Mintzberg on the Globe's Pick

I came across this piece on the Catch 22 Harper Conservatives site by Henry Mintzberg commenting on the Globe & Mail's endorsement of the Harper Reformer Conservatives. I thought I should share it.

Voting for the Canada that Can Be

by Henry Mintzberg

Photo credit Owen Egan

That the Globe and Mail came out endorsing the Conservatives is hardly a surprise. Conventionally speaking, what else could its editors do? Endorsing the Liberals at this juncture would have seemed silly, and endorsing the NDP would hardly have endeared them to their owners, advertisers, and associates on Bay Street and in the corporations.

But beyond the conventional, the Globe did have options, just as do we, as voters on Monday―beyond what we might think. Let me get back to these in conclusion.

Stepping back and looking at the Harper Conservatives, as does the editorial in places, it is difficult to justify this endorsement—hardly a call to decency and in some sense even democracy. As I wrote in a commentary at the start of the campaign on the Globe website, a move to the extreme right, as in Thatcher’s Britain and Bush’s America, could very well happen here under a Conservative majority, and the Globe had no business ignoring that.

National? To me, the most striking point in the editorial is the reference to the Conservatives as “arguably the only truly national party.” Have the Globe editors been reading the Globe? By this point in the campaign, the NDP was clearly showing itself as the only party with significant support across the country. Look at the polls and you have to ask if the Globe editors think that Quebec has already left the country.

With Harper’s grip on the party, this is not even a Conservative Party. It is the Reform Party in all its dogmatic colors. What Canada needs desperately is a truly national, and decent, Conservative Party. Maybe, from Tuesday, we will get one.

Leadership? Why the surge―this sudden popularity of the NDP? That’s easy. Many Canadians have been concerned about country and integrity, and Jack Layton is the one leader who has come through as a trustable and regular sort of guy. Once the NDP gained some legitimacy―ironically, starting in Quebec, actually with an earlier election win in Outremont, the seat of the Francophone establishment―many people recognized it as an acceptable option, and moved to it. In football terms, you might say that Harper took out Ignatieff and Layton came up the middle (even if he was playing for another team!).

The Economic? The Social? That’s about leadership. Is there more to the election? I hope so. If I listen to Stephen Harper now, it’s all about issues, all of which happen to be economic. Do we Canadians live by economics alone? Reading the Globe editorial, you might think so. I don’t. Do you?

I agree with one point that Harper is making of late, that we are offered a clear choice. But not as he depicts it.

The finale of this election looks like a pitting of the economic against the social. That’s how campaigns sound, but they are a far cry from governing, where reality has to be faced. I can’t imagine anyone who doesn’t want some sort of balance in his or her life between the economic and the social.

So who can give us that balance in government? Jack Layton is an unknown quantity; Stephen Harper is not. He tilts excessively to the economic, and especially to the large corporations that his dogma tells him drive the economy. Layton is obviously sensitive to the social. The question is: will he undermine the economic, as Harper undermines the social?

I think not, for two reasons. First he is promoting small businesses, which evidence has shown can be more important to economic growth than the large ones. And second, Layton would hardly be able to govern alone. He would have the good old Liberals (the Martin-like ones) to keep him straight.

Options So what are the options, for the Globe last Thursday and for us on Monday? The Globe had all kinds of unconventional choices, suitable for this unconventional election. It could have endorsed no-one. It could have endorsed a coalition. It could have endorsed strategic voting (described below).

And what are the options for the rest of us? On Monday, you can vote leader, party, candidate, issues, or country.

Leadership, as I mentioned, is an unknown quantity, or in the case of Harper’s autocratic nature, known too well. So ignore leadership.

Parties are supposed to be about ideas, but especially during election campaigns, we get this dumbing down from all of them, with discussion of serious issues reduced to trivia, name-calling, ads that insult us as voters, promises in the form of bribes with our own money, and so on. Moreover, alongside their many decent candidates, some of whom have had no choice but to affiliate with one party or another to get elected, the sad fact is that each party also runs its share of political hacks, who cheapen and sometimes corrupt politics. So let’s leave party aside too and take a better look at candidates.

Find the candidate in your riding with the greatest integrity and strike a blow for greater decency in politics. Or else do that by voting strategically, for the candidate most likely to knock off the one from the party you feel has been most indecent, and would be most dangerous in power.

