Harper and the electoral fraud scandal | #cdnpoli

You know, I really want to believe this thing will grow uglier and get out of control. Massive, systematic and coordinated misinformation, all with the express purpose of disenfranchising voters?

If this doesn't throw the results of last May's federal election into doubt, then God knows what will. Alison's been keeping track of the numbers. A majority without legitimacy? It's a sweet thought. Boris, Simon and the Dawg have been all over it too.

Liberals, NDP, whoever. I don't care what we call them | #cdnpoli

The Tyee – This Year, Put the Country Ahead of the Party:

" ... with the election of Stephen Harper, everything changed. No prime minister in Canadian history has come to power with such a ruthless determination to implement an agenda so at odds with the interests of the country and the values of its citizens. This involves not just a set of policies aimed at eliminating the social and economic role of the federal government. It includes, on a parallel course, a determination to change the political culture of the country to one that either supports or acquiesces to that policy agenda. (The Governor General's Christmas message was about volunteerism and philanthropy, Harper's long-term replacement for the state.) Working in tandem, these two political streams, if allowed to proceed for any length of time, could effectively change the country permanently -- or at least for all currently living generations. Harper aims for nothing less.
If the NDP and the Liberals continue to do politics as usual, as if Harper is just another political adversary in a normally-functioning system, Harper is almost certain to win again."

'via Blog this'

From Murray Dobbin in The Tyee.

Opposing the #HarperRegime: thinking strategically over the next four years

Sorry, dear friends. This is going to be one of those times when I try to get cerebral, but not too cerebral, and end up sounding like a wanker. Business as usual, in other words.

In the context of last week's Twitter exchange with @thekeenanwire over the question of what we deserve, I admitted that I hadn't thought through all the implications of what I was saying or where I was going. To the extent that we could arrive at common ground in 140-character bursts, we managed to agree that "need" was probably a better word than "deserve" when we're talking about a police force, or a society, or a government. At least that's the impression I was left with; if I'm wrong, Ed, please feel free to correct me.