The Globe and Mail makes an almost convincing argument as to why it is Ignatieff should take ownership of the healthcare issue in Canada. It’s originally a liberal/NDP issue. Michael Ignatieff is in command, barely but in command, of the liberals. Therefore, it should default to being his issue. The Globe rightly points out it doesn’t fit Stephen Harper if you follow along party lines, what with conservatives–at least, if you look south of the border for your definition of conservatives–opposed to anything government regulated on basic principle. But what the Globe and Mail leaves out, and this is what surprises me, is that Ignatieff isn’t in much of a better position to take ownership of it. If anything, he’s in a worse position than Harper.

Prior to his career in politics, Stephen Harper wasn’t a whole lot different from the average Canadian. Sure, he might have been president of the National Citizens Coalition, but he was still subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else living in Canada. Still fell under the jurisdiction of the very healthcare system he may or may not still want to turn inside out. He, his wife, his kids, were all subject to it–and would therefore be perhaps a little better qualified to have an opinion on exactly what to do with it.

Michael Ignatieff? His healthcare consisted of pretty well full coverage, most likely, while he was living in Boston. Likely paid for both by his employer and, if that wasn’t good enough, out of pocket. Prior to that, he found himself living in the UK. Where he again, most likely had some form of private insurance in addition to, if he ever used at all, the public option as exists across the pond. He has had no experience, either positive or negative, with Canada’s healthcare system since the 1970’s. Certainly he returned to Canada in 2005, and also entered politics at that point–he would be in waiting for Stephane Dion’s eventual implosion before taking charge of the liberal party, but he’s still had no actual experience with the healthcare system as faced by average Canadians. So to expect him to fit into the issue his party has traditionally taken ownership of in the past is, perhaps, a bit of a stretch.

If any one of the three would be the most likely to fit into the healthcare issue, and I cringe to publish this realization, it would almost have to be Jack Layton. Not that I’d be interested to see what he’d do with any kind of actual power, but he seems the most likely candidate for a defense of Canada’s current healthcare system both in and out of Canada. And, in fact, it might make slightly more sense than the Globe’s suggestion that simply because Ignatieff is the liberal leader, it should be his issue–the NDP was, after all, the originating entity that brought about healthcare. So, to exercise the Globe’s logic a bit farther, the issue of healthcare in Canada is actually an NDP issue. And, as such, should be written rather firmly into Jack Layton’s platform come next election. Stephen Harper should steer clear of it–it’s far too liberal for him, as should Ignatieff–it’s far too “Canadian” for him. Or, better yet, why don’t we just not make it an election issue at all. After all, it’s not like previous elections have brought about any real significant changes to it since the 1980’s or so.

And, of course, later on the same day, a poll came out that pretty effectively blew the Star’s theory out of the water re: the whole out of controll thing. Oops. Try on another angle, folks. It might fit better. Then again, they could have just left reporting to people a little more centered in reality. Facts? What facts? We saw nothing.

The Star goes into a bit of detail on how the registry shouldn’t be a political issue, but rather an issue of public safety. And they cite the Toronto police chief as backing. Yeah, let’s go looking for proof in the murder capital of Canada, folks. Good call. There’s only one problem, though, with the whole public safety explanation. Murders nationally actually went up in 2008, including those involving guns. And those guns were probably not registered–criminals generally don’t like to do that on account of their activities being, well, criminal.

With the bill now having been granted a second reading, even some liberals–though not Michael Ignatieff, apparently–are cluing into that fact. It’s not a matter of public safety, as much as it is a matter of unwanted and unneeded burocracy. And a multi-billion dollar burocracy to boot. Although, on the bright side, that’s a couple billion dollars the conservatives are working on trimming from the expenses column. Could financial rebalancing really be all it’s about? Or, at least, financial non-wasting? Well, stranger things have happened.

Of course, the opposition parties are going after the government now on ethics violations among other things. Which, alright, if it’s actually against the law for the government to do so then take them out back and have them shot. Or at least soundly flogged. Hell, maybe even set it up to stream online so the average voter can watch. But if it’s not actually against the law, and if–much like another claim of supposed partisan advertising–it ends up that folks who make the decisions on that kind of thing don’t actually see it as breaking any law, then drop it already.

