I think Harper is just waiting to see how it all goes down and will lockstep accordingly. 

He hasn't enough brilliance, imagination or originality to do anything else.

too true.

One problem is that the people in charge of finding a solution are the bankers and people closely associated with them. Now, they want a solution,of course. But they, quite naturally, want one that does not tamper with a system which has benefited them enormously. That means they don't want to make any serious changes to capitalism as they have known it. And, certainly, Harper is not t hinking along any such lines, either.

But what we are living through IS a breakdown in capitalism as we have known it. I'm  not suggesting we need socialism (I'm not a big admirer of an ism in absolute terms). But we almost certainly need some basic changes in capitalism. And we are not likely to get them.

graeme

I am confused, as usual.  Harper used to be accused of lock-stepping with the Bush government, a clearly conservative administration.  Now he is being accused of lock-stepping with a clearly liberal administration.  What am I missing?  Is it that conservatives lock-step with Americans, regardless?  What if a liberal government in Canada lock-stepped with a liberal American government? Or it lock-stepping only when you disagree and harmonization when you do?

I am just curious.  :>)

well, most governments march in lockstep with a dominant power on which they depend. it has nothing to do with ideology. Australia now kisses up to the US as it once kissed up to Britain - and for the same reason. ditto Canada.

The conservative churchill early recognized a need for Britain to be in the US good books. So did the Labour Blair.  It all depends more on the needs of power blocks in each country. ideology is pretty much irrelevant.

I'm not sure I see any great contrast between today's "liberal" US government and it's former "conservative" one. Both are financed by pretty much the same people Both are employing pretty much the same people.

And here, I don't see how we can call one group liberal and the other conservative. if you wanted to split the difference between them,  you would need an atom smasher.

graeme

Two comments.  First, is it possible for two governments to agree on particular issues without the relationship being described as lockstep?

Second, are you saying that the current Obama administration is no different from the Bush administration?

Third (I am allowed to have a third even thought I said only two), what kind of government do you want?  Can you elaborate a little?

what I want has nothing to do with it. You seem concerned I don't see huge differences between Obama and Bush.

well - bush's policy   at the end was to wind down Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan. Differences?

On Iraq, both have committed themselves to an indefinite stay using a network of bases that Bush built for just this purpose. Obama says they're non-combat troops -but they will be fully armed and will operate with the Iraqi army against insurgents. Differences?

Obama is bailing out the banks. Bush began the bail out. Differences?

Obama's secty of defence is the same man who was Bush's. Differences?

Both were bankrolled in their campaigns largely by the defence industry and big bankers. Differences?

Yes, you will find some differences, of course. But to define one as conservative (and I saw nothing conservative about Bush) and the other as Liberal seems more than a bit of a stretch.

Of course it's possible for two governments to agree with each other on particular issues. But as you said - it's strange to see what you call a conservative agreeing on all essentials with what you call a liberal.  However, if y ou read a little history, it's just amazing how often governments of small countries agree with governments of big countries. Why would australia, for example, enthusiastically support Britain in three wars of the twentieth century, then suddenly turn against Britain and enthusiastically support the US (both Vietnam and Iraq).?

What was Canada doing sending troops to the Boer War? And why did we suddenly turn against Britain at the time of Suez (exactly when the US did.)?

There are realities out there. And politicians are very aware of them.

graeme

p.s. what would I have liked? Well, it's too late now by at least sixty years. I would have liked a real commitment to the UN, and not simply a use of it when it was handy. I would have liked a serious attempt at a world working together after WW2 instead of the same old power politics. I would have liked a sustained commitment to peacekeeping. I would have like a serious attempt to develop africa instead of simply letting our business people (and Canadians among the worst) to rip those people off. I would have liked a 1948 commitment to defend Israel, rather than courting the devil by arming Israel and turning it into a military power, and a damned ruthless one. I would have liked a government that would not have played the old game of supporting brutal dictators in latin america, and turning it into a continent of hatreds. I would have liked a government that saw the value of balancing public and private ownershiip.

But it's too late now.

The US is facing serious economic decline and, with it, a military decline in a world that has come to hate it for its arrogant beaviour for sixty years. And at a time when the economic balance is shifting its way, it would be naive to think that China is going to take up the slack and do the things the US did not do. The US has opted for the military solution, confident its power would last forever. But forever is ended. The flag is in trouble in Asia, particularly, and in Latin America.

Sixty years have been thrown away. They can't be made up.

So are you in favour of funding banks Flit?