rabble.ca Canadian federal election blog

Where’s the real money?

By David Suzuki

Less than a day to go to the election and, as I feared, the environment has disappeared from election discourse. All the leaders are scrambling to respond to a tanking global economy. But who has considered this crisis to ask some really important questions like how did politicians sell us out to forces of the global economy that are out of our control? I was astounded at the panic in the U.S. government that led that it to pass, in a matter of days, a bill committing $700 BILLION to banks that merrily made oodles of money in a phoney scheme that was built on nothing. It looks as though even 700-billion big ones will not be enough to pull us out of a severe recession, if not a full-blown depression. I’m already in full-blown depression about where we are heading.

Former U.S. vice-president and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore is always saying that the Chinese character for crisis is made up of two parts. One part is “danger” and the other is “opportunity”, and I couldn’t agree more. Surely in a time of great crisis – and the economy and energy situation are crises – we should be asking some profound questions like, “How did we get into this mess?”, “What are our options for a sustainable future?” and “How much is enough?” It doesn’t make sense to simply shovel more money into a system that is so clearly defective.

The term sustainability has become so overused that it’s almost lost its meaning. It means living within the productive capacity of the biosphere without compromising its availability for our children and all future generations. So let’s think about energy. Fossil and nuclear fuels are non-renewable, meaning they will run out, so no society can think in terms of genuine sustainability if it is based on these fuels. Add to that the fact that nuclear and fossil fuels aren’t evenly distributed and often tend to be concentrated in geopolitically volatile regions, and that only creates more problems. On top of that, using fossil and nuclear fuels generates huge problems of global warming and radioactive waste that our children and grandchildren will have to live with.

And when you reflect on the explosive rise in prices for both fossil and nuclear fuels, you have to realize it just doesn’t make any sense to build a future around them. The sun radiates massive amounts of clean energy, every day, on almost all parts of the Earth. Plants use sunlight and carbon dioxide in photosynthesis to provide all the energy we have in our bodies, and still there’s lots of sunlight left over to power our electrical grids. The sun creates tides and the sunlight interacting with the planet generates wind that we can use.

A real sustainable energy future must be based on the sun’s beneficence. At this moment, rather than trying to extract every last drop of oil and gas from increasingly remote, hostile places or low-grade ecologically expensive sources like tar sands and oil shale, or commencing a program of nuclear energy that will be incredibly expensive and take years to get up and running, why not put a fraction of what is being spent on Iraq or banks into windmills and solar panels that will immediately start to put energy on the grid? It will create huge numbers of sustainable jobs.

We are at the very beginning of a revolution in renewable energy, and I believe huge breakthroughs will come from investing in more research and development. The energy crisis is a huge opportunity to focus on sustainability and the potential for clean energy and lots of jobs.

Let’s stop trying to save the Liberals from themselves

by Scott Piatkowski

Imagine, if you will, that the levels of support for each political party were represented by containers of water.

The container representing the Conservatives is almost full (much the same level as it was in 2006), but there is no opportunity for it to reach full capacity. In fact, the water in that container is so stagnant that it’s clearly starting to evaporate. Of course, that doesn’t stop the Liberals and their cheerleaders in the media from talking about the looming threat that the Conservative container could reach its full capacity and even overflow — even though there is little or no evidence that that’s going to happen.

So, let’s focus on the Liberal and the NDP containers. The Liberal container was full at one point and there are many who believe that it can be made full again if they keep adding water. But, the problem is that the container is leaking badly. A combination of corruption, arrogance and a complete unwillingness to do the job of opposition (because they’re honestly convinced that they should still be in government) has poked so many holes in the Liberal container that it can’t hold its support.

Meanwhile, the NDP container is steadily filling up. With each election, NDP support ends up at a higher level — but never as high it could be. But, say the experts, the NDP container can never be full enough to challenge the Conservatives (and we all know that the Conservative container could be filled to capacity if we’re not careful). So, each election the call goes out: the Liberals are leaking support (again); we must take some of the support from the NDP (again) to top up the Liberal container.

But let’s look at an alternative scenario. Instead of continually transferring support from the NDP to the Liberals (to make up for the Liberals’ inability to attract support on their own merits), what if we just let the Liberals’ continue to leak until they figure out a way to plug the holes? What if we let the NDP container continue to fill up instead of constantly siphoning off support in an ongoing attempt to save the Liberals from themselves?

Remember, we already know that we don’t have to worry about the level of the Conservative container. Regardless of how badly the Liberals do or how well the NDP does, it’s already got as full as it’s going to get. That’s far from majority levels.

But, think about the prospect of the Conservatives facing a real opposition — one that is growing in support and has the potential to grow even more — instead of an opposition that is afraid of its own shadow, as it clings to memories of a time that its container was almost always full (almost as if they were Canada’s National Governing Party).

