Others have rightly wondered whether the Wildrose Party's new promise to make floor-crossing MPs pay a price to the party will be enforceable at all. But it's also worth examining how it might affect MLAs' decision-making - with the result potentially being the exact opposite of what Brian Jean intends.
Previously, the bar to Wildrose MLAs crossing the floor was a moral one: the promise, to constituents and party alike, that MLAs would resist the temptation to join another party. And while that bar may have failed to stop Danielle Smith and others from breaking their promise, it certainly seems to have had an impact on the political prospects of those who made the switch.
In contrast, Jean has made floor-crossing into a financial issue. The sticker price tag to buy a Wildrose MLA is now being advertised publicly - and it's hardly inconceivable that the benefits of a cabinet position or a more secure seat would outweigh the financial incentive to stay even if it's otherwise enforceable.
Indeed, Jean may be setting up a political example of a familiar experiment in behavioural economics: just as a price on anti-social behaviour in the case of late daycare pickups actually increased violations by causing parents to think in economic rather than moral terms, so too might it allow MLAs to claim they owe constituents nothing more than to buy out their party status.
And the problem is expanded since Wildrose is also changing the question as to who's entitled to raise concerns about a violation of expectations. The new contract makes it explicit that it's the party, not constituents, which holds a duty of loyalty and which has the power to enforce an MLA's obligations. And by implication, the party will also have the power to decide an MLA isn't worth pursuing - no matter what voters may think.
Of course, as long as the surface financial deterrent helps to convince voters that Jean is more serious about sticking it out with Wildrose than Smith was, it will serve a political purpose. But for anybody who would prefer that the relationship among parties, candidates and voters be based on principles rather than dollar signs, it shifts MLAs' incentives in exactly the wrong direction.
Showing posts with label floor-crossing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label floor-crossing. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
Monday, March 04, 2013
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material to start your week.
- Cory Doctorow duly blasts the Harper Cons for meekly complying with an onerous copyright treaty which isn't even in force. Which raises the question: if the Cons were really interested in demonstrating some independence as a response to the U.S. declining to rubber-stamp Keystone XL, wouldn't this be the best time to show some backbone?
- Mike Blanchfield reports on the conclusions of the UN's right-to-food envoy - including that the Harper Cons have managed to make food less accessible for Canadians through means ranging from the destruction of the long-form census to an insistence on signing ill-advised trade pacts.
- Meanwhile, CBC highlights Vic Toews' stunning claim that if the Cons appointed a desperately flawed candidate to head up Canada's security watchdog, it's the fault of other parties for not sufficiently pointing out that the Cons are utterly clueless and unfit to govern. So in the interest of helping Toews out: YOU ARE UTTERLY CLUELESS AND UNFIT TO GOVERN. PLEASE STOP YOUR CURRENT ACTIONS BEFORE YOU DO ANY FURTHER DAMAGE.
- James Stewart tests the theory that income tax rates result in any meaningful movement among the 1%. And not surprisingly, our corporate overlords are much less likely to move themselves than their assets into tax havens.
- Finally, Tim Harper wonders whether crossing the floor should carry a penalty for MPs.
- Cory Doctorow duly blasts the Harper Cons for meekly complying with an onerous copyright treaty which isn't even in force. Which raises the question: if the Cons were really interested in demonstrating some independence as a response to the U.S. declining to rubber-stamp Keystone XL, wouldn't this be the best time to show some backbone?
- Mike Blanchfield reports on the conclusions of the UN's right-to-food envoy - including that the Harper Cons have managed to make food less accessible for Canadians through means ranging from the destruction of the long-form census to an insistence on signing ill-advised trade pacts.
- Meanwhile, CBC highlights Vic Toews' stunning claim that if the Cons appointed a desperately flawed candidate to head up Canada's security watchdog, it's the fault of other parties for not sufficiently pointing out that the Cons are utterly clueless and unfit to govern. So in the interest of helping Toews out: YOU ARE UTTERLY CLUELESS AND UNFIT TO GOVERN. PLEASE STOP YOUR CURRENT ACTIONS BEFORE YOU DO ANY FURTHER DAMAGE.
