Labour alone didn’t create Medicare, Canada Pension, Employment Insurance, the 40-hour workweek, child labour laws and minimum wages, pay equity and so many other cherished threads of our social fabric. A broad coalition of progressives from all walks of life -- including labour unions -- made a case to the public and our politicians that everyone deserved these reforms.
The issues, the means of communication and the tactics change and evolve with the times, but this model endures in small and big ways, across Ontario and beyond...
Looking forward, we must commit ourselves to joining with others who share that dream, so together we can lobby, cajole and push businesses and governments to act in the public’s interest, rather than their own. Together, we make the dream of secure, stable public pensions for all a reality. We can move forward on Kennedy’s dream of the world encapsulated by an earlier line in that famous speech. Humanity, he said, held in its mortal hands, “the power to abolish all forms of human poverty.”
Together with our friends -- civil society groups like the Council of Canadians, our fellow private and public-sector unions, progressively-minded politicians, political parties and ordinary women and men who aspire to a fairer, better world for everyone -- we have made and will continue to take action towards making that world a reality.
Individually, none of us has all the answers. Collectively, we possess many.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Your Labour Day message...
...from Sid Ryan:
Just wondering...
In the wake of his government's choice to pay off Ontario and B.C. to increase taxes on their citizens, doesn't it seem that Stephen Harper is far less categorical about not raising taxes than he once was about not facing a recession or not going into deficit?
Mind you, I wouldn't object if the Cons were to radically change direction and actually start discussing different options rather than pre-emptively defining even the slightest hint of acknowledgment that rates can be adjusted in two different directions as evidence of a conspiracy to raise taxes to INFINITY PERCENT ON EVERYTHING. But absent any evidence that they plan to do that, it would seem fair to evaluate Harper by his own standards.
Mind you, I wouldn't object if the Cons were to radically change direction and actually start discussing different options rather than pre-emptively defining even the slightest hint of acknowledgment that rates can be adjusted in two different directions as evidence of a conspiracy to raise taxes to INFINITY PERCENT ON EVERYTHING. But absent any evidence that they plan to do that, it would seem fair to evaluate Harper by his own standards.
Yes we can.
Tyler photoshops. You view. And suggest the next steps - maybe turning the top half NDP orange rather than red to make the NDP connection more obvious?
Update: Ian has the remixed version.
Update: Ian has the remixed version.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Sunday Afternoon 'Rider Blogging
The Labour Day Classic today may have included plenty of room for improvement for the Saskatchewan Roughriders - and they probably didn't play as well as the final score would suggest. But the game nonetheless reflects both the continuation of one pattern which is serving the 'Riders well, as well as the apparent end of one of the team's consistent problems.
On offence, the story of the game was a superb start with two consecutive touchdown drives against a stiff wind in the first quarter. But after those first two possessions, the team returned to its usual inconsistency. Wes Cates was fairly productive throughout the game both on the ground and through the air - but after the first quarter the 'Riders' passing performance was otherwise littered with drops (particularly from the usually-reliable Weston Dressler), mis-timed routes and near-picks.
Naturally, part of the problem can be laid at the feet of Darien Durant's decision-making. But the more easily solved issue seemed to me to involve the 'Riders' pass protection schemes. Normally one of Durant's greatest strengths is his ability to escape pressure to make plays either on the ground or through the air - but in this game it didn't seem that he ever had an escape route other than straight backwards, which led to a number of throw-aways and forced passes rather than allowing for any positive results.
On defence, meanwhile, the 'Riders kept up their pattern of taking direct aim at the opponents' greatest strength and emerging victorious, this time by holding the league's leading rushing team to 37 yards on the ground (or less than a tenth of its previous performance against B.C.) without sacrificing the 'Riders' usual disruptive pass rush. About the only problem on the defensive side of the ball was an outbreak of weak tackling in the secondary which allowed Adarius Bowman and Terence Edwards to generate scads of yards after catches - which made Michael Bishop's yardage total look respectable even though his actual passing was atrocious through most of the game.
And then there are the special teams. The most obvious reason to be happy with those came in the form of a few respectable to solid returns by Jason Armstead, including a 37-yard kickoff return. But perhaps even more importantly than the ones where Armstead managed to generate significant yardage were his good decisions throughout the game, including conceding a single on the opening kickoff and not forcing plays toward the end when the benefit of trying for a big return would have far outweighed the risks of a turnover.
Not that Armstead's stay so far has been entirely without reason for concern. But if he can keep playing how he did today, the 'Riders would seem to have patched up their most glaring weakness - and particularly if the offence can connect on a few more of its near-misses, that should put them in great shape for the rest of the season.
On offence, the story of the game was a superb start with two consecutive touchdown drives against a stiff wind in the first quarter. But after those first two possessions, the team returned to its usual inconsistency. Wes Cates was fairly productive throughout the game both on the ground and through the air - but after the first quarter the 'Riders' passing performance was otherwise littered with drops (particularly from the usually-reliable Weston Dressler), mis-timed routes and near-picks.
Naturally, part of the problem can be laid at the feet of Darien Durant's decision-making. But the more easily solved issue seemed to me to involve the 'Riders' pass protection schemes. Normally one of Durant's greatest strengths is his ability to escape pressure to make plays either on the ground or through the air - but in this game it didn't seem that he ever had an escape route other than straight backwards, which led to a number of throw-aways and forced passes rather than allowing for any positive results.
On defence, meanwhile, the 'Riders kept up their pattern of taking direct aim at the opponents' greatest strength and emerging victorious, this time by holding the league's leading rushing team to 37 yards on the ground (or less than a tenth of its previous performance against B.C.) without sacrificing the 'Riders' usual disruptive pass rush. About the only problem on the defensive side of the ball was an outbreak of weak tackling in the secondary which allowed Adarius Bowman and Terence Edwards to generate scads of yards after catches - which made Michael Bishop's yardage total look respectable even though his actual passing was atrocious through most of the game.
And then there are the special teams. The most obvious reason to be happy with those came in the form of a few respectable to solid returns by Jason Armstead, including a 37-yard kickoff return. But perhaps even more importantly than the ones where Armstead managed to generate significant yardage were his good decisions throughout the game, including conceding a single on the opening kickoff and not forcing plays toward the end when the benefit of trying for a big return would have far outweighed the risks of a turnover.
Not that Armstead's stay so far has been entirely without reason for concern. But if he can keep playing how he did today, the 'Riders would seem to have patched up their most glaring weakness - and particularly if the offence can connect on a few more of its near-misses, that should put them in great shape for the rest of the season.
Ad nauseum
The Libs' set of ads has already received more comment than it probably deserves, so I'll stick to a couple of short observations.
First, I can only assume the Libs' inexplicable giddiness about the ads is based on a plan to spend enough money blasting out the ads to make up for the fact that they don't have much to say on their face.
