The shame and disgrace that is Stephen Harper

[mrlupin]

You'll never convince me 30 million is chump change, but still, any change in that funding structure needs to be seen as fair to all.

Eric, you make some good arguments, but how are the people of Quebec not represented without the Bloc? They're represented by the MP's they elect. ...the same as in all the rest of the country. No other provinces have a federal party, and why should they? That's federal government, the government of Canada, in whole, not any single part only.

Good morning Mitch,

The federal budget is approx 240 billion dollars, 30 million is in that aspect a small amount of money. It looks big to you and me but in the big world of politics, that sort of amount is neglect able.

The people of Québec can be represented by any party they seem fit to represent them. They can vote communist if they want (it was an option in my riding). If they choose to vote for a separatist party, well that is because that is their wish. Whether or not you agree with them is irrelevant, they get to vote for who they want. Would you prefer Canada impose their choices? How would it be a free democracy?

Whether for good or for worst, many places have parts that want to separate.... if a majority wants it, well why not? At some point and time the yanks threw out the Brits... that's a separation. The Scottish have a separation movement, so do the people of Tibet....

Mitch, I remember exchanging (on a forum) with you a few years ago, we both wanted change from the IAM regime back then. The IAM saw that as treason... What I am getting at is who cares what the Union(governing power with it's own constitution) thought? It didn't represent the people very well. The people wanted change, reform, a more proactive union. They didn't think the incumbent union could do the job anymore.... they tried to throw it out. That is also part of a democracy, it is good to question the order of things sometimes....

A percentage of the Québec people think they will be better off without the rest of Canada. They can think that... they can strive to sell their idea and if the people want it, they can achieve their goals.... why is that wrong? Separation has very low support as of late but somehow, the people here think the Bloc is better suited to represent their interests federally. The Liberals still have that bad smell from the sponsorship scandal(accompanied by Mr Dion who had a large part to play in the clarity act during referendum time) and the Conservatives are too far on the right of the political scale to be palatable to the general population. The Blue party probably lost at least 15% of the support they had as soon as they attacked the arts in Québec.

[mrlupin]

Thanks for answering my questions Steam Driven

Éric

[RFL]

Let's continue giving the Bloc Quebecois a subsidy to tear the country apart. Let's keep funding a party that uses it's time in the house to enhance a minority position in the commons. A party that does not matter one iota to TROC... A party that by definition is ONLY concerned with one Province and anything that affects that Province and nothing else...

The Party's should WORK for their funding by fund raising and getting the support of the people they choose to represent. Not the public teat!

Let the Party's start talking to the people they wish to represent. Let the people of Canada vote with their pocket books in meeting halls across Canada...

We just might see some policy that does some good...

The Caisse was/is the largest fund of it's type in Canada at 155b(Sept. 2008) Federal transfer payments from TROC to Quebec are 8b per year. Good move Stephen.

[Steam Driven]

You're welcome Eric.

Our views are quite different, that is quite obvious. I was never in agreement with the funding of the Party's in the first place. I think it smacks of entitlement and privilege. "I get a vote I get paid." In the extreme case a politician would never have to leave his office. As long as someone voted for him he would get $1.95 for each vote.

I think there should be some support for the Politician and his Party. The People should converse with the Politicians who earn their vote and are then supported with donations.

Funding will not stop. Generous tax credits are given to those that support Political Parties. Once a threshold is crossed a portion of the funds raised by the party is given back in the form of rebates from the Government.

Sitting back and letting the cash roll in is not the way things should be done.

[Guest rattler]

Wow... Some people's unwavering support for the Conservatives every move even continues when they know they're wrong!? Amazing.

I'd expect intelligent people to be more circumspect, and those who believe in a democracy to be more critical, ...but what do I know?... Maybe it is ok for the ruling Overlords to rig the system in their favour? 

As I said not OK but I still believe the other parties would do the same if they could. Re democracy, the cut applies to all parties if passed by our elected parliament and that is democracy in action.

