Back before Stephen Harper decided that scaring the Canadian electorate with the boogeyman of the “Coalition” was the way for the Mr Harper to win a majority government, the Conservatives had a campaign ad that was about the Harper governments ‘achievements’ called Rising to the Challenge.

That ad and any reference – in any manner – to the Conservative coalition government’s record appears to have disappeared.

In part that may be because, given the Conservatives campaign strategy of scarring Canadians into voting for them with the boogeyman “Coalition” – as opposed to giving Canadians reasons why they should vote Conservative – the Conservative election strategy of FEAR would be undermined by any reminder that the Conservative government was a coalition government.

Which could lead to Canadians asking Mr Harper about his double standard – why it is OK for Harper to form a coalition government, but a coalition government with a party other than Harper’s Conservatives in charge is a threat of such proportion that Canadians should be driven by FEAR to vote Conservative.

Or it would lead to Canadians asking that question if any uncontrolled, non-vetted, non-Conservative supporter Canadian voter could penetrate the Iron Curtain of security and information/misinformation control that surrounds Mr. Harper.

Which begs the question: is Mr Harper that scared of Canadians asking him questions on the Conservative record and the consequences of the Conservatives stated policies if elected?

Canadian voters also needs to ask what it was about ‘Rising to the Challenge’, with its focus on the Conservative government’s actions, that convinced Mr Harper that the only way for the Conservatives under his rule to win a majority was to scare Canadians into voting Conservative?

Saved Jobs: I do not know if Harper and his Conservatives wrote numbers on slips of paper, threw them into a hat and plucked out one of the slips OR if the Conservatives stuck a bunch of numbers up on a cork board, spun Harper around and around and stopping him facing the cork board and had Harper through a dart. It really doesn’t matter as either method is equally valid to any method of plucking a number out of the air to slot into a claim of ‘jobs saved’.

For the sake of accuracy and veracity (I know – what do either have to do with politicians, politics or political ads), if Harper and the Conservatives want to pursue a claim for a mythical number of ‘jobs saved’ accuracy and veracity would require a statement along the lines of:

Under Stephen Harper’s Conservatives the Canadian economy lost 428,000 jobs – but it could have been worse – it could have been 653,000 jobs lost.

$62 Billion: Harper and the Conservatives give themselves a big, bombastic pat on the back for spending $62 BILLION taxpayer dollars.

How and when did throwing $62 billion taxpayer dollars, $62 billion of run up the debt borrowed dollars, at a problem – because of a lack of astute, discerning, creative responses – become something to boast or toot your own horn about?

Harper uses the spectre of tax and spending Liberals or NDP to scare voters away from voting for those parties. Personally I find the Conservatives spend, borrow, borrow, spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow spend, spend, spend, as the Conservatives pay for spending – and tax cuts – by borrowing and increasing the federal debt, a far more frightening, and ultimately financially disastrous behaviour for Canadians than paying for government spending by (gasp) raising taxes.

Just throw money at it: Stephen Harper’s Conservatives way of addressing an issue or problem that lies outside their dogmatic ideology and on which, for reasons of political popularity/electability, they must DO SOMETHING (do anything?).

Cut GST: At least Harper and his Conservatives are consistent in their financially irresponsible actions and their strange compulsion to boast about these irresponsible behaviours.

Given the financially irresponsible behaviours of Mr Harper and the Conservatives one can only wonder how it is that so many Canadians mistakenly believe that the Conservatives are good financial managers of taxpayer’s monies.

Other than just to cut taxes in a way that would be highly visible to the public and thus allow the Conservatives to claim to have cut taxes, there was no legitimate, sound financial reason for the Conservatives to cut the GST. Indeed cutting the GST, while publicly popular, was bad fiscal policy.

At the time the Canadian economy was booming along and did not need the stimulus of a GST cut. Cutting the GST during a boom reduced the options available when the world economy tanked. Cutting the GST pushed the budget from surplus to debt – unless, like the Conservatives, you exclude military spending increases from budget calculations.

However the worst effect the decision had on Canada’s long term financial health is that it stopped the paying down of the federal debt. As a result federal deficits and the federal debt reached record highs under the Conservatives – record high levels the Conservatives plan to drive even higher.

It was not simply a bad financial decision, but an irresponsible decision.

The Liberals and NDP are pikers when it comes to burning through taxpayer dollars and running up the federal government’s debt, compared to the rather dubious deficit/debt achievements of the Harper led Conservative government.

