Time for pinky swears

What can be done? A change is needed..

The next great reform to the Elections Act? After years of angst and agony imposed on the voting citizen, a change is needed. To reduce the quantity of unrealistic promises by candidates, the solution is simple. Pinky swear.

Every candidate's promises and speeches must be made under sworn oath. Lies and broken promises then can be litigated as perjury. This oath period begins once the writ is dropped, or when the official election campaign begins. Candidate's are bound to complain. Yet voters have the right to expect those successful candidates to keep their promises and political affiliation.

A political campaign is much like an employment resume and application. Those segments are conducted and signed by the applicant as being legally true. The average successful new employee is legally expected to tell the truth on that application. If its a lie. They are fired.

Then to protect joe average citizen, all politicians promises and speeches must now have legal force. Everything they say or promise is made under sworn oath.

Betrayed

People kind of really miss the set of ethical points in this sad set of events regarding the Duffy fraud trial. First, Duffy (and colleagues) are alleged to filed substantial fraudulent expense claims. It doesn't matter whether or not the amount is repaid. Let's put it this way. A murderer kills a victim. The crime is murder. Gun, knife, poison or something lethal, is only relevant to the fact that this person unlawfully killed another.

... The same here. The crime is fraud, it matters little whether or not it was for money, goods or love. Think about this. It isn't the matter as to the quantity or amount of money or benefit. The crime is the manner of how that said target was acquired. It doesn't really matter about restitution. Repaying the money may mitigate punishment, but does little to diminish intent. Duffy is alleged to have filed fake residential information and received benefits related to the false information he provided. He also is accused of falsely (fraudulently) filled claims to receive coverage of expenses on journeys to Conservative political events by claiming them as business trips related to Senate business. So the money is of little issue other than being benefit, its the method by which that money was sought.

... Second. People must understand that it doesn't matter whether or not the amount gleaned from a fraud is $90K or Ninety dollars. What is emerging is a concerted effort by Nigel Wright to mitigate Duffy's activities by repaying the amount in question before the Senate auditors could scour the books. This was a coverup scheme emanating from one or more executives in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).

... Now, the truth is Harper might not have known the specifics. There is more than sufficient evidence to indicate that he might have known about the plan, there is no smoking cigarette. What can be proved at the moment. Harper appointed Nigel Wright to his staff. Harper recommended Duffy for Senate appointment. Harper chose every single one of his PMO associates and executives. Its Harper's office. Regardless of what he might have, or might not have known, the grand architect of this corrupt edifice is Stephen Harper, he is totally and completely responsible.

... Remember a long time ago when the Liberals were in scandal, and Harper, the chief opposition leader, demanded that government be clear and accountable. Harper is totally one hundred percent accountable for the actions of his staff. It is why the Conservatives picked him to be leader. It is why people voted for him. Yet on something basically obvious as this set of events, Harper still hasn't lived up to his very own, promised standards of accountability.

... More confusion here about Nigel Wright. Since it has been his testimony under oath. Nigel Wright did attempt to arrange the hush money payoff to Duffy. So people seem to view him as honest and loyal. Both are admirable qualities however, this doesn't make him a good guy. Wright is a bad guy. He tried to payoff hush money to Duffy. That's no good deed. Its a bad thing.

... Here's the reality. Yes this whole affair insults Canadians. But whether or not they like it, its the supporters of the Conservatives that have been wrongly served. It matters little whether or not there was any criminality. What is very real, is that they wanted a government that is clear, responsible and accountable. Harper didn't deliver on any of those hopes at all. Conservatives are completely betrayed.

Not the money honey. Its the porpoise

 $90,000 or $90, its not the amount. So much focus is put on the money, not the reason for all these machinations. Duffy is alleged to make fraudulent claims. On The Right Dishonorable Stephen Harper's broad instructions to cover up Duffy's nefarious activities, he wanted the details suppressed from public exposure. Its hush money.

... The only reason to pay hush money is for the recipient of the money to have the purple-traitor, say nothing. Its Senator Duffy that is on trial. The fact that Harper factually didn't know about it is irrelevant. The hush money was orchestrated through his office, not Wright's office, not Duffy's office but through Harper's office.

... And using the news media as a source, Mr. Nigel Wright, under oath just admitted that general linkage. Never mind that his testimony demands the listener to suspend logical assumptions. First assumption is that while the payment was from his personal account, in paying any money to Duffy was intended to cover up a direct paper trail. Second suspension of belief is that the Conservative Party refusing to pay a sum around $32G's, and mark this, a political party that is chocked full of cash donations. 

