If we Want Harper to Change We've Got to Stop Dancing to His Tune

Harper's latest tyrannical move has awakened people's apathy, but will it be enough, and is it sustainable?

When I first started researching Harper's past and the neo-conservative movement, I thought maybe much of it was hyperbole.

And yet, everything outlined by the father of the movement, Leo Strauss, fits the bill.

1. Deception, the 'big lie' being that Stephen Harper was now a Tory (and also the fact that he lies constantly about everything)

2. Religious Fervour - he has tapped into the religious right in an unprecedented manner.

3. Unbridled patriotism through perpetual war. He certainly sold us on Afghanistan and the so-called 'War on Terror".

But another aspect of neo-conservatism is to be able to control the 'ignorant masses', and boy he's got that one down to a 'T'. Carol Goar explains how he does it in her Star column.'

We dance to Stephen Harper's tunes
By Carol Goar Editorial Board
January 13, 2009

Our Prime Minister has a rather unflattering view of us.

According to Stephen Harper, we are untroubled by allegations that his government ignored repeated warnings that Canadian troops, unlike any of their NATO counterparts, were handing over Afghan prisoners of war to local authorities who subjected them to torture.

If these claims are true, Canada knowingly violated the 61-year-old Geneva Convention, which prohibits signatories from torturing enemy combatants or turning them over to regimes that use torture. Our country's long-standing reputation for upholding international law and defending human rights would be badly blemished.

"That's not on the top of the radar for most Canadians," the Prime Minister told CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge in his first televised interview of the new year.

Harper considers us too complacent to oppose his decision to shut down Parliament until early March, making it impossible for MPs to ascertain what actually happened in Afghanistan.

If his reading is correct, we will soon get over our media-induced tantrum, turn our attention to the Winter Olympics and accept his self-granted right to cut off national debate whenever it serves his interests.

The Prime Minister is confident we will buy his government's claim that it handled the H1N1 pandemic properly.

He sees no need to explain – or apologize for – Ottawa's failure to provide H1N1 vaccine to most of the population until the flu had passed its peak. He is letting provincial and municipal authorities take the heat for rationing the serum when demand was high, shutting down their clinics when Ottawa didn't deliver the vaccine they'd been promised, and inoculating fewer than half of Canadians. He is counting on taxpayers to cheerfully write off this $400-million learning exercise.

And Harper assumes he can casually tell Canadians: "I am a lot more concerned by God's verdict on my life than the one of historians."

If we let this go unchallenged, as he anticipates, he will be free to set a new standard of accountability in Canadian politics: elected leaders can substitute their religious precepts for the will of the people. They can justify their actions to God, not us.

It adds up to a discomfiting national portrait: we don't care whether our country flouts international law, we won't bestir ourselves to defend our democratic rights, we can be induced to shrug off the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars on an overhyped, poorly executed pandemic management program, and we'll settle for a head of government who answers to God, not us.

What is most troubling is that Harper may have pegged us accurately:

He gambled in 2008 that we would re-elect him if he promised there would be no recession and no deficit on his watch. That worked.

He gambled 13 months ago that he could shut down Parliament to avoid a vote of confidence that would have toppled his government. That worked.

He gambled he could convince us that his government's stimulus plan – which consisted primarily of small grants to municipalities for already slated construction projects – sparked Canada's economic recovery. That seems to have worked.

And he gambled he could promise a "new era of accountability," then systematically silence voices that contradicted his own: those of parliamentarians, public servants and members of independent federal agencies. So far, that has worked.

If we want a national leader who respects us, we're going to have to change.

A brief display of indignation won't do it. Harper has waited out several of those. Nor will a temporary withdrawal of our political support. Harper has turned the polls around before.

The way to show the Prime Minister he is wrong about us is to start defying his predictions and keep doing it till he gets the message.

Harper Announces Cuts to the Military to Help Pay for His Lavish Lifestyle

I suspect now that Harper is pretending to care about the economy, while putting his neo-conservative agenda into overdrive; we will be treated to these little tidbits over the next two months.

Starting out with cuts to military spending. What a farce. Only to the forces, and no reduction in money being wasted in Afghanistan.

He has already claimed that the war there has been lost, so why are we putting in time?

Bring our soldiers home today. We have sacrificed too many and should not risk any more.

And preaching restraint, the way these guys waste our money? Now that's rich.

Canadian armed forces to cut $182 million
United Press International
December 28, 2009

OTTAWA, Dec. 28 (UPI) -- Canadian armed forces are planning cuts of $182 million to meet a strategy set by the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, military officials say.

The Defense Department said the Canadian Navy will reduce the amount of training offered to reservists and will cut back on maintenance, while the air force will reduce its flying time and hold off on non-essential repairs, The Ottawa Citizen reported Monday.

The newspaper said the army has already said it will reduce some training and limit the number of reservists who are employed full time.

The cuts are coming as the Conservative Party government has signaled public services will face cuts in a bid to reduce the $53 billion federal deficit. The air force will be forced to cut $56 million from its budget while the navy is looking at $50 million in cuts and the army must find $76 million in reductions, the Citizen said.

Report: Canadian military spread too thin
United Press International

OTTAWA, Aug. 25 (UPI) -- Canada's military forces are spread too thin to maintain current operations and also staff the upcoming Winter Olympics, the Toronto Star reported Tuesday.

Defense Department documents seen by the Star's Ottawa bureau indicate Canada's NATO role in Afghanistan could be outsourced and peacekeeping missions in 14 other international operations could be scaled back or terminated.

Military planners expressed concern about the strain of providing 4,000 soldiers for security at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver in February and a similar number for the Group of Eight summit of world leaders north of Toronto in July.

"We ... are now at the point where some requests that would seem to be minor ... are, in reality, difficult to source initially and impossible to sustain over the 2010 timeframe," a memorandum to chief of defense staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk said.

The documents said by next year, 32,000 troops, or half of the country's military, would be involved in the Afghanistan mission, the Olympics or the G8 summit.

Aside from the Afghan combat duties in Kandahar, Canadian troops have been running a military college for Afghan army officers, which may have to be outsourced to civilian contractors or retired soldiers, the Star said

Good News, Bad News, and Worse News on the Economy

Recent economic forecasts are a little unsettling.

If we had a fiscally conservative government, I might feel a little more comfortable with their handling of the recent economic crisis.

But we don't.

They are Neo-Conservatives and that's a whole different ballgame. In fact, our massive deficit and enormous debt is a good thing to them. There's no way in hell they're going to do anything to reverse that.

So instead of making decisions that will strengthen our economy and create jobs, the current situation will simply be exploited to further their agenda of dismantling the country.

As disciples of Leo Strauss, the lower class can fend for themselves. They believe that if you're poor you are genetically predestined to be, or just lazy. Don't expect any help from neo-Cons. You're the enemy, and they'll just crush you with their heel.

I don't know if many of our country's top economists realize the difference. I'm sure they do but are reluctant to say so.

Eugene Lang, a former senior economist at Finance Canada, and Philip DeMont, an economist, veteran financial journalist and former Ontario government adviser, are co-authors of the book Turning Point: Moving Beyond Neoconservatism; and they know the difference.

