Want Some Cool Stuff For Your Campaigns and Rallies?

UnseatHarper has some really great items for your local campaigns and rallies. T-shirts, lawn signs, bumber stickers. You name it, they've got it. Be sure to check them out.

And you can download free flyers here.

Jason Lietaer and Stephen Harper's Tea Party Campaign Not Going so Well

I watched Power and Politics yesterday, something I haven't done in quite awhile, and despite the fact that the whole 'reckless coalition' mantra is tanking, Harper's communication point man, Jason Lietaer, suggested that it would continue to be at the center of their campaign.

A big mistake.

It took just two days for the media, with the help of Gilles Duceppe, to nullify. Stephen Harper did indeed try to become Prime Minister in 2004, with the full support of the Bloc. Duceppe is far more credible on this because he not only has the original letter, but also video and Tom Flanagan's book. It's time to move on.

This only validates what Harper's critics have said all along. That he is deceitful.

It took a lot of courage for Duceppe to go public with this, because across Quebec people are saying "you've get to get rid of Harper", so admitting that he was once prepared to be kingmaker for him is a risky move. It's also interesting that Jack Layton is stepping away from it, despite the fact that he was key to both coalitions, and instead is allowing Michael Ignatieff to shoulder all of the "blame".

But I don't want to talk about the "C" word because it's enough already. On the weekend Gilles Duceppe referred to Stephen Harper's Tories 'as a retrograde Tea Party', and I think that's one of the things the other parties should focus on.

Not only on Harper's long and deep connections with the Republican Tea Party, but his style of campaigning. Stick to a few talking points and hammer them home. This might work in the U.S. where their battle cry is "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", but in Canada, we follow the creed of "Peace, Order and Good Government".

In his five years, Harper has made no attempt to be peaceful, orderly or to provide good government. Instead it has been just a never ending election campaign, much of it at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. His caucus rarely answer questions in the House, preferring to be glib and stick to their scripts. They have a 200 page manual instructing them on how to make committees dysfunctional, to avoid accountability. And they have a vetting system for handling access to information, that would rival Joseph Goebbel's.

So pitting himself against the other parties in such a manner, only validates what his critics have said all along. That he is impossible to deal with. I also found his choice of those to lead his campaign interesting. Guy Girorno, a corporate lobbyist, who once choreographed Ontario Premier Mike Harris's every move, and Jason Lietaer, another lobbyist and Mike Harris top aide.

It was once thought that Lietaer might replace Kory Teneycke as what Kady O'Malley called Director of Uncomfortable Silences. Even Jane Taber, top Harper cheerleader, listed him as one of the lobbyists in Harper's revolving door.

Which only validates what Harper's critics have said all along. That his government is run by corporate lobbyists.

This brings me to the second talking point of this campaign. That "only Stephen Harper can lead us to economic stability". They cite the fact that we did better than most countries during the collapse, despite the fact that many in the financial world agree that it was only because of measures put in place by the former government, many of which have since been torn down by Harper and Co. However, it would appear that our economic prowess was only in the short term. Many other countries are now leaving us in their dust.

That could have something to do with the fact that we were the only ones who saw the need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on "aren't we doing a great job" ads and signs, instead of focusing on the actual economic strength of recovery.

The Montreal Gazette gives us a Reality 'cheque': Harper's claims on the economy

- Canada's economy has been improving, but not at the same rate as the leading economies. Australia and Sweden are expected to lead in economic improvement in 2011, according to the report

- "Any likely post-election government can also be expected to stay on a course aimed at deficit reduction, with only the specific mix of spending and tax policy priorities under real debate."

- The Harper government increased program spending faster than the inflation rate. Between 2006-07 and 2008-09, program spending increased by an annual average of 5.1 per cent.

And the suggestion that only Stephen Harper can handle the economy, and not the Conservatives, validates yet another criticism, and perhaps the most important of them all.

Stephen Harper is a government on one. He listens to no one, not even the Canadian people.

It took just two days to tear down the entire Conservative strategy. They'd better change the channel soon because they've still got a long way to go.

To John Snobelen: If the Bloc are Traitors, Why Was Stephen Harper Sleeping With the Enemy? Twice!

John Snobelen has a rather silly column in the Sun, in which he refers to the Bloc Party as traitors.