[dagger]

As I said not OK but I still believe the other parties would do the same if they could. Re democracy, the cut applies to all parties if passed by our elected parliament and that is democracy in action.

1. As Don Martin noted, Chretien could have screwed Reform and the Conservatives in the 1990s, but didn't. He banned union and corporate donations, but put the current system in place, which certainly benefited the right wing parties back in those days as much as it did the NDP.

2. The current system, like it or not, was put in place as a quid pro quo for changing the previous system, and therefore further change should be flagged for a more distant future, not for an election that could this year because that's a barely disguised attempt to bankrupt the opposition parties. Given a longer phase-in (five years?) all parties could adapt.

3. Many, many democracies see public campaign financing as the fairest means to guard against the tyranny of special lobbies or well-orchestrated interest groups taking over existing parties. Again, if parties have time to prepare for a new regime, they can progressively broaden their membership so as to avoid that.

[mrlupin]

Re Steam Driven,

When I was younger (early nineties), I was indirectly implicated in a Liberal candidates fund raising campaign. This was a friend of the family who was running for the red party. The way the scam worked, the money was deposited into your account(I was too young and uninterested in politics to care, I don't know who the money came from directly), you made a donation to the party and got the tax relief from the contribution. That is how my local candidate got funded by the Liberals. Is it right...? of course it isn't but to think that this sort of thing isn't happening in the other parties is to use the ostrich strategy. I am sure all parties twist the laws when it suits them.... A basic funding program helps assure less of that happens.... at least the possibility of a political formation not laundering money exist.

A situation where the Liberals are bankrupt and NDP well... uh... unpalatable, leaves us with one party. How is that healthy for a democracy? The party in power doesn't get challenged and democracy suffers. An great example of this is the Liberal years.... that party stayed too long in power and wasn't challenged enough.... a strong opposition is a wonderful thing. Even a minority government can be good, it keeps the governing party on it's toes.

Democracy should be more then two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. A system, where the money comes entirely from contributions is twisted.... the rich get a bigger say then the little guys do. Look at the US and the way big business runs everything.... is that a model for us?

[Don Hudson]

Homerun;

The Conservatives stand to lose by far the most cash of all the political parties.

, and,

Mitch, it is fair for all. Everyone is governed by the same rules. If the Conservatives were cutting it for everyone but themselves, which one might think is happening judging by the squawking on here, then I would agree with you.

The aspect of this that perhaps you and many have missed and the reason Mitch asked his excellent question about how, after yesterday's performance people can continue to support Harper is, the Conservatives don't need the cash because their bank account is full but the other parties are out of cash. Even someone who isn't a politician can see the advantage of catching 3 parties with their coffers down, so to speak.

That is the kind of knowledge all politicians, by nature, would have, and with which politicians will advantage themselves given the chance.

But Canada is in a crisis the nature of which hasn't been experienced in 80 years. Justifiable nor no, Canadians are frightened and were waiting for leadership. A true leader who was in tune with the country and the people would have ignored narrow partisan advantage for such leadership. It was a natural opportunity even for them and he and his Finance Minister chose narrow, short-term advantage.

That is the point I think those who continue to support Harper have missed or are ignoring.

Canadians aren't cynical - they're skeptical. Canadians get angry over principle, not money. With his actions yesterday, Harper has demonstrated that he is, after all, a politician and not either a leader or a statesman.

Canadians have a visceral, unlimited hate for the last [Progressive] Conservative Party leader Brian Mulroney not because he wasn't up to the job and wasn't even a crook. Brian Mulroney's massive, undeniable failure in politics was about character and principle.

By choosing power politics over leadership, Harper has revealed something about his character. It is a surprising lack of understanding of what Canadians were looking for to assuage fears and concerns about their future.

Frankly, how anyone can still think that Harper deserves our support isn't seeing clearly.

Yes, the alternatives are probably no better - the history of coalitions isn't good. But all this simply highlights the cynical nature of what the Harper government did for Canada and Canadians yesterday - essentially nothing while blowing an obvious opportunity to demonstrate leadership.

