HARPER AND THE TORIES NOT A GOOD BET

  
         
     IT'S NOT GETTING THE POLITICAL ATTENTION it deserves, but the fast-inflating cost of living is severely bothering most Canadians -- and they want action.

    They fear, with some justification, that if things keep going the way they are, we're all going to be in a much tougher place economically.

    Such a situation is really not a good one for the party in power, since it makes the voting populace quite restive and quick to put the blame on those in Ottawa who had the ability to make things better, but didn't.

    And this, friends, brings me to my first prediction for the outcome of the election: It is not going to go well for the Harper Conservatives.


     OKAY, THE DISCERNING READER WILL SAY, BACK THAT UP.  Fine, I'll try.

     First, you can't deny that the cost of living -- inflation -- is getting out of hand. And I think those who  pretend that the government tells the truth when it issues national inflation figures, are living in fantasy. I claim it is higher than they say, and by quite a lot.

     I mean, come on: the loaf of bread from the local bakery, what was it a year or so ago, maybe 18 months ago  -- something like a buck and a half? And today? Hah! Only $2.75!


     But forget such petty things as loaves of bread. How about gasoline? Out of sight, and getting higher. Not only that -- in addition, everyone sees the price of oil (meaning our car gas) as the root cause of almost everything else going up, because almost everything else requires energy to produce, and so on and so forth.

     (Insert, April 19, 2011: Now, today, Statistics Canada has documented this, four days after I wrote the foregoing. Its report says there was a jump to 3.3 per cent in inflation -- from 2.2 per cent -- in March, led by food and gasoline prices. We all still know in our hearts that it was probably more than that, because there is a compound increase as inflation rises.)

     In some of the campaign-platform literature I found a promise by Harper that he'll really bear down on enforcement of competition in the market place, if reelected. You bet. Hey, this is the guy who goes for multi-billion-dollar warplane purchases in a no-bid (that means "no competition") contract. Hardly looks as if he really has a lot of time for competition, does it? Not in armament purchases, not in the oil trade, not in banking.

     In the oil business, by the way, how is it that a petro-power like Canada, sitting on huge oil reserves, finds it so convenient to go along without a whisper of criticism with rip-off "world" prices set by a blasted cartel, namely OPEC? This ensures that Canadian consumers pay through the nose at the pump, because our governments just love OPEC.

     Why? Well, I suspect it's because the North American oil companies, fattening off OPEC price-fixing, tend to be major campaign fund contributors to political parties of conservative bent. So we lowly consumers might well ask: Why can't we be like oil-rich Venezuela?  Even though it is a member of OPEC, it has been known to give its citizens a break on gas.



     AND THEN THERE'S THE CANADIAN DOLLAR, sitting right up there as the world's premium currency; today it's some four cents higher than the former mightiest currency in the world (that of the mightiest nation in world history, the good old U.S. of A, our closest neighbor).


     Just thinking about that dollar-rise makes me furious. Not because it might suggest we're superior to the U.S. and nobody recognizes it -- no, it angers me because most Canadian retailers, well-versed in the entire book, cover-to-cover, on how to rip off customers, refuse for the most part to give the poor consumer a break, say by even splitting with the consumer the benefit to be had from now-lower cost U.S. imports on their shelves.


     I think Canadians would like to hear their prime minister -- and the other party leaders -- leaning on retailers to make sure the consumer receives a benefit from that currency advantage.




     THE YOUTH VOTE IS ANOTHER REASON for my belief that Harper could be headed for the exits.


     The extremely wide viewership attracted by a website lampooning the Conservative leader is a strong sign that Harper is not making it with the younger voter. Those who are not aware of this spoof need only call up www.shitharperdid.com to view it.


     But I didn't need to know about that parody to realize that young people view Stephen Harper as somewhat of an anal personality, robotic, pre-programmed and probably not especially interested in their issues. I talk to young people a fair bit (after all, I've got six grandchildren, three of them of voting age) and I find from them that Harper does not rate.

     I don't know how strong an influence the youth vote exerts on election outcomes, but I'd venture the view that if the youth vote is concerned enough about Harper's leadership over the past five years, then they'll get to the polls and have a significant negative influence on his political future.

    The youth vote is also important because of a tendency in the young to need novelty.  Five years in office is a long time to them, and with such an outlook on regime length, they are probably more inclined than older folks to cry, "Time for a change in Ottawa!" This is not good for Harper.


     ANOTHER VERY TOP ISSUE:  HEALTH CARE.  The three main parties are falling all over themselves to persuade the voters that they will preserve and protect Canada's national health care insurance system. I believe Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP leader Jack Layton when they issue their health care promises, but I am suspicious of Stephen Harper's.