For those who don't know, Snobelen was in the Mike Harris government (talk about your traitors), and though he dropped out of school in grade eleven, was his Minister of Education.

As the country is now waking up to the fact that Stephen Harper was in a full coalition agreement with the Bloc in 2004, there is another interesting item from the Winnipeg Free Fress, May 14, 2005. At the time, Stephen Harper was still "using" them to defeat Paul Martin: "Meanwhile an Ipsos Reid poll suggested the Liberals could be headed toward defeat if the Tories and Bloc succeed in toppling the government next week."

I think Duceppe is getting tired of Harper's "booty calls". He has to state whether or not they are in "a committed relationship" or he's through.

Harper, above, speaks to news media outside Commons after the Conservatives again forced early adjournment. At left the mace, symbol of Parliament's authority, sits beside Calendar showing Friday the 13th.

Stephen Harper Says Israeli Government is Illegitimate

It's refreshing that the media is finally beginning to denounce Harper's fear mongering about a coalition, in part by disputing his claims that he himself never entered into such a deal. Sticking to his lie, will only further diminish trust in him.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's speeches in the early days of the federal election campaign could give Canadians the shivers. Harper paints a dire picture of war and financial calamity around the world, a teetering Canadian economy, and what he says is the "terrible price to pay" if the three opposition parties banding together to usurp a Conservative minority. Harper opened the second day of his campaign Sunday once again sounding the alarm that his rivals were bent on overthrowing a future Conservative minority.

He claims that he is the only one who can present a stable government. But how stable is it, when he shuts down Parliament twice for self interest, and refuses to present the costs of bills he expects our elected officials to approve of?

The only thing that saved us during the last financial crisis was measures put in place by the last Liberal government, after they cleaned up Brian Mulroney's mess. But since then Harper and Flaherty have deregulated our banking industry, making it more difficult to survive another economic crisis. How stable is that?

He operates in total secrecy, where his word, and his word only is law. How stable is that?

I thought it might be fun though, to bring up the last election in Israel. Harper told the British Press that Losers shouldn't get to form coalitions.

Yet in Israel, where Benjamin Netanyahu is now prime minister, their government is made up of a coalition of 'losers'. Are they illegitimate? Dangerous? Unstable?

This feeling that he alone can guide us, is rather narcissistic. He hasn't been doing much of a job so far.

Stephen Harper May be Barred From Running Again

An interesting article about the Contempt of Parliament charges. I knew it was a crime but wasn't aware of the implications. Parliamentary law bars Harper from re-election. He must step down and a new leader chosen.

On Friday March 25, 2011 the Canadian House of Commons found Prime Minister Stephen Harper guilty of contempt of Parliament. According to parliamentary law, contempt of parliament is a federal crime. Being that Harper has been found guilty of a crime Harper is barred from seeking re-election on May 2, 2011. No federal government or cabinet minister has ever been found in contempt before. The vote by the Canadian House of Commons is very much the same as an impeachment of the president of the United States of America.

In the US if a president or US lawmaker is impeached (a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity) that person is removed from office and cannot run for office again. Richard Nixon avoided a vote of impeachment by resigning as president. Harper was essentially impeached from the government of Canada for the federal crime of contempt of Parliament. As a direct result of the House of Commons vote the Harper government was dissolved. As Stephen Harper was found guilty of unlawful activities he is no longer deemed to be the Prime Minister of Canada and an election was called to chose a new leader.

This is huge. I've got a book on the rules of Parliament, I'm going to see if I can find something. Harper has been impeached. How about that?

Can We Make a Case For Mandatory Voting?

In 1891, Guillame Amyot introduced a private members’ bill on compulsory voting, designed to secure “purity in politics.”

A common practice on election day then, was to not only buy votes, but have others impersonate voters on the list, known to have left the area. It was felt that compulsory voting would limit both practices. Some of the logic may have been flawed, but the intention, I suppose, honourable.

The bill was defeated as infringing on citizens' rights.

In 2004, Liberal Senator Mac Harb, sponsored Bill S-22 in the Senate, calling for the introduction of mandatory voting in Canada. His concern was not corruption but voter apathy.