And second, it's worth noting just how much the party which has finally started publicly acknowledging the Harper Cons' view of politics is taking up the same philosophy for itself. In particular, the English ad looks to be based entirely on the blueprint from Harper's much-mocked blue sweater ads - suggesting that the Libs, like the Cons, are aiming for "inoffensive and vaguely positive" rather than trying to actually inspire anybody. But considering how eagerly the Libs' supporters are grasping at crumbs, it's not hard to see why they'd see that as a viable strategy.
First, I can only assume the Libs' inexplicable giddiness about the ads is based on a plan to spend enough money blasting out the ads to make up for the fact that they don't have much to say on their face.
And second, it's worth noting just how much the party which has finally started publicly acknowledging the Harper Cons' view of politics is taking up the same philosophy for itself. In particular, the English ad looks to be based entirely on the blueprint from Harper's much-mocked blue sweater ads - suggesting that the Libs, like the Cons, are aiming for "inoffensive and vaguely positive" rather than trying to actually inspire anybody. But considering how eagerly the Libs' supporters are grasping at crumbs, it's not hard to see why they'd see that as a viable strategy.
On absolute requirements
Not surprisingly, I'm in agreement with the consensus view that the Cons' toxic trial balloon on greenhouse gas emissions is an utter joke. But while the "reverse NEP" line (reinforced by the explicitly different treatment of different industries in different provinces) may be an effective one, it's worth noting where the real problem lies.
As long as criticism focuses on differential treatment as opposed to the type of target, the Cons have another choice available to them: namely, putting "intensity" targets in place Canada-wide rather than for the tar sands alone. And that could actually result in a more painful adjustment for a lot of industries than the hard-cap alternative.
That's not because intensity targets reflect better environmental policy in general, but because they impose greater relative compliance costs on industries which can't realistically grow their way around the intensity target. And indeed for any business already looking at having to reduce production to weather the economic storm, an obligation to spend substantial money to reduce per-unit emissions at the same time could well be the last straw - making for a particularly unjust result for those industries which have been ahead of the curve in reducing emissions and thus don't have much low-hanging fruit to improve matters now.
Instead, the ultimate message needs to be a reminder that "intensity" targets themselves are a bad joke - a fact which is particularly obvious based on projections for the tar sands themselves, where they're expected to result in actual emissions increasing several times over. And the fact that the Cons insist on treating such illusory standards as a meaningful development in regulating the most emission-intensive industry in Canada rather than setting out absolute targets should be reason enough to laugh down their position.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
As long as criticism focuses on differential treatment as opposed to the type of target, the Cons have another choice available to them: namely, putting "intensity" targets in place Canada-wide rather than for the tar sands alone. And that could actually result in a more painful adjustment for a lot of industries than the hard-cap alternative.
That's not because intensity targets reflect better environmental policy in general, but because they impose greater relative compliance costs on industries which can't realistically grow their way around the intensity target. And indeed for any business already looking at having to reduce production to weather the economic storm, an obligation to spend substantial money to reduce per-unit emissions at the same time could well be the last straw - making for a particularly unjust result for those industries which have been ahead of the curve in reducing emissions and thus don't have much low-hanging fruit to improve matters now.
Instead, the ultimate message needs to be a reminder that "intensity" targets themselves are a bad joke - a fact which is particularly obvious based on projections for the tar sands themselves, where they're expected to result in actual emissions increasing several times over. And the fact that the Cons insist on treating such illusory standards as a meaningful development in regulating the most emission-intensive industry in Canada rather than setting out absolute targets should be reason enough to laugh down their position.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Lowered expectations
In commenting on the U.S. Department of Transportation's decision on Air Canada charter flights, the Harper government's point man on virtually everything:
(a) picked a gratuitous fight with the superpower next door; and
(b) showed he either doesn't know the difference between the U.S. executive and legislative branches, or is eager to launch attacks at Congressional Democrats even when he knows they're false.
And apparently nobody else in Canada so much as batted an eye. Doesn't that say it all about what we've come to expect from the Harper government?
(a) picked a gratuitous fight with the superpower next door; and
(b) showed he either doesn't know the difference between the U.S. executive and legislative branches, or is eager to launch attacks at Congressional Democrats even when he knows they're false.
And apparently nobody else in Canada so much as batted an eye. Doesn't that say it all about what we've come to expect from the Harper government?
By way of clarification
One of the current memes circulating around Canadian political punditry is the claim that the legitimacy of any coalition government following the next Canadian election would be dependent on what's been promised during the course of the campaign, such that Michaelle Jean should take into account leaders' statements from the campaign in determining whether to recognize a coalition government - and perhaps refuse to recognize a coalition agreement if anybody's promised not to enter into one. And it's time to call bullshit on that argument in the clearest of terms.
Whatever one's view about the basic ethics underlying the actions involved, the Governor-General hasn't treated the Cons' election promises as reason to refuse the exercise of what would otherwise be constitutional powers (such as, say, appointing senators or calling an election in advance of a fixed election date). And while ideally I'd like to see as many of the opposition parties as possible actually defend the idea of a coalition in principle so that the issue doesn't arise, there's absolutely no basis for applying a different standard to a coalition which might form following an election based on what's said during the course of the campaign.
Whatever one's view about the basic ethics underlying the actions involved, the Governor-General hasn't treated the Cons' election promises as reason to refuse the exercise of what would otherwise be constitutional powers (such as, say, appointing senators or calling an election in advance of a fixed election date). And while ideally I'd like to see as many of the opposition parties as possible actually defend the idea of a coalition in principle so that the issue doesn't arise, there's absolutely no basis for applying a different standard to a coalition which might form following an election based on what's said during the course of the campaign.
On open seats
There's been plenty of discussion about the Bloc's intention to run Daniel Paille as its candidate in Hochelaga. But there seems to have been far too little mention of the fact that some Bloc loyalists themselves are less than happy to have Harper's hand-picked investigator imposed on them as a candidate:
After all, as Stockholm notes at babble, the Hochelaga riding looks on its face to have a fairly strong left-wing bent as well as sovereigntist predilections. And in recent memory, the Bloc has held it by large margins while running Real Menard, whose credentials on both the sovereigntist and progressive angles were difficult to challenge.
But the expected nomination of Paille - with his resume including not only his appointment by Harper to try to uncover dirt on the Libs, but also a fairly heavy pro-corporate background (warning: PDF) - might well result in a split in those factions. And the NDP will be offering a strong progressive alternative by once again running prominent union leader Jean-Claude Rocheleau.
Of course, the Bloc will still be the heavy favourite, particularly based on Paille's name recognition. But the combination of a fairly favourable riding and a Bloc base with two obvious reasons for disillusionment should make this into one of the NDP's better targets in Quebec - meaning that if nothing else, the going shouldn't be as easy for the Bloc as it has been in the past.