- James Stewart tests the theory that income tax rates result in any meaningful movement among the 1%. And not surprisingly, our corporate overlords are much less likely to move themselves than their assets into tax havens.
- Finally, Tim Harper wonders whether crossing the floor should carry a penalty for MPs.
Saturday, March 02, 2013
Saturday Morning Links
This and that for your weekend reading.
- Plenty more commentators are taking a turn duly mocking the Cons' Senate shenanigans. Here's Tabatha Southey:
- Finally, Ezra Klein writes about the limits of a president's persuasive powers. But while his conclusion distinguishes between the U.S.' system of divided government and parliamentary structures, I have to wonder whether it applies even more strongly in Canada: where a president may see the need to marshal some form of persuasion in order to get anything passed, far too many majority governments seem to believe they're better off not even trying to justify massive bills which can be rammed through without debate rather than engaging in a discussion which could call attention to their actions.
- Plenty more commentators are taking a turn duly mocking the Cons' Senate shenanigans. Here's Tabatha Southey:
In fact, Mr. Duffy lives and votes in Kanata, a suburb of Ottawa, in a home he purchased five years before he was appointed to the Senate in 2008. He has a modest, seasonal cottage in Cavendish, PEI, which is reportedly seldom used.And Scott Feschuk:
There are signs there may be a number of these houses across the country – dark, lifeless, spooky places children rush by after sundown because some people say those houses have senators. Conservative Senator Pamela Wallin, now-independent Senator Patrick Brazeau and Liberal Senator Mac Harb are also being investigated for questionable secondary-residence expenses.
...
Marjory LeBreton, government leader in the Senate, said this that week the mere signing of a declaration of qualification form claiming to be from the Island qualifies one for the Senate. Apparently there’s an “if I clap my hands, I am actually Tinkerbell” clause in there somewhere, officially making being a senator the best job in the world.
1. Belittle. When reporters suggested Duffy was inappropriately pocketing up to $22,000 a year in living expenses (he claimed his primary residence is in P.E.I., even though he’s lived near Ottawa for decades), the senator’s response was to mock them. Do some “adult work,” he said. When that didn’t end the scrutiny, he told one journalist: “It’s none of your business.” This is a great way to win over taxpayers, who love it when a partisan crony—appointed by fiat to a cushy job with a great pension—explains that what he does with their money is none of their concern.And finally Thomas Walkom:
...
4. Deflect. For weeks, Duffy told reporters there’s no story here. He urged them to instead focus on “real issues” like energy development. This is a great gambit because reporters always do what they’re told by a politician who’s up to his neck in it. For instance, if you’re caught cheating on your spouse, just tell those nosy reporters to focus on what really matters: the fact that mangoes are delicious. Yes, when they find you naked in a motel, they’ll probably ask questions like, “What does this say about your personal integrity?” and “What’s with the clown mask?” But give them the skinny on mangoes and they’ll be rushing to the pay phones to yell: “STOP THE PRESSES—I’VE GOT BREAKING FRUIT NEWS!” Works every time.
Duffy’s problem, which he appears to share with others, is that if he doesn’t live in P.E.I. he is constitutionally barred from occupying any of that province’s four Senate seats.
Whoops! When the Senate leadership went after the former television reporter for his expense accounts, they didn’t mean to open that particular can of worms.
So their solution is to say that, yes, Duffy lives in P.E.I. because he said so when the current Parliament began two years ago.
But no, he appears not to live in P.E.I. and therefore may not be eligible for any housing allowances received. His expense accounts have been put to external auditors for investigation.
