In reading “Why Old Politicians Shouldn’t Be Running Our City” the thought that came to mind was ‘Wow! I would never have thought that the solution to problems with our democratic government is … less democracy?

Certainly I would never have thought of removing or limiting people’s rights and freedoms as a solution to problems with government.

Of course, as a solution it does beg the question of just who it is that is going to be setting these limits on democracy and removing/limiting our Charter rights and freedoms. And just where do we stop the removal of rights and freedoms?

Or perhaps more importantly: once we permit the removal of rights and freedoms, just how do we stop/avoid having more and more of our rights and freedoms removed?

Given that the media has failed to live up to “… public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility” – should we ban everyone currently connected to media in anyway from involvement in any form in media from this point on?

Of course that would mean we would not be hearing from the Murray Dobbins either. Unless we would have exceptions – which brings us back to who decides who can and who cannot participate.

Taking away freedoms is never a solution, no matter how convenient it may sound or in fact be in the short term.

Besides it is not in the people in office or those running for office that the problems we face and the hole(s) we have dug ourselves into lie.

As Shakespeare wrote “Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie” or the more oft quoted “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves”.

You want to stop repeat offenders – don’t re-elect them.

There was thoughtful, public, vocal opposition, opposed to Plan A because of serious questions and reservations about the accuracy, veracity and reliability of city council’s Plan A promises and predicted (profits? etc) results. The analysis of those opposing Plan A had found city council’s promises and claims to be based on predictions that were based on assumptions that were unrealistic, wildly positive and highly unlikely to occur.

Contributing to the approval of Plan A was abuse of the democratic process. The city poured $140,000 into advertising, banned posters and literature opposed to Plan A from city property and made unlimited use of city resources and manpower in promoting Plan A, The city also abused its power and advertising budget to influence (muzzle) the coverage of this issue in local newspapers.

In fact the actions of the City of Abbotsford were judged an abuse of process so pronounced and blatant that guidelines for holding municipal referendums were created to ensure fairness in future referenda.

Still, despite the abuse of the process by the city the opposition was heard, leading to Plan A barely being approved.

The passage of time has proven those opposed to Plan were correct to be concerned, that city council’s claims, projections and promises were … inaccurate.

The point here is not that the city’s numbers were prodigiously inaccurate while the numbers of those opposed to Plan A were notably accurate. Rather the point is that careful, thoughtful and realistic analysis provided a sound projection of Plan A outcomes.

Furthermore this analysis did not require knowledge of an esoteric nature but a) knowledge of fundamental financial facts all should be aware of because these facts affect people’s day-to-day lives; b) basic mathematical skills; and c) common sense.

Arriving at an understanding of the concerns raised by the opposition required not exceptional levels of knowledge and intellectual ability. What was required for the citizens of Abbotsford to achieve an understanding was an investment time and effort.

The sad reality of Plan A is not only were voters apparently unwilling to make the investment of time and effort to understand the financial consequences of Plan A, 75% could not be bothered to vote on a matter that would have profound financial effects on Abbotsford for decades into the city’s future.

By the time of the municipal election major problems with city council’s promises and claimed results had already surfaced – and yet 6 out of 7 city councilors seeking reelection were reelected.

This was not because voters did not have alternatives – they did. Moreover the turnout to vote in the municipal election was, as usual, abysmal.

If voters are going to act in irrational ways what does it matter if you don’t let current politicians run?

The problem is not that the actions of politicians are removed from reality, doing nothing to address pressing issues or solve problems.

The problem is that people keep reelection the same politicians and political parties as if they expect the leopard to change its spots and start acting in a rational manner that addresses pressing issues and solves problems rather carrying on business as usual.

Clearly the problem with our current democratic system is not in the mechanics of how the system functions but that people are involved.

Unfortunately this unwillingness to invest time and effort in order to be able to become informed and to vote is not limited to the municipal level but extends to the provincial and federal levels.

