An election has been called, and it seems that most people are trying to ignore it. Friends are demanding that I vote for the NDP, arguing that the Sask Party will be even worse. But I can’t vote for the NDP for a lot of reasons, a few of which are as follows:

(1) Resource policy. Accepting the policies of Grant Devine, they finished privatizing all the Crowns in the resource sector, and then they lowered the royalties even more, so that they are the lowest in the world. They subsidized Weyerhaeuser and supported clear cut logging.
    (2) Privatization. They privatized the natural gas industry, guaranteeing that this resource flows out to the United States while we now have no control over this resource on which we all depend, especially in winter. They started the privatization of Sask Power by contracting out new generating  facilities to private corporations based in Alberta.
    (3) Taxes. They followed the tax policies of Grant Devine and Ralph Klein and cut taxes on corporations and smaller businesses. The also cut income taxes for those in the highest brackets. They slashed grants to municipalities and school boards requiring increases in property taxes, which are regressive and fall heaviest on those least able to pay.
    (4) Agriculture. They have consistently backed agribusiness against farmers. They supported closing profitable grain elevators and abandoning railway branch lines. They backed the decision to transform the Wheat Pool into a private corporation, denying members a vote on the issue. They unilaterally abolished the hog marketing board and now subsidize corporate pig factories and feed lots. They have backed and supported the introduction of genetically engineered crops and told organic farmers to buzz off.
    (5) Climate change. They led the attack on the Kyoto Accord and strongly opposed any mandated limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Under the NDP government Saskatchewan had the highest increase in GHG emissions of any province in Canada.
    So if we believe the mass media, the only alternative we have is to vote for the Sask Party. But how can I do that when they stood shoulder to shoulder with the NDP on all the above policies? The NDP is the party of the Transnational Corporations, and the Sask Party is the party of small business.
    Well, there is the Liberal Party. The Weyburn-Big Muddy by-election indicated that many traditional NDP supporters are willing to vote Liberal out of disgust for the Calvert government. But the Liberals are floundering around. They used to be our party of business, but this role has been stolen by the NDP and the Sask Party. But at least David Karwacki is relatively harmless.

Stay home and not vote?
    The alternative is to stay home and not vote. That is becoming more popular than ever, in  the last two elections in Saskatchewan over 40% of eligible voters. It was 47% in the recent Ontario election. But for those of us who really believe in democracy, that is not an answer. It is the U.S. model, a return to the old liberal days when only white men with property could vote or run for office.
    So I will vote for the Green candidate. At least the Greens have a platform that T.C. Douglas could support, you know, “Humanity First” and “People before Profits.”
    The best outcome would be if not a single NDP or Sask Party candidate were elected. Think of the Legislative Assembly. No shouting insults back and forth. No sitting there reading the newspaper. No going to the bar while people are giving speeches. No throwing paper back and forth. We could take our kids to the place to show them how representative democracy could work. The Greens want to democratize the electoral and legislative process, and I am pretty sure the Liberals would agree. As the organized homeless street people in Seattle say, “Real Change! That’s what we need!”

John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist and long time political activist. He was on the provincial steering committee of the Saskatchewan Coalition for Social Justice during the Grant Devine years. He is not participating in this provincial election.

Comments

Bum is too respectful of a word.. Written by donovaka on 2007-10-23 11:23:56 Actually, I THINK WE SHOULD PUT the "BUMS" in - if by than one means those out of work and out of luck, because they would at least have a code of principles better than the current crowd, and some experiencial knowledge of what life is like for most people.   I cant see how the NDP are the better of the evils sort of thing seeing this list. Unless one is completely alienated from all vision of a decent future and hope for a better world, totally depressed perhaps, could one go that route.

