CANADIAN POLITICS:

SOME LATE LATE NIGHT THOUGHTS ON THE RECENT CANADIAN ELECTION:

It's been decades since I voted in any governmental elections (the associations that I belong to don't count). Still, like a reformed smoker, I find myself glued to the TV as election results pour in. The recent election results here in Canada were, if nothing else, interesting. It's been almost two weeks so far, and I have yet to hear the 5:00 am knock at the door that signals that Stephan Harper's friends have come to take me away to the re-education camp. Not that such a thing is beyond him or his buddies, but I give him more credit than that for intelligence.

This election was a do or die affair for Harper and also for the Conservative Party. Without a win Harper would be gone, and the next leader would have either been from the wacky fringe of Biblical literalists (think Stockwell Day) or would have had nowhere near the talent and vision of Harper. Make no mistake about it; Harper does indeed have what has been called his "hidden agenda", but he also has the realism that says that this horror should be imposed by a thousand cuts rather than a "revolution". Look to more of the same with, of course, a bit more corruption and a bit more arrogance in terms of corporate giveaways. In other words a slim Conservative majority will be about the same, though a bit sleazier, as a Conservative minority government. The sky hasn't fallen nor have the evangelical militias come to take your poor little scribe away.

It's true that to borrow the old and hoary Zen koan form, "before the election life goes on; during the election things become confused and after the election life goes on". Unless, of course, you are a Liberal or BQiste. For them the sky did indeed fall and rather spectacularly. To all intents the BQ is finished, and it would be better for them to fold up with as much grace as they can muster. They've always occupied a rather odd spot in the Canadian political spectrum anyways. As for the Liberals it is exceedingly hard to feel any sympathy for them. While in power they became almost as arrogant and crooked as the Conservatives...which takes some doing. Whether they remain as a rump of their past glory depends pretty well exclusively on what the NDP does with its new-found status as official opposition. Nothing !!!! the Liberals can do on their own matters very much.

The NDP. I think it goes without saying that nobody expected the surge in NDP support on election night, even the NDP themselves with their bluster about Layton as Prime Minister. Not that this new status is without its dangers. The natural tendency of a party like the NDP would be to swing right and vacuum up the Liberal support. There is, however, a limit to this in the fact that the majority of their sitting members come from Québec. Not all of these people are "symbolic candidates" who got elected on the party's coat-tails. A good number of them will want policy that is to the left of where the NDP is presently, let alone where they would have to go to sponge up Liberal support. I'm surprised that more people haven't noticed the historical parallels to the explosion of Social Credit support in Québec, and what happened subsequently.

So where does that leave us Canadians ? I can say that I wasn't disappointed by the NDP surge even though I have few illusions about the Party. They ran what has probably been one of the most effective campaigns in Canadian political history, carefully avoiding the over-the-top attack rhetoric of both the Conservatives and Liberals. They were also able to distract attention from the fact that they had little in the way of large scale vision and policy by making a few attractive promises and using the emotional buzz words to far greater effect than the old parties. I honestly believe that if you were to read the speeches of Layton as compared to those of Harper that you would find that Layton used the term "family" far more than than the 'Family Guy Harper'.

I can also say, however, that I was disappointed that we didn't have another minority government. That configuration sets much more comfortable limits on the damage that a political party can do. Which spins us back to Harper again. No doubt there is a selection of the so-called "radical" political class that is quaking in its boots over the removal of the petty funding it has been provided with for many years to pretend to be an opposition. The main result of Harper's first (and one hopes only) term will be a redivision of the spoils as debts are collected so to speak. I have little doubt that Harper does indeed have a "hidden agenda", but he also has a public one that he has hardly been shy about expressing. What the guy wants to do is build a long lasting "conservative consensus" in the country. This doesn't preclude "paying off his buddies". I would expect an ever accelerating number of scandals as Conservative politics seems to attract a great number of people who are "down to the bone crooked". I think, however, that both Harper's friends and his enemies seriously underestimate both his cunning and his opportunism.

So, as I said, I expect very much more of the same in the days to come. I am not complaining too much. For a much more pessimistic view of Canada's politics I refer the reader to a recent item at the Porkupine Blog. On a personal note I am happy that the Greens got a member elected, but I wish it could have been somebody other than Elizabeth May. This isn't solely because her opportunism puts Harper to shame nor is it because she is the right wing favourite in a party whose ideological infighting supasses that of the NDP (Conservatives and Liberals, like countries, have no friends or beliefs...only interests). It finally came to me appropriately enough while I was taking a leak. The reason she inspires a visceral dislike in me is because her act could best be described as that of an elementary school teacher strung out on amphetamines.

CANADIAN POLITICS:
STRAIGHT FROM THE OTHER END OF THE HORSE-HARPER QUOTES:
To the tune of 'Those Were The Days'...things the Conservative leader would like forgotten. For the original sources of these quotes see this link.
Stephen Harper in his own words


Over the years, Stephen Harper has said a number of things that a great many Canadians would be shocked, and even appalled, to learn that they were said by someone who is now our Prime Minister. The following is just a sampling of those quotes:


"Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it less bilingual today than it has ever been. ... As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed."
Calgary Sun newspaper column, 2001


"You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society."
Report Magazine, 2001


"It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act."
"Firewall Letter", 2001


"That's why the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law."
Speaking as head of the National Citizens Coalition, 1998


"Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society. It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."
Interview with Terry O’Neill of BC Report


newsmagazine, 1999 "This government's only explanation for not standing behind our allies is that they couldn't get the approval of the Security Council at the United Nations - a body [on] which Canada doesn't even have a seat." CTV's Question Period, March 30, 2003


"I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians."
Speech to a Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, June 1997


"[Y]our country [the USA], and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world."
Speech to a Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, June 1997


"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it"
Speech to a Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, June 1997


"In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance."
Speech to a Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, June 1997


"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status ..."
Op-ed article in the National Post, December 12, 2000


"Now 'pay equity' has everything to do with pay and nothing to do with equity. It’s based on the vague notion of 'equal pay for work of equal value,' which is not the same as equal pay for the same job."
National Citizens Coalition Overview, Fall 1998


"For taxpayers, however, it’s [pay equity] a rip-off. And it has nothing to do with gender. Both men and women taxpayers will pay additional money to both men and women in the civil service. That’s why the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law."
National Citizens Coalition Overview, Fall 1998


"Whether Canada ends up as one national government, or two national governments, or several national governments or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion."
Speech made when he was a Reform Party MP, 1994

HUMOUR:

DARTH HARPER:

HUMOUR CANADIAN POLITICS: WHAT HARPER WANTS:

CANADIAN POLITICS TORONTO:

OCAP SPEAKS OUT ABOUT RECENT TORONTO CIVIC ELECTION:

No doubt they are cheering at the Fraser Institute with the recent election of Rob Ford as Mayor of Toronto. Never mind that "fiscal conservatives" have had a very dismal record at keeping budgetary deficits under control. One has only to look to our "beloved" federal government to see what "ending the gravy train" actually means. let alone the record of conservatives in power elsewhere in North America. Deficits are them. What is actually means is dealing out the gravy to others that are more favoured by a conservative mind-set. This will mean just as much expenditure, though on different items. True to his word ford's first priority on becoming Mayor of Canada's largest city is a "war on graffiti". What this means in reality is diverting the works and engineering department of Toronto from such things as road repair to cleaning walls. Looks good on the surface I guess.

