Let's have a losers' debate!

Much talk has been made about how Elisabeth May will not be invited to the debate. The other authors of this blog have already taken a stand on the issue. I agree mostly with Owner and Doggy on this one: it is the network's choice. They are, after all, hosting the debate, and paying for all expenses of the event (to the best of my knowledge). It is their debate which will lack the quick-witted debater who was keen to point out errors in her opponents position and logic.

But instead of simply sitting around and saying, "It's too bad, but what can we possibly do about it?", I propose that May organize a "loser's debate". This debate would incorporate all the parties that do not get seats, but get a sizable portion of the "loose" votes (votes not for major parties). This debate would be a true battle of ideas and logic: Libertarians would face off against Communist, Benevolent Dictators (or statists, either one) against Anarchists, and Socialists against Fascists (the non-Nazi kind). It would be a veritable debate, with ideologies explaining themselves, making their case, and destroying the others'.

Although many years back this would not be possible, now, thanks to modern technological innovations, it can be done. The leaders could link up through video-conferencing, allowing the party leaders to represent from all over the country. The whole thing could be live-streamed, and made available for download on a later date. The whole thing would cost very little, too: under 50$ for a video-conferencing software (or free, depending on which one); live-streaming is generally free or cheap; file-hosting sites will carry a file for very little money.

On top of giving a voice to all the parties that normally remain in the shadows the rest of the time, it would allow a better understanding of the various roots of the normal ideologies of the mainstream political parties: Libertarians and Classical Liberals for Conservatives (generally), Socialists and Classical Liberals for Liberals (generally), Socialists for the NDP, and Neo-Liberals for the Bloc (?). It would allow us to better understand why people vote for a party, even when that party seems to be doing things counter to the ideology (the way people vote for Conservatives, even when they go on spending binges).

In conclusion, instead of sitting around waiting for the next debate, watching a mud-slinging competition (sorry--debate of the party leaders), we should carpe the diem: seize the day. The Green party should organize a debate of the non-elected parties, where ideas would be discussed and ideologies could prove their points. This would not only help the third-party parties, who remain in the shadows, but help the average Canadian better understand the ideologies behind the parties, and the valid points held by the opponents. The whole thing would cost very little, and could have a large impact on the impressions of Canadians. Besides, what does the Green party have to lose? They appear as a doer, they get free publicity as all the third parties tune in, and it costs them almost nothing; the third-parties get a large audience to present to. I, personally, would watch the debate of the best and brightest of the country in politics squaring off in a battle of ideas than the typical mud fight.

It's the Networks' Choice

Many people are outraged at the fact that Elizabeth May is being excluded from the TV debates. My co-blogger went so far as to call it "undemocratic" and "unfair" for the TV consortium not to have invited the leader of the Greens to the debate. While my co-blogger is right on both accounts, democracy and justice has nothing to do with the decision.

The TV networks making up the broadcast consortium are: CBC-Radio-Canada, CTV, Global and TVA. While CBC is a Crown Corporation, none of these companies participate in government. None of them are chosen by election. They have the right to decide who to include and who not to include and accept the consequences in ratings. There is no law against excluding a political leader from a debate nor should there.

While the networks might be wrong about excluding Elizabeth May from the debates, it is not up to us, anyone or anything to force them to accept the Green leader. She can file a formal complaint with the consortium or organize debates on whatever network she chooses.

The organizer sets the rules and suffers the consequences. That's how it has been and will always be.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May is once again getting shut out of the televised debates, but she is already rallying her troops for a fight and finding some unlikely allies. 

“I feel as though I’m absolutely in a state of shock,” May said Tuesday night from Victoria, B.C. “It’s not what I expected. I thought we resolved this issue in the 2008 election campaign.”

Read more at the Toronto Star.

Related articles

• May not welcome in leaders' debates: networks (cbc.ca)
• Elizabeth May excluded from election debates (theglobeandmail.com)

Ekos Seat Projection

Ekos has come out with some projections on there lasted poll that showed the Liberals 7% behind the conservatives who are getting 35%. The projection have the Liberals at 86 a little higher than last time. The Conservatives at 139 even more away from majority. The NDP at 2006 levels 29 , and the Bloc near the hieghest at 53. No seats projected for the Green party. The problem with these projection are were the party is getting the seats from. Apparently the Liberals are going to get 6 seats in Alberta. 6 seats I wish the Liberals can get, but this is only if the Liberals get around 32% of the vote. Although I think we will do better in Alberta this time then we did last time, because of the Liberals "rural Canada matters" and no support forthe carbon tax anymore. But the last poll we were hovering around 24%. So although I hope for maybe getting 1 or 2 seats in Alberta I think 6 is very far away.  Anotrher Questionable thing with this projection is thta the Greens have not 1 seat. Yet in the poll they have 20% of the B.C vote.  just under the 21% the NDP have. But yet again in our democracy you can theoretically get 2nd place in every riding win the vote nationally and still not have one seat. Other than that It looks like another Tory minority.

NDP Candidate Defects to Liberals

Ryan Dolby, the former NDP candidate for Elgin-Middlesex-London has defected to the Liberals. Even he realizes that the best and only way to stop Stephen Harper is to vote Liberal. The NDP cannot stop the Conservatives and neither can the Bloc or Green parties. Most Canadians will never vote for the smaller parties. The vote-splitting on the Left is rampant throughout the whole country. In many ridings, Conservatives would be defeated. Since we do not have IRV, Harper has the biggest chance of his career to win a majority. The only way to stop him is to vote Liberal, just like the Dippers know.

Jack Layton was all confidence and bravado after learning that one of his candidates in London, Ont., had made to strategic decision to drop out of the race and support the Liberals. 

Ryan Dolby, who was running for the NDP in Elgin-Middlesex-London but now supports Liberal Graham Warwick, announced his decision Wednesday morning saying a vote for Michael Ignatieff’s party was the best way to prevent the Conservatives and Stephen Harper from winning majority.

 Read more at the Globe and Mail.

Related articles

• Liberals, NDP take aim at Harper but are gunning for each other (theglobeandmail.com)

May not in Debate!

The Networks have made a terrible choice, by not including Elisabeth May in the Campaign. The Green party last election got 7% of the vote almost 1 million people voted for them. The Green Party was in the debate's last election and Elisabeth did great. How can the Networks say that The Greens aren't important enough , because they don't have a seat in the election. In our democracy of FPTP it is theoretically possible for a party to place second in every riding have the most votes nationally and not have any seats. The Green party is important and shouldn't be ignored. The Green party is a quickly growing party, and the more we ignore the party the stronger it grows. Take 2008 when Elisabeth found out she was not allowed in the debates the Green party got 100,000 dollars a day. It is undemocratic to allow the Bloc who got 10% of the vote and is a regional party and not allow the party that is national and almost got 1 million votes. It is unfair. The Green party should 100% be allowed I hope the other party leaders will agree to allowing Elisabeth May in the Debate. She not only adds to the debate, but she also is a the only candidate there that will represent the people who voted for her party in 2008. I am not saying just any party should be allowed in the debate, but if a party gets substantial amount of the vote like 2% nationally where that political party gets funding from the government they should be allowed in the debate.