Issues certainly matter, not just single issues, but the whole mix of them. The Conservatives offer us a tough country that stands its ground on tough issues (guns, jets, lower taxes, less crime, etc.), while the NDP offers us a tolerant country that expresses itself in more socially progressive ways (public health care and broadcasting, climate and personal protections, etc.). That’s a choice.

On Monday, I personally will vote for country: for the Canada that can be. I will vote for a return to tolerance and decency, balancing the social with the economic. Canada can once again be a beacon to a world going rapidly out of balance on the side of privilege and greed. Henry Mintzberg (www.mintzberg.org), O.C., ONQ, is co-editing a collection of essays entitled “Canadians on Balance”.

I Have Never Voted for a Winning Candidate

OK Canada. Are you ready to vote.

I already have since I will be working at a poll during the election.

For an election the pundits claimed would be a yawnfest it sure hasn't turned out that way. This election is anyone's guess.

I don't want to jinx my candidate but, I was talking with friends the other day and it occurred to me that I don't think that I have ever, in a Federal Election, voted for a candidate who actually won his/her seat. Not withstanding that, I never miss a chance to vote.

Hold on to your hats. This might be a first for me.

Book Launch a Full House

Anne McDonald

So many people turned up at The Bushwakker to take part in Anne McDonald's launch of her new novel To the Edge of the Sea last night that, even with the added extra tables, everyone who wanted in, couldn't fit into the Arizona Room. I am not sure I have been to a "sold out" book launch before, ever.

Scott McGillivray who flew in from Vancouver for the launch and opened the event, welcomed everyone, old friends and new. He turned things over to Shelley Banks who introduced Anne and noted that although this is her first novel, Anne has very strong writing credentials going back many years.

Anne read from several portions of the novel explaining what the Fathers of Confederation were up to and helping to tie the characters together in what was an exciting time and place in Canada's history..

After names were drawn for door prizes, quite appropriately from a top hat, there was a rousing rendition of the Canadian Boat Song which the exuberant crown joined in singing.

It was a great evening.

When all the books were signed and the crowd thinned out, our group of floor hockey friends stayed late drinking beer and finishing off the potato skins.

Don't Miss the Book Launch

See You There

My friend Anne McDonald is launching her novel To the Edge of the Sea tonight Thursday April 28, in the Arizona Room at Bushwakkers. It is scheduled to begin at 7:30. This should be the most interesting book launch of the year in Regina. There will be a reading, door prizes, potato skins, great beer and an opportunity to get your hands on this great book.

In the middle of an election, the launch of a book about the time and events around the shaky start of our Confederation seems just right.

The book is published by Thistledown Press. They say Anne McDonald weaves a series of spells that pull this beautifully written novel through a tightly woven script. Rich in tone and textured for a very rewarding reading experience, To the Edge of the Sea combines great storytelling with polished literary control.

I have seen an advance copy. It looks great. I can’t wait to read it. Who could argue that a book about our first Prime Minister, a tightrope walker, a travelling road show and cases and cases of champagne wouldn’t catch your attention.

So I very much hope that you can make it and I hope to see you there.

Oh yeah, just a note, bring cash. Bushwakkers doesn’t have an ATM and author’s events are traditionally low tech. (read no debit machine)

Corporate Canada Doesn't Have a Vote

I read in the paper this morning that corporate Canada is concerned about the NDP surge and particularly the possibility of  Jack Layton becoming Prime Minister. The fact that there is much hand wringing in corporate  board rooms should come at little surprise. I would imagine any big corporation facing tax cuts implemented by the Harper crowd would worry about extra taxes and if Jack gets in power they will have to re-think their lobbying strategy on Parliament Hill. Doors won't be propped open in anticipation of their arrival any longer.

Hold on to your hats over the next few days. Corporate spokespeople will be speculating that the NDP surge will lower the Canadian dollar, create financial instability and threaten you with higher mortgages. The thing to remember that these bright lights in the economic brain trust are the same bunch whose incompetence brought us the recent economic collapse.

The real question the media should be asking is "Who cares what corporate Canada thinks?"

The best thing corporate Canada can do is butt out. Wake up boys and girls of the fourth estate, corporate Canada doesn't have a vote and seldom look out for any interests other than their own..

