what year was the mustang in the movie bullitt

Two 1968 390 V8 Ford Mustang GT Fastbacks (325 hp) with four-speed manual transmissions were used for the chase scene, both lent by the Ford Motor Company to Warner Bros. as part of a promotional agreement. The Mustangs' engines, brakes and suspensions were heavily modified for the chase by veteran car racer Max Balchowsky. Ford also originally lent two Galaxie sedans for the chase scenes, but the producers found the cars too heavy for the jumps over the hills of San Francisco. They were replaced with two 1968 375 hp 440 Magnum V8-powered Dodge Chargers. The engines in both Charger models were left largely unmodified, but the suspensions were mildly upgraded to cope with the demands of the stunt work.[citation needed]

Bullitt

Bullitt is a 1968 American thriller film directed by Peter Yates and produced by Philip D'Antoni. The picture stars Steve McQueen, Robert Vaughn, and Jacqueline Bisset.[3] The screenplay by Alan R. Trustman and Harry Kleiner was based on the 1963 novel, Mute Witness,[4][5][6][7] by Robert L. Fish, writing under the pseudonym Robert L. Pike.[8][9] Lalo Schifrin wrote the original jazz-inspired score, arranged for brass and percussion. Robert Duvall has a small part as a cab driver who provides information to McQueen.

The film was made by McQueen's Solar Productions company, with his partner Robert E. Relyea as executive producer. Released by Warner Bros.-Seven Arts on October 17, 1968, the film was a critical and box-office smash, later winning the Academy Award for Best Film Editing (Frank P. Keller) and receiving a nomination for Best Sound. Writers Trustman and Kleiner won a 1969 Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America for Best Motion Picture Screenplay. Bullitt is also notable for its car chase scene through the streets of San Francisco, which is regarded as one of the most influential in movie history.[10][11][12][13]

In 2007, Bullitt was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress, as "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".[14]

Ambitious San Francisco politician Walter Chalmers is about to present a surprise star witness in a Senate subcommittee hearing on organized crime. Johnny Ross, the alleged defector from the Organization in Chicago, is supposed to be surprise; and he requires protective custody over the weekend until his Monday morning appearance. Chalmers (and his committee staff) believes that every detail has been covered in advance; including where Ross should be held incognito; and by whom, until the hearings.

Seeking to associate himself and his grandstanding mob-busting effort with a high-visibility, and highly successful SFPD detective, Chalmers requests that Lieutenant Frank Bullitt be put in charge of Ross' physical security and of the security detail of SFPD officers. Bullitt and his team, Sgt Delgetti and Inspector Stanton, take up their protective custody of Ross with around-the-clock protection in a cheap hotel selected by Chalmers. Upon arriving at the hotel, Bullitt is immediately concerned by the "insecurity" of the preparations, when he enters the hotel room (Ross is already there).  The room is on an outside face of the hotel building.  It is on an upper floor, however it's windows are at the exact level of an intercity expressway, close enough for someone in a moving vehicle to recognize the room's occupants and to fire into the room, with or without a sniper-scope.

Too late to change anything, however, Bullitt deploys his protective team.  Delgetti takes the first shift and Stanton takes the second shift.  Delgetti calls Bullitt at home from the hotel room to give him the all-clear at the shift change to Stanton, and Bullitt reconfirms he will personally be relieving Stanton for the third shift; all seems quite as Delgetti leaves.  A few minutes later, Stanton calls Bullitt (at 1:00 am) to advise the desk clerk has unexpectedly called, to announce that "Chalmers" and an unidentified man are downstairs and want to come up. While Stanton is talking to Bullitt, Ross unchains the hotel room door.  Bullitt tells Stanton to call Delgetti to tell him to return, and Bullitt advises that he is also on his way.  As Ross backs up from the hotel room door, two hitmen burst in and shoot, wounding Stanton, and executing Ross. Stanton is seriously injured; Ross is critically injured.

At the hospital, Chalmers holds Bullitt responsible. Later, Bullitt thwarts a second assassination attempt on Ross before it can materialize, but Ross soon dies of his original wounds. Helped by a sympathetic Dr. Willard, who had been snubbed by Chalmers, Bullitt delays news of the death by spiriting the body out of the hospital by private ambulance service, registering it as a John Doe at the city morgue. Bullitt finds the cab driver who drove Ross to the hotel, and recreates Ross' movements upon arriving in town, learning that he made a long distance call from a phone booth. Bullitt's confidential informant, Eddy, reveals that Ross was caught stealing $2 million ($14.1 million today) from the Chicago mob and fled to San Francisco after escaping an attempted hit in Chicago. Meanwhile, Chalmers serves Bullitt's captain with a writ of habeas corpus to force Bullitt to produce Ross.

While driving in San Francisco, Bullitt is pursued by the hitmen in a 1968 Dodge Charger R/T. He flips the chase, turning the hunters into the hunted. They attempt to escape, and a high-speed chase ensues through the steep streets of Russian Hill (actually a composite location combined with Potrero Hill) and out onto the highway, ending when Bullitt's 1968 Ford Mustang GT forces the Charger off the road and into a gas station, where it explodes in a huge fireball.

Bullitt and Delgetti face their superiors on Sunday morning. They reveal that Ross is dead and their only leads are phone records showing Ross's call was to a Dorothy Simmons in a hotel in nearby San Mateo. The detectives are given until Monday to deliver results. With his car out of commission, Bullitt gets a ride from his girlfriend Cathy in her Porsche 356. The detectives find Simmons strangled in her hotel room. Cathy sees police rushing in and follows, fearing for Bullitt. Horrified by the crime scene, she later confronts him about his violent world, wondering whether she really understands him and where the life he leads will take them.

Back at San Francisco's police headquarters, Bullitt and Delgetti receive the luggage that the police had retrieved, from the cartage service which Simmons had used to transport her luggage from San Mateo to San Francisco International Airport.  Simmons' luggage turned out to be baggage of two (2) travelers not one (1); and that of a male and female.  The luggage contained each of two sets of brand new of clothing (and personal toilet articles), and two airline ticket and passport folders (contents missing).  There were also two travel brochures for from a Chicago Travel Agency; which each identically described the agencies' Rome vacation package.  The key pieces of evidence from the luggage were however; two sets of traveler's checks (hidden in the clothing of each set of luggage) in the amount of many tens of thousands of dollars each; all properly prepared; signed, and and issued to an Albert and Dorothy Renick.

Bullitt seeing the significance to this self identifying clue (the travelers checks were obviously genuine; and had been signed in the presence of their issuer); concluded that the names on the checks were therefore most likely genuine; having been verified prior to the issuance of the checks by the express company.  So he directed Delgetti to obtain the passport information for the Renicks from Chicago's US Immigration office; as well as a fingerprint check for the "dead" Johnny Ross; to be compared to the passport application of Albert Renick.  In the meantime, Chalmers again confronts Bullitt, demanding a signed admission that Ross died while in his custody.

Bullitt refuses to comply, his suspicions, near fully confirmed.  When the facsimile of Albert Renick's passport application arrives, it confirms that the man Chalmers had believed (and told the SFPD) was Ross; was actually Albert Renick, a used car salesman from Chicago with no criminal record.  His only significance was that he bore a startling resemblance to Ross.  Bullitt gives the full picture to Chalmers; pointing out that he was duped by the real Johnny Ross; who somehow, convinced Albert Renick to allow himself to be used to fake Ross's death; by allowing himself to being set-up as Johnny Ross (Renick), under police protection at the hotel Daniels; and, unknowingly to be killed in Ross' place; by a professional hit team; Ross' brother Peter; had been directed to hire; to kill Johnny, by the Chicago branch of the Mob.

After "Ross'" death, Johnny himself had murdered Dorthy Renick; to complete the cover-up.  Ross did this because, after her husband's death, Dorthy Renick was the only person (other than the Ross') who knew the real identity of the man who died from multiple gunshot wounds received at the hotel Daniels.

Delgetti discovers reservations for the Renicks on an evening flight to Rome. He and Bullitt go to San Francisco International Airport to look for Ross, traveling as Renick. They stake out the Rome flight gate, only to find that Ross has switched to a slightly earlier flight to London that is already taxiing toward takeoff. Chalmers shows up to lay claim to his witness, even though he is now wanted for murder, and is again rebuffed by Bullitt. Bullitt has the plane stopped, but Ross escapes by jumping out the rear cabin door. Bullitt jumps as well, and a foot chase across the busy runways ends in a tense pursuit inside the crowded passenger terminal. When Ross bolts and shoots a security guard, Bullitt shoots and kills Ross. The empty-handed Chalmers skulks away, and is driven off in his limousine bearing a "Support Your Local Police" bumper sticker.

Early the next morning, Bullitt walks home and observes Cathy's car upon approaching his apartment. He looks in and sees her sleeping in his bedroom, but does not wake her. He takes off his shoulder holster and balances it on a banister. As he begins to wash up at the bathroom sink, he looks up into his own reflection and contemplates himself for a long moment.