Clear Cut Logging? (Do you know what tha Written by woodenship on 2007-10-23 11:43:44 It was mentioned in this article that the NDP supports Warehouser and therefore clear cutting. Although I am an extreme critic of large-breed forestry and most notably of companies like Warehouser, I am often frustrated by the lack of knowledge surrounding the "clear cutting" issue.    Firstly let me state that clear cutting is almost completely warrantless when cutting "old growth" forests. By the time forest reach old growth (if they reach old growth - many don't naturally) they have reached equilibrium. Save for wildlife management activities and for widespread disease, clear cutting old growth is often a poor choice that favours profits over ecology.     That being said, there is often cases where clear cutting (or its alternative - letting it burn) can be the best and preferred option, ecologically. Alternatively, I have seen many "selective cutting" operations where the forest has been left in a much worse state, as they leave behind damaged trees, ground that is difficult to remediate, and poor growing/planting conditions for the next generation of trees.    Forests exist in a variety of "disturbance states". It is crucial that some stands be completely obliterated by fire once every 100 years or so (varies greatly depending on water and nutrient conditions). This is natural. It will promote nutrient cycling, encourage certain types of growth and provide a habitat for animal species that cannot exist in mature timber. Clear cutting is often the best option for managing mature (but not old growth) stands that should naturally have infrequent high-intensity fires. Without proper disturbance management activities, can be a danger to themselves and the stands and communities surrounding them.     The government and the public should not be so concerned with the evil sounding "clear cutting" and should alternately be focused more with promoting and enforcing viable and ecological solutions (whether that is selective cutting, mixed bag, or clear cutting aka stand replacing). The key point is the enforcement of ecological values and not focusing on the clear cut (one of many tools in the tool kit). Clear cutting is often used as a demon head to put upon the out-of control industry (ŕ la Muslim to fundamentalist terrorism). Improper ecological management is improper forestry; clear cutting is not improper forestry.    As a forest ecologist, one gets to observe the forest on a micro-stand level and see that a stand of trees is really comprised of many smaller patches that require special considerations and unique prescriptions. We must look at what the forest would naturally do to manage itself (often fire) and look at emulating that through controlled burns, stand replacement, selective logging, understory thinning etc....     Look to support the regulated and scientific government controlled management of our crown lands. Large corps will use the bottom line to justify poor ecological practice. Governments need to use their bottom line (long term ecological costs) to enforce a more detailed, regulated and intelligent approach to wild and management. I have but scraped the surface on this issue, but hope to open people up to the fact that criticising clear cutting is mute and inexact in relation to the issues. Improper use is destructive, proper use is constructive. Forests are complex and forest / human cohabitation requires the use of many different tools to promote the health of forests and the communities they support.

Written by Treesforourchildren on 2007-10-25 03:06:44 Warnock... if you had a blog, I'd read it!

To the "forestry issue" Written by Malachi Constants on 2007-10-30 10:56:44 Would it be possible to use the hemp plant for most products that trees are used for, short lumber?

Re: To the forestry issue Written by woodenship on 2007-10-30 11:34:53 I am not completely aware of the abillity to replace timber with hemp, but it does raise some issues. The main issue with hemp replacement seems to be soil management. As hemp is a very high producing crop and requires many nutrients from the soil to produce its bountifull yield, it will bleed the soil dry of its nutrients within a very short period (in the same vein as corn and cotton). It is often required that industrial fertilizers be used to bolster the soil on a very short cycle, causing spin the spin-off problems of increased fertilizer production and the introduction of more chemicals into the water system (equals more algae etc...).A properly managed forest is a natural ecology and doesnt require nutrient loading.     The other problem is that our forests still need to be managed. Without managing our woodlands for harvesting, we must manage them for burning (ie burning some stands as frequently as every 15-20 years). By cutting responsibly we can be ethical forest stewards.     That being said, I am a large supporter pf the hemp industry and am most impressed with its capabillities of replacing many substances that right now are derived from petroleum (ie wood stains). Ideally I would see a combined resource market where not too much stress is placed upon either the wood or the hemp industry.

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment 2.0!