In a piece written for the Toronto Star, entitled Big-spender Harper true to his neoconservative roots, they outlined clearly the Harper/Flaherty agenda.

The Harper government has ... remained very true to its ideology. But that ideology is not "conservative." Rather, it is "neoconservative," and this makes a big difference on the question of deficits and fiscal policy. For neoconservatives – the denomination that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s – balanced budgets are not a first-order priority. The overriding objective is to cut taxes; balancing the books comes a distant second or even third on the to-do list. Most neoconservative governments have never gotten around to balancing the budget."

And:

" If we view the Harper government through a neoconservative lens – where tax-cutting and reducing government fiscal capacity are the paramount objectives – then the Harperites are operating in a manner entirely consistent with neoconservative economic philosophy, not to mention the track records of their forerunners in other jurisdictions.

So don't be fooled. There is nothing "liberal" about the Harper government's fiscal and economic policy. They remain true to their ideological roots, and can walk proudly in the footsteps of trailblazers like Ronald Reagan."

Remember when the economic crisis first hit? Harper downplayed it, then dismissed it. Flaherty's first budget, post crisis; had nothing in it to fight the recession, but instead was just partisan homicide. It backfired and they shut down Parliament rather than deal with it. Fortunately the Bank of Canada dropped interest rates to help with the crisis, while Jim Flaherty went skiing.

Now on to Plan B: Spend, spend, spend. See how big they can get the deficit, then drop the hatchet.

This way, they can justify their original plans to cut social programs, and have a little fun doing it. And of course, use up as many taxpayer dollars as possible for Reform-Conservative advertising. This was like Christmas come early.

It's now a year later, and the Reformers continue to exploit the economic crisis, even suggesting that's why they closed down Parliament so they can focus on stage 2. I better not see any of them hanging out at the Olympics when they're supposed to be doing their homework.

Some notes on the newest predictions.

Recession is over, but the future is still grim: experts

The great recession of the decade is behind us now, according to top Canadian economists. But Canadians are being warned there's little relief ahead. A report put out by TD Economics on Dec. 17 predicts the world economy will expand by about 4 per cent by the end of 2010 ....

Conservative MP Patrick Brown Admits That Harper Will Not Encourage Economic Growth

It's rather interesting watching this video, because Reformer Patrick Brown is laying out the neo-Conservative agenda for all to see. These are things that Stephen Harper has tried to hide, because he finds that he does better when he pretends to be governing from the centre.

Interesting.

First off, Brown applauds the Northern Foundation's and National Citizens Coalition's battle cry: More freedom through less government, then admits that they are reducing taxes to reduce the size of government and their interference in our lives. (Oops. Patty my boy. That was supposed to be hush, hush.)

Of course, that pesky interference means things like providing public heath care, education, a national child care plan, food inspection, money for 'left-wing fringe groups', etc. All of those things that made Canada strong, we must eliminate.

He then goes into a bit of slapstick for our enjoyment, discussing things like our debt, which is now the highest on record, and the $ 100.00 per month for working families ... ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

And his option for public health care? For all those families who can afford $ 500.00 to enrol their children in a sports program, they will get a tax credit with a net benefit of $ 75.00. Yeah! I feel healthier already.

But for families who can't afford to feed their children. Sorry. Better luck next time.

Can't wait to hear the rest of their 'ten year plan'? Maybe a cake with a file in it for all the ex-Reformers behind bars. That's my ten month plan.

What a doofus!

But he out does himself on the HST merry-go-around. Poor lad missed his boss's interview in BC promoting the tax and is hoping his constituents did as well. But if you thought Tim Hudak was a neanderthal on the HST, he's only the second place idiot on the subject.

Little Patty wrote an editorial for his local paper, that was far more fiction than fact and one response summed it up nicely.

Still time for province to change its course on HST
Posted By PATRICK BROWN
Barrie Examiner

In recent weeks, I have received numerous inquiries regarding the Ontario government's pending harmonized sales tax.

It has not gone unnoticed that members of the Ontario government and others are attempting to confuse the public by saying the federal government supports this tax grab. ...

RESPONSE:

Patrick Brown's recent editorial "Still time for province to change its course on HST" caught the attention of national political columnist and host of CTV's Question Period, Jane Taber, who described Brown as "a clever contortionist with his pen". I suppose Brown and his government think they were clever to deflect responsibility for their HST-enabling legislation, Bill C-62, by calling it the "Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act". Bill C-62 was not "Adopted earlier this year" as Brown claims. It was introduced two weeks ago and passed the House of Commons five days later. Ottawa insiders may consider this clever, but I suspect ordinary people will see it as deceiptful.

Brown goes on to point out that the provincial portion of HST in the Atlantic provinces is 8% and then calls for Ontario to reduce it's portion of the HST by 4 percentage points, from 8% to 4%. In 2008-2009 PST was responsible for more than 25% of the Ontario government's tax revenue. How does Mr. Brown expect the provincial government to fund the lion's share of important projects like the RVH expansion and the Simcoe Muskoka Cancer Care Centre if it slashes it's revenues? Incidentally, the federal Conservatives are the only level of government not contributing to the $400-million cost of that project. Don't bother telling us how your government has increased transfer payments to the provinces for healthcare, Mr. Brown, because those increases were set in law that was passed before your government took office.

The reason many people don't like the HST is the provincial portion of sales tax will soon apply to many things that previously were only subject to the federal sales tax, the GST. Mr. Brown calls for the province to exempt "gasoline, home heating, condo fees, new home sales, funeral costs" and "registration fees for minor hockey". Mr. Brown, why is it OK for your government to tax all those things (GST), if you don't think it's OK for the provincial government to do the same?

Tim Hudak is Far Too Immature to Run This Province. It Will be Mike Harris All Over Again.

If you closed your eyes while listening to Tim Hudak, you would swear it was Mike Harris when he was younger. Same rhetorical nonsense. Tough on crime. Lower wages for public servants. Allow police to manhandle Native protesters. Been there, done that.

Ontario cannot afford another Mike Harris.

That doesn't mean we should condone the actions of the McGuinty government, but Hudak is dead wrong on the HST. It's a political game, nothing more. Even most in his own party support the HST, they just no longer say that publicly. And let's not forget that MPP Christine Elliot is married to Jim Flaherty, the man who bribed the provinces to adopt the HST in the first place.

And remember, the vote in Parliament only paves the way for the provinces to be allowed to adopt their own tax measures. Harper set them up.

However, while Hudak opposes Native protests, he turned the Ontario legislature into a romper room, while clearly losing the control of his caucus. The provincial Conservatives chose the wrong leader, because the veterans have already turned their backs on him.

Coyle: Hudak and the Tory sit-in bring to mind Wile E. Coyote
By Jim Coyle Queen's Park
December 7, 2009

How many classic cartoons were based on the premise of the perennially hapless hunter – Elmer Fudd tracking Bugs Bunny, Wile E. Coyote chasing Road Runner – caught in booby-traps of their own making?

The Law of Unintended Consequences is often good for a laugh. Around Queen's Park last week it provided lots of food for thought.

For novice PC Leader Tim Hudak, his party's protest over the Liberal government's proposed harmonized sales tax produced a couple of unforeseen outcomes.

The first was his own loss of face when a caucus member apparently defied the boss's wishes in a stunt that spun out of control.