I ran into an ardent NDP supporter of my acquaintance recently and took the opportunity to ask about how the NDP planned to replace the $1.5 billion the federal government was paying the province to implement the HST if their opposition to the HST led to the HST not being implemented. I followed up by asking about how the NDP proposed to pay for the large spending increases on Health Care and Education the Party was calling for.

It was a relief when she corrected me to $1.6 billion ($750 million [with the introduction of the enabling legislation] + $394 million [the day the HST takes effect – July 2, 2010] + $475 million [one year latter – July 2, 2011] = $1.599 billion) because I had begun to wonder if the NDP, Mr. Vander Zalm or the Media were aware of the fact that not implementing the HST would cost, reduce the funds transferred from the federal government by $1.6 billion?

My concern arising from the fact not one of the NDP, Mr. Vander Zalm or the Media seems to be addressing the cost of NOT implementing the HST.

The answer given was not in the form of “we (NDP, Mr. Vander Zalm, other HST opponents) will be raising these taxes and/or fees”, nor was it in the form of “we will be cutting these programs’ or some combination of tax and fee increases together with cuts in spending (programs).

The reply to how the NDP planned to pay for the $1.6 billion dollars lost by not implementing the HST was to inform me that “it all comes out of one pocket” as if that in any way changes the reality that the BC budget would have $1.6 billion less and that the $1.6 billion must be made up either by increasing revenue (taxes, fees) or reducing spending on Health Care and Education (with the need to cut $1.6 billion only Health Care and Education cuts can reduce spending by that large an amount) – even though that is at odds with all the NDP electioneering on increasing spending on Health Care and Education.

But then we are talking party politics were, apparently, logic, financial and economic reality have nothing to do with policy or position.

Yes, government revenues come out of the same pocket, that of the taxpayer. However those revenues do not go into the same pocket. Rather those revenue streams flow into three separate pockets – a federal pocket, a provincial pocket and a municipal pocket.

The fact that the federal pocket has $1.6 billion available doesn’t mean a thing to the provincial pocket – UNLESS that $1.6 is to be transferred to the provincial pocket. Saying no to the HST means the $1.6 billion stays in the federal pocket.

More importantly it means that when the provincial government goes to pay for the services the $1.6 billion in funds was allocated to pay for – they cannot pay.

You go into a store to buy books, clothes etc and when you look in your wallet it is empty what happens? You leave the store without the goods you want to buy. If the goods are important you could take a second job to earn the extra income needed.

Unfortunately the way governments get their spending money is out of citizens pockets. So in order to offset the $1.6 billion that not implementing the HST will cost the BC budget either the government cuts $1.6 billion in costs (services) or raises other taxes and fees by $1.6 billion.

You may have noticed the nasty kicker in the “it’s all one pocket” argument the NDP supporter made.

In rejecting the HST the $1.6 billion stays in the federal pocket for them to spend. Does anyone think they are about to give that money back to taxpayers? If so, I have some lovely land in Florida to sell you. No, if we are extremely lucky the $1.6 billion will be used to reduce the federal deficit. Most likely, given the political situation in Ottawa, the federal Conservative government will find some way to spend it promoting the Conservatives electability. Something along the lines of the taxpayer funded Conservative party advertising labeled ‘Canada’s Economic Plan’.

Deficit or political pork barreling it leaves the BC provincial government short $1.6 billion. The only provincial programs large enough to ‘fund’ $1.6 billion in cuts are Health Care and Education. Given the caterwauling going over Health Care and Education in the current budget the provincial government will be motivated NOT to make the cuts necessary to offset the $1.6 billion revenue loss/shortfall.

This leaves raising taxes/revenues to cover the $1.6 billion shortage.

**** I acknowledge the BC government could increase the provincial deficit by $1.6 billion, but in the economic climate of today such a course of action will result in negative economic consequences proportional to or exceeding the $1.6 billion. ****

Which leaves BC taxpayers paying the $1.6 billion twice – once to the federal government (the pocket it is in and will stay in) and once to the BC provincial government were it is spent on the programs the original $1.6 billion was slated to pay for OR paying through $1.6 billion in health care and education cuts.

