| Archives:
Saskatchewan
Politics
and
Political
Economy Americans
Blow
Us
Away
on
Wind
Power Social Democracy on the Verge of Collapse by John W. Warnock June 18, 2009 Act Up in Saskatchewan The European elections in early June revealed the continued decline of social democracy. Across Europe the total vote for the traditional party of the left declined from 28% in 2004 to only 22%. Where there were social democratic governments, the voters spoke loudest. In Great Britain, the vote for Labour fell to a meagre 16%, below that of the UK Independence Party! In Spain, the vote for the Socialist Party fell five percentage points. In Germany the vote for the SPD was down to 21%, an all time low. In Portugal, the vote for the Socialist Party fell to only 27%. The turnout was only 43%, exceptionally low for Europe. It was lowest in the Eastern European countries of the former Soviet Union. Why is this happening? As the Financial Times rightly pointed out, today’s social democrats are on the same page as the traditional conservative parties. There are no significant policy differences. The world is in economic and financial turmoil, the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the social democratic parties have nothing different to offer. The foundations of social democracy Social democracy as we know it was created following the Russian revolution. The Second International comprised those parties which rejected socialism and revolution, arguing that it was possible to create “capitalism with a human face.” In the period after World War II social democratic parties formed the government in many First World countries, allied with the non-communist trade union movement. They produced the Keynesian welfare state, which greatly improved the lives of most people. This began to change in the 1980s with the election of the Labour governments in New Zealand and Australia. The leadership of the parliamentary party shifted gears dramatically and embraced the neoliberal policies represented by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Tony Blair’s’ “New Labour” government in Great Britain entrenched this move to the political right. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and their client regimes in Europe, social democracy was left with no serious competitors on the political left. Instead of moving to fill the vacuum, they all shifted strongly to the right. Embracing neoliberalism Across the First World, social democratic governments have pursued the same policy package. This has included tax cuts for the corporate sector, tax cuts for those in the highest income brackets, a shift to regressive sales taxes and user fees, privatization of state-owned industries, deregulation of the economy, and deregulation of the financial sector. Universal social programs have been steadily reduced. We know these well in Saskatchewan. The result has been the same everywhere, but most pronounced in the more free market economies of the Anglo Saxon world: rising inequality of income and wealth and rising poverty rates. It is no surprise that the social democrats have been steadily losing their base of support in the organized working class. In addition, environmental concerns, especial global warming and climate change, have emerged as very important political issues. Historically, social democratic parties have been quite hostile to environmental issues. That is the main reason for the rise of the Green Parties. Canadian social democracy Canada, of course, has been part of this political evolution. On the federal level, the NDP, under the leadership of Jack Layton, has struggled to keep their vote total at 15%. They have offered no alternatives of substance in the period of the Great Recession and now hope that Stephen Harper can postpone an election. They have been unable to come up with any alternative to the Tony Blair-Bill Clinton deregulation of the financial industry. In Saskatchewan the NDP was in office from 1991 to 2007. During this time their policy direction moved significantly to the right, embracing all the major planks of the neoliberal agenda. Dwaine Lingenfelter played a key role in this shift from the policies of Tommy Douglas, Woodrow Lloyd and Allan Blakeney. A group of progressives within the Saskatchewan NDP has called for a movement to regenerate social democracy, to move back to a policy of social and economic justice. But how likely is this to happen? In a party that chose Lingenfelter as their leader? In isolation from social democracy in the rest of Canada? In isolation from the decline of social democracy across the First World? The European elections can tell us something. First, the working class and the marginalized poor largely abstained from voting. This is a trend across all the First World countries, including Canada. Second, they do not believe that the social democrats have anything progressive to offer them. As many have pointed out, the trend in the European elections was for the working class and the poor to give their votes to the new fascist and far right parties. Why not? They have been abandoned by the social democrats. John W. Warnock is retired from teaching political economy and sociology at the University of Regina. He is author of Saskatchewan: The Roots of Discontent and Protest (2004). Saskatchewan NDP Holds Off Reform Movement by John W. Warnock June 8, 2009 Rabble.ca The Saskatchewan NDP held a leadership convention the past weekend to select a