That’s the opportunity that awaits us as we go to the polls tomorrow. Don’t waste your vote on the Liberals. They’ve done nothing to earn it. Moreover, they’ll never really learn if they keep managing to avoid the consequences of their actions.

Instead, give your to the one party that not only consistently opposed Stephen Harper for the past two-and-a-half years, but also the party that has offered a clear alternative vision for governing this country in a progressive manner. Tomorrow, when you go to vote, put your X beside the name of your local NDP candidate.

Get Out and (Strategic) Vote

By Marc Lee

I feel for other bloggers on rabble.ca’s election blog who want people to vote their convictions. A few recent posts have denounced strategic voting, even if it means a Harper majority government. I don’t get it.

For the first time ever, the web can play a real difference in this election. Sites like VoteforEnvironment.ca offer the promise of defeating an arrogant government by organizing within the a first-past-the-post system that basically sucks in reflecting democratic preferences. And vote sharing sites offer the potential for people to make a strategic vote but have their real preference supported elsewhere in the country.

Electing a Harper majority will not move forward the goal of a proportional representation electoral system (a goal I support). But in the next four to five years a Harper majority could cause immense damage, affecting millions of people. We are headed for a recession, and if world leaders cannot pull off a meaningful plan, worse. That economic context will give plenty of justification for sharply reducing federal transfers to provinces (in support of health care, post-secondary education and other social services) and to individuals (senior’s benefits, children’s benefits and unemployment insurance) in order to keep the budget balanced as revenues fall.

But imagine a new post-election narrative in this campaign: not Harper gets majority nor Harper kept to minority; instead, Harper loses the government (due to blunders in Quebec and on the economy, but much aided by an internet uprising). So get out there and vote strategically. It may taste a bit odd in the booth but when the results are announced it could be really sweet.

24, 24 hours to go …

by rabble staff

… or less. So if you are not out doing some last minute campaigning, here’s some great reading and listening from rabble.ca:

Late last month, Naomi Klein spoke in Toronto on the financial crisis and the Canadian election - listen to it here, courtesy of the rabble podcast network. And, in case you missed it, rabble’s Duncan Cameron made the case that the crisis shows the need for “old socialism” in his column last week.

On a related issue, Ellen Gould reveals that Harper’s government has in fact championed the deregulation that has put the U.S. economy in such a tailspin.

Alice Klein looks at the certainties that this campaign has undone. Doug Nesbitt, meanwhile, argues that so-called strategic voting lets the Liberals off the hook. Murray Dobbin, for his part, looks at Elizabeth May’s strategic voting dilemma.

Finally, Rick Salutin looks at the impact of a war supported by the Liberals, Conservatives and Obama down south, analyzing Canada’s expensive Afghanistan blowback.

Thank God it is Over Soon

by Pierre Beaudet

Some times you wake up in the morning and think, ‘why I have put myself in such a lousy situation’! Your relationship is fucked up. You hate your job. Even the roof is leaking. And then you started to reflect. ‘I should have done this and that because for sure, all of this mess did no start today. I should not have engaged with this particular soul. Why did I not have the guts to take this job that could have … and yes, I knew there was a crack in the house. Well now you have to start anew. You are full of good resolutions. ‘I am going to this and do that’.  First thing first, I am going to fix what I can TODAY, because, the first step in the long march is where it starts. So then if you are very courageous, you move. But often after a while, your resolutions become weaker. You have repaired the leak after all, but rebuilding the roof is complicated and costly. You had a discussion with your mate, so at least you can talk with that person without hoping the sky would crash on him/her. You don’t feel too good about it, but then you think ‘I am no superman’, I do what I can. And so life goes on.

It reminds me of our present political mess. We definitely are in a big dark hole. Talk about the financial crisis, the climate change crisis, the energy crisis, the militarization crisis. Without being a genius, many of us think, ‘this is a turning point’. And then we have the lousy small time politics, the spins, the lies, the cheating and the selling. Moreover, we have the State, a monstrous engine of deceit and control. The state creeps in our lives, our structures, our minds through reactionary and useless tools to punish and reward. It’s terrible and we know it.  But what can we do? From day to day, we have the choice between the worst and the terrible. We deflect, we maneuver, we try to avoid being hit in the face. And right how, fixing the roof means defeating the Harper revolution. You have to do what you have to do.

But what else? Can I find the courage to rebuild the house? Can I get out of the box?  The current political system is fundamentally irreformable. Its genetic code has been messed up. The idea that a tiny ruling class related by a bunch of unaccountable politicians and invisible bureaucrats can rule the place cannot work, we see now the results. And for sure, replacing one bunch of clowns by another won’t do much good on the long term. In rare but important historical junctures, it happens that people break out. Call it right now Bolivia or Nepal. Call it the not-so-quiet revolution of the 1960s in Quebec. Call it the decolonization of Africa. They are magical moments when people decide to go far and to go bold.