As an aside, let's note this tidbit from another article on Paille's nomination:
Maxime Bellerose, le président d'association dans ce bastion bloquiste, a pressé son chef de renoncer à cette idée, hier, en rappelant que les dirigeants du parti se sont formellement engagés, il y a une semaine à peine, à ce qu'une assemblée d'investiture en bonne et due forme ait lieu dans Hochelaga.From the sound of it, the Bloc will ultimately go ahead with an actual nomination meeting while simply naming Paille as an economic adviser, rather than outright appointing Paille as a candidate. But it's worth wondering whether an eventual nomination itself will be seen as a result of party meddling - and more importantly, whether the Bloc's current support base might end up fracturing if Paille becomes the candidate.
Selon M. Bellerose, la nouvelle que M. Duceppe compte imposer Daniel Paillé a soulevé «inquiétude et incrédulité» chez les militants bloquistes...
«Nous pensons que notre parti et surtout notre chef croient fortement au processus démocratique, et nous sommes convaincus que pour le bien de la vie démocratique du parti, il y aura une assemblée d'investiture juste et équitable pour tous les candidats. Si le parti passait outre et choisissait de ne pas accorder d'investiture en invoquant l'urgence d'élections imminentes, ce serait un grave déni de démocratie pour les citoyens et membres de Hochelaga», a soutenu hier M. Bellerose.
After all, as Stockholm notes at babble, the Hochelaga riding looks on its face to have a fairly strong left-wing bent as well as sovereigntist predilections. And in recent memory, the Bloc has held it by large margins while running Real Menard, whose credentials on both the sovereigntist and progressive angles were difficult to challenge.
But the expected nomination of Paille - with his resume including not only his appointment by Harper to try to uncover dirt on the Libs, but also a fairly heavy pro-corporate background (warning: PDF) - might well result in a split in those factions. And the NDP will be offering a strong progressive alternative by once again running prominent union leader Jean-Claude Rocheleau.
Of course, the Bloc will still be the heavy favourite, particularly based on Paille's name recognition. But the combination of a fairly favourable riding and a Bloc base with two obvious reasons for disillusionment should make this into one of the NDP's better targets in Quebec - meaning that if nothing else, the going shouldn't be as easy for the Bloc as it has been in the past.
As an aside, let's note this tidbit from another article on Paille's nomination:
Paille said he looks forward to joining the Bloc and has admired the party for a long time.Which would seem to suggest all of the opposition parties are on side with the idea of cornering the Cons on tax harmonization - even if the Libs aren't playing quite the best possible role in that regard.
He said he intends to fight Ottawa on its plan to create a national securities regulator, and criticized what he called the Tories' stubbornness on tax harmonization.
Showdown
So much for my concern that the Libs might be quiet about the HST as a federal election issue merely because they'd have to be insane to focus attention on their own nonsensical position. Instead, it looks like they may be just crazy enough to try to use the issue to build outrage against the Cons without offering any suggestion as to what they'd do differently - and it's anybody's guess how the attempt will play out:
But for the Libs, there's the small problem that the reality doesn't show any meainingful distinction between the Libs and Cons on the issue.
After all, it was a Lib government which made similar deals with the Atlantic provinces. And more importantly, with Ignatieff himself looking to "make the tax work better" rather than actually wanting to reverse Harper's plan, there would seem to be ample reason to doubt Canadians can expect the Libs to change course to any meaningful degree. Which could bode extremely well for the federal NDP if it can present itself as the real opponent of the HST as its provincial cousins in B.C. have already managed to do.
So while the NDP and Libs are apparently in full agreement that the Harper Cons need to wear the effect of tax harmonization, the current positioning seems likely to set up a head-on collision between the two in trying to capitalize on the resulting outrage. And with the Libs' advantages in money and media access balanced against the reality that they're tied to the provincial governments responsible and can't claim any principled objection to the policy in general, there's obvious reason why both parties might hold out reasonable hopes of coming out on top in that clash.
The federal Liberal Leader sought to put the 12 per cent HST, introduced after a provincial election in which the B.C. Liberals ruled it out, in play as the “Harper Sales Tax.”The key statement for now is "across Canada": while it sounded before like the Libs might try to wall the issue off as a localized B.C. issue, they now seem to be sending the correct message the issue is effectively the same in B.C. as in Ontario (and in the provinces that are still being pushed to harmonize). With that national focus, there's a significant opportunity to place the HST at the forefront of a federal election campaign - and the "Harper Sales Tax" phrasing can only help that cause.
He said his party is concerned the Tories have “pushed” sales tax harmonization across Canada at a time of recession, and “is now walking away from it, saying ‘It has nothing to do with us.' We think that's dishonest. They're fully implicated in this decision, and they should take responsibility for it.”
Without providing details, he said a federal Liberal government would look for ways to make the tax work better for British Columbians.
“For the moment, this squarely on Stephen Harper's shoulders. He keeps pushing this off, pretending it's a silly provincial matter,” he said. “It won't wash.”
But for the Libs, there's the small problem that the reality doesn't show any meainingful distinction between the Libs and Cons on the issue.
After all, it was a Lib government which made similar deals with the Atlantic provinces. And more importantly, with Ignatieff himself looking to "make the tax work better" rather than actually wanting to reverse Harper's plan, there would seem to be ample reason to doubt Canadians can expect the Libs to change course to any meaningful degree. Which could bode extremely well for the federal NDP if it can present itself as the real opponent of the HST as its provincial cousins in B.C. have already managed to do.
So while the NDP and Libs are apparently in full agreement that the Harper Cons need to wear the effect of tax harmonization, the current positioning seems likely to set up a head-on collision between the two in trying to capitalize on the resulting outrage. And with the Libs' advantages in money and media access balanced against the reality that they're tied to the provincial governments responsible and can't claim any principled objection to the policy in general, there's obvious reason why both parties might hold out reasonable hopes of coming out on top in that clash.
Friday, September 04, 2009
On transfers
David Akin's article on the Cons' jump in spending at the Privy Council office nicely lines up the contrast between Jim Flaherty's dishonest message about restraint and the actual actions of the Harper government:
Spending in the government department supervised directly by Prime Minister Stephen Harper soared by 14 per cent last year, despite a directive from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty that government must "show restraint."That said, let's put the Cons' insincerity in even more stark relief: if Harper had managed to get his way in cutting off political party funding, he'd simply have redirected the roughly $20 million which currently goes to the opposition parties toward expanding his own office rather than saving citizens a cent. And that point should be placed front and centre by all of the opposition parties when Harper tries to grandstand about ending party funding whenever the next election campaign begins.
Financial statements released this week show that spending by the Privy Council Office for the fiscal year that ended in March hit $172.5 million, compared to $151.8 million in fiscal 2008.
...
Last fall, as he tabled the economic and fiscal update that would prompt the Liberals and NDP to agree to form a coalition government, Flaherty said, "We cannot ask Canadians to tighten their belts during tougher times without looking in the mirror."
Among other things, Flaherty proposed in that statement to cut a public subsidy paid to all political parties. He also imposed unilateral wage restraints on the civil service.
"We are directing government ministers and deputy ministers from every single department and agency of the government to rein in their spending on travel, hospitality, conferences, exchanges and professional services," Flaherty said on Nov. 27. "Canadians have a right to look to government as an example. We have a responsibility to show restraint and respect for their money."