Bullitt was co-produced by McQueen's Solar Productions and Warner Bros.-Seven Arts, the film pitched to Jack L. Warner as "doing authority differently."[15]

Bullitt was director Yates' first American film. He was hired after McQueen saw his 1967 UK feature, Robbery, with its extended car chase.[16]  Joe Levine, whose Embassy Pictures had distributed Robbery, didn't much like it, but Alan Trustman, who saw the picture the very week he was writing the Bullitt chase, insisted that McQueen, Relyea and D'Antoni (none of whom had ever heard of Yates) see Robbery and consider Yates as director for Bullitt.[citation needed]

McQueen based the character of Frank Bullitt on San Francisco Inspector Dave Toschi, with whom he worked prior to filming.[17][18] McQueen even copied Toschi's unique "fast draw" shoulder holster. Toschi later became famous, along with Inspector Bill Armstrong, as the lead San Francisco investigators of the Zodiac Killer murders that began shortly after the release of Bullitt. Toschi is played by Mark Ruffalo in the film Zodiac, in which Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) mentions that "McQueen got the idea for the holster from Toschi".[18][19]

Bullitt is notable for its extensive use of actual locations rather than studio sets, and its attention to procedural detail, from police evidence processing to emergency room procedures. Director Yates' use of the new lightweight Arriflex cameras allowed for greater flexibility in location shooting.[20]

At the time of the film's release, the car chase scene generated prodigious excitement.[10] Leonard Maltin has called it a "now-classic car chase, one of the screen's all-time best."[11] Emanuel Levy wrote in 2003 that, "Bullitt contains one of the most exciting car chases in film history, a sequence that revolutionized Hollywood's standards."[12] In his obituary for Peter Yates, Bruce Weber wrote, "Mr. Yates’ reputation probably rests most securely on Bullitt (1968), his first American film – and indeed, on one particular scene, an extended car chase that instantly became a classic."[13]

The chase scene starts at 1h:05m into the film. The total time of the scene is 10 minutes and 53 seconds, beginning in the Fisherman's Wharf area of San Francisco, at Columbus and Chestnut (although Bullitt first notices the hitmen following his car while driving west on Army, now Cesar Chavez, just after passing under Highway 101), followed by Midtown shooting on Hyde and Laguna Streets, with shots of Coit Tower and locations around and on Filbert and University Streets. The scene ends outside the city at the Guadalupe Canyon Parkway in Brisbane.[21] The route is geographically impossible to take place in real time.[22]

The director called for maximum speeds of about 75–80 miles per hour (121–129 km/h), but the cars (including the chase cars filming) at times reached speeds of over 110 miles per hour (180 km/h). Driver's point-of-view shots were used to give the audience a participant's feel of the chase. Filming took three weeks, resulting in nine minutes and 42 seconds of pursuit. Multiple takes were spliced into a single end product resulting in discontinuity: heavy damage on the passenger side of Bullitt's car can be seen much earlier than the incident producing it, and the Charger appears to lose five wheel covers, with different ones missing in different shots. Shooting from multiple angles simultaneously and creating a montage from the footage to give the illusion of different streets also resulted in the speeding cars passing the same vehicles at several different times, including, widely noted, a green Volkswagen Beetle.[23] At one point the Charger crashes into the camera in one scene and the damaged front fender is noticeable in later scenes. Local authorities did not allow the car chase to be filmed on the Golden Gate Bridge, but did permit it in Midtown locations including Bernal Heights and the Mission District, and on the outskirts of neighboring Brisbane.[24]

McQueen, an accomplished driver, drove in the close-up scenes, while stunt coordinator Carey Loftin, stuntman and motorcycle racer Bud Ekins, and McQueen's usual stunt driver, Loren Janes, drove for the high-speed part of the chase and performed other dangerous stunts.[25] Ekins, who doubled for McQueen in The Great Escape sequence where McQueen's character jumps over a barbed wire fence on a motorcycle, lays one down in front of a skidding truck during the Bullitt chase. The Mustang's interior rear view mirror goes up and down depending on who is driving: when the mirror is up, McQueen is visible behind the wheel, when it is down, a stunt man is driving.

The black Dodge Charger was driven by veteran stunt driver Bill Hickman, who played one of the hitmen and helped with the chase scene choreography. The other hitman was played by Paul Genge, who played a character who had ridden a Dodge off the road to his death in an episode of Perry Mason ("The Case of the Sausalito Sunrise") two years earlier. In a magazine article many years later, one of the drivers involved in the chase sequence remarked that the Charger – with a larger engine (big-block 440 cu. in. versus the 390 cu. in.) and greater horsepower (375 versus 325) – were so much faster than the Mustang that the drivers had to keep backing off the accelerator to prevent the Charger pulling away from the Mustang.[24]

The editing of the car chase likely won Frank P. Keller the editing Oscar for 1968,[26] and has been included in lists of the "Best Editing Sequences of All-Time".[27] Paul Monaco has written, "The most compelling street footage of 1968, however, appeared in an entirely contrived sequence, with nary a hint of documentary feel about it â€“ the car chase through the streets of San Francisco in Bullitt, created from footage shot over nearly five weeks. Billy Fraker, the cinematographer for the film, attributed the success of the chase sequence primarily to the work of the editor, Frank P. Keller. At the time, Keller was credited with cutting the piece in such a superb manner that he made the city of San Francisco a "character" in the film."[28] The editing of the scene was not without difficulties; Ralph Rosenblum wrote in 1979 that "those who care about such things may know that during the filming of the climactic chase scene in Bullitt, an out-of-control car filled with dummies tripped a wire which prematurely sent a costly set up in flames, and that editor Frank Keller salvaged the near-catastrophe with a clever and unusual juxtaposition of images that made the explosion appear to go off on time."[29] This chase scene has also been cited by critics as groundbreaking in its realism and originality.[30] In the release print and the print shown for many years, a scene in which the Charger actually hits the camera causing a red flare on screen, which many feel added to the realism, was edited out on DVD prints to the disappointment of many fans.[citation needed]

The original score was composed by Lalo Schifrin. The tracks on the soundtrack album are alternative versions of those heard in the film, re-recorded by Schifrin with leading jazz musicians, including Bud Shank (flute), Ray Brown (bass), Howard Roberts (guitar) and Larry Bunker (drums).[31]

In 2000, the original arrangements as heard in the movie were recreated by Schifrin in a recording session with the WDR Big Band in Cologne, Germany, and released on the Aleph label.[32] This release also includes re-recordings of the 1968 soundtrack album arrangements for some tracks.

In 2009, the never-before-released original recording of the score heard in the movie, recorded by Schifrin on the Warner Bros. scoring stage with engineer Dan Wallin, was made available by Film Score Monthly. Some score passages and cues are virtually identical to the official soundtrack album, while many softer, moodier cues from the film were not chosen or had been rewritten for the soundtrack release. Also included are additional cues that didn't make it into the film. In addition, the two-CD set features the official soundtrack album, newly mixed from the 1" master tape.[31]

In the restaurant scene with McQueen and Bissett, the live band playing in the background is Meridian West, a jazz quartet that McQueen had seen performing at famous Sausalito restaurant, The Trident.[33]

Bullitt garnered both critical acclaim and box office success.

Produced on a $5.5 million budget, the film grossed over $42.3 million in the US,[2] making it the 5th highest-grossing film of 1968.

Bullitt was well received by critics and is considered by some to be one of the best films of 1968.[34][35][36] At the time, Renata Adler made the film a New York Times Critics' Pick, calling it a "terrific movie, just right for Steve McQueen –-fast, well acted, written the way people talk." According to Adler, "the ending should satisfy fans from Dragnet to Camus."[37]

In 2004, The New York Times placed the film on its list of The Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made.[30] In 2011, Time magazine listed it among "The 15 Greatest Movie Car Chases of All Time," describing it as "the one, the first, the granddaddy, the chase on the top of almost every list," and saying "Bullittâ€˜s car chase is a reminder that every great such scene is a triumph of editing as much as it is stunt work. Naturally, it won that year's Academy Award for Best Editing".[38] Among 21st-century critics, it holds a 97% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, representing positive reviews from 34 of 35 critics with an average rating of 7.7/10. The website's critical consensus reads: "Steve McQueen is cool as ice in this thrilling police procedural that also happens to contain the arguably greatest car chase ever."[39]

The film was nominated for and won several critical awards.[40] Frank P. Keller won the 1969 Academy Award for Best Film Editing, and it was also nominated for Best Sound.[41] Five nominations at the BAFTA Film Awards for 1969 included Best Director for Peter Yates, Best Supporting Actor for Robert Vaughn, Best Cinematography for William A. Fraker, Best Film Editing for Frank P. Keller, and Best Sound Track. Robert Fish, Harry Kleiner, and Alan Trustman won the 1969 Edgar Award for Best Motion Picture.[42] Keller won the American Cinema Editors Eddie Award for Best Edited Feature Film. The film also received the National Society of Film Critics Award for Best Cinematography (William A. Fraker) and the Golden Reel Award for Best Sound Editing â€“ Feature Film. It was successful at the 1970 Laurel Awards, winning Golden Laurel awards for Best Action Drama, Best Action Performance (Steve McQueen) and Best Female New Face (Jacqueline Bisset). In 2000, the Society of Camera Operators awarded Bullitt its "Historical Shot" award to David M. Walsh.

The famous car chase was later spoofed in Peter Bogdanovich's screwball comedy film, What's Up, Doc?, the Clint Eastwood film, The Dead Pool, in the Futurama episode, "Bendin' in the Wind," and in the Archer season six episode, "The Kanes." Bullitt producer Philip D'Antoni went on to film two more car chases, for The French Connection and The Seven-Ups, both set and shot in New York City.

The Ford Mustang name has been closely associated with the film. In 2001, the Ford Motor Company released the Bullitt edition Ford Mustang GT.[43] Another version of the Ford Mustang Bullitt, which is closer to resembling the original film Mustang, was released in 2008, to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the film.[44][45] A third version is planned for 2019.[46] In 2009, Bud Brutsman of Overhaulin' built an authentic-looking replica of the Bullitt Mustang, fully loaded with modern components, for the five-episode 2009 TV series, Celebrity Rides: Hollywood's Speeding Bullitt, hosted by Chad McQueen, son of Steve McQueen.[47][48]

Steve McQueen's likeness as Frank Bullitt was used in two Ford commercials. The first was for the Europe-only 1997 Ford Puma, which featured a special effects montage of McQueen (who died in 1980) driving a new Puma around San Francisco before parking it in a studio apartment garage beside the film Mustang and the motorcycle from The Great Escape.[49] In a 2004 commercial for the 2005 Mustang, special effects are again used to create the illusion of McQueen driving the new Mustang, after a man receives a Field of Dreams-style epiphany and constructs a racetrack in the middle of a cornfield.[50]

The Mustang is featured in the 2003 video game, Ford Racing 2, in a Drafting challenge, on a course named Port Side. It appears in the Movie Stars category, along with other famous cars like the Ford Torino from Starsky & Hutch and the Ford Mustang Mach 1 from Diamonds Are Forever.[51][52] In the 2011 video game, Driver: San Francisco, the "Bite the Bullet" mission is based on the famous chase scene, with licensed versions of the Mustang and Charger from the film.[53]

In the opening scene of 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003), the main protagonist, Brian O'Conner (Paul Walker), is called "Bullitt" by his friends Suki (Devon Aoki) and Tej Parker (Chris Bridges).