What's more, I think they meant it and knew exactly what they were doing.

Why they are throwing dice remains a puzzle for Canadians. Perhaps they have a cunning plan in mind and they're putting the building blocks in place, but this is no time for games and guessing. The anger and disappointment is justified.

Even though we know what they're made of, if they're truly a governing party, they'll take swift steps to correct the serious error in judgement. We'll see.

This leader and this party do not deserve a majority. Issues of trust, character and unrevealed intentions are what Canadians sense in Harper and yesterday's actions went a long way to confirming those suspicions.

[dagger]

Re Steam Driven,

When I was younger (early nineties), I was indirectly implicated in a Liberal candidates fund raising campaign. This was a friend of the family who was running for the red party. The way the scam worked, the money was deposited into your account(I was too young and uninterested in politics to care, I don't remember who the money came from directly), you made a donation to the party and got the tax relief from the contribution. That is how my local candidate got funded by the Liberals. Is it right...? of course it isn't but to think that this sort of thing isn't happening in the other parties is to use the ostrich strategy. I am sure all parties twist the laws when it suits them.... A basic funding program helps assure less of that happens.... at least the possibility of a political formation not laundering money exist.

A situation where the Liberals are bankrupt and NDP well... uh... unpalatable, leaves us with one party. How is that healthy for a democracy? The party in power doesn't get challenged and democracy suffers. An great example of this is the Liberal years.... that party stayed too long in power and wasn't challenged enough.... a strong opposition is a wonderful thing. Even a minority government can be good, it keeps the governing party on it's toes.

Democracy should be more then two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. A system, where the money comes entirely from contributions is twisted.... the rich get a bigger say then the little guys do. Look at the US and the way big business runs everything.... is that a model for us?

Case in point: Even though the Tories have money to burn, they have a great deal of difficulty living within the rules.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/416499

What's the point of changing the system if the REAL purpose is political, not justice for taxpayers? The Tories don't care about the $27 million that would be saved. There are other ways to save $27 million, or $270 million.

By the way, I am surprised we haven't heard about another clause of the fiscal statement : The no-strike provision for government employees, and a ceiling of 1.5 % on wage increases. Seems like they have just told the country (and arbitrators, mediators, etc.) what a fair wage increase will be through 2011. Also, they seem to be saying that striking, certainly striking for more, is excessive. Quite a message to all those aviation employees out there with aspirations for new collective agreements...

[Don Hudson]

This just in:

The Conservative government says an incendiary plan to strip political parties of their public financing won't be included in a confidence vote on the fall fiscal update.

Government sources say only tax measures will be part of the ways and means motion that parliamentarians will vote upon on Monday.

Does this mean they've dropped the plan or does this mean they're continuing with the plan but aren't providing the opportunity to vote on it?

[dagger]

This just in:

Does this mean they've dropped the plan or does this mean they're continuing with the plan but aren't providing the opportunity to vote on it?

Good question, but I would find it terribly ironic is one of two things comes out of this standoff:

1. The Liberals and NDP form an agreement, supported by the bloc, to form a coalition that would offer itself to the GG in the event the government is defeated. This coalition might be led by the likes of Ralph Goodale, a former finance minister, since Layton apparently won't go into a coalition led by Dion (understandable). This agreement would remain in place even if a compromise is found allowing the government to survive the economic statement fiasco, so the government would lose the ability it had in the last Parliament to play opposition parties against each other so it could act like a majority. Facing the likelihood of losing power in the event of any confidence vote, it would have to actually govern like a minority, looking for consensus instead of confrontation.

2. The Liberals and NDP can't agree, but the Liberals decide to force the election issue. The caucus forces Dion out, elects Ignatief leader, and thereby makes the April leadership vote moot - saving the party a small fortune. The green shift is off the table - a re-invigorated Liberal party goes into a snap election with a clear focus on the economy and a simple message: "We told you Harper doesn't get it and he doesn't care about Canadians. He's as petty and mean as we said. He and his ideologue finance minister are nothing but reconstituted Hooverites, when today's economic realities require a financial New Deal.