By most accounts, the sit-in that saw two PC members expelled indefinitely from the Legislature was intended to involve only Owen Sound-area MPP Bill Murdoch.

As it unfolded, eastern Ontario MPP Randy Hillier hopped aboard, apparently ignoring instructions from caucus elders that he leave the Legislature when ejected by Speaker Steve Peters.

Hillier's defiance of not just the Speaker but his own leadership raised embarrassing questions as to who was running the PC show.

Worse for Hudak were the justifications he offered once the standoff ended for why his MPPs flouted Legislature rules, blatantly defied the Speaker, and usurped the seats of other members.

Hudak said that, irrespective of rules, sometimes "extraordinary measures" are warranted. With that utterance he undercut his own law-and-order positioning and his credibility on long-running issues of civil disobedience.

What Hudak essentially did was give licence to civil disobedience any time anyone feels sufficiently aggrieved to arbitrarily take "extraordinary measures."

How will he stand, for instance, against any future native highway blockades in support of land claims? How can he say his right to extraordinary measures trumps anyone else's?

How can he go to Caledonia, say, and denounce native blockades and occupations there that his own caucus members have long railed against but, in essence, mimicked?

The ominous message of the PC protest was that might makes right. One of the remarkable scenes when the protest began was the way in which several of the larger male MPPs surrounded Murdoch to prevent the sergeant-at-arms from removing him.

Beside Murdoch as a self-described blocker was Toby Barrett, the MPP from Haldimand-Norfolk who has complained bitterly about the native protests at Caledonia.

By this act, Barrett disqualified himself as a credible opponent of anyone else's blockade. And as the Murdoch-Hillier siege played out, the PC caucus disqualified itself as a critic of anyone else's occupation.

Apparently trying to provoke their physical ouster, Murdoch and Hillier later occupied seats other than their own – seats to which they hadn't been elected, seats to which the elected MPPs were denied access, thereby unable to vote on legislation, robbing electors in those ridings of their voice.

As affronts to the parliamentary system go, this was fundamental.

Yet Hudak called it "fighting the good fight." If so, it was the sort of good fight that must have been designed by the Acme Co. that produced the explosives so favoured by Wile E. Coyote – and which invariably blew up in his own face.

In the end, the only useful "unintended consequence" for Hudak was that, whereas once he owed Hillier for his support in winning the leadership, he owes him nothing anymore.

Hillier cashed in whatever chit he held. And, by thumbing his nose at the leader, probably cashed in any chance he had for a place of influence should Hudak ever form a government.

Why Did Harper Sit on Almost 2 Billion Dollars For Social Housing?

The Globe and Mail reported today that less than 1% of the $1.9-billion federal fund for social housing has been spent, despite the fact that homelessness is on the rise.

Gerald Keddy must be tickled pink that his "no-good bastards" will have to stay on the sidewalks in Halifax. The Reformers can afford 100 million dollar for self serving TV ads, but nothing to help those hardest hit by the recession.

When will Canadians wake up and realize that helping those less fortunate is not a neo-conservative principle. Their only goal is not to blink.

Less than 1% of $1.9-billion social-housing fund spent so far: Hardest-hit Canadians still waiting for support

Less than 1 per cent of a $1.9-billion federal fund for social housing has actually been spent – more than a year after it was announced by the Harper government in the midst of the 2008 election campaign. Another $1.5-billion of social-housing money allotted in February's budget is also only trickling out the door, according to newly released government data.

The figures suggest Canadians who are hardest hit by the recession won't benefit from the flood of stimulus cash until the economy is well on its way to recovery. They also show that the political pledges to quickly inject cash into the struggling economy have run into the bureaucratic realities of federal-provincial negotiations ....

I Was Right, I Was Right, I Was Right ... Damn, I Was Right. Sigh.

I've been posting a lot on Stephen Harper and neo-Conservatism, suggesting that balancing the budget or even repairing the economy, was not part of Harper's agenda. It was strictly dismantling the 'Welfare State' and paving the way for the corporate elite to make even more money.

Somewhere in the back of my mind, I was hoping I was wrong, but knew that I wasn't. If you followed Stephen Harper at all, you'd know what his ultimate goal was.

In fact, back in the day when his Reformers were first trying to sell themselves as a grassroots party, they lost the support of many seniors when they learned that they wanted to end the Old Age Security, Canada Pension and Public Healthcare.

We are now a majority away from losing everything we fought so hard to accomplish.

The left have got to get their act together, unite or stop fighting each other. Otherwise, they will be complicit in our demise.

I take little comfort in knowing that economist Eugene Lang, also sees through Harper's agenda. Now we just have to get Canadians to wake up before it's too late.

Big-spender Harper true to his neoconservative roots
Running big deficits while squeezing revenue is a way of reaching goal of smaller government

A new conventional wisdom has emerged. The Harper government has been labelled moderate, centrist – even "liberal." This characterization is due entirely to the large fiscal deficits that have emerged on the Harper watch – $56 billion next year alone – deficits the government admits with a shrug will extend for several years.

No self-respecting conservative government could tolerate such profligacy, or so goes the critique. The Harperites have lost their way, abandoned their guiding philosophy, sold out to those soft-headed, big government political parties for which deficits are regarded as a normal part of governing.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Harper government has, in fact, remained very true to its ideology. But that ideology is not "conservative." Rather, it is "neoconservative," and this makes a big difference on the question of deficits and fiscal policy.

For neoconservatives – the denomination that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s – balanced budgets are not a first-order priority. The overriding objective is to cut taxes; balancing the books comes a distant second or even third on the to-do list. Most neoconservative governments have never gotten around to balancing the budget ....

...So don't be fooled. There is nothing "liberal" about the Harper government's fiscal and economic policy. They remain true to their ideological roots, and can walk proudly in the footsteps of trailblazers like Ronald Reagan.

(Eugene Lang, a former senior economist at Finance Canada, is co-founder of Canada 2020: Canada's Progressive Centre and vice-president of Bluesky Strategy Group. Philip DeMont, an economist, veteran financial journalist and former Ontario government adviser, is co-author (with Eugene Lang) of Turning Point: Moving Beyond Neoconservatism.)

Harper's Free Trade is Managed Trade and All Wrong For Canada

Part two of The Nation's Deathbed talks about the arbitrary nature of the deals that Harper has struck for Canada, without taking these important decisions to the people. Free trade is not free trade, just managed trade, and Canada's natural resources are being bartered on the open market.

The SPP agreement now mentions our water as a 'good' and all 'goods' are part of the NAFTA deal. So even if we need our water, we don't get first dibs, and if we run low, we have to purchase it from someplace else, while our own is being sent to Mexico or the US.

During the Listeriosis outbreak, then Health Minister, Tony Clement was criticized for being away. And where was Tony Clement? In Denver, where he chaired a closed-door discussion on energy security with American oil and gas company executives.

And what was he discussing with these oil and gas companies? NAFTAs proportionality clause, which is exactly how the selling off of our natural resources works?

According to the Parkland Institute:

This obscure-sounding clause essentially states that, when it comes to energy, no Canadian government can take any action which would reduce the proportion of our total energy supply which we make available to the United States from the average proportion over the last 36 months.