successor to Lorne Calvert, who is retiring from politics. The victor was Dwaine Lingenfelter, long time party stalwart who was a key member of the inner circle of the cabinet during the government of Roy Romanow. But the campaign for the leadership and the convention showed deep divisions within the party. The NDP swept into office in 1991 under Roy Romanow and were re-elected in 1995. However, in the1999 election the NDP vote fell below that of the right wing Saskatchewan Party, and they lost their majority of seats in the legislature. The NDP government held on to power by forging an alliance with the three Liberal MLAs. It was expected that Romanow would step down and Lingenfelter, the Deputy Leader, would be his successor. Alberta detour However, Lingenfelter resigned his seat in 2000, quit politics, and moved to Calgary to take a position with Nexen, one of Canada’s major oil corporations. Nexen bought the assets of Sask Oil, the provincial Crown corporation privatized by Grant Devine’s Tory government and Romanow’s NDP government. Everyone thought Link was gone for good. In the mean time, politics was changing in Saskatchewan. The number of people voting fell substantially. While the NDP under Lorne Calvert came from behind to narrowly win the 2003 election, by 2007 their time was up, and the Saskatchewan Party won with 51% of the vote. On the federal level, the NDP vote has fallen to only 25%, and a majority of voters supported Stephen Harper in 2004 and 2008. With Calvert scheduled to step down, and no obvious successors among an undistinguished legislative caucus, influential members of the NDP establishment began urging Lingenfelter to return. When he agreed, everyone assumed that he would be selected in a cakewalk. Unexpected challenges But there were some surprises to come. Yens Pederson, the party’s president, announced his candidacy. A young lawyer from Regina, he comes from a family with a history of strong support for the National Farmers Union, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the Canadian Wheat Board, as well as the NDP. He was followed by Deb Higgins from Moose Jaw, a member of the legislative caucus, the Calvert government and a long time activist with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. The last candidate, and the least known, was Ryan Meili, a young doctor from Saskatoon, a social justice activist. He had the support of many who had backed Nettie Wiebe in past elections. Lingenfelter was endorsed by the majority of the party caucus, had strong support from a number of important trade unions, raised by far the most money, had the largest campaign team, and signed up the most members. Higgins had the support of several members of the caucus but was hindered, in my opinion, by her close ties to Romanow and Calvert. In contrast, Pedersen and Meili represented a new generation of NDP activists who argued for a major party renewal. This contrast was very evident at the convention, broadcast by the NDP on their web site. Ideological debates But there is also a major ideological division. Roy Romanow and his caucus were strong supporters of the general move to the right by social democratic parties. Romanow openly supported the Labour government in New Zealand (1984-90) which all but repealed the Keynesian welfare state and led a broad attack on organized labour by pushing the free market, free trade, deregulation and privatization. Similar “reforms” were undertaken in Australia under the Labour governments headed by Bob Hawke and Paul Keating (1983-96)). When Romanow stepped down as Premier, he proudly told the Canadian media that his government was “Blairite” before Tony Blair became the leader of the British Labour Party. With their “New Democrat” allies, Bill Clinton and Gerhardt Schroeder, Blair and Gordon Brown embraced the general policy thrust of neoliberalism represented by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. This included the deregulation of the finance industry. The “New Democrats” were also strong supporters of using NATO to back U.S. military actions around the world. Lingenfelter and Higgins have a long commitment to this now mainstream social democratic form of neoliberalism. But not Pederson and Meili, both of whom called for a return to the tradition of the NDP government of Allan Blakeney (1971-82), with its commitment to social justice, the elimination of poverty, and government involvement in the economy. Pederson went the furthest, insisting that the NDP must once again be the party of democratic socialism, one which put the needs of people first. Both emphasized building a partnership with Saskatchewan’s growing Aboriginal community. The NDP governments of Romanow and Calvert took a pro-business position on environmental issues, particularly global warming and climate change, joining with the Alberta Tories. In contrast, Meili and Pederson are very strong on green issues. The key political issue today in Saskatchewan is the proposal to build a nuclear power plant. As Lingenfelter stresses, the NDP has always been a consistent supporter of the uranium and nuclear industries. Pederson and Meili wish to change that. Preferential ballot no necessarily preferable to delegate convention The Saskatchewan NDP chose to allow all party members to vote to select the new leader, using the preferential ballot. Many were surprised that Lingenfelter received only 46% of the votes on the first ballot. Between them, the