Musical interlude and light blogging warning

Off to an undisclosed location until next weekend, with little or no posting in the meantime. But first, here's...

Armand Van Helden - U Don't Know Me

On nation building

As promised, let's take a closer look at Jack Layton's economic vision speech to the Toronto Rotary Club, with a particular focus on how it frames the role of government.

The first noteworthy point is the extensive use of "infrastructure" as the main priority for government - with the term then expanded to include policies which normally aren't thought of as fitting the definition:

I’d take not just a longer view of infrastructure but a wider one too.

If physical infrastructure is a foundation for economic growth, so is social infrastructure. This century, probably more so. Public health care helps Canada compete for investment and jobs. Affordable child care opens doors for parents to work or to study. Education & training, quality & accessible, is how we’ll build that 21st-century workforce. More affordable housing means a more secure population of workers and consumers.

We need to talk about retirement security. Settlement services. Seniors care. But it’s been years since we’ve seen substantial national leadership to strengthen our social infrastructure. One-off deals with provinces, yes — a little homelessness funding in a crisis, or child care deals that can be axed at a whim. My vision for Ottawa includes a renewed focus on building that social infrastructure — as a matter of sound economic policy.

Let’s build those programs that we know attract new investment, jobs and immigration into our communities. Let’s build those programs that support a more secure, skilled, healthy population — the next generation of workers, consumers, innovators, leaders. Let’s build them strategically, one practical step at a time.

Now, it's not hard to see some path-of-least-resistance value in treating what might otherwise be thought of as a separate class of social programs as being part of "infrastructure". After all, while the Harper Cons never hesitate to attack anything that's labeled as social spending (or even social policy at this point), they'll happily brag about flinging tens of billions of dollars around under the "infrastructure" heading. And to the extent it's possible to put aside a dispute over descriptors to compare the relative value of, say, housing and retirement income as opposed to lawn-bowling greens, there's plenty of opportunity to set up positive comparisons between the NDP's vision and the Cons'.

But it is worth asking whether the phrasing concedes more ground than it should. If the NDP isn't able to transform the public's view of the term "infrastructure" (which will be a difficult task when the Cons have spent so much time and money promoting their pork-based vision), then its framing will result in all sides talking about a term perceived to refer to things rather than people. And that could make it more difficult to build associations between valuable social programs and their human impact in the long term.

On the bright side, though, Layton's message also includes a strong statement that the government's role isn't simply to be a passive observer of the economy:

I’d use infrastructure investment as a means to achieve Pan-Canadian goals. Fuller employment, higher productivity, lower carbon emissions, less gridlock outside... You see that approach embodied in legislation we’ve brought to the House:

* Like our bill launching a 10-year housing strategy
* Another one phasing in a pan-Canadian child care program
* Our bill — now passed in the House! — holding Ottawa accountable to rolling carbon-reduction targets.
...
But if you believe Ottawa’s real job is to get out of the way, then meeting pan-Canadian goals will never be your priority. Do any of you believe that? I certainly don’t.

I believe our national government has vital a role to play — as the embodiment of our collective capacities as Canadians. I believe sound economic management should be about achieving national goals — like full-time job creation.

The legislative examples listed by Layton go more toward policies than the values which have to define what goals we should aim for - and hopefully we'll see some stronger links between the two as Layton's message evolves. But the underlying message is a vital one: that "collective capacities" matter, and that our democratic system should serve as a forum to discuss and decide exactly what goals we want to pursue as those capacities are harnessed.

Of course, there's still plenty of need to define exactly what collective capacities we should focus on, and I wouldn't take Layton's list as definitive. But it's nonetheless a huge plus to see a wholehearted defence of the role of the federal government in formulating and reaching national goals, particularly in contrast to Harper's determination to demolish it and Ignatieff's willingness to throw it under the bus when it seems convenient. And the more politicians and voters alike start to think about what Ottawa can and should do for the country as a whole rather than defining politics solely in terms of partisan jabs, the better the chances of actually reaching some of our national goals in the longer term.

