism to address the climate crisis. Create a market place for trading emissions, make it a cost of doing business but market it based on an investment model.
Why the Liberals and Conservatives don't get this is simple because they fare old party's of the aristocracy and as much as they have adapted to bourgeoisie parlimentarism they fail to understand how capitalism functions. It sees a problem and it sees an investment opportunity. The Liberals and Conservatives being the old party's of the state only understand taxation not investment. They are lousy capitalists. Ironically for the libertarian ideologues of the free market it is the statist socialists who understand real world capitalism best.
The Whigs and Tories of old understood only taxation, they inherited their titles and their title to capital. With the rise of the workers movement there came the call to universal sufferage in Europe and these two old parties of the ruling classes of their day adapted. However what they did not adapt to was capitalism.
The new workers parties of Social Democracy on the other hand educated by Marx's Kapital knew of the the new world being born by their labour.
After 100 years of battle inthe parilments of capitalist democracy, honed through booms and busts and failed revolutions, they came to an post-modernist understanding in the ninties, in order to pose an alternative to the neo-con agenda of revival of 19th Century lazzie faire Austrian School economics
they needed a different social agenda. So they added eco to eco-nomics.
The Kyoto accord is not some socialist agenda to overthrow capitalism, despite its characterization as such by such neo-con mouthpieces as Stephen Harper, rather it is very much a 'market' solution to overproduction of emissions. And capitalists like it, they understand it, they endorse it which is why in states in the U.S. across Europe and around the world cap and trade is their prefered choice over carbon taxes.
But because business and its mouthpiece political party, the Conservatives, of all lands oppose carbon taxes does not mean that we as workers should support them. They are after all the most regressive form of tax that on consumption rather than production.
Nor should we be fooled that creating new stock markets based on cap and trade will actually have any real impact on the environment.
Rather we need to pose the one alternative to the crisis of capitalism and it's impact on our world, workers control of production. Nothing less will halt capitalisms ultimate entropy which is the climate crisis.




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
libertarian, libertarian-socialism, biocomplexity, science, socialism, Kropotkin, Mutual-aid, Marx, Grundrisse, biology, technology, work, labour, labor, surplus-value, capitalism, anarchy, anarchism, self-management, libertarian-communism, Marxism, industrial-ecology, environment, market, free-market, capitalism, agora, libertarian, left-libertarian, social-ecology, anarchism, green, green-capitalism, Veblen, technocracy, Kyoto, Canada Harper, Industrial-ecology, carbon-credits, EU, pollution
climate-change, Conservatives, Liberals, government, environment, oil, electricity, capitalism, sustainablity
biocomplexity, science, socialism,
biology, technology, work, labour, labor, surplus-value, Marxism, industrial-ecology, environment, market, free-market, capitalism,
social-ecology, , green, green-capitalism,, Kyoto, Canada Harper, David Suzuki, carbon-credits, EU, pollution,
climate-change, Conservatives, Liberals, government, environment, Nicholas Stern, electricity, capitalism, sustainability

The Father of the Neo-Cons Dies

William F. Buckley passed away late last month. And in his passing the liberal media myth that he was the 'public intellectual of American Conservatism', continues. The laudatory obits forget top mention he was not a public intellectual but a scion of Big Oil, with aristocratic pretensions which were mistaken for intellectualism.

His Catholicism was a pining for the old world, Old Europe and its pre-revolutionary, pre-modernist, social order. On the other hand those on the far right knew him for what he was as this John Birch Society obituary reveals;

The fact of the matter is that Buckley, far from being the father of anything resembling true conservatism (as best exemplified by Senator Robert Taft, who was denied the Republican nomination in 1952 by Buckley's philosophical brethren), was merely a very capable quarterback for a team of neoconservatives (neocons) who had graduated from the World War II-era OSS into the CIA, bringing their anti-Stalinist, but definitely Trotskyite, ideas with them. The repackaging of this anti-American philosophy as "neoconservatism" rivaled any campaign Madison Avenue ever concocted for a "new" detergent that would get your clothes whiter and brighter.

The original OSS/CIA neocons, including the aforementioned Willmoore Kendall, spotted young Bill Buckley when he was on the staff of the Yale Daily News, and tagged him as a likely rising star of their movement. (Buckley, of course, was also tapped to join the secretive Skull and Bones society while at Yale, as had both presidents Bush and Senator John Kerry.) At Kendall's urging, Buckley joined the CIA after graduating from Yale. Through Kendall, Buckley became acquainted with James Burnham, another OSS/CIA veteran who would become a prominent figure at National Review. So strong was the CIA connection that the brilliant economist and former contributor to Buckley's magazine, Murray Rothbard, said in 1981: "I'm convinced that the whole National Review is a CIA operation."

