Leadership 2018 Links

The latest from Saskatchewan's NDP leadership campaign as the entry deadline has passed and the membership deadline approaches.

- While I haven't tracked endorsements all that closely, it's certainly worth keeping track of any changes since previous leadership campaigns between two candidates who have run before. And on that front, it's worth noting that 2009 and 2013 Meili endorser Dion Tchorzewski has joined 2013 campaign manager Nicole White in supporting Wotherspoon. 

- Meanwhile, Trevor Herriot offers his take on the importance of leadership which can build bridges rather than merely keeping us where we are - which Herriot himself notes is an expression of support for Meili.

- Tanner Wallace-Scribner reports on Meili's visit to Swift Current, including his take on the use of the proceeds of marijuana sales:

"I think there is some debate to be had about the best way to retail it," he said. "One thing I would say is, the money that comes in, we should make sure that every cent goes to support mental health and addictions. To support anyone who is struggling with any addictions but also to invest in that really under-resourced part of our health system."

Meili added they need to focus the money they make off of the sale of marijuana and put it towards making peoples' lives better.

- Brian Zinchuk interviews Wotherspoon about his plans for the energy sector, including the need for regular royalty reviews to ensure the public receives fair value for our resources.And Nykole King previews tonight's debate at the University of Saskatchewan.

- Finally, Meili has unveiled his arts and culture policy ahead of a series of music events.

New column day

Here, on the Saskatchewan Party's devaluation of the music teacher (among other cultural and community-building parts of our schools).

For further reading...
- CBC reported on the Prairie Spirit School Division's decision to eliminate school bands here, and Janet French did likewise here.
- The Star-Phoenix' editorial board weighed in here. And now, even the Saskatchewan Party is pretending to oppose what its policy choices have wrought.
- And for those looking to support the students trying to save their band program, Shawna Langer's petition is here.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Zach Carter shines a spotlight on the few types of interests who stand to gain from austerity:

But the austerity game also has winners. Cutting or eliminating government programs that benefit the less advantaged has long been an ideological goal of conservatives. Doing so also generates a tidy windfall for the corporate class, as government services are privatized and savings from austerity pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens.
...
"Austerity policies are literally a redistribution from the bottom of the income spectrum to the top," said Dorian Warren, a professor of political science at Columbia University and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, an economic policy think tank. "In Wisconsin, both wealthy people and businesses got tax breaks, while middle-class and working-class employees of the state essentially got crushed."

Warren emphasized that there are political dimensions to the austerity push. Efforts to curb collective bargaining rights -- and thus pay and benefits -- for state employees cut to the heart of the American labor movement. With only 7 percent of the private-sector workforce unionized, public-sector unions are a critical component of labor's political influence and an important bloc in Democratic Party operations.

Governments in Europe, most notably the United Kingdom, have also pursued tax cuts for the rich while imposing austerity measures on the working classes. And the European financier class has benefited even more directly than their American counterparts from these budgets.

Every time the European Union has reached a crisis point on the debt carried by Greece or Spain, EU leaders, especially German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have come to the rescue with bailout funds. That money goes to the banks that own Greek and Spanish debt, whose holdings would take a hit if either country were unable to repay. But the bailout comes with harsh austerity requirements intended to encourage budgetary discipline, so it's ordinary citizens who end up taking the hit. The most vulnerable populations are harmed by the bailouts, while the well-paid financial professionals who made the deals to finance Greek and Spanish deficits in the first place continue profiting handsomely.

- Chris Hedges recognizes the need for thoughtful questioning of self-serving "conventional wisdom":

And here is the dilemma we face as a civilization. We march collectively toward self-annihilation. Corporate capitalism, if left unchecked, will kill us. Yet we refuse, because we cannot think and no longer listen to those who do think, to see what is about to happen to us. We have created entertaining mechanisms to obscure and silence the harsh truths, from climate change to the collapse of globalization to our enslavement to corporate power, that will mean our self-destruction. If we can do nothing else we must, even as individuals, nurture the private dialogue and the solitude that make thought possible.

- Erin Weir makes the point that massive potash profits only confirm that Saskatchewan is forfeiting massive amounts of public wealth to the Saskatchewan Party's corporate benefactors. And Tom Shelstad notes that a reasonable royalty regime would provide ample money to fund projects like a Regina stadium up front - rather than requiring the city to take on decades of debt.

- Meanwhile, the Star-Phoenix editorial board is duly skeptical about the Wall government's pretending to listen to cultural industries only after driving them out of the province.

- Finally, I've tended to view Regina's housing crisis as a significant issue demanding a policy response. But apparently I should have known it was nothing more than a charming human interest story all along. (I'm just surprised the featuredidn't end with a down-on-his luck new arrival marrying the campground manager's daughter.)