Sign this petition and send a message to the media to include the Green Party Here

Passports for the Future

The Learning Passport is a new initiative by the Liberal Party to help the poor pay for post-secondary education.  This would be provided through Registered Education Savings Plan to help cover the tuition costs, letting families  to pay the rest. Here are the facts:

• $1 000 or $1 500 per year, depending on family income will be deposited in high school students' RESP for a maximum of $4 000 and $6 000 respectively.
• If the student decides not to attend a post-secondary institution, the money will not be paid out.
• The Learning Passport replaces existing grants which do not pay money upfront for tuition or textbooks. The Liberal program provides more assistance than the existing programs would ever provide
• "If you get the grades, you get to go."

As is normal, the Liberals are concerned with providing young Canadians with a good, sustainable future while the Conservatives would rather spend the money on fighter jets and tax cuts to wealthy corporations. The Liberals spend, but smartly and on the right things. Only the Liberals can stop the Conservative spending spree gone out of control.

The Conservative Party was quick to try to discredit the idea, saying that it would cost students their eligibility for existing grant programs. This seems hard to fathom; surely it could be made compatible. The Conservatives would be better off putting their minds to how to continue to stimulate interest in education and training.

Read more at the Globe and Mail.

Related articles

• Leaders appeal to families, small business (cbc.ca)
• Students to get $1,000 annually under Liberal learning plan (canada.com)

Harper 1997: Coalitions are Legitimate

The ever-resourceful Enough Harper has come out with a new video with Harper saying that he believes that to form stable governments, there will have to be coalitions. This was back in 1997 when the Liberals still had a majority. Harper then considered alliances or coalitions with other parties completely valid and democratic. Somehow, when he's in power, coalitions are undemocratic and illegitimate. These videos really do need to get time on air.

Related articles

• Harper digs a coalition hole (theglobeandmail.com)
• Election 2011: Ex-adviser says Harper had coalition plan in 2004 (news.nationalpost.com)

Return of the Fake Lake

And there will be many more fake lakes unless Harper is booted out. He was the one who decided to hold the G8 summit in Huntsville, followed by the G20 summit in Toronto. That detour through Canada's largest city caused much disruption. How would erecting a fence through the middle of downtown and letting thousands of protesters loose in the streets be good for the economy or for the well-being of residents?

It would have been much easier and would have cost much less than the $1.1 billion spent. And that is considering if that price is even the real cost of the summit. Instead of wasteful spending, it's time to spend wisely, especially with a deficit. It's time to vote Liberal and support spending on education, health and pensions instead of stealth fighters, corporate tax cuts and various wasteful spending that is kept secret.

The G20 summit caused chaos in Canada’s largest city and accomplished nothing other than a $1-billion photo-op for Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Monday during a campaign stop in Toronto 

Ignatieff and Liberal MP Mark Holland (Ajax-Pickering) used the fake lake and burning police cars as a backdrop during a news conference to attack the Conservatives on wasteful spending and raise questions about Harper’s judgment.

Read more at the Toronto Star.
(Bad) memories of a fake lake…

Related articles

• Spending on jets, jails a threat to Canada's health care system: Ignatieff (thestar.com)

Yes, The Tories did have a Coalition

Stephen Harper insists that his deal with the NDP and Bloc in 2004 to bring down the Martin government and replace it was not a coalition. He calls it a "co-opposition" accord. But, alas, the truth is not always friendly. Tom Flanagan, a former campaign manager for the Conservatives AND chief of staff for Harper said that the point of this "co-opposition" accord was to see if there was common ground to base upon a coalition. It might not have been set in stone, but it was certainly in the making. What else would be the point of this accord? The Tories' insistence that this was not meant to be a coalition is totally unbelievable and typical of the lies that continue to told.

“We respectfully point out,” read the letter, “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.”

Read more at the National Post.

Related articles

• Two backs, same monkey (cbc.ca)
• Harper's coalition attacks come back to haunt him (thestar.com)

Elect Elizabeth May

Although I may be a Liberal I am a proud supporter of Elizabeth May. She is the Green party leader, And if I was living in Saanich—Gulf Islands I would volunteer for the Green party, while still hoping for A liberal win nationally. Now Elizabeth May is going to have a tough race. Even though it's has above average Green party support it is still far away from the Conservatives Gary Lunn. He last time around got 43.43% of the vote near 50% which is hard to beat. The Liberals last time were in a close second 39.36% and the Greens in third place with 10.45%. Now I wish Elizabeth May good luck in her campaign to get the first elected Green party seat. But I think the Liberals are missing out on an opportunity here. In 2008 Stephane Dion made a deal with the Greens he didn't put a candidate in her riding in Central Nova and she in return didn't put a candidate in his rinding. This helped May a lot , because now she had a shot at taking Mckay out of his riding. Because last time the Liberals got 24% now that 24% went into a undecided pool she took votes from the NDP and got 34% of the vote in 2008. In Saanich—Gulf Islands if you take out the Liberals she would have an even better shot at winning. I think the Liberals shouldn't have run a candidate there so that Elizabeth may can kick out a Conservative incumbent and in exchange the Greens don't run a candidate in Kitchener center where the Liberals lost by just under 1% if the Greens take out there candidate in the riding were they got 8% the Liberals would win easily.Now about the Liberals and greens who live in those riding's who now have no one to campaign I think the Liberal party should grant access to those greens in Kitchener center to be Liberal party volunteers and members for the campaign and the Greens should allow the Liberals in Saanich—Gulf Islands to be Green party members for the campaign and volunteers.With that you have 2 conservatives incumbents out of office a green party member in and a smaller chance Harper will get a majority. But this is very unluckily, as Liberals are already running a candidate there and the Liberal party unfortunately doesn't believe in a carbon tax currently. But I think May even without the Liberals help can win her political strategy unlike her 2008 is to stay in her riding more.