How can he be a resident and non-resident at the same time? In the world most of us inhabit, he cannot. Only in theoretical physics and the parallel universe that is the Senate is such a thing possible.- The Star's editorial board rightly notes that Claude Patry should seek a new mandate from voters after abandoning the NDP for the Bloc, while Chantal Hebert sees the departure as "more like a paper cut than a puncture wound". And I'll point back to my take on the last similar case - which proved to be an isolated move by an isolated MP rather than a harbinger of anything to come.
- Finally, Ezra Klein writes about the limits of a president's persuasive powers. But while his conclusion distinguishes between the U.S.' system of divided government and parliamentary structures, I have to wonder whether it applies even more strongly in Canada: where a president may see the need to marshal some form of persuasion in order to get anything passed, far too many majority governments seem to believe they're better off not even trying to justify massive bills which can be rammed through without debate rather than engaging in a discussion which could call attention to their actions.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Sunday Morning Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Lana Payne juxtaposes massive profits and public concessions for Caterpillar and Rio Tinto against their attacks on Canadian workers:
- But don't worry: public servants in Con ridings may yet stand a chance.
- Paul Krugman highlights the growing inequality which corporatists on both sides of the U.S. border want to avoid discussing.
- Buckley Belanger raises concerns that an industry-monitored environmental code may lead to serious damage without Saskatchewan's government having a clue what's going on.
- Finally, La Presse reports on the petition demanding that Lise St-Denis step down and face a by-election after her defection to the Libs. But in fairness, the new petition has a ways to go before matching the last similar effort.
- Lana Payne juxtaposes massive profits and public concessions for Caterpillar and Rio Tinto against their attacks on Canadian workers:
(T)he demands by ElectroMotive, a subsidiary of equipment giant Caterpillar, are about as outrageous as they get, including a 50 per cent cut in pay.- Kathryn May reports on the Cons' move to shutter public language training for civil servants. But it's worth taking a closer look at what's being done:
These demands are coming at the same time as the corporation's revenues are projected to be about $44 billion for 2011, including billions in profits.
Certainly the CEO of Caterpillar is not hurting for a buck. And neither is the retiring boss.
In 2010, Caterpillar CEO Doug Oberhelman's compensation totaled about $10.4 million, according to an Associated Press review. Jim Owens, his predecessor, raked in $22.5 million in 2010 because of an extremely generous stock grant of about $16 million.
...
In Quebec, Rio Tinto (one of the world's largest mining corporations) locked out about 800 Alcan smelter workers. The corporation is also demanding major concessions, including cuts in pensions from its workforce.
The chief executive at Rio Tinto earned nearly $9 million in 2010, a 32 per cent pay raise over the previous year. That year, the company had profits of over $14 billion.
...
It's bad enough that workers are expected to pay the price of the financial crisis and subsequent recession - a recession they didn't cause. It's bad enough that in tough economic times workers are told to hold the line.
But now, even in the face of stunning corporate profits, even in the face of incredible corporate cash hoarding, even in the face of obscene CEO pay and billions in corporate tax cuts and credits, the living standards of workers are still under attack.
Is it any wonder these workers are angry? Make no mistake, eventually this kind of lewd corporate gluttony and the arrogant indifference of governments to it will come home to roost. It is only a matter of time.
The federal government is getting out of the business of providing language training to its employees, throwing 179 teachers and instructors across Canada out of work.In other words, departments have previously had a choice whether to use private or public training providers based on which actually provides better value for money. And the Cons have decided instead to make sure that the training money flows into the private sector to facilitate corporate profiteering - even where it wouldn't have been the better option if departments had a choice.
The move - which started with downsizing in the 1990s, and intensified after a 2006 Treasury Board decision - marks the first time in decades that the government won't be directly offering French and English training to public servants to meet the language requirements of their jobs.
...
Until now, departments have had the option of using private schools or the Canada School of the Public Service, which charged fees, to train their workers.
- But don't worry: public servants in Con ridings may yet stand a chance.
- Paul Krugman highlights the growing inequality which corporatists on both sides of the U.S. border want to avoid discussing.