During the only season of the 2012 TV series Alcatraz, Det. Rebecca Madsen (Sarah Jones) drives a green 1968 390 V8 Ford Mustang fastback like Bullitt's. In the series finale, she finds herself in a 2013 Ford Mustang GT, the modern equivalent of the 1968 fastback, giving chase to a black LX Dodge Charger driven by series antagonist Thomas "Tommy" Madsen (David Hoflin). The sequence pays homage to Bullitt's car chase, including Madsen buckling the seatbelt in his Charger before starting, and two passes by a green Volkswagen Beetle.

The Blue Bloods TV series 2015 episode "The Bullitt Mustang" centers around the reported theft of one of the Mustangs used in the film, valued at a half million dollars, a case which detectives Danny Reagan and Maria Baez pick up.

Several items of clothing worn by McQueen's Bullitt received a boost in popularity thanks to the film: desert boots, a trench coat, a blue turtleneck sweater and, most famously, a brown tweed jacket with elbow patches.[54]

The last remaining Charger and one of the two Mustangs were scrapped after filming because of damage and liability concerns, while the other was sold to an employee of Warner Bros.[55] The car changed hands several times, with McQueen at one point making an unsuccessful attempt to buy it in late 1977.[56] The car is currently owned by Sean Kiernan in Tennessee whose father bought the car for $6,000 in 1974 after responding to a listing in Road & Track.[46] The stunt Mustang used for filming was found in 2016 at a junkyard in Mexico. The car was verified by an automobile authentication expert who conclusively determined from the vehicle's VIN and other identifying information.[57]


who started the tomahawk chop braves or fsu

It is not known when the tomahawk chop was invented. However, it is claimed by a former Florida State University president that it was invented by the Florida State University Marching Chiefs in the 1980s to complement their war chants.[1] Another report claims it was first performed in 1984 by students from the university's fraternities behind the band. The action was adopted by fans of the FSU Seminoles over the following years.[2] Despite this, the university's board does not endorse the action stating "Some traditions we cannot control.....It's a term we did not choose and officially do not use".[2]

Tomahawk chop

The tomahawk chop is a sports celebration most popularly used by fans of the American Florida State University Seminoles, Atlanta Braves baseball team, the Kansas City Chiefs American football team and the English Exeter Chiefs rugby union team. The action involves moving the forearm forwards and backwards repetitively with an open palm to simulate a tomahawk chopping.[1] Atlanta Braves also developed a foam tomahawk to compliment the fan actions. The action has caused controversy as a symbol of appropriation of Native American culture.

The tomahawk chop was adopted by fans of the Atlanta Braves in 1991 following the signing of former FSU cornerback Deion Sanders, who was also playing for the National Football League's Atlanta Falcons at the time.[3] It was initially started by a few FSU fans in Atlanta who followed Sanders but this later grew to the whole of the Atlanta Braves' fanbase.[3] Initially fans would hold toy tomahawks when they did the action and the Atlanta Braves started to issue foam tomahawks which became popular at the Atlanta–Fulton County Stadium,[4] which later earned the nicknamed of "the Chop Shop".[3] The action continued to remain popular after Sanders had left the Atlanta Braves. From 2008 until 2016 as part of a sponsorship deal Chick-fil-A installed a 40-foot cow at Atlanta Braves' Turner Field, which would do a slow version of the tomahawk chop.[5]

In 2016, when the Atlanta Braves played their last game at Turner Field before leaving for SunTrust Park, the last official act done at Turner Field was known as "The Final Chop", where the Atlanta Braves warchant was played one last time with fans doing the tomahawk chop.[6]

Initially, the chant was accompanied on the organ at both Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium and Turner Field, but by 2008, the team had switched to a recording of the FSU Marching Chiefs, as an homage to Sanders.

A foam tomahawk is a foam rubber sports paraphernalia item in the shape of a tomahawk, often used to accompany the tomahawk chop. They were first created in 1991 for the Atlanta Braves baseball team following their adoption of the tomahawk chop.[7]

Foam tomahawks were invented by foam salesman Tom Braddy. Upon hearing Skip Carey saying during a radio broadcast of an Atlanta Braves game that they needed tomahawks to accompany their newly acquired tomahawk chop celebration,[8] he approached the Braves' concessions manager John Eifert with a suggestion of a foam rubber tomahawk. Eifert agreed providing they cost around $5, to which Braddy carved a tomahawk out of foam with an electric knife.[9][7] Eifert bought 5,000 for sale for the Atlanta Braves.[10] The foam tomahawks became very popular with Braves fans at the Atlanta–Fulton County Stadium - [11] so much so, that Braddy was able to quit his $60,000 a year salesman's job in order to manufacture foam tomahawks full-time, and was able to create 8,000 a day.[12]

Braddy started selling them himself. However, he was approached by Major League Baseball a month into the venture, who claimed that the foam tomahawk infringed upon the Atlanta Braves' copyrighted tomahawk logo. In response, Braddy made a deal with Major League Baseball Properties to license the MLB symbol and receive logistical support in exchange for 10% of the profits.[8]

The usage of foam tomahawks led to criticism from Native American groups that it was "demeaning" to them and called for them to be banned.[7] In response, the Braves' public relations director said that it was a "a proud expression of unification and family".[7] In preparation as a response to any potential ban, Braddy prepared to discuss deals with the Florida State University Seminoles, Kansas City Chiefs and Washington Redskins American football teams, as well as other universities with Native American mascots.[8]

The Kansas City Chiefs started using the tomahawk chop when the FSU graduate conductor of the Northwest Missouri State University band played the FSU war chant during a match against the Buffalo Bills.[13]

The English rugby team Exeter Chiefs adopted the name of "Chiefs" in 1999.[14] They started using it along with the war chant in 2010, following their promotion to the English Premiership.[15] They use it as their walk out music at Sandy Park[16] as well as a chant by their fans during rugby matches.[17]

Usage of the tomahawk chop has led to complaints that it made fun of Native American culture.[18] It also was criticized for being a reference to the former practice of scalping.[14] Shortly after the Atlanta Braves adopted it, there were a number of calls from Native Americans for Braves fans to stop doing the tomahawk chop.[10] Prior to the 1991 World Series a number of Native Americans protested against the Braves using the tomahawk chop outside the Metrodome. During the protests Clyde Bellecourt, national director of the American Indian Movement, suggested that the team could be called "the Atlanta Negroes, Atlanta Klansmen or Atlanta Nazis".[19] In 2009, the Gill-Montague Regional School Committee, a local school board in Massachusetts, banned the use of the gesture at school sporting events, calling it offensive and discriminatory.[20] In 2016, Native American groups asked the Kansas City Chiefs to stop doing the tomahawk chop.[21] In the same year a similar request was made of Exeter Chiefs.[22]

In politics, during the 2012 Senate election in Massachusetts, staffers of candidate Scott Brown were filmed doing the tomahawk chop at a campaign rally towards supporters of Elizabeth Warren, to mock Warren's claim of Native American ancestry.[23]


what does the canadian conservative party stand for

In 2003, the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives merged, forming the Conservative Party of Canada.[13] The unified Conservative Party generally favours lower taxes, small government, more decentralization of federal government powers to the provinces modeled after the Meech Lake Accord and a tougher stand on "law and order" issues. The party won two minority governments after the 2006 federal election, and a majority government in the 2011 federal election before being defeated in the 2015 federal election by a majority Liberal government.[21]

Conservative Party of Canada

The Conservative Party of Canada (French: Parti conservateur du Canada), colloquially known as the Tories, is a political party in Canada. It is positioned on the right of the Canadian political spectrum.[12] The party's leader is Andrew Scheer, who serves as Leader of the Official Opposition.

The Conservative Party is the successor to multiple right-wing parties which have existed in Canada for over a century.[13] Until 1942, one of the party's predecessors was known as the Conservative Party of Canada and participated in numerous governments.[14] Before 1942, the predecessors to the Conservatives had multiple names, but by 1942, the main right-wing Canadian force became known as the Progressive Conservatives.[15] In 1957, John Diefenbaker became the first Prime Minister from the Progressive Conservative Party, and remained in office until 1963.[16]

Another Progressive Conservative government was elected after the results of the 1979 federal election, with Joe Clark becoming Prime Minister. Clark served from 1979 to 1980, when he was defeated by the Liberal Party after the 1980 federal election.[17] In 1984, the Progressive Conservatives won with Brian Mulroney becoming Prime Minister.[18] Mulroney was Prime Minister from 1984 to 1993, and his government was marked by free trade agreements and economic liberalization.[19] The party suffered a near complete loss after the 1993 federal election, thanks to a splintering of the right-wing; the Conservatives' other predecessor, the Reform Party, led by Preston Manning placed in third, leaving the Progressive Conservatives in fifth. A similar result occurred in 1997, and in 2000, when the Reform Party became the Canadian Alliance.[20]

John Lynch-Staunton served as interim leader of the newly created Conservative Party of Canada from 8 December 2003 until 20 March 2004, when the party elected Stephen Harper as its first leader. Andrew Scheer was elected leader on 27 May 2017.[22]

The Deputy Leader is appointed by the Leader.

The National Council is the party's national governing body that is elected by the Conservative Party membership at its bi-annual meetings. A National Councillor is elected for a two-year term and cannot serve for more than three consecutive terms.[23]

Composition of the National Council is based on the following criteria:

At present, the National Council has four members from Ontario; two each from Alberta, British Columbia, and Quebec; one each from the remaining provinces and territories for a total of 19 members,[23] plus the party leader and the two non-voting members for a total 22 members.

The party president is elected by National Council following their election. Since 2016, the President of the Conservative Party has been Scott Lamb, a councillor representing British Columbia. The party President is the conduit between the Party Leader and the National Council.