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Michael Harris lists ten things the Harper Cons want Canadians to forget before the 2015 election. But it's worth keeping in mind that their expectations for mind-wiping are surely shaped by their own willingness to completely forget what they were repeating incessantly before a change in talking points: just look how quickly they switched from pointing to a supposed plan to respond to the Auditor General's criticism of the F-35 procurement process to claiming nobody could possibly have taken seriously the promise they'd make numbers public.

- But as Nathan Cullen noted in his point of privilege related to the omnibus budget bill, there isn't much apparent reason for the Cons' efforts to withhold any inconvenient facts about the budget until after it passes into law other than gratuitous secrecy and contempt for democracy.

- Frances Russell points out how the Cons have continued to go out of their way to exacerbate inequality even in the face of growing research on its harmful effects. And Ed Broadbent discusses how radical the Cons' attacks on public services are compared to Canadians' expectations.

- Pat Atkinson comments on how both the Harper and Wall governments utterly miss the point when it comes to the value of arts and culture.

- Finally, Alice offers up plenty of lessons which the Libs should be able to draw from the NDP's leadership campaign.

[Edit: corrected nature of Cullen's point.]

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Sixth Estate catches a right-wing election contractor defending vote suppression, then theorizes as to how Robocon may have come together.

- The introduction of Doctors for Fair Taxation is certainly a positive step in ensuring that Canadian physicians show their support for a more fair and equal society. But I do wonder whether there's any advantage to dividing matters along professional lines rather than generally uniting behind, say, Canadians for Tax Fairness as an indication of more widespread support.

- Frances Russell laments the polarization of Canadian politics. But particularly given that we don't seemikely to be rid of the Harper Cons anytime soon, I'd much rather see a strong opposite reaction than follow the U.S. model in which the right-wing party is able to drag politics in its preferred direction with little opposition.

- Steven Chase reports on the potential for other factors to supersede money in politics by noting that half a dozen NDP MPs were elected without spending a cent.

- Finally, I'm not sure there's much room for doubt that part of the small-c conservative model includes undercutting independent art and culture. And sadly, the Sask Party looks to be getting its way in eliminating any vestiges of what was once a thriving industry under the NDP's government. Meanwhile, Scott looks at the Saskatchewan budget more generally.

Juxtaposition

Stephen Harper describes his party's view of the type of environment needed for any industry to plan for the future and create jobs:

“Protecting and creating jobs and ensuring economic growth in all regions remains our Government's number one priority,” said Prime Minister Harper. “We will continue delivering the stability needed for the economic well-being of hard-working families, small business owners and entrepreneurs..."

Jim Flaherty describes how his party plans to treat Canada's cultural community:

Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has a warning for cultural institutions that have come to rely on regular government funding: don't count on it.
...
On Monday, SummerWorks, an acclaimed Toronto indie theatre festival, announced it had lost its federal funding. The festival made headlines last year after staging “Homegrown,” a play about a convicted terrorist, a member of the group known as the Toronto 18.

In a note posted on its blog, the festival said it had received federal funding for five straight years — totalling $140,000 — and was surprised to learn it would not get more money this year.

But Mr. Flaherty says arts organizations should not set their budgets assuming they'll get government funds.

So having run an election campaign on the theme that no industry can succeed without a stable foundation from which to plan, the Cons have made it clear that they're demolishing any trace of stability for the arts and culture sector. Which would seem to speak volumes about how little they value Canada's cultural sector - while at the same time making it all too likely that they'll succeed in undermining it.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Rhys Kesselman rightly points out how the populist message that propelled the Cons to power has given way to elitist policy-making:

Once the federal budget is balanced, the Conservatives plan to double the TFSA’s annual allowance to $10,000 and to permit income splitting for couples with children under 18. These are costly schemes, each running ultimately to billions a year.

While these proposals may appear to have wide appeal, most Canadians would gain nothing from them. The tax savings would flow disproportionately to the highest earners. Moreover, the ostensible goals of these proposals would be much better achieved by major changes to their structures.

Consider the proposed doubling of the TFSA annual limit from its current $5,000 level. Low and moderate earners typically can’t save even this amount, so any increase is worthless to them. For most middle-income earners, the tax savings from contributing to RRSPs trump those of the TFSA, and very few are using all of their allowable RRSP limits. Thus, few middle earners will gain from expanding the TFSA.

Only among the highest earners, above $125,000, are the full RRSP limits often used, so this group would be the primary beneficiaries from expanded TFSA access. And for this group, most of the additional TFSA room would be used simply to shield existing taxable assets with little inducement for new saving.
...
Now consider the proposal to allow income splitting by couples with children. One motivation might be the view that couples with the same total earnings should pay the same total tax. But this ignores the fact that a one-earner couple has more effective income (in the form of home-produced, untaxed services) than a two-earner couple with the same earnings. Moreover, this reason would not justify confining splitting to couples with kids.