- Buckley Belanger raises concerns that an industry-monitored environmental code may lead to serious damage without Saskatchewan's government having a clue what's going on.
- Finally, La Presse reports on the petition demanding that Lise St-Denis step down and face a by-election after her defection to the Libs. But in fairness, the new petition has a ways to go before matching the last similar effort.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
On testing grounds
For the most part, I'll echo Dan's take on Lise St-Denis' party switch:
As for her motives, even after listening to the press conference, that's still a bit of a mystery. St-Denis is 71 so this isn't a case of long term ambition. There's nothing in recent polls to suggest the NDP ship is sinking. There's been no high profile issue split between her and the NDP. The NDP leadership race is still ongoing, so it's not like she's upset with the new leader. And life with the third party in the House isn't any more glamorous than life with the second party in the House.That said, we may be able to tell much more from the aftermath of St-Denis' departure than from her initial move. If there's ever going to be the kind of mass exodus that some commentators have speculated about ever since the NDP's Quebec wave started developing, then St-Denis' move would seem to be as likely a precedent as any for others to follow. But conversely, if St-Denis is alone in her party switch, then there will be little reason to think that others within the NDP's set of new Quebec MPs are looking for an excuse to change their own allegiances.
If I had to guess, I'd assume St-Denis found herself elected as an NDP MP without ever giving a lot of thought to why she was a New Democrat. After learning a bit more about the parties, she changed her mind.
If this all seems odd, it's because people like St-Denis rarely find their way to the House of Commons. She would never have been nominated if the NDP expected to win the riding. The fact that we have 50 accidental MPs siting on the NDP benches means things will happen that defy political convention. This may be the first example, but it certainly won't be the last.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Parliament in Review: November 2, 2011
Wednesday, November 2 saw the House of Commons debate two bills dealing with democratic reform. And the result was a remarkable gap between the values the Harper Cons presented in justifying their party's policy orders, and the ones they actually apply in practice.
The Big Issue
The bill which received the most public attention - due to the Cons' decision to ram it through Parliament - was the government's new seat allocation legislation. And it was on November 2 that the Cons served notice of their intention to shut down debate - even as they complained about the unfairness of locking new MPs into the deliberations of a previous Parliament when that served as an excuse to scrap potentially-critical committee reports.
But perhaps more interesting was the debate on Mathieu Ravignat's anti-floor-crossing legislation. After all, I'm not sure anybody can remember the last time a Harper Con dared to speak out publicly against his or her leader's actual efforts to suppress any independent thought by individual MPs. And yet, here's what Michelle Rempel had to say as to the dangers of a bill preventing floor-crossing:
Meanwhile, Ravignat discussed the need to build trust in elected officials. Peter Stoffer pointed out that the Cons had a rather different take on the legitimacy of floor-crossing when it was Belinda Stronach exercising what she saw as her individual prerogative to jump between parties. Kevin Lamoureux rightly noted that Manitoba's NDP government passed a bill based on the same principle. And David Christopherson cited the example of David Emerson as an affront to the ability of voters to make informed and meaningful choices:
It was well reported that MPs from the Bloc Quebecois and Greens were denied unanimous consent to make a statement in honour of Canadian veterans. But somewhat less attention was paid to a bevy of motions on other topics which were also denied, including:
- Alexandre Boulerice's motion to introduce the materials he had referred to in noting concerns about money handed to the Perimeter Institute without proper allocation;
- Tom Lukiwski's motion to allow an NDP member to speak first to a government bill;
- Frank Valeriote's motion for committee study into the Canadian Wheat Board; and
- Sean Casey's motion on travel by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
And while it's not clear which of those MPs (if any) had reason to think other parties would agree to their requests, it's not hard to see how the Cons' tough line on statements by the Bloc and Greens may have set an unfortunate precedent.
