Jagmeet Singh is trying to define himself as the one and only progressive leader in the House of Commons. But two provincial premiers -- Rachel Notley and John Horgan --are making it hard for Singh to make his case. Michael Harris writes:
NDP Premier Rachel Notley has done a better job of promoting new pipelines than any Conservative premier before her.
In fact, it is hard to see how a Premier Jason Kenney could out-perform Notley at cheerleading for fossil fuels and the tar sands — or at completely obfuscating the mortal threat of climate change.
And in B.C, environmental concerns are gumming up Singh's pledge to be the environment's champion:
British Columbia represents another danger to Singh which is not his fault but might end up as his problem — the Site C dam dilemma.
This obvious boondoggle from the Christy Clark era was given approval and permits by the Trudeau Liberals. Opponents of the $9 billion dam have been fighting a pitched battle to stop the project, which is already over-budget, behind schedule and, in the opinion of many experts, completely unnecessary.
On the merits, the Site C decision should be a no-brainer. Even a former president of B.C. Hydro, Marc Eliesen, thinks the true cost of the project will be 30 per cent higher than the utility’s $9 billion estimate. A similar cost overrun in Newfoundland’s Muskrat Falls hydro dam could end up costing Newfoundland ratepayers a staggering $1,800 more per year on their hydro bills.
Construction on Site C is behind schedule and will only fall further behind now that two “cracks” have appeared in the banks of the Peace River. These “geotechnical problems,” as B.C. Hydro’s president Chris O’Reilly called them, will delay work for another year.
With other energy alternatives available (geothermal, wind and solar) and no immediate customer or provincial need for Site C’s power, one would think that pulling the plug $2 billion into a nightmare in the making would not be a hard call to make.
But British Columbia's labour unions want the jobs created by Site C. If Horgan nixes the project, there be a lot of disillusioned NDP supporters. However, if Horgan gives Site C a greenlight, it will make a mockery of Singh's vaulted environmentalism.
Singh certainly is a new face. But he's dogged with the same old problems. So, we're left with a tired old question: Who is the real progressive?
14 comments:
Your post makes me think of Justin Trudeau and all of the high hopes we placed in his post-Harper government. While it has not been a compete disaster yet, the signs of his government's neoliberalism, sprinkled with a few feel-good policies are growing increasingly ominous, suggesting our hopes were ill-placed.
It would be nice, Owen, to think that Jagmeeet Singh could be an antidote to that disappointment, but I am not very optimistic at this point.
Notley is clearly putting political fortune ahead of the welfare of the country and the planet, though it seems she is also proceeding with the retraining and reskilling needed to move seriously into renewables. Horgan's arrangement with the Greens likely wouldn't survive a green light for Site C. He would tumble into an election for which I would think he's ill-prepared. Again, a yes to the dam would clearly fall in the bin of political considerations trumping the greater good. John needs to lead here, mostly by educating his union constituency and building the renewable infrastructure that will absorb the skilled labour in pursuits that don't send humanity down the ecological rabbit hole. We are a snarly lot, at times, hard to convince, but a steady income with a clear conscience might be a powerful motivator. Unfortunately, the education practised by the previous lot consisted mostly of self-serving falsehoods, thereby devaluing the very nature of education as a whole. A sad pass, and we all get to sit on pins and needles in the meantime.
Re: Jagmeet, in the words of the infamous Donald, "He knew what he was signing up for."
I have consistently underestimated the power of the neo-liberal agenda, Lorne. I keep hoping that one of our leaders will have the courage to break its chains.
We are the ones dogged with the same old problems. The continued mistrust of our political leaders. I'm sure many of us are still smarting from the last election where we had to hold our noses and succumb to fear of four more years of that poor excuse for democratic government. Promises broken will always be a hallmark of our country until we really do get electoral reform. They all lie. Remember the years of Mulroney ended with the promise to abolish the GST? That only set us up for it's use as a tool to only lessen it by percentage points for election promises. It did bring results didn't it?. I don't think Singh will be any different except if he promises electoral reform and puts it in writing. Then I would vote for him in a heartbeat. I hope he gets enough votes to implement change and enter into a coalition where everyone is kept honest. Then again, he's just another lawyer! They and the elites are the only ones that can afford the time to run in politics. The rest of us are too tied to the wretched day to day survival. Never a dull moment in the life of a cynic. I'm a proud member.
Oil companies still think of themselves as oil companies, Danneau -- not energy companies. Clearly, the future is in renewable energy. That's where the jobs will be. And, like the oil companies, our politicians are behind the curve.
Haven't heard from you in awhile. Thanks for stopping by.
You're right, zoombats. We're looking at a long line of multi-partied broken promises. What has annoyed me most about Justin is his failure to institute electoral reform. I too think that electoral reform could keep our leaders more honest. It would be harder to get a majority and to coast on it.
Proclaiming one's self "progressive" or "more progressive" is a meaningless accolade when the term itself has lost its meaning. There are plenty of Liberals who feel their party is progressive yet would be very hard-pressed to defend that claim. It's now become a catch word to signify being even slightly to the Left of someone else and we've come to think of it as synonymous with Leftism.
In its true context, progressivism is a set of principles that should be exclusive to no party. The Roosevelts, the first a Republican, the second a Democrat, were both fiercely progressive. You will find some progressive thoughts in Edmund Burke's writings.
Progressivism was expunged under neoliberalism which itself spread across the political spectrum, embraced by the Right and then the Center and the Left (think Blairified Labour or the Layton/Mulcair New Dems). The telltale of a progressive leader, if we ever have another, will be a person dedicated to liberating the nation from the neoliberal shackles. The key to unlocking that door is, as Zoombats mentioned, electoral reform.
Orwell knew, Mound, that the corruption of language was the key to political power. The corruption of the word "progressive" is a case in point. If you want to know what the word really means, an examination of the two Roosevelts policy prescriptions is a good place to start.
We do not have to re invent the wheel to see progressive in action. Aside for Great Britain
every citizens there is living a Theodore R we dream. This took more or less WW2 to achieve. The countries that were never devastated sprang back into the old nudge nudge wink wink of
rule for the rule and coming from above.
The victors in World War II invested in education and healthcare, Steve. But in the 80's they cut back on those investments. And we're living in the wake of that mean spiritedness.
Teddy and Franklin and PET where true progressives. In my lifetime the most successful one
would be seen as an authoritarian by many. However there is no denying the Singapore success
or how well the wealth imbalance is welded into a culture where egalitarianism is the first rule, followed closely by metroiocarcy.
There where race riots in 64 and 69. This is a tough playground that Canada has never competed in. The relations with our first Nations always should be top of mind if we do not want to go south.
Singapore and even Tiawan have given us a blueprint for modern living that we should not ignore just because it was not invented here.
Two of our children live in Asia, and they like it there, Steve. But economic success has come at a cost. I doubt that we should follow the Asian model.
Owen, a house is a house. It costs to build and maintain. I house in Asia or a house in Toronto are the same house. The Singapore model of public housing is something that should be everywhere. It works.
I agree that there are elements of the Asian model that are appealing, Steve. I don't know a lot about public housing in Singapore. But I do know that the general model is more authoritarian than ours.
Post a Comment