Haper Keeps Lying

When Harper went to the Governor General to formally dissolve parliament he made a statement full of lies. He said that a coalition government is undemocratic and that there is  only two choices a stable) Conservative Government. or a reckless Coalition. The fact of the matter is that a coalition is fully 100% no questions allowed. It isn't like what Stephen Harper or his cabinet made it look like in 2008. His cabinet said it was a Treason (which can be punishable by life in prison). Harper has terrible memory in 2004 He sent the Governor general a letter saying that a coalition is allowed, because the opposition parties make a majority in the house. Apparently Harper was not only sleeping with the Socialist and the separatist, but should also be charged for Treason according to his own party he should probably spend his life in those mega prisons he likes so much. A coalition is absolutely allowed, because if the majority of Canadians voted for many different parties and those parties have a majority in the house of commons they have the absolute right to form a majority government. Quite frankly i would want a Liberal, NDP and Bloc coalition any time of the day if it meant Harper is out of power. Being in contempt of parliament is chose who really is doing things undemocratic. I was a bit upset with Ignatieff answer to a coalition. I think Ignatieff should have said that a coalition is a possibility if there is a minority, because it is 100% democratic and fair. It respects the vote of Canadians, because if the opposition make the majority in the house that means that they have a mandate to govern as the people of Canada voted to allow those opposition parties a majority to make that choice.

Campaign Ads

The Liberal Party of Canada has released four new television campaign ads as well as two other radio ads. The English-language ad focuses on the fact that Liberals care for families, whereas the Conservatives would rather spend money on fighter jets and corporate tax cuts. Followed by their statement that spending on government programs must be cut. The French ad focuses on Michael Ignatieff's "love for the province and its people." I do not find the second one well-done. The two other ads released are in foreign languages, so I do not understand them, but it's a good thing the Liberals are reaching out to minorities.

English


French


Punjabi


Portuguese

Related articles

• Tories, Grits trade barbs in new campaign ads (ctv.ca)
• Ignatieff to take team approach to campaign (theglobeandmail.com)

On Your Marks. Get Set. Vote!

I know every two years so many Canadians hate voting, because they see either no effect or to quote gone with the wind "quite frankly my dear I don't give a damn". We shouldn't be so comfortable when it comes to our democracy.  People around the world are fighting for a democracy. We shouldn't complain! this is are democracy, and yes it does cost 300 million, but quite frankly I'm sure if you ask the people in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya,Yemen and many other countries they would gladly pay up 300 million every single year if it meant they got to have there democratic right to vote. On May second no matter what your politics are even if you want to vote Harper, Communist, Libertarian it doesn't matter. People across Canada should vote. Because so many across the world don't have the luxury to sit down and complain about an election.They actually have to fight for it. If you don't vote many politicians just don't listen. I am happy it only cost 300 million to have the right to vote I don't care if it cost a billion every two years the fundemental right to vote is priceless. So on May 2nd it's time to vote!

Counterpoint: Lybia

Most people argue that we should intervene in Libya. Although the degrees vary, from declaring war on the dictator to providing weaponry to the rebells to executing air strikes on targets, the common argument for all of these options is that we will help introduce a new democracy, and it is our role as an established democracy to help the emerging states transition into full democracies, as opposed to becoming the next DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo). The Canadian government has decided to go in as part of a coalition for air strikes, and has already executed a few. But before we commited to anything, we should have though the whole thing through. I will present several areas that should have recieved more consideration.

Our Role in the Conflict

Essentially, "Why are we here?" What are we trying to achieve? This will determine the best course of action. For example, if our goal was to prevent massacres, we should go in as UN troops and enforce the Rules of War. If our goal was to aid the rebels, air strikes will probably do the trick, but so would providing training, intelligence, or weapons. But if our goal was to ensure that a democracy is created, it would be helpful to start with talks on both sides about what they will do to ensure democracy, and then to join the best side. This would also help ensure a proper government is set up, as opposed to an autocratic government born out of the leadership of the rebels. It would also protect, to a degree, against the "enemy's enemies", like in Afghanistan (where we are currently fighting our enemy's enemy, the Taliban, who we offered help to).

Who we are Fighting For

Are we fighting for the rebels? Or for democracy? Or both? Or maybe it's the Libyan people we are fighting for. Are we fighting to prevent massacres, or are we picking a side? If we pick the rebels, but mean democracy, we stand the chance of the opposite. We know very little about the rebels, their beliefs, hopes, principles, and plans. It might be helpful to know that they do actually stand for western democracy, and not religious or tyrannical rule. If we say we are fighting for the people of Libya, we must remember that the armies of Gadafi are also manned by civilians, and have grown with volunteers.

Our Objectives

Is our objective to remove Gadafi from power, get the rebels in power, or ensure that both parties can fight it out, with the fewest civilian casualties? An editorial cartoon in the National Post summed it up well: "So far, we have achieved all our objectives... whatever they may be." (Friday, March 25). If we don't know what our objectives are, we can't possibly have a plan. If we don't have a plan, there is nothing stopping this operation from dragging on and on.

The End-Game Scenario

When do we win? What is our signal that we're done? If we don't have one, we risk having ours change numerous times, and draw on forever. Like in Iraq, we could end up there for years and years, changing from counter-terrorists to nation-builders (and all the different faces of that). We could have our mission in Libya go from helping rebels to helping democracy to helping a struggling nation, all the while never being able to win. Currently, we don't have an end-game; we could just keep playing.

Our Pull-out Point

When do we lose? when do we say that the costs outweigh the benefits? Is it after X amount of deaths, X dollars spent, or X time elapsed? While I am typically against lose-conditions, this is not our war; it is that of the Libyan rebells and their tyrannical ruler. We might decide that we have helped, but the costs (not just money) have escalated to a point where we can no longer afford to help any longer.

But what's the message? This post is not to try to change your mind. It was written to incite you to fully flesh out your thoughts, to be able to defend your ideas against possible opponents. It was written to help you see any incomplete or incorrect thinking, and to find solutions to them. So if you hold that we should help the rebels gain democracy, think when our help ends. If you hold the opposite view, think when we would help. There's a joke where I come from: mainstream thinking is mid-stream thinking; it is incomplete. Although it isn't always true, make sure you have a complete you can rely on.

And they're off

The vote will be held on May 2. The campaign officially started today, when Stephen Harper asked Governor-General David Johnston to dissolve Parliament. Until election day, there will be five weeks of intense campaigning, political ads and two evenings of debates, in English and French. This is the election in which we will find out whether Stephen Harper will finally get his majority. This is the election in which Michael Ignatieff will finally get to prove himself worthy of the title of Prime Minister. A lot could happen during the campaign and you can bet I'll be watching.

OTTAWA—It was a formality on a frigid day. 

Canada’s 41st general election was kicked off early Saturday morning when Prime Minister Stephen Harper asked Governor-General David Johnston to dissolve Parliament after the Conservatives were defeated Friday in the Commons on a vote of non-confidence.

Read more at the Toronto Star.

Harper has made Commonwealth History!

Harper must feel so proud! People will talk about this for years to come. His government was just declared in contempt of Parliament, provoking an election. This is the first time in the history of the Commonwealth that a government has been censured like this. And they deserved it. The Conservatives' five years in power have been marked by secrecy, smear attacks and complete disrespect or contempt for the rights of Parliament. This government is, was not transparent nor did it try to be. 