The Executive Director answers to the party President, and is responsible for the day-to-day management and operations of the party.

From February 2009 to December 2013, the Executive Director was Dan Hilton.

Dimitri Soudas was named the new Executive Director in December 2013.[25] On 30 March 2014, Soudas was told to resign or be fired from the position after allegedly interfering with the nomination contest taking place in his fiancee's riding.[26]

In July 2014, Dustin Van Vugt was brought in as the Deputy Executive Director – a position created specifically for him.[27] Some media agencies, such as the CBC, suggested that this was a way for Thompson to begin handing over the work for the top job to Van Vugt, until his promotion to Executive Director could be formally ratified by the party's National Council. In October 2014, Van Vugt's position was unanimously ratified by the party's National Council, and Thompson became the Chief Operations Officer.[28]

The Director of Political Operations reports to the Executive Director, and is one of the most important positions within the party. The person filling this role often has direct access to the party leader, due to their responsibilities for organizing the party's work on the ground and in preparing for the next election. With Stephen Harper as Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader, the Director of Political Operations has frequently moved from party positions to the Prime Minister's and other Minister's Offices, and then back to the party's headquarters, depending on the identified needs.

Doug Finley was the Director of Political Operations until 2009, when Finley was appointed to the Senate and Jenni Byrne, then Finley's Deputy, became the Director.

In August 2013, Byrne left the job to become the co-Deputy Chief of Staff in the Prime Minister's Office. Fred DeLorey, then the party's Director of Communications, became the Director.

The Conservative Party's senate caucus continues to be formally affiliated to the party. Unlike the Senate Liberal Caucus and the non-partisan Independent Senators Group which are unaffiliated with parties in the House of Commons,  Conservative senators are also part of the national Conservative parliamentary caucus made up of members of both houses of parliament, though the senators also meets separately to discuss Senate-specific issues.

The caucus was created following the establishment of the modern Conservative Party of Canada on February 2, 2004 as a result of the merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. All but three Progressive Conservative Senators joined the Conservative Party and were redesignated as Conservative senators.

When in government, the leader of the caucus has been appointed by the national Conservative Party leader, serving as Prime Minister of Canada. When in Opposition the leader is elected by Conservative senators. Most recently, Larry Smith was elected Senate Conservative leader on March 28, 2017, defeating two other candidates.[29]

The first leader of the senate caucus, John Lynch-Staunton, also served as interim leader of the Conservative Party of Canada until a leadership election could be held.

The Conservative Party is governed by a constitution.[30] The constitution may be amended through the same procedure as outlined for "Policy Development" below.

The "founding principles" of the Conservative Party appear in both the constitution and the policy declaration. They are the reasons that the Conservative Party was formed, and thus the only part of the constitution and policy declaration not up for possible amendment at a national convention.[30]

The policy declaration of the Conservative Party is a statement of which policies the Conservative Party membership would like its Leader to implement if and when they form government.[31]

Policies are directly decided by members attending a bi-annual national convention. The rules governing the passage of those policies are formally ratified by the National Council, and clarify rules such as speaking slots and voting requirements.[32]

Policy proposals start with local riding associations, who form policy committees to discuss ideas. The riding association then puts their policies forward for discussion at a regional meeting, where they are discussed amongst a larger group of regionally based members. They are then submitted for discussion at a provincial meeting, where they are further discussed. The provincial meetings are the last level of discussions before they are placed on the agenda for the national convention's agenda.

At the national convention, "breakout" discussion tables are formed. For example, a table may discuss several policies related to "foreign affairs" or "health care" policies. The individuals attending those breakout tables then return to their riding association delegates and encourage them to vote for the motion(s) discussed at the breakout table. During voting, individuals show their support or opposition to a proposal. If a majority agrees with the proposal, it is added to the policy declaration.

The Conservative Party's policy declaration is divided into 23 pronouncements on policy:[31]

The Conservative Party is political heir to a series of right-of-centre parties that have existed in Canada, beginning with the Liberal-Conservative Party founded in 1854 by Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George-Étienne Cartier. The party later became known simply as the Conservative Party after 1873. Like its historical predecessors and conservative parties in some other Commonwealth nations (such as the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom), members of the present-day Conservative Party of Canada are sometimes referred to as "Tories". The modern Conservative Party of Canada is also legal heir to the heritage of the historical conservative parties by virtue of assuming the assets and liabilities of the former Progressive Conservative Party upon the merger of 2003.

The first incarnations of the Conservative Party in Canada were quite different from the Conservative Party of today, especially on economic issues. The early Conservatives were known to espouse economic protectionism and British imperialism, by emphasizing Canada's ties to the United Kingdom while vigorously opposing free trade with the United States; free trade being a policy which, at the time, had strong support from the ranks of the Liberal Party of Canada.[33] The Conservatives also sparred with the Liberal Party because of its connections with French Canadian nationalists including Henri Bourassa who wanted Canada to distance itself from Britain, and demanded that Canada recognize that it had two nations, English Canada and French Canada, connected together through a common history. The Conservatives would go on with a popular slogan "one nation, one flag, one leader".[citation needed]

The Conservative Party's popular support waned (particularly in western Canada) during difficult economic times from the 1920s to 1940s, as it was seen by many in the west as an eastern establishment party which ignored the needs of the citizens of Western Canada. Westerners of multiple political convictions including small-"c" conservatives saw the party as being uninterested in the economically unstable Prairie regions of the west at the time and instead holding close ties with the business elite of Ontario and Quebec. As a result of western alienation both the dominant Conservative and Liberal parties were challenged in the west by the rise of a number of protest parties including the Progressive Party of Canada, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), the Reconstruction Party of Canada and the Social Credit Party of Canada. In 1921, the Conservatives were reduced to third place in number of seats in the House of Common behind the Progressives, though soon after, the Progressive Party folded. The Premier of Manitoba and leader of the Progressive Party of Manitoba, John Bracken became leader of the Conservative Party in 1942 subject to several conditions, one of which was that the party be renamed the Progressive Conservative Party.[citation needed]

Meanwhile, many former supporters of the Progressive Conservative Party shifted their support to either the federal CCF or to the federal Liberals. The advancement of the provincially popular western-based conservative Social Credit Party in federal politics was stalled, in part by the strategic selection of leaders from the west by the Progressive Conservative Party. PC leaders such as John Diefenbaker and Joe Clark were seen by many westerners as viable challengers to the Liberals who traditionally had relied on the electorate in Quebec and Ontario for their power base. While none of the various protest parties ever succeeded in gaining significant power federally, they were damaging to the Progressive Conservative Party throughout its history, and allowed the federal Liberals to win election after election with strong urban support bases in Ontario and Quebec. This historical tendency earned the Liberals the unofficial title often given by some political pundits of being Canada's "natural governing party". Prior to 1984, Canada was seen as having a dominant-party system led by the Liberal Party while Progressive Conservative governments therefore were considered by many of these pundits as caretaker governments, doomed to fall once the collective mood of the electorate shifted and the federal Liberal Party eventually came back to power.[citation needed]

In 1984, the Progressive Conservative Party's electoral fortunes made a massive upturn under its new leader, Brian Mulroney, an anglophone Quebecer and former president of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, who mustered a large coalition of westerners, aggravated over the National Energy Program of the Liberal government, suburban and small-town Ontarians, and soft Quebec nationalists, who were angered over Quebec not having distinct status in the Constitution of Canada signed in 1982.[34][35] This led to a huge landslide victory for the Progressive Conservative Party. Progressive Conservatives abandoned protectionism which the party had held strongly to in the past and which had aggravated westerners and businesses and fully espoused free trade with the United States and integrating Canada into a globalized economy. This was accomplished with the signing of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA) of 1989 and much of the key implementation process of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which added Mexico to the Canada-U.S. free trade zone.[33]

In the late 1980s and 1990s, federal conservative politics became split by the creation of a new western-based protest party, the populist and social conservative Reform Party of Canada created by Preston Manning, son of Alberta Social Credit Premier Ernest Manning. It advocated deep decentralization of government power, abolition of official bilingualism and multiculturalism, democratization of the Senate of Canada, and suggested a potential return to capital punishment, and advocated significant privatization of public services.[citation needed] Westerners reportedly felt betrayed by the federal Progressive Conservative Party (PC), seeing it as catering to Quebec and urban Ontario interests over theirs. In 1989, Reform made headlines in the political scene when its first MP, Deborah Grey, was elected in a by-election in Alberta, which was a shock to the PCs which had almost complete electoral dominance over the province for years. Another defining event for western conservatives was when Mulroney accepted the results of an unofficial Senate "election" held in Alberta, which resulted in the appointment of a Reformer, Stanley Waters, to the Senate.[citation needed]

By the 1990s, Mulroney had failed to bring about Senate reform as he had promised (appointing a number of Senators in 1990). As well, social conservatives were dissatisfied with Mulroney's social progressivism. Canadians in general were furious with high unemployment, high debt and deficit, unpopular implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 1991, and the failed constitutional reforms of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. In 1993, support for the Progressive Conservative Party collapsed, and the party's representation in the House of Commons dropped from an absolute majority of seats to only two seats. The 1993 results were the worst electoral disaster in Canadian history, and the Progressive Conservatives never fully recovered.[citation needed]

In 1993, federal politics became divided regionally. The Liberal Party took Ontario, the Maritimes and the territories, the separatist Bloc Québécois took Quebec, while the Reform Party took Western Canada and became the dominant conservative party in Canada. The problem of the split on the right was accentuated by Canada's single member plurality electoral system, which resulted in numerous seats being won by the Liberal Party, even when the total number of votes cast for PC and Reform Party candidates was substantially in excess of the total number of votes cast for the Liberal candidate.

In 2003, the Canadian Alliance (formerly the Reform Party) and Progressive Conservative parties agreed to merge into the present-day Conservative Party, with the Alliance faction conceding its populist ideals and some social conservative elements.