For his part, Stephen Harper has publicly handed out a smackdown to the MP who was actually doing it. And, his spokespeople maintain there’s nothing wrong with displaying the name of the federal MP representing the riding on these mock checks, just leave the party logo out of it. A message the PMO might want to email to MP’s before someone else gets spanked. Obviously, whether it’s against ethics laws or some other government regulation or not, Harper has a policy of his own against it. If that’s all it amounts to, let Harper enforce it if he decides he wants to. If it amounts to more than that, then like I said earlier, take them out back and have them shot. But until and unless it ends up amounting to more than that, keep the thing out of headlines and get on with actually doing what Canadians supposedly elected you to do. In this case, finish introducing employment insurance legislation, pass the tougher sentencing bills, deliver more of the stimulous money that’s already been promised, and leave the election on the backburner until 2011 at the earliest. That’d be very much appreciated by a majority of Canadians, I’d be willing to wager.

With only a very minimalistic amount of actual research, there’s a fair laundry list of taxes, administrative costs, etc the HST proposes to eliminate. This is exactly the same HST, complete with proposed 13% harmonization, that New Brunswick adopted in 1997–yes, under a liberal majority government.

A study (PDF) was done in 2000, which outlined that prices in the atlantic provinces did fall with the advent of the HST, due to a combination of lowered tax rates (eastern provinces were seeing taxes upwards of 11% or higher) and lower overall costs in administration. Fortunately, items that are already being taxed provincially in Ontario–at an already existing rate of 8%–won’t see any real price increase when the HST comes into effect for items already not exempt from the PST–they’ll be in line now with the tax situation in atlantic Canada. People in BC, however, might actually fair out a little better. Their provincial tax sits at 7% right now, and will probably still be that way when they harmonize. The Globe and Mail has a sort of hst FAQ posted that explains roughly where it is consumers should expect to see prices fall, and where they should expect to see them increase. The article also points out we won’t actually know how the specifics will play out until it actually happens. Or, until the parties in support of the HST come out with something you don’t have to be an economist to translate.

And that’s the crux of the problem right there. Conservatives and liberals alike are telling Canadians the HST is a good thing, without really explaining why. I mean, beyond the standard responses that businesses will pay less to produce what we need, and consumers therefore should pay less to purchase/use what we need. But it never is that simple. Without details, and without knowing exactly what it is we’re supposed to be absolutely overjoyed to see come into effect in 2010, we’re left guessing. And the guesses a lot of folks are coming out with are that everything up to and including the kitchen sink will probably end up costing more–a theory not hindered by Jack Layton’s general opposition to anything that won’t buy him votes.

Not everyone has the time to actually go and look at how it’s been implemented in every other province who’s doing the harmonization. For that matter, not everyone really cares–they don’t live there. All that matters is how HST legislation everyone knows is coming down the pipe sooner or later will effect them. And right now, beyond Layton’s crying about it and the rough estimations of economists not involved in the actual legislation, that’s precisely what Canadians are not getting. If the net result is going to be lower taxes/prices all round, then say so. If HST provinces will simply be paying more taxes at the cash register and less off their paycheck, again, say so. Stephen harper and Michael Ignatieff’s parties would both support this tax. Stephen Harper is behind the push for the tax to come into effect. An expectation that he, or someone in his government, would be able to provide some degree of an explanation of exactly how such a change would be carried out is not, you’d think, an unreasonable one. So let’s have a crack at that. It might help the move’s popularity some. And really, it could use some help.

Well, at least you aren’t criticising the stimulous spending you twisted Harper’s arm into throwing out the door. We’ll leave that to the halifax Herald to handle. Still, the liberals and NDP are both not exactly doing all that well poll-wise. Their best chance at making any actual progress, and that’s only if the conservative candidate in the disputed riding doesn’t pull off a little timely platforming as well, would be in atlantic canada–the polls out there are closer than, say, Ontario. But even in atlantic Canada I’d imagine you have to have *something* to run on other than “Harper mean, vote for Harper bad”, and a vague promise to stick to the atlantic accord. They might be a little more laid back out there, but they’re no less inteligent–or irritated, for that matter–than voters in central or western Canada. And their non-platform platform isn’t helping there. Not sure what or who’s telling them it’ll help them in eastern Canada, but someone out there should probably find a better source of advice. I’m looking at you, Jack.

