When Electro-Motive/Caterpillar locked out workers at its London, Ont. plant on January 1, telling them to take a 50 per cent pay cut or they would close shop, so began 2012, the year the middle-class Canadian job came under heavy fire.

No one eliminates decent paying work and replaces it with low-wage jobs without a supportive narrative to smooth the way. The frame in place today focuses on powerful "union leaders" -- villanized as "union bosses," "the oppressors ... responsible for having forced labour to be exported."

We treated them like royalty.

We rolled out the tax-cut red carpet.

In fact our Prime Minister made a special stop at the London, Ontario Electro-Motive (EMD) plant in 2008, touting the $5 million in tax cuts we gave EMD.

It was all part of the "tax cuts create jobs" rhetoric that Canadian politicians rhyme off by rote.

And EMD, part of the American industrial giant Caterpillar, has been revelling in financial glory.

Occupy Wall Street has opened up public discussion about a problem that keeps getting worse: the gap between the rich and the rest of us -- encapsulated in the Occupy movement's slogan We are the 99%. Here's a roundup of some of the stories emerging on the issue of income inequality this week.

Call it "The Great Disruption" or the "Big Shift": "Two master narratives -- one threat-based, one opportunity-based, but both involving seismic changes." Thomas Friedman writes about it here.

What if revolution came to the U.S. and Canada and nobody noticed?

It's a question I'm pondering because some of the most progressive people I know are sitting back watching 20-plus days of Occupy Wall Street, hearing rumblings of similar events in Canada, and still waiting to see if it will spark into something big, like a movement worth joining.

Journalists keep asking: What is Occupy Wall Street about? What do they stand for? What's becoming clear is that a lot of people are missing a pretty important political and social development:

Americans are standing up to the financial giants whose unethical antics brought an entire world economy to its knees, left their economy in shambles, and still refuse to pitch in with the clean up.

(Last of a four-part series)

The politics of fear helped define the 2011 federal election.

For all of its darkness, fear also drove a lot of voters to consider new possibilities, to make new choices, including jumping on the orange wave.

The challenge for progressives wanting to ensure Canada maintains the promise of social justice that we briefly coalesced around post-war is to begin work immediately on a reframe: Our challenge is to change the conversation, rather than get trapped in the conversation that has been set for us (economy in peril).

(Part three of a series)

Stephen Harper may have won the election, but a strong NDP opposition raises the possibility that a broader audience of Canadians will be exposed to truly progressive ideas for the first time in a generation.

That, in itself, holds change-making potential.

(Part two of a series)

Stephen Harper played the fear card and won, while the NDP made history by becoming the official Opposition.

Some pundits suggest this means Canada has become an ideologically polarized nation, but I say that's premature. While we may be on the way to becoming ideologically divided -- pushed in that direction by a hyper partisan, heavily ideological majority federal government -- the 2011 electoral results suggest something more primal is at play.

As I stated in yesterday's blog, the politics of fear can be exploitative, distracting and divisive. Here's how it affected the anti-Conservative choice in the 2011 federal election.

The Harper government won its coveted majority. How did this happen? What does it mean for Canada? And what should progressives do before the next federal election, tentatively scheduled for October 19, 2015 -- 1,167 days from today. Over the next four days I'll be posting a series of blogs chronicling my effort to make sense of the May 2 results. I'll also offer considerations for progressives to get us through the next 1,167 days.

(Part one of a series)

This blog post attempts to explain the power behind the dominant frame at play in this election: our economy in peril.

Resisting the lure.

This temptation (affliction?) to disengage. Unplug. Take a pass.

To leave the messiness of democracy to the others.

To studiously avoid the discomfort of political disagreement.

To delay the difficulty of a decision, a vote, or, harder still, the work of resistance.

To lighten the load on these tired, narrow shoulders.

To leave that task to the others, trusting they will act on our behalf.

Finding virtue in trusting rather than acting; purity in hands still clean.

The faithful are everywhere. Driven to distraction, seeking comfort elsewhere.

Stretched out in a field of wildflowers, staring at the clouds as they whirl by.

Today the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a primer I wrote about the quiet erosion of regulations in Canada.

I had never anticipated wanting to write about such an innocuous topic but a series of focus group sessions made me look at regulation — and the role government has to play — in a whole new light.
The focus group research taught me that when it comes to regulation, Canadians trust their government is on the job.