two young rebels received a surprising 40%. On the second ballot Lingenfelter received 55% and Meili 45%. This election demonstrated the flawed nature of this liberal individualist system of selecting a party leader. Votes are cast before the convention. Polls showed that most NDP members could only identify Lingenfelter. Given the momentum and enthusiasm at the convention, it is likely that a traditional delegate convention would have chosen Meili as the new leader. The Saskatchewan NDP is in bad shape. Their membership has fallen from 46,000 in 1991 to 13,000 today. The party has been virtually invisible since the 2007 election. Two recent polls show that the Saskatchewan Party government enjoys an approval rating of around 70%. Few believe that selecting Dwaine Lingenfelter as their leader will make any difference. A missed opportunity. John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist and political activist and author of Saskatchewan: The Roots of Discontent and Protest (2004). Lingenfelter Heads into the Homestretch by John W. Warnock May 24, 2009 Act Up in Saskatchewan Saskatchewan’s New Democratic Party will choose a new leader at their annual convention in Regina on June 6. All the political pundits are predicting that Dwain Lingenfelter will win on the first ballot. Polling done for the Saskatchewan Party suggests that he has the support of around 64% of NDP members. "Link" is well known to the people of Saskatchewan, as he was first elected an MLA in 1978, served in the government of Allan Blakeney, and was very prominent in Roy Romanow’s government as a cabinet minister and Deputy Leader. With the recent endorsement of Sandra Morin, he now has the open support of the majority of the NDP caucus in the legislature. Saskatchewan’s labour movement is strongly behind Lingenfelter. He has the endorsement of the Steelworkers, the United Food and Commercial Workers, as well as Tom Graham, president of CUPE Saskatchewan. The building trades unions have made significant financial contributions to his campaign. None of the other three contenders have official trade union support. A new direction for the NDP? After sixteen years in government, the NDP is back in the opposition, and many are calling for a new political direction and a new generation of leaders. Lingenfelter is seen as a representative of the old guard in the NDP, those who have long supported Roy Romanow and Lorne Calvert. Deb Higgins also falls into this category. The other two candidates, Yens Pedersen and Ryan Meili, represent a new generation of young NDP activists. . The other major division is ideological. Roy Romanow and his government were part of the move to the right by social democratic parties beginning in the 1980s. Romanow was a strong supporter of the new policy direction of the Labour government in New Zealand (1984-90). This government virtually repealed the Keynesian welfare state as it moved to embrace the policies of the free market, free trade, deregulation and privatization. The Labour governments in Australia headed by Bob Hawke and Paul Keating (1983-96) carried out similar “reforms.” As Roy Romanow remarked when he stepped down as Premier, his government was “Blairite” before Tony Blair took over the leadership of the British Labour Party and was elected Prime Minister. Tony Blair and his minister of finance, Gordon Brown, with their “New Democrat” allies in U.S. President Bill Clinton and German Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder, embraced the neoliberal agenda of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, including the deregulation of the financial industry. They also strongly supported the use of NATO in major U.S. military adventures. Dwain Lingenfelter was very much a supporter of the neoliberal orientation of the Romanow government. Deb Higgins followed suit as a member of the caucus and cabinet under Lorne Calvert. In contrast, Yens Pederson and Ryan Meili are both calling for a return to the social democratic tradition of social justice which characterized the NDP government of Allan Blakeney (1971-82). The environmental crisis There is another key division. The NDP governments of Romanow and Calvert were hostile to green issues, particularly global warming and climate change. They formed an alliance with the Conservative governments in Alberta to protect and support the fossil fuel industries. During their tenure in office no actions were taken on the Kyoto Protocol, and Saskatchewan’s greenhouse gas emissions increased dramatically. Lingenfelter, long connected to the oil industry, would likely continue this policy direction. Deb Higgins promises changes but is handicapped by her record in the Calvert government. In contrast, Meili and Pederson are very strong on green issues. The campaign for the leadership has certainly been well hidden. Only the controversy over Lingenfelter’s 1100 new memberships from Meadow Lake made the news. The provincial NDP did everything they could to protect the party and its top candidate. Over their recent sixteen years in government we have seen the vote for the NDP fall from a high of 276,000 in 1991 to 169,000 in 2007. The voter turnout out, the percentage of those eligible to vote, dropped from a norm of around 80% to less than 60%. The number of voters enumerated in long time NDP ridings has dropped significantly. Membership in the NDP fell from 46,000 in 1991 to less than 10,000 in 2008 and it is now up to only 14,000. In