Just one small problem Ignatieff didn’t look like he was all too ready to have to solve. On the same day as he made his speech in Vancouver about just how bad off the country really is energy-wise, it was released that prime minister Stephen Harper, while in Alberta today, would be announcing his own attempt at greenness. Specificly, a carbon capture/storage plan. What worries me, and what should worry Michael Ignatieff, is we know about as much about Harper’s plan from that press release as we do about Ignatieff’s plan from his speech. There’s no dollar commitments here, no specifics on exactly what we’d do–no anything that would actually interest the average Canadian voter. There is one noteable difference, though. The speech by Harper hasn’t happened yet. So, he can still improve. Ignatieff? Maybe next time.

HST legislation may not end up actually doing a whole lot to the conservatives at all, if timed right, according to the Globe and Mail. Ignatieff’s decision to support the agreement entered into with BC and Ontario by Harper’s conservatives could put him in a tight spot if legislation to that effect was introduced next week. And, if the liberals don’t bite, Harper still has the option–although I cringe at the prospect–of tapping the Blocke Quebecois on the shoulder. With the recent upsurge in popularity in that province, they might not be so hot under the collar to chance going to the polls if it can be at all avoided. Granted, with the liberals also losing ground to the conservatives in Quebec, Ignatieff’s uncomfortable position if HST legislation does surface might just make him reconsider his lack of confidence in the government.

Sure’ there’s still the matter of the maybe or maybe not deficit–the one Canada might or might not have had were it not in the midst of a recession. And the additional shortfall of having been in the midst of a recession. The liberals tried arguing that once. Well, okay, a few times. It didn’t work out very well for them. Mostly because of the fact they helped push him into overspendulous territory. Which also puts Ignatieff in the position of having to Tell Canadians if he was elected, he’d have to either raise taxes or cut spending to cut through the deficit. But he didn’t. Instead, he and Stephen Harper both said they wouldn’t be raising taxes. And now, that thin line he’s walking between making parliament work and not having confidence in the government may disappear entirely. If the legislation ends up being introduced in the next couple weeks, while the conservatives still have a comfortable lead in the polls, Michael Ignatieff may just have to decide whether to fish or cut bate. And the liberal party may have to decide whether or not to cut Michael Ignatieff loose.

If you guessed no, you were right. So, all that complaining about the liberals slowing things down and mucking up their legislation is… what, exactly? Now, yes, if the bill does come back to the house of commons with those amendments intact they’ll probably end up being removed. But, and here’s the kicker, the conservatives say they’ll do exactly what they’re accusing the liberal senators of doing. Folks, am I missing something here? Or has Harper finally caught Michael Ignatieff’s apparent amnesia?

Every economist in the country is, naturally, screaming the government of the day will eventually need to either raise taxes or cut spending if the intention is to balance the books by 2016. Makes sense, considering the toilet the economy is slowly climbing out of. Logic does say eventually, something’s gotta give. But, both parties say no to raising taxes, and one party says wait and see, or not a whole lot different than no, to cutting spending. If either one of these gentlemen has a hidden trick up their sleves that they’re not sharing with the rest of the class, it might be a halfway smart choice to do that. Before folks start to clue in and make things interesting–I’ve never seen the NDP leading in the polls. If they don’t, then Stephen Harper should just get on with the business of raising our taxes and just shut up about it, and Michael Ignatieff should really just shut up about it.

Just one minor little niggling problem. There’s about a 68% difference between what the liberals say is being spent and what the conservatives, in the media and on their website, say is being spent. Somebody’s lying, and with a shortfall of fifty-six billion dollars and probably climbing, it’s a lie that really needs to be stepped on, and extremely quickly–by whichever of the two is doing it. And, Stephen? Do yourself a favour and announce everything. Not just the projects scheduled for construction in 2010. If it’s on the table, put it on the website. It’ll save you a hell of a headache. Oh, and, Michael? If you’re going to criticise spending, do it from somewhere that isn’t already scheduled to be torn up to have something else built there. You’ve managed to make yourself look rather like an idiot instead. Which might actually be what you were going for–I don’t know, but that would be consistent.