In other words, if over the last 36 months we have exported just under 50 per cent of our available oil (including domestic production and imports) to the United States—and we have—then no government in Canada can do anything which would result in us making less than two thirds of our total oil supply available to the US.

The ultimate finding of the report is that this clause seriously jeopardizes our own energy security in this country, and severely hampers our government’s ability to set our own energy policies. In other words, because we have signed on to the proportionality clause, we are now legally bound to prioritize the energy needs of the United States over our own.

For example, if a natural disaster were to hit eastern Canada tomorrow, our government could not say that we will cut oil or gas exports to the US by 10 per cent in order to increase the oil and gas available for disaster relief in Canada. Under NAFTA, the U.S. would be able to invoke the proportionality clause under these circumstances, and our government would essentially be forced to continue exporting at the same level as before.

This clause has a direct impact on Canadians, yet there was absolutely no discussion with us, as to whether or not we wanted to essentially give away our natural resources. All of this was done behind closed doors, with no input from the Canadian people.

Something else discussed in this portion of the documentary was labour and migrant workers.

Most Canadians are probably not aware of what Jason Kenney and Peter Van Loan have been up to. In order to maximize corporate profits, there will be sweeping changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. This will put all the power in the hands of the bosses.

Under a smokescreen of protection for workers, the regulatory changes would limit migrant workers' time in Canada to four years and bar them from re-entering Canada for the next six years. Workers could be denied entry at the border if an immigration officer decides their job offer is not genuine.

These changes do not strengthen protection for migrant workers. These changes only make workers even more vulnerable and reinforce the government's efforts to build a disposable workforce through the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP). The government states it is responding to extensive consultations. However, our organizations and countless workers have told Immigration Minister Jason Kenney that, to address systemic violations of workers rights in the TFWP, fundamental changes are needed, including ensuring migrant workers have permanent status.

Imposing limits on workers' time in Canada makes workers status even more precarious and is an unjust and arbitrary provision.

Giving immigration officers arbitrary powers in denying workers admission to Canada penalizes migrant workers rather than targeting recruiters and employers who should be held accountable for the exploitation that workers face.

The government proposes that abusive employers be banned from hiring workers for 2 years and their names be made public. However, these changes do nothing to address the reality that migrant workers who are tied to one employer and who are denied full immigration status often cannot speak out against the widespread violations in the TFWP without risking deportation.

This policy change is part of an ongoing trend of exclusion within the Canadian immigration system where the government has created more temporary programs and less access to citizenship rights. Today, people from only 38 professions are able to immigrate to Canada under the Federal Skilled Worker points system. Refugee acceptance rates have declined sharply and there is talk of further dismantling the system. Deportations have increased 50%.

Stephen Harper Managing us While Others Manage Risk

In part one of the documentary The Nation's Deathbed, we witness political activism against the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), with the battle cry "People united will never be defeated." A powerful message but is the message falling on deaf ears? Latest polls certainly would indicate that, though polls outside of an election are rarely indicative of future election results.

In 2005, the new Reform-Conservative Party was at 23% and Stephen Harper's leadership at 14%, and we all know how that turned out.

But another important part of this segment, is the new Canadian standards. At one time a CSA label on a product, really meant something. It may have hindered the ability of our trading partners to market goods here, but we didn't care. Part of our sovereignty was about the safety of Canadians.

However, there has been an erosion of those standards, and in 2007, when Harper met with then U.S. President Bush and Mexican President Calderon in Montibello, a deal was struck that pretty much eliminated government standards on goods from these two countries. Many believe that H1N1 is a direct result of that and in fact some have dubbed it the 'NAFTA Flu'.

We saw evidence of these new product safety standards with the Listeriosis outbreak, which actually provides an excellent example of how the new agreement works.

Instead of government officials doing food inspection, the move is toward allowing food processors (and indeed all industry) to inspect themselves. Then when something goes wrong, which it inevitably does, a scheme they call 'Risk Management' takes over. According to the Council of Canadians:

"At the heart of both systems is a reliance on industry reporting and monitoring, rather than independent government testing, and an emphasis on cleaning up the mess (to the environment or human lives) caused by bad products after the fact. They call this “risk management,” an about-face from the “precautionary principle” of better safe than sorry."

Under the RM plan, industry can police themselves but if something goes wrong, they will bear the brunt of it. Hence the Maple Leaf ads, that gave the appearance of a company that cared. In fact these ads were a mandatory part of the new agreement.

And before we think that taxpayers will benefit from not having to pay public servants to act as food police, remember that 22 people died from that tainted meat. And how many more outbreaks are there in the works, from listeriosis or some other contaminant? What will the death toll be then? There is a reason to have these controls and to have these inspections.

Listeriosis Timeline and Why a 'Risk Management' Scenario is Wrong:

1. Stephen Harper decides to allow food plants (and others) to inspect themselves under a 'cleaning up your own mess' agreement, gradually phasing out government food inspection.

2. Maple Leaf foods do that, but with no one policing them, profit takes centre stage.

3. Before the Listeriosis outbreak became public, a biologist working for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, blew the whistle on the cutbacks that were removing food inspections from government responsibility, and turning them over to the industry itself. He was fired.

4. News of the outbreak of Listeriosis from tainted meat hits, and in a conference call Gerry Ritz, the minister in charge of food safety, finds it all rather amusing.

5. A year after the outbreak the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is stating that they are not being given the resources to do their job (sound familiar?) and threaten that another outbreak is likely.

6. We were warned that this type of 'privatization' was just the beginning: "The listeriosis outbreak that has killed 20 Canadians could be "the tip of the iceberg" both in terms of food safety dangers and risks from other federal cutbacks, according to Agriculture Union President and food inspector Bob Kingston."

7. Harper sets up a bogus panel to investigate the situation, but stacked the team with his own staff.

8. Gerry Ritz promises to hire more meat inspectors, but does no such thing.

9. The final report makes the recommendation that they hire an independent auditor to ensure outbreaks like this are prevented. Ritz gives the job to his own assistant, which effectively means that they inspect themselves, and it is business as usual. Underfunded agency and the industry still inspects itself.

Isn't neo-Conservatism grand?

Now before you think that Gerry Ritz's callousness was unique, it is not. In order for the neo-conservative movement to be successful, you have to remove the human element. The Queen of the neo-cons, Margaret Thatcher, once said: "There is no such thing as society."

Another neo-con guru, Roger Douglas, told his disciples "Don't blink".

The SPP has actually disbanded, but not the principles. They have just been rolled into a juiced up NAFTA, and the fight continues.

Murray Dobbin believes we still have a chance to turn this movement around, but we must first get people to pay attention, and above all VOTE. I can't stress that enough. Apathy is probably more dangerous than the SPP.

Stephen Harper Has Failed us Again. We are no Longer a Nation That Dreams.

The girl in this video is another reminder of how much we've changed as a nation. She says; "I always see Canada as a peaceful country, where people have a strong sense of fairness, and take care of each other, respect minorities, and have common sense... "

That's just not who we are now, but it's who we will never be again if we don't come out of our stupor and start believing in 'us' again. We are no longer a nation of promise. I can't even think of a name to define Canada at all now. Harperville? Harperland? Neo-con Junction? Who the hell knows? We sure aren't Canadians anymore.