[Steam Driven]

"But it’s the Bloc Quebecois, the party that wants to break up Canada, that is the most reliant on the federal subsidy. While its provincial cousins, the Parti Quebecois, are worse than broke and went into the current Quebec election $800,000 in debt, the Bloc is flush with cash. The $6 million the Bloc would receive over the normal two-year life of a minority Parliament is more than 10 times what it would raise on its own.

One of the reasons the PQ is effectively demobilized, as well as broke, is that many of its best people are on the Bloc or federal government payroll, in 49 parliamentary and riding offices. Like the NDP and the Liberals in the House yesterday, the Bloc screamed that the cuts to party allowances were an attack on democracy itself, although to all appearances democracy functioned quite well before parties were subsidized in the 2003 campaign finance reform, which banned corporate and union donations as the tradeoff for the public subsidy.

In the House yesterday, Harper replied to a fulminating NDP Leader Jack Layton that “protecting the entitlements of political parties is not going to do anything for the Canadian people.”

And here’s his closing argument in English-speaking Canada. Should the taxpayers of Canada finance the separatist movement? Answer: no."

Harper's funding move is tactically brilliant

[Steam Driven]

"2. The Liberals and NDP can't agree, but the Liberals decide to force the election issue...."

"On what issue? The opposition's outrage that the Tories have turned off their welfare tap? Harper can point out that his own party will take the biggest hit, losing upwards of $10 million in funding. He can also note the NDP's ability to raise money from donors, and ask why Liberals can't do the same. But more critical is the question of how much voters are likely to care. Party funding is hardly a galvanizing concern. There have been two general elections and a leadership vote in three years, and it's going to take a good excuse to send Canadians back for a third kick at the can. Many of them will be spending the holidays wondering how much longer they'll be employed, and how to pay the bills should the axe fall. Are they likely to take kindly to the sight of Stephane Dion, reborn, on their TV tubes complaining that Stephen Harper is refusing to use their money to pay for his party's bills?"

Kelly McParland

[mrlupin]

Harper's funding move is tactically brilliant

You seem to extract only the information you want out of an article....

I hope this blows up in Harper's face.

[Steam Driven]

I extract what expresses my viewpoint and thoughts on the matters at hand. I am not in 100% agreement with those that I quote, but not being a professional writer I quote people and articles that more succinctly express an opinion that I share.

[Cargo Agent]

Some random thoughts.

The Conservative party is flush with cash because it has no trouble getting average Canadians to donate to the party.

Why is it that the rest of the political parties have trouble doing the same and must rely more on taxpayers money?

Why aren't all of you that support the Liberals, NDP, Green and Bloc donating enough to support your political party?

It was a Liberal Prime Minister that hamstrung his own party by disallowing corp. and union donations. This would be the final step that would require all parties to raise their own cash from individual Canadians. No taxpayer handouts, no corporations or unions buying favours, just Canadians supporting their party of choice.

Why is it that the Liberals are in such dire straights anyhow? Do they have trouble managing money?

[Don Hudson]

Steam...the National Post speaks for itself:

This is a declaration of war. It’s tactically brilliant, but could prove fatally flawed.

"Tactically brilliant", "fatally flawed"...Where's the "brilliance" in that oxymoron? The entire article is a litany of exceptions to said-"brilliance", so there is none. The move was simply Harper revealing himself and his agenda for a majority.

If that's what they were going to do with a majority, I repeat, I'm damn glad they don't have one and I deeply hope they never get one.

It isn't the current "tactic" that is fatally flawed, it is their concept of governing that is fatally flawed. I believe the NP when they say, the Conservatives were going to stomp all over federal funding without debate. The arrogance implicit in such base politics shows what this gang is actually, really, made of.

I think this entire revelation should be worrisome, even for those who otherwise like a right-wing approach to governance.