On 15 October 2003, after closed-door meetings were held by the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative Party, Stephen Harper (then the leader of the Canadian Alliance) and Peter MacKay (then the leader of the Progressive Conservatives) announced the "'Conservative Party Agreement-in-Principle", thereby merging their parties to create the new Conservative Party of Canada. After several months of talks between two teams of "emissaries", consisting of Don Mazankowski, Bill Davis and Loyola Hearn on behalf of the PCs and Ray Speaker Senator Gerry St. Germain and Scott Reid on behalf of the Alliance, the deal came to be.

On 5 December 2003 the Agreement-in-Principle was ratified by the membership of the Alliance by a margin of 96% to 4% in a national referendum conducted by postal ballot. On 6 December, the PC Party held a series of regional conventions, at which delegates ratified the Agreement-in-Principle by a margin of 90% to 10%. On 7 December, the new party was officially registered with Elections Canada. On 20 March 2004 Harper was elected leader.

The merger process was opposed by some elements in both parties. In the PCs in particular, the merger process resulted in organized opposition, and in a substantial number of prominent members refusing to join the new party. The opponents of the merger were not internally united as a single internal opposition movement, and they did not announce their opposition at the same moment. David Orchard argued that his written agreement with Peter MacKay, which had been signed a few months earlier at the 2003 Progressive Conservative Leadership convention, excluded any such merger. Orchard announced his opposition to the merger before negotiations with the Canadian Alliance had been completed. The basis of Orchard's crucial support for MacKay's leadership bid was MacKay's promise in writing to Orchard not merge the Alliance and PC parties. MacKay was roundly criticized for openly lying about an existential question for the PC party. Over the course of the following year, Orchard led an unsuccessful legal challenge to the merger of the two parties. MacKay's promise to not merge the Alliance and PC's was not enforceable in court, though it would have if one dollar exchanged hands as payment for consideration.[citation needed]

In October and November, during the course of the PC party's process of ratifying the merger, four sitting Progressive Conservative MPs — André Bachand, John Herron, former Tory leadership candidate Scott Brison, and former Prime Minister Joe Clark — announced their intention not to join the new Conservative Party caucus, as did retiring PC Party president Bruck Easton. Clark and Brison argued that the party's merger with the Canadian Alliance drove it too far to the right, and away from its historical position in Canadian politics.

On 14 January 2004 former Alliance leadership candidate Keith Martin, left the party, and sat temporarily as an independent. He was reelected, running as a Liberal, in the 2004 election, and again in 2006 and 2008.

In the early months following the merger, MP Rick Borotsik, who had been elected as Manitoba's only PC, became openly critical of the new party's leadership. Borotsik chose not to run in the 2004 general election. Brison, at first, voted for and supported the ratification of the Alliance-PC merger, then crossed the floor to the Liberals.[36] Soon afterward, he was made a parliamentary secretary in Paul Martin's Liberal government. Herron also ran as a Liberal candidate in the election, but did not join the Liberal caucus prior to the election. He lost his seat to the new Conservative Party's candidate Rob Moore. Bachand and Clark sat as independent Progressive Conservatives until an election was called in the spring of 2004, and then retired from Parliament.

Three senators, William Doody, Norman Atkins, and Lowell Murray, declined to join the new party and continued to sit in the upper house as a rump caucus of Progressive Conservatives. In February 2005, Liberals appointed two anti-merger Progressive Conservatives, Nancy Ruth and Elaine McCoy, to the Senate. In March 2006, Ruth joined the new Conservative Party.

Finally, following the 2004 federal election, Conservative Senator Jean-Claude Rivest left the party to sit as an independent (choosing not to join Senators Doody, Atkins and Murray in their rump Progressive Conservative caucus). Senator Rivest cited, as his reason for this action, his concern that the new party was too right-wing and that it was insensitive to the needs and interests of Quebec.[citation needed]

In the immediate aftermath of the merger announcement, some Conservative activists hoped to recruit former Ontario Premier Mike Harris for the leadership. Harris declined the invitation, as did New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord and Alberta Premier Ralph Klein. Outgoing Progressive Conservative leader Peter MacKay also announced he would not seek the leadership, as did former Democratic Representative Caucus leader Chuck Strahl. Jim Prentice, who had been a candidate in the 2003 PC leadership contest, entered the Conservative leadership race in mid-December but dropped out in mid-January because of an inability to raise funds so soon after his earlier leadership bid.

In the end, there were three candidates in the partyâ€™s first leadership election: former Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper, former Magna International CEO Belinda Stronach, and former Ontario provincial PC Cabinet minister Tony Clement. Voting took place on 20 March 2004. A total of 97,397 ballots were cast.[37] Harper won on the first ballot with a commanding 68.9% of the vote (67,143 votes). Stronach received 22.9% (22,286 votes), and Clement received 8.2% (7,968 votes).[38]

The vote was conducted using a weighted voting system in which all of Canadaâ€™s 308 ridings were given 100 points, regardless of the number of votes cast by party members in that riding (for a total of 30,800 points, with 15,401 points required to win). Each candidate would be awarded a number of points equivalent to the percentage of the votes they had won in that riding. For example, a candidate winning 50 votes in a riding in which the total number of votes cast was 100 would receive 50 points. A candidate would also receive 50 points for winning 500 votes in a riding where 1,000 votes were cast. In practice, there were wide differences in the number of votes cast in each riding across the country. More than 1,000 voters participated in each of the fifteen ridings with the highest voter turnout. By contrast, only eight votes were cast in each of the two ridings with the lowest levels of participation.)[39] As a result, individual votes in the ridings where the greatest numbers of votes were cast were worth less than one percent as much as votes from the ridings where the fewest votes were cast.[39]

The equal-weighting system gave Stronach a substantial advantage, because her support was strongest in the parts of the country where the party had the fewest members, while Harper tended to win a higher percentage of the vote in ridings with larger membership numbers. Thus, the official count, which was based on points rather than on votes, gave her a much better result. Of 30,800 available points, Harper won 17,296, or 56.2%. Stronach won 10,613 points, or 34.5%. Clement won 2,887 points, or 9.4%.

The actual vote totals remained confidential when the leadership election results were announced; only the point totals were made public at the time, giving the impression of a race that was much closer than was actually the case. Three years later, Harperâ€™s former campaign manager, Tom Flanagan, published the actual vote totals, noting that, among other distortions caused by the equal-weighting system, "a vote cast in Quebec was worth 19.6 times as much as a vote cast in Alberta".[40]

Two months after Harper's election as national Tory leader, Liberal Party of Canada leader and Prime Minister Paul Martin called a general election for 28 June 2004.

For the first time since the 1993 federal election, a Liberal government would have to deal with an opposition party that was generally seen as being able to form government. The Liberals attempted to counter this with an early election call, as this would give the Conservatives less time to consolidate their merger. During the first half of the campaign, polls showed a rise in support for the new party, leading some pollsters to predict the election of a minority Conservative government. An unpopular provincial budget by Ontario Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty hurt the federal Liberals in Ontario. The Liberals managed to narrow the gap and eventually regain momentum by targeting the Conservatives' credibility and motives, hurting their efforts to present a reasonable, responsible and moderate alternative to the governing Liberals.[citation needed]

Several controversial comments were made by Conservative MPs during the campaign. Early on in the campaign, Ontario MP Scott Reid indicated his feelings as Tory language critic that the policy of official bilingualism was unrealistic and needed to be reformed. Alberta MP Rob Merrifield suggested as Tory health critic that women ought to have mandatory family counseling before they choose to have an abortion. BC MP Randy White indicated his willingness near the end of the campaign to use the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Constitution to override the Charter of Rights on the issue of same-sex marriage, and Cheryl Gallant, another Ontario MP, compared abortion to terrorism. The party was also criticized for issuing (quickly retracted) press releases accusing both Paul Martin and Jack Layton of supporting child pornography.

Harper's new Conservatives emerged from the election with a larger parliamentary caucus of 99 MPs while the Liberals were reduced to a minority government of 135 MPs, twenty short of a majority.

In 2005, some political analysts such as former Progressive Conservative pollster Allan Gregg and Toronto Star columnist Chantal Hébert suggested that the then-subsequent election could result in a Conservative government if the public were to perceive the Tories as emerging from the party's founding convention (then scheduled for March 2005 in Montreal) with clearly defined, moderate policies with which to challenge the Liberals. The convention provided the public with an opportunity to see the Conservative Party in a new light, appearing to have reduced the focus on its controversial social conservative agenda. It retained its populist appeal by espousing tax cuts, smaller government, and more decentralization by giving the provinces more taxing powers and decision-making authority in joint federal-provincial programs. The party's law and order package was an effort to address rising homicide rates, which had gone up 12% in 2004.[41]

On 17 May 2005 MP Belinda Stronach unexpectedly crossed the floor from the Conservative Party to join the Liberal Party. In late August and early September 2005, the Tories released ads through Ontario's major television broadcasters that highlighted their policies towards health care, education and child support. The ads each featured Stephen Harper discussing policy with prominent members of his Shadow Cabinet. Some analysts suggested at the time that the Tories would use similar ads in the expected 2006 federal election, instead of focusing their attacks on allegations of corruption in the Liberal government as they did earlier on.

An Ipsos-Reid Poll conducted after the fallout from the first report of the Gomery Commission on the sponsorship scandal showed the Tories practically tied for public support with the governing Liberal Party,[42] and a poll from the Strategic Counsel suggested that the Conservatives were actually in the lead. However, polling two days later showed the Liberals had regained an 8-point lead.[43] On 24 November 2005 Opposition leader Stephen Harper introduced a motion of no confidence which was passed on 28 November 2005. With the confirmed backing of the other two opposition parties, this resulted in an election on 23 January 2006 following a campaign spanning the Christmas season.

The Conservatives started off the first month of the campaign by making a series of policy-per-day announcements, which included a Goods and Services Tax reduction and a child-care allowance. This strategy was a surprise to many in the news media, as they believed the party would focus on the sponsorship scandal; instead, the Conservative strategy was to let that issue ruminate with voters. The Liberals opted to hold their major announcements after the Christmas holidays; as a result, Harper dominated media coverage for the first few weeks of the campaign and was able "to define himself, rather than to let the Liberals define him". The Conservatives' announcements played to Harper's strengths as a policy wonk,[44] as opposed to the 2004 election and summer 2005 where he tried to overcome the perception that he was cool and aloof. Though his party showed only modest movement in the polls, Harper's personal approval numbers, which had always trailed his party's significantly, began to rise relatively rapidly.