Extended Employment Benefits: for a maximum of up to five weeks. You couldn’t find work in a year but somehow, miraculously, you will with another one to five weeks.

What the Conservatives really demonstrated here was just how far out of touch they are with life and the daily economic reality of most Canadians.

Politically the Conservatives had to do something, but apparently they decided it didn’t have to be a useful something.

23, 000 projects: and it only cost $62 billion taxpayer dollars.

On the positive side this funding allowed many badly needed improvements to infrastructure to be made – and it only took a worldwide deep recession for the Conservatives to provide funding for infrastructure.

Unfortunately this was a ‘we have no creative ideas, no ideas period so we will throw money at the problem’. Money we will get by running record deficits and setting new records for federal debt.

Of course they had to impose tight deadlines to prevent good planning and financial management but no doubt many Conservative supporters were able to take advantage of this to make large profits.

No ideas; but for reasons of political electability you must DO SOMETHING? No problem for Stephen Harper’s Conservatives – Just throw money at it!

Lowest debt: Chutzpah for Harper and his Conservatives to take credit for something that is a result of the hard work of Paul Martin and the Liberals. Ironic in that the evidence, the actual outcome/results and not Harper’s claims/rhetoric, is that Mr Harper and his Conservatives are running record deficits and debt levels.

What does reality have to do with the fact that outside of the rich and corporations Canadians are now downwardly mobile as long as you can convince Canadians you are good financial managers?

Created 450,000 jobs: Before anything else we need to agree what a job is. I define a job as a position that gives you enough hours per week at a pay level that provides sufficient income to live on and have funds to handle emergencies.

Few if any of the 450,000 ‘jobs’ cited by Mr Harper would meet the criteria that you be able to live, not luxuriously, but able to pay rent, your bills and buy food. The reality of the Canadian economy is that the economy is shedding jobs that pay a liveable wage and replacing them with minimum wage and/or limited hour ‘jobs’.

Jobs in Canada are no longer a path to upward mobility. Jobs have become part of the downward mobility the majority of Canadians are struggling to live with.

Balanced budget 2015/2016: In the budget Mr Harper presented to parliament in March of 2011 the Conservatives failed to provide cost figures for 1) the purchase of new warplanes, 2) the cost of building prisons to lock up an increasing number of Canadians (criminalizing a health issue) and 3) the cost of all the pre-election goodies promises included in the budget.

Each of these represents a cost of billions of dollars, leaving an unknown financial black hole in the 2011/2012 budget. If you have a billion dollar hole in your 2011/2012 budget you have no idea what the deficit will be in this or future years.

It is in line with Mr Harper and the conservatives demonstrated lack of financial management ability that they claim a return to balanced budget in 2015/2016 (changed to 2014/2015 during the campaign although the Conservatives have provided no numbers to back up this claim) – even when they have billion dollar question marks in their current budget.

Unemployment lower than US: that is like saying that a cockroach infested unheated room is great housing – compared to living naked outside.

As the standard of living for the majority of Canadians continues downward will Mr. Harper begin to compare the standard of living for most Canadians to third world countries so he can tell Canadians how well they are doing and what a great job he is doing?

Throughout ‘Rising to the Challenge’ Harper and the Conservatives claim undeserved credit for the solid state of Canadian banks, federal finances and Canada’s economy being in better shape than those of other nations.

Yet it is Canadian voters who deserve the credit for the solid state of Canadian banks, federal finances and Canada’s economy being in better shape than those of other nations.

By denying Harper a Majority government voters prevented Harper from relaxing Canadian banking rules, which was part of the Conservative platform and a stated goal of Mr Harper. If Mr Harper had had a majority government, Canadian banks would have been able to be trading in worthless paper – and selling it to Canadians.

Despite Mr Harper’s convenient memory loss on this matter, it is the Canadian voter who is responsible for the fact Canadian banking rules remained unchanged and prevented Canadian banks (and the Canadian taxpayer and bank clients) from getting badly burned by banks trading worthless paper – but then the Conservatives have never let reality interfere with any of the claims they make about their financial management prowess.

The most interesting part of ‘Rising to the Challenge’ was not the reality behind what Mr Harper and his Conservatives were patting themselves on the back for, even though the discrepancy between reality and Mr Harper’s claims was remarkable.

For me the truly interesting part was what the visual images were saying.

It opens with Mr Harper walking in down a shadowed corridor of closed doors.

I found myself wondering if, just on the other side of those doors, caucus and staff were cowering behind the doors, praying Harper would walk on by? Or were the shadows and closed doors representative of Mr Harper’s mind, reflecting the closed nature of his mind?