As a final cruel, ironic adding of insult to injury remember that most of the $1.6 billion dollars that would have gone into BC’s coffers for implementing the HST would have consisted of dollars that came mainly out of the pockets of other Canadians.

In rejecting the HST BC taxpayers are choosing to turn down the $1+ billion portion that came out of the pockets of Canadians who do not live in BC, turn down the repatriation of the balance of the $1.6 billion that came out of the pockets of BC taxpayers and to be out of pocket an additional $1.6 billion to replace the $1.6 billion in federal funds lost by not implementing the HST.

Makes the victory claimed by the anti-HST forces pretty much a Pyrrhic victory, does it not?

I can understand the public’s anger at the Liberals and the desire for revenge on the Liberals on the part of both the NDP and Mr. Vander Zalm.

Given the number of memorials I have attended this year for people whose deaths are in part or in full the result of policies of the Liberal government, the needless damage and suffering the policies of the Liberal government continue to cause and the increasing levels of misery, poverty, illness and even death the policy choices and actions of the Liberal Party will give rise to in the coming years I have issues and a passionate anger with the behavior of the Liberal party.

However as part of getting into recovery from mental illness I had to deal with the propensity of Adult Children of Alcoholism to be masters of self sabotage, to avoid self-destructive behavior.

Avoiding self-destructive behavior is why, while I would love to see the Liberal government and Gordon Campbell get a figurative kick in the ass, I am not willing to do it at the cost that will result from ‘punishing’ or ‘teaching a lesson’ to Gordon Campbell and his Liberals through a rejection of the HST.

Being motivated by anger (taxpayers) or the need for revenge (political foes) and acting out of anger or pursuing revenge in a way that would damage citizens and the province more than the Liberals is, to be blunt, not only childish but extremely foolish if not out-and-out reckless.

One expects politicians (the NDP, Vander Zalm et al) to be focused on their own needs (revenge, scoring political points) and pursuit of those needs, rather than the best course of action for the citizens of BC.

But the people of BC cannot allow their own anger or the desire of political opponents for revenge to dictate their actions vis-à-vis the HST.

The cost to taxpayers pocketbooks or to Health Care and Education of engaging in a fit of self-destructive pique with the Liberal government, is simply too high. However bitter, the HST is a pill that must be swallowed by the citizens of BC.

I don’t expect the NDP, Vander Zalm et al to be capable of passing by the opportunity for revenge and scoring political points since.

Indeed, knowing the $$$ costs and the potential for significant negative impacts on both Health Care and Education the NDP is pursuing their anti-HST campaign without outlining in what manner, if any, they would offset the need for significant cuts to Health Care and Education.

Questioning how the NDP proposed to offset the negative costs and effects of not implementing the HST while at the same time funding all the additional spending on Health Care and Education the NDP have been calling for since the budget was brought down, resulted in a list (Olympics, convention center, new ferries built abroad, etc) of financial misadventures of the liberals.

When I enquired what the sins of the Liberals had to do with how the NDP was going to pay for not implementing the HST and the increased spending on Health Care and Education they were advocating in response to the cuts forced by the Liberal budget I moved into the category of those who a political discussion with was a ‘waste of time”.

I asked and courteously received an acknowledged that she had assumed, from the fact I stayed focused on how the NDP proposed to cover the costs of increased Health Care and Education spending and also cover the cost of not implementing the HST, I was a Liberal supporter. When I stated I was not a Liberal supporter I was dismissed as a Green or Conservative supporter.

I earned a snort from saying that at this point I felt none of the current provincial (or federal) political parties had demonstrated they deserved, or had the ability and vision, to form the next government.