the two latest public opinion polls Brad Wall and the Sask Party government had an approval rating of 70% and 75%. Has the NDP under Roy Romanow and Lorne Calvert done anything wrong? In the meantime, Larissa Shasko and the new, young Saskatchewan Greens are waiting eagerly to see the outcome of the leadership vote. Their key policies put them to the left of the Romanow-Calvert governments. You can see their election platform, approved at their annual convention, at http://saskgreen.ca/Policy. John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist and political activist. He is author of Saskatchewan: The Roots of Discontent and Protest. Montreal: Black Rose Books, 2004. NDP Leadership Hopefuls: “We Need to Move to the Left” by John W. Warnock April 24, 2009 Act Up in Saskatchewan The four candidates to succeed Lorne Calvert as leader of the Saskatchewan NDP faced off last night at Western Christian College. Around 200 party members and others listened as the four responded to written questions submitted by those in attendance. The questions covered many important issues, and the general response of all four seemed like a repudiation of the neoliberal Blairite policies followed by the NDP governments of Roy Romanow and Lorne Calvert, who were in power in Saskatchewan between 1991 and 2007. The candidates By all accounts, the leading candidate is Dwaine Lingenfelter, who has returned from a stint in Alberta with Nexen Inc. to seek the position. Lingenfelter was first elected an MLA in 1978 and served as a cabinet minister in the NDP government headed by Allan Blakeney. He was very prominent in the Romanow government, as a key cabinet minister and Deputy Premier. At the meeting Lingenfelter argued that what a candidate brings to the party and the province is most important. He stressed that he was an active farmer, former minister of agriculture, regularly meets with farm leaders, and would be able to win back the many seats lost in rural Saskatchewan. He has the support of many of the sitting MLAs. Deb Higgins is the only candidate who holds a seat in the legislature. First elected in 1999 she has served in Calvert’s cabinet. She is trying to separate herself from the neoliberal policy direction of the Calvert government, advocating a serious attempt to end poverty, to help women and families by expanding child care services, and do more in the area of affordable housing. The other two candidate are young, articulate and want to see a new direction for the NDP. Both are very strong in the area of energy policy and other green strategies. The Romanow-Calvert governments followed the Alberta Tories in this area. In 1997, it will be recalled, the NDP government brought a resolution to the legislature denouncing the Kyoto conference on climate change and insisting that any Canadian policy on the reduction of greenhouse gasses only require voluntary action by major polluters. It passed unanimously. Yens Pederson is a lawyer from Regina, who just missed getting elected in 2007, and who was elected president of the party at the last convention. But he is best known for his and his family’s long history of strong support for the National Farmers Union. Ryan Meili is the least known of the four candidates. He is a doctor from Saskatoon who has worked in the North and on social justice issues. He has a strong group of supporters in Saskatoon, including Nettie Wiebe, Peter Prebble and Don Kossick. Some differences were evident The four candidates agreed on most issues raised at the Regina meeting. There were a few differences expressed. Yens Pederson was the only one to raise the question of provincial role in natural resource extraction, arguing that we need to regain control of the natural gas industry, privatized from Sask Power by Tory and NDP governments. He was the only candidate to raise the issue of the threat to our water supplies from climate change. Lingenfelter was the only candidate not to endorse the introduction of anti-scab legislation. He raised the question of sharing resource royalties with Aboriginal people, a position that the NDP held in the 1991 election but then rejected. He argued that we should mobilize First Nations in the north to build affordable housing for the whole province. Meili argued that the province should create a Crown corporation to produce and sell generic drugs. This was a major proposal advanced by the New Green Alliance in 1998. Nuclear power The key issue of the day is the question of nuclear power, which is being supported by the Saskatchewan Party government. It should also be remembered that the Calvert government was also keen on this development. Lingenfelter pointed out that all CCF-NDP governments, beginning with Tommy Douglas, were strong supporters of uranium mining and the processing of uranium in the province, and this is still party policy. He said he was not taking a position on the need for a nuclear power reactor, arguing that this had to be carefully weighted with all the alternatives. He is a strong supporter of geothermal energy production. Higgins took the current position of the NDP caucus, that we need a complete examination of all the various alternatives to nuclear power and coal. Pederson argued against any nuclear power for the province, saying there was no need for it, as there were much safer and cheaper options available. This view was echoed by Meili, who argued that nukes are too expensive and that there is no advantage