... As a result of this alleged block Wright says. jeez I will pay $90,000 out of my own pocket because I am just a golly gee great guy. It doesn't matter. That amount is hush money, in a PMO orchestrated cover up. That's the reality of what he said under oath on the stand.

Money, and Coincidence. NOT

I recall a very long time ago, one of my teachers, one of the wiser ones sort of threw away the curriculum course book in economics. Liked the guy. Very smart guy. Well he covered the topic of money despite the fact that he was supposed to be teaching Geography. Why?

Well for starters he found learning Economic Geography tied the memory plagued normal geography into a dynamic of interest. Part of this linkage was understanding money.

Originally trade involved barter. In other words trading one quantity of commodity for another adjusted for intrinsic value. The value of a specific coin or bill must either be backed by gold or an agreed marked value. The actual physical price of a coin or money bill is basically nothing. People that assign value to a currency whether its bills, or coins, not governments.

Before you totally nod off, it was important to define the issue by reasserting what you likely already knew. Observe the timing that the Canadian economic performance peaked just before two events. First was the plasticization of money from a combination cotton, special fibre and cellulose or money or certificate paper. Second was the Harper government's effort to eliminate the coin denomination of the penny.

On the one point its a perpetual source of humour to point out that the Harper Conservatives have left Canada penniless. Opposing that funny bone is the serious coincidence. Ever since the penny was eliminated the Canadian economy has declined. Ever since Canadian money was physically changed form a certificate paper into plastic fibre. Ever since the government did those two actions, the value of the Canadian dollar has declined. and the Canadian economy declined.

Certainly, the devaluation of the price of crude per barrel played a significant part. Crude oil prices do hold a significant role in Harper's configuration of the economy. Basically he was playing Alberta economic politics in a Canadian theatre. He accuses both Trudeau and in turn Mulcair as being unqualified to manage the Canadian economy. It should be pointed out acidly that his government has maintained a governmental deficit for at least eighteen years. His frying pan is considerably burnt red to call others to the grill.

The price of oil languishes around the $50 mark. It has done that now for quite a considerable time during the Harper stewardship. Regardless, his government seems stifled by indecision. Another large part of the problem seems to be his very poor selection of Finance Minister, Joe Oliver. Typical of an old style banker, his solution seems to have been not to do anything other than hijack the Canadian Pension Plan and the Employment Insurance Plan money to make up the shortfall from oil revenue.

A third problem seems to be his inability to negotiate or work with others. Notoriously a control freak, he seems unable to work well with others and his political style is a Nerf plinth for the pillar of any economic strategy. His solution during an election is to come out swinging blame for the economic situation onto others. Politically this is a normal tactic but that could backfire in Canada. Canadian voters, even the dutiful ones are in the end either politically stupid or definitely uncaring beyond their own front doors.

It is to this last point which sounds like an insult. Its not meant to be. Its an established almost universal philosophy in the smokey backrooms of all political parties in Canada. There are some issues that generate national riots and strikes in other nations but barely pulls a blink from the Canadian constituent. Worse still Canadians tend to stay quiet until some issue tweaks their anger button.

Both those aspects played into a great surprise when the Conservatives called the early election or rather the unnecessarily prolonged election costing the government and in turn, the very same taxpayers excessive amounts of money. In theory this was designed to exploit the economic power of the present manifestation of the Conservative party. Politically speaking its not the amount of money one has in a campaign its how to spend it. The longer a campaign the greater the chance there is to toppling from first place into the basement.

The most recent example of this first place arrogance was the Toronto Mayoralty campaign. In the summer, Olivia Chow, had a huge lead and a lot of campaign money. It was however the guy in third place that eventually one. It was a long terrible campaign.  Any smart politician leading in the summer time before the election should never underestimate how a lead can dissipate quickly when the people returning from the cottages or vacay sit down and try to absorb the issues that have been too long in play. A short campaign would have worked better for Harper. But what has this to do with economy?

It has everything to do with economy. If you need or rely on economic resources to run your own campaign and start losing or any slide of support whatsoever that doesn't lend itself to your ability to handle a national economy. This points to a significant flaw in modern Conservative thinking. They like the amount of money rather than appreciating the quality, the value of money.

And this is what happened to the Canadian dollar. Once the quantity of cash, generated by big oil evaporates, the present Conservative government people are unable to manage. Witness how close this problem emulates the situation in Alberta. Two governments, evolved in the very same part of the world colliding with the reality of the real world.

