The "path to sustainability"

The words are code, of course, for celebration of globalism where business and capital dominate unions and labour and holdings of wealth become concentrated, where law and order supersedes civil rights, where corporations rank above people, where environmentalism, with concern for the land and its people, is subservient to greed and objective science is abandoned, even suppressed.

Categories: Environment, Labour

7 replies »

  1. You know Norm – in the municipal climate of Vancouver we're seeing a change in alignment. The unions and developers seem to be backing the same party. Vision Vancouver is an opportunistic entity: it was voted in as COPE, waving the banner to “eliminate homelessness”, and immediately shed it's cover in favour of unbridled development. Funded by the deep pockets of real estate and labour, is it any wonder why the low-income community is getting more desperate to get their voices heard?


  2. Exactly right in my view Anon 3:48 pm. No surprise to me to see unions and developers hobnobbing. All parties are “opportunistic”.

    Unions (a form of political party) also love to wave the banner of being “for the people” but no one should forget that unions exist to serve their own interests first, regardless of how many expensive ads they run telling us they're there for our children and old folks. Let's not make the mistake and assume that union interests = citizen interests. That's often just not the case.

    Nor do I support the notion that “economics” are everything. No point in having a job if you can't afford to eat, or if what you eat is garbage or … if there's nothing left to eat. Or if you can't breathe the air or drink the water.

    We must change our political system. Party politics in Canada has become so corrupted, it's become a theatre of the absurd, warped to such a degree that it can no longer function, like over-bred factory turkeys so altered that they cannot walk or mate.

    I support the idea of electing independent candidates in the next provincial election, ones whose only allegiance is to the constituents and their region. That's a form of proportional representation right there on its own, and is achievable without the overwhelming task of trying to transform the creaking first-past-the-post system into some type of proportional representation. The mechanism to elect independent candidates is already in place.

    I say we boycott party politics altogether.

    That way, there'd be no more pals rewarding pals, whichever party is in power. Enough. We've got two good independent MLAs already (Bob Simpson and Vicki Huntington). So, it's not impossible that there might be other ridings with other exemplary individuals who stand a fighting chance of being elected.

    Imagine having an MLA who is not hog-tied and muzzled by a party boss. What an invigorating concept!


  3. I don't disagree but how to we get from here to there? What practical steps can we make? How can our expressions be anything more than idealistic words that people will acknowledge but discard?

    The old line political parties are captives of special interests who don't want change. There is no means for ordinary citizens to exercise control of the political system. We're left one opportunity in 4 years to cast a vote but often the best choice has been “none of the above.” Even fine candidates once elected become relatively powerless, mere pawns of the party leadership.



  4. Certainly a tough road to a solution. Are there parallel's in history, perhaps?
    Other than armed insurrection, that recourse usually makes matters worse, what would be a definitive solution?

    The party concept from the british parliamentary model, is by know means a perfect system. Rife with opportunity for abuse, as we have already seen, this “model” may have outlived its usefulness, in a modern democracy.

    Independents would have to be “compelled” to run without party affiliation. What form of government would that produce? Massive coalitions don't work, think Italy for example. Many parties but few long term governments. Very little done. What inducement, would be used to get people to actually run? Without a formal structure, how would a government actually operate? All issues would have to be debated, voted on and still coalitions or co-operative groups, would form in order to negotiate and work out, preferences and agenda's.

    Seems like an impossible way, to form some sort of government. Intresting topic. Hope there is more discussion here, on this topic…


  5. Politicians are not about, what is good for the people, provinces and the country. They are out to fill their own coffers, for their own selfish goals.

    The Campbell/Clark BC Liberals, all work for Harper. Boessenkool another Harper Conservative, has been placed in with the BC Liberals. Van Dongen a BC Liberals, is now with the BC Conservatives. The BC Conservatives support, Harper's Enbridge pipeline and the dirty tar tankers.

    The words Nazi, Fascist and Dictator, are not supposed to be written nor said. Canadian citizens are called, pedophiles, the Taliban and terrorists, by government leaders. However, Harper has the same typo personality as, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini. The Northern Foundation Party from 1989, is Harper's true party.


  6. “How can our expressions be anything more than idealistic words that people will acknowledge but discard?”

    Yes Norm, this is a valid question. I looked at a recent photo of myself. All of the hair on my forehead has been worn off from being patted on the head by decision makers (or potential decision makers) and being told “great comments, it is so good of you to be involved in the process”. I am weary of “them” thinking they have consoled me and that I will just go away.

    You have said it many times….one side saying “Run along, nothing to see here” and the other side just like Canadian Canary says “hog-tied and muzzled by a party boss”.

    Its been mentioned before, a busfull of bloggers I say….camped out on the Legislature lawn….with an open challenge to have any of our professional media present to do interviews. These interviews would be YouTubed in their entirety for comparison to what would actually get printed/shown in their “news”casts.

    These bloggers absolutely do not agree on everything, but the expression and reasoning behind their points of view and the depth of their research far exceeds that of many of our influential local “journalists”. Regardless of the differences in policy any one group supports, there is a lot of common ground. That common ground is rooted in openness and integrity with emphasis on things that are good for the people as a whole, not just a few appointed officials or a few corporate shareholders.


  7. Out of all the things the Harper Government has done over the last 12 months, I think the most devastating will prove to be the elimination of the per vote subsidy to political parties.

    Let me recap – in Nov '08, a month after he was first elected in Oct, Harper moved to eliminate the subsidy. This led to a pending no-confidence vote and the eager coalition of the 3 opposition parties. Harper ran from the potential loss of confidence, gained his first prorogation, and shut down Parliament.

    We've been suffering ever since!

    “Parties will have to find ways of getting money. And there may well be pressure to come back to funding from corporate sources—the very things we've attempted to eliminate and have successfully eliminated. Which would bring us back to a regime where donations not by individuals but through other interests, political parties would be beholden to, other than normal Canadians.”
    — former Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley, April 6, 2011

    Days after winning a majority government on May 2 '11, the Harper Government succeeded in eliminating the per vote subsidy to political parties.

    “It is a mean-spirited attempt by the Harper government to limit the resources of other parties and to create a situation where the wealthiest will have the most influence. The simple and very inexpensive per-vote subsidy is a very fair way to ensure that parties would be funded based on their popular support, allowing them the resources to represent those that support their respective views.”
    — Glen Hodgson, Green Party, May 2011

    Twelve months later, I think we're seeing the consequences of this change in party funding.
    Business is being pandered to and the public is irrelevant.


Leave a reply but be on topic and civil.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s