In Brief
Tyrone Benskin both celebrated the 75th birthday of the CBC, and worried about the Cons' witch-hunt against it. Andrew Cash demanded answers as to the lack of accountability for police abuses at the G20 in Toronto. Jean Crowder pointed out the absurdity of saying "get a job!" as an answer to poverty when a significant number of food bank users are children, while Linda Duncan highlighted the problem of poverty for First Nations in particular. Nycole Turmel raised the concerns of Quebec, Ontario and B.C. alike at being stuck with the bill for the Cons' dumb-on-crime policies. Mylene Freeman questioned the Cons about Canada's poor performance in pay equity, only to be told by Tony Clement he's proud that women receive 73 cents on the dollar. Scott Simms introduced a private member's bill to remove the GST and HST from funeral expenses. James Moore's answer to a question seeking information about cuts to Canadian Heritage "broken down by employee status, by title, and by program activity" helpfully identified cuts of 578 jobs with no further information about what had actually been slashed. Yvon Godin pointed out that the Cons' job posting for the Auditor General position actually failed to include any aptitude in French as even a preference (let alone a requirement). And Brian Masse questioned the Cons' cuts to border communications at the same time they were funnelling what was supposed to be border funding into Tony Clement's pork-barrel projects.
The Big Issue
The bill which received the most public attention - due to the Cons' decision to ram it through Parliament - was the government's new seat allocation legislation. And it was on November 2 that the Cons served notice of their intention to shut down debate - even as they complained about the unfairness of locking new MPs into the deliberations of a previous Parliament when that served as an excuse to scrap potentially-critical committee reports.
But perhaps more interesting was the debate on Mathieu Ravignat's anti-floor-crossing legislation. After all, I'm not sure anybody can remember the last time a Harper Con dared to speak out publicly against his or her leader's actual efforts to suppress any independent thought by individual MPs. And yet, here's what Michelle Rempel had to say as to the dangers of a bill preventing floor-crossing:
This bill would seriously undermine the independence of members of this House and I do not think that is something we should encourage or support.And Scott Reid was similarly concerned with some theoretical MP independence which was wrung out of his own party long ago - without suggesting for a second that he or his party's majority caucus might have any interest in reversing the trend toward total top-down control.
This bill would have some practical negative consequences. The bill would impose restrictions upon members who wish to express a different position than the one endorsed by a majority of their caucus. This bill would also impede members of Parliament in representing the interests of their constituents, which is one of the fundamental duties under our Constitution.
...
(T)he roles, rights and obligations of individual members of Parliament are well established in Canada's legislation whereby members of Parliament are central actors in our Westminster system of government. Practically, the caucus system in our Parliament is joined with, but distinct from, the registered party system.
Bill C-306 would go against existing rules and traditions by allowing the party machinery to take precedence over individual rights and responsibilities of each member of Parliament and their caucus choices. This does not correspond to our system of government. As I stated earlier, I believe Bill C-306 would have negative and undesirable consequences on the roles of members of Parliament.
Meanwhile, Ravignat discussed the need to build trust in elected officials. Peter Stoffer pointed out that the Cons had a rather different take on the legitimacy of floor-crossing when it was Belinda Stronach exercising what she saw as her individual prerogative to jump between parties. Kevin Lamoureux rightly noted that Manitoba's NDP government passed a bill based on the same principle. And David Christopherson cited the example of David Emerson as an affront to the ability of voters to make informed and meaningful choices:
If we accept that (party identification) is a legitimate, rationale, understandable and important reason for people to think about voting for a candidate, the platform or the party, if one then bails out, as did Mr. Emerson, which is the richest example, and I do not like to personalize, it takes one's breath away.Withholding Consent
I do not think the writs were even returned. The ink was hardly dry on the ballots, and this man was already trotting across the floor to join another party. He believed that was the right thing to do, for him, but what about all those constituents who had a reason to believe that once elected, the member would actually go about enacting the platform and policies of the party that member belonged to?