Canadian Democracy at the Crossroads

The following is fact sheet prepared by writer and activist Helen Forsey. I thought I'd share it

Canadians are privileged to live in a democracy. Our parliamentary system has evolved over centuries, and our political parties reflect the diversity and freedom of thought we enjoy as citizens.

One result of this freedom and diversity is that in some elections, no one party wins a majority of seats in the House of Commons. This means that whichever party forms the government has to co-operate with others in order to get laws passed and stay in power. This is called “minority government”, and it can work very well. All it takes is honesty, respect, and a willingness to co-operate across differences.

However, the present government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper has thumbed its nose at our elected Parliament and made “minority” a dirty word. Harper’s Conservatives have misled the House of Commons, kept vital information secret, fired public safety watchdogs, systematically sabotaged parliamentary committees, and twice shut down Parliament itself rather than face criticism.

This election really is about our democracy. Canadians have a right to expect fairness, honesty and respect from our system of government. Instead, the Harper regime has given us five years of injustice, corruption and contempt.

Harper uses a stack of fairy tales about our parliamentary system to trick people into thinking they have to vote Conservative in order to avoid disaster. In reality, his threats about the opposition “seizing power” or forcing a fresh election are shameless scare tactics based on lies.

Lie #1: Coalitions are evil and illegitimate.

Not true. Coalitions are totally constitutional, and can be the most sensible way to govern co-operatively and respect the will of a majority of voters.

Lie #2: Canadians elect the prime minister.

Not true. We elect some 300 Members of Parliament to the House of Commons.

Lie #3: The party that wins the most seats necessarily forms the government.

Not true. The governing party must win – and keep – the confidence of our elected MPs through confidence votes in the House.

Lie #4: Defeating a government on a confidence motion forces a fresh election.

Not necessarily. If a recently elected House votes to defeat a government, the Governor General calls on the leader of the opposition to form a government and seek the confidence of the House.

Lie #5: It is an illegitimate “seizure of power” if the opposition accepts the Governor General’s invitation to replace a government that has lost the confidence of the House.

Not true. In fact, the opposition has what amounts to a constitutional duty to try to form a viable government with the recently elected Parliament, with no need for a repeat election.

As Prime Minister, Stephen Harper has treated our elected Parliament like an annoying irrelevancy. His government has behaved so outrageously that it has finally been formally found “in contempt of Parliament”. Now he wants to win a Conservative majority so he can do even more damage.

People all over the world are risking their lives to achieve democracy. Let’s not allow the Harper Conservatives to destroy ours from the inside.

Prime Minister Layton a Remote but Interesting Possibility

Whoever said this election was going to be a sleeper. Not me for sure.  Anything can happen at this point although it does look like the Liberals are tanking. Just goes to show you, a little honesty can sink a campaign faster that a scud missile.

Could the NDP become the official opposition? What for many was unthinkable, is now within reach but I am not sure it is the cause for celebration I once thought it would be. We just keep splitting the vote allowing Harper to stroll up the middle. I am not sure what that gets us.

I am probably one of the few Canadians with a Coalition Yes sign is the window. I think we need to try the alternative. What we have had over the last few years just isn't working.

Historically minority governments govern in a cooperative fashion. Minorities have given Canadians some of our best legislation over the years. What we have seen recently is just the opposite. The Harper "my way or the highway" bully boy politics  should not work in a minority but both the Liberals and the NDP have for the most part been too weak, or lacking in self confidence to challenge the status quo.  

So, I have my fingers crossed. It looks like Harper will win again supported by less than a majority of Canadians all thanks to our broken electoral system. Faced with that probibility, the best outcome would be a weak Conservative win, a defeat of their first budget and a coalition government. Jack Layton as Prime Minister? Doubtful but not out of the question.

If Harper gets a majority what does that leave us with. A country more divided, more polarized, more bitter than ever before.

Get out and vote Canada.

Poll Shows Harper Off Track

Would you Trust This Man?

Speaking of democratic deficit a new Environics poll commissioned by Avaaz shows a decided gap between the policies being pushed during Harper's tightly scripted campaign stops and what Canadians want, need and believe.

