2017 What is going on here?

It’s 1917, April 9 in the early morning in northern France.  The Canadian guns fell silent, all the artillery has hit it’s targets. Now it’s 5:30 am the artillery begins again, with the creeping barrage. The Canadian Crop went over the top, this time it was different.  The men where not crying out for King and Country, but For Canada! The Canadian Crop won the battle, the British and French has said it would take the Canadians 4 years to win Vimy Ridge. They did it in 2 days with all the fighting done in 4 days. Everyone believes this was when Canada came into her own.

Hundred years later Canada commemoration of Vimy Ridge, the world is slipping into chaos. There is so much more tension in the world then there every was.  Not sense the outbreak of the First World War and the Second there was so much going on.

In January 2017 the Doomsday Clock moved 30 seconds closer to midnight, so now it’s 2.5 minutes to midnight. The only other time that it was so close to midnight was in 1953 with 2 minutes to midnight.  In 1991 it fell back to 17 minutes to midnight night, so what happen?

Days before Canadians remember her fallen at Vimy Ridge, the Syria Government gas attack it’s on citizens with nerve gas, killing a lot of children. Now Present Trump, who is a business man and not a politician, listen to his Generals and attack the air base that the plains flew out of. Trump said that “They have crossed the red line”. Now the Russians are claiming that the USA has crossed the red line.  In Egypt on Palm Sunday two Coptic Christen Churches where bombed, killing more in-essence people. Present Trump sends an aircraft carrier to the Korean as North Korea test another missile and maybe has the capability of have nuclear weapons.

It looks like more and more we slipping in another world war.  How would this look? Where will it be fought? Would someone do the unthinkable, drop the nuclear bomb?

Will History Repeat Itself?

There are some alarming things that has happen that is happening today. In 1914 everyone believed that no one was going to start a war over an assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary.  The Germans did believe that Austria-Hungary would start the war with Serbia. It always seem that people under estimate what is really going on, at the time there was a lot of tension between the empires with an arms race and building colonies. Image the shock on German Emperor; King of Prussia Kaiser Wilhem II when he got the telegram that Emperor of Austria; King of Hungary Franz Joseph I attack Serbia and the outrage of the Emperor and Autocrat of Russias Tsar Nicholas II sided with Serbia. What can the German leader do but attack France via Belgium, witch in turn drew the British Empire in to the fight because of the treading between France and England and the next thing that happen, almost all of Europe into war. It shouldn’t happen but as strange that it is that how the first world war started. This just show how one event “the assassination” can cause a chain of event to make something bigger then what it really was.

At the end of the “Great War”, everyone thought that there could be peace in the world. German was disarmed and left powerless. There was high unemployment and a lot of unrest in German from 1920-1929. After the stock market crash in 1929 things got worst in German pretty much bankrupt, the government was not effective. The German government was broken, with manny different parties they couldn’t really govern the county. There was too manny different political groups, from democratic to communist to extremist groups. In 1934 one of these groups won the election in German, the National Socialist Party with it’s anti-semitism, and anti-communism views. It was not long before Germany started unification of “ethnic Germans” in Prussia, Austria and Czechoslovakia. Then Hitler underestimate what would happen when invaded Poland, British and the French declared war on Germany. 

So as we look at what is happening in the world today, we can see similar today. We have an arms race, with nuclear weapons. It’s not just the super powers (USA, Russia, and others) but now other counties like Korea and Iran are trying to get these weapons for themselves. However some minor powers do have these weapon like Israel and Pakistan. 

The muslim are splitter into extremist groups like IS (Islamic State) Taliban and al-Qaeda and in Russia President Vladimir Putin trying to rebuild Russia into the power that it was by reclaiming Ukraine as part of Russia. Anti-semitism talk in the USA presidential election in 2016. So history repeat itself, different but it’s there. 

CAF -- CF-35a Lightning II

CF-35a Lightning II

Now that the Election is over, we know that Canada is going to be getting these new CF-35. There are 3 different Variants, Canada is getting the "A / CTOL" variant.