Ford's election has made news across the world- literally. It has even been reported in the Chinese 'People's Daily'. How significant it is is another matter entirely. When the heat dies down it is likely that Ford will not be able to keep even a fraction of his "promises" about "cutting waste". A lot of his voodoo economics rests upon the assumption that there is enough spare city land to sell off to his friends (at no doubt reduced prices) to push the city into a surplus situation. The idea of tax cuts coupled with no reduction in services is, of course, pure fantasy.

It is, of course, civic election season here in Canada. Ford's election is actually less significant than that of the election of Naheed Nenshi as Mayor of Calgary. Not that his reign will be any different from that of a conservative such as Ford in terms of waste and cronyism. Yet, it was significant not just because he is of East Indian heritage (via Tanzania) nor because he is a Muslim. In Calgary !!! What is most significant is that he has been a University professor. The idea of Calgarians elected an "intellectual" of any political stripe says volumes about how much that city has changed in the past few years.

Meanwhile here in Winnipeg we will have our own civic election tomorrow. As usual Molly will not be voting. In terms of the mayoralty candidates it is the crooked right represented by Sam Katz versus the bureaucratic left represented by Judy Wasylycia-Leis. Hardly anything to chose from. It's all who you want picking your pocket and how you want the ill gotten gains spent. I'm almost tempted to vote in the local councillor elections just because the property developer candidate Jeff Browaty, the incumbent, approached me while I was trying to do some yard work and annoyed me. Never mind that he is into real estate which in my mind means he should be automatically barred from running for municipal office. His attitude and his physical appearance reminded me of two things. One is that he looks just like a mass murderer ala Colonel Russell Williams down in Ontario. The other is that he looks and acts like the high school "football hero" that school authorities used to use to bully the students back when I was young. Perhaps such people have more likelihood of ending up as mass murderers. To my family's great credit my brother broke the collarbone of one of these thugs when we were in high school. Threatening, pushy, obnoxious and interfering with my work. Sorry, Jeffy-poo, there are some you can't bully into putting a sign on the lawn. Don't even bother speaking loudly and demandingly at me. I'm not one of your underlings.

Ah well, the politics are over, but the struggle continues. Here's an item from the Ontario Coalition against Poverty (OCAP) about their opinion of Toronto's new Mayor.

CPCPCPCPCP
OCAP Gets Ready To Confront Rob Ford‏

Ontario Coalition Against Poverty Gets Ready to Confront New Toronto Mayor Rob Ford

Eight years of the progressive Mayor David Miller has meant little for the poorest people in Toronto. The former City Council and David Miller are responsible for 312 shelter beds for the homeless being cut with only 60 ever replaced. Promises of new shelters have been empty rhetoric, with people waiting years for any new spaces to open up. Gentrification has continued at high speed, Toronto Community Housing is looking to sell off properties, while the waiting list for housing is almost 10 years long. Transit fares have gone up and accessibility was one of the first things to be cut from the budget. Welfare rates are shamefully inadequate, while city administrators willfully deny people access to vital benefits such as the Special Diet Allowance. Poverty in Toronto has continued to grow under a so-called progressive Mayor. The City of Toronto is increasingly divided between the rich and the poor.

Now Toronto has elected Rob Ford as its new Mayor. OCAP knows Ford and his priorities all too well. He has consistently supported cuts to Welfare/ODSP including the recent cut to the Special Diet Allowance, spoken out against social programs, community housing, affordable transit, the homeless and immigrants. Ford's rhetoric in this campaign has been to 'end the gravy train at City Hall' and to 'respect the taxpayer'. What Rob Ford really means is all too familiar; cutting social services, housing and transit, while giving tax breaks to the wealthy. We will see cuts to services that poor people need on top of an already existing lack of funding to services thanks to Miller. If anything, the 'gravy train' for the rich will be all that Ford cares about.

"Rob Ford's agenda is the same as Mike Harris’ was in the 1990s –attacking poor people to benefit the wealthy." says OCAP organizer John Clarke. “During the Harris period Ontario saw unprecedented civil dissent and disruption, we are putting Ford on notice that he ought to expect the same." OCAP will be working with communities across Toronto to fight Ford’s agenda and defend the rights of poor people.

Media inquiries:416-925-6939

-----------------

To get involved:

Ontario Coalition Against Poverty

www.ocap.ca

ANARCHIST THEORY:

TO VOTE OR NOT TO VOTE THAT IS THE QUESTION:

Elections in the USA (and the City of Winnipeg) come at an interesting time of
year. Near enough to Halloween to compete in scariness, and near enough to Christmas to remind one that an actual gift is more than a promise. While it hasn't been an invariable tenet of anarchist thought to refuse participation in all elections (whatever some anarchists may think) it is a fact that anarchists have always been critical of the electoral process. Here's one thought provoking example from the Bureau of Public Secrets.

@@@@@@@@@@
THE LIMITS OF ELECTORAL POLITICS
http://www.bopsecrets.org/recent/beyond-voting.htm
Roughly speaking we can distinguish five degrees of "government":
(1) Unrestricted freedom
(2) Direct democracy
(3) Delegate democracy
(4) Representative democracy
(5) Overt minority dictatorship

The present society oscillates between (4) and (5), i.e. between overt minority rule and covert minority rule camouflaged by a facade of token democracy. A liberated society would eliminate (4) and (5) and would
progressively reduce the need for (2) and (3). . . .

In representative democracy people abdicate their power to elected officials. The candidates' stated policies are limited to a few vague generalities, and once they are elected there is little control over their actual decisions on hundreds of issues -- apart from the feeble threat of changing one's vote, a few years later, to some equally uncontrollable rival politician. Representatives are dependent on the wealthy for bribes and campaign contributions; they are subordinate to the owners of the mass media, who decide which issues get the publicity; and they are almost as ignorant and powerless as the general public regarding many important matters that are determined by unelected bureaucrats and independent secret agencies.