The poll shows that 

• 74% of Canadians - and perhaps surprisingly 64% of Conservatives - support Canada's gun laws (including the long gun registry), which Harper intends to scrap as soon as he can get a majority. 
• It shows that 56% of all Canadians (including 42% of his supporters supporters) oppose reducing corporate taxes. 
• Almost 70% of Canadians support maintaining a one tiered healthcare system. 
• Most of us remember that Harper embarrassed Canadians by his stance on climate change. Delegates walked out while he was speaking and he was publicly taken to task by other world leaders. Eighty two percent of Canadians don't agree with Harper on climate change and believe that Canada should sign to a UN Climate Change Treaty,

In the face of these figures Stephen Harper, the proverbial bull in a china shop, charges on with his agenda.

Harper majority? Canadians are not that stupid.

  

Brad Wades in

Brad Wall puts on an Angry Face

To no one's surprise, Brad Wall, the consummate right-wing pitchman has jumped into the election fray after promising everyone to steer clear of the Federal race. Brad, who is about as intellectuality deep and complex as your average AM radio, morning show host, told everyone that he was deeply troubled by Ignatieff's musing about what options were open if Harper didn't change his ways bullying ways. Wall suggested that the Liberal leader was planning to "...overturn of democratic results of the federal election." It is obvious from Wall's comments that he doesn't even begin to understand the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy he works under as Premier.

Not surprisingly, Wall along with his best friend and deep blue Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, sees nothing whatsoever wrong with Harper assuming power when 63% or 64% of Canadians voted for a party, other that the one Harper leads. It is the king of pretzel logic we should be used to from this lot by now.

Wall can't seem to grasp that his "close relationship" with Stephen Harper only works one way. The more Brad bows and scrapes and demeans himself - the more Harper ignores him.

Some advice Brad. Stay out of the big boy's sandbox.

How is your Election Going?

NDP Candidate Brian Sklar

I have to say, in a lot of ways, it has been a pretty weird election so far. I am not one of those who thinks that the election is unnecessary. I think this election call was crucial. We really had to find a way to wrench our country from the grasp of the right wingers. But so far, it isn't working out the way it should.

This antiquated first past the post system we have sets us up for some weird situations. There are a great many ridings in Canada where the incumbent was elected with the majority of voters casting their ballots for someone else. In my riding for example the incumbent MP is Tom Lukiwski. Tom is invisible in the city of the Regina, is known as an obstructionist in Ottawa and has a pretty good shot at winning because of the Tory blue rural voters. He is in a bit of trouble as a result of his refusal to speak out about the failed BHP potash bid and his lack of support for the attempt to secure Federal funding for a much needed new stadium. In case you missed it Tom,  the Roughriders are a big deal here.

He and the other 13 Conservative MPs here in Saskatchewan have earned a reputation of saying nothing unless the issue has been vetted, then scripted by the PMO.

My reading of the situation is that, considering the riding history, if any party can do it, the NDP would have to best shot to knock him off.

Given that, the NDP, in its wisdom, is running a Provincial NDP party worker and country singer in an attempt to unseat Tom. All credit to Brian Sklar for his commitment and I hear he has a pretty good band but, couldn't the New Democrats find someone with just a bit more depth?  All that being said, I expect Sklar's and the Tex Pistols, have in pretty good following out where those crucial country polls are located.

Then there are the Liberals. Monica Lysack is the spoiler. She has good credentials but  hasn't a hope of winning. The role she'll will play will be in splitting the anti Harper vote and Tom will come up the middle.

When it is all said and done the NDP and the Liberals will point fingers and blame each other for the result.

I have lived in the riding for going on 14 years. No Federal candidate or candidates representative has ever come to my door and if there are all candidate's sessions, they are a secret.

I hope you election is going better than mine.

Where is all this Going?

I was reading the polls again. Big mistake. Polls will drive us crazy and I am not sure if anything really meaningful can be learned from them.

The overnight Nanos poll would tell us that the Conservatives are up in the polls but their methodology is a bit wonky. The question asked is not who would you vote for but, "For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences?" I don't know what that really tells us except that outside of Quebec no one is voting Bloc.  On second thought I guess it doesn't even tell us that. In any case that poll, shows the Tories gaining ground.

However, if the question asked is Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:    

1. The most trustworthy  
2. The most competent  
3. Has the best vision for Canada's future

Things come out quite differently. Harper has dropped considerably over the last few days.

The other thing I found interesting is that when it comes to issues, is that none of the leaders are talking much about is Health Care. That issue is at the head of the pack with The Economy running second.  

While  27% of Canadians apparently say the economy is the most important issue 30% of us say they see the economy growing stronger in the next year. So, Canadians care about it but are confidant it is ok. 