Related articles

• Harper government falls (macleans.ca)
• The Fall of the House of Harper: Non-confidence motion passes (nationalpost.com)

5 Years of Conservative Control Over!

The motion of non confidence has passed and now the Government has fallen. Finally now we have an election. In this election the choice is clear a secret, tough on crime, mega prison, oil lobbyist controlled, wasteful spenders, environmental destroyers, corrupt, in contempt and deficit hungry Conservative party. Or the fiscally responsible, environmentally friendly, transparent, senior supporters, family supporters and democracy supporters Liberal party. The conservatives want this election to be about the economy. Yes the economy is issue #1 in this election, and who can handle the economy. Harper didn't see the last recession happen as thousands of jobs were being lost. As the economy was spinning in a downward spiral Harper said the economy was fine. If we have a PM that doesn't know the difference between recession and economic success i don't want him in charge of the government. Last election the Conservatives didn't have a platform wonder if they actually have a plan they would like to share with the country, or keep to there secret ways and only tell the country what they want to do after the election which is Prorogation, tax cuts to the biggest profitable companies, allowing the oil companies to do whatever they want and not including Ontario or Quebec in the economic progress. It's time to get ride of this kind of Government that only tells us what they want to do after they get elected. It's time to vote Liberal.

████'s Record

Enough Harper has come out with another ad on booting Harper out of office. This one attacks the secrecy of the Harper government, always censoring and hiding information from Canadians. I like these ads. I think that they should be run on television. These would be good at showing the Conservatives' secrecy. Also on this topic, the Afghan detainee files could be released mid-campaign. Finally, we will know what Harper did not want us to know.

Related articles

• Harper government likely to fall after Friday vote (thestar.com)

The Fate Falls on Michael Ignatieff

Lawrence Martin wrote in the Globe and Mail that the results of the upcoming election are all going to depend on Michael Ignatieff. I agree with him. Throughout the past few years, public opinion figures have not budged much from before: Tories at low-mid thirties and Liberals at high twenties.  People do not know what Michael Ignatieff is about and this will be his chance to show Canadians what he believes in and how he is going to make Canada a better country. Then again, if the Liberal leader performs badly, we will be surely in for a Conservative government and maybe even a majority.

In the coming campaign, all will be old hats on the hustings, save one. This election, skillfully brought on by Mr. Harper, will hinge hugely on the performance of first-time campaigner, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. If he stumbles badly, the Conservatives will win a majority. If he surprises, he may well be able, with the help of the NDP, to form a government after the campaign.

Read more at the Globe and Mail.

Related articles

• Ignatieff to introduce non-confidence motion (calgaryherald.com)
• Liberals 'will win election' on economy: Ignatieff (financialpost.com)

Spend or hold Back.

According to many experts Canada is moving on the right track when it comes to the deficit. The Conservatives shouldn't take to much credit for it as the Liberals made the surplus, and grew it and then gave it to Harper. Harper took the surplus spend a lot of it, and is now going to bring it back to surplus in 2016. The only reason Harper has a surplus to go back to was, because of the strong economy the Liberals gave him and the strong surplus. Harper having a minority stoped him from having everything he wanted. If Harper gets a majority he won't be able to control the tax cuts to major corporations that will ensure that Canada will never go back to surplus and bring us back to the deficit years of  Brian Mulroney. Many economics are saying that the Government doesn't have to worry so much about the deficit because it is well on track to surplus and the government could be a little more Liberal when it comes to spending especialy when it comes to education that helps create skilled workers for the future. Now the Liberal party is in favor of improving education( but have not yet outlined a plan) which I believe helps are economy in the long term. I think we should limit spending while we have a deficit, but when it comes to important things like education it should be allowed as the benefits out weigh the price. I still keep the same belief that the Liberal party should stick to it's tough descion ideology. That ideology is that you don't spend money you don't have unless it is extremely important. I don't think we need to make drastic cuts to go back to surplus. Thanks to the Liberals who created the decade long surpluses. So no to a Quebec arena unless we have a surplus and we put other funds in other parts of the budget that desperately need it.

Election, Ho!

It seems like there is going to be Election 2011 as all three opposition parties rejected the budget. The surprise, for me at least, came when the NDP rejected the budget. As some of you might remember, I thought that the NDP would fold. Seems like I was wrong. The only question now is: how are the Tories going to be brought down? It could be done in multiple ways.

1. By voting against the budget.
2. By voting on a contempt for Parliament motion - wouldn't necessarily trigger an election, but as it does technically contain jail time as a penalty, Harper would opt to go to the polls.
3. By voting against last year's budget - there are still some measures that need to be voted on from the last of this fiscal year's budget.
4. Last, but not least, Harper could start the election before by going to the Governor-General. He could always prorogue again, but it's not likely.

To me, the technicalities do not really matter; the Harper Tories need to go down. I do think that it would be a good, strategic move to vote on the contempt of Parliament issue first. The Liberals are able to do this as Friday is an opposition day, when the Liberals set the agenda. The 40th Canadian Parliament is coming to a close.

OTTAWA—The Conservatives’ budget was swiftly and flatly rejected by all three Opposition parties, spelling the likely end of the Conservative government within a week. 

“I believe it’s time that families got a break, I believe in a Canada where no senior lives in poverty,” said NDP Jack Layton. “Clearly Mr. Harper doesn’t.

Read more at the Toronto Star.

Related articles

• Opposition moves to find Tories in contempt of Parliament (macleans.ca)

Harper deserved what was coming

The Harper government has been found in contempt of Parliament for failing to produce information about the cost of  being "tough on crime," the F-35 fighter jets and corporate tax cuts. Again and again, the Tories continue to hide documents from Canada and they get away with it. Not anymore. In theory, as this is the first time a government would be in contempt of Parliament in the history of the Commonwealth, the penalty could be imprisonment.

However, it seems that the Conservatives have stuffed the agenda with other motions and reports that the vote could be put off far into the future before a vote in the House of Commons is held. By then, there could be an election and then it would not matter if the government was in contempt of Parliament. Nevertheless, this seems to be the only way to hold the Tories accountable as they don't care for open government nor do they care for the rights of Parliament or Canadians.

OTTAWA—A Commons committee recommended the government be found in contempt of Parliament, but the Conservatives could still avoid the historic censure if a vote on the budget or other confidence motion launches an election first. 

The Commons procedure and house affairs committee tabled a majority report Monday concluding the government is in contempt for refusing to disclose enough information about the cost of several big-ticket items.

Read more at the Toronto Star.

Related articles

• MPs: Conservative government should be found in contempt of Parliament (macleans.ca)
• Committee finds Tories in contempt for stonewalling on crime-agenda costs (theglobeandmail.com)
• Report finds Tories in contempt of Parliament (calgaryherald.com)

Maybe to Nuclear Energy!