Well said

While the Wall government is showing its utter contempt for Saskatchewan's citizens on big long-term issues as well, there are plenty of examples that hit far closer to home as well. Which brings us to LRT's apt comment on the Sask Party's inexplicable delay in funding to the Chili for Children school lunch program:

Chili for Children operates in what Maclean's once called "Canada's Worst Neighbourhood", and did enough good works over the last several years that Prince Charles stopped by for a visit in 2001. Yet somehow, the funding for the operation didn't come in on time.

I'd invite anyone who thinks that delaying funding to Chili for Children is acceptable to skip lunch for the next few days.

Friday Morning Links

A few light reads to end your week...

- Yep, this census thingy will blow over any day now for the Harper Cons. Just as soon as those freeloading public health officials stop complaining that "social determinants of health" might be important for their work...

- Meanwhile, to the extent there was any doubt that Guy Giorno would officially be declared responsible for the census debacle among other Con failings, his departure from the PMO should seal the deal.

- Paul Wells' comparison between Stephen Harper and Glenn Beck only seems to be off base in missing the fact that Harper's "politics of venom" is carefully planned rather than delivered in random outbursts. But Wells' discussion of the implications for our political scene dovetails nicely with my take on base motivation:

Throughout that period, writes Perlstein, “America was engulfed in a pitched battle between the forces of darkness and the forces of light. The only thing was: Americans disagreed radically over which side was which.”

And so it is today in our own politics. Whether it’s the long-form census, the long-gun registry, criminal justice or Canada’s role in the Middle East, our politics has become nasty and hotly accusatory. One noteworthy feature of the acrimony is that each side blames the other for all the ugliness. Another is that, thanks to websites and broadcasts that preach to the converted with pinpoint accuracy (Huffington Post, Beck’s The Blaze), the possibility of consensus collapses further because neither side even hears what the other is talking about.

This is useful to Harper and disorienting to the federal Liberals. The Prime Minister is content with a polarized debate, first because it suits his personality, but also because the Conservatives get all of one side and the Liberals have to fight the Bloc and the NDP for the rest. The Liberals, meanwhile, still hope to straddle a centre that’s increasingly hard even to find.

And instead of recognizing that there's some need to counter Harper's narrowcasting and turnout suppression, the Libs seem to be playing into his hands by painting Canadian politics as a choice in tent colour rather than a subject worth getting fired up about.

- Finally, Chantal Hebert's column on the impending federal by-elections contains one rather surprising statement:

In Quebec, the pattern since 2006 has been that the Conservatives have fared better in by-elections than in general elections.

Local rather than national issues typically dominate by-election campaigns. The benefits of electing a member with the inside track on government largesse are easier to highlight in that context than in a general election.

Let's leave aside the recent pattern in Quebec (where the Bloc doesn't seem to be as successful when it can't get the entire province riled up at once). I'd always thought the conventional wisdom was to the opposite effect: that in the absence of any prospect of changing governments, by-election voters tend to be more willing to cast protest votes - but is there reason to think the opposite holds true other than in the case of the Bloc?

- Update: Let's add Avaaz' sharp response to a few obviously false names included in its petition to uphold the CRTC's decision not to give special status to Fox News North:

There is evidence of a deliberate and illegal effort designed to discredit Avaaz and violate an important form of democratic expression for Canadian citizens. If this is confirmed we will request a full investigation, and help to bring the perpetrators to justice.
...
It's deeply disturbing that in all Avaaz's years of campaigns against US President George Bush, Burmese, Zimbabwean and Sudanese dictators, irresponsible multinational corporations and corrupt politicians, no one has ever yet stooped to this kind of tactic to undermine our members' right to express their views.

We do not yet have all the facts, but it appears to speak to the poisonous political climate and deeply deceptive tactics that have been bred by the radical right in Canada and its progenitor in the US. It is precisely this kind of bare-knuckled, brazenly deceptive and often hateful political climate that Sun TV's "Fox News North" appears keen to promote.

Of course, it's worth noting that while Avaaz may not yet have encountered these kinds of tactics, the "discrediting by fraud" angle is all too familiar to other progressive organizations south of the border. And the prospect of major Canadian media space being devoted to similar lies in the service of reactionary politics should provide all the more incentive to sign Avaaz' petition.