Harper seems to wants us to focus on his economic record and to worry about what might happen if he isn't re-elected. I can't figure out why. His record  isn't particularly good.

Harper plays an old game. In political science there is probably a name for it. It works like this. Even if it isn't true,  keep saying it is. Say it often and with confidence. Do that often enough, people begin to believe it. 

Even the media seem to buy in which, to me at least, is curious considering Harper's economic record lags far behind that of Paul Martin and Brian Mulroney.

The media refer to his economic credentials but in truth, Stephen Harper doesn't have the qualifications to teach economics in a community college. The Canadian economy weathered the economic down turn better than most in the G20 more as a result of banking regulations put in place by Liberal governments that my Conservative economic policy.

So we struggle along through an election campaign that already seems too long arguing about the economy, the tough on crime agenda, attack ads, fighter jets, the ignored veterans and corporate tax cuts. 

Did we need this election? Yes we did. Will it accomplish much? I wonder.

If anything this election will highlight to Canadians just how broken our democracy is. What we really need to to replace all the leaders except perhaps Gilles Duceppe. We then need to have a serious talk about a vision for Canada. We need to have a frank discussion about how to fix our broken electoral system. It is time to drag those old tired politicos into the 21st century. 

Truth in Advertising

I’ll be honest. I don’t watch a great deal of television. In fact I hardly turn the set on and the two hours I sat watching the Leaders’ Debate broke my evening watching record, for the year. What I do see on television is generally on those distracting screens which seem to predominate most bars these days. 

 
Last night after a film and poetry event in Regina, a few of us including the poets, went across the street for a beer. What drew my attention away from the conversation were the bright red and blue Conservative commercials attacking the Liberal platform and their leader, Michael Ignatieff. I want to make this clear. I am not a Liberal ( Liberal leaning readers of this blog probably just breathed a sign of relief) Even without the sound these ads were offensive.  

Now I do know that as hard as it seems for some of us to believe it, we do have a Canadian Code of Advertising Standards and I thought “Surely this must be over the line” So I looked. 

Under the heading Truth. Fairness. Accuracy advertizing standards says the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards is the criteria for acceptable standards for advertizing in Canada.

They apparently set the criteria for truthfulness, accuracy and fairness. Things were looking up. Perhaps I'd file a complaint.

Now I used to think that truth was truth – end of story, but I have come to understand that when it comes to telling stories, as the country and western song says “There are three sides to every story, yours, mine and the cold hard truth.”  Let me tell you. In political advertising, the cold, hard truth is hard to find.

Never the less I thought it might be a good time to bring, at least a few of the 14 clauses in the code to Stephen Harper’s attention because it seemed to me that the ads I saw broke quite a few of the rules.

Clause #1 under the heading Accuracy and Clarity says:

(a) Advertisements must not contain inaccurate or deceptive claims, statements, illustrations or representations, either direct or implied, with regard to a product or service. In assessing the truthfulness and accuracy of a message, the concern is not with the intent of the sender or precise legality of the presentation. Rather, the focus is on the message as received or perceived, i.e. the general impression conveyed by the advertisement.

(b) Advertisements must not omit relevant information in a manner that, in the result, is deceptive.

(c) All pertinent details of an advertised offer must be clearly and understandably stated.

(d) Disclaimers and asterisked or footnoted information must not contradict more prominent aspects of the message and should be located and presented in such a manner as to be clearly visible and/or audible.

(e) Both in principle and practice, all advertising claims and representations must be supportable. If the support on which an advertised claim or representation depends is test or survey data, such data must be reasonably competent and reliable, reflecting accepted principles of research design and execution that characterize the current state of the art. At the same time, however, such research should be economically and technically feasible, with due recognition of the various costs of doing business.

(f) The entity that is the advertiser in an advocacy advertisement must be clearly identified as the advertiser in either or both the audio or video portion of the advocacy advertisement.

Then clause #6, under Comparative Advertising it suggests:

Advertisements must not, unfairly, discredit, disparage or attack other products, services, advertisements or companies, or exaggerate the nature or importance of competitive differences.

And finally under #14, Superstitions and Fears:

Advertisements must not exploit superstitions or play upon fears to mislead the consumer.

You have seen these ads. What do you think?

So would or could the Advertizing Standards step in? 