Listening to the list of financial ‘sins’ committed by the Liberals I was struck by a sense of déjà vu. The Liberals originally came to power in BC on a list of financial ‘sins’ committed by the NDP. The last election was about which party had committed, or would commit if elected, the most financial and other ‘sins’.

When faced with questions of how the parties and politicians propose to pay for their promises, whether the Liberal’s Olympics or the NDP’s rejection of the HST agreement with the federal government, what voters get is a list of the ‘sins’ of the other parties.

Our elections, both federally and provincially, are not about policies, answering voter’s questions or about why you should vote for a particular party. Elections have become about scare tactics, bogeymen, why you should not vote for the other party or parties and a list of the sins of the other party or parties.

Provincially and federally I am in the position many Canadians find themselves, without a party to support because none of the politicians and parties are about articulating a vision for Canada (or BC); they focus on telling you why you shouldn’t vote for the other parties not on points of policy but on the basis of past ‘sins’ and scare tactics based on future sins; none of the parties seems to understand or grasp the real world, especially in terms of the financial realities of today and the future as well as the needs and social fabric of Canadians and Canada.

I am not alone in this view of having no party that reflects my views of the priorities and policies that are needed, federally and provincially, to provide the leadership and governance Canada needs at this time of change.

I know this because, after finishing the paragraph about being without a party to support I ‘prorogued’ writing to allow a trip to the Library to return materials and to pick up two items on hold for me. While at the library I ran into an acquaintance and extended the prorogation to share a coffee.

Our conversation began with the current state of the Mental Health system, the difficulties one has accessing the system, the current rationing of mental health services and the current ‘horror show’ state of affairs that exists at the psychiatric ward of Abbotsford’s new Regional Hospital. Not surprising this conversation led to the current government’s policies, political parties and the political situation in general.

It developed that my partner in conversation had also been rendered party-less at the federal level by the actions of the traitor from the Maritimes, he whose name should never be spoken, betrayer of the Progressive Conservative Party, members, supporters, voters and Canadians.

We both feel that there is a need for policies to help those Canadians most in need of help, that people (housing, poverty, mental health, etc) are more important than things (bridges, Olympic venues) and that there is no reason government cannot be socially responsible while being fiscally responsible.

My acquaintance used fiscally conservative, which was the term I used before the federal Conservative party took the words responsible, thoughtful, balanced and fair out of what people now think of when you use the term Conservative in reference to fiscal/budget policy.

The current Conservative party is many things when it comes to budget and fiscal policy but they are not in any way conservative, balanced, fair or most especially responsible.

We spoke of the fact that not only are the Liberals and Conservatives doing great damage to the social fabric of the province and county but that, despite their claims to be fiscally responsible, their pursuit of their ideology is inflicting financial damage that puts Canada’s and Canadian’s financial future at risk.

We agreed that until such time as the NDP get both their fiscal policy and financial house in order, they undermine their policy agenda. That a government needs solid financial footing to fund needed social policies and programs.

Remember that it was the BC NDP who first began the demise of the Income Assistance system (currently Housing and Social Development) trying to balance (reduce the deficit) the budget. Agreeing that before we could vote NDP the party would have to strengthen its right (financial) wing.

We shuddered at the thought of the provincial Conservatives and Randy White and the damage, both socially and financially, they would inflict on the province.

We agreed that the Green party is the one current party that has promise, but that the party needs to get its financial house/ wing in order as well as attracting some solid, mature candidates.

We lamented the fact that at this time there is no party whose policy is to deliver good governance, help to the most vulnerable Canadians, ethical behaviour, to raise issues that Canadians need to discuss and address even though Canadians want to avoid thinking about or addressing these issues, provide leadership and deliver responsible and sustainable financial management.

Finally we spoke of the need for a new fiscally responsible, socially progressive, cognizant of the fiscal reality the majority of Canadians live with daily and, perhaps most importantly, aware that the world has changed and that fiscal policy needs to reflect the fiscal realities Canada faces – not what used to be or what a political party’s ideology imagines the world to be. Or the need for responsible citizens to run as independents in order to put an end to so many voters being forced to vote for the lesser of evils; giving voters the ability to vote for policies and MP’s instead of holding our nose and making the least objectionable choice.