By crossing the floor, in many cases a member is throwing away what he or she believed in to join a party that is 180 degrees in the other direction. How do we think constituents feel? They would sit there wondering what happened. Constituents went out and voted in good faith, as did all their friends, and they expected that the money they donated to that campaign and the sign that they posted were all to help get enough seats on a particular platform so that the way the constituent would have liked to have seen Canada shaped on a particular issue would have actually happened. Now that would be gone, because the member could just cross the floor in order to remain a cabinet minister. It really is problematic.
It was well reported that MPs from the Bloc Quebecois and Greens were denied unanimous consent to make a statement in honour of Canadian veterans. But somewhat less attention was paid to a bevy of motions on other topics which were also denied, including:
- Alexandre Boulerice's motion to introduce the materials he had referred to in noting concerns about money handed to the Perimeter Institute without proper allocation;
- Tom Lukiwski's motion to allow an NDP member to speak first to a government bill;
- Frank Valeriote's motion for committee study into the Canadian Wheat Board; and
- Sean Casey's motion on travel by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
And while it's not clear which of those MPs (if any) had reason to think other parties would agree to their requests, it's not hard to see how the Cons' tough line on statements by the Bloc and Greens may have set an unfortunate precedent.
In Brief
Tyrone Benskin both celebrated the 75th birthday of the CBC, and worried about the Cons' witch-hunt against it. Andrew Cash demanded answers as to the lack of accountability for police abuses at the G20 in Toronto. Jean Crowder pointed out the absurdity of saying "get a job!" as an answer to poverty when a significant number of food bank users are children, while Linda Duncan highlighted the problem of poverty for First Nations in particular. Nycole Turmel raised the concerns of Quebec, Ontario and B.C. alike at being stuck with the bill for the Cons' dumb-on-crime policies. Mylene Freeman questioned the Cons about Canada's poor performance in pay equity, only to be told by Tony Clement he's proud that women receive 73 cents on the dollar. Scott Simms introduced a private member's bill to remove the GST and HST from funeral expenses. James Moore's answer to a question seeking information about cuts to Canadian Heritage "broken down by employee status, by title, and by program activity" helpfully identified cuts of 578 jobs with no further information about what had actually been slashed. Yvon Godin pointed out that the Cons' job posting for the Auditor General position actually failed to include any aptitude in French as even a preference (let alone a requirement). And Brian Masse questioned the Cons' cuts to border communications at the same time they were funnelling what was supposed to be border funding into Tony Clement's pork-barrel projects.
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
On priorities
In the absence of any evidence that the NDP's new caucus will be anything but a strong opposition to the Harper Cons, Kady goes hunting for a story based on the fact that an NDP anti-floor-crossing bill - having been introduced for the sixth time - is finding its way into the order of precedence earlier than it has in the past. But let's ask quickly what might have changed since previous sessions.
In the previous sessions discussed by Kady, the NDP has had no more than 37 MPs, representing approximately 1/9 of the House of Commons (and I'll guesstimate 1/8 of the MPs who might actually be presenting private members' bills). Which has meant that it's only been able to advance a very limited number of bills - and has had to choose its process carefully in doing so.
Needless to say, floor-crossing has seldom been a top-of-mind issue for the party compared to economic, social and environmental issues at the core of its values. And perhaps more importantly, there's been no prospect of getting such a bill passed in the absence of support from any other party, while other private members' bills have succeeded in passing the House of Commons where they've had support from the Libs and Bloc.
In contrast, the NDP now has three times as many slots with which to advance private members' bills as before - so it stands to reason that it's able to plan for a greater number of its bills to advance. Which means that the logical inference would seem to be that banning floor-crossing fell into the tier of legislation just below the top priorities in past sessions, but made the cut now that opportunities to advance legislation are less scarce.
Moreover, in a majority Parliament, there's not much of a difference in the likelihood of passing floor-crossing legislation compared to other bills the party could present. In fact, the Reform roots of such a bill may give it a better chance of passing than the bills that have been advanced earlier in minority Parliaments with opposition support - making for a strategic reason to pursue it now but not before.