I just know that Stephen Harper is failing us, the media is failing us, and neo-Conservatism is failing us. But more importantly, we are failing ourselves.

U.S. isotope industry will be Canada's loss
Congress approves $163M subsidy to build new reactor, begin domestic production
The Toronto Star
November 9, 2009

OTTAWA–The United States is one step closer to getting back into the business of medical isotopes.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 400-17 on a bill that would grant $163 million (U.S.) over five years to subsidize the domestic production of medical isotopes. This could include building a reactor to produce the molybdenum-99 isotope, which has been in short supply since the aging nuclear reactor at Chalk River, Ont., shut down this year.

"This is not coming as a great surprise, especially given the pattern of disruption to medical isotopes supplies that has occurred since 2007," Dr. Christopher O'Brien, head of the Ontario Association of Nuclear Medicine, said of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act clearing the legislative hurdle.

The bill, which would also phase out exports of highly enriched uranium for medical isotope production within seven years, still needs to clear the U.S. Senate.

But the nuclear medicine and anti-proliferation community sees the wide margin of the vote as a sign the bill is not controversial in Washington, D.C.

The U.S. has long considered returning to domestic production of medical isotopes using low-enriched uranium, instead of the bomb-grade material used at Chalk River and four other major reactors in Europe and South Africa.

The ongoing shutdown at the 52-year-old National Research Universal reactor in Chalk River, which previously produced about half the North American supply of molybdenum-99 and is not expected to return to service until early next year, has accelerated the U.S. debate in recent months.

President Barack Obama approved $20 million (U.S.) last week to jump-start production and is expected to make an announcement on the issue by the end of the year.

There are several proposals on the table, ranging from refurbishing an existing reactor at the University of Missouri, to newer technologies using cyclotrons, that some observers say with the new subsidies could establish a domestic industry by 2014.

O'Brien sees it as a loss for Canada.

"We were in a leadership role in the world, in the sense of supplying medical isotopes, and with that went a lot of jobs in Canada and also ensured a safe supply of medical isotopes for our patients in Canada," O'Brien said.

"It also developed a lot of research potential in Canada and so what happens now with Canada dropping the ball, if you will, on this issue, the United States has been forced, and rightly so, to try and look after its own population because Canada has not really done a good job for the last few years."

Under Stephen Harper we are Weakening

In part one of 'Who Killed Canada' a series of lectures by author Mel Hurtig, we were given an introduction to the infrastructure of the extreme right-wing movement, beginning with the hi-jacking of our media, to the many so-called think-tanks, that provide the 'facts' to that hi-jacked media. We were also told, not that we needed to be, how dangerous Stephen Harper is to our national unity, and reminded of how he plans to divide us further, should we ever be foolish enough to give him a majority.

Part two picks up with 'Death by Decentralization', and the reduction in federal revenue that weakens spending. We learn that we are 25th of the 30 OECD countries, in terms of spending on social programs; but weakened federal revenue makes increased spending all but impossible.

I can't help but think that the reduction in the GST and other tax cuts, are part of the neo-conservative strategy. And yet polls show that Canadians put social programs at the top of their list. Ahead of tax cuts, debt repayment and defense spending. It's who we are.

The neo-liberal or libertarian ideal of less government, lower taxes and less spending on programs, was reflected in Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The neo-conservative movement, which is neo-liberalism on steroids, calls for almost no government, no taxes and no standards or controls. And absolutely no social programs.

That includes universal health care, Canada pension, EI, Old Age Security - none of those things. Listen to Harper's speeches from the time he was helping to create the Reform Party to his days with the National Citizens Coalition.

His idea of government is no government at all.

Mr. Hurtig also goes on to speak of the distribution of wealth. The gap between rich and poor is growing, so it's becoming easier for the 'haves' to embrace neo-conservatism, believing they should get to keep what they have earned. What they fail to realize is that a huge part of their success is due to universal education and health care.

However, sadly, Canada also has one of the highest rates of poverty and one of the highest rates of low paid jobs. Meanwhile the rich are getting richer, but still complaining that they are not rich enough.

94% of all families in Canada own just 3 % of the wealth. 97 % of the wealth is owned by 6% of the population. A lot of their wealth is because of the efforts of the other 94% and yet they cry and scream if we expect them to chip in to keep our nation fed, housed and healthy.

We need to raise taxes and increase spending for social programs, or we are going to be left behind. For the wealthy who don't feel they have a stake in this. If you have all the stuff, who's stuff do you think we'll be going after when we have nothing.

A healthy and strong nation should be the goal of all of it's citizens.

Do Tories Really Hate Children or do They Just Not Care?

The title of an op-ed piece in the Globe and Mail got a bit of attention 'Why do Tories Hate Children', but maybe that's what we need to shake people out of their stupor. Those of us who were living in Ontario during Mike Harris's regime, remember just how horrible it was. And the new Cons leader Hudak, is a Mike Harris clone, so I suspect he will be just as bad if not worse, if we ever gave him the keys to the kingdom.

And Stephen Harper is certainly no different, though they all speak to the neo-conservative movement. Margaret Thatcher said 'There is no such thing as society', and neo-cons are driven by dollars, not humanity. Their message: Don't blink!

They also firmly believe in a social Darwinism, where universality is the enemy. In 1994 at an awards dinner for the National Citizens Coalition, Stephen Harper prided their work on this issue: "Universality has been greatly reduced; it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy." He took pride in that.

I was so glad that Michael Ignatieff came out and said that he was putting a national child care plan back on the table. Despite the recession we have to continue to move forward. Dalton McGinty is doing the same.

The Reformers may hate public education but at least we have two leaders who still believe in the importance of early childhood education for all Canadians. Good work guys.

Why do Tories hate children?
Conservatives of every stripe would deny all Canadian kids, including their own, the kind of early schooling that would set them on the path to success
Gerald Caplan
Special to The Globe and Mail
November 04, 2009

If it weren't for Mike Harris and his followers, Ontario would have begun receiving the blessings of early childhood education 15 years ago. I know. I was in the middle of the debacle.

As it tumbled towards inexorable defeat, Bob Rae's government created a Royal Commission on Learning. I was co-chair. We reported in early 1995, bare months before the doomed government was turfed out. One of our key recommendations was the introduction of early childhood education (ECE) for all Ontario children. The idea was swiftly embraced by the provincial Liberals, a significant development since they were clearly the government-in-waiting. I knew the key Liberal players and was confident they intended to implement our scheme.

Then there was Mean Mike Harris, the leader of the third place Progressive Conservatives at Queen's Park, a man whose bigotries and furies always trumped his knowledge. When asked about our ECE proposal, he replied that it was the stupidest idea he had ever heard. This was really something coming from a man who worked with the Tory caucus. Harris had a fine old time ridiculing the idea of 3-year-olds spending long days behind desks, demonstrating his complete ignorance of what ECE was really about. Soon after his surprise victory he slashed funds for existing JK and SK, not so subtly underlining his incomprehensible scorn for anything related to early childhood development.

But Harris was not alone. To our considerable surprise, ECE was considered a dangerous bogeyman by a large number of Canadian conservatives, not least those who yearned for the good old school days that never were. As one wit had noted, schools weren't as good as they used to be and never had been.