to processing uranium in the province. We also need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out coal fired generation. He drew the strongest applause of the evening when he said it is time for a major shift to a decentralized system of energy production and use. A new vision All of the candidates stressed in their summations that it is absolutely necessary for the NDP to advance a policy direction that is clearly different from the Saskatchewan Party. In the necessary renewal of the party there is a need for a new long term vision. The thrust of the debate indicated that this requires a break with the policies of the Romanow and Calvert governments. The current world Great Recession has demonstrated the failure of the pro-business neoliberal policies of the free market, free trade and tax cuts for the rich. . Saskatchewan: No Need for Nukes by John W. Warnock Act Up in Saskatchewan April 5, 2009 On Thursday evening several hundred people gathered at the Mackenzie Gallery to hear Tim Weis from the Pembina Institute explain why Saskatchewan does not need nuclear power and has the capacity to phase out coal-fired power plants as well. Weis is co-author with Jeff Bell of the report, Greening the Grid, which makes the case for an alternate energy strategy based on conservation and renewable energy. The Pembina Institute study is for Alberta, but Weis stressed that the analysis fits well with the situation in Saskatchewan. Both provinces are heavily dependent on coal to provide electric power and are the two worst provinces when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. Weis also drew attention to Ontario, where a coalition of grass roots groups successfully made the case to the public for phasing out coal-fired generation plants. Alternative energy road The Pembina study accepts the projections of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) that by 2027 the province would need twice the power that is presently consumed. It then shows how this additional supply could be created through the use of alternative energy systems: efficiency, wind, hydro, biomass, geothermal, co-generation, and micro power projects.. For those who have been active in the environmental movement, the message was nothing new. Similar studies were done in Saskatchewan in the 1970s and 1980s. As Weiss noted, the technology has always been there for the alternative road but the political will was missing. The presentation focused on the capabilities of the alternative energy systems. It would be useful to hear from his co-author, Jeff Bell, who has specialized in distributed generation and had a key position with the World Alliance for Decentralized Energy. The green road, in the era of climate change, must be towards decentralized systems with local controls and emphasis on energy security. This is most important for Saskatchewan, for winter ice storms here, similar to those we have seen in the east, would result in the loss of a great many lives and extensive and costly damage to households and businesses. This is one of the major problems with nuclear power which requires a highly centralized system and major backup facilities to cover shut down times. Finding the political will The success of the popular coalition in Ontario started with a consultant’s report that looked at the full costs of all energy systems. Including health, environmental and social costs demonstrated the very high cost of coal fired plants. Including these costs, plus full insurance costs, decommissioning and waste disposal makes nuclear power plants by far the most expensive. The historic position of Sask Power and Sask governments has been that coal is the cheapest available energy, Opposition to nuclear power and uranium mining has always been difficult in Saskatchewan. The traditional right wing parties and governments - the Liberals, Conservatives and now the Sask Party - have always been for development. But from the time of the government of T. C. Douglas, the CCF-NDP governments have also strongly supported the industry. Most recently, Lorne Calvert’s NDP government supported the building of a nuclear reactor at La Loche, building transmission lines along the road to Fort McMurray to supply the tar sands industry, and then sending around 200 MW down the grid to Sask Power. This is the issue which could revive political activism in this province. The enormous costs of a nuclear power plant and a new grid system will greatly increase the cost of energy to all households and businesses. As Weis stressed, Saskatchewan is the best site in Canada for wind and solar power. We have a major biomass potential. A serious program of conservation could greatly reduce the demand side for power. The business as usual approach makes no economic or ecological sense. Regina Boosts Trucking - Ignores Peak Oil and Climate Change By John W. Warnock August 1, 2008 http://www.actupinsask.org Our political leaders in Regina and the provincial government are overjoyed that Loblaw Companies has announced plans to build a huge warehouse distribution centre just five kilometres west of the city. It will be close to the transport facility that Canadian Pacific announced in early July. Mayor Pat Fiacco believes that this will confirm that Regina will be on the great NAFTA highway, where trucks will be able to take a new freeway all the way deep into Mexico. Loblaw has stated that about 1400 trucks will utilize this terminal each week. The Mayor