He his lauded for his debating skills, the laconic eyebrow that would rise, the Bostonian drawl all a pretense aimed at creating the illusion that he was the master debater. Like his Catholicism, it was all for show.


Buckely's Firing Line was the model for later public affairs debate shows like Cross Fire. However unlike Firing Line these later versions simply declined into shouting matches. Despite the pretenses and his dismissive attitude towards opponents Buckley at least used reason in his debates with opponents. The new turks of the neo-con establishment have adopted his dismissive style, but added shouting and rank rhetoric to make their points.

He was perhaps the last real American voice of the neo-con right in America, having been replaced by ex pat Canadians like Charles Krauthammer and David Frum. Ironic that the new spokesmen for the American right are ex-Canadians.
They of course moved south because the right in Canada is not the mainstream of our body politic (which is social democratic an anathema that Frum and Krauthammer revile) as it is in America. The other irony is that the Buckley neo-con establishment has replaced the Democrat establishment as the voice of the American Empire.

And this right wing voice of the American Empire has its echo chamber in Canada, it is the core of the Harper Conservative Party. In fact one can find a little Buckley in the imperious and dismissive attitude of our autarkic PM.

SEE:

The Fifth International

Leo Strauss and the Calgary School

Post Modern Conservatives

Why The Conservatives Are Not Libertarians


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Stephen Harper, William F. Buckley, Firing Line, Conservative Party, politics, philosophy, obituary,

Same Old Conservatives

They may have dropped the Progressive from their name but the Harper Conservative Government suddenly looks just like the old Brian Mulroney Conservative party. Coincidence? I think not.

Conservatives ensuring federal cash spent in Quebec, big time

Ministers Prentice and Fortier announced Boeing money being spread to Quebec today: Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA) says it has awarded contracts worth more than $420 million to companies in Quebec, linked to the Canadian government's 2007 order for four C-17 Globemaster 3 aircraft.The first two long-distance transport planes are already in service with Canadian Forces, having been used to support the military in Afghanistan.As part of the original order, Boeing agreed to match the price of the four aircraft with dollar-for-dollar investments in Canada through a program co-ordinated by Industry Canada....Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin also announced Monday it is providing Quebec companies with contracts worth a total of $240 million.Federal Public Works Minister Michael Fortier and Industry Minister Jim Prentice made the announcement at a news conference in nearby Laval.

Junior MacKay: "we're going to be getting our share"

The bounty spreads as we get word of a Tuesday announcement of more federal spending, following up on Monday's Quebec spending with respect to those military contracts for new transport aircraft. The Conservatives look to shore up Nova Scotia with some good old fashioned sprinkling of federal funds: Atlantic Canadian aerospace companies will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in defence contracts as the result of a move to replace the military's Hercules transport aircraft, two federal cabinet ministers are expected to announce Tuesday.The announcement of funding to aerospace companies in Nova Scotia will be made by Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Industry Minister Jim Prentice.

And remember this.....

Reports of Quebec getting Boeing spinoffs premature: Toews

Last Updated: Thursday, January 25, 2007

Treasury Board president Vic Toews denied reports that Ottawa may give Quebec a bigger share of a $3.5-billion federal contract for military aircraft — a bigger share that Manitoba worries might come at its own industry's expense.

The federal government is discussing a deal with Boeing Corp. to buy four new C-17 cargo planes.

While the Boeing airplanes would be built in the U.S., the federal deal hinges on Boeing pledging to spend an amount equal to the purchase price on projects in Canada.

About 20 per cent of the benefits could go to Western Canada. But earlier this week, federal Public Works Minister Michel Fortier said in published reports that he would not sign the contracts unless Quebec receives the biggest share.

Toews, the Conservative MP for Provencher in Manitoba, said Thursday that the reports are premature and "are completely without foundation.

The Conservatives remain the party of the Big Lie and Big Liars.


SEE

Stephen Mulroney

Stephen Mulroney Brian Harper

Canada's Real Prime Minister

Not Your Daddies Conservative Party, well...

Mulroney's Ghost

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, government, Conservatives, Stephen Harper, Brian Mulroney,
Quebec, government, Quebeckers, Quebecois,