During our extensive public hearing, the paranoia about ECE hadn't been much in evidence. On the contrary. The research had demonstrated that the multiple benefits of ECE to all students, regardless of background, were so palpable that its introduction seemed a no-brainer.

The reality emerged in a series of phone-in shows I participated in soon after our report was released. I'm not easily shocked, but this time I was. ECE was seen by innumerable callers as some kind of plot to steal the minds of tiny children before they could think for themselves. Who were the plotters? What nefarious purpose did they have? To what end would helpless toddlers be brainwashed? There were no really good answers to these obvious questions. But in general, all ECE was seen as some kind of socialist/communist plot to forge Ontario's children into mindless little reds. (Obama's hearing the same nonsense)

Nothing, but nothing I could argue about the benefits of ECE and the lack of ulterior motives of any kind could sway this motley collection of paranoids. (I was not surprised to learn how many were also creationists.) It appeared they were getting ammunition for their wacky fears from organized conservative groups, some of them in the back-to-basics school movement. They made it easier for Mike Harris to deep-six ECE for many years to come.

A sidebar: One of the great unsolved mysteries of the Harris years was his later commissioning of Margaret McCain and Fraser Mustard to study early childhood development. They predictably recommended major investments in the early years of a child's life. Harris virtually ignored their report. No one, including McCain and Mustard, could ever explain Harris's actions.

A few years later Harris's federal kith and kin entered the picture. In his short tenure as prime minister, and after doing nothing about the issue as finance minister, Paul Martin began the task of developing a national child care system that would include early childhood development. But his early defeat left it to Stephen Harper to scuttle Martin's entire system and to introduce instead an allowance for parents of young children that is not remotely enough to get their kids into child care that doesn't exist.

I confess the entire tale baffles me. I want ECE not only for my family but for every child, including the children of Conservatives. Yet they would deny all Canadian children, including their own, the kind of early schooling that, research and experience confirms, would make them eager to go to school and learn, that would make them better learners, that would put all kids at a more equal advantage, that would keep them in school longer, that would make them more competent and help them to cope better, that would compensate for dysfunctional families (and heaven knows privileged families can be as dysfunctional as less privileged ones).
Why? What do these conservatives know that a generation of education researchers don't? I've been racking my brain over this one for almost 15 years now and still have no sensible answer.

So I can only say: Good for Dalton McGuinty.

We've Been Neo-Conned When We Should Have Been Punked

Much of the success of the neo-conservative movement in Canada is because we never took it seriously. The Reformers hit Parliament Hill enmasse in 1993, and we just shook our heads. Who were these yokels? They want to cane people? They want ten-year-olds to go to jail? Are we being punked?

We saw Reformer Darrel Stinson march across the floor with his fists in the air asking an opposition member if he had the 'gonads' to take him on, during a debate, and we laughed. That scene played over and over on our television sets, and while it was hilarious, we had to remind ourselves that this guy was a Member of Parliament. What just happened here?

Not believing they would last, the media mostly ignored them, every now and then repeating an outrageous remark they made, but c'mon. These guys were fools and we knew it. So how did these 'fools' end up forming a government?

It was because we weren't paying attention, in the same way that we're not paying attention now. Stephen Harper may keep them muzzled, but the fact that he has to should be our wake up call.

Not that Harper himself doesn't have a dark side he is taking great pains to conceal. As Linda McQuaig recently stated for the Toronto Star "If, as polls suggest, Stephen Harper is poised to win a majority, it's largely due to the media notion that his past reputation for extremism no longer holds."

The video above relates to Leo Strauss, the father of this neo-conservative movement and it's not too difficult to see how that relates to Harper's Reformers. The three basic principles are deception, religious fervour and unbridled patriotism through perpetual war, but an important strategy is to identify and exploit 'hot button' issues. We've been neo-conned! OUCH! But we can't say we weren't warned.

Following are excerpts from Hard Right Turn, by political science professor and author, Brooke Jeffrey.

Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada
Brooke Jeffrey
Harper-Collins, 1999
ISBN: 0-00 255762-2

Sins of Omission

Canada's neo-conservatives have relied heavily on their ability to manipulate a disgruntled and fearful middle class. The brilliance of their strategy, as former Ontario premier Bob Rae has noted, has been their ability "to convince the working majority that their fate lies with the wealthy and not with the vulnerable." Overturning the liberal ethic of community and collective responsibility, they have persuaded the middle class that they can survive only by saving themselves and throwing in their lot with the best interests of corporate Canada and the global business elite.

This argument in turn has only been successful because of the widespread and mistaken presumption of much of the middle class - in other Western liberal democracies as well as Canada - that they have been responsible for their own success. As Canadian economist John Kenneth Galbraith has described in painful detail in The Culture of Contentment, successive generations of middle-class voters have become too removed from the origins of the liberal consensus. Smug in their accomplishments and sublimely unaware that their success has been possible only due to state-sponsored education, health-care and labour programs from which they, of all citizens have benefited the most, they have lost their attachment to the social contract and the welfare state, a development which liberal politicians failed to recognize and correct in time.

Instead, with each generation more removed from the perils of the free market than the last, they prospered sufficiently to create their own reality, building suburban and exurban communities with private education, private medical care and, as American society in particular deteriorated, private security forces. When globalization took it's toll, many of the middle class sank into poverty and lost faith in the system, while those who survived not only prospered, but continued to believe it was due to their own foresight and ability. Either way, the state became less important in their lives.

"...the growing gap (between rich and poor)... described by noted economist and former (U.S.) Secretary of Labour Robert Reich is potentially even more dangerous to liberal democracy ...

"In Canada, with it's even more advanced commitment to the welfare state, the result has been the willingness of the suburban middle-class to allow the deterioration of the social safety net - in order to maintain their standard of living.

"All of these developments, of course, were only possible because of the abject failure of the liberal political elites to recognize the very real threat of the New Right and respond to it appropriately. Convinced that the liberal values and beliefs they had struggled to establish were now firmly entrenched for all time, they first ridiculed and then dismissed early neo-conservative efforts to modify or discredit them. As Canadian writer Michael Ignatieff warned in a speech delivered early in 1998 at the University of Toronto, 'Nothing has done the electoral and moral credibility of liberalism more harm than the failure to take this attack seriously.'

Astute as Canada's neo-conservatives have been, however, they have also been greatly aided by another factor which demonstrates the frailty of liberal democracy in the late twentieth century, particularly in Canada. Voter apathy, and voter ignorance, are phenomena that have boosted the fortunes of all three of Canada's leading new Right politicians immeasurably. (Like convincing Canadians that the coalition was a coup) Like Ronald Reagan, Canada's neo-conservatives were aware of the fact that they could seize power on the basis of a minority coalition of voters. The failure of some citizens to vote, and the failure of others to understand the consequences of the New Right's political agenda, played into the hands of those politicians counting on the 'deliberate ambiguity' of their message to attract sufficient voters.

"For Preston Manning this meant becoming the federal Opposition solely on the strength of his Western rural support. For Klein and Harris, it meant riding to victory on the coat-tails of the rural ridings and their provincial fundamentalist, social-conservative minorities (Strauss's 'religious fervour') For all three it meant appealing to a disgruntled and fearful middle-class, ignorant of the long-term consequences of the right-wing game plan.