When I heard about the nuclear meltdown in Japan I was ready to hate nuclear all together, but sometimes we have to see all the facts in front of us. nuclear is a non renewable resource, but so is coal and oil. Now if I had to chose between Oil which is a non renewable resource, has caused major climate change and deaths every year(ex: of oil spills like the gulf oil spill or the Alaska oil spill) I would choose nuclear. Slate news even found out that if you take all the deaths Oil has caused (not including disease caused by pollution) compared to the deaths nuclear has caused. You see that for every unit of energy oil kills 18 times more people than nuclear. There has also been more Coal mines crumbling down (like the one in Chile and west Virginia from last year) then there has been nuclear meltdowns. And more people have died from crumbling coal mines and sickness from working at a coal mine than have died in nuclear energy. Nuclear meltdowns like the one in Chernobyl only happen because it was poorly designed here in the U.S and Canada we have regulations that make are nuclear plants safer from nuclear meltdown. The Three Mile Island in the U.S nuclear reactor meltdown caused no deaths, no significant radiation leaks and no illness came from this meltdown. The reason for the Japanese reactors melting is because of poor regulation.

Dr Masashi Goto, a nuclear engineer, resigned from his job at the Toshiba Corporation over safety concerns.

Dr Goto criticised his country's record on nuclear safety.
"We have the government commission overseeing nuclear safety standards and in my opinion they are not doing their job," he told ABC correspondent Eric Campbell last Thursday in Tokyo in an exclusive interview for Four Corners.

Dr Goto alleges that in Japan's nuclear industry profits take precedence over safety standards.
"No-one says it officially or openly. When setting standards for future earthquakes, the thought is of money - how much is it going to cost?" he said.

Although Nuclear regulation in the U.S are weaker than Japan you have to take in consideration that the U.S doesn't and isn't expecting a magnitude 9.0 earthquake. Now I do think that nuclear regulations should be prepared for the worst case scenario. Which in Japan they were not. But the U.S worst case scenario isn't magnitude 9.0 earthquake. Now I am not supporting nuclear energy in fact I don't support nuclear energy at all.I think that we should start to eliminate our nuclear reactors in North America as the U.S has done for the past decades. Currently there is debate in Vermont whether to close a nuclear power plant I fully support ending that Nuclear power plants license, and starting to build cleaner energy to replace it. Now to be realistic I don't think that all nuclear power plants be destroyed tomorrow, but rather all nuclear power plants must first be inspected, and if any pose problems fix the plant. All Nuclear energy plants should be given a timetable in which they have to leave as the city starts to build cleaner energy to replace it. Nuclear should slowly start to leave the North America as should fossil fuels, but Because efficient nuclear power plants with strong regulations emits much less and is safer than coal or oil it would be smart to start eliminating more coal and oil plants first then move to eliminate Nuclear (when they're time is up). So Nuclear is good it is bad , but when compared to the other things we use it is much better, but no new Nuclear power plants should be built.
Read more here
Click here for Fareed's view

Attacks Just Got More Personal

It wasn't enough to attack his background. No, it wasn't even enough, attacking statements said in some past year or even taking the word "yes" out of context. The Conservatives have just brought the never-ending attacks to a whole new level; attacking Michael Ignatieff's family. They have come out contradicting this recent video, saying that Ignatieff's family was actually quite rich when they immigrated to Canada.



The Tories obviously think that they know better than Michael Ignatieff himself or they would not have posted this attack. This is just sickening. Bring on the election!

Related articles

• Would Tories use an Ignatieff clip out of context? ‘Yes! Yes! Yes!’ (theglobeandmail.com)
• 'Canadians got to ask themselves is this the kind of politics you want?' (macleans.ca)

Money and elections

It is common knowledge that money wins elections. If we look at tables containing the candidates and the money they spent, there is a clear correlation between money spent and who wins. This is the whole basis for most of the uproar about sponsorship scandals. But remember : correlation is not causation. Although more money might cause higher chances of victory, it could be that higher chances of victory causes more money. Or it could be that a candidate's appeal to the voting public causes both money and high victory percentages.

Let's first use an analogy to simplify the issue. When do you cheer for a sports team:

A) When they have a sure win

B) When they stand a possibility of loosing

C) When they stand a possibility of winning

D) When they have a sure loss

Most people would answer A, B, and C. If you answered A, it is probably because you wanted to cheer for your favourite team, which is currently dominating. If you answered B, it is probably to encourage your team to play a bit harder to minimise the chances of a loss. If you answered C, it was probably to get the final push going and claim victory. But if you answered D, it is because the team is your favourite, and it is unlikely that you would ever not cheer for it. Now just replace "team" with "politician and party", and "cheer" with money.

But if you don't like the logic type of argument, because the situation is actually more complex, then entreat the statistical argument. In the book Freakonomics, authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner provide statistical proof that the candidates spending hardly matters at all when it comes to elections. They do this by comparing elections where the same candidates ran against each other (because the candidate is relatively constant). They found that when a candidate slashed their spending in half, they lost only 1% of their vote. (They used the 1000+ Congressional races where two candidates ran together for several times in a row, from 1970 until 2005, when the book was published. You can read the entirety of this argument on pages 8 to 11.)

But if you present the anecdotal evidence of various politicians who were elected "by money", as it would seem, allow me to present counter-evidence. Steve Forbes and Michael Huffington did not win their elections, and neither did Thomas Golisano, who spent $93 million of his own money over three elections, and won 4%, 8%, and 14%.

In conclusion, money does not win elections, and neither do elections win money. The chances of success of a candidate, based on their personality, their appearance, their charisma, and their platform win elections. Money is simply a byproduct of the of the chances, and has very little effect, the same way cheering has very little effect on the game at hand.

Ignatieff don't "Tax and Spend"

Stephen Harper calls the Liberals tax and spend. Now the Liberal party isn't at all tax and spend, but Micheal Ignatieff is making the party look more like it. The Liberal plan is to put the corporate tax at 18% which is higher than it is today and Igantieff also said he would spend money on the hockey arena. With that you get the Conservatives favorite line "Tax and Spend". The Liberals are of course not "tax and spend" they are the only party that is fiscally responsible during the 1990's years the Liberals were the one's who made the tough decision. And only spend or lower taxes if they had a surplus. Now The Liberals today still keep this value, but the only problem I have is that Ignatieff would be willing to spend 400 million on an arena in Quebec city. 400 million could be better spend. Ignatieff  should stop making the Liberal party look like the "Tax and Spend". Ignatieff should stick to the old Liberal policy of being fiscally responsible and spending within the governments means.