General characteristics

• Crew: 1
• Length:15.67m (51.4ft)
• Wingspan: 10.7m (35ft)
• Height: 14.2 ft (4.33 m)
• Wing area: 42.7m² (460ft²)
• Empty weight: 13,300kg (29,300lb)
• Loaded weight: 22,470kg (49,540lb)
• Max takeoff weight: 31,800kg (70,000lb)
• Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
• Dry thrust: 125 kN (28,000 lbf)
• Thrust with afterburner: 191 kN (43,000 lbf)
• Internal fuel capacity: 8,382kg (18,480lb)

Performance

• Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+ (1,930 km/h, 1,200 mph)
• Range: 2,220 km (1,200 nmi) on internal fuel
• Combat radius: over 1,090 km (590 nmi) on internal fuel
• Service ceiling: 18,288 m (60,000 ft)
• Rate of climb: classified (not publicly available)
• Wing loading: 446 kg/m² (91.4 lb/ft²)
• Thrust/weight:
• With full fuel: 0.87
• With 50% fuel: 1.07
• g-Limits: 9 g

Armament

• Guns: 1 × General Dynamics GAU-22/A Equalizer 25 mm (0.984 in) 4-barreled gatling cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds
• Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) and 2 internal bays with 2 pylons each for a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb (8,100 kg) and provisions to carry combinations of:

Missiles:

• AIM-120 AMRAAM
• AIM-132 ASRAAM
• AIM-9X Sidewinder
• IRIS-T
• JDRADM (after 2020)
• AGM-154 JSOW
• AGM-158 JASSM
• JSM

Bombs:

• Mark 84, Mark 83 and Mark 82 GP bombs
• Mk.20 Rockeye II cluster bomb
• Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser capable
• Paveway-series laser-guided bombs
• Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
• JDAM-series
• B61 nuclear bomb

Avionics

• Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/APG-81 AESA radar
• Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) missile warning system
• BAE Systems AN/ASQ-239 (Barracuda) electronic warfare system
• Harris Corporation Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) communication system

Differences between variants

	F-35A CTOL	F-35B STOVL	F-35C CV
Length	15.7 m (51.4 ft)	15.6 m (51.3 ft)	15.7 m (51.5 ft)
Wingspan	10.7 m (35 ft)	10.7 m(35 ft)	13.1 m (43 ft)
Wing Area	42.7 m² (460 ft²)	42.7 m² (460 ft²)	62.1 m² (668 ft²)
Empty weight	13,300 kg (29,300 lb)	14,500 kg (32,000 lb)	15,800 kg (34,800 lb)
Internal fuel	8,390 kg (18,500 lb)	6,030 kg (13,300 lb)	8,890 kg (19,600 lb)
Max takeoff weight	31,800 kg (70,000 lb)	27,000 kg (60,000 lb)	31,800 kg (70,000 lb)
Range	1,200nmi (2,220km)	1,670 km (900 nmi)	2,520 km (1,400 nmi)
Combat radius on internal fuel	1,090 km (590 nmi)	833 km (450 nmi)	1,185 km (640 nmi)
Thrust/weight full fuel 50% fuel	0.87 / 1.07	0.90 / 1.04	0.75 / 0.91

F-35A CTOL	Conventional TakeOff and Landing
F-35B STOVL	Short TakeOff and Vertical Landing
F-35C CV	Carrier-based Version

The CF Variant
The Canadian CF-35 will differ from the American F-35A through the addition of a drag chute and an F-35B/C style refueling probe. Norway may also use the drag chute option, as they also have icy runways.






JSF Program requirements and selection

The JSF program was designed to replace the United States military F-16, A-10, F/A-18 (excluding newer E/F "Super Hornet" variants) and AV-8B tactical fighter aircraft. To keep development, production, and operating costs down, a common design was planned in three variants that share 80 percent of their parts:

George Standridge of Lockheed Martin has said that the F-35 will be four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-ground combat, and three times more effective than legacy fighters in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses – while having better range and requiring less logistics support and having around the same procurement costs (if development costs are ignored) as legacy fighters. Further, the design goals call for the F-35 to be the premier strike aircraft through 2040 and be second only to the F-22 in air superiority.