In short, the success of the neo-conservative agenda in Canada must be attributed in part to the failure of the liberal politicians, the media and the educational system to perform the vital function of the political education. As Joe Pammet and Jean-Luc Pepin noted in their symposium on this subject more than a decade ago, the widespread absence of civic classes in the public school system, the failure of most politicians to recognize the importance of their role as educators, and the increasingly superficial coverage of political issues accorded by the unequipped media - emphasizing entertainment over information - have all contributed to this disturbing state of affairs."

A Great Idea to Fight Neo-Conservatism and Restore Democracy in Canada

We now know that the Reform Conservatives' attacks on the Canadian people during the parliamentary crisis, were a complete load of crap; so maybe it's now time to rethink some kind of coalition to fight this horrendous neo-conservative movement.

It is absolutely wrong for Canada, but since the Ref-Cons continue to make politics in Canada ugly, in order to bore us into giving them a majority; columnist Michael Byers has come up with a suggestion for the next election.

However, I would like to take this one step further. I think that the opposition parties, whose policies are not that different, should form a loose coalition now.

With no new confidence motions on the table, they could simply band together to make sure that none of the Ref-Con horrendous bills get passed. Now I know our government has resorted to blackmail, not that we should be surprised, but we can't let that stop us.

The opposition parties must also quit fighting each other. This is getting us nowhere. We have to take our country back, and let Harper know that Leo Strauss ideology is not welcome here.

Ironically in 2005, 62% of Canadians claimed that they would never vote for Stephen Harper, and that's exactly what happened last election. However, vote-splitting is hurting Canadians and threatening our existence as a sovereign nation.

Liberals and New Democrats together could unseat Harper: Electoral ceasefire would put nation's centre-left majority in political control

Negative ads have prejudiced voters against Michael Ignatieff, and brought Stephen Harper within reach of a majority government. The Conservatives
now lead the Liberals by about 10 percentage points. The situation seems unlikely to improve. The Prime Minister's divisive partisan tactics have diminished the public's respect for politicians in general. In just four years, he has changed the tone of media coverage and public discourse, shifting the mood of the nation toward cynicism and selfishness.

Liberal infighting has not helped, while the NDP has missed two opportunities – on climate change and macroeconomic policy – to capture the national imagination with bold ideas. There is only one surefire way to prevent a Harper majority. The Liberals and NDP should agree to not run candidates against each other in the next campaign ...

Harper's Neo-Conservatism Is Turning Deadly. When Will we Wake Up?

Part of the ideology of the neo-Conservative movement is that the federal government should not play a role in the lives of it's citizens. Therefore, when something like the swine flu hits, the government takes a step back.

Look what happened when Harper decided that meat packers could just inspect themselves. twenty-two deaths. And in the same way that the Reformers now think H1N1 is funny, Listeriosis gave our Gerry Ritz an entire comedy routine.

Blogger Montreal Simon puts it quite clearly, in letting us know that once again Canadians are just not into neo-Conservatism. We value life and would never follow Leo Strauss. We are not ignorant masses to be controlled and ignored, and we deserve better than this.

The Harper Cons and the Vaccine Nightmare
November 1, 2009

Stephen's Harper's Cons must take most of the blame. Because the reasons for their incompetence are largely IDEOLOGICAL. They don't believe in a national role for government. They don't believe in strengthening our medicare system. How could they when Harper spent 15 years trying to DESTROY it.

They believe OUR health is a purely provincial matter. But since the HarperCons forgot to tell the Swine Flu bug to respect those provincial borders, now we're in this mess, everybody is panicking or getting angry. And it all could have been avoided if these Cons had put the safety of Canadians before their hideous alien ideology, taken a leadership role in a NATIONAL emergency, and launched a massive ad campaign to educate the public and prepare them for the second wave of the pandemic. Like the British started doing SIX months ago...

But instead of preparing us for this pandemic, what did our Cons do ?Answer: Blow their ad budget trying to buy themselves a MAJORITY. By spending gazillions of OUR tax dollars deluging us with commercials about their Porky Action Plan.

And if you think that's a nightmare....Thanks to these rabidly ideological and incompetent clown porkers most of the population won't be vaccinated until well into December. And since the Swine flu could surge in the next few weeks, November promises to be an even darker month than it normally is...full of sickness and fear.

Great eh?

Tell your friends. Tell your neighbours. Tell everyone you can. Stephen Harper is definitely NOT a leader. Canada is a COUNTRY not a collection of provinces.

And these Cons have GOTTA go...

Neo-Conservatism Leaves us Swimming in a Sea of Red Ink

For all his nonsense, suggesting that the deficit would have been far worse under the Liberals, we know that Liberals are always having to clean up the messes of various conservative parties.

I might feel a little more confidence if this government was honest with us; but there are far too many lies, far too many secrets, and not enough planning for the future.

Canada's red ink won't vanish
Jim Flaherty says we'll be back in the black when the economy recovers. Here's why he's wrong

As Stephen Harper leads the country toward a historic $55-billion deficit and beyond in the name of economic stimulus, recent polls show ordinary Canadians are starting to fret about leaving their kids drowning in a sea of red ink. But not to worry. In the world according to federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, the national deficit will disappear when the Conservatives stop printing those big cardboard cheques for roads, sewers and new door knobs.

The finance minister's recent economic report went so far as to promise the country would "return to budgetary balance" without raising taxes, or cutting support to seniors or families. Canada will be back in the black, Flaherty promised, without reducing employment insurance benefits or funding to the provinces for health care, social services or regional equalization ....

Canadians Vowed Never to Vote For Stephen Harper. We Goofed!

I came across this 2005 article of Stephen Harper, back in the day before he started charging taxpayers $ 400.00 per haircut and hired a full time image consultant (also on our dime)

This is the Stephen Harper I know. This is the face of a man you can imagine standing before the horrible Council For National Policy and telling them how much he hates Canada. This evil face calling them a beacon. This is the face of a man who helped to form the Northern Foundation. This is the real Stephen Harper.

(WARNING! Don't look directly into his eyes. I made that mistake and now the nightmares are going to start again.)

What is interesting is that at the time his party was also referred to as the NCP (Neo-Conservative Party) and that he enjoyed a brief "surge of popularity, but that popularity popped like a balloon when voters saw what his plans for the Canadian Health care system was (namely, he wanted to privatize it and sell it off). He rarely talks about that now but wait until he gets a majority, if Canadians ever make that mistake. His whole reason for getting up in the morning is to accomplish that National Citizens Coalition goal.

Who Will Replace Stephen Harper?

The clock is ticking on Stephen Harper's political career. The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada has suffered a number of defeats during the summer of 2005: His attempt to overthrow Paul Martin's Liberal government failed miserably. Members of his own party joined the Liberals. Paul Martin's budget and its additions all passed successfully.

He briefly had a surge of popularity, but that popularity popped like a balloon when voters saw what his plans for the Canadian Healthcare system was (namely, he wanted to privatize it and sell it off), with polling showing that the Conservative Party had a popularity of 30% go up to 39% and then suddenly drop back down to 23% (the NDP currently have a popularity of 24%, making them a more likely candidate to be the next Official Opposition).