On 27 December 2005 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police announced it was investigating Liberal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's office for potentially engaging in insider trading before making an important announcement on the taxation of income trusts. The revelation of the criminal investigation and Goodale's refusal to step aside dominated news coverage for the following week, and it gained further attention when the United States Securities and Exchange Commission announced they would also launch a probe. The income trust scandal distracted public attention from the Liberals' key policy announcements and allowed the Conservatives to refocus on their previous attacks on corruption within the Liberal party. The Tories were leading in the polls by early January 2006, and made a major breakthrough in Quebec where they displaced the Liberals as the second place party (after the Bloc Québécois).[citation needed]

In response to the growing Conservative lead, the Liberals launched negative ads suggesting that Harper had a "hidden agenda", similar to the attacks made in the 2004 election. The Liberal ads did not have the same effect this time as the Conservatives had much more momentum, at one stage holding a ten-point lead. Harper's personal numbers continued to rise and polls found he was considered not only more trustworthy, but also a better potential Prime Minister than Paul Martin. In addition to the Conservatives being more disciplined, media coverage of the Conservatives was also more positive than in 2004. By contrast, the Liberals found themselves increasingly criticized for running a poor campaign and making numerous gaffes.[citation needed]

On 23 January 2006 the Conservatives won 124 seats, compared to 103 for the Liberals. The results made the Conservatives the largest party in the 308-member House of Commons, enabling them to form a minority government. On 6 February, Harper was sworn in as the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada, along with his Cabinet.

On 7 September 2008 Stephen Harper asked the Governor General of Canada to dissolve parliament. The election took place on 14 October. The Conservative Party returned to government with 143 seats, up from the 127 seats they held at dissolution, but short of the 155 necessary for a majority government. This was the third minority parliament in a row, and the second for Harper. The Conservative Party pitched the election as a choice between Harper and the Liberals' Stéphane Dion, whom they portrayed as a weak and ineffective leader. The election, however, was rocked midway through by the emerging global financial crisis and this became the central issue through to the end of the campaign. Harper has been criticised for appearing unresponsive and unsympathetic to the uncertainty Canadians were feeling during the period of financial turmoil, but he countered that the Conservatives were the best party to navigate Canada through the financial crisis, and portrayed the Liberal "Green Shift" plan as reckless and detrimental to Canada's economic well-being. The Conservative Party released its platform on 7 October.[45] The platform states that it will re-introduce a bill similar to C-61.[46]

The party’s second convention was held in Winnipeg in November 2008. This was the party's first convention since taking power in 2006, and media coverage concentrated on the fact that this time, the convention was not very policy-oriented, and showed the party to be becoming an establishment party. However, the results of voting at the convention reveal that the party’s populist side still had some life. A resolution that would have allowed the party president a director of the party’s fund was defeated because it also permitted the twelve directors of the fund to become unelected ex officio delegates.[47] Some controversial policy resolutions were debated, including one to encourage provinces to utilize "both the public and private health sectors", but most of these were defeated.

Following the election of a Liberal Government in the 2015 General Election, the Party announced that Stephen Harper was stepping down as leader and that an interim leader would be selected to serve until a new leader could be chosen.[48] That was completed at the caucus meeting of 5 November 2015[49] where Rona Ambrose MP for Sturgeon River—Parkland and a former cabinet minister was elected by a vote of MPs and Senators.[50]

Some members of the partyâ€™s national council were calling for a leadership convention as early as May 2016 according to Maclean's magazine.[51] However, some other Members of Parliament wanted the vote to be delayed until the spring of 2017.[52] On 19 January 2016, the party announced that a permanent leader will be chosen on 27 May 2017.[22]

On September 28, 2016, Scheer announced his bid for the leadership of the Conservative Party, and that he had the support of 32 members of the Conservative caucus.[53] On May 27, 2017, Scheer was elected as the second full-time leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, beating runner up MP Maxime Bernier and more than 12 others with 50.95% of the vote through 13 rounds.[54]

The Conservative Party has historically been strongest in the Canadian Prairies,[55][56] particularly the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, where it holds 24 out of 29 and 10 out of 14 federal seats respectively. It tends to be weaker in Quebec and Atlantic Canada, particularly Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island.[57][58]

The Conservative Party, while having no provincial wings, largely works with the former federal Progressive Conservative Party's provincial affiliates. There have been calls to change the names of the provincial parties from "Progressive Conservative" to "Conservative". However, there are other small "c" conservative parties with which the federal Conservative Party has close ties, such as the Saskatchewan Party and the British Columbia Liberal Party (not associated with the federal Liberal Party of Canada). The federal Conservative Party has the support of many of the provincial Conservative leaders. In Ontario, successive provincial PC Party leaders John Tory, Bob Runciman and Tim Hudak have expressed open support for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada, while former Mike Harris cabinet members Tony Clement, and John Baird were ministers in Harper's government.[citation needed] In Quebec, businessman Adrien D. Pouliot leads a new Conservative Party of Québec which was formed in 2009 in the wake of the decline of the Action démocratique du Québec (ADQ) which had carried the support of many provincial conservatives.

Cross-support between federal and provincial Conservatives is more tenuous in some other provinces. In Alberta, relations became strained between the federal Conservative Party and the Progressive Conservatives. Part of the federal Tories' loss in the 2004 election was often blamed on then Premier Klein's public musings on health care late in the campaign. Klein had also called for a referendum on same-sex marriage. With the impending 2006 election, Klein predicted another Liberal minority, though this time the federal Conservatives won a minority government. Klein's successor Ed Stelmach tried to avoid causing similar controversies; however, Harper's surprise pledge to restrict bitumen exports drew a sharp rebuke from the Albertan government, who warned such restrictions would violate both the Constitution of Canada and the North American Free Trade Agreement. The rise of the Wildrose Party in Alberta has caused a further rift between the federal Conservatives and the Albertan PCs, as some Conservative backbench MPs endorse Wildrose. For the 2012 Alberta election, Prime Minister Harper remained neutral and instructed federal cabinet members to also remain neutral while allowing Conservative backbenchers to back whomever they chose if they wish. Wildrose candidates for the concurrent Senate nominee election announced they would sit in the Conservative caucus should they be appointed to the Senate.

After the 2007 budget was announced, the Progressive Conservative governments in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland & Labrador accused the federal Conservatives of breaching the terms of the Atlantic Accord.[citation needed]

As a result, relations worsened between the two provincial governments, leading Newfoundland & Labrador Premier Danny Williams to denounce the federal Conservatives, which gave rise to his ABC (Anything But Conservative) campaign in the 2008 election.


who sang the song i am a conqueror

"Conqueror" is a song by British singer Estelle from her fourth studio album, True Romance (2015). The song was released as a single on 22 July 2014 by 1980 Records and BMG. The track was written by Estelle, Claude Kelly, Angel Higgs, Jaramye Daniels, Akil C. King, Kyle Henry, and Bailey Owens. The song was produced by Reefa and Johnny Black. A version of the song was recorded alongside Jussie Smollett for the 2015 TV series Empire.[1][2]

Conqueror (song)


who sings the country song just to see you smile

"Just to See You Smile" is a song written by Mark Nesler and Tony Martin, and performed by American country music artist Tim McGraw. It was released in August 1997 as the third single from McGraw's fourth studio album Everywhere. Having spent 42 weeks on the Billboard chart, it set what was then a record for being the longest-running single on the Billboard country chart since the inception of Nielsen SoundScan in 1990.[1] It was also the longest chart run for any country single in the 1990s.[2]

Just to See You Smile

Kevin John Coyne of Country Universe gave the song an A grade, saying McGraw "plays his cards so close to his chest that upon first listen, you may only pick up on his unconditional love and selflessness toward the girl whoâ€™s been stringing him along for all these years."[3]

"Just to See You Smile" debuted in August 1997 and surged in November. It became McGraw's third consecutive No. 1 single from Everywhere, spending six weeks atop the Billboard magazine Hot Country Singles & Tracks chart in January and February 1998. It was also McGraw's second single to be declared by Billboard as the Number One country single of the year. No music video was made for this song.

*sales figures based on certification alone
^shipments figures based on certification alone


the helmand province of afghanistan is famous for cultivation

The Helmand River flows through the mainly desert region of the province, providing water used for irrigation. The Kajaki Dam, which is one of Afghanistan's major reservoirs, is located in the Kajaki district. Helmand is believed to be one of the world's largest opium-producing regions, responsible for around 42% of the world's total production.[5][6] This is believed to be more than the whole of Burma, which is the second largest producing nation after Afghanistan. The region also produces tobacco, sugar beets, cotton, sesame, wheat, mung beans, maize, nuts, sunflowers, onions, potato, tomato, cauliflower, peanut, apricot, grape, and melon.[7]

Helmand Province

Helmand (/ˈhɛlmənd/ HEL-mənd;[3] Pashto/Dari: هلمند), also known as Hillmand or Helman, and, in ancient times, as Hermand and Hethumand [4] is one of the 34 provinces of Afghanistan, in the south of the country. It is the largest province by area, covering 58,584 square kilometres (20,000 sq mi) area. The province contains 13 districts, encompassing over 1,000 villages, and roughly 879,500 settled people.[2] Lashkar Gah serves as the provincial capital.

Helmand was part of the Greater Kandahar region until made into a separate province by the Afghan government in the 20th century. The province has a domestic airport (Bost Airport), in the city of Lashkar Gah and heavily used by NATO-led forces. The British Camp Bastion and U.S. Camp Leatherneck are a short distance southwest of Lashkar Gah.

Helmand culture of western Afghanistan was a Bronze Age culture of the 3rd millennium BC. It is exemplified by such major sites as Shahr-i Sokhta, Mundigak, and Bampur.