Then we see Mr Harper sitting alone at his desk writing out dictates for his lackeys to bring about his vision of an Americanized Canada.

Striking about the images in “Rising to the Challenge” was that there was no sunlight, no collaboration, and no input/listening/sharing with others – No others at all, just Mr Harper.

When you think about it, it really is no surprise that Mr Harper decided that the only way to win a majority (or simply a return to being the Big Boss in a minority government) was to scare Canadians into voting for him.

After all, the record of Mr Harper and his Conservatives is not something to recommend them as the party that will be able to provide the leadership needed for Canada to adapt to the economic changes/realities of the world and ensure Canadians a future of their choosing, a future with a decent standard of living for all Canadians, not just the wealthy, politicians and retired politicians.

Yes, we could all see how ‘shocked’ Ed Fast was by out spring election.

Mr. Fast was caught so unprepared by the election that he wasn’t able to get his election signs up until several hours after candidates were first legally permitted to put up their campaign signs.

The more cynical (longer term observers of political games and gamesmanship?) among us, observing that it took the NDP two days to get signs up and that the Liberals had to select a candidate and still haven’t begun polluting the cityscape with political signage, might well suggest that the Conservatives were so well prepared and fast out of the blocks because they knew, even before it was unveiled, that their budget would be defeated and a spring election called.

Again, the more jaded observers of the Conservative Party’s fear mongering election tactics, observing Mr Harper’s current election boogeyman – ‘a coalition government’ (as if the minority Conservative government had not been a coalition government) – and recognising that this strategy would be more viable if the opposition parties (coalition parties) ‘got together’ and brought down the government might suggest that Mr Harper formulated a budget he knew the other parties could not support.

Speaking of the budget Mr Fast wrote ” ….with a clear timeline for returning to balanced budgets by 2015″.

In the budget the Conservatives still refuse to tell Canadians how many billions of dollars they prison building boondoggle will cost Canadians – or where the money will come from. In the budget the Conservatives still refuse to tell Canadians how many billions of dollars their purchase of the shiny new fighters will cost Canadians – or where the money will come from. In the budget the Conservatives promised plenty of election budget goodies for Canadians……but failed to tell Canadians where the money to pay for these goodies would come from – but then Canadians were not told how many millions? hundreds of millions? a billion? billions? those election budget goodies would total.

With multibillion dollar black holes in the 2011and immediate future budgets how could anyone reasonably claim to have “ a clear timeline for returning to balanced budgets by 2015″?

The more jaded political observers (or more cynical) would argue that since these promises of election goodies were intended to entice voters to vote Conservative in the election the Conservative’s budget would trigger, and as the election goodies would never be part of a post election budget and thus never have an actual budgetary effect or existence, the failure to include a total was not a financial mistake but laziness.

“It’s one of the more irresponsible things that I’ve seen in my political life,” Mr Fast said in reference to the Opposition parties rejecting the budget.

No, the Conservatives presenting a budget containing multibillion dollar black holes is irresponsible. Presenting a budget with a multi – millions? hundreds of millions? a billion? billions? – black hole of goodies to curry favour with the electorate is incredibly irresponsible.

The Opposition refusing to support a budget that contained these multibillion black holes was responsible. It would have been irresponsible not to defeat the budget.

“It is incomprehensible that the opposition Coalition would take such reckless action,” said Fast

Defeating the Conservative government was not reckless, it was necessary given the reckless and unacceptable action the Conservatives took in getting involved in the Libyan civil war and choosing to support the rebels without knowing who and/or what the rebels were. Although recent news reports have made it clear that the rebel forces include those who are members of what the Canadian government labels terrorist organizations.

“I’m shocked that the opposition parties would send us into an election that Canadians do not want.” [Ed Fast]

The fact that Mr Fast, as a member of the Conservative caucus, thinks that decisions should be based on popularity, rather than the situation is yet another reason the opposition had to say No.

In the face of reckless military adventurism, gaping billion dollar black holes in the budget, holes the Conservative government refused to provide information on and irresponsible promises that would add significantly to the deficit it would have been a dereliction of their duty of care if the Opposition had refused to act responsibly simply because it was unpopular to behave responsibly.

The decision to bring about an election should be based on the need for an election, not the popularity of the decision.

I would have been shocked and dismayed if the Opposition, in light of the Conservative action, had acted in a manner other than defeating the government.

I would like to say I was shocked at Mr Fast’s vitriolic hyperbole but…….that is, sadly, what politics has come to be.