Overt dictators may sometimes be overthrown, but the real rulers in "democratic" regimes, the tiny minority who own or control virtually everything, are never voted in and never voted out. Most people don't even know who they are. . . . In itself, voting is of no great significance one way or the other (those who make a big deal about refusing to vote are only revealing their own fetishism). The problem is that it tends to lull people into relying on others to act for them, distracting them from more significant possibilities.

A few people who take some creative initiative (think of the first civil rights sit-ins) may ultimately have a far greater effect than if they had put their energy into campaigning for lesser-evil politicians. At best, legislators rarely do more than what they have been forced to do by popular movements. A conservative regime under pressure from independent radical movements often concedes more than a liberal regime that knows it can count on radical support. (The Vietnam war, for example, was not ended by electing antiwar politicians, but because there was so much pressure from so many different directions that the prowar president Nixon was forced to withdraw.)

If people invariably rally to lesser evils, all the rulers have to do in any situation that threatens their power is to conjure up a threat of some greater evil. Even in the rare case when a "radical" politician has a realistic chance of winning an election, all the tedious campaign efforts of thousands of people may go down the drain in one day because of some trivial scandal discovered in his (or her) personal life, or because he inadvertently says something intelligent. If he manages to avoid these pitfalls and it looks like he might win, he tends to evade controversial issues for fear of antagonizing swing voters. If he actually gets elected he is almost never in a position to implement the reforms he has promised, except perhaps after years of wheeling and dealing with his new colleagues; which gives him a good excuse to see his first priority as making whatever compromises are necessary to keep himself in office indefinitely.

Hobnobbing with the rich and powerful,he develops new interests and new tastes, which he justifies by telling himself that he deserves a few perks after all his years of working for good causes. Worst of all, if he does eventually manage to get a few "progressive" measures passed, this exceptional and usually trivial success is held up as evidence of the value of relying on electoral politics, luring many more people into wasting their energy on similar campaigns to come. As one of the May 1968 graffiti put it, "It's painful to submit to our bosses; it's even more stupid to choose them!"

--Excerpts from Ken Knabb's "The Joy of Revolution."
The complete text is online at http://www.bopsecrets.org/PS/joyrev.htm
* * *
SOME CLARIFICATIONS
My intention in circulating these observations is not to discourage you from voting or campaigning, but to encourage you to go further. Two years ago, I wrote: "Like many other people, I am delighted to see the Republicans collapsing into well-deserved ignominy, with the likelihood of the Democrats recapturing the presidency and increasing their majorities in Congress. Hopefully the latter will discontinue or at least mitigate some of the more insane policies of the current administration (some of which, such as climate change and ecological devastation, threaten to become irreversible).

Beyond that, I do not expect the Democratic politicians to accomplish anything very significant. Most of them are just as corrupt and compromised as the Republicans. Even if a few of them are honest and well-intentioned,they are all loyal servants of the ruling economic system, and they all ultimately function as cogwheels in the murderous political machine that serves to defend that system."

I don't think I need to take back any of my words. The Democrats did indeed recapture the presidency and increase their majorities in Congress, but their accomplishments since then have been as pathetic as could be imagined. Some people will say that they are still better than the Republicans. But being better than a party of sociopathic demagogues and gullible ignoramuses is hardly much of an achievement. And being so lame that you risk getting defeated by such a party is an achievement of a wholly different order.

During the last two years we have seen the consequences of relying on political representatives to act for us. If the antiwar movement and other more or less progressive currents had put even a fraction of the immense amount of time and energy they invested in election campaigns into more directly radical agitation, the situation would be very different today. As a side effect, such agitation would actually have resulted in more liberals being elected. But more importantly, it would have shifted the momentum and the terrain of the struggle. The liberal politicians would have been under pressure to actually implement some significant changes (such as ending the wars and inaugurating free universal health care), which would have invigorated their base while putting the reactionary forces increasingly on the defensive.

And that momentum shift might well have inspired even more radical actions and aspirations -- not just protesting against this or that particular outrage, but calling into question the whole absurd and anachronistic social system. The side that takes the initiative usually wins because it defines the terms of the struggle. If we accept the system's own terms and confine ourselves to defensively reacting to each new mess produced by it, we will never overcome it.

We have to keep resisting particular evils, but we also have to recognize that the system will keep generating new ones until we put an end to it. By all means vote if you feel like it. But don't stop there. Real social change requires participation, not representation.
BUREAU OF PUBLIC SECRETS
P.O. Box 1044, Berkeley CA 94701, USA
http://www.bopsecrets.org/

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS-ICELAND:

WILL THE JOKE GO STALE ?:

While anarchists have often run farce candidates in various elections there are others who have done the same. The most famous Canadian examples were the Rhinoceros Party and the Workless Party, and in Britain the Raving Monster Looney Party had its day in the sun. The basic idea is to mock the regular political parties when all seem to be merely different sides of a disgusting mess. As such farce candidates offer a place to put "protest votes", something akin to a none-of-the-above option.

What happens, however, when the farce party actually wins. In Iceland people are particularly disillusioned with their political parties, and the 'Best Party' (Besti flokkurinn in Icelandic) was formed in 2009 by Jón Gnarr, a famous Icelandic comedian. From the beginning it promised to not honour its promises which included free towels in city swimming pools, a polar bear for the city zoo and a Disneyland at Vatsmyri, the airport of Reykjavik the country's capital. Armed with a quiver full of satire the Best Party went forth to battle the hated Icelandic politicians in the recent municipal elections.

As the polls trickled in, however, it became more and more clear that the Best Party might actually win. Shocked by this horrendous development party members scrambled to throw together an actual platform that was serious rather than farcical. You can read it at the Wikipedia entry on the Best Party. What was predicted came to pass. In Reykjavik the Best Party won the largest number of seats on the City Council (6 out of 15), and the jokers are confronted with the unenviable situation of actually being taken seriously. No worse fate could befall any comedian. The world waits with bated breath to see what jesters in power can do. Here's a brief news item about the event from the Reykjavik Grapevine.

BPBPBPBPBPBPBP
Final Results from City Elections
by Paul Nikolov

The final results of Reykjavík city elections are in. Of a possible 15 seats on city council, Jón Gnarr's Best Party has won six, the Independence Party won five, the Social Democrats won three, and the Leftist-Greens won one.

There was only a difference of 660 votes between the conservatives and Best Party, but this gave the latter the edge to get an extra man in. At the moment, the Best Party is currently in a meeting to decide what the next step is going to be.