Neverminding the fact he hasn’t really produced anything concrete yet, he’s been in office nine months. His troops are still in Afghanistan. His troops are still in Iraq. And his last attempt at peace talks didn’t go so well, so on Israel grounds it’s shockingly premature. I’m ignoring the Iran thing for obvious reasons.

Even prime minister Stephen Harper acknowledges the prise’s award is for what he hopes to do, not what he’s done already, in his congratulations to Obama. Congratulations that, and rightfully so, are on behalf of Canada. What does Michael Ignatieff have to gain from issuing his own, also smacking of being on behalf of Canadians? Folks, I have no idea.

Reid misses the entire point of his musical display, though. Well, beyond the fact that it was his wife’s idea in the first place and it was primarily in support of her that he did it. Now, it can’t be said that Stephen Harper will turn his back on those types of black tie afairs–although while Ignatieff was having his feathers ruffled because of it, he certainly tried to spin it in that general direction. Clearly, Stephen Harper doesn’t oppose the arts. However, and this is something the opinionated fool is inclined to agree with, if your performance is good enough, you don’t need government funding in order to keep yourself afloat. Celine Dion, Nickleback, the Bare Naked Ladies–all of those performers don’t rely on government funding. Why should they be the exceptions, rather than the rule? That, it would appear, is the direction Stephen Harper’s policies regarding the arts are heading. And, as I said earlier, I’m not seeing anything wrong with that. If you’re good, you’ll go far. If you’re not, you might want to have a fallback career. No sense in keeping bad or unpopular performances on government life support just for the sake of a handful of people. That makes about as much sense as bailing out the auto manufacturers. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

Harper engineered the arangement in such a way that the provincial premiers were the ones to announce the tax. He engineered it in such a way that the implementation of the proposed tax change, which is scheduled to take effect in July of 2010, would be left up to the provinces in question. And, and this is what might hand a heart attack to any purely liberal riding in Ontario or BC, it’s a tactic not any different than what the federal liberals did in atlantic Canada in 1997–a tax change that, to my knowledge at least, none of their governments since have tried to repeal.

While there’s no denying legislation of this variety would be damaging, it still remains fuzzy, at least to the Globe and Mail, as to exactly who it would be damaging to. Let’s try to recap it.

• The HST was announced just after Ontario’s budget last January. Criticism started almost immediately after information was released regarding exactly how popular a move that would be.
• NDP leader Jack Layton championed the cause federally, slamming Harper for daring to proceed with the measure.
• “Hey, the provinces said yes to it. Back off.” Latest defense from the conservatives’ Jim Flaherty, who promptly sidestepped the HST issue.
• Federal liberal leader Michael Ignatieff shoots himself in the foot, saying if an election is called and he wins, he won’t axe the tax. Oops.

And through it all, the federal conservatives just keep going up in the polls, while federal and provincial liberals keep going down. Coincidence? If you’re the Globe and Mail and you’re writing the article linked in the first paragraph, yes–most asuredly a coincidence. But if you’ve been watching how things have been playing out, you have to question just where that speculation comes from. Contrary to what most liberal party loyalists would have us believe, Stephen Harper isn’t a blithering idiot with no idea what he do. Neither, I would argue, is Michael Ignatieff–except we haven’t seen that side of him yet. Harper, though, and with Ignatieff’s unwitting help, has just managed to handcuff the liberals. By setting it up so that the liberal party in Ontario and BC takes the fall for it, with Ontario being one of the two provinces Harper needs to make a dramatic improvement in if he expects to gain a majority, he all but guarantees anyone not fond of the HST doesn’t vote liberal in the next election, whenever that might happen to be. As it stands now he’s called 4 bielections in order to fill vacant seats in the house of commons–this can’t be good for the liberals either. Best case, Harper walks away from all this with a majority. Worst case, another minority government, likely conservative. In either case, any seats lost in the coming election will more than likely wind up going to the NDP if anyone at all. And the NDP could certainly use them.

Harper is definitely engineering someone’s defeat. Whether his or Ignatieff’s it’s really hard to say at this point. But, if he ends up taking it on the nose, look for him to drag Ignatieff down with him. And Ignatieff would have walked himself right into it.