In some way, the modern Conservatives are sort of duplicating the source of the same problem the far more dynamic Mulroney Conservatives had. Mulroney understood business but not government. His regime introduced a federal sales tax and signed NAFTA. One or the other was good for the economy but combined as a pair worked to underscore an economic downturn. In Harper, tying the economy too tightly to oil, eliminating the penny while plasticizing the paper money bills, combined to a lack of faith in the Canadian dollar value. One choice would benefit until the next election but mixing them altogether created a toxic economic environment. So toxic that Harper, who bragged that he was an economist, seems to be standing on his head to talk about anything such as travel plans, rather than the specific most important issue which is the economy.

A terrible economy will wreck a country faster than any overseas terrorist plot can. Yet he wants Canadians to vote for him based on a fear of terrorism than the original reason that people picked him before, which was economy. He strangely devalued the feel of money. So making a coin or making a paper bill is more expensive, traditionally it adds to the perception of value. At the end of ten years, Harper's tenure hasn't added any value to Canada. Just what is he doing?

Linda launches Conservatives into high orbit

I recall that when the oilsands projects were first approved the environmental assessment ascertained that there was an upper limit of crude production that was both economically sustainable and environmentally sustainable. Construction of the two plants at the time went to that limit. People sort of forget that people, Canadians of First Nations heritage, lived and hunted in that area for countless generations.
... And along comes Linda McQuaig present NDP hopeful for the riding of Toronto Centre in the upper coming federal election. Please endure this elongated campaign. Lots of these little missives are bound to send Conservatives into faux high orbit. They are a desperate lot. McQuaig will never be any part of any government. They are grasping onto straws. Of course a lot of people don't realize that there is a greater chance of an Ice Age next year, than there is of McQuaig winning that particular riding. Is her candidacy a good one. Yes, in every other riding other than Toronto Centre.
... The whole vomiting scandal stems from a comment she made at a panel on power and politics. She pointed out the patently obvious. In order for Canada to meet its global warming targets they may have to close off some oilsand's production. That comment fails to measure out as a mystery. Nor unexpected. It is an option. Marvel that, the world still has options.
... Since the beginnings of the resource extraction the continuing production of oilsands crude exceeded the original limits of those first environmental assessments. Frankly here we are. Canadians discussing at each other angrily in an election to determine the productive capacity of a resource that is constitutionally totally within the provincial power. Alberta determines the oilsands production not Ottawa.
... The dilemma totally falls into the lap of the Alberta government. It aggressively promoted expanded oilsands production past the safe limit predetermined by the original environmental reports. It did this in the face of declining revenues as the easy to reach oil and gas reserves became depleted.
... This woman, only a candidate, not an elected MP, is expressing a concern for the global environment which is in itself perfectly legitimate. There are Conservatives, once good members of the present day manifestation of the Conservative Party who share this deep concern for the global climate effects of fossil extraction and burning.
... Had the Alberta government(s) adhered to the original production limits, this whole discussion would be moot. I remember when Peter Lougheed introduced the Heritage Fund with the goal of creating economic diversity and a hedge fund for the future. That noble legacy has obviously been squandered. The rest of the globe, the rest of Canada, should not suffer for this degree of resource mismanagement.
... Regardless of who comes to power federally or provincially whether right wing or left wing, the reality is that the oilsands production must be reassessed as to its real environmental sustainability. Even after the inevitable banning of the burning fossil fuels, oil as a resource will be of great value, especially those with established infrastructure and distribution channels. To hinge a whole party's policy upon the words of a single unelectable candidate.
... Why unelectable? Why prominent? She's running in Toronto Centre. Even Mulcair's written that one off. Besides, Mulcair wouldn't want her as part of the caucus. She's super intelligent, perceptive and prone to ask awkward questions. So into the rearview mirror, luv ya Linda

Pre-Post election circuit of Canada, now known as Canada

Historical view. Consider governing Canada as sort of like running a sound mixed farm. Needs a lot of fertilizer, needs occasional rotation, plowing in the stubble every few years and the farm hand needs changing every ten years or so because the sheep start laughing.

.....

Trash talking around the federal deselection circuit. So wrong Kathy. Wynne, future former Premier of Ontario, postulated that were he trapped in a time warp at the Cornfudgeration of Canada at Charlottetoon, Stephen Harper would not have constructed the transcontinental railway to British Columbia, now known as British Columbia.

Yes, Harper would have built the railway. From Houston, to as far as downtown Calgary, right beside the Palliser with a double barrel loop at the Stampede grounds. He'd call it the Keystoned and Gatesways Railroad (K&GRR).