In sum, there are obvious explanations as to why the NDP might be moving ahead with a floor-crossing bill other than. And given that six months under the media microscope haven't yet produced a shred of evidence of discord in a caucus which was supposed to be ready to crumble at a moment's notice, we should be all the more skeptical of any attempt to assume the worst.
In the previous sessions discussed by Kady, the NDP has had no more than 37 MPs, representing approximately 1/9 of the House of Commons (and I'll guesstimate 1/8 of the MPs who might actually be presenting private members' bills). Which has meant that it's only been able to advance a very limited number of bills - and has had to choose its process carefully in doing so.
Needless to say, floor-crossing has seldom been a top-of-mind issue for the party compared to economic, social and environmental issues at the core of its values. And perhaps more importantly, there's been no prospect of getting such a bill passed in the absence of support from any other party, while other private members' bills have succeeded in passing the House of Commons where they've had support from the Libs and Bloc.
In contrast, the NDP now has three times as many slots with which to advance private members' bills as before - so it stands to reason that it's able to plan for a greater number of its bills to advance. Which means that the logical inference would seem to be that banning floor-crossing fell into the tier of legislation just below the top priorities in past sessions, but made the cut now that opportunities to advance legislation are less scarce.
Moreover, in a majority Parliament, there's not much of a difference in the likelihood of passing floor-crossing legislation compared to other bills the party could present. In fact, the Reform roots of such a bill may give it a better chance of passing than the bills that have been advanced earlier in minority Parliaments with opposition support - making for a strategic reason to pursue it now but not before.
In sum, there are obvious explanations as to why the NDP might be moving ahead with a floor-crossing bill other than. And given that six months under the media microscope haven't yet produced a shred of evidence of discord in a caucus which was supposed to be ready to crumble at a moment's notice, we should be all the more skeptical of any attempt to assume the worst.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Parliament In Review: September 30, 2011
The Harper Conservatives' choice to talk about everything but the economy continued on September 30, with the day's debate taken up by the Cons' anti-refugee bill as well as a first look at the latest incarnation of Senate reform.
The Big Issue
Let's give top billing to Senate reform, if only because Tim Uppal's introduction of his bill so nicely highlighted the problems with the Senate that Stephen Harper has gone out of his way to exacerbate over the past few years:
Meanwhile, the opposition parties had plenty more to say about the current Senate. David Christopherson highlighted the fact that the Senate's purpose was explicitly anti-democratic, having been based on a desire to ensure "that the unwashed masses did not run amok", and also noted that an elected Senate would likely prove even more partisan than the current version. Christopherson and Stephane Dion agreed on the dangers of gridlock arising out of an elected Senate. Niki Ashton noted that under the Senate's age restrictions, she and nearly 20 other elected NDP MPs would be prohibited from seeking election. Marc-Andre Morin warned that a greater role for the Senate would provide a means for Stephen Harper to govern from beyond the political grave long after voters had definitely rejected his party.
Finally, Alexandrine Latendresse pointed out that the title of the Senate reform bill is explicitly aimed at "the selection of senators", being an issue where provincial consent is constitutionally required. Which will make for a particularly noteworthy observation given the significance the Cons attached to the name of their other bill up for debate...
Unfriendly Welcomes
Once again, the opposition parties presented plenty of strong critiques of the Cons' anti-refugee bill. Philip Toone traced the origins of the international refugee treaties violated by the bill back to the attempts of refugees to flee Nazi Germany. Marie-Claude Morin pointed out how gratuitous restrictions on reunification attack the family unit as a vital source of support for potential immigrants.