However, not only did the Privy Council Office fail to tighten its belt, it loosened it a few notches.
On strategic considerations
Over the past couple of days, corporate pundits and Lib hacks alike have tried to sell a dubious narrative that the federal NDP will be looking to avoid an election at all costs. But while it's usually a safe bet that the NDP is best off ignoring the concern trolling of those who always seem to think the party's best interest lies in doing what somebody else wants them to, let's take a closer look at just why it is that they're so far off base in examining the NDP's likely course of action this fall.
I'll start off by noting that the ideal scenario for the NDP probably doesn't involve an election. But nor does it involve the NDP supporting the Harper government on any confidence matters.
Instead, the best-case outcome for the NDP is still for the Libs to roll over once again. That would likely put to an end whatever sense of momentum Michael Ignatieff has managed to create within the party, and likely push a few of the Libs who have grudgingly gritted their teeth in supporting the Cons for this long out of the tent all together.
Despite those exact risks as well as Ignatieff's current bluster, I don't think it's as certain as some people seem to want to believe that they won't eventually be pressured into backing down. The Cons are obviously eager to put the onus back on the Libs to either vote with them or take responsibility for an election, and there have been plenty of corporate media objections to the Libs' course of action which might well shift the balance of opinion within the party far enough to get them to revert to their long-held position even after they've admitted that the NDP was right all along.
But let's assume for the moment that the Libs do stick with their current position. Under those circumstances, when would the NDP most want to fight an election against them and the Cons?
Before answering that question, it's worth pointing out what the Libs' priorities have been under Ignatieff. Their first order of business was to work on their fund-raising, with the assumption likely being that they can work on their party structure and brand once they have more cash in the bank to work with. And by all accounts, they've done reasonably well in that department. Which means that at the moment, the Libs have a fairly strong fund-raising machine which they haven't yet converted into party development.
So which would the NDP rather face in an election: a party with a slight fund-raising advantage which hasn't yet turned that into much else, or a party which has had another few months to a year in which to develop on all fronts with the money it's raised so far? I'd think the answer there is fairly obvious.
Likewise, any delay in an election will give Michael Ignatieff a chance to develop into something more than a cipher as the Libs' party leader. So far, he's largely had to improvise, and the results have been rather less than impressive - meaning that there's both a lower baseline to start from, and some significant potential upside for the NDP in the possibility that he'll flub up his first election campaign. But with more time for long-term development which isn't impeded by going in front of the cameras every couple of months to threaten an election then back down, Ignatieff figures to be able to define and prepare himself better for an election in 2010 than for one now.
Combine all that with a Lib base brought back from the dead by the party's decision to actually take on an opposition role and the dangers of dampening NDP support if the party supports the Cons without winning massive concessions, and to me the calculation seems fairly clear that the NDP is better off facing Ignatieff now rather than later.
On the surface, those factors might be balanced out in the short term by the popularity associated with being seen to get things done: remember that in the summer of 2005, the NDP did get a major boost in the polls after winning its budget concessions from the Libs. But that boost would seem to be no less illusory than the one Ignatieff got after deciding to prop up Harper, as anybody who approves of avoiding an election now would figure to be unhappy with whatever steps eventually led to an election later.
Which is why it makes sense for the NDP to make some public efforts at a deal which it doesn't expect to actually materialize - allowing the party to present itself as reasonable and accommodating, while acknowledging that it's highly unlikely that the Cons will do anything to justify allowing them to stay in government.
Interestingly, the absolute worst-case scenario would probably be for the Cons to stay in power with the support of the Bloc - which would give the Libs the opportunity to build capacity and try to erase all memory of the last two years, while eliminating any "getting things done" counterargument. And that explains why the NDP may want to keep itself front and centre in any talks about whether or not the Cons will stay in power now. As long as it's the party being the most conciliatory toward the Cons, the NDP can effectively hold the reins when it counts to ensure an election - while the sooner it abandons the field, the more opportunity the Cons will have to justify cutting a deal with Gilles Duceppe.
In sum, then, the NDP has every reason to conclude that it's actually best off going to the polls this fall if it can't secure a dramatic change in course from the Cons. And if the Libs are planning based on the opposite assumption, then they figure to be in for an unpleasant surprise once they have to take their untested machine into a race toward election day.
I'll start off by noting that the ideal scenario for the NDP probably doesn't involve an election. But nor does it involve the NDP supporting the Harper government on any confidence matters.
Instead, the best-case outcome for the NDP is still for the Libs to roll over once again. That would likely put to an end whatever sense of momentum Michael Ignatieff has managed to create within the party, and likely push a few of the Libs who have grudgingly gritted their teeth in supporting the Cons for this long out of the tent all together.
Despite those exact risks as well as Ignatieff's current bluster, I don't think it's as certain as some people seem to want to believe that they won't eventually be pressured into backing down. The Cons are obviously eager to put the onus back on the Libs to either vote with them or take responsibility for an election, and there have been plenty of corporate media objections to the Libs' course of action which might well shift the balance of opinion within the party far enough to get them to revert to their long-held position even after they've admitted that the NDP was right all along.
But let's assume for the moment that the Libs do stick with their current position. Under those circumstances, when would the NDP most want to fight an election against them and the Cons?
Before answering that question, it's worth pointing out what the Libs' priorities have been under Ignatieff. Their first order of business was to work on their fund-raising, with the assumption likely being that they can work on their party structure and brand once they have more cash in the bank to work with. And by all accounts, they've done reasonably well in that department. Which means that at the moment, the Libs have a fairly strong fund-raising machine which they haven't yet converted into party development.
So which would the NDP rather face in an election: a party with a slight fund-raising advantage which hasn't yet turned that into much else, or a party which has had another few months to a year in which to develop on all fronts with the money it's raised so far? I'd think the answer there is fairly obvious.
Likewise, any delay in an election will give Michael Ignatieff a chance to develop into something more than a cipher as the Libs' party leader. So far, he's largely had to improvise, and the results have been rather less than impressive - meaning that there's both a lower baseline to start from, and some significant potential upside for the NDP in the possibility that he'll flub up his first election campaign. But with more time for long-term development which isn't impeded by going in front of the cameras every couple of months to threaten an election then back down, Ignatieff figures to be able to define and prepare himself better for an election in 2010 than for one now.
Combine all that with a Lib base brought back from the dead by the party's decision to actually take on an opposition role and the dangers of dampening NDP support if the party supports the Cons without winning massive concessions, and to me the calculation seems fairly clear that the NDP is better off facing Ignatieff now rather than later.
On the surface, those factors might be balanced out in the short term by the popularity associated with being seen to get things done: remember that in the summer of 2005, the NDP did get a major boost in the polls after winning its budget concessions from the Libs. But that boost would seem to be no less illusory than the one Ignatieff got after deciding to prop up Harper, as anybody who approves of avoiding an election now would figure to be unhappy with whatever steps eventually led to an election later.