A more plausible motivation for allowing income splitting but restricting it to couples with children is the desire to give parents the option to spend more time rearing their children. High-earning parents already have this opportunity. Yet, the government’s proposal for income splitting would be of no benefit to couples where neither spouse earns above the bottom tax bracket of $41,500, partners with higher earnings but in the same tax bracket, and single parents. In fact, the largest beneficiaries would be couples with one very high earner – those in least need of aid.

- Which raises the question of how best to counter the Cons' plans. And while I don't agree entirely with Bruce Anderson's take on the state of Canadian politics, there's some reason for hope to the extent his message about the new Parliament takes hold:

(S)o far at least, the tone of this Parliament has changed. It feels like Question Period has gone off caffeine, taken up yoga, become almost Zen.

Questions are still pointed, but not as poison tipped. Response patterns from the government side have been re-engineered, letting ministers come off as smart, decent people. There’s no spiking the ball in the end zone, or other “excessive celebrations” as they say in football.

Watching Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird respond genially to a pertinent and precise question from NDP finance Critic Peggy Nash last week reminded me of how I felt when I was watching the courtly but very effective Liberal minister Allan MacEachen practice his craft in the House some 30 years ago. Any voter watching last week's Baird-Nash exchange would have come away feeling good about both politicians, I suspect.
...
Strong leaders, with clear ideas for the future, passionately argued: This is the recipe for the success enjoyed in the last election by Stephen Harper and Jack Layton, and on these criteria Michael Ignatieff and Gilles Duceppe fell short. In this Parliament, with Mr. Harper, Mr. Layton and Bob Rae, Canadian voters may see a pretty good contest of will, brainpower and communications talent – one of the best we’ve experienced in years. Based on the Prime Minister's speech to the Conservative Party convention in Ottawa this week, the policy choices of the Tories will provide plenty of room for other parties to differentiate themselves. While a competition on this level may seem less scintillating on a daily basis, it has a far better chance of reversing declining engagement than what has been tried for the past couple of decades.

- It took awhile after the initial report was released, but Postmedia's Doug Schmidt is catching up on the realities of wage theft.

- Finally, I'd consider it a general plus if the Regina Public Library and Globe Theatre end up joining forces in the development of a downtown Regina cultural centre. But to the list of follow-up concerns raised by Carle Steel about the RPL Film Theatre and Dunlop Art Gallery, I'd add a more fundamental concern: surely we'll want to make sure that any project is actually driven by the needs and best interests of the RPL and the Globe, rather than merely serving as an excuse to turn them into cash cows for a private building owner. (And the leaked possibility of a building consisting mostly of commercial space doesn't offer much reason for confidence.)

Double standards

Last December, two Con cabinet ministers called a press conference to invent an "iPod tax" - going out of their way to cite numbers fabricated by their party which to this day haven't been traced to any reputable source. Jane Taber's review:

It was the perfect pre-Christmas shopping announcement designed to put a smile of the face of consumers and a frown on those of songwriters. A little opposition-bashing was even thrown in for good measure.

Today, the NDP called a press conference, introducing its new arts caucus and proposing increased support for the arts without delving into specifics. And based on the lack of invented numbers, here's Taber's contrasting review:

When you’re no longer the third party but the government-in-waiting and you hold a news conference about nothing, you will be criticized. And the NDP was on Tuesday.

The press conference was convened to talk about arts and culture – no announcements, no numbers – but it was really aimed at showing off the party’s impressive new strength from the arts community. Unimpressed, reporters asked NDP MPs why they were even holding a news conference and accused them of being ill-prepared – a taste of what may be in store for the party in its new role as Official Opposition.

Which leaves one of two lessons to be learned by the NDP now that it's in the spotlight. Either back up points with fabricated numbers, and stick with the conjured-up figures no matter how many times they're debunked. Or, expect once again to be held to standards which don't apply to the party which actually holds power.

Sunday Morning Links

Content goes here.

- Donald Savoie's analysis of politics in the U.K. is no less applicable at home:

We ought not to be surprised that voters today are less inclined to identify themselves (with parties) as their parents tended to do. They have little reason to do so given that political parties are increasingly election-day machines. This has important implications for representative democracies. When we move away from political parties to pursue more narrow interests, the connection between citizens and government is further fragmented. It also speaks to the rise of more "personalised realities".

The problem is that the economic and political interests of the political, intellectual and economic elites are heard at the expense of the broader community. The power and influence of political parties and even formal policymaking processes have given way to powerful individuals and actor-centred institutionalism. This, in turn, has made it virtually impossible for many elected representatives, let alone ordinary citizens, to play any meaningful role in shaping public policies or even holding government to account. We ought not to be surprised at voter apathy and the growing cynicism about government in society.