[Don Hudson]

CA;

Why is it that the Liberals are in such dire straights anyhow? Do they have trouble managing money?

Two reasons: Jean Chretien and Stephan Dion.

A couple of corollaries: Sponsorship scandal and an out-of-touch-from-governing-too-long party.

The envelopes get thrown into File 13. That's what I do with the envelopes that the Conservatives send me, (except the recent one where I wrote my opinions of Harper on the donation form).

That said, Paul Martin, though boring, left Canada with very good financials.

[Cargo Agent]

CA;

Two reasons: Jean Chretien and Stephan Dion.

A couple of corollaries: Sponsorship scandal and an out-of-touch-from-governing-too-long party.

The envelopes get thrown into File 13. That's what I do with the envelopes that the Conservatives send me, (except the recent one where I wrote my opinions of Harper on the donation form).

That said, Paul Martin, though boring, left Canada with very good financials.

Don,

Paul Martin has left. I do not trust Iggy or Rae any more than I trusted Dion or Chretien.

IMO, the Liberal party has not been out of office long enough to loose it's opinion that it is "the Natural Governing Party" and those responsible for the Sponsorship scandal still inhabit the backrooms. When those issues change then I would consider them as an alternative.

I do not see anything wrong with political parties having to actually convince "average Joe Canadian" to donate to their party. Obviously not all the envelopes get thrown into File 13 or the Conservatives would be is the same dire straights as the Liberals. Perhaps the Liberals (and NDP, Greens, Bloc) should try harder to convince others (and myself) that they deserve a donation.

[RFL]

That said, Paul Martin, though boring, left Canada with very good financials.

Yes. Slashing health and education transfers to the provinces while keeping Federal tax rates high will have that effect.

From the British Medical Group:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/310/6990/1285/a

[Guest rattler]

Appears that "Fish or cut bait" date will be Dec. 08.

For those not familiar with the expression

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/137650.html

[Homerun]

The Liberals and NDP don't have enough seats between them to form a coalition government. It would need to be a 3-way incorporating the Bloc.

[Guest rattler]

The Liberals and NDP don't have enough seats between them to form a coalition government.  It would need to be a 3-way incorporating the Bloc.

And that appears to be the way the Liberals and NDP are heading. Getting into bed with the Bloc to defeat the Conservatives. So much for party principals.

Of course if the Government is toppled, the Conservatives have only themselves to blame. As some one much wiser than myself said today.

Never give a desperate man a gun with his only choice being to commit suicide or to murder the person who gave them the gun. The proposed legislation removing funding was the gun. Support of the change was suicide for the opposition.

[Don Hudson]

A good article RFL, thank you.

Certainly the present Conservatives have no monopoly on governing a neoliberal political economy. The British felt both the salve and the lash of Thatcherism, and Reaganomics has come home to roost, big time, in the U.S. "Trickle" down was, and remains an interesting if not accurate term - in a neoliberal economy, those below get a tiny bit wet, while, it must logically be assumed, the flood of wealth remains behind corporate-demanded, government-constructed barriers.

Now, just because a government runs a deficit doesn't mean that "the people" are getting more than "trickled" upon. George Bush was able to run up the largest deficit in U.S. history, turning the $250b Clinton surplus into a record-breaking deficit, but not too many in the U.S. below the level of CEO "got wet" with that trickle.

Cargo Agent;

Perhaps the Liberals (and NDP, Greens, Bloc) should try harder to convince others (and myself) that they deserve a donation.

The conundrum which we all sense and which the present disastrous financial crisis has absolutely clear, definitive lessons for us all but especially governments is, it really, really, doesn't matter who is in power because we are all floating in the same neoliberal political economy. Unless there are fresh ideas which "the people" can see as needed, we are in for no changes, and a repeat of the same cycle of bubble-and-burst. Whether there are six parties or two, change must be driven from below, for there is very little room to define one party or the next as somehow "different" without risking loss of power, and no politician will risk the ultimate sacrifice.