Which is why it makes sense for the NDP to make some public efforts at a deal which it doesn't expect to actually materialize - allowing the party to present itself as reasonable and accommodating, while acknowledging that it's highly unlikely that the Cons will do anything to justify allowing them to stay in government.
Interestingly, the absolute worst-case scenario would probably be for the Cons to stay in power with the support of the Bloc - which would give the Libs the opportunity to build capacity and try to erase all memory of the last two years, while eliminating any "getting things done" counterargument. And that explains why the NDP may want to keep itself front and centre in any talks about whether or not the Cons will stay in power now. As long as it's the party being the most conciliatory toward the Cons, the NDP can effectively hold the reins when it counts to ensure an election - while the sooner it abandons the field, the more opportunity the Cons will have to justify cutting a deal with Gilles Duceppe.
In sum, then, the NDP has every reason to conclude that it's actually best off going to the polls this fall if it can't secure a dramatic change in course from the Cons. And if the Libs are planning based on the opposite assumption, then they figure to be in for an unpleasant surprise once they have to take their untested machine into a race toward election day.
On public interest
Ryan Meili's Sasquatch column is definitely worth a read in highlighting the need for "less politics and more democracy" to get more people involved in. But while the Saskatchewan NDP will be working its way toward new ways of interacting with the public during the course of its upcoming policy development process, it can take pride in the fact that it's doing well in getting large numbers of people involved in its current electoral challenges:
In the first week and a half, Dwain's team already has more sign locations, more volunteers and more ground covered than we did in the 2007 election campaign.Now, the presence of more volunteers and more ground covered might be expected when all of Regina's NDP supporters are able to focus on a single riding. But it's the first of those indicators that's particularly remarkable: a third of the way through the by-election campaign, more voters in Regina Douglas Park had already made the decision to display their support for the NDP than was the case during an entire general election campaign for a popular, long-time MLA. And the fact that so many citizens even in a single riding are responding positively to the by-election campaign would seem to provide a hint as to how much more interest there may be once the party as a whole launches its process to give the public a stronger voice in democratic policy-making.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Ujjal Dosanjh Agrees with Bob Rae: Liberals Haven't Done their Jobs for Two Years
While Bob Rae may be the leader of the Libs' self-loathing caucus, he's apparently far from alone. Here's Ujjal Dosanjh:
i believe I was not elected to support Harper. Am pt o/offcl oppsn. So now doing what I wae elctd todo.And of course these are two members of Michael Ignatieff's inner circle. So if even those closest to power in the Libs recognize and acknowledge that they haven't been doing what they were elected to do...then what reason is there to think they'll act any differently if they get rewarded for that failure at the polls?
On self-loathing
When it comes to public demonstrations of stupidity like this, the main message to be taken away is that for all their preening about not having to contrive criticisms about Stephen Harper, they're threatened enough by the NDP to flat-out make up nonsense. But what does it say about the Libs' view of their own party that their supporters' idea of a damaging attack is to shriek that another party might (but on all available evidence won't) do what they've been doing for two years and counting?
The reviews are in
Lawrence Martin:
Mr. Harper's government is also the one that promised to breathe new democracy into the country but did the opposite, overcentralizing command in the Prime Minister's Office to a degree seldom seen. His Conservatives took attack advertising to new lows, even doing the cluster bombing between campaigns. They put out a 200-page dirty tricks handbook on how to disrupt parliamentary committees. They ran roughshod over the freedom of information process, even attempting to vet communications of independent officers of Parliament, the Auditor-General included. They've given us the Cadman affair, the so-called in-and-out affair, NAFTAgate, a fixed-election date that they unfixed, the use of a budget update to try to undercut opposition party financing, the attempted hamstringing of budget officer Kevin Page, gobs of patronage when they promised not to go that route.
If the Prime Minister thinks he can find a deity, any deity, who will be impressed with that show of morality, he is welcome to try.
On breaches of duty
So far, coverage of Peter MacKay's three-and-a-half-year long conflict of interest and ethics violation has at best hinted at what looks to me to be a significant part of the story.
MacKay's excuse for failing to disclose his involvement in his father's businesses is that he had flat-out forgotten that he was involved with them. But doesn't that mean he's admitting that he's been utterly negligent as a vice-president and director who would have owed the businesses a duty to look out for their interests? And is that really the profile of somebody who deserves to hold responsibility for a cabinet portfolio?
MacKay's excuse for failing to disclose his involvement in his father's businesses is that he had flat-out forgotten that he was involved with them. But doesn't that mean he's admitting that he's been utterly negligent as a vice-president and director who would have owed the businesses a duty to look out for their interests? And is that really the profile of somebody who deserves to hold responsibility for a cabinet portfolio?
The reviews are in
Haroon Siddiqui:
(Michael Ignatieff) is like John Kerry in 2004, unable to shed the burden of having backed George W. Bush. Given the clarity of Canadians on much of post-9/11 politics, Ignatieff is even less likely to win as Harper Lite than Kerry could as Bush Lite.
This is made all the more relevant given the many domestic implications of the war on terror.
Ignatieff was mostly mute during the controversy over Suaad Hagi Mohamud. Her lawyer, Raoul Boulakia, told me that the Liberals under Ignatieff have been reluctant to touch any case that might turn out to be unpopular. "Once they hear the word security, they run for cover. They don't want to touch it."
That was precisely the problem with Kerry Democrats – cowed into silence on key issues when Americans were beginning to crave principled stands.
So we end up with the irony that while Barack Obama is Canadianizing America – health care, human rights, civil liberties, etc. – Harper is stuck in Bush's policies, and the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada cannot articulate a vision of Canada in tune with the times.
Out of harmony
Last week, I theorized that if each of the opposition parties stuck to its most obvious line of attack on the HST, then the Cons could find themselves losing votes from all sides. But my fears have been confirmed that the Libs would undermine that possibility as they have every other chance to mount a solid attack on Harper by trying to sell conflicting messages in the two provinces which the Cons have bought off:
But more importantly, the Libs' internally conflicting position will mean that both they and the Cons will have a strong incentive not to talk about the HST during the course of a campaign. And that in turn will all too likely ensure that one of the issues with the strongest potential to raise public ire against the Harper government (even among its core supporters) will be kept out of the headlines - which figures to hurt the Libs' interest as least as much it does the other opposition parties.
While leader Michael Ignatieff has said little about the HST for national consumption, it's clear from the party material that Liberals are opposing introduction of an HST in B.C. -- which could be embarrassing given that their provincial cousins are behind it.In other words, rather than taking any coherent stance whatsoever either for or against the HST, the B.C. Libs are taking up the line that they'd carry out harmonization differently without saying how, and pretending that the issue is somehow radically different between the two provinces which have gone through the exact same process this year. Which makes the Libs themselves look even sillier than the Cons with their "don't blame us, we just spent $6 billion to make it happen" stance to the extent the issue does get discussed.
Their federal candidates have been instructed to refer to the tax as the "Harper Sales Tax" and to assert an HST won't work for B.C.'s economy, instead hurting growing sectors, specifically the service industry and tourism.
