Just about at the same time that people in the province of Quebec decided, in overwhelming majority, that decisive action was required by their provincial government to protect the French language, people in western Canada decided that equally decisive action was required by their provincial governments to ensure control of their own natural resources.

The federal government of the day (led by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau) more-or-less accepted the Quebec National Assembly's right to address the language issue. But the same government waged a battle of sumo-like proportions to try to wrestle control over oil, potash, uranium and other resources from western Canadian provinces.

Which didn't go over very well.

This weekend, the runner-up party in the recent Greek election, Syriza, seemed to rule out joining with New Democracy and PASOK to give them a majority in parliament. Instead, Syriza cheekily invited a smaller rival left-wing party, Democratic Left, to drink from that poisoned chalice in their place.

At least in the short term, this looks like excellent political hardball on the part of Syriza. They either get to go into opposition in the new parliament while their opponents further discredit themselves. Or there will be another election in June, in which Syriza seems positioned to make further gains -- perhaps enough to form a government.

Syriza then proposes to apply the same hardball approach to the European Union and to the International Monetary Fund.

On election day in Paris, Place de la Bastille (home of the left) was full and Place de la Concorde (home of the right) was empty. As sure a sign as any that the Socialist Party was about to win the presidency, as it went on to do. Francois Hollande is the new president of France.

Why did Nicolas Sarkozy lose? He started remarkably well only five short years ago. Sarkozy's 2007 campaign captured a mood in France for a "rupture" from its own economic and social model. France was bored with itself, worried about its economy, tired of riots and debates about accommodating immigrants, and wanted to get on board the global economic bubble then roaring. Sarkozy offered a "hyper-presidency" that would deal with all of those issues and many more.

"For 'tis the sport to have the enginer hoist with his owne petar, an't shall go hard. But I will delve one yard below their mines, and blow them to the moon." -- Hamlet, Act 3

"Hoist with your own petard." Meaning: "Injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others." -- The Phrase Finder

For many years, Liberals have been eager advocates of "strategic voting" -- the idea that it makes sense to vote for a party you don't support in order to avoid the election of a party you don't support even more.

A pitch to this effect has been part of the closing argument of every federal Liberal campaign since at least 1993.

Thunder Bay MP Bruce Hyer resigned from the NDP caucus this week for an interesting mix of reasons. He was disappointed he didn't get appointed to the NDP shadow cabinet. He is concerned the party will reintroduce a long-gun registry. And he rejects, in principle, the idea that the political party whose colours he carried in the last election can tell him what to think, what to say, or how to vote.

Now let's look at the Alberta election -- a true "Dewey beats Truman" fiasco for Canada's political commentariat, which predicted victory for Wildrose on the basis of the latest crop of junk polls, and then got to cover an impressive (as measured by seats) landslide for the Alberta Progressive Conservatives.

Why did Wildrose lose so convincingly?

A party apparatchik, who spent most of his career toiling in obscurity, building his party. A tool of the labour movement and other suspect players who, some argue, must not be allowed near the public purse. A not-entirely-successful dieter and exerciser, as of yet. An instinctive consensus-builder and team-leader, who drew criticism for being too quick to compromise to keep his party united in its darkest moments. A relative unknown who sounds like his predecessor, who he served as a senior adviser.

Dear friends,

I have said it on Twitter and on Facebook, and now I'd like to say it in a letter to you:

Thank you so much for your friendship and support during the 2012 leadership contest, just concluded.

When it's over, it's over. And like all New Democrats all across Canada, there must be only one thing on all of our minds from now on -- unity behind our new leader, Tom Mulcair; strength; and an absolute focus on the task at hand, which is to offer Canadians a better government.

Still and all, perhaps I'll offer a few parting thoughts on what we've all just been through.

Arguably, the single worst thing the Harper government has done during its feckless term in office is to walk away from Canada's global responsibility to address climate change.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Liberal predecessors weren't fundamentally better. The Liberals signed the Kyoto treaty with no intention of implementing it.

But Mr. Harper's team is worse, because not only are we continuing to fail to meet our responsibilities, and not only has the government of Canada become a huckster for some of the most carbon-intensive products on sale in the global marketplace, but Mr. Harper and his ministers want us to think this is a principled thing to do -- something to celebrate.

When I launched my campaign to be leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, I said that the key goal of the NDP national government we will elect in 2015 should (and must) be to build a more equal Canada.

This goal raises important issues about what our party is all about -­- since it implies raising important questions about the conservative consensus that has led Canada, and much of the world, into gross inequality -­- and calls on us to propose fundamental alternatives.

I don't think managing the status quo is what our party is here to do. I don't favour moving our party "to the centre" and thereby defeating ourselves even as we win, by adopting the agenda of our opponents. We don't have to become liberals -- or conservatives -- to win.

In a policy paper released on November 28th, Brian Topp shares his views on the Canadian tax system, and proposals for improving it. Read the proposal below, or download the full version (including footnotes) by clicking here.

Part 1: Back to basics: why do we have taxes anyway?

Taxation has become the third rail in Canadian politics. The only time we ever hear our current political leaders utter the word "tax," it's immediately followed with "cut." That has to change.