People today certainly know what they want, because they have been told. They want more of their money back so taxes are reduced but they don't want services cut. People want free healthcare, so governments promise that private healthcare won't be brought in, (while quietly permitting it), and so deficits become a solution; people want quality education so governments force schools into standardized testing where, in some systems now, (New York), principles and teachers can be fired for "non-performance". Parents say they want their children to develop their "full potential", which for business means the "output" can more efficiently participate in business's needs but for parents means they want their children... "happy"; people want free trade but they don't want jobs shipped overseas that comes with it - jobs that re replaced by junk jobs at home with no future. They want a secure pension but don't want to (and in most cases now, can't) save for it. We have been taught that in order for our economy to "succeed", "progress", "grow", we must consume we must consume goods and services even though there is no need.

Our political economy is "the societal river" in which we all are swimming. Unless we live in the wilderness with no contact with the outside world, our worldview is shaped by neoliberalism whether we understand it as such, or not. We are "educated" by the river, adopting it's every nuance and living it as though it were the only reality possible.

Here is one of the best expressions I have read of what neoliberalism is:

Wedded to the belief that the market should be the organizing principle for all political, social, and economic decisions, neoliberalism wages an incessant attack on democracy, public institutions, public goods, and noncommodified values.

Under neoliberalism everything either is for sale or is plundered for profit. Public lands are looted by logging companies and corporate ranchers; politicians willingly hand the public airwaves over to broadcasters and large corporate interests without a dime going into the public trust; corporations drive the nation's energy policies, and the war industries give war profiteering a new meaning as the government hands out contracts without any competitive bidding; the largesse of the government is then 'rewarded when the latter is bilked for millions by the same companies; the environment is polluted and despoiled in the name of profit-making just as the government passes legislation to make it easier for corporations to do so; public services are gutted in order to lower the taxes of major corporations; schools increasingly resemble malls or jails; and teachers, forced to raise revenue for classroom materials, increasingly function as circus barkers hawking everything from hamburgers to pizza parties-that is, when they are not reduced to prepping students to get higher test scores.

The neoliberal economy with its relentless pursuit of market values now extends to the entirety of human relations. As markets are touted as the driving force of everyday life, big government is disparaged as either incompetent or a threat to individual freedom, suggesting that power should reside in markets and corporations rather than in governments and citizens.

Citizenship has increasingly become a function of market values, and politics has been restructured as "corporations have been increasingly freed from social control through deregulation, privatization, and other neoliberal measures."

That's a quote from "Against the Terror of Neoliberalism; Politics Beyond the Age of Greed", by Henry Giroux.

Here is the precise point I'm trying hard to make...from the same book:

In 1945 or 1950, if you had seriously proposed any of the ideas and policies in today's standard neo-liberal toolkit, you would have been laughed off the stage or sent off to the insane asylum .... The idea that the market should stage or sent off to the insane asylum .... The idea that the market should State should voluntarily reduce its role in the economy, or that corporations should be given total freedom, that trade unions should be curbed and citizens given much less rather than more social protection - such ideas were utterly foreign to the spirit of the time. Even if someone actually agreed with these ideas, he or she would have hesitated to take such a position in public and would have had a hard time finding an audience.

Why don't people engage in the political process? Why isn't just contributing to a different political party like the Bloc or the Liberals happening?

The ascendancy of neoliberal corporate culture into every aspect of American life both consolidates economic power in the hands of the few and aggressively attempts to break the power of unions, decouple income from productivity, subordinate the needs of society to the market, and deem public services and goods an unconscionable luxury. But it does more. It thrives on a culture of cynicism, insecurity, and despair.

Conscripts in a relentless campaign for personal responsibility, Americans are now convinced that they have little to hope for - and gain from - the government, nonprofit public spheres, democratic associations, public and higher education, and other nongovernmental social forces. With few exceptions, the project of democratizing public goods has fallen into disrepute in the popular imagination as the logic of the market undermines the most basic social solidarities.