...
Should voters ask what federal Liberals themselves would do, candidates have been asked to tell voters that an Ignatieff government would not use a cookie-cutter approach to the HST. "We would be far more flexible in applying harmonization."
Candidates also have been told not to comment on comparisons with Ontario -- which announced its intention to harmonize its sales taxes last March -- because "they have different industries."
But more importantly, the Libs' internally conflicting position will mean that both they and the Cons will have a strong incentive not to talk about the HST during the course of a campaign. And that in turn will all too likely ensure that one of the issues with the strongest potential to raise public ire against the Harper government (even among its core supporters) will be kept out of the headlines - which figures to hurt the Libs' interest as least as much it does the other opposition parties.
On demands
The Star reports on a rough outline of the NDP's position in dealing with the Cons this fall, with improvements to EI, pension protections and credit card fees as the three main issues being presented. But while there are some reasons why focusing on those issues alone might make sense, I wonder whether the NDP should be expanding its range of demands to better position itself for the campaign which is likely to follow anyway.
Let's start off with the argument in favour of limiting the NDP's message. Of the three demands which have already been made public, two of them are already fairly well established as NDP issues: while the other opposition parties may have occasionally discussed pensions and credit card fees, it's the NDP that's generally recognized as leading the charge in trying to get anything done. And while all three opposition parties have seized on EI at various times, it's both a familiar theme for the NDP and a potential feather in the party's cap if it can somehow wring some concessions out of the Cons on an issue where the Libs tried and failed miserably.
So all three issues raised so far are identified with the NDP from its actions to date, and consistent with a platform based around the interests of working Canadians. And one can make the case that a party which doesn't tend to receive as many opportunities to make its case through the media needs to stick to its existing message to reinforce its position.
But I'd think there are far stronger considerations that might point toward raising some relatively new issues now to position the NDP for a fall campaign.
First off, the wave of outrage over the Cons' Senate patronage would seem to set up an opportunity for the NDP to paint an end to that type of action as part of its required change in course.
The most obvious opportunity on that front would be to publicly demand that the Cons work toward a mutually agreeable appointment to chair the Public Appointments Commission - a commission which was of course created through the Accountability Act, then thrown out the window once one of the Cons' party bagmen was rejected as chairman. My first thought was that somebody along the lines of Duff Conacher would be ideal as a compromise - though Conacher himself has probably been speaking a bit too much truth to power to win the Cons' approval now. But by coupling a demand to fill the position with an obviously non-partisan name, the NDP could put plenty of pressure on the Cons to live up to their past principles, and be able to position itself as the defender of those principles if the Cons reject the offer.
Likewise, at least a few promised provisions of the Accountability Act fell by the wayside as the Cons decided that improved access to information and other reforms didn't serve their purposes once they were in power. And by highlighting those issues now, the NDP can rightfully break them off from the Cons' brand and take up the cause of transparent, accountable government for itself.
As for other possibilities, I'd wonder whether the NDP's focus on areas covered by its private members' bills so far might unduly limit its ability to make the case as to what it would in fact do if given the chance to govern. There's no reason why the NDP's demands should be limited to areas which don't require government expenditures (as private members' bills are required to be) - and there would seem to be plenty of opportunity to request that money budgeted but not spent by the Cons be directed both toward more sustainable development and in a less partisan manner. In other words, the NDP should be taking a close look at its past platforms, not just its bills in Parliament, and looking for some relatively inexpensive but progressive items to fit into the current fiscal framework.
Finally, with the NDP also recognizing that its initiatives would require at least a few months to pass, some type of "no poison pills" term would also seem to be desperately needed, particularly on the off chance that Harper were to decide that he's better off snapping up the NDP's offer.
Again, the odds are that the Cons will summarily reject whatever the NDP brings to the table now anyway - particularly since their goal seems to be to place the onus back on the Libs to bear the brunt of responsibility for forcing an election. But even if that's the case, I'd think it's better for the NDP to ask for more now - such as to position itself as representing a broader range of interests, and to enable it to criticize the Cons as having rejected more good ideas later - rather than leaving open any room for argument that it aimed too low.
Let's start off with the argument in favour of limiting the NDP's message. Of the three demands which have already been made public, two of them are already fairly well established as NDP issues: while the other opposition parties may have occasionally discussed pensions and credit card fees, it's the NDP that's generally recognized as leading the charge in trying to get anything done. And while all three opposition parties have seized on EI at various times, it's both a familiar theme for the NDP and a potential feather in the party's cap if it can somehow wring some concessions out of the Cons on an issue where the Libs tried and failed miserably.
So all three issues raised so far are identified with the NDP from its actions to date, and consistent with a platform based around the interests of working Canadians. And one can make the case that a party which doesn't tend to receive as many opportunities to make its case through the media needs to stick to its existing message to reinforce its position.
But I'd think there are far stronger considerations that might point toward raising some relatively new issues now to position the NDP for a fall campaign.
First off, the wave of outrage over the Cons' Senate patronage would seem to set up an opportunity for the NDP to paint an end to that type of action as part of its required change in course.
The most obvious opportunity on that front would be to publicly demand that the Cons work toward a mutually agreeable appointment to chair the Public Appointments Commission - a commission which was of course created through the Accountability Act, then thrown out the window once one of the Cons' party bagmen was rejected as chairman. My first thought was that somebody along the lines of Duff Conacher would be ideal as a compromise - though Conacher himself has probably been speaking a bit too much truth to power to win the Cons' approval now. But by coupling a demand to fill the position with an obviously non-partisan name, the NDP could put plenty of pressure on the Cons to live up to their past principles, and be able to position itself as the defender of those principles if the Cons reject the offer.
Likewise, at least a few promised provisions of the Accountability Act fell by the wayside as the Cons decided that improved access to information and other reforms didn't serve their purposes once they were in power. And by highlighting those issues now, the NDP can rightfully break them off from the Cons' brand and take up the cause of transparent, accountable government for itself.
As for other possibilities, I'd wonder whether the NDP's focus on areas covered by its private members' bills so far might unduly limit its ability to make the case as to what it would in fact do if given the chance to govern. There's no reason why the NDP's demands should be limited to areas which don't require government expenditures (as private members' bills are required to be) - and there would seem to be plenty of opportunity to request that money budgeted but not spent by the Cons be directed both toward more sustainable development and in a less partisan manner. In other words, the NDP should be taking a close look at its past platforms, not just its bills in Parliament, and looking for some relatively inexpensive but progressive items to fit into the current fiscal framework.
Finally, with the NDP also recognizing that its initiatives would require at least a few months to pass, some type of "no poison pills" term would also seem to be desperately needed, particularly on the off chance that Harper were to decide that he's better off snapping up the NDP's offer.