Without change in the behaviour of voters, simply denying the current crop of politicians the right to run for office will change nothing. The parties will simply present a new crop of candidates no better (hopefully no worse) than the current bunch and the status quo will remain unchanged. As friend of mine said, our current politicians are like vermin – you get rid of one and five more pop up as replacements.

Only a change in behaviour on the part of voters can effect a change in the governance of municipalities, provinces and at the federal level. I need to amend that statement. A change in voter behaviour is required to bring about change in a controlled manner.

To quote from the Abbotsford Today article: In a very insightful column in the Vancouver Sun Monday, entitled “Consumers are in denial with social crisis looming“, Murray Dobbin, of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, argues that, in terms of consumer debt, our current ‘consumer madness’ indicates “An almost wilful denial of reality.”

“Optimists may have imagined that the current combination of inconvenient truths would cause people to pause and re-examine their habits.”

I would not have considered myself an optimist but, I admit that I had hoped as reality, particularly the fiscal/resource reality that governments around the world are bumping up against, began to assert itself people would be forced to “pause and re-examine their habits.”

It is becoming clearer that Mr. Dobbin is correct – such a hope is optimistic.

The evidence of behaviour indicates people have, ostrich-like, buried their heads so deeply in the sands of a “wilful denial of reality” that only when reality forces large tax increases or deep cuts to favourite programs like medical care or Old Age Security will Canadians and their politicians be forced to pull their heads out of … the sand.

The problem with that is, when you reach the point where reality asserts itself and forces action, it is extremely painful; as demonstrated by what is taking place in Greece.

Financial reality has asserted itself and Greece finds itself insolvent and needing a bailout from other members of the European Economic Community to avoid an economic disaster. As part of the bailout the Greek government has been forced to impose painful financial and economic budget cuts to government spending.

How did Greek citizens react to these austerity measures? Unbelief, a denial of reality so strong that it has lead to strikes demanding the Greek government go back to ‘business as usual’. Even when faced with the evidence of their economic crisis, the need for Greece to be bailed out by other members of the EEC, most Greek citizens continue to deny reality considering it to be some kind of government plot so as to impose austerity measures.

Lest Canadians feel that they would not be that unrealistic – have you heard the radio ads running that urge people demand the government change CPP so that everyone can enjoy a golden retirement. People are finding that the changes in the Canadian and world economies mean they cannot comfortably save enough money to retire on.

Increasingly those who have already retired are finding themselves pinching pennies, purchasing only those goods and services necessary to live and/or forced to go to work part-time to be able to pay the bills. Increasing numbers of people are realizing that their retirement income will have them on strict budgets cannot afford to. Increasing numbers of people are facing the reality that they will never be able to afford to retire on the levels of retirement income the are currently in line to receive.

Rather than adjusting their current spending they want the government to change CPP so that they can afford to retire. Ignoring the fact that government cannot afford to fund commitments it already has made to the public and thus simply cannot afford any major new policy initiatives. Oh yes, Canadians can be at least as unrealistic as Greek citizens.

And before Canadians pull the covers of their “wilful denial of reality” back over their heads telling themselves if could not happen in Canada they had best remember the old adage about those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

What am I referring to?

Take a minute and think about the situation Greece and its citizens find themselves in: bankrupt and needing a bailout from other countries that, as a condition of the bailout, require the imposition of harsh austerity measures by the government. Sound familiar?

Sounds eerily similar to the financial crisis situation that South American countries (and other countries around the globe) found themselves in – unable to pay or service their debt they had to be bailed out by the IMF (International Monetary Fund).

At the time it was dismissed as being a problem confined to the developing world/nations. Developed nations, such as Greece (and Portugal and Spain), rested secure in the knowledge that it was ‘third world’ problem and not an early warning sign of changing world economic and resource realities.