- From the "how to use Twitter" department: Edmonton-Leduc NDP candidate Artem Medvedev has responded to a request for more ideas (instead of negativity) with a steady stream of policy proposals.

- In contrast, from the "how to abuse Twitter" department, the Libs are apparently trying to draw nonexistent connections between the deliberately nonpartisan CAPP and the explicitly partisan (at least in the sense of directly challenging the Cons) Unseat Harper site. Which isn't to say I disagree with the aims of the latter in the least - but surely it's worth being honest about who's actually part of what project.

- And finally, Dr. Dawg notes that any commentary about police abuses is apparently off limits for publicly-displayed art in Ottawa. Place your bets as to whether Canada's Speech Warriors (TM) choose to ignore the suppression of speech entirely, or justify it based on their fondness for abuses of authority as long as it's directed toward people they don't like.

On contempt

It's certainly worth noting noting the difference in Stephen Harper's official attitude toward NAC galas from last year to this year.

But I'd argue that Harper's appearance last night actually confirms his earlier message that he sees no value in recognizing or celebrating artistic achievement. Last year, he did that more directly by attacking the concept of gala performances - but isn't it just as much of an insult to suggest that the NAC's gala is properly commandeered as a tool for Harper's own political promotion, rather than serving as a showcase for actual artists?

A theme worth repeating

Paul Wells:

While Colleague ITQ tries to make head or tail of the Ablonczy/Pride fiasco, here’s a little background on the miserably ill-conceived, comically shoddily administered Marquee Tourism Events program from which the money to Toronto Pride flowed.
...
In the end, as one furious Citizen columnist pointed out, this particular Marquee Tourism Event ended up producing an Event That Cannot Possibly Have Attracted Any Tourists, because one simply doesn’t wake up in, say, Cleveland and say, “You mean Terence Blanchard is in Ottawa tonight? By God, if I hurry I just might make it.”

The point of the Marquee Tourism Event, as with the veritable bazaar being run out of Canadian Heritage these days, is to buy back some of the peace and quiet the Harper government lost last year with all that unfortunate business about cuts to assorted arts programs on the eve of the federal election. That led to unpleasant electoral consequences. So this year, James Moore and assorted substitutes have been shovelling money off the back of a truck in a bid to win back the affection of people who want taxpayer money to support arts and culture. But the really big money is over at MTE, in Industry. I had an executive at one of the program’s biggest recipients tell me he was not entirely sure how to spend all the cash that had been dumped on him, because — at the risk of repeating a theme — he hadn’t been given enough time to make many intelligent decisions.

On poor promotion

It's bad enough that in axing the PromArt program, the Cons had the nerve to ask prominent Canadians to represent the country abroad, then turn around and bash them in the media for accepting. But the fiasco raises another issue which makes the slashing of a single program far less significant than what looks to be some serious underlying mismanagement:

Mr. Dyer told The Globe and Mail that a Foreign Affairs official at the Canadian embassy in Cuba called him and asked him to speak in Havana, promising to cover his travel expenses. He said he was given $3,000 in cash to cover his airfare, hotel and expenses in Cuba, and that he had never heard of PromArt until last week.

"It suggests to me this is the gang who can't shoot straight. My surmise ... is that they didn't have a pot of money that they could easily fit this into, so a little creative bookkeeping was done ... and you take it out of the PromArt budget," he said.

From my standpoint, Dyer is far too generous in merely labeling the Cons' actions as "creative bookkeeping". What his example really signals - along with other PromArt funding for initiatives which don't seem to fit within its mandate - is that the Cons haven't had the slightest interest in what money is supposed to be used for, but have instead simply used whatever pool of money they could get their hands on to do what seemed most expedient at the time.

Now, that kind of behaviour is most obviously a problem for those of us who see the federal government having a meaningful role to play in supporting Canadian culture among other areas. If the Cons couldn't care less whether an arts fund is used for foreign affairs initiatives, do we have any reason to think that money earmarked for any program will actually be put to its intended end?

But the problem should be equally significant for those who want to see government made smaller and more efficient. If the Cons' policy is to ignore whether money is used for its intended purpose, what good could it possibly do to slash a particular program such as PromArt if they can just as easily divert funding from, say, Foreign Affairs to promote Holy Fuck abroad if it suits their political interests to do so?

In sum, the main problem isn't whether PromArt in particular was being used as a slush fund - but rather the fact that the Cons seem to see all public resources as nothing more than that. And it'll take a change in government, not some mere shuffling of program funds, to give Canadians any confidence that their public money is actually being used properly.