has announced that other warehouse operations will also be housed in the same area. The provincial government will upgrade the roads. It is not clear yet who will provide the water and sewer for these projects, but it seems most likely that the City of Regina taxpayers will again be called on to fork up. The pollution from this operation, carried by the prevailing winds, will hit mainly those neighbourhoods north of the railway tracks. Development in Regina always seems to be based on the short term. Investors must be able to maximize profits in the shortest possible time. We are used to land development companies and builders making all the important decisions. Can anyone remember if we ever had any real city planning? Peak Oil is a reality But people living in Saskatchewan are not unaffected by major world developments. Peak Oil is one. Oil prices are rising steadily due to the fact that since the early 1960s we have consumed more oil every year than has been discovered. What oil and gas is left, and available in North America, is much harder and more costly to extract. World oil consumption continues to increase every year. All the experts, including the International Energy Agency, project steady increases into the future. Only serious recessions, like the Asian crisis on 1998, reduce oil prices, and then only temporarily. No one in Regina has seemed to notice that around the world truckers are striking as they cannot afford the present fuel prices. Yet the political leaders in Saskatchewan and Regina believe the future is in trucking and the long distance transportation of goods. The large supermarket chains like Safeway, Loblaw and Sobeys do not buy locally. They are highly centralized, top down operations. So the project west of Regina is business as usual. But for how long? Climate change is happening now Then there is also the reality of climate change. If governments ever decide to take action on greenhouse gas emissions, carbon taxes will further increase the price of oil and gas. Higher transportation costs, linked to higher fuel costs, are already contributing to higher food prices around the world. With the price of oil projected to rise to $200 a barrel by next year, there will undoubtedly be shifts in transportation strategies. To those who run the City of Regina, it is always business as usual. Under public pressure they have been bringing in experts to give them advice. The consultants recommend a shift to Smart Growth and eco-friendly development. Remember the magnificent plans put forth by Avi Friedman and his colleagues? How quickly they went into the trash bin. The developers are firmly committed to suburban sprawl. Portland takes a different road In contrast, Portland, Oregon has been taking all of this very seriously. They created a Peak Oil Task Force to study the issue, to project changes and come up with some solutions. Portland had already broken with business as usual and adopted many Smart Growth options, including putting a boundary limit for the city, mandating the preservation of agricultural land, and introducing programs to assist low income people in their quest for housing. What are some of the findings of the Portland study? * Automobile use will decline and there will be a greater reliance on expanded public transportation. Air travel will decline significantly. * The transportation of freight will shift from air and truck to rail and boat. * The amount and variety of food will decrease, food will cost more, and a shift will be made to local agriculture and processing. Food retailing will shift away from supermarkets in malls to more neighbourhood operations. *Housing will shift to smaller, energy efficient buildings, and many will have to move to lower-quality housing. * Higher energy costs will force consumers to reduce their discretionary spending, and this will adversely affect many business operations. The Smart Growth alternative The solution proposed by the Portland Peak Oil Task Force called on local, state and federal governments to play a more active role in developing alternatives. The first requirement was to build public knowledge of the situation, leading to broad participation in the planning process. Fundamentally, there had to be a major change in urban design, away from the suburban growth model that has dominated North American development since the end of World War II and the introduction of the automobile economy. They endorsed all the proposals which are well known as central to the Smart Growth strategy. Emphasis is to be placed on reduced fossil fuel use through energy conservation. A major commitment is being made to expanding local food production and processing. A high priority is to be placed on protection of the vulnerable and marginalized populations. It has long been said that in most trends Canada lags behind the United States by around 20 years. That appears to be the case when it comes to city planning and urban design. But we cannot afford to take 20 years to start seriously dealing with Peak Oil and climate change. John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist, author and green activist. Why Are Schools Closing? Clive Doucet Has Some Answers By John W. Warnock February 6, 2008 http://www.actupinsask.org For the past year we have seen school boards across Saskatchewan closing schools. In Regina the public school board hopes to close eight, including some very important community schools. Why is this