I recognize that as part of the “wilful denial of reality” most Canadians are in denial about what is happening in Greece serving as an early warning for Canadians to get their financial house in order. Instead of seeing Greece as a cautionary tale that financial reality will exert itself at some point, that while nations/countries can put off the day of reckoning longer than individuals or corporations a day of reckoning will come, the majority of Canadians are telling themselves “that is just Greece, you know how those Europeans are’.

Just as it was “just the developing countries, you know how the third world is”.

For those still clinging to this has nothing to do with Canada just look at the effect the situation in Greece had on the Canadian Dollar which plunged from parity with (briefly above) the US dollar to 0.92 cents against the US dollar. A response as investors flee to the perceive safety of the US dollar; a response that may well prove to be loonie.

Loonie because the assumption of the safety of the US dollar is of questionable validity – a rather sobering thought.

There are a number of economists, economic and financial thinkers who are not wedded to the established models of economic thought because they believe that the reality that that these models and modes of thinking, such as unlimited growth, are based on has changed. That, logic and mounting evidence suggests the traditional, accepted economic realities upon which we are planning and managing municipal, provincial, national and the world economy no longer exist.

People blame tax increases for the fact that, year after year and decade to decade their pay cheques do not go as far or purchase the goods and services they did. People assume that the reason that their pay cheque does not purchase the goods and services it did last year is that someone (government) is taking more (taxes) out of their cheque so that they have less dollars to spend than they did the prior year or in years prior to that.

Recently I was at an economics lecture where it was pointed out that tax rates have dropped for both rich people and poor people over the last 15 years. That there were big declines in marginal tax rates for rich people 56% in 1994 to 45% in 2008.

If taxes are falling then why do people feel they have less money to spend? Because while taxes have gone down and they have more dollars to spend, the goods and services those dollars will purchase are less than the goods and services that a lesser number of dollars purchased the year before.

This widespread but misplaced blame on taxes has consequences. This misplaced blame results in fiscal policies focused not on what are the actual problems or issues in the Canadian economy, but on what citizens (and politicians) think is the problem. The consequences of this are threefold.

First, time and resources are spent not on addressing the actual problems or issues, but elsewhere. It is all but impossible to solve problems or issues when you are not aware they are the problems and issues you need to be addressing. The actual issues and problems remain untouched when one is focused on solving problems and issues that are not really problems or issues or are not the problems and issues you need to be focused on.

Second, the actions taken in seeking solutions to the incorrect set of problems or issues can, and often does, worsen or exacerbate the true problems and issues. Additionally trying to solve the wrong problems or issues can give rise to new problems and issues.

Third, it can lead to incorrect voting decisions. If voters believe that taxes are responsible for reducing the amount of goods and services they can obtain this incorrect belief will influence, may well dictate, how they vote.

A major tenet of the federal Conservative Party’s ideology is that tax cuts are a solution to economic issues and problems or perhaps that should read any tax cut is a good tax cut. Voters, believing that increasing taxes are the reason the amount of goods and services they can purchase is falling proceed to vote Conservative. The Conservatives proceed to cut taxes and the voters … find that the amount of goods and services they can purchase has gone down yet again.

Because we are dealing with human beings, this further reduction on the goods and services they can purchase seems to convince people that somehow taxes must have gone up and what is needed is further tax cuts; even as they are demanding more (ie shorter wait times for operation, more prisons to lock up repeat offenders) from the government.

So policies are based on what is, incorrectly, perceived as the problem and upon the party in power’s ideology (currently the federal Conservatives and Liberals provincially.) The result is policies that are not based on solving what the problems and issues are but upon what are perceived and/or believed to be the problems and issues.

Take a look around the province and the country and you see the consequences of basing policies on perception and believe instead of Reality.