The consequences include not only a weakened social state but a growing sense of insecurity, cynicism, and political retreat on the part of the general public. The incessant calls for self-reliance that now dominate public discourse betray a hollowed-out and refigured state that _either provides adequate safety nets for its populace, especially those who are young, poor, or marginalized, nor gives any indication that it will serve he interests of its citizens in spite of constitutional guarantees.

. . . .

In short, private interests trump social needs, and economic growth becomes more important than social justice. The capitulation labour unions and traditional working-class parties to neoliberal policies is matched by the ongoing dismantling of the welfare state.

. . . .

Within neoliberalism's market-driven discourse, corporate power marks the space of a new kind of public pedagogy (meaning the way a society learns about itself and teaches its young - schools are part of this but in truth the entire society, including the media now, "teaches how things are"), one in which the production, dissemination, and circulation of ideas emerges from the educational force of the larger culture.

Public pedagogy in this sense refers to a powerful ensemble of ideological and institutional forces whose aim is to produce competitive, self-interested individuals vying for their own material and ideological gain. The culture of corporate public pedagogy largely cancels out or devalues gender, class-specific, and racial injustices of the existing social order by absorbing the democratic impulses and practices of civil society within narrow economic relations.

Corporate public pedagogy has become an all-encompassing cultural horizon for producing market identities, values, and practices.

. . . .

The economist William Greider goes so far as to argue that the diverse advocates of neoliberalism currently in control of the American government want to "roll back the twentieth century literally" by establishing the priority of private institutions and market identities, values, and relationships as the organizing principles of public life.

These new sites of public pedagogy that have become the organizing force of neoliberal ideology are not restricted to schools, blackboards, and test taking. Nor do they incorporate the limited forms of address found in schools.

Such sites operate within a wide variety of social institutions and formats including sports and entertainment media, cable television networks, churches, and channels of elite and popular culture such as advertising.

Profound transformations have taken place in the public sphere, producing new sites of pedagogy marked by a distinctive confluence of new digital and media technologies, growing concentrations of corporate power, and unparalleled meaning-producing capacities.

Unlike traditional forms of pedagogy, modes of pedagogical address are now mediated through unprecedented electronic technologies that include high-speed computers new types of digitized film, and the Internet.

The result is a public pedagogy that plays a decisive role in producing a diverse cultural sphere that gives new meaning to education as a political force. What is surprising about the cultural politics of neoliberalism is that cultural studies theorists have either ignored or largely underestimated the symbolic and pedagogical dimensions of the struggle that neoliberal corporate power has put into place for the last thirty years, particularly under the ruthless administration of George W. Bush

In short , to imagine and institute something different that is responsive to the needs of people instead of business requires a fundamental change. Such changes are signalled (but won't be seen or heard) in the global financial crisis now just beginning. Even keeping in mind the paragraph about "1945 or 1950..." at the beginning of all this, perhaps "we, the people" ourselves are the agents of such change. Certainly no political party is going to risk such changes.

None of this is an anti-business stance or that business must take a back seat; - not at all - it is the balance between the societal needs and the benefits of commerce that must change and that must come from below, where we all are but it must first be invited - led by example.

Though this may be too long and seem like a potpourri of complaint in which everyone of us might see ourselves, it is a complex and difficult dialog to engage in especially in the heat of political debate. But we know change is required beyond focussing on one or another political party and it's strategic foolishness.

This isn't a wish for a "kinder, gentler world" - it is a wish for those in charge to get on with leading the hard work at hand and to stop messing about with partisan tactical trivialities, and to invite "the people" back into the democratic dialog which has been taken from us.

[Guest rattler]

John Ivison: A scarier alternative is now very possible

Posted: November 28, 2008, 7:00 PM by Ronald Nurwisah

John Ivison, Canadian politics

So you thought Stephen Harper was scary? How does the prospect of Prime Minister Stéphane Dion and Finance Minister Jack Layton grab you?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...y-possible.aspx