Senator Harb’s call for the introduction of mandatory voting stemmed from his concern with, in his words, “a rising electoral crisis” in Canada. Voter participation rates had gradually declined over the previous three decades and had experienced a “dramatic drop” in the 2004 federal election when a “record low of just 60.9 per cent” [now lower] of electors voted. As “democracy depends upon the active participation of its citizens” and as “record numbers” of young people are no longer voting, Senator Harb claimed that the time had come for Parliament to adopt legislation requiring all eligible electors to vote. (1)

The feeling was that if voting was treated the same way as mandatory taxes, jury duty and wearing seatbelts, it would become a natural thing.

There's no doubt that Canada has a democratic deficit. Stephen Harper is in power based on the will of just 22% of eligible voters. And yet he has been able to negotiate aggressive trade deals that diminish our sovereignty, control the Senate, and refuse to provide necessary information to Parliament; our elected representatives, whom we pay to hold the government to account.

It's interesting that in a 2005 Conservative press release, suggesting that Paul Martin was abusing his power, it was written: 'Responsibility to Parliament is absolutely key in our system of government. Unlike the United States, we lack checks and balances to constrain the power of the Executive. Parliament is the only meaningful constraint on the Executive and their widespread powers. When this constraint ceases to exist, the Governor-General, effectively chosen by the Prime Minister and likely therefore beholden to him/her, becomes the only check on the Prime Minister. That check is neither realistic nor desirable, let alone democratic or accountable.' (2)

The problem with low voter turnout is that often those who don't show up at the polls, are the ones who suffer the most from government decisions. Statistics have shown that the ridings with the highest voter volume, are those with the wealthiest citizens. So should we be surprised that governments draft legislation, that has the most benefit to that level of society?

The Conservatives, in fact, count on it. They ignore the poor and disenfranchised, because they know they can't count on their vote, so instead count on them not voting at all.

The first time in recent history that this strategy has been applied, was during the Reagan campaign, when his campaign manager was Stephen Harper's bridge to the American Religious Right, Paul Weyrich.

"With [Ronald] Reagan's outspoken opposition to the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Republican strategists knew that they would have to write off the blackvote. But although 90 per cent of black voters cast their ballots for the democrats, only 30 percent of eligible black Americans voted. Republican ... strategist Paul Weyrich stated "I don't want everyone to vote ... our leverage in the election quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down. We have no moral responsibility to turn out our opposition." (3)

It's why Conservatives try to make Parliament toxic. Why they defend their scandals by suggesting that the Liberals did it too, even when that isn't true or grossly exaggerated.

If voters can remain turned off at the polls, they will continue to tune out, and low voter turn out always favours the incumbent. Personally, I don't like the idea of compulsory voting, but do accept that we are now in a democratic crisis. We have to get people voting again. And not only voting but paying attention to what is taking place in their country.

Stephen Harper has shown what happens when we don't.

We become a government of one, where the people no longer have a voice. Canada has gone from first place to last in terms of accountability and openness. Stephen Harper has grown so confident in the knowledge that people won't care what he does, that he no longer acts on the wishes of the people.

Why should he?

We need to find ways to wake up the electorate. This may be the most important election in our lifetime, because our very democracy is at stake. Another mandate for Stephen Harper, or worse still, a majority, will send him the message that Parliament doesn't matter. Democracy doesn't matter. And we don't matter.

Think about that.

Sources:

1. The Debate About Compulsory Voting , By: John C. Courtney and Drew Wilby, The Canadian Parliamentary Review, Summer 2005

2. May 10, 2005

3. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 22

New York Times: Canadian Government, Beset by Scandal, Collapses

The New York Times may have the most honest headline yet. However, the Harper government fell not only because of scandals, but for something as fundamental as contempt of Parliament.

He fails to understand that under our Parliamentary system, he has to abide by the will of Parliament. They are our representatives.

If he refuses to respect that, it means that he refuses to respect us.

I watched his press conference from this morning (taped) and he's off his game.

He was doing fine when he could stick to script, but when the media hammered him about his 2004 coalition, that his then campaign manager, Tom Flanagan, confirmed included the full support of the Bloc, he fumbled.

You can always tell when he's lying because his eyes water and his jaw looks like it's about to snap.

I think the media may have a bit of fun. For five years he's refused to answer questions, and the RCMP threatened anyone who dared to challenge that.

But Harper looked like a lonely man. His government of one, on a campaign of one.

Maybe it's time he got back in the bubble.