Where are we now? In the past days, we have been discussing a lot about ‘strategic voting’, ABH, and opposing the real and imminent danger. It’s fine and important. Tuesday night, we will see if all of these efforts have avoided the disaster. But Wednesday morning, you will probably start your and ask yourself, ‘what is my life such a mess’?!?!

Speak White

by Pierre Beaudet

Jeffrey Simpson is an intelligent guy, not one of these cowboys. Yesterday in La Presse, he came out with his usual twist. Basically, Québécois are spoiled brats, they are ‘using’ Canada like a ‘cash machine’. They should be disciplined at some point, and politicians should warn them clearly, ‘accept the rules of the games or else…’  He was very angry that apparently, Québécois will vote for the Bloc Tuesday.

Stephen Harper in a desperate move today in Québec City said something like that, ‘you will be punished’.  Stephen is ‘warning’ us, ‘you will pay the price’. The next Conservative government will make us suffer because we won’t have voted for them.

A few years back when a bum called ‘Lord’ Black was around, he (or maybe his wife) said that sane Canadians should do with Quebec like Israel is doing with the Palestinians. ‘Give them a little piece of land between Trois-Rivières and Chicoutimi. Let’s liberate ourselves from these semi humans’ since ‘there is nothing we can to civilize them really’. If the small guy does not agree, he needs to be punished. First, the empire will try to teach them a lesson or two. If it does not work, we can always confine, isolate, make them pay. Because for sure, ‘they are not going to be able to rule themselves’.

In the meanwhile, Québécois have no reason at all to claim their rights. It’s ‘take it or leave it’. The fact that the constitution was imposed on Quebec is a ‘technical problem’. If Quebec’s economy is always on the edge, it’s because ‘Québécois do not know how to do business’. Quebec’s political culture is inherently ‘corrupted’ (from Duplessis to Jean Chrétien). Discrimination against French speakers in the federal state or in provinces where they were denied their basic rights is a myth. And on and on.

In the imaginary of the imperial mindset, the colonized has to love the colonizer. He has to understand that he depends on the power holder. He has to know that the empire does it for the good of the small people. The savages have to accept. After all, ‘we are here to save you, to teach you, to civilize you’. ‘we cannot accept that you don’t love us’.

A few years back, the poet Michèle Lalonde, said it well:

speak white
de Westminster à Washington relayez-vous
speak white comme à Wall Street
white comme à Watts
be civilized
et comprenez notre parler de circonstance
quand vous nous demandez poliment
how do you do
et nous entendez vous répondre
we’re doing all right
we’re doing fine
we
are not alone

Said brutally like ‘Lord’ Black or politely like Simpson, it comes to the same thing which is frightfully shared by many Canadians. Worse than that, nice Canadians (I remember one in a conference hosted by the Social Justice Center from Toronto) will tell us, ‘but we love you’. The idea that the colonial history and its legacy distort this land and the peoples living in it is not understandable.

Jack Layton in substance does not say the contrary. Yesterday in Montreal, he said he would ‘fix’ federalism to make it ‘asymmetrical’ so that it would be more ‘convenient’ for Quebec. He could not (or was it too much to ask), to say the R word: you have the right to decided on your own destiny’ …

Elizabeth May be Nader?

by Beisan Zubi

http://www.voteforenvironment.ca/may-surge-could-make-difference-between-harper-majority-and-liberal-minority

It seems that strategic voting has reared its head again.  The overwhelming fear that another Conservative government (and potential Haper majority) might take place on Tuesday has lead “Vote for Environment” to subtly encourage supporters of Elizabeth May’s Green party to be shrewd with their votes in certain ridings.

It seems so counter-intuitive that a website dedicated to the environment, and espousing environmental policies that only the Greens have come close in completely representing would at once praise the Greens for their popularity and vision as well as backhandedly suggest that they would be responsible for the Conservatives winning in close ridings, such as Oakville’s.

This hypocrisy smacks of the whole Ralph Nader debacle in 2000 and reminds me of his retort, when accused of taking the votes that would have made the difference: “Why don’t you start blaming the people that voted for Bush?” Why are we, as a country, focusing on the left wing and telling them how to vote, instead of being more critical of those who put and keep Steven Harper in government?

There comes a point when all of this halt-Harper-ism stops being for the benefit of the environment and the arts and actually starts fostering a genuine fear in the electorate.  This is further proof that until we have proportional representation, nobody will be free to vote with their hearts.