Looking a little deeper you'll find that bottom line is that the code is not the law, as we might expect. Like so much Tory bafflegab the code is touted as “...the cornerstone of advertising self-regulation in Canada.”

Self regulation is no regulation. 

That is when I gave up.

Election Creativity

For an election campaign during which the candidates have scarcely mentioned the arts, there is a hell of a lot a election creativity out there. Some is subtle, some right off the wall. I particularly like this one.

Democracy is in Trouble

Get out and vote.

 One Election after another the number of Canadians who exercise their right to vote drops further and further. Not that you can blame them but, people it seems are becoming more and more disengaged from the process, fed up with the feeling that their vote doesn’t count.

Interestingly what seems to be missing from the discussion about why people don’t vote is input from the politicians. During the Leadership debate, Jack Layton was the only participant to even mention proportional representation; even then it was just for one fleeting moment. For the other three, it was as if Jack never even said the words.

During an election campaign you might think the leaders of the political parties would be crying from the roof tops “Vote. Vote. Vote”

Or, at the very least you would think, considering Canada’s dismal participation rate, Elections Canada should be engaged in a significant campaign to get people out to the polls.

The silence is deafening.

I don’t think Stephen Harper actually wants new voters added to the mix. He is hoping his tired old demographic gets off their couches and votes but, the hell with everyone else. Every party is trying to poach a few votes here and a few votes there. Harper wants the “ethnic vote”, The Liberals want the NDP vote. The NDP want the Liberals, and the Greens want a bit from everyone.

A majority of Canadians don’t want the Harper Conservatives but we might get stuck with him again. That government, despite Harper tells you, never represented a majority of Canadians and never will. Let’s be honest here. Neither will the Liberals.

When voters believe their votes won’t make any difference, or don't even count, they have little reason to bother. In my riding the Conservative candidate did get a majority in the last election, just over 50%. So what about the rest of us, the 48% that didn't want Tom Lukiwski? Take it from me, we have no representation in Ottawa. Our MP is invisible to us.That scenario is repeated all across the country. It doesn't make sense.

There is some hope however.

Stephen Harper tells us, again and again, that Canadians didn’t want this election. I think he is wrong. A record number of Canadians turned on their television sets to catch the leaders’ debate. In fact, 10,6000,000 Canadians tuned in to watch, perhaps not for the whole debate but at least for some of it. That is not bad for a debate that started before most people could make it home from work if they lived further from Ottawa than Western Ontario. Thousands of others watched in on line.

The media tells us that people are disengaged but, every single person I talk to is following the campaigns. The blogosphere, Face book, Twitter and YouTube have almost been taken over by the election. I am over whelmed by the amount of material being shared on line – opinions, rants, songs, photos, videos and news links.

I feel a shift. I no longer think a Harper majority is possible. He may hang on to a minority by the skin of his teeth, but that won’t last all that long. The opposition have to decide. Either sell out their principles and support Harper or for some sort of power sharing new government. For me, that would be an easy decision to make.

If nothing else I think the last few years of witnessing a broken parliamentary democracy have started to arouse the sleeping giant. Canadians are fed up. I believe that no matter if politicians like it or not, we will see some form of, much needed, electoral reform in this country.

So stand up, speak out and fight for change. Oh yeah, don't forget to vote

Why Would we Trust this Man?

Stephen Harper tries hard to make Canadians all believe that he is the one bastion of hope, standing tall against those who want to chip away at the very underpinnings of our democratic structure. I don’t think anything could be further from the truth.

From day one in this election Stephen Harper has raged on and on about the legitimacy of coalitions forgetting it seems that he was the first one to propose that option in our recent history. Harper has been saying, over and over, how it isn’t democratic to try and be Prime Minister, if your party came second in the election.

So, one of my favourite moments in the debate this week was when Gilles Duceppe shared with us the time and place where Harper had called Jack Layton  and him together to propose exactly that. If the opportunity arose, they would take Paul Martin down and to propose to the Governor General that he, Steven Harper take over as PM. Harper’s nose grew another inch right on the spot.

Harper gave us the clearest insight into his thinking when he rejected the opposition leaders’ arguments saying, “I simply don’t accept the truth of those attacks." Those were the most honest words spoken by our PM, this whole campaign.

I could go on and on and on. It come so naturally to him I am not sure he really knows he is doing it any more.