Former mayor Hanna Birna Kristjándóttir was more than happy to point out the victories her party made in well-established conservative strongholds throughout the country, although the party took its shares of damages as well, such as in Reykjavík. The Social Democrats also got hit pretty hard, nationally speaking. The Leftist-Greens more or less held onto their own, but lost a seat in the capital. The Progressives fared worst of all in the capital area, only managing to get one of theirs in town council in Kópavogur and Álftanes.

Gnarr isn't yet giving away who he intends to form a majority coalition with, but has said he's willing to work with everybody. Social Democrat Dagur B. Eggertsson said that it would be a long shot working with the Independence Party, and Hanna Birna said that while her party could conceivably form a coalition with the Social Dems to form a majority, that wouldn't necessarily be in harmony with the will of the voters.

Talks on forming a majority, or an announcement of what form that majority will take, are still pending.

ANARCHIST HUMOUR:

THE ANARCHIST PARTY RUNS FOR (FROM ?) OFFICE:

AMERICAN LABOUR:

TAKING CNBC TO TASK:

The following story and call for protest is from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The brazen partisanship of the American mass media is a continued source of amazement to the rest of the world. Statements which would be a source of hilarity and mockery elsewhere are taken as gospel truth down there. The following points out one such example, and asks its readers to protest. While being quite doubtful about both the final practical effect of the Employee Free Choice Act and the messianic fervour with which unions and others in the USA have hitched all their hopes to it, it still has to be admitted that opponents of this legislation have 'out-hyped' its proponents by a considerable distance. This is none such example.

ALALALALALALAL

CNBC FAILS:

CNBC isn't exactly a shining example of responsible journalism. The financial news network has been ridiculed for enabling the financial crisis with flawed reporting and fawning coverage of failed CEOs.

Well, CNBC is at it again. Yesterday, CNBC's Jim Cramer and Erin Burnett made a ridiculous, irresponsible statement. Cramer and Burnett compared the aftermath of Iran's recent election to what would happen under the Employee Free Choice Act.

Huh?
This is the height of irresponsible journalism. Jim Cramer and Erin Burnett need to hear from you now about their reckless reporting.
Send an email directly to Cramer and Burnett. They need to get the message that this kind of coverage is unacceptable.
Click here: http://action.seiu.org/page/speakout/cnbc

Here's what Burnett and Cramer said yesterday while discussing the Iran election:
BURNETT: And it wasn't a secret ballot. I think that's important. They're going to know - they know everybody and how they voted.

CRAMER: Absolutely.

BURNETT: It makes a strong point for this whole union conversation we're having in this country.

CRAMER: The card check, the card check.

Let's get our facts straight.

Despite Erin Burnett's delusions otherwise, the Employee Free Choice Act does not take away the secret ballot. To suggest otherwise is just plain wrong.

But to extend that delusion to the Iran election is more than inaccurate. It's irresponsible. It has no place in our national dialogue, and CNBC needs to know that.
Let Erin Burnett and Jim Cramer know what you think. Click here to send them an email now.

Burnett and Cramer need to know that today's union elections are undemocratic. They bear no resemblance to democratically-held elections that we would all recognize in a free country.

The Employee Free Choice Act is an important piece of legislation that reforms the rigged system that prevents employees from having a free choice to improve their lives. The aftermath of the Iran election is proof of what happens when voters don't have a free choice, when the deck is stacked against the electorate.

For some reason, CNBC doesn't understand the difference. Make sure they do.
Send a message to Erin Burnett and Jim Cramer now.

Thanks for writing to CNBC - with your help, we'll make sure they get the message.

In solidarity,

Michael Whitney

Change that Works

SEIU.org

INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT-ICELAND:

AND YOU THOUGHT YOUR ELECTIONS WERE SHITTY...

The following item from the English language section of the Aftaka blog in Iceland tells of a new way that one's opinions about elections can be expressed. If elections make you feel down in the dumps, take a load off by dropping a load and eliminate your problem. Ah, the fertile(zer) imaginations of some people.

@@@@@@@@@@

Shit on the system!:

Elections took place in Iceland on Saturday, the 25th of April.
One voter decided to use his rights to vote. Showed up at the voting station and literally took a dump on the political party system, the power abuse and the general democracy distortion, wiped his ass on the ballot, neatly folded it and slipped into the ballot box.

HEHEHE
The video is here

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS-ICELAND:

ANOTHER OPINION ON ICELAND:

The following is from the Act Up In Saskatchewan site. I reprint this here, note because I agree with the author's politics-I obviously don't- but because it gives a little more background on the events in Iceland than I have published here so far. As an ex-member of the NDP Molly has a certain lingering sympathy with left social democrats, of which the "greenie" version are one example. The sympathies of the author of the piece below are pretty obviously of that sort. All that I can say here and now is that the adherents of such politics are, in my view, childishly naive. That's all well and good. I can think of adherents to the anarchist name, especially in the USA, who are even more so and who add moral turpitude to their list of faults. As to the province of my birth-Saskatchewan- the best that I can say for their "greenies" (leaving aside the subcultural nature of their beliefs) is that they can maintain a certain "purity" because they, unlike other Green parties in other parts of the world, have not even advanced 1/10,000th of the way to any political influence. Let them advance 1/1000th of the way and you will see the same sort of retrograde motion that Green parties in Europe have performed. In actual fact the "greenies", based as they are on subcultural conviction (and a class basis of managers that they cannot admit) have far less sociological basis to prevent them from giving in to the temptation of "opportunism" than traditional class based social democratic parties have had."Ideas", after all, are much more subject to change than "interests". Anyways, enough ranting. Here's the article.

..........................

Protests Bring Down Iceland's Government:
Contributed by John W. Warnock
Sunday, 25 January 2009
The financial crisis has claimed its first victim. On Saturday Iceland’s government resigned and called elections for May 9, two years early. Protesters, who have been in the street since October 2008, began large rallies at the Parliament on Tuesday, demanding the resignation of the coalition government. On Saturday, Prime Minister Geir Haarde announced they were giving in to public opinion.

Large demonstration began the week when Parliament resumed from a long break. Commentators said they were the largest protests in the country since 1949, when people objected to the government’s decision to join NATO. Women shouted and banged on pans. Eggs, paint, firecrackers and yogurt were thrown at the Parliament building. A large bond fire was set in front of the door of Parliament. When the prime minister exiting the building, his car was surrounded, rocked and covered with paint. The police replied with pepper spray and batons.