No-Fly Over Libya

The UN Security Council has voted unanimously on a motion to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. They have also authorized countries to do anything they can to protect civilians in Libya from attacks by Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi's army. This could clear the airspace for strikes on Gadhafi's tanks and ground troops.

Dropping bombs on this dictator's troops and armor would be a good way to help end his reign of terror without getting directly involved in the war. We should not not put lives in danger to fight with the rebels, but we must help them while maintaining safety and help them transition to a fair, democratic government.

The UN Security Council has voted on a resolution that would not only impose a no-fly zone but authorize member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians from attacks by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's forces. 

The vote late Thursday was 10 to zero in favour of the measure with five abstentions, including Russia and China.

Read more at CBC.

Related articles

• U.S. hints at Libya air strikes as Gadhafi pounds rebels (cnn.com)
• UN council votes for no-fly zone over Libya (thestar.com)

Attacking the Right Issue

The Liberal Party of Canada has released two new advertisements: one attack ad and one starring Michael Ignatieff speaking about the economy. The first one finally draws attention to the never-ending Tory trickery. This includes Bev Oda lying to Parliament, proroguing Parliament, launching smear campaigns against critics and renaming the Government of Canada, the "Harper Government." Someone in the Liberal Party finally woke up to this issue as this is the area in which the Conservatives are probably at their weakest.

The second ad speaks about Conservatives spending. Instead of continued economic aid or even reducing the deficit, the Tories have chosen to spend billions of dollars on mega-prisons, a fake lake and tax breaks for wealthy multinational corporations. This government has shown that they cannot properly manage the country's budget or even be responsible and transparent about their lack of competence. Election, please!

Stop Biofuel! feed people!

In the U.S because of the spike in Oil prices, and of extreme weather Food prices are rising. This has caused many people to go hungry even in the U.S as food stamps stays the same and prices increase.

Madison says her food stamp benefits have not increased despite rising food prices.

In fact millions of Americans are currently on food stamps. My suggestion curve corn based bio-fuel production. I have stated before that Bio-fuel can't be tomorrow's fuel as it is inefficient and also isn't at all environmentally friendly. So countries including Canada, U.S and many other countries should eliminate the bio fuel subsidy that are given to farmers who plant corn for bio fuel and gradually increase a subsidy for farmers to make corn for food. In fact corn is the base product of most of the products we buy. Including batteries, Coke Ca-cola and many others. By stopping useless corn based bio-fuel production and making more corn for eating and other products Corn prices could see a gradual decline and so many other important products we buy. Many might say that since we need oil to ship goods and with less bio-fuel production  there will be an increase in oil prices , and this increase would be enough to make any reduction in products prices, because of surplus corn look minimal. But if we also gradually use more renewable energy and eliminate the subsidy of fossil fuels and gradually increase the subsidy on renewable energy then oil prices would not spike as much and in future might go down.

Keystone food commodities like corn, soybeans and wheat have already increased 149% this past decade, according to the New America Foundation's Smart Strategy Initiative Director Patrick Doherty.

"With persistent high unemployment, oil fueling more than 95% of America's transportation system, and transportation costs running 24% of income in suburbia and in exurbia, 35%, America's middle class is extraordinarily exposed," writes Doherty.

Read more here

Resignation of Ministers

On Saturday, two important cabinet ministers and an MP said that they are not going to run for a seat in the next election. Unfortunately, that does not include John Baird, the rudest of the rude. They are, in descending annoyance: Chuck Strahl (Minister for Transport), Stockwell Day (Treasury Board president) and MP John Cummins. Some say that these resignations could change voting patterns in BC, as without the two ministers from that province, British Columbia won't have much cabinet representation.

I disagree. The Conservative support in B.C. has always been steady for the past for years, deviating from time to time. However, the real time to change votes will be the campaign. It is during the campaign that Ignatieff will perform for a Canadian public that virtually doesn't even know that he exists or what he stands for (partially his fault). During an election campaign, there will be much more focus on politics and Ignatieff will have a better chance than during the off-season to gain votes and seats everywhere in Canada.

An announcement Saturday that two prominent B.C. cabinet ministers and an MP are set to quit politics significantly diminishes Stephen Harper's bench strength in the province heading into a likely spring election. 

Treasury Board president Stockwell Day (OkanaganCoquihalla), Transport Minister Chuck Strahl (ChilliwackFraser Canyon) and MP John Cummins (Delta-Richmond East), all veteran MPs with strong national profiles, said they won't be running again.

Read more at the Vancouver Sun.

Related articles

• Stockwell Day, Chuck Strahl to quit politics (cbc.ca)
• Government not likely to compromise on NDP's demands: Layton (calgaryherald.com)

New Author

Hi all;

I'm lilatomic, yet another Montrealer. I am not of the center, center-left persuasion, and I have been called on to this fine blog by my friends as a counter-point. It is my task to present an opposition view, hopefully stimulating a dialog around issues that we disagree on, to better understand each other's points of view, and perhaps even reach a consensus.

I am mostly Libertarian. This means that I am fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. I believe that the government should take on a small role, and let the individuals in a society make decisions on what's best for them. I also believe that people are entitled to the fruits of their labour and thoughts. It might happen that, at some times, I agree with the other authors. This is because my beliefs tend to overlap with their's, to varying degrees.

Thanks,

lilatomic

Have you looked at Blogger lately?

Blogger unveiled a ton of improvements in 2010. Included was a new template designer, real-time stats, better comment management, mobile pages and even more! The template update was well-needed in my opinion as the latest layouts are way more esthetically-pleasing than the old ones. And this was all done with 0 down time. According to Blogger Buzz, 2011 will include a new post editor and dashboard among other things. I'm looking forward to the new features and trying them out.

Don't Fund the Arena!

Ignatieff said yesterday that he would fund an arena for Quebec City and anywhere else for that matter as long as its purpose is to "present the culture, to present the economic success of the region." That's great, except that this arena will not be for this purpose. It's no secret: the goal is to lure an NHL team to Quebec City.

But don't get me wrong. I'm all for the government contributing to the new Colisée, except not substantially. It's not in the interest of the government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a pro-sports venue. That money would be better spent on local sports facilities, to provide health benefits to all Canadians. The Quebec arena project could provide benefits to the region including an NHL team. But, the money spent on this project by the federal government should be reasonable and relatively little.

A Liberal government would support infrastructure projects including hockey arenas, party leader Michael Ignatieff said Monday. 

Speaking in Quebec City, the Liberal leader says he supports funding for a new arena if it's a multifunctional public space, and that he's said so for more than a year. He admits he hasn't seen the business plan but says there are a number of options and he's open to all of them.

Read more at CBC.