     I am skeptical because of statements Harper made before he became prime minister. His background, before he rose to the political hights, indicates he was somewhat of an Ayn Rand kind of conservative, with her "objectivism," a very rigid doctrine in supporting the "every man (and, by extension, woman and child, too) is on his or her own," it's the individualist society for all, the greatest good for those who can get it, and so on in similar tone.

     With respect to national health care insurance, Harper once called it "socialism," and he is a sworn enemy of that political philosophy.  Also, back in 1997 he delivered a speech to an American think tank in which he referred to Canada as "a northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term."

     I know that his current campaign platform pledges allegiance to health care, but I'm afraid I cannot trust such a pledge. My view is that if his party should win a majority in Parliament, a year later we will find our health insurance plan in a drastically altered, eroded, and diminished state. I think his secret agenda is to turn it into the American style of plan in which you have to buy health insurance from private, for-profit insurance companies with their habit of denying claims. Oh, that Harper does love things American.

    And while we're on the subject, I just want to say I'm getting tired of hearing all the guff about health care insurance being "unsustainable." If you can afford to spend billions on new fighter-bombers, then you can certainly afford national health insurance. If the success of the plan needs a little more in fees, then I believe people who can, will be prepared to pay.

     Then there's another point -- I would like those who claim we get "free" health care in Canada would cut it out. It ain't free, folks, we pay for it in fees and taxes. It's a good plan -- we all put some money in the insurance pot (through fees and taxes) and it keeps us from going broke or dying before we really need to.  Canadians find it good, and firmly believe it's a fine thing to have a healthier nation than it would be without that insurance.


     THERE'S MORE THAT BOTHERS ME about the Tories, but I'm not going to go into a lot of detail. We could talk about corruption, probably for another couple of thousand words; we could point to Tory neglect in environmental protection; we could talk about the power-mad, control-freak aspects of the Conservative campaign, much evidenced by the "bubble" around Harper; we could talk about the G8 scandal, about very questionable and wasteful defense (war goods) contracts; and about contempt of Parliament  (a very bad thing). These are definite issues and I'm sure they will be thoroughly aired on the campaign trail.

     Speaking of the campaign trail, I did watch the leaders' debate, and I found Harper wanting. In fact I was calling him "the Great Denyer" before it was over, because he kept saying things like "That's not true," and "You are totally wrong," or just changing the subject instead of answering the question.

     The main point I'm making here (in case you haven't guessed by now) is to show my personal dissatisfaction with the Harper government, and have done so by discussion of things that concern me, and that I'm sure bother many Canadians. The Tories have had their chances, for five years, and have far from satisfied me or earned my trust. I think it's time for a change.

     And just how am I going to vote? If not Tory, then what party will I pick? I'm thinking it over, I'm thinking it over. About all I will say for now is that my vote will not be for the Bloc Quebecois.

     
     SO, WHAT ABOUT THE GREEN PARTY?  Glad you asked. The Green Party has noble motives, beyond a doubt. And it is running lots of candidates. In the last election it received something over 900,000 votes, and that makes it a very noticeable player in our nation's politics.

    As most people know, the Greens won not a single seat in the House of Commons. In this election, I  hope that the Green leader, Elizabeth May, wins in her constituency of Saanich-Gulf-Islands, because Parliament needs a strong environmental voice, if for no other reason than to keep the other parties honest and true to their environmental pledges.

     Practically speaking, though, it does not seem the Greens have a chance for more than token representation. People admire them, but they are inclined to vote for a party they think has a real chance of forming a government, and all parties do claim to have strong environmental planks in their platforms.  The Greens, as I see it, represent good reasons why Canada must take a sincere look at its electoral system, and get serious about bringing in proportional representation.

     Under the current system (termed very poorly the "first past the post" system) it is a scandal that a party with the support shown by the Greens is without a voice in the Commons.

  
     FOR ME, A REASONABLY GOOD OUTCOME would shape up like this: a minority non-Conservative government, which could be only a Liberal or NDP minority, with the likelihood that it would be Liberal.

     I know Ignatieff has ruled out any coalition, but should the Liberals form a minority government, then they would have to rely on and accept some ideas and policies from NDP leader Jack Layton. I can see Ignatieff doing this without much difficulty, since he knows Layton to be one of the brightest minds in Parliament, an intelligent man with Canadians' interests at heart.

     Of course, if there is basic change in the air by the time election day rolls around (and I suspect it is already building, and not in Harper's favor), then it could be a big change to, in fact, a majority government, thereby eliminating any need to discuss what might happen in a minority situation.

     Yes, I'm sure the night of May 2 is likely to be one of the most interesting nights in Canadian political history. It'll make for fascinating TV. In the meantime, I hope everyone remembers this:  To be part of the big election show, to express your real stake in the outcome, you've got to get out there and vote.

     Good luck, Canada.