In this small country of 320,000, thousands turned out for demonstrations during the week. They carried signs proclaiming “Yes We Can!” Banners stated: “USA is getting rid of Bush – We want to get rid of you!”
Financial deregulation

Following the policies of Tony Blair’s government in the UK and Bill Clinton’s in the United States, the government of Iceland deregulated the financial industry. This was part of a general move to embrace free market economics. The three major banks in Iceland put a high priority on expanding abroad, going deeply into the shaky derivatives market.

The bubble collapsed in October, with foreign debts rising astronomically to almost ten times Iceland’s gross domestic product. Following the pattern set by Labour Prime Minister George Brown in the UK, and the George Bush-Democratic Congress in the United States, the banks were bailed out by the government and the taxpayers.

Icelanders went to the banks to withdraw their money, and the banks said no. They went to the store to buy groceries and found that the shelves were bare. No one would ship anything to Iceland without being paid cash up front. Like a poor Third World country, the government went to the International Monetary Fund and begged for a bailout. It was granted with the usual free market free trade conditions.

Iceland’s coalition government

Since the election of 2007, Iceland has been ruled by a “grand coalition” government of the right wing Independence Party and the centre-left Social Democratic Alliance. In a public opinion poll taken on Saturday, support for the Independence Party has dropped from 37% to 22%. Support for their coalition partner, the Social Democratic Alliance, has fallen from 27% to 19%. The surprise has been the growth of the Left-Green Movement, which received 14% in the 2007 election but is now at 33% in the polls. The party has announced that it is willing to lead a coalition government after the May 2009 election. They are the only party which wants to renegotiate the agreement with the International Monetary Fund.

Rise of the Left-Green Movement

Political parties were re-aligned in Iceland in 1999. The Social Democratic Alliance was formed when the Social Democratic Party merged with parts of three smaller parties. They are described as a “centre-left” party and follow the general policy position of the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown “New Democrats” in Great Britain.

Because of their ideological support for the social democratic version of neoliberalism (well known in Saskatchewan), supporters from the Women’s Alliance and the National Movement broke with the new party. They joined with the Left Green Alliance to form the new Left-Green Movement.

The Left-Green Movement is a Green socialist party, with a strong feminist orientation. They are affiliated with the Nordic Green Left Alliance of similar parties. Their four basic principles are:

(1) Conservation and protection of the environment.

(2) Equality and social justice.

(3) Commitment to promoting labour and the labour movement.

(4) An independent foreign policy, with no military alliances. Their general policy position is similar to that of the New Green Alliance, the original Green Party in Saskatchewan.

This week the European Union warned governments that popular opposition to existing governments over the financial collapse and the onset of the deep recession is rising and there will be more social unrest and radical political activity. Mass protests are now taking place in Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece.

AMERICAN POLITICS:

MORE ON THE MEANING OF OBAMA:

So far so good for the new American Administration. No major foul-ups. Smooth sailing as the world's media continues to give the new President the benefit of the doubt. How to see what is happening, especially for anarchists ? Here's one opinion from the recent pages of the Anarkismo site.

...........................

Some remarks about Obama & Co.:
by Kevin S.
Some remarks about Obama & Co.I only have a few short words about the new president (!) Barack Obama. The inauguration of Obama signals a “new era” in American and world politics, certainly, and a definite improvement for everyone from the last eight years of Bush. (I personally voted Democrat for that very reason, given it did not exactly compromise the Revolution and anarchist abstentionism is rather irrelevant in the absence of a popular anarchist movement.) For that matter, he is better so far than anything the Democrats have thrown up since Kennedy, in which respect it is highly interesting to watch from outside. No question, Obama is an impressive politician who appears to be sincere. Nevertheless, he is a bourgeois politician like any other one, and it is foolish for “revolutionaries” to think otherwise. For anarchists, in particular, his administration represents little more than a “change” (!) of the guard which, in every other respect than his skin, is 100% typical of U.S. politics. What is extraordinary is not so much Obama himself—Obama as a politician—but rather the unusual political context. Obama stands out less for his personal virtue than for the unusual “movement” that gave his campaign so much power and appeal—Obama as a phenomenon.

That “movement” has been getting more and more ridiculous ever since he won the Democratic nomination, as people who only a few months ago hated Hillary Clinton as much as any Republican now “change” tone to accept as Obama packs his new cabinet full of old Clintonites (including Hillary herself). Despite such facts, the last couple months have seen such a gush of mass enthusiasm that one is even threatened with political “irrelevance” for not excitedly joining in on their sudden patriotic love-affair. What criticism does occur (even from some anarchists!) consists of “warning” followers that Obama must be “reminded” to keep his promises, as he is, in fact, fallible and needs some gentle nudging along the way to Change.

All that said, I have nothing personal against Barack more than any other bourgeois politician, and despite the ludicrousness of recent euphoria, there is no getting around the historical significance of Obama’s election, and the profound effect of the Obama movement. In many ways it is a typical case of political populism, but it is no less important for that, as it has inspired fresh political enthusiasm focused on the “new” direction of the country. In the present context of economic crisis and general reaction against free-market economics and Wall Street finance capital, there is a definite opening for popular pressure to put big business “back in line.” Furthermore, despite the super-enthusiasm for Obama, Americans (naturally cynical anyway, especially the youth who form the hardcore of Obama’s base) should have more than a healthy dose of skepticism about “our leaders” after the long Bush regime. Anarchists should be clear that this administration is fundamentally like any other—that who manages the bourgeois State is the bourgeoisie’s problem, and “the People” (i.e. the popular classes) should focus all their energies on our own struggles against the bourgeoisie (not pathetically “reminding” them to “keep his promises”).

There are lessons to be learned from the election as well. Most notable has been the youth mobilization, a factor which Democrats have long been trying tap into with only mediocre success. Obama, through a formidable mixture of personal style, rhetorical power and organizing skill, powerfully appealed to young people (some Democrats and many before non-voters), not only pending the election but during the nomination contest, drawing unprecedented numbers to the Democratic primaries in his support. Also unprecedented was the level of small-donations from lower-income people, in a campaign system traditionally funded by big corporations.

All this has led young and working-class voters who support Obama to think of him as one of their own, and even an illusion that they themselves are now in power or that a vote for Obama was a vote for them. In reality, he has simply perfected populist political techniques that have always been used in some degree by politicians, including ultra-reactionaries like George Wallace (or for that matter, going back to Andrew Jackson!). Regardless of how sincere an individual politician may be or of certain improvements they make, they are swindlers luring the masses into support for the ruling class of big business and political bureaucrats. Anarchists must work tirelessly to separate these politicians from their popular supporters, in order to build a popular anarchist movement against the capitalists and their State.
Article written for Anarkismo.net.