Related articles

• Liberals would fund Quebec arena, Ignatieff says (ctv.ca)
• Feds black out Quebec arena document (theglobeandmail.com)

Harper vs Harper

Somebody decided to keep Harper accountable for his words back in 2004, when he spoke out against the sponsorship scandal. Back then, he would have been appalled at the "in and out" scheme to spend more in elections and other scandals that plague this Conservative government? Probably so. The Tories are not responsible or transparent. They do not disclose important information to Parliament and half of the documents they do hand over are lies. I have had enough of Harper. We need to kick him and his party out of office.

Governor of Wisconsin Killed Unions.

The Wisconsin Governor has signed a bill that would diminish the collective bargaining rights of the unions in Wisconsin, and making the state workers pay more for there retirement . The right to collective bargaining has been granted to the unions for years. The governor say's it is for balancing the budget, but The state workers are okay with giving up some benefits and pay cuts, but they just want the governor to come to the table. I am pro cuts to balance a budget, but collective bargaining won't help reduce the shortfall. The governor is signing a bill that will reduce the rights a state worker. Unions are there to protect the employee, but Mr Walker see's unions as a problem. Unions are not a problem they are the body that protects the worker from abuse of the employer.

Walker consistently defended the bill, which allows the state to avoid property tax increases and public-sector layoffs while trying to balance the budget.

 The governor thinks that the economy can't work with unions, but unions are open to discussions on cuts and benefit reduction. I support reducing benefits to state workers when there is a deficit. I agree to cuts in general when  there is a deficit. Even important parts of the budget I would support being cut only if  there is a deficit that can't be solved other way. It is the exact same thing Chretien did he cut the budget then when he had a surplus he started spending more and cutting taxes.


Read more here

Pacioretty Makes News in New York

Boston Bruins defenseman Zdeno Chara, left, hit the Canadiens’ Max Pacioretty into a glass stanchion during the second period of Tuesday night’s game in Montreal.

On Tuesday's game pitting the Habs against the Bruins, Max Pacioretty was violently the boards and his head into a glass stanchion by Zdeno Chara, captain of Boston. The result: a concussion and a fractured vertebra. Chara's punishment: a major penalty and a game misconduct. In my opinion, this was a completely vicious hit and should have been punished more. During the replay, you can see that Chara pushed Pacioretty's head into the stanchion. The hit was so bad, that even the New York Times reported on it.

Zdeno Chara, the Boston Bruins player who shouldered Max Pacioretty of Montreal into a stanchion at the end of the players’ bench and seriously injured him, was not suspended by league disciplinary officials in the aftermath of the incident, and their decision was supported by N.H.L. Commissioner Gary Bettman.

Read more at the New York Times. 

Related articles

• Habs' Pacioretty leaves on stretcher after Chara hit (reuters.com)
• Quebec prosecutor asks police to investigate Chara hit on Pacioretty (theglobeandmail.com)

Earthquake in Japan

A massive tsunami sweeps in to engulf a residential area after a powerful earthquake in Natori, Miyagi Prefecture in northeastern Japan March 11, 2011. The biggest earthquake to hit Japan in 140 years struck the northeast coast on Friday, triggering a 10-metre tsunami that swept away everything in its path, including houses, cars and farm buildings on fire.
Photograph by: Stringer, Reuters

Early this morning, there was a Great earthquake in Japan, measuring 8.9 on the Richter scale. Keep in mind each step on the Richter scale is ten times worse than the precedent so this was about  100 000 000 times worse than a 1 on the Richter scale. Enormous damage was caused and the death toll so far is at about 44. Following the earthquake a huge tsunami hit Japan and surrounding areas, moving on to Hawaii. A tsunami warning is in effect for the West Coast. This is a sad day for Japan. The Red Cross is accepting donations.

$28B for Jets

As normal, the Conservative government has something to hide. According to Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, the cost for the F-35 fighters will be about 28 billion dollars. That's just a lot higher than the Tories "estimate" of $9 billion. Here we find that the Tories are once again keeping secrets. Actually, that's a euphemism. Let me put it this way: they are lying. This is a lie that could affect Canadians for decades and we are talking about many billions of dollars. It's not fair to Canada for the Tories to keep lying like this.

OTTAWA — The federal government has grossly underestimated the cost of the F-35 fighter jet deal, according to a newly released report that suggests the controversial purchase will be nearly twice as much as initially thought. 

The report, by Canada's parliamentary budget officer, pegs the total cost of the stealth fighters over a period of 30 years, at more than $29 billion U.S. ($28.5 billion Cdn).

Read more at the Ottawa Citizen.

Related articles

• Fighter-jet price tag will approach $30-billion, budget watchdog warns (theglobeandmail.com)
• Fighter jet costs soar, budget watchdog estimates (thestar.com)

Tories, Give it Up!

The Tories have not been giving out the cost for there tough on crime initiatives. They say it doesn't cost much, but for all the mega prisons and tougher sentences it will cost a lot of money money that should be going to I don't know lowering the record deficit of 55 billion dollars. The Conservatives have to give it up! they should tell parliament and let alone the people of Canada how much there useless and bad policies are costing Canadians.  Stephen Harper is now really racking up scandals left and right. Harper doesn't really care for the rules he just does whatever he wants to get elected. Be it from his own line that the "fundamentals of are economy are strong" then after the election he said that are economy is at the worst shape it has been since the great depression. Tells Canadians that Canada will never have a deficit for the next five years then announces the biggest deficit in history. Practically erasing all the years the Liberals worked hard to reduce the debt. Calling the Liberals corrupt then break the rules of Elections Canada  with  the "In and out scandal." Harper needs to go out now!

Liberal MP Scott Brison had argued the government breached his parliamentary privilege by not handing over documents detailing the costs of its anti-crime initiatives.

The government is in breach of privilege for not turning over detailed cost estimates for its crime agenda, House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken said Wednesday in a ruling that reasserted Parliament's authority.

Read more here

The Tipping Point

The Harper government has seen many scandals in past years. Just recently, there is the "in-and-out" funding scheme and an instance of "I am the state," when our prime minister changed "Government of Canada" to "the Harper government." Yes there is backlash, but there is no outrage against the Tories. Maybe it's because the opposition isn't efficient and isn't pressing the Conservatives. Maybe it's because a marginal amount of Canadians are paying attention to politics.

In any case, there will be a tipping point for the Tories and they will pay dearly when the stuff keeps piling up. There is already so much that is against the Conservatives and one day, some day, they will pay the price. Hopefully during the next election.

It’s not the parts that count but the sum of the parts. Which invites the question: Is anyone doing the math? 

Just recently, four senior Conservatives (including two senators) were charged with willfully exceeding spending limits in the 2006 campaign that brought the Tories to power. The “in and out” financing scheme came at the same time that Stephen Harper was promising a new era of transparency and accountability.

Read more at the Globe and Mail. 