It’s interesting to note, though, that the liberals are circling overhead like vultures, waiting to pounce on the HST proposal in an attempt to flatten the conservatives in a possible election, at least in Ontario and BC. There’s just one problem. The conservatives’ poison pill, if it actually goes through before the next election–not likely unless the liberals or NDP do the flip flop dance again, would not be axed by the liberals should they come out on top. Which begs the question. Just who is this poison pill for?

Ignatieff will no doubt criticise Harper for its introduction–he’s already called it the Harper sales tax. And he will probably continue to do so in an election campaign. But if it’s known he’d keep it in place were he made prime minister, I have a real hard time seeing how it makes the liberal campaign on that issue any degree of effective. Best case, it becomes a non-starter for both the liberals and conservatives come election time. Worst case? The NDP, who have opposed it from the get go–and just about everything else on principle, fire at both parties on the issue and gain ground on both of them. On the up side, if you’re the type to look for up sides, if Harper goes, look for him to try and take Ignatieff down with him. If the liberals decide to make it a campaign issue, that’s very likely going to happen.

The primary source of information for the letter addressed to Canada’s governor general in the linked article is this NASA report, that still focuses almost entirely on the fact the earth is actually entering a warming cycle of possibly disastrous proportions, and not, in fact, cooling off a little. And uses that report in an attempt to make a political issue of a virtual non-starter.

Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that the NASA report is accurate. Let’s also assume it actually managed to provoke some kind of action on this apparent threat to national security. The only answer we have from Canada’s politicians is the threat of a carbon tax, which yes, Stephen Harper isn’t entirely all that interested in listening to. And, which Michael Ignatieff both does and doesn’t want. Not that raising Canadians’ taxes to compensate for it will do a whole lot to stop or slow down something that’s been going on since long before we started producing greenhouse gases.

The letter to Canada’s governor general doesn’t give any real direction as to what Canadians or their government could or should do differently, either–it doesn’t even touch the idea of a carbon tax. It only stresses the fact that she should, if she cares about Canada at all, remove Stephen Harper from office and charge him with high treason. Folks, I have to point it out. Even the people who thought George Bush was behind the events of 9/11 didn’t try that. The letter’s author gets an A for effort. And an F for making the average Canadian take him seriously. Good try, though. It was at least a semi-interesting read if nothing else.

Ignatieff is stuck in “we can do better mode”, which is getting him all of nowhere in the polls. Stephen Harper, on the other hand? Well, he’s been accused, albeit not by the Globe, of talking like a conservative and spending like a liberal–not good in the eyes of folks who’ve voted exclusively conservative. The Globe goes into a whole paragraph or two on Harper’s addressing of Quebecers, and Ignatieff’s lack of any real sticking point of his own. But it’s a lot simpler than that–if the article’s author would have just looked at the last 6 months or so in a little more detail.

In a lot of ways, as much as they know about Stephen Harper, Canadians still don’t have any idea what they’d be getting with a Stephen Harper majority. Quite the contrary, actually. They do, though, know what they’d be getting with a liberal majority–which is escentially what they’ve been getting throughout almost all of the previous session of parliament. Harper wanted to keep the national debt lower than it is, his arm was twisted by the opposition to throw money at a global recession. He says he wants to reform the senate, but with the liberals, NDP and Blocke Quebecois controlling the majority of seats in the house and the liberals with a majority in the senate, any attempt to push that bill through now would be dead on arival. He wants to scrap the gun registry–just one example of liberal overspending in and of itself, same result in a minority government.

Simply put, Canadians don’t trust the Stephen Harper they’re looking at. And, enter the cold ear of common sense, if they don’t trust him they aren’t about to blindly hand him a majority. What might keep him in minority territory, though, is Canadians’ equal distrust of Michael Ignatieff.

Again, the Globe and Mail misses the mark a little on the liberals’ crowned king. Oh, sure, the “we can do better” adds are actually doing nothing. And, while that means they’re not really hurting Ignatieff, they’re not really helping him either. What’s hurting him, though, and hurting him badly, is what he’s saying in the media. Which tends to change on a daily basis. He mocked the liberals publicly, then turned around and wanted to lead them to an electoral victory. He flopped on employment insurance most recently, as well as being both for and against just about everything that happens to be a political hot button. Oh yeah, and there’s still the small little detail of Canadians not really knowing him to begin with. But we’ll ignore that for his benefit.