CANADIAN LABOUR-QUÉBEC:

ANOTHER ELECTION CAMPAIGN:

Now this is Molly's idea of an election campaign. While Canada's political elite plot over the Christmas holidays another election campaign is coming to a close in the province of Québec. This has gone almost unnoticed out here in the ROC (Rest of Canada) except for various commentators- yes even here in Winnipeg- who have noted how Sneaky Stevie Harper's loose lip could possibly give a much needed blood transfusion to a flagging PQ. Nothing like having close to half the population of a province painted as devils-even if you have had extensive dealings with the federal party representing them before- to get the nationalist dander up. Unfortunately it works both ways.

So, while Jean Charest, the leader of the Québec Liberals gets down on his knees every night to pray that Captain Canada Stevie gets a bad case of laryngitis for the next few days or, less likely realizes the harm he is doing and shuts up until at least after Monday (the election day in Québec), another "election campaign" is happening down there, unknown to most of us in the ROC. Since December 2003 the Emergency medical responders in that province have been without a contract, and they have become fed up enough to decide to dog Premier Charest at every stop of his campaign in the next few days. Here's the story from the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE). It brings the Cheshire Cat grin to Molly's face.

...........................

Emergency medical responders will follow Charest: Montreal, Wednesday, December 3, 2008—Premier Jean Charest will be in good company during the last few days of the Quebec election campaign. Urgences-santé (EMRs) union cut the ribbon, this morning, on its “election” bus, which will travel throughout Quebec right behind the Liberal leader’s caravan. It boasts three large banners on each side and audio-video equipment for presenting a film about the difficult work they do and broadcasting the union’s message. Three people, including the union’s president, will be on the bus during this dynamic campaign.

“We told them we would be dogging them throughout the campaign,” explained Martin Doyon, president of the union. “After the demonstrations, we’re launching our own election tour!” Every Liberal stop, the EMRs will be highly visible, displaying their banners and distributing pamphlets to raise public awareness. They’ve even set up a blog—http://www.caravanermu.blogspot.com/—where they’ll post comments, photographs, and videos on their activities.

CUPE believes the message to Minister Bolduc and Jean Charest is crystal clear. “It’s a priority issue for us. These employees have been without a contract since December 2003. Their salaries have fallen way behind those of EMRs in Canada’s other large cities, and they earn 32% less than 9-1-1 technicians at the City of Montreal. They deserve to be recognized for their true value, and we will do everything necessary to make sure these professionals are treated fairly,” added Michel Poirier, CUPE Québec regional director and vice president of FTQ.

Pierre Soucy, the president of Conseil provincial des affaires sociales (CPAS), pointed out problems with responder turnover. “The rate is catastrophic! We lose at least 50% of new recruits before the end of their probation period. In April 2007, there were 52 responders to serve the population; today there are only 44 and we’re going to lose two more at the end of the month. In fact, it is much more costly for Urgences-santé to train new responders than to pay them enough to stay. It is a completely irresponsible way of managing public funds,” he concluded.

The EMRs invite the public to visit their website at http://www.appuyonslesrmu.com/, where they can watch a hard-hitting video about what EMRs face every day.

CANADIAN POLITICS:

HARPER FIDDLES THE 'CHICKEN SONG' WHILE THE ECONOMY BURNS:

Sneaky Stevie has actually "out-Bushed Bush", his older brother in neoconservatism. While the outgoing American President has pretty well restricted himself to making religious sounding sounds about the ultimate virtues of the free market along with trying to set as many legislative traps as possible to preserve the vested interests he represents from evisceration once he leaves office our own dear beloved leader has actually gone against the collective wisdom of both the consensus of world economists and other industrial nation governments by refusing to see the need to put forward a stimulus package. The federal Conservatives rather have put forward a "mini-budget" that goes in precisely the opposite direction by purporting to cut expenditures.

The cuts are, of course, trivial, but they are well chosen for maximum populist appeal. The tying og the refusal to "prime the pump" via increased expenditure to the proposition of abolishing the electoral subsidization of federal political parties via the "money for votes" provision of our electoral act is particularly brilliant. Even though the amount of money saved will be trivial it puts the opposition parties in an unenviable position of appearing to be advancing merely their own interests when they oppose the do-nothing Conservative "budget". This little addendum, of course, hardly belongs in a budget. Its inclusion is an obvious manipulation. Sneaky Stevie is, if nothing else, well...sneaky. Few outside of party members have any affection for the idea that tax money should be spent subsidizing political parties. Abolition of this give away would even get my approval providing it was coupled to a cap on total political spending such that the Conservative Party's expenditures would be no more than that of the Communist Party of Canada, or ,better yet, the Marijuana Party. Good idea the latter...more dope, less dopes.

As I write this the backroom deals between ex-leaders of the Liberals (Jean Chretien) and the NDP (Ed Broadbent) are being negotiated. Conspicuous by his absence is ex-Liberal leader Paul Martin. Actually quite strange this way of making deals. Bloc Québecois leader Gilles Duceppe has made his feeling apparent. The idea of his party being an official coalition partner is, of course, absurd from both a federal and a Québec perspective, but he is a "kingmaker" who will extract more than the potential coalition partners will extract from each other in terms of policy and expenditure.

One actually has to hand it to Sneaky Stevie with this move- tying an obviously absurd economic do-nothing policy to a trivial but resonant populist measure. One wonders what is in his mind. Perhaps he is so used to playing chicken and winning from his time in minority government that he feels he can "bluff off" the opposition and change his policy to whatever is necessary next spring. Perhaps he actually wants to abandon power temporally either by provoking an election that he thinks he could win by dint of frustration or by putting a divided opposition into power during an economic downturn which will be much more serious than his Pollyanna projections say.

That is one of the things that Molly has noticed. While the Conservative government says that the present recession/depression will end next April 9an obviously absurd case of wishful thinking) they have proposed that federal civil servants should be prohibited from striking or receiving anything but trivial wage increases for three years. I would submit that the latter is a much more realistic time frame for how long we will be in hard times. Hopefully not longer, but that is possible as well.

The possibility of a coalition minority government may be the best thing that we could see at this time. The madder ideas of any one party would be inhibited by the need to satisfy the other coalition partners. The government would actually be more open to objective economic facts rather than ideology. Not a bad thing indeed. Most importantly the government would be much more open than what we have become accustomed to under the recent rule of the Conservatives. Molly is, of course, an anarchist, and she has no delusions that such a situation would be utopia. It would, especially, not safeguard us against future economic vagaries nor would it lead to the fastest recovery. A cooperative and localist upsurge, along with a redesigning of our industrial production via producer cooperatives would be best. . In the absence of this utopia, however, proper bargaining rather than ideological dictation is a better way.