Related articles

• PMO directive rebrands 'Harper Government' (cbc.ca)
• Opposition looks to scandals, not budget, to bring down Tories (thestar.com)

Education Wins Elections

That is what Ignatieff's hoping. He wants to make post-secondary education a high-key election issue. As he puts it, "if you get the grades, you get to go." This is part of a "pan-Canadian learning strategy" that the Liberal Party plans to release only during the election this year or in 2012.

While education might win elections, secrecy will lose elections. That's why it's stupid to hide the plan until a campaign. Many Canadians do not know much about the Liberal Party's platform and it seems secretive and opportunistic to keep it... secret until a campaign. If the Liberals want to be the party of accountability, it's essential that it starts with the release of Party plans.

OTTAWA — On his recent cross-country tours, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has talked often about post-secondary education and how his party plans to make it more affordable so that, “if you get the grades, you get to go.” 

Does that mean free tuition? More scholarships? And if so, how would an Ignatieff-led government pay for it?

Read more at the Province.

Muzzle the Ignatieff

Maybe the Prime Minister's office has noticed that it cannot stop Ignatieff from speaking against the government. So now, they will stop the media from listening to Ignatieff and reporting on his remarks. On Friday, Harper's communications department made sure that journalists were out of the room right before Ignatieff was to speak, but after Harper spoke.

They are calling the fiasco a "misunderstanding." But, why would the media have to leave the room in the first place. This is just another example of the Conservatives' campaign to muzzle the media, keep secrets and brainwash Canadians. But, it won't work. When attempts to do this are made, we end up with a story like this.

OTTAWA — A “misunderstanding” led to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s media officials ushering reporters out of an announcement in Gatineau, Que. Friday night right before Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was about to speak, Harper’s spokesman said. 

The Liberals say Mr. Ignatieff was about to comment at a news conference at Quebec’s Museum of Civilization where Mr. Harper had just launched the Year of India in Canada 2011 with the High Commissioner of India to Canada.

Read more at the National Post.

Related articles

• PMO apologizes for dismissing media before Ignatieff's speech (thestar.com)
• PMO apologizes for booting media before Ignatieff speech (theglobeandmail.com)

Gingrinch is "Thinking of Running"

Newt Gingrich is now "exploring" whether he is running or not. He is in something called an "exploratory phase" which is where you set up an exploratory committee to see if you should run. He isn't technically running but he is putting up a website NewtExplore2012.com . Which could any day he says he is running changed into a campaign site. The whole point of this is too see whether he has the support if he runs and how many people would be interested, but also since he now gets his name on the spotlight for a while.if his site gets no hits and he doesn't get a big following then he might say no to running. But that doesn't stop some politicians from running anyways even without support. Gingrich actually has some support, and is considered a serious candidate. Although he isn't truly considered the front runner in a CPAC straw poll he got 5th place with 5% behind Cris Cristie who is not even running and said he isn't multiple times even once saying that he would have to commit suicide just to get the media to believe that he isn't running. Polls of the first states in the Republican nomination show that he isn't leading in any of them, but he is on the top four for three of them so he is still considered a serious candidate . Believe it or not Gingrich is the only serious candidate that is in the Exploratory stage the only fully declared person who is running in the election is Jimmy McMillan who was the person who ran for governor in New York in the "Rent is too damn high party".

The Government of Canada no Longer Exists

It is now called the "Harper Government." The new policy is to use this term for press releases of many public institutions such as the Canadian Revenue Agency, Health Canada and Industry Canada. Because Canada no longer needs a government; we have Harper to rule us. Apparently this is legal, unless you are following the laws. The Federal Identity Program states that "the criteria for creating an applied title include that it must: incorporate the word Canada or appear with the words Government of Canada...." The government is for all Canadians and Harper is not the automatic ruler of it. Logically and legally, the Government of Canada should always be referred to as the Government of Canada.

OTTAWA — It's official: Stephen Harper rules. 

And lest anyone forgets, a directive went out to public servants late last year that "Government of Canada" in federal communications should be replaced by the words "Harper Government." 

"Public servants from four different line departments told The Canadian Press the instruction came from "the Centre" -- meaning the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office that serves the prime minister.

Read more at CTV.

Related articles

• Integrity watchdog cozy with top bureaucrats, documents suggest (theglobeandmail.com)

Moving to the Right

Ever since Obama came to power the Republicans were known as the party of no! They voted against almost every Obama plan. This caused major divide in the congress as parties stuck together on the votes. The republicans did the best at this they voted together on pratically anything Obama did and came together when it came to giving millionaires money on the back of poorer Americans. The Tea party also pushed many Republicans to move more to the right to satisfy the movement. Even John McCain even ran in 2008 and was always known as the maverick Republican who crossed the ail and worked with democrats. Even one time people say was thinking of switching parties. John McCain has dramatically changed his positions in order to get reelected in his home state of Arizona. Were he battled a tough fight just to get nominated in the state he even got some help from Sarah Palin to help him win. Now that one of the most centrist person in congress is now one of the most right wing politicians in congress the lame duck won't be able to do anything big because of this partisan divide. The U.S needs swift action now, but with this partisanship there will not be the type of action that is needed.

Read more here

The End of Liblogs

Yesterday, began a new era in the Canadian political blogosphere with the launch of the Wellington Street Post. This comes as Liblogs will once and for all be closed down, being replaced by the new site. However, this will not be a partisan Liberal aggregate. The Wellington Street Post has pages for Conservatives, NDP and Green as well as pages for non-bloggers involved in politics.

Although I am sad to see the end of Liblogs, I believe that this site will be the best for the blogosphere. By aggregating all the political blogs in one place, this will ensure easier access to a range of views on many issues as well as a possibly enhanced readership. I like the Wellington Street Post and wish it a lot of success.

Americans like High Speed Rail

A new poll in the United States shows that most Americans support high speed rail funded by public money. Again, another poll comes out showing that support for high speed rail is high, in the United States and Canada. This also comes at a time where Americans want more and more austerity. However, high speed rail must be funded in North America. Like the transcontinental railroad, we have an opportunity now to revolutionize transport all across the continent, creating a network of high speed rail across the US and Canada. This would improve the economy greatly as many new jobs would be created while providing travelers a more comfortable way of travel than the plane and a faster one than the car. It's time to invest in high speed rail.

NEW YORK, N.Y. - February 24, 2011 - President Obama announced in April 2009, and reconfirmed during his recent State of the Union address, his commitment to develop high-speed intercity passenger rail across the United States. 

High-speed rail is a type of passenger rail transport between major cities that operates at substantially faster speeds than current intercity passenger trains in the U.S. It is designed to provide fast, reliable, and convenient service, operates using electric power and often includes onboard amenities such as food and beverage service and Wi-fi access.

Read the poll results here.

Related articles

• High-speed rail 'will bring £44bn to UK' (independent.co.uk)