On notable omissions

It isn't much surprise that the Wall government has decided to put a corporate front group in charge of advising it on a possible potash takeover. But it's remarkable just how brazen the Sask Party is being in declaring that as far as it's concerned, nothing matters but big business:

The Saskatchewan government has commissioned the Conference Board of Canada to complete a report to understand the implications for Saskatchewan of a proposed takeover of PotashCorp.

1. The report will identify general risks to and opportunities for:
- All aspects of potash industry employment in Saskatchewan;
- Revenues of the Government of Saskatchewan including royalty revenue, corporate tax
revenue, indirect revenue;
- Saskatchewan's strategic position in the international potash industry; and
- Saskatchewan's reputation for a positive investment climate.

Now, some of us might think that a provincial government should have some interest in figuring out how a takeover would affect the scope of future policymaking, or that it might be worth considering the interests of Saskatchewan's citizens as the ultimate owner of our potash resources. But instead, the provincial government is mentioned solely from the perspective of "revenue", while the long-term interests of Saskatchewan's people are left out altogether.

But while mere people apparently don't rate a mention in the Sask Party's terms of reference, a "reputation for a positive investment climate" is proclaimed to be an explicit end goal. (Though I suppose the Wall government does tend to see that as the polar opposite of giving people any say in how their province is governed.)

Now, one might want to excuse the Sask Party by suggesting that those questions should be dealt with elsewhere. But the report is supposed to cover the "implications for Saskatchewan", full stop. And based on the Sask Party's track record, there's no reason to think it'll do anything but take a corporate-focused report as the definitive word on the subject.

Which means that the Wall government's hand-picked terms of reference create an inescapable conclusion that it doesn't see Saskatchewan's citizens as having any legitimate interest in how their publicly-owned natural resources are managed.

Thursday Morning Links

An assortment of articles for your perusal...

- Just you wait, the Cons' census vandalism will be forgotten any day now:

Released Thursday morning, the EKOS survey delivers nothing but bad news for the Tories, showing their support reduced to a narrow base of hardcore older Western males. This, as they bleed support from women, young people and university educated Canadians.

Quebec is now “scorched earth” for the Conservatives. The EKOS numbers indicate the party would be reduced to one seat from the 11 they now hold in that province.

It’s all because of the government’s decision to scrap the mandatory long-form census, pollster Frank Graves says.

“The direct testing suggests that the census initiative has gone over with a massive thud,” he said. “It is receiving near universal raspberries from a flummoxed electorate.”

- But of course, there's more to charting Canada's course for the future than simply recognizing the problems with the Cons. And while I'd agree with Jeffrey Simpson that his laundry list of democratic reforms deserves some discussion, there's little indication that the Ignatieff Libs are interested in doing anything but taking over the Harper command centre.

- Meanwhile, Marc Lee has his own set of game-changing policy proposals which are well worth a read.

- Finally, Dan Gardner offers some perspective on the relative risk to Canadians from the terrorism that causes the Cons' base to soil itself daily compared to other everyday dangers. But I worry that his mention of falls from trees will only help the right-wing fringe to turn toward environmentalists as their next target as the supposed terrorist threats come to nothing.

Beyond the echo chamber

It remains to be seen how the rest of New Brunswick's election campaign will play out - and particularly whether either the Libs or the Cons will try (however implausibly) to adopt a theme of responsible management for themselves. But for now, it's hard to imagine the NDP's chosen message fitting more perfectly into the broader campaign.

So far, even the national media is dumbstruck at the Graham/Alward bidding war for votes in a province whose fiscal mismanagement already looks to raise some serious long-term issues. But rather than following suit with its own package of baubles, the NDP is not only promising to hold the line on taxes but even highlighting practical ways to save hundreds of millions of dollars without affecting program delivery.

Which means that New Brunswick's citizens have an obvious choice other than to keep voting for the same old empty promises and irresponsible government. And if enough voters learn that they do have that option, then what already looks to be a potentially historical breakthrough for the NDP may get even bigger.