If politics was a sport, we would be in the throws of sudden death overtime between two very closely guarded teams. In other words, I’d have probably fled the stadium by now out of boredom. Neither side’s taking risks, neither side’s really putting forth what they would do if Canadians would only grant them the mandate to do so. The difference? One side’s giving us something. As for the other? They’re giving us we can do better. Well, at least they’re right about that. Problem is, they’re not.

The press release from the NDP office hits on areas that have been weaknesses for Ignatieff since day one. In particular, his flip-flopping on just about everything, his tough talk when it comes to the governing conservatives, and the fact he generally seems as though he genuinely has no idea what he actually wants to accomplish. He dangled the threat of an election over Stephen Harper’s head in June on employment insurance. And, when the deal was struck to have each party send 3 into negotiations to work out a plan for EI reform, there was some faint hope for this newly minted intelectual turned liberal leader. Then August came. And went. And through it all, he never budged from his original demand.

september showed up, Ignatieff had absolutely nothing to show for it, and it was all the government’s fault. He went no confidence right from the start, forcing the NDP and Blocke Quebecois to quickly back the conservatives on employment insurance reforms–the same reforms that were rejected by all three parties just a few months ago–in order to prevent an election none of the three would benefit from. He made his intentions known even before parliament got down to business, which was way before Harper’s economic statement–something the NDP was criticised for back in January by both reporters and readers alike. The same liberal party also voted no to a ways and means motion only 3 days before Harper’s economic statement.

The flop reappeared again not very long after that, though. When the motion passed, Ignatieff went on the record saying his party will work to fast track the temporary measures in the bill. “We don’t want to give the NDP an alibi to continue to support Harper’s government,” was his excuse.

Sadly, all the twisting and turning he’s doing on just about everything isn’t making it any easier for him to avoid what’s coming his way, thanks largely to the newly begun attack from the NDP. If Ignatieff decides an election would be a bad idea after all, it wouldn’t be entirely all too surprising. Both because he’d probably not come out of it with more than he has now, and because he’ll probably flip flop on that in a couple months as well. This National Post article has a partial list of the various flip flops he made during the last session of parliament. And I’m sure there’ll be plenty more to come.

Canada’s economy is on an upswing, partially represented by a drop in unemployment insurance recipients. And, while the government can’t take a whole lot of credit for the recovery regardless to which party’s in power–sorry, Stephen, it just doesn’t work that way–Joe Public doesn’t really care. The government threw money at the problem, and now the problem is fixing itself. To the average voter who doesn’t take the time to actually read the political articles and their accompanying spin–hey, sometimes you can find a degree of amusement in the spin–the government fixed a broken economy. That will only translate to more votes for Canada’s conservative party. Of course, the lack of any real alternative from the opposition isn’t hurting either.

On top of all that, since the end of the liberals’ 13-year rule over Canada, the party’s become increasingly fractured, with first Paul “A Little Bit of Everything” Martin, then Stephane “I Know Nothing” Dion, and now recently appointed king Michael “We Can Do Better” Ignatieff each carving their own little divide within the party itself. In Ignatieff’s case, the most recent result of his divisiveness is the resignation and withdrawal of support from his now former Quebec lieutenant, Denis Coderre. All over a disagreement between the two as to who they think should be the next liberal candidate for one particular Quebec riding–I think Ignatieff might have won that one, though. The candidate in question was originally appointed–no, not voted for–by Coderre, only to be overruled and have a different candidate appointed by the king himself. And now, maybe possibly, we might be seeing the beginnings of an open nomination process for that particular riding–gee, what a concept!