Again, the odds are that the Cons will summarily reject whatever the NDP brings to the table now anyway - particularly since their goal seems to be to place the onus back on the Libs to bear the brunt of responsibility for forcing an election. But even if that's the case, I'd think it's better for the NDP to ask for more now - such as to position itself as representing a broader range of interests, and to enable it to criticize the Cons as having rejected more good ideas later - rather than leaving open any room for argument that it aimed too low.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Win-win
I'll say this about the Saskatchewan Roughriders' decision to take a chance on a kick returner who's jawed, brain-cramped or fumbled his way off of half of the teams in the CFL (including the 'Riders) but seldom had trouble finding another one to take a chance on him: whatever the outcome, Jason Armstead's signing should put an end to any talk of improving the team's return game through outside additions.
If we get Armstead at his best, he's one of the few players with the speed to rattle off big returns even with mediocre blocking in front of him - so fans will have to be happy with him as the fix for this season.
And if we get Armstead at his worst, then whoever else the team puts back in the spot from its current roster (presumably Eric Morris) will look good enough by comparison to stop any questions for the rest of the year.
If we get Armstead at his best, he's one of the few players with the speed to rattle off big returns even with mediocre blocking in front of him - so fans will have to be happy with him as the fix for this season.
And if we get Armstead at his worst, then whoever else the team puts back in the spot from its current roster (presumably Eric Morris) will look good enough by comparison to stop any questions for the rest of the year.
Deep thought
On double-edged swords
Don Martin seems to think the Cons are headed for a fall love-in between Stephen Harper and the previously-exiled Brian Mulroney. I'm not sure there's much reason to think that'll be the case - but as Murray Mandryk points out, that may carry at least as many costs as it does opportunities in terms of cementing a connection between the two:
(H)ow do old Reformers justify to themselves Harper's most recent Senate appointments? What do they say when they speak privately? How can they possibly disagree with Maclean's magazine columnist Andrew Coyne, who so aptly described these appointments as the "most obnoxiously partisan, disgustingly sycophantic choices" Harper could make?
...
These particularly partisan appointments jackhammer away at the the bedrock of old Reform principles that also demanded balanced budgets, prudent spending and an end to pandering to Quebec -- other issues from which Harper has parted ways.
It makes one wonder whether some old Reformers are now privately wondering: "Aren't we really right back to the days of Mulroney?"
Bob Rae: Liberals Haven't Done their Jobs for Two Years
Or at least, that's the implication of what he now says about what he wasn't elected to do:
But fortunately, Rae explains why he's now able to acknowledge the fact that he's spent his last two years doing exactly what he was elected not to do:
(Edit: fixed wording.)
"I didn't come to Parliament to vote for Stephen Harper, I wasn't elected to vote for a neo-conservative government," Rae told CTV's Canada AM.And yet, that's of course exactly what Rae and the rest of his party-mates have done. Repeatedly. 79 times, one might even say. And all without a word of protest at the time.
But fortunately, Rae explains why he's now able to acknowledge the fact that he's spent his last two years doing exactly what he was elected not to do:
"I'm a member of the Official Opposition, Mr. Ignatieff is the leader and he's said we're not going to continue to support the government."So apparently Rae is only allowed to point out the problems with Stephen Harper and his neoconservative government with the Lib leader's dispensation. And if Ignatieff himself has some Harper-like or neoconservative tendencies...well, Rae's own actions in propping up Harper under Iggy's orders tell us just how likely he'll be to do anything to counter them.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Reasons for disbelief
When a premier who's taken every step possible to avoid meaningful greenhouse gas emission reductions in order to prevent his province's oil industry from facing any consequences for its impact on the environment claims that we should avoid disrupting the equally-irresposible federal government's direction on climate change going into an international conference, it's probably worth taking that as evidence of just the opposite.
And when a supporter of a party whose leader declares tar sand development to be a national unity issue and says we can't reduce greenhouse gas emissions any more than the oil industry will let us criticizes another party as uncommitted to dealing with climate change, it's probably worth taking that too as evidence favouring the opposite conclusion.
And when a supporter of a party whose leader declares tar sand development to be a national unity issue and says we can't reduce greenhouse gas emissions any more than the oil industry will let us criticizes another party as uncommitted to dealing with climate change, it's probably worth taking that too as evidence favouring the opposite conclusion.
Waiting for the miracle
A few Libs seem all too happy to use exactly the same kind of highly selective quoting and repetition of press spin against the NDP that they regularly decry when it's working against their party. So let's highlight the most important part of what the NDP in fact has to say, with the part of Joe Comartin's statement that they're leaving out:
But the NDP's basic position that Con government in the form we've seen for the past three and a half years isn't acceptable remains the same - leaving only the question of whether Harper is willing to change how he governs in order to retain the ability to do so. And while it looks like the Cons prefer to put the onus back on the Libs to keep allowing them to govern without compromising at all, one can't rule out the possibility that a miracle will happen.
Update: Megan Leslie is closer to the right message (though I'd work on the example of what would have to happen for Harper's direction to change):
"It's absolutely necessary that the Conservatives make some very important compromises," said the NDP MP. "If they don't change their economic policy, we won't be able to support them."If there's been a change in the NDP's tone, it's in suggesting that there's some meaningful chance that the Cons might now consider governing more responsibly in order to stay in power where the Libs left them no reason to do so before. And I'll grant that the line taken by both Comartin and Thomas Mulcair is more optimistic on that point than I am: I'd think it would be better at this point to stick with the previous terminology that it would require a miracle for the Cons to do so and let them try to take steps to make it happen, rather than creating even the slightest space for a desperate Lib party to invent a narrative which casts the NDP as taking over the role the Libs have occupied for so long.
But the NDP's basic position that Con government in the form we've seen for the past three and a half years isn't acceptable remains the same - leaving only the question of whether Harper is willing to change how he governs in order to retain the ability to do so. And while it looks like the Cons prefer to put the onus back on the Libs to keep allowing them to govern without compromising at all, one can't rule out the possibility that a miracle will happen.
Update: Megan Leslie is closer to the right message (though I'd work on the example of what would have to happen for Harper's direction to change):
"We clearly haven’t supported the vision of the Conservatives. Absolutely," said Ms. Leslie. "But were there to be a huge change in that vision, who knows? I think there’s room to stop and think about what is best right now. But it’s the Harper vision that we can’t support. Who knows? Maybe he’ll fall on his head and have a new vision."Update II: Apparently no miracle is forthcoming. Which is just fine: thanks to the Cons' over-the-top refusal to even talk about cooperating, the NDP both preserves its principled stance as the lone national party to vote against the Cons' government in practice, and wins the title of the only party willing to make any effort to make Parliament work to improve matters.
Simple answers to simple questions
Greg asks:
The Tories have a minority government and need the support of only one other party. Whether we have an election or not is up to the government's willingness to negotiate with other parties, not the Liberals. The Liberals alone have no ability to bring down the government. Why won't they work with the other parties in parliament to avoid an election?Because after three and a half years of staying in power by bulldozing weak opponents as part of a hyperpartisan strategy rather than compromising even once on anything of substance, they flat out don't know how to "work with" anybody. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Time for a reminder...