Here's another view of the prospect of an upcoming coalition government from the Harper Index, a website devoted to keeping a microscopic eye on Sneaky Stevie's manipulations.

........................

Coalition push forces Harper onto the defensive:
Momentum - including open online letter grows to replace minority Conservatives.
OTTAWA , November 28, 2008: Momentum is growing for the replacement of the Harper Conservatives by a Liberal-NDP coalition. Two months ago, when the idea was first broached in StraightGoods.ca, almost all parties dismissed the idea. Now, a non-confidence vote could see the government fall as soon as Monday night.

All day today, negotiations took place between the opposition parties, with former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent taking lead roles. Then tonight, Harper took the extraordinary move of making a special address to Parliament and the nation. In it, he postponed a confidence vote on the economic statement finance minister Jim Flaherty made yesterday to a week Monday instead of Monday. And he attacked the opposition as undemocratic for wanting to replace his government without an election.

"While we have been working on the economy, the Opposition has been working on a backroom deal to overturn the results of the last election without seeking the consent of voters," Harper said. " They want to take power, not earn it." Ironically, the bulk of reaction to the economic statement was over widespread perceptions that the government's statement showed a lack of work on the economic crisis.

Harper has difficulty making the kind of compromises demanded of a minority prime minister. Instead of bringing Canadians together to fight the crisis, Flaherty's statement Thursday was viciously partisan. In it, he trashed longtime political targets like pay equity and labour rights in the public service, as well as political finance rules put in place to level the playing field.

Open online letter to Dion and Layton calls for a coalition government As political leaders huddle in Ottawa, activists across Canada are becoming involved in the push for a coalition. Canadians everywhere are being urged to sign an online open letter calling for coalition that began with a small group pulled together by the Rideau Institute. The letter urges the Liberal's Stéphane Dion and the NDP's Jack Layton to "set aside all partisan considerations in favour of decisive action to help Canadians who are suffering and whose livelihoods are in jeopardy."

The letter argues it was bitterly ironic for Stephen Harper to promise to work cooperatively with opposition parties, and then deliver such a partisan attack with no plan to fight the economic crisis and the stated intention not to run deficits, in the face of what other G20 countries are doing.

"Instead his Conservative government is using the crisis to attack the democratic process, violate the rights of public servants to bargain collectively and end pay equity," states the letter. "Canada now stands alone as the only government in the western world without a coherent economic stimulus plan. The Harper government talks of balancing the budget by selling off assets and restraining spending, the exact opposite of the stimulus response that virtually all economists and many others are arguing is necessary." The original signers of the letter are : Paul Moist, National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees

Ken Lewenza, President, Canadian Auto Workers

Dave Coles, President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada

Denis Lemelin, National President, Canadian Union of Postal Workers

Steven Staples, President, Rideau Institute

Bruce Campbell, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

John Urquhart, Executive Director, Council of Canadians

Mel Watkins, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Toronto

Peggy Mason, Former UN Ambassador for Disarmament

AMERICAN POLITICS:

BEYOND VOTING:

The American election is almost upon us, and those of us in the rest of the world wait to see who will be the new Emperor. Molly has decided to reprint the following intelligent commentary from the Bureau of Public Secrets that came to me in an email today. It pretty well sums up my own view.

The graphic on the left, by the way, is also a good visual summary. I first saw it on the Québec City Voix de Faits blog, and it is originally by the Brazilian artist Latuff and was published on his Tales of the Iraq War site. Here's to the extra thousand words that the picture sums up.

.........................

Beyond Voting‏:
From:
Bureau of Public Secrets (knabb@bopsecrets.org )
THE LIMITS OF ELECTORAL POLITICS

http://www.bopsecrets.org/recent/beyond-voting.htm

Roughly speaking we can distinguish five degrees of "government":

(1) Unrestricted freedom

(2) Direct democracy

(3) Delegate democracy

(4) Representative democracy

(5) Overt minority dictatorship

The present society oscillates between (4) and (5), i.e. between overt minority rule and covert minority rule camouflaged by a facade of token democracy. A liberated society would eliminate (4) and (5) and would progressively reduce the need for (2) and (3). . . .

In representative democracy people abdicate their power to elected officials. The candidates' stated policies are limited to a few vague generalities, and once they are elected there is little control over their actual decisions on hundreds of issues -- apart from the feeble threat of changing one's vote, a few years later, to some equally uncontrollable rival politician. Representatives are dependent on the wealthy for bribes and campaign contributions; they are subordinate to the owners of the mass media, who decide which issues get the publicity; and they are almost as ignorant and powerless as the general public(sometimes more so-Molly) regarding many important matters that are determined by unelected bureaucrats and independent secret agencies. Overt dictators may sometimes be overthrown, but the real rulers in "democratic" regimes, the tiny minority who own or control virtually everything, are never voted in and never voted out. Most people don't even know who they are. . . .

In itself, voting is of no great significance one way or the other (those who make a big deal about refusing to vote are only revealing their own fetishism). The problem is that it tends to lull people into relying on others to act for them, distracting them from more significant possibilities. A few people who take some creative initiative (think of the first civil rights sit-ins) may ultimately have a far greater effect than if they had put their energy into campaigning for lesser-evil politicians. At best, legislators rarely do more than what they have been forced to do by popular movements. A conservative regime under pressure from independent radical movements often concedes more than a liberal regime that knows it can count on radical support. (The Vietnam war, for example, was not ended by electing antiwar politicians, but because there was so much pressure from so many different directions that the prowar president Nixon was forced to withdraw.) If people invariably rally to lesser evils, all the rulers have to do in any situation that threatens their power is to conjure up a threat of some greater evil.

Even in the rare case when a "radical" politician has a realistic chance of winning an election, all the tedious campaign efforts of thousands of people may go down the drain in one day because of some trivial scandal discovered in his (or her) personal life, or because he inadvertently says something intelligent. If he manages to avoid these pitfalls and it looks like he might win, he tends to evade controversial issues for fear of antagonizing swing voters. If he actually gets elected he is almost never in a position to implement the reforms he has promised, except perhaps after years of wheeling and dealing with his new colleagues; which gives him a good excuse to see his first priority as making whatever compromises are necessary to keep himself in office indefinitely. Hobnobbing with the rich and powerful, he develops new interests and new tastes, which he justifies by telling himself that he deserves a few perks after all his years of working for good causes. Worst of all, if he does eventually manage to get a few"progressive" measures passed, this exceptional and usually trivial success is held up as evidence of the value of relying on electoral politics, luring many more people into wasting their energy on similar campaigns to come.

As one of the May 1968 graffiti put it, "It's painful to submit to our bosses; it's even more stupid to choose them!"