While the actual JSF development contract was signed on 16 November 1996, the contract for System Development and Demonstration (SDD) was awarded on 26 October 2001 to Lockheed Martin, whose X-35 beat the Boeing X-32. Although both aircraft met or exceeded requirements, the X-35 design was considered to have less risk and more growth potential. The designation of the new fighter as "F-35" is out-of-sequence with standard DoD aircraft numbering, by which it should have been "F-24". It came as a surprise even to Lockheed, which had been referring to the aircraft in-house by this expected designation.

Design phase

Based on wind tunnel testing, Lockheed Martin slightly enlarged its X-35 design into the F-35. The forward fuselage is 130 mm (5 inches) longer to make room for avionics. Correspondingly, the horizontal stabilators were moved 51 mm (2 inches) rearward to retain balance and control. The top surface of the fuselage was raised by 25 mm (1 inch) along the center line. Also, it was decided to increase the size of the F-35B STOVL variant's weapons bay to be common with the other two variants. Manufacturing of parts for the first F-35 prototype airframe began in November 2003.

The F-35B STOVL variant was in danger of missing performance requirements in 2004 because it weighed too much; reportedly, by 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) or 8 percent. In response, Lockheed Martin added engine thrust and thinned airframe members; reduced the size of the common weapons bay and vertical stabilizers; re-routed some thrust from the roll-post outlets to the main nozzle; and redesigned the wing-mate joint, portions of the electrical system, and the portion of the aircraft immediately behind the cockpit. Many of the changes were applied to all three variants to maintain high levels of commonality. By September 2004, the weight reduction effort had reduced the aircraft's design weight by 1,200 kg (2,700 pounds).

On 7 July 2006, the US Air Force officially announced the name of the F-35: Lightning II, in honor of Lockheed's World War II-era twin-prop Lockheed P-38 Lightning and the Cold War-era jet, the English Electric Lightning. English Electric Company's aircraft division was a predecessor of F-35 partner BAE Systems. Lightning II was also an early company name for its fighter that was later named F-22 Raptor.

On 19 December 2008, Lockheed Martin rolled out the first weight-optimized F-35A (designated AF-1). It is the first F-35 to be produced at a full-rate production speed and is structurally identical to the production F-35As that will be delivered starting in 2010.

As of 5 January 2009, six F-35s were complete, including AF-1 and AG-1, and 17 were in production. "Thirteen of the 17 in production are pre-production test aircraft, and all of those will be finished in 2009," said John R. Kent, acting manager of F-35 Lightning II Communications at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company. "The other four are the first production-model planes, and the first of those will be delivered in 2010 to the U.S. Air Force, and will go to Eglin Air Force Base." On 6 April 2009, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates proposed speeding up production for the US to buy 2,443 F-35s.

In August 2010, Lockheed Martin announced delays in resolving a "wing-at-mate overlap" production problem, which would slow initial production.

Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 8, A Simple Question?

On March 25^th, Conservative party was defeated on an Non-Confidence vote, why? What was the vote about? Why plunge Country into another election? Could have this election been avoided?

So what was the Non-Confidence vote about? There was a Commons committee looking into the government for any contempt of Parliament (wrong doing and misleading Parliament).

1. Who inserted the “Not”?

   1. International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda was brought in for questioning, because there was a memo that the government was going to fund international relief organization, Kairos. Parliament agree to this funding, however afterwords someone inserted “not funding” Kairos. So the question is this, who inserted the not and why. During question period this question was brought up. And Minister Bev Oda said “she didn't know”. It took a commons committee to get to the truth. It turns out that one of her staffers inserted the “Not” and used a stamp with her signature. My question is why change the funding after Parliament was good with the funding. And why Minister Bev Oda not get the copy of the revised memo and share it with Parliament.