happening? The obvious answer is the cuts to provincial funding to municipalities and school boards. During the old days of the government of Allan Blakeney, the province provided 60% of all local funding. Under cuts by the subsequent Tory and NDP governments, the province now only provides 40% of funding. That is why local governments and school boards have been forced to raise property taxes. While in opposition Brad Wall pledged that the Sask Party would address these problems when in office. We will see. But the shortage of provincial revenues is due to the deep cuts that the NDP government made to corporate taxes and taxes on those in the high income brackets, as well as cuts to resource royalties. Wall and the Sask Party supported those tax cuts. Where will they find the revenues? Clive Doucet Points to Other Causes There are many other reasons for the closing of schools. They are described by Clive Doucet in his book Urban Meltdown. Doucet is a member of the Ottawa City Council and a long time activist on urban issues. He identifies a number of problems that are central to cities across North America. First, there is a shift in urban development to “just in time” provisions of goods, from factory to suburban mall. This has eliminated warehouse districts, helped to promote urban sprawl development, and supported the automobile as transportation. Building and maintaining roads consumes 25-50% of all city budgets. Parking lots and parking spaces are subsidized by the government and are a net drain on the civic economy. Less money is available for historic services like libraries, schools and community centres. In addition, tax money flows from the older part of the cities to develop the new low density suburbs. In Ottawa about 70% leaves the inner city for the outer fringes and their “traffic sewers.” Who Pays for Services? All across North America suburban developers are heavily subsidized by the older areas of the city. The “development charges” which cities impose on the developers cover water, sewer and local roads, but little else. In Ottawa the city council agreed to hire economists and accountants to discover the true costs of suburban development. They documented the enormous subsidy given to suburban development. But when the inner city councillors came up with a new sliding scale for development charges which would shift more of the burden to the new areas, the developers, their lawyers and the PR men showed up en masse and argued that the new plan would halt development and shift people to other cities. The city council caved in to the developers. New schools built in the suburbs. Older schools closed in the inner city. Closing Schools Is a Bad Option There are no good reasons to close neighbourhood schools. Doucet notes that all cities and neighbourhoods go through growth phases. When older people leave an area they are replaced by younger people with families. “Closing neighbourhood schools creates inner city rot because no young family will move into a community where their children can’t attend local schools.” Once a local school in a city and its play yards disappear, they are gone forever. As Doucet recalls from the Ottawa experience, “They are too costly to replace. Schools are the lungs of the community. They give it breathing space and vitality.” There may be some small short-term savings in closing a school which only has 70% of potential enrollment. “Unfortunately, the long-term cost of creating just-in-time schools are incalculable. Community stability, greenspace, generational revitalization, property values and the neighbourhood quality of life all tumble.” U.S. Election: Polyarchy, Not Democracy November 2008. The mass media insisted that U.S. citizens only had a choice between Barrack Obama and John McCain in the election on November 4, 2008. The candidates from the other parties were completely ignored. While Obama, the candidate of the Democratic Party, claimed he is for change, what do we see? The Democrats strongly supported George W. Bush's war in Iraq and promise to send even more U.S. armed forces to Afghanistan. The Democrats in the Congress have supported all the "War on Terror" legislation which subverts historic civil rights.. Now in the financial crisis, it is the Democrats who pushed through the legislation to bail out Wall Street, over the opposition of a majority of the Republicans in the House of Representatives. Obama went to Washington to lobby Democrat Members of Congress to support the bail out. During the campaign, Obama accepted more money from Walll Street banks than McCain, had the support of far more corporate CEOs, and was endorsed right at the beginning of the nomination process by the Wall Street Journal. Overwhelmingly, his important designated appointments are from people who had key positions in Bill Clinton's administration. How can we make sense of this? Joseph Schumpeter, the Austrian economist who taught at Harvard University for many years, put it very clearly in his widely read book, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Democracy was historically seen as government "of, by and for the people," with rule from the bottom up. Instead, what we find in the United States is polyarchy, where citizens are given a opportunity every four years to choose among two candidates who both represent the political/economic elite. Citizens can only select which of the representatives of the two parties will rule over them. The leaders of the two parties are selected by the economic and political elite who control the system. Schumpeter argued that the ideal of democracy was in direct contrast to the reality of actually existing liberal democracies, the current institutional form. The state of democracy in the advanced countries mirrors that of capitalism in practice, rule through a command system, from the top down. Schumpeter preferred elite rule and opposed popular, participatory democracy. In the USA today, Schumpeter rules. The Canadian Election -- October 14, 2008 Canadians went to the polls on October 14, 2008. The result was what everyone predicted. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party received the most votes (38%) and the most seats (143) but did not win a majority. The three opposition parties have 12 more seats than the continuing minority Conservative government. The biggest loser was the Liberal Party. Their leader, Stephane Dion, is expected to resign shortly and a new leadership contest will be launched. One of the major contenders is Bob Rae, former NDP premier of Ontario. If he is selected leader, as many pundits predict, it is expected that he would work closely with the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois in the House of Commons. Many people believe that a coalition of some sort would be worked out, and they could then replace the Conservatives as the government of Canada. Given that the centre-left opposition parties received 62% of the vote, this outcome would be widely supported outside the circles of power. But the business interest in the Liberal Party will oppose such a political course. They will be supporting Michael Ignatieff or John Manley. Following the trends in other advanced capitalist countries, the turnout for the election was low, only 59% of those on the federal voters' list. In fact, it was the lowest in Canada's history. Many Canadians are not on the official voters' list. In Saskatchewan the Conservatives won 53% of the vote and 13 of the 14 seats. Voter turnout continued to fall in this province, down to 59%. The New Democratic Party saw its vote continue to slide, falling to 107,289. The vote for the NDP in federal elections peaked in 1988 at 232,000. The vote for the NDP has also been steadily falling in the provincial elections. In 1991 the NDP received 275,780 votes, or 51% of the total cast. In 2007, when the NDP lost the election, they received only 168,704, or 37% of the votes cast. Voter turnout has also been steadily falling in the provincial elections; only 57% of eligible voters (18 and older) turned out in 2007. Lorne Calvert has stepped down as leader of the provincial NDP and a leadership convention is to be called. One wonders why the NDP refuses to ask the important questions: "What has happened to our base of electoral support? Why has our party membership dropped from 40,000 in 1991 to 8,000 in 2008? Why has the voter participation rate fallen so low in ridings where we have been historically strong?" Saskatchewan NDP Suffers Major Defeat November 8, 2007 Saskatchewan wet to the polls on November 7, 2007. The Saskatchewan Party won 37 seats and the NDP only 21. In the popular vote, the Saskatchewan Party won the support of 51% of those who voted and the NDP only 37%. In the 2003 election the NDP won 44% of the vote and a majority of two seats. The Liberal Party did not win a seat and saw its percentage of the vote fall from 14% to 9%. The Green Party of Saskatchewan fielded 48 seats, winning around two percent of the vote. In the last two provincial elections the turnout of eligible voters had fallen dramatically, from the traditional 80% range to only 57% in 2003. In this election it rose to 60%. This is not well known in the province as Elections Saskatchewan reports figures of those who are actually enumerated. In recent years the province has done a very poor job of enumerating voters, especially in the inner cities. Thus the turnout was 75% of enumerated voters. But in some ridings, like Regina Elphinstone Centre, less than half of the eligible voters (those 18 years and older) are enumerated. Why did the NDP suffer a major defeat? They had been in office since 1991. Over that period of time they systematically shifted their political direction to the right of centre. This alienated their traditional supporters. For example, in 1991 they won a majority of the seats in the rural areas. But over the years in office they introduced a range of austerity policies which have hurt people in rural Saskatchewan. In addition, they have consistently supported agribusiness interests against the farmers which traditionally supported them. The chickens finally came home to roost. They lost every rural seat. The NDP government also became the partners of the large transnational corporations which totally dominate the resource extraction industries. They cut royalties and taxes while sales and profits were rising dramatically. In contrast, the Conservative government of Newfoundland raised royalties and won a landslide victory. In Alberta the Conservative government is also going to raise royalties, a move which public opinion polls show is popular. If Lorne Calvert's NDP government had done the same in Saskatchewan, they would also have won a significant victory. They were urged to do so by their party members. But in the end the NDP government determined that their first priority was to support the interests of big international capital.
|