--Excerpts from Ken Knabb's "The Joy of Revolution."

The complete text is online at http://www.bopsecrets.org/PS/joyrev.htm

* * *

SOME CLARIFICATIONS

My intention in circulating these observations is not to discourage you from voting or campaigning, but to encourage you to go further.

Like many other people, I am delighted to see the Republicans collapsing into well-deserved ignominy, with the likelihood of the Democrats recapturing the presidency and increasing their majorities in Congress.Hopefully the latter will discontinue or at least mitigate some of the more insane policies of the current administration (some of which, such as climate change and ecological devastation, threaten to become irreversible).

Beyond that, I do not expect the Democratic politicians to accomplish anything very significant. Most of them are just as corrupt and compromised as the Republicans. Even if a few of them are honest and well-intentioned,they are all loyal servants of the ruling economic system, and they all ultimately function as cogwheels in the murderous political machine that serves to defend that system.

I have considerable respect and sympathy for the people who are campaigning for the Democratic Party while simultaneously trying to reinvigorate it and democratize it. There are elements of a real grassroots movement there, developing in tandem with the remarkable growth of the liberal-radical blogosphere over the last few years.

But imagine if that same immense amount of energy on the part of millions of people was put into more directly radical agitation, rather than (or in addition to) campaigning for rival millionaires. As a side effect, such agitation would put the reactionaries on the defensive and actually result in more "progressives" being elected. But more importantly, it would shift both the momentum and the terrain of the struggle.

If you put all your energy into trying to reassure swing voters that your candidate is "fully committed to fighting the War on Terror" but that he has regretfully concluded that we should withdraw from Iraq because "our efforts to promote democracy" there haven't been working, you may win a few votes but you have accomplished nothing in the way of political awareness.

In contrast, if you convince people that the war in Iraq is both evil and stupid, they will not only tend to vote for antiwar candidates, they are likely to start questioning other aspects of the social system. Which may lead to them to challenge that system in more concrete and participatory ways.

(If you want some examples, look at the rich variety of tactics used in France two years ago -- http://www.bopsecrets.org/recent/france2006.htm .)

The side that takes the initiative usually wins because it defines the terms of the struggle. If we accept the system's own terms and confine ourselves to defensively reacting to each new mess produced by it, we will never overcome it. We have to keep resisting particular evils, but we also have to recognize that the system will keep generating new ones until we put an end to it.

By all means vote if you feel like it. But don't stop there. Real social change requires participation, not representation.

BUREAU OF PUBLIC SECRETS

P.O. Box 1044,

Berkeley CA

94701,

USA

http://www.bopsecrets.org

CANADIAN POLITICS:

THE DEVIL YOU KNOW:

It's now 11:22 pm here in that throbbing centre of the universe known as Winnipeg, and the Canadian election has been decided. a tiny few seats may change hands as late polls come in or in later recounts, but the essential features of the new Parliament is pretty much obvious.

At the dissolution of the last parliament the standings were as follows: CONS: 124, LIB 103, BLOC 51, NDP 29, IND 1. The standings at this time are CONS 143, LIB 77, BLOC 49, NDP 37, IND 2.

The Conservatives increased their seat total but still fell short of the 155 seats they would need to form a majority government. This is Sneaky Stevie's second kick at the can, and in other parties the knives might be sharpened, but unseating Harper would be a task of the magnitude of unseating Stalin. Both are supreme masters of the art of the apparat. No doubt Harper himself was more or less to blame for the inability to reach a majority with his remarks on "youth crime" and "culture" that basically demolished Conservative chances in Québec. What was remarkable was the fact that the Conservatives held on to their 10 Québec seats, as indications were that they were likely to crash and burn entirely. Without the remarks it would have been likely that the Tories would have achieved their majority via new seats in La Belle Province. One wonders if Harper ever actually studied the career of Stalin, as his "centrist" (in the world of the Conservative Party) politics are almost a carbon copy of those of Uncle Joe. This even goes as far as his retinue of former Right and Left Opposition figures, now cringing before the Dear Leader and begging what political survival they can inside the party.

Harper's mastery of party conspiracy was actually what did him in. He calculated rightly that it was time to throw a bone to the lock-em-up and damn thet culture feller wing of his party, but he paid too much attention to them and failed to take account of the feelings of the general population in Québec. This arrogance will eventually be Harper's undoing, but not this time around. While the man is a true master of party conspiracy he has at least the same contempt for the ordinary citizen as displayed by a university leftist. One can even imagine that he has great contempt for his own supporters. So Stevie slide in by the skin of his teeth, but the fact that he couldn't win a majority even when facing a formless Liberal Party, riven by deep hatreds, touting an incomprehensible "platform" that was totally overtaken by international economic events and led by a man with all the charisma of vanilla pudding will eventually tell on him.

The Liberals are, of course, the great losers in this election, and it's quite appropriate that the vote was counted on a Full Moon night. The party wolves are howling for Dion's blood as we speak. Look for the other Stephan to be gone in less than a year. If anybody crashed and burned tonight it was "Canada's Natural Governing Party". They managed to avoid disaster in Québec, probably due to a last minute drop in BQ support, but they flamed out in Ontario, their other remaining base.

The NDP gained seats but with a minimal gain in the popular vote. Layton failed to achieve his actual goal, of becoming the official opposition, and it's unlikely the same opportunity will arise again in the near future. The NDP's future will depend upon how "painlessly" the Liberals can remove Dion and rebuild. Their success in this is anybody's guess, as there is no other Canadian party as deeply divided as the Liberals. As to the old ex-Maoist Duceppe his time has probably come as well. The BLOC had a great lead in the last two weeks of the campaign, and it essentially evaporated on election night. Duceppe has already expressed his desire to leave federal politics, and it's unlikely that he will stay on for long. The Greens also lost heavily by not winning anything, even though they got some respectable vote tallies in some constituencies. It's hard to say how long they can go on cruising on taxpayer funds for the votes they receive while never actually becoming a real party. Don't expect, however, any great recriminations against their leader, Elizabeth May. The present "state of the Greens" is the result of a long fought out struggle between their left and right wings, and the right wing won handily. The left wing of the Greens basically consists of those whose politics could be summed up as "fad following", and it is hardly to be expected that they could mount a serious challenge to the present ruling clique.

So that's where we are in Canada today. A minority government is actually the best of all possible outcomes. The need to cooperate and compromise will prevent Sneaky Stevie from trying to implement his wilder ideas. In perilous economic times no country needs to be governed ideologically, especially if the ideology is the same one that sunk the US economy. So keep on smiling. The world goes on, and so does the Ottawa circus.