2. How much do the Jets cost?

   1. Conservative claim that the total for the CF-35a will cost 75million per jet and the program will cost in total 9billion.
   2. Now Norway sign a contract for the F-35 and they are paying over 200million per jet, Israel is going to be sending over 150million per jet. And if you go to Wikipedia has the price of 122million per jet. US government got a quote of 150million per jet. (there is a US law that any company selling military equipment can not sell the equipment cheater to foreign countries.).
   3. A watchdog group is claim that the total program is going to cost Canadians 29billion, really? WOW 9billion to 29billion.
   4. Conservative claim that they have a “Memo of understanding” and or a “contract”. I have heard both, regardless Conservative need to release these documents for all Canadian to see the truth. How much this jets do cost us, Yes US, the Tax payers.

There are other items coming into light, like the Auditor General Sheila Fraser drafts about the G8 Summits where leak out. Now the final report isn't going to be release, we have to wait for Parliament is back in session. But both drafts has this common thing in common: the Conservatives asked for 80million for border improvement, however 50million was spent in the riding of Parry Sound - Muskoka witch happen to be Minister of Industry, Tony Clement riding. So what did we pay for new sidewalks and city improvements. No where near any borders. Why did Conservative mislead Parliament about this? Why didn't they just come back to Parliament and say “We have 50million extra that we would like to thank they riding of Parry Sound – Muskoka for hosting the G8”?

I do have other questions that I know that I will not get

1. Conservatives claim that they can clear up the budget a year early, how? They brought out a budget 2-3 weeks before this statement, what change? Are they planing on cutting some services? Raise taxes on the middle class?
2. Why can't they produce document on their program sending (prions and CF-35)?
3. Why is someone that has been convected of fraud is working in the PMO, where top secrete documents are?
4. Why did he pointed new senators that are under investigation for fraud?

So is this Conservatives government corrupt?

Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 7, Why is minority government bad for Canada?

Is minority government bad for Canada? No, it is not bad for Canada. There has been 13 minority government in Canada. Dose the party with the most seats has the right to govern the country? No, they do not have a “Right” to govern the country, after all the majority did not vote for them. So the question is how can a minority government can govern the country?

The best example is the Lester Pearson government

1963 election

Party	Seats	Popular Vote %
Liberal – Lester Pearson	128	41.52%
PC – John Diefenbaker	95	32.72%
Social Credit – Robert Thompson	24	11.92%
New Democrat – Tommy Douglas	17	13.24%

1965 election

Party	Seats	Popular Vote %
Liberal – Lester Pearson	131	40.18%
PC – John Diefenbaker	97	32.41%
New Democrat – Tommy Douglas	21	17.91%
RC – Réal Caouette	9	4.66%
Social Credit – Robert Thompson	5	3.66%

• PC – Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
• RC – Ralliement créditiste, this party is Quebec base party

During these 2 term was the most productive Parliament. The Liberal and the backing of the NDP. National identity, Canada got a new flag.

1957 - 1965	runner up	runner up	1965 - present

Other and very important bills that where past that we have today

• Canada's health care system
• Canada Pension Plan

1972 election

Party	Seats	Popular Vote %
Liberal – Pierre Trudeau	109	38.42%
PC – Robert Stanfield	107	35.02%
New Democrat – David Lewis	31	17.83%
Social Credit – Réal Caouette	15	7.55%

The most notable from this government is the creation of Petro-Canada

Other notable minority government

Longest term:

• Liberal – William Lyon Mackenzie King, 1921–1925, 3 years (233 days)

Shortest term:

• PC – Arthur Meighen, 1926, 0 years (3 days)

Longest time as government:

• CPC: Stephen Harper – 1^st term 2006–2008, 2 years, (207 days)
• CPC: Stephen Harper – 2^nd term 2008–2011, 2 years, (142 days)
• In total 4 years (349 days)
  

Minority governments from the 1950's to today

There has been 9 minority and 10 majority government

from 1962 to 1968 and 2004 to 2011 are the longest stretch of minority governments

So is minority governments hurtful to Canada, No. Out off the last 61 years it's almost 50% time we had minority government. What isn't good for Canada is a government, try to push their agenda through, without regards of parliament. What made a good minority government is a government that works with the other parties. Currently the opposition parties are willing to work with each other, however the current government shows very little interest in working with the opposition parties.

Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 6, The Aboriginal Question

When I was installing satellite systems, I quite often go into some of the Aboriginal communities. At time it felt like I was going into a 3^rd world country. Why is that? All the Aboriginal responsibilities fall under the Federal responsibilities. So here are some of the main issues facing the Aboriginal peoples.

• Housing – many of house are in disrepair and some of these houses will have more then 1 family living in them.
  
• Clean and safe water.
• Rundown infrastructure.
• Education – there is a very high dropout rate
• Health - majority of them have to travail over an hour to see a doctor.
• Very high unemployment rate
• Very high suicide rate within their youth.
• Very high crime and substance abuse.
  

I am just scratching the surface. So what can we do about all these issues? Here are some of my ideas, and not everyone going to like them on both sides.

The first thing we need to do is to look at all land dispute, both sides are going to have to give and take on these issues. The Aboriginal people are going to have to decide what land are the most important to then and let out of some of them, and we are going to let some land go even if it is in Caledonia, Ontario (Just south of Hamilton, Ontario). Now that we have the land disputes settled we can move on to some more issues. So how should we solve all these issue? Let the Aboriginal people decide on their on direction by allow them to government themselves, take most of the responsibilities for themselves. They know what their communities needs and wants. Lets look at Ontario, in my area, there is few Aboriginal communities. Kettle Point (including Ipperwash), Muncey, Moraviantown, Walpole Island and Six Nations (they are all in southern Ontario). Now if we take all of these communities in southern, eastern and northern Ontario link them together and setup a system of government. Giving them the same rights and responsibilities as the provinces.

What will this do and how will this benefit the the Aboriginal people? And how will this be paid for?

Let look at the second questions first, how will all of this get paid. Now the Aboriginal people may not like this, but they will need to pay their share of taxes. They are currently being exempt from paying taxes. This method of getting moneys from the Federal Government isn't working. They don't have a voice in government, they don't have a say on how moneys are spent in their communities. With in their communities they can set a “Provincial Tax Rate”. This will create a win – win for everyone. Because the non-aboriginal people won't have to pay for all the programs for the Aboriginal people and the Aboriginal communities will have a new source of income to pay for their programs.

This is an example, let take Ontario, let call this new province UACoO (Unite Aboriginal Communities of Ontario), they will have their on legislature witch they can vote for members. They would also receive transfer payments from the federal government. Responsibilities, would be the same as the provinces, with includes Health care, education, welfare. So now what we have done here is to take these responsibilities from the federal government and put it into the hands of the Aboriginal peoples. They live in these communities and they know what issues need to be address. They can also look at there youth and develop programs to keep their youth in school and after school programs. With these programs, will help with the problems that they do have with their youth, (namely substance abuse and the high suicide rate). Giving their youth hope for the future and not despair.

The biggest issue and maybe hard is the unemployment, but they can create some opportunities to employment, for example:

1. Policing their communities
2. EMS
3. Fire Fighters
4. Community health centers
5. Infrastructure programs
6. Education

It a fact that if unemployment rate is low, the crime rate goes down as well. Of course this will not happen over night but again we are giving them something that is very important, hope for the future and not despair.

I believe that this could work and could be beneficently for everyone in Canada. Canada will have new strong, proud independent Aboriginal Communities. They will have their own voice in government determining their on direction on solving their own issues.

Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 5, The Senate

One thing I haven't hear about too much about, The Senate, with the only exception with Jack Layton during the debates. “I don’t know why we need so many prisons when the crooks seem happy in the Senate,”. He pointed out two issues with this one statement.

How dose our government works:

Parliament is divided into two “Houses”, lower and upper. The lower house is the House of Commons. The House Commons is where bill are introduce, debated on and if passed goes to the Upper House the Senate. The House of Commons we vote for our representative. Now in the Upper House, the Senate, we do not vote for these representatives, they are pointed by the Prime Minster. In the 2004 Election, the CPC promised to bring in an elected, equal, and effective (the "Triple-E Senate" ). However Prime Minster did not make this change in fact he continue to point senators (some are being under investigation by the RCMP with fraud charges). The NDP view is it should be abolished.