The amount of goods and services Canadians can purchase continues to fall rather than increase. Meanwhile homelessness, those living in poverty and the numbers of poor Canadians increase significantly. Government policies over the past several decades have resulted in what one wants to rise (wealth) falling and what one wants to fall (poverty levels) rising.

A Caveat about government policies having resulted in a decrease of wealth for Canadians: while it is true that government policy resulted in a reduction in wealth for an overwhelming percentage of Canadians these policies did result in significant wealth increases for a small percentage of Canadians. This wealth increase was not the result in an increase of the net wealth of Canadians but the transfer wealth from other Canadians, including the poorest, to the wealthiest Canadians.

Might I suggest a change in behaviour and policy is in order. Or we could continue the insanity of doing what we are doing, pursuing the government polices we have been pursuing and hoping for a different outcome.

Personally, I think the most like course of action to result in different, more desirable, outcomes is to change the behaviour.

While thinking that over here are a few more points to ponder.

Prior to our current economic challenges BC, indeed Canada, enjoyed a long and strong (labelled by governments as the longest and strongest ever) boom. What did the boom bring about?

Increased homelessness, poverty, child poverty, loss of housing affordability, loss of traditional middle class, living wage jobs which were replaced by 20 hour minimum wage jobs; this is what government policies brought about when we were in a boom – as the Canadian and worldwide economy struggles to adjust to $200 a barrel oil and other economic realities, it is frightening to contemplate: if that was what our government policies caused in boom conditions what will those policies cause under far less favourable circumstances?

When is a tax cut not really a tax cut? When the money you receive from this ‘tax cut’ will have to be repaid plus interest. The federal Conservatives financed their ‘tax cuts’ with borrowed money (deficits). As a result Canadians will have to repay not only the amount of money they ‘received’ but will also have to repay the interest costs of the money. Doesn’t seem to be much of a tax cut to me?

The emerging school of thought holds that we need to change our traditional, business as usual, economic thinking, planning and managing to reflect new realities – or suffer increased pain as a result of the fallout from the discrepancy between what we insist is economic reality versus the actual economic reality.

This new reality includes concern that the US economy has dug itself into a financial and economic hole from which it cannot, in any non-(extremely)painful, non-drastic manner recover; that the US economy is being sustained on its size and momentum, the established behaviours and beliefs of not only investors but of countries and of course denial of what is (or would be) a potentially disastrous situation.

This view suggests that countries need to get their financial behaviours, financial houses, in order so as to strengthen their economies, putting them on a solid footing to minimize the pain and fallout as the economic reality the world is in fact in, asserts itself and imposes adjustment to reality upon the world economies.

Denial, right up until you hit the brick wall of Reality, is oft a far more comfortable place to dwell that is reality.

Unfortunately, an extremely painful unfortunately, the comfortable bubble of denial will not, cannot, protect us from the SPLAT of hitting the brick wall of Reality.

Our economic and financial behaviour is like the skier on the opening of ABC’s Wide World of Sports, racing out of control.

We can choose either to suffer the ‘agony of defeat’ – the SPLAT – when reality exerts itself OR we can manage the pain by “pause and re-examine” moving out of our current state of a “wilful denial of reality” and making thoughtful, intelligent and rational policy choices.

In the final analysis simply changing the current crop of politicians for a new crop of ‘the same old’ politicians and political behaviour; tinkering with the electoral system (proportional representation etc); will change nothing.

Ultimately the responsibility and the ability for good government is in the hands, the votes, of the public and until such time as the public becomes willing to engage in a discussion/debate of reality, as opposed to their far more comfortable “wilful denial of reality”, Canada, Canadian society, the Canadian economy and indeed the future of Canada are going to continue in an accelerating downward spiral.

We can Think or Sink; no longer having the excess resources to allow us to deny reality and put off a financial reckoning, we must Choose to take our fate, however uncomfortable, in our hands or be Victims of fate and the dictates of economic forces we will have sacrificed our ability to exert influence upon by our insistence in dwelling in the land of denial and a “wilful denial of reality”.