Update: The Chronicle Herald seems to agree.

On confirmation

Not that it's particularly surprising that the B.C. Libs were less than honest in claiming to have never thought about imposing the HST until roughly three seconds before they officially declared it a done deal. But for those wondering when the paper trail would emerge, here's the answer: just in time to get the public nice and riled up for a recall campaign.

Defining the possible

I'd have serious reservations about what would likely result if he were to get his wish (and would encourage the Libs' less corporatist members to keep in mind how the party prioritized budget-slashing and tax-cutting over nation-building last time it had the chance). But I won't join those criticizing Michael Ignatieff for suggesting that he's aiming for a Lib majority government in the next election as his primary goal. Indeed, one of the easiest mistakes to make in discussing politics is to ascribe too much permanence to a status quo that can change significantly without warning - and the minority-government games of the past few years have likely made that tendency even worse.

That said, though, it's worth pointing out the implications of Ignatieff's statement and its underlying assumptions as applied to other parties as well.

After all, if it's not implausible for the Libs to boost their electoral fortunes by the double-digit vote share and nearly 80 seats required to get them into majority territory, then it can hardly be out of the question for another opposition party to improve its standing by the same amount. Which raises not just the possibility of the NDP closing the relatively narrow gap with the Libs, but also the prospect of an NDP government as an outcome close enough to reality to be worth publicly discussing and striving for.

(Edit: fixed typos.)

On stagnation

Jim Stanford offers a reminder that it isn't only south of the border that the private sector is pocketing stimulus money rather than making any investments that would actually encourage recovery:

Despite a few signs of life (mostly in the oil and gas industry), overall business investment spending has not bounced back at all. Business capital investment is just 6 per cent higher than it was in the trough of the recession a year ago. Yes, profits shrank during the downturn, but they’re recovering. And businesses aren’t even reinvesting what they get, let alone taking on new debt. Cash flow (profits plus depreciation) continues to outstrip new capital investment by almost 2-to-1.

The odd result of this private-sector passivity is that non-financial firms have actually saved close to $100-billion since the recession began. That about offsets the new debt taken on by our governments over the same period. In other words, governments (and the taxpayers who fund them) are taking on debt to try to restart a sick economy. But for every dollar they put in, private firms take out a dollar – in the form of idle, uninvested cash flow, used to pay down their own debt or, worse yet, to speculate in the paper markets.

Business should be leading economic recovery, borrowing money (from households and banks) to fund new investments and jobs. That’s how capitalism is supposed to work. In today’s lean-and-mean world, however, business is free-riding on the spending efforts of others. Despite tax cuts and other business-friendly policies, the private sector isn’t taking on the risks, and taking on the debt, necessary to fuel broader recovery.

On strategic responses

The latest on the Harper Cons' attempt to run against the idea of cooperative politics includes one good point about what they hope to accomplish. But it's worth clarifying exactly why the Cons want to see the Libs denying the possibility - and what can be done instead:

Bricker said the Tories will be happy merely if Ignatieff is forced to talk about the (coalition) issue.

"They want him denying. They want him to engage in that debate, because it's better than talking about the census, or the gun registry or whatever story of the day is. It's smart strategy. These guys, if anything, are smart and ruthless about how they campaign."

Now, Bricker's thesis is probably true enough on its face: the more time the Libs spend either rejecting the possibility of a coalition (as they did in '08) or obfuscating on the issue (as they're doing now), the easier it'll be for the Cons to boost their electoral fortunes based on a combination of a motivated base and a disheartened opposition. And of course it doesn't help matters that the Libs would once again be inviting voters to match their message that they'd rather keep Harper in power than consider cooperating with anybody else.

But there's an easy way to get back onto stronger ground. It shouldn't take too much effort to answer any questions about a coalition by saying that the Libs don't consider themselves to be above working with others to fix the damage done by the Cons - then turn the conversation back to exactly why Harper needs to be replaced. And the more the Cons' talk of a coalition gets turned into an invitation to talk about exactly why so many parties can agree that they have to go, the more likely they'll be to have to abandon the strategy.