Now I believe it should not be abolished, however I do believe it need to be reformed, and this is what I think it should look like:

All regions of Canada should have equal representation, just like the “Triple-E Senate” (with the exception of Ontario, witch there will be 2 Northern and Southern Ontario and the Territories witch will be less. There is currently 105 seats in the senate, so we can increase it to 108. All regions will have 9 senators (exception of Ontario will have a total of 18 and the 3 Territories will have 9 (3 each). Why Ontario is has 18, the main reason is that Northern Ontarian has a different point of view to compare to the Southern Ontarian. Even economic is quite different. Where Southern Ontario is more manufacturing and high tech and Northern is more resource based.

Elections should be a fixed date, like every first Tuesday of October every 3 to 4 years. Candidates can be associated to a party in the lower house or region parties can be in the senate and not in the House of Commons. The Bloc Québécois can be in the Upper House and not in the Lower House.

Another tough is to add 9 more seats for the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. ( 3 seats from east, 3 seats from central and 3 seats from the west.).

Federal Election of Canada 2011, Part 4, Why are there some many election?

Why are there some many election? It seem that there is an election every 2 years. Our style of government is based from the British Parliamentary. Currently there are 4 parties that has seats in the House of Commons and there are 308 seats and to form majority government, a party needs 155. The last 4 elections Canadians voted in minority government. So the party with the most seats did not get 155, so the last election the Conservatives 143, Liberal 77, NDP 37, Bloc Québécois 49. The opposition parties has 240 seats. Now it is possible that the Conservatives could have got support from 1 or more opposition(s) by have a loose agreement that the second party will vote on bills to support so that they can pass or form a coalition government, witch means that the second party would get some cabinet positions.

When a government is voted in, they do have 4 years to govern the country, unless they lose an non-confidence vote. Not all bills are confidence vote. If a government loses a non-confidence vote, the Prime Minster will go to Governor General, and at this time the Governor General can call a new elections or go to the opposition party(s) to see if they can form a new government.

This is one style of governing another one is like the USA. Lets compare the 2 different styles with the budget for this year.

Canadian – the opposition parties vote nae, the government falls with a non-confidence vote, Canadians go to another elections (** Please NOTE that, this is not the reason why we are in an election. I used the budget as example).

USA – they can not agree on their budget and it does not pass, the USA government shuts down. Yes it shuts down putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work. Because they can not pay them. And minority of their services will stop operating.

So the question is this: 1- do you want to elect a newer government? 2- a government that is shuts down until they can work thing out.

So do the Americans have less elections? No they have more then we do. A President is elected for 4 years. Here is a brake down of their elections. They do have fixed elections date, November 4^th

Example:

Year	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Type	Presidential	Off-year	Midterm	Off-year	Presidential
President	Yes	No			Yes
Senate	33 Seats Class II	No	34 Seats Class III	No	33 Seats Class I
House	All 435 Seats	No	All 435 Seats	No	All 435 Seats
Gubernatorial	11 states DE, IN, MO, MT, NH, NC, ND, UT, VT, WA, WV	2 states NJ, VA	36 states AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NE, NV, NH, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VT, WI, WY	3 states KY, LA, MS	11 states DE, IN, MO, MT, NH, NC, ND, UT, VT, WA, WV

So Some Americans vote every 2 years and others vote every 4 year. And Canadians will have election very 4 years unless if the government is brought down on an non-confidence vote. Here is a time line from 2000:

November 27^th, 2000, it was the end of the Liberal party mandate, the Liberal won majority government.

June 28^th 2004, it was the end of the Liberal party mandate, the Liberal won minority government.

January 23^rd, 2006, Stephen Harper tried to setup a coalition government but failed, but the Conservatives brought down the government with an non-confidence vote. The Conservatives won a minority government.

October 14^th, 2008, Stephen Harper called an election to get a majority government, The Conservatives won a minority government.

May 2^nd, 2011, Liberal brought down the government with non-confidence vote. The vote was about contempt of Parliament. This was the first time a contempt of Parliament charge has resulted in a motion of non-confidence not only for a Canadian Government, but for a national government anywhere in the Commonwealth of Nations.