I for one recall something about an opportunity to replace the Cons with a less toxic government without an election until at least 2010. Can anybody remember which party it was that decided leaving the Cons in power would somehow be more stable?
On revelations
So apparently the Libs have figured out that it's entirely legitimate to judge a government on its body of harmful work rather than waiting to read the text of the Cons' latest attempt to cling to power first. And good on them for coming around to the NDP's longtime position.
But here's the problem: the same standard of judging a party by its full track record rather than merely its latest public facade applies equally to the Libs. So how do they plan to get off the hook for having to eat two years worth of excuses for propping up the Cons?
Update: Lest there be any doubt, there's indeed plenty of reason for skepticism as to whether or not the Libs will follow through on their bluster for a change. But even if they don't, they have plenty to answer for in going from their "no reasonable party would declare non-confidence in advance!" line to doing just that.
Update II: HUD has the early lead in providing the best explanation for the Libs' change of tune.
But here's the problem: the same standard of judging a party by its full track record rather than merely its latest public facade applies equally to the Libs. So how do they plan to get off the hook for having to eat two years worth of excuses for propping up the Cons?
Update: Lest there be any doubt, there's indeed plenty of reason for skepticism as to whether or not the Libs will follow through on their bluster for a change. But even if they don't, they have plenty to answer for in going from their "no reasonable party would declare non-confidence in advance!" line to doing just that.
Update II: HUD has the early lead in providing the best explanation for the Libs' change of tune.
On business inputs
In comments here, I noted what strikes me as the underlying philosophy behind the the HST and other efforts to shift the cost of taxes from businesses to citizens. But it's worth going into a bit more detail as to just how bizarre the distinction may be.
Just so there's no doubt what type of goods will be covered by the HST, here's the Campbell government's attempt to get restaurants onside despite the increase on taxes for their customers:
Is there an obvious reason to consider keeping a home clean and well-maintained to be "consumption" to be accounted for as a negative externality when it's merely done for the benefit of family, friends and unincorporated groups, but a "business input" if some clients might also stop by? And if so, what does that say about the value we place on providing for one's home and family?
Is there in fact some real economic benefit to taxing the price of a computer which will be used for non-profit purposes including a blog without ads, while treating a blog with ads (and thus some theoretical claim to potential profit) as a business which entitles the computer's purchaser to a 12-13% rebate?
Is there a particular reason why it's considered taxable consumption to merely raise children, but a tax-creditable business enterprise to raise them for export?
Okay, the analogy likely breaks down at some point. That said, it still seems that the starting point has to be that a good purchased and consumed is a good purchased and consumed. And some hint of an underlying profit motive on its own hardly looks to be justification for overriding the considerations underlying consumption taxes.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the HST debate to date has involved the least bit of scrutiny toward the premise that businesses ought to be treated more favourably than mere citizens.
Which itself seems to reflect a trend which deserves to be pointed out more than it has been. While some mention has been made of the effort to convert Canadians from seeing themselves as involved citizens to identifying themselves primarily as consumers defined by what they own, the push seems to be on toward the next step: a country of 33 million independent consulting firms seeking to maximize profit at every turn, with the mere consumers in our midst punished for their lack of interest in becoming capitalists with higher taxes.
Of course, if the HST does end up spreading from coast to coast to coast, there will be ample reason for Canadians to make just that switch for tax purposes. But is it ultimately a plus for us to be judged as possible profit centres first and foremost, while activities which can't be classified under that heading are subject to relative tax disincentives? And isn't it worth at least having the discussion in some detail before the tax system is shifted even further toward putting profits first?
Just so there's no doubt what type of goods will be covered by the HST, here's the Campbell government's attempt to get restaurants onside despite the increase on taxes for their customers:
For example, a restaurant will no longer pay sales tax (PST) on products which are considered business “inputs” under HST such as:Note that the majority of the items which the Campbell government brags about making tax-free for restaurants are also items which are used regularly for home purposes. So let's ask the question which seems to have been utterly ignored by the HST's proponents: is there actually any basis in principle for treating those items differently based on whether there's a profit motive involved?
* fridges, stoves, freezers, dishwashers and other appliances
* energy for heat, cooking and operating equipment and lighting
* cleaning supplies, such as rags, soaps and cleaning solutions,
* cash registers, computer hardware and software
* equipment repair and maintenance services
* paper towels and toilet paper
* customer food bills and menus
* cloth napkins, table cloths, tray covers and placemats
* pots, pans, kitchen implements and knives
* plates, bowls, glasses, cups, other reusable dishes, and cutlery
* coffee machines, blenders, mixers and other small appliances
* free‐standing equipment such as juice dispensers, ice machines and coolers
* office equipment, supplies and furniture,
* advertising materials, such as flyers and brochures
* items purchased to give away as free promotions
Is there an obvious reason to consider keeping a home clean and well-maintained to be "consumption" to be accounted for as a negative externality when it's merely done for the benefit of family, friends and unincorporated groups, but a "business input" if some clients might also stop by? And if so, what does that say about the value we place on providing for one's home and family?
Is there in fact some real economic benefit to taxing the price of a computer which will be used for non-profit purposes including a blog without ads, while treating a blog with ads (and thus some theoretical claim to potential profit) as a business which entitles the computer's purchaser to a 12-13% rebate?
Is there a particular reason why it's considered taxable consumption to merely raise children, but a tax-creditable business enterprise to raise them for export?
Okay, the analogy likely breaks down at some point. That said, it still seems that the starting point has to be that a good purchased and consumed is a good purchased and consumed. And some hint of an underlying profit motive on its own hardly looks to be justification for overriding the considerations underlying consumption taxes.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the HST debate to date has involved the least bit of scrutiny toward the premise that businesses ought to be treated more favourably than mere citizens.
Which itself seems to reflect a trend which deserves to be pointed out more than it has been. While some mention has been made of the effort to convert Canadians from seeing themselves as involved citizens to identifying themselves primarily as consumers defined by what they own, the push seems to be on toward the next step: a country of 33 million independent consulting firms seeking to maximize profit at every turn, with the mere consumers in our midst punished for their lack of interest in becoming capitalists with higher taxes.
Of course, if the HST does end up spreading from coast to coast to coast, there will be ample reason for Canadians to make just that switch for tax purposes. But is it ultimately a plus for us to be judged as possible profit centres first and foremost, while activities which can't be classified under that heading are subject to relative tax disincentives? And isn't it worth at least having the discussion in some detail before the tax system is shifted even further toward putting profits first?
Logical connections
Let's take Michael Ignatieff's "life support" line to its logical conclusion.
Harper government : Liberals : New Democrats :: Terri Schiavo : Republicans : Democrats
Now we just need to make sure that the Libs meet the same reward as the Republicans for their bedside manner.
(Hey, if it's not too soon for Kennedy jokes...)
Harper government : Liberals : New Democrats :: Terri Schiavo : Republicans : Democrats
Now we just need to make sure that the Libs meet the same reward as the Republicans for their bedside manner.
(Hey, if it's not too soon for Kennedy jokes...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)