The term "Helmand civilization" was proposed by M. Tosi. This civilization flourished between 2500 BC and 1900 BC, and may have coincided with the great flourishing of the Indus Valley Civilisation. This was also the final phase of Periods III and IV of Shahr-i Sokhta, and the last part of Mundigak Period IV.

According to Jarrige et al.,

"... the pottery of Mundigak I, the earliest occupation of the “Helmand” cultural complex, corresponds to the Mehrgarh III pottery, in technique — quality of the paste and manufacture — as well as in the shapes and decoration, probably within a phase dated to the end of the 5th millennium [BC]."[8]

There were also links between Shahr-i Sokhta I, II and III periods, and Mundigak III and IV periods, and between the sites of Balochistan and the Indus valley at the end of the 4th millennium, as well as in the first half of the 3rd millennium BC.

Jiroft culture is closely related to Helmand culture. Jiroft culture flourished in the eastern Iran, and the Helmand culture in western Afghanistan at the same time. In fact, they may represent the same cultural area. Mehrgarh culture, on the other hand, is far earlier.

Some Vedic scholars (e.g. Kochhar 1999) also believe the Helmand valley corresponds to the Sarasvati area mentioned in the Rig Veda as the homeland for the Indo-Aryan migrations into India, ca. 1500 BC.[9]

Helmand was inhabited by ancient peoples and governed by the Medes before falling to the Achaemenids.

Later, the area was part of the ancient Arachosia polity, and a frequent target for conquest because of its strategic location in Asia, which connects Southern, Central and Southwest Asia.

The Helmand river valley is mentioned by name in the Avesta (Fargard 1:13) as Haetumant, one of the early centers or origins of the Zoroastrian faith, in pre-Islamic Afghan history. However, owing to the preponderance of non-Zoroastrians before the Islamization of Afghanistan – particularly Hindus and Buddhists – the Helmand and Kabul regions were also known as "White India" in those days.[10]

It was invaded in 330 BC by Alexander the Great and became part of the Seleucid Empire. Later, it came under the rule of the Indian emperor Ashoka, who erected a pillar there with a bilingual inscription in Greek and Aramaic. The territory was referred to as part of Zabulistan and ruled by the sun-worshipping Hindus Zunbils before the Muslim Arabs arrived in the 7th century, who were led by Abdur Rahman bin Samara. It later fell to the Saffarids of Zaranj and saw the first Muslim rule. Mahmud of Ghazni made it part of the Ghaznavids in the 10th century, who were replaced by the Ghurids.

After the destructions caused by Genghis Khan and his Mongol army in the 13th century, the Timurids established rule and began rebuilding Afghan cities. From about 1383 until his death in 1407, it was governed by Pir Muhammad, a grandson of Timur. By the early 16th century, it fell to Babur. However, the area was often contested by the Shia Safavids and Sunni Mughals until the rise of Mir Wais Hotak in 1709. He defeated the Safavids and established the Hotaki dynasty. The Hotakis ruled it until 1738 when the Afsharids defeated Shah Hussain Hotaki at what is now Old Kandahar.

In 1747, it finally submitted to Ahmad Shah Durrani and since then remained part of the modern state of Afghanistan. Some fighting took place during the 19th century Anglo-Afghan wars between the British and the local Afghans. In 1880, the British assisted the forces of Abdur Rahman Khan in re-establishing Afghan rule over the warring tribes. The area stayed calm for 100 years until the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Helmand was the center of the USAID program in the 1960s to develop the Helmand and Arghandab Valley Authority (HAVA) â€“ it became known locally as "little America". The program laid out tree-lined streets in Lashkar Gah, built a network of irrigation canals and constructed a large hydroelectric dam. The development program was abandoned when pro-Soviet Union forces seized power in 1978, although much of the province is still irrigated by the HAVA.

More recently the USAID program has contributed to a counter-narcotics initiative called the Alternative Livelihoods Program (ALP) in the province. It pays communities to work to improve their environment and economic infrastructure as an alternative to opium poppy farming. The project undertakes drainage and canal rehabilitation projects. In 2005 and 2006, there were problems in getting promised finance to communities and this is a source of considerable tension between the farmers and the Coalition forces[citation needed]

It was announced in January 2006 in the British Parliament that International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) would replace the U.S. troops in the province as part of Operation Herrick. The British 16 Air Assault Brigade would be the core of the force in Helmand Province. British bases were located in the districts of Sangin, Lashkar Gah and Gereshk. British forces were replaced in Sangin by elements of the United States Marine Corps I Marine Expeditionary Force Forward.

As of Summer 2006, Helmand was one of the provinces involved in Operation Mountain Thrust, a combined NATO-Afghan mission targeted at Taliban fighters in the south of the country. In July 2006, this offensive mission essentially stalled in Helmand as NATO, primarily British, and Afghan troops were forced to take increasingly defensive positions under heavy insurgent pressure. In response, British troop levels in the province were increased, and new encampments were established in Sangin and Gereshk. Fighting has been particularly heavy in the districts of Sangin, Naway, Nawzad and Garmsir. There were reports that the Taliban saw Helmand province as a key testing area for their ability to take and hold Afghan territory from NATO-led Afghan National Security Forces.[11] Commanders on the ground have described the situation as the most brutal conflict the British Army has been involved in since the Korean War.

In Autumn 2006, British troops started to reach "cessation of hostilities" agreements with local Taliban forces around the district centers where they had been stationed earlier in the summer.[12] Under the terms of the agreement, both sets of forces were to withdraw from the conflict zone. This agreement from the British forces implied that the strategy of holding key bases in the district, as requested by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, was essentially untenable with the current levels of British troop deployment. The agreement was also a setback for Taliban fighters, who were desperate to consolidate their gains in the province, but were under heavy pressure from various NATO offensives.

News reports identified the insurgents involved in the fighting as a mix of Taliban fighters and warring tribal groups who are heavily involved in the province's lucrative opium trade.[13] Given the amount of drugs produced in the area, it is likely that foreign drug traffickers are also involved.

Fighting continued throughout the winter, with British and allied troops taking a more pro-active stance against the Taliban insurgents. Several operations were launched including the more recent Operation Silicone at the start of spring. In May 2007, Mullah Dadullah, one of the Taliban's top commanders, along with 11 of his men were killed by NATO-led Afghan forces in Helmand.

In April 2008, about 1,500 2nd Battalion 7th Marines occupied over 300 square miles (800Â km2) of Helmand River valley and neighboring Farah Province. The operation was to set up forward operation bases and train the Afghan National Police in an area with little or no outside support.

Also in 2008, an Embedded Training Team from the Oregon Army National Guard led a Kandak of Afghan National Army troops in fighting against the Taliban in Lashkar Gah, as seen in the documentary Shepherds of Helmand.

In June 2009, Operation Panther's Claw was launched with the stated aim of securing control of various canal and river crossings and establishing a lasting ISAF presence in an area described by Lt. Col. Richardson as "one of the main Taliban strongholds" ahead of the 2009 Afghan presidential election.

In July 2009, around 4,000 U.S. Marines pushed into the Helmand River valley in a major offensive to liberate the area from Taliban insurgents. The operation, dubbed Operation Khanjar (Operation Dagger), was the first major push since U.S. President Obama's request for 21,000 additional soldiers in Afghanistan, targeting the Taliban insurgents.

In February 2013, BBC reported that corruption occurs in Afghan National Police bases, with some bases arming children, using them as servants and sometimes sexually abusing them;[14] in early March 2013, the New York Times reported that government corruption is rampant with routine accusations against the police of shaking down and sexually abusing civilians causing loyalty to the government to be weaker.[15]

The current Governor of the province is Mirza Khan Rahimi.[1] The city of Lashkar Gah is the capital of Helmand province. All law enforcement activities throughout the province are controlled by the Afghan National Police (ANP). Helmand's border with neighboring Balochistan province of Pakistan is monitored and protected by the Afghan Border Police (ABP), which is part of the ANP. The border is called the Durand Line and is known to be one of the most dangerous in the world due to heavy militant activities and illegal smugglings. A provincial Police Chief is assigned to lead both the ANP. The Police Chief represents the Ministry of the Interior in Kabul. The ANP is backed by other Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), including the NATO-led forces.

Bost Airport serves the population of Helmand for domestic flights to other parts of the country. It is designed for civilian use. NATO-led forces are heavily using the airport at Camp Bastion, where Camp Leatherneck is located nearby.

There is no rail service. Primary roads include the ring road passes through Helmand from Kandahar to Delaram. There is a major north-south route (Highway 611) that goes from Lashkar Gah to Sangin. About 33% of Helmands roads are not passable during certain seasons and in some areas there are no roads at all.

Farming is the main source of income for the majority. This includes agriculture and animal husbandry. Animals include cows, sheep, goats, and chicken. Donkeys and camels are used for labor. The province has a potential for fishery. The region produce the following: opium, tobacco, sugar beets, cotton, sesame, wheat, mung beans, maize, nuts, sunflowers, onions, potato, tomato, cauliflower, peanut, apricot, grape and melon.