I cannot remember  being so disappointed in a Prime Minister in my sixty six years. It is time for him to go Canada.

Please vote..

Generally it is not a Good Idea to Misquote Fraser

On the day of the leaders' debate (Well most of the leaders anyway) I find the Shelia Fraser story about G8 spending the most interesting.

No, not the story about her being unable to release her investigation of G8 - G20 spending.

The Conservative members of a parliamentary committee looking into the costs around the G8 and G20 summits dropped a quote from Fraser into their report. The report Fraser as saying: "We found that the processes and controls around that were very good, and that moneys were spent as they were intended to be spent."

Apparently Fraser's quote which went back to 2004, actually referred to the previous Liberal government spending.

As you might imagine, Shelia Fraser was rather annoyed about the misrepresentation.

The Conservatives, caught yet again, have apologized.

It is all about trust, isn't it?

Is anyone still thinking majority?

OK Folks - Where are we?

I don't think I can say I have been watching this election campaign more closely than I have others but, no question, this one has has intrigued, mystified and annoyed.

I just have to assume that most people just don't pay attention.

Then there is the debate. Over a million Green supporters are denied the opportunity to see their leader in action by that infamous consortium of TV executives. The same members of television's brain trust, decided the best time to schedule the debate. If you live west of Manitoba there is not a chance that you can get home from work before the debate starts. Oh yeah, it also doesn't interfere with prime time which would erode high commercial revenue. Ask your self. What is more important.

I am no economist but...ask your self.
Does this make sense to you?

So, where are we going with all this? There are the polls but I am not sure the pollsters give us answers, or if they simply push voter's opinions in one direction or another. No matter which, I do find the trends troubling. I am not sure how Canadians can be so disconnected from reality?

So in my continuing efforts to get people to think about things before they vote, I suggest you take a look at what Some Guy has to say.

Seven Bridges Road

There Should be a Song

OK, enough about the election.

After a long, make that a very long winter, spring has arrived with enthusiasm in Saskatchewan.

Rather than staying home and watching the snow melt - which should not be diminished as a spring pastime - we decided to see how things were coming along outside the city. I am fond of driving down Seven Bridges Road (There should be a song, don't you think?) and into Lumsden. Unfortunately by the time we hit bridge one, or seven I suppose, depending on your direction, we hit high water.

We had no choice but to turn around and find another route.

Spring Run-off Just Before the Bridge

Henry Mintzberg on Sunday Morning

Listening to CBC Radio's Sunday Morning this morning I was taken in by Michael Enright's interview with Henry Mintzberg, who is Cleghorn Professor of Management Studies at the Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University.

I have reproduced a part of his website below and encourage you to visit it.

If you missed the program on Sunday you can go to the Sunday Morning webpage and download it as a podcasts.

Henry Mintzberg

• This election is theatre: ignore the campaigns and the promises (which are just attempts to bribe us with our own money.) What matters is what the people who are elected can and will do. And that is best judged by what they have done.

• What the Conservatives have done suggests that, with a majority, our most cherished institutions―Medicare [PDF], the CBC [PDF], others―will be threatened. As a prominent minister was overheard just after the 2006 election: “If we get a majority, they won’t recognize this country.”

• Do not necessarily vote Liberal. Or NDP. Or Bloc. Or Green. Or Independent. If the majority of voters split their votes again, the Conservatives will go forward again. So please drop your party preference: this election is about the future of Canada. If you cherish what this country is, vote for whichever candidate in your riding has the greatest chance of beating the Conservative―in other words, the one who is ahead of these others.1 Consult the latest poll in your riding, or else see the results last time [PDF]. (See also www.Catch22campaign.ca. for information on this.)

• If enough people do this, we will likely end up with a coalition government, which could well be the best solution. (Recall that cooperation of the NDP with the Liberals gave us Medicare fifty years ago.) This election has to be about the country, not about its personalities. In fact, such a coalition may well prefer as prime minister someone who is not now the leader of any of the parties.

Facebook Creepers

The number of  You Tube videos on line about this election is quite inspiring particularly when the media suggests that the younger demographic doesn't plan to vote.

I know Harper, after three days of being embarrassed in the media, did apologize for his actions, I still find this one of the funniest out there.

The tag at the end says it was made by the Liberal Party of Canada. You never know with You Tube though. That might just be someone's idea of a joke or, it might indicate that the Liberals are way ahead in the social media game.