His political party is $1.3 million in debt due to his overspending in 2004.

In addition, he lost the same-sex marriage debate (gay marriages are now legal in Canada). And as of July 1st, Canada Day, Harper's spin doctors and advisers all quit on him, a sure sign that he is soon to be replaced.
Frankly, there is only one person right now who can replace him.

Peter Mackay is the former leader of the now dead "Progressive Conservative" party, a party which joined the Canadian Alliance/Reform party to created the new Conservative party (sometimes called the "Neo-Conservative Party" or NCP). Mackay and Stephen Harper pooled the two political parties together, with Harper gaining the upper hand in a leadership campaign because the old Reform Party was more popular and had more members than the old Progressive Conservative party.

Peter Mackay also suffers from an image problem however, the same that Stephen Harper does... namely, he looks like an accountant. A boring bean-counter, with the personality to match.

Harper's shy hawkish demeanor has never endeared him to Canadians. His tendency to whine, complain and sometimes boast is also annoying.

Peter Mackay on the other hand has recently suffered a personal loss, his very public dumping by Belinda stronach, who ditched the Conservative Party and joined the Liberals. The two had been dating for quite some time, but it is strongly rumoured that Mackay was more upset by being publicly humiliated than by any actual heartbreak, showing it was a relationship that was based purely on politics and that the two weren't really that compatible anyway.

Belinda Stronach left the Conservative Party for a number of reasons, including sexist comments made by Stephen Harper. Harper's right-wing Christianity was simply too misogynistic for her.

Harper originally replaced the much-joked about Stockwell Day, a Christian minister who had decided to get into politics, racked up a huge debt to the party, showed up at a press conference wearing a wet suit, and made a variety of racist jokes about jews, blacks and immigrants. Stockwell Day's comments and his "foot-in-mouth" form of politics resulted in his own party members rebelling against him (some even formed a separate party as a form of protest) and he eventually had to be replaced as leader. The new leader they chose was as boring as they could get, the accountant-like Stephen Harper.

And Stephen Harper has been an "adequate" leader, with the help of his spin doctors, but lets face it, he's no Preston Manning.

He simply is not the kind of man that the majority of Canadians would EVER vote for. In fact, according to polling 62% of Canadian voters say that they would NEVER vote for Stephen Harper. Only 20% said, yes they would, and the remaining 18% said they weren't sure.

With current polling showing that the Conservative Party now has a popularity of only 23% (the NDP are more popular!) it appears that Stephen Harper's days are numbered. Peter Mackay however, isn't much better.

Some people have said that Ralph Klein or Mike Harris should enter federal politics, but these ideas are essentially "poppy-cock" because Mike Harris is universally hated in his home province (Ontario) for the Walkerton Water Disaster and the assassination of Dudley George, crimes which many people in Ontario believe he should be tried in court and punished. Ralph Klein is ONLY popular in Alberta, and that popularity is waning.

So there is no viable conservative leadership.

Indeed, the Conservative party seems to have its days numbered, as the NDP is now more popular.

In politics, it usually comes down to the two main parties. Right now it appears that the conservatives have gone down the toilet. Voting for them would be like throwing your vote away.

The only options left are to either vote Liberal, or vote NDP.

If only we'd listened. I never thought we'd ever vote the Reformers into government either.

Neo-Conservatism is Failing Canada and Failing us Badly

The above video of course refers to the recent win by Danielle Smith to head up the new Wildrose Alliance provincial party in Alberta. However, all leaders who claim to be fiscally conservative, always end up with the largest deficits and debt. Why is that?

It's because as neo-conservatives, their aim is not to look after the economy, but to completely dismantle the social safety net, and create a top-down commercialism, that benefits only those who are already wealthy. Their priority is usually lower taxes, and the removal of government regulations.

Two stories here show us where Stephen Harper and his Reformers are taking us. Lower taxes have deepened our deficit, and lack of vision has stagnated our economy. But don't worry. They'll never lose any sleep over it. It's time to roll out the 'A' Team!

Recession fight leads to deepening federal deficit
Corporate tax receipts plunge 79%

The federal deficit grew by another $5.3 billion in August as corporate tax revenues plunged and spending rose, the Finance Department said Friday. That was almost triple the $1.9-billion deficit recorded in the same month last year.

Federal revenues in August were $2 billion lower than they were in August 2008 — a drop of 11.4 per cent. About half of that drop was due to a 78.6 per cent plunge in corporate tax revenues. Many corporations, which had paid taxes in previous years, lost money in the 2008 taxation year. That led to "significant" refunds of taxes paid in previous years, according to the Finance Department's monthly Fiscal Monitor publication.

Iggy: Harper not investing in Canada's future

OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff lashed out at the Conservative government Friday suggesting Prime Minister Stephen Harper has no vision and is
using public funds to secure Tory seats. The Tories have no focus, except where they can win the next election, where they can “tip a riding into Conservative hands,” Ignatieff told members of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario.

Ignatieff slammed Harper for digging Canada into a $56-billion deficit without making investments in Canada’s future. “This government’s stimulus package has failed,” he said ....

If the Issue is Not Whether You Broke a Few Rules, or Took a Few Liberties, What is it About?

During the Congressional hearings into the possible criminal actions of Goldman-Sachs, CEO Lloyd Blankfein said:

“The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our in-the-dark counterparties; we did. But you can’t hold a whole bank responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole banking system? And if the whole banking system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our financial institutions in general?

“I put it to you, Carl Levin! Isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!”

Who was bad mouthing the United States of America? This was an investigation into the actions of one firm, gambling on the failure of the sub-prime mortgage industry.

The same sub-prime mortgage industry that Jim Flaherty now has us heavily invested in.

So who is Lloyd Blankfein?

According to Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks in their new book The Trouble With Billionaires:

For the most part, Western governments did little to clip the wings of Bankers, who continued to reward themselves exorbitantly even after they'd devastated the global economy in 2008. The one exception was Britain. After bailing out its banks for more than $1.6 trillion, Britain's Labour government slapped a 50 percent tax on bank bonuses in the fall of 2009. The move prompted howls of protests from the banking elite, including foreign banks operating in Britain.

As the furor grew, Goldman Sachs, the legendary Wall Street firm, quietly informed a key British media outlet that it was considering relocating its massive London operation to Geneva, signalling that its top officials had no intention of submitting to higher taxes. Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein, who received $73 million in compensation in '007 and had amassed some $500 million in Goldman stock, revealed how little the crash of 2008 had affected bankers' perception of themselves and their role in society. In an interview with The Sunday Times of London, Blankfein steadfastly defended his company and himself, explaining that he was just a banker "doing God's work."' (1)

A banker doing God's work. Was it God's work to rake in profits while people lost their homes? And yet that's just what Goldman Sachs did.

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged global investment banking and securities firm Goldman Sachs with subprime fraud on Friday, April 16, 2010. The SEC claims that Goldman Sachs intentionally defrauded investors with a risky hedge fund that was backed with ill-fated subprime mortgages.

And guess who Jim Flaherty hired for advice on our banking industry? An adviser from Goldman Sachs.





Sources:

1. The Trouble With Billionaires, By Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks, Viking Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-670-06419-9, Pg. 15