The percentage of households with clean drinking water fell from 28% in 2005 to 3% in 2011.[16] The percentage of births attended to by a skilled birth attendant increased from 2% in 2005 to 3% in 2011.[16]

The overall literacy rate (6+ years of age) increased from 5% in 2005 to 12% in 2011.[16] The overall net enrollment rate (6â€“13 years of age) fell from 6% in 2005 to 4% in 2011.[16]

The population of Helmand Province was reported at 879,500 in the year 2013.[2] It is mostly a tribal and rural society, with the native ethnic Pashtuns being the majority, followed by Baloch, Tajiks, Hazaras and others as the minority. There may also be small number of Hindus and Sikhs who run businesses in the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah.[17] The Pashtuns are divided into the following tribes: Barakzai (32%), Nurzai (16%), Alakozai (9%), and Eshaqzai (5.2%).[7] All the inhabitants practice Sunni Islam except the small number of Hazaras who are Shi'as and the Sikhs who follow Sikhism.


when did new zealand change to decimal currency

Switching to decimal currency had been proposed in New Zealand since the 1930s, although only in the 1950s did any plans come to fruition. In 1957, a committee was set up by the Government to investigate decimal currency. The idea fell on fertile ground, and in 1963, the Government decided to decimalise New Zealand currency.[4] The Decimal Currency Act was passed in 1964, setting the date of transition to 10 July 1967.[5] Words such as "fern", "kiwi" and "zeal" were proposed to avoid confusion with the word "dollar", which many people at the time associated with the United States dollar.[6][7] In the end, the word "dollar" was chosen anyway, and an anthropomorphic dollar note cartoon character called "Mr. Dollar" became the symbol of transition in a huge publicity campaign.[8]

New Zealand dollar

The New Zealand dollar (sign: $; code: NZD) (Māori: Tāra o Aotearoa) is the currency and legal tender of New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, the Ross Dependency, Tokelau, and a British territory, the Pitcairn Islands.[1] Within New Zealand, it is almost always abbreviated with the dollar sign ($), with "NZ$" sometimes used to distinguish it from other dollar-denominated currencies. In the context of currency trading, it is often informally called the "Kiwi",[2] since New Zealand is commonly associated with the indigenous bird and the one-dollar coin depicts a kiwi.

Introduced in 1967, the dollar is subdivided into 100 cents. Altogether there are ten denominations—five coins and five banknotes—with the smallest being the 10-cent coin. Formerly there were lower denominations, but those were discontinued due to inflation and production costs.

The New Zealand dollar is consistently one of the 10 most traded currencies in the world, being approximately 2.0% of global foreign exchange market daily turnover in 2013.[3]

Prior to the introduction of the New Zealand dollar in 1967, the New Zealand pound was the currency of New Zealand, which had been distinct from the pound sterling since 1933. The pound used the £sd system, in which the pound was divided into 20 shillings and one shilling was divided into 12 pence, which by the 1950s was considered complicated and cumbersome.

On Monday 10 July 1967 ("Decimal Currency Day"), the New Zealand dollar was introduced to replace the pound at a rate of two dollars to one pound (one dollar to ten shillings, ten cents to one shilling, 5⁄6 cent to a penny).[9] Some 27 million new banknotes were printed and 165 million new coins were minted for the changeover.[6]

The New Zealand dollar was initially pegged to the US dollar at US$1.43 = NZ$1. This rate changed on 21 November of the same year to US$1.12 = NZ$1 after the devaluation of the British pound (see Bretton Woods system), although New Zealand devalued more than the UK.[10]

In 1971 the US devalued its dollar relative to gold, leading New Zealand on 23 December to peg its dollar at US$1.216 with a 4.5% fluctuation range, keeping the same gold value. From 9 July 1973 to 4 March 1985 the dollar's value was determined from a trade-weighted basket of currencies.

The NZ$ was floated on 4 March 1985 at the initial rate of US$0.4444. Since then the dollar's value has been determined by the financial markets, and has been in the range of about US$0.39 to 0.88.

The dollar's post-float low was US$0.3922 on 22 November 2000, and it reached a post-float high on 9 July 2014 of US$0.8821. Much of this medium-term variation in the exchange rate has been attributed to differences in interest rates.[citation needed]

The New Zealand dollar's value is often strongly affected by currency trading,[citation needed] and is among the 10 most-traded currencies.[11]

On 11 June 2007 the Reserve Bank sold an unknown worth of New Zealand dollars for nine billion USD in an attempt to drive down its value. This is the first intervention in the markets by the Bank since the float in 1985.

Two suspected interventions followed, but they were not as successful as the first: the first appeared to be initially effective, with the dollar dropping to approximately US$0.7490 from near US$0.7620. However, within little more than a month it had risen to new post-float highs, reaching US$0.8103 on 23 July 2007.

After reaching its post-float record high in early 2008, the value of the NZ$ plummeted throughout much of the 2nd half of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 as a response to the global economic downturn and flight by investors away from "riskier" currencies such as the NZ$. The NZ$ bottomed out at approximately US$0.50 on 6 March 2009.[12] However, it rebounded strongly as the year progressed, reaching the US$0.75 range by November 2009.[12]

By late 2012, the dollar was holding above 80 US cents, occasionally reaching 85Â¢, prompting calls from the Green Party for quantitative easing.[13][14] Unions also called on the Government and the Reserve Bank to take action, but as of February 2013 both had declined.[15]

As of early June, 2017, the NZD was trading at approximately US$0.71.[16]

On the introduction of the dollar, coins came in denominations of 1¢, 2¢, 5¢, 10¢, 20¢ and 50¢. The 1¢ and 2¢ coins were bronze, the others were cupro-nickel.[17] To ease transition, the 5¢, 10¢ and 20¢ were the same size as the sixpence, shilling and florin that they respectively replaced. Until 1970 the ten-cent coin bore the additional legend "One Shilling". The obverse designs of all the coins featured Arnold Machin's portrait of Queen Elizabeth II, with the legend ELIZABETH II NEW ZEALAND [date]. The reverse sides of coins introduced in 1967 did not follow the designs that were originally intended for them. Those modern art and sculpture themed designs were leaked to a newspaper and met a very negative public reaction. The final releases were given more conservative designs in line with public expectations.

In 1986, New Zealand adopted Raphael Maklouf's new portrait of the Queen. The 1¢ and 2¢ coins were last minted for circulation in 1987, with collector coins being made for 1988. The coins were demonetised on 30 April 1990.[17] The lack of 1¢ and 2¢ coins meant that cash transactions were normally rounded to the nearest 5¢ (10¢ from 2006), a process known as Swedish rounding.

On 11 February 1991, aluminium-bronze $1 and $2 coins were introduced to replace existing $1 and $2 notes.[17] In 1999, Ian Rank-Broadley's portrait of the Queen was introduced and the legend rearranged to read NEW ZEALAND ELIZABETH II.

On 11 November 2004 the Reserve Bank announced that it proposed to take the 5¢ coin out of circulation and to make the 50¢, 20¢ and 10¢ coins smaller and use plated steel to make them lighter. After a three-month public submission period that ended on 4 February 2005, the Reserve Bank announced on 31 March that it would go ahead with the proposed changes. The changeover period started on 31 July 2006, with the old coins usable until 31 October 2006.[17] The old 50¢, 20¢, 10¢ and 5¢ pieces are now no longer legal tender, but are still redeemable at the Reserve Bank. Prior to the change over, these coins were similar, same for the legend and reverse artwork, to international (mainly Commonwealth) coins of the same British-derived sizes, which led to coins from other currencies, particularly older coins, being accepted by vending machines and many retailers.

In 1967, notes were introduced in denominations of $1, $2, $5, $10, $20 and $100, with all except the $5 replacing their pound predecessors. The original series of dollar notes featured on the obverse a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II wearing Queen Alexandra's Kokoshnik tiara, King George's VI festoon necklace, and Queen Mary's floret earrings, while the reverse featured native birds and plants.[19] The notes were changed slightly in 1981 due to a change of printer (from De La Rue to Bradbury, Wilkinson & Co.)â€”the most noticeable difference being the portrait based upon a photograph by Peter Grugeon, in which Queen Elizabeth II is wearing Grand Duchess Vladimir's tiara and Queen Victoria's golden jubilee necklace.[19] The $50 note was added in 1983 to fill the long gap between the $20 and the $100 notes. $1 and $2 notes were discontinued in 1991 after being replaced with coins.

A new series of notes was introduced in 1992. The obverse of each note featured a notable New Zealander, while the reverse featured a native New Zealand bird and New Zealand scenery. In 1999, polymer notes replaced the paper notes. The designs remained much the same, but were changed slightly to accommodate new security features, with the most obvious changes being the two transparent windows.

New banknotes are being printed in New Zealand at the moment. The new notes are the same sizes and denominations as the older banknotes, and they will continue to be made of the same flexible plastic material. The themes of the notes remain the same, with the same respected New Zealanders, the Queen, and flora and fauna remaining central to the designs. The $5 and $10 notes were released in October 2015, with the $20, $50 and $100 notes set to release in April 2016. The old New Zealand banknotes and the new 'Brighter Money' banknotes can be used interchangeably for the time being.[20]

Since the older banknotes were first issued in 1999, security features and the technology for designing and printing banknotes have all advanced considerably. And while counterfeiting rates in New Zealand are low compared to the rest of the world, the New Zealand public and government agree that it is in the best interest to "stay one step ahead of the game", hence the new notes.[20]

New Zealand $5 note (sixth-issue)

New Zealand $10 note (sixth-issue)

New Zealand $20 note (sixth-issue)

New Zealand $50 note (sixth-issue)

New Zealand $100 note (sixth-issue)

New Zealand's five-dollar note has been named the banknote of the year for 2015, a "clear winner" among nearly 40 eligible designs from a record 20 countries. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand released the new $5 and $10 notes in October as part of its Brighter Money range. The $5 shows mountaineer Sir Edmund Hillary facing the South Island's Aoraki/Mount Cook, and, on the other side, a rare yellow-eyed penguin and local flora.

With the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, both Australia and New Zealand converted the mostly-fixed foreign exchange regimes to a moving peg against the US dollar.

In September 1974, Australia moved to a peg against a basket of currencies called the trade weighted index (TWI) in an effort to reduce fluctuations associated with its peg to the US dollar. The peg to the TWI was changed to a moving peg in November 1976, causing the actual value of the peg to be periodically adjusted.

Since the late 1990s, and certainly since the end of the Cold War the US dollar has had less and less overall influence over the value of both the NZ$ and A$ against other currencies.[citation needed]

The New Zealand dollar contributes greatly to the total global exchange marketâ€”far in excess of New Zealand's relative share of population or global GDP.

According to the Bank for International Settlements, the New Zealand dollar's share of global foreign exchange market daily turnover in 2016 was 2.1% (up from 1.6% in 2010) giving it a rank of 11th.[3] Trading in the currency has climbed steadily since the same survey in 1998 when the NZD's ranking was 17th and the share of turnover was just 0.2%.