A few well-placed missiles from either the conservatives, or their newest supporters Jack Layton and the NDP, and the good ship Liberal may just find itself in a nose dive into very uncharted territory for them. Now, granted, I haven’t been alive long enough to really remember the last conservative majority Canada held, but I’ve been around through plenty of liberal party majority. Plenty of good has come out of those 13 years–albeit dampened significantly by buz phrases like sponsorship scandal, but that’s politics for you. And, plenty of good has come out of nearly 4 years of conservative minority–well, when we could get the other 3 opposition parties to knock it off with the pissing contest. The problem is, plenty of not so good has come out of 4 years of minority government, too–remember, Mike, that $55 billion in debt you’re criticising is largely due to the same stimulous package you’ve been criticising. You know, the one you insisted Canada needed?

He’ll play the non-confidence card, and if Jack and Gilles have any sense of self-preservation they’ll continue to prop up the Harper government. If they don’t, Ignatieff might just find out the hard way just how much confidence the voters have in his style of government–which, really, is either really really vague or really really confusing. Neither is deserving of a passing grade. Michael Ignatieff gave Stephen Harper’s government a failing grade before he even heard the economic update. The opinionated fool gives mister Ignatieff a failing grade before he even shifts into election mode. Sorry sir, but I simply cannot support your government.

The liberals’ big thing though, and this is what makes me scratch my head a little, is that so much of Canadians’ tax dollars have gone into funding research projects undertaken by Nortel. Tax dollars earmarked for Nortel by the liberals while they were in power, of course. Something that, whether it happens to be true or not, the opinionated fool really has to wonder just what a good idea that is. Government should not be funding a private corporation–least of all using money that could have been much better spent, maybe, preparing Canada for a possible recession. It sucks when a corporation goes under and takes your well wasted tax dollars with it, doesn’t it Michael?

A similar story happened in 1995, when national iconic coffee chain Tim Horton’s sold its assets to Wendy’s, and engaged in a partnership with them that saw its corporate headquarters move south of the border, while stores north of the border ended up partnering with their Wendy’s counterparts–go for a sandwitch for lunch, then move on up to the next counter for a doughnut for dessert. And the liberals saw nothing wrong with it. Guess they weren’t funneling enough tax money into the company for them to complain about. But, in spite of the fact they moved their headquarters south of the border–and, for the record, they recently announced they’ll be bringing it back north–the company never left Canada. Canadians could still go and get their hands on their coffee and doughnut fix before work. In fact, the company even tried to expand into the US–and is, from what I hear, having a degree of luck. So what’s the problem?

It comes down to the almighty dollar. The liberals pumped a ton of them into Nortel, and Nortel promptly imploded. So now, they’re concerned. And rather than let things play out, they want Stephen Harper’s conservative government to step in and start knocking around the private industry. I’ve said it before, although that was pre-website, but I’ll say it again. Government should never get its hands into the private corporation pie. Once it does that, it effectively rules out any sort of competition. Of course, there are some things you just shouldn’t hand over without question to private corporations–healthcare for the entire country, anyone? But, when you bail out the auto makers, when you bail out technology research giants, when you bail out a television network almost no one who wants to watch something decent on TV actually watches, you remove a lot from the competitive nature of private business. And, you escentially remove the real choice your country has when it comes to who it deals with. And then you still have problems not unlike what we’re seeing here.

What’s set him off is an interview (video) on ABC, in which prime minister Stephen Harper correctly stated the issues of wait time that Canada’s healthcare system deals with are a provincial, and not a federal, matter. When asked by the reporter on more than one occasion in the interview if wait times were a concern and what he planned to do about it, Harper continued to tell him it’s a provincial matter.

I’m not entirely sure the reporter understood it after the second or third time Stephen Harper said it. He almost seemed a tiny bit disappointed that Harper wouldn’t jump into that debate–wonder which of the wingnut club paid him to try that out. Johnson apparently was quite disappointed with it. So, he decided to create one

Apparently, if you happen to be a republican, “I don’t want to get involved” somehow translates to “I don’t know”. From somewhere in that interview, and I for the life of me can’t see where, Orrin managed to grab on to the idea that Stephen Harper just doesn’t understand exactly how Canada’s healthcare system actually works. Well, to put Orrin and his supporters at ease, it works very well, thank you.

I’ve said it once, but I wouldn’t mind saying it again. Canadians can take criticism. Quite well, actually. But it may be a good idea to perhaps learn a thing or two before doing so. Just a thought. I mean, it might actually help your case a little better, I’d think. Of course, I could also be wrong–that’s not unheard of.