Blog 24 One More Poke at the Canada Election

 Blog 24  One More Poke at the Canada Election

Some observations which, I promise, will quote you no percentages, give you no stats, mention no numbers of any kind. Well, grant me just one. At the end. If you persist in reading that far.


The Canada election was a considerable triumph for democracy, "the rule of the people."
Seniors are still the most faithful voters. They have lived long; some do not like change. Political cartoonists might want to call that the gerontological factor in elections. Young people, especially those burdened with college debt, or "thriving" on two or three part-time jobs, are more likely to welcome, or demand change. This election seems to have brought them to the polls, and we all got change.

By a large majority the youngest of four candidates was elected Prime Minister.

The defeated PM, whose fascist credentials you can review in Blog 8, "Canadians are using the "f-word", was decidedly defeated by the demos - the people - who rejected his anti-democratic,anti-government policies, and were probable put off, too, by what they perceived as his ill-concealed, haughty contempt for them.

It is possible that people of all ages deplored the personal attack ads, which are relatively new in Canadian elections. The approach certainly did not work for the governing Conservatives, who started their banner TV ad early in the long election period, and ran it madly until the last week. Maybe they just chose a bad angle of attack, with the slogan, "He just isn't ready." Rather clever if you look at it closely: the target was the Liberal leader, whose first name was Justin (Justin, just isn't. Get it?) I didn't get it either until I began writing this blog. But by the end of a very long campaign, a majority of voters, perhaps encouraged by the ad itself to think about it, voted that Justin, ready or not was better than the other guy, Steve Harper. So Justin Trudeau was duly voted in as PM.

  Is he ready?
  Ready for what?

For what is perceived as a declining economy, he offers deficit budgets in the short term - and stimulation through government spending on infrastructure, etc.

If he gets good advice and transfers government debt to the Bank of Canada to cover those deficits (instead of borrowing from foreign private bankers), then a deficit or two, well spent, is a very good move at this time in world history.

Can he act against the will of the big lenders - the safely-established upper level of the economic pyramid? A government can't afford to run deficits, goes their mantra: it must reduce taxes (theirs) and cut expenditures (on everybody else). In oner words the rich lenders say, take less taxes from, and pay more interest to, us. And, somehow balance the budget. Then leave it to us. That's what we elected you for.

Austerity, that is. It remains the buzzword around the world. Readers of this blog probably know by now why it is absolutely the wrong policy, that what national governments should do in times when money is needed in the economy is put money, debt-free money, into it. Then, in boom times, manage the national finances to reduce debt.

Speaking of the debt, and nobody does, the interest on the national debt is now the third-largest item in any Canadian government's budget. Think about that. The debt has soared since the mid-1970's* when the governments of much of the developed world were persuaded to turn over their borrowing to private lenders instead of taxing and creating money to fuel their own national economies. Poor Greece.

*Justin Trudeau's father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau was Prime Minister at the time.

But Canada has an almost unique power to buck that wrong-headed policy, since its Central Bank is actually owned by the government. That's right. the Bank of Canada pays all its dividends to the Finance Minister. No, not to his personal account. (That's happens only in more advanced dictatorships.)

But that's the topic for the next blog, which may have a few figures  Tentative Title: The Balanced Budget. Doesn't anybody know the difference between the words deficit and debt?

Blog 23  Canada Votes. What For?


What's the name of that political party? The NDP?

Oh yes, the New Democratic Party. Incidentally, the party is not that new. It was founded in 1961, when its current leader, Tom Mulcair was about age seven. Its predecessor was  the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation - the CCF.

Now there is a name to capture a political following.
"Cooperative." Yes, that's the Canadian way. Just the opposite of "Competitive," the quintessential American way.

And "Commonwealth," now there is a term worth longing for in these days when the 1% own most of the world's wealth. The word gained currency in England in the 17th century after King Charles I,  executed in 1649, was unable to continue his full duties as a monarch.  From 1649 to 1660 they called Britain a Commonwealth.

And "Federation." From the Latin word,  foedus, - a treaty or an ally - the word might be defined as a treaty or union agreement. We could do with a little more unity in the world in 2015.

Then there's the neo-fascist Conservative Party of Prime Minister Harper (See Blog 8, "Canadians are Using the F-word.)  Personally, Harper is a smooth ideologue whose worst crime historians will probably identify as his 31-year investors' protection treaty with China. It is a treaty that may just change the face of Canada during its term. China's biggest export is, arguably, people. The Chinese, I learned on a recent visit, call westerners "Big Noses". I hope that when they are a  dominant majority in western countries they will treat their visible minority better than the Big Noses have treated some of their own indigenous visible minorities.

I also hope the election does not confirm the view that Canada is a hotbed of bigots and cowards. But that is what "The Harper" is betting on.
Still, in a nominal democracy - government by popular vote - people do get the kind of government they deserve.

So, whom would I vote for ? Undoubtably the Green Party. Now be careful. Don't say, "That a would be a wasted vote. They can't possibly win," because I would have to reply to you personally, 

"Oh, you must be a horse-race voter. You don't have any idea of what the issues are or what the parties represent, or promise. You vote just so that you can have the warm fuzzy feeling of being on the winning side. How pathetic! Did your mother not love you, dear?"

I might add that if I voted for anyone other than the one I perceived to be the best candidate, I would be wasting my vote. And, if I was having a bad day, I might further add, "If you smartened up a bit and voted for the best candidate, too, you might see better governments elected."

Well, back to the law of money next week, with a more temperate tone, I trust.