But rest assured that the Cons had at least one ace in the hole, as newly-elected MP Costas Menegakis proudly told the opposition that it should ignore the fact that the bill itself attacks refugees alone based on the fact that its title mentions human smugglers. If only the Cons could be counted on to actually apply the standard of debating only the title of any given bill rather than its substance, just think of the private members' bills the opposition could pass under the title of the Praise Be to Our Strong and Glorious Leader Stephen Harper Act.
In Brief
Joe Comartin questioned the Cons on giving away futile corporate tax breaks which perfectly match their structural deficit, while Guy Caron challenged their insistence on PBO costing of private members' bills while refusing to allow the same for their own legislation (including their plans to trash the Canadian Wheat Board). Bruce Hyer called for a focus on passenger rail, while Olivia Chow introduced her private member's bill on transit and tested the Cons' reaction. Mathieu Ravignat took up the NDP's cause of legislation to prevent floor-crossing. And Andrew Cash kept the pressure on Tony Clement by asking that any additional business e-mails sent from his personal address to escape detection be released.
The Big Issue
Let's give top billing to Senate reform, if only because Tim Uppal's introduction of his bill so nicely highlighted the problems with the Senate that Stephen Harper has gone out of his way to exacerbate over the past few years:
(S)enators are selected and appointed through a process that is neither formal nor transparent, with no democratic mandate whatsoever from Canadians.Not surprisingly, part of the NDP's response included challenging the Cons' own unelected and illegitimate Senators who blocked climate change legislation which was passed by a majority of elected MPs in the House of Commons. Even less surprisingly, the Cons took no responsibility for having done so.
...
Taken together, the Senate lacks any essential democratic characteristics. Its effectiveness and legitimacy suffers from the democratic deficit.
Meanwhile, the opposition parties had plenty more to say about the current Senate. David Christopherson highlighted the fact that the Senate's purpose was explicitly anti-democratic, having been based on a desire to ensure "that the unwashed masses did not run amok", and also noted that an elected Senate would likely prove even more partisan than the current version. Christopherson and Stephane Dion agreed on the dangers of gridlock arising out of an elected Senate. Niki Ashton noted that under the Senate's age restrictions, she and nearly 20 other elected NDP MPs would be prohibited from seeking election. Marc-Andre Morin warned that a greater role for the Senate would provide a means for Stephen Harper to govern from beyond the political grave long after voters had definitely rejected his party.
Finally, Alexandrine Latendresse pointed out that the title of the Senate reform bill is explicitly aimed at "the selection of senators", being an issue where provincial consent is constitutionally required. Which will make for a particularly noteworthy observation given the significance the Cons attached to the name of their other bill up for debate...
Unfriendly Welcomes
Once again, the opposition parties presented plenty of strong critiques of the Cons' anti-refugee bill. Philip Toone traced the origins of the international refugee treaties violated by the bill back to the attempts of refugees to flee Nazi Germany. Marie-Claude Morin pointed out how gratuitous restrictions on reunification attack the family unit as a vital source of support for potential immigrants.
But rest assured that the Cons had at least one ace in the hole, as newly-elected MP Costas Menegakis proudly told the opposition that it should ignore the fact that the bill itself attacks refugees alone based on the fact that its title mentions human smugglers. If only the Cons could be counted on to actually apply the standard of debating only the title of any given bill rather than its substance, just think of the private members' bills the opposition could pass under the title of the Praise Be to Our Strong and Glorious Leader Stephen Harper Act.
In Brief
Joe Comartin questioned the Cons on giving away futile corporate tax breaks which perfectly match their structural deficit, while Guy Caron challenged their insistence on PBO costing of private members' bills while refusing to allow the same for their own legislation (including their plans to trash the Canadian Wheat Board). Bruce Hyer called for a focus on passenger rail, while Olivia Chow introduced her private member's bill on transit and tested the Cons' reaction. Mathieu Ravignat took up the NDP's cause of legislation to prevent floor-crossing. And Andrew Cash kept the pressure on Tony Clement by asking that any additional business e-mails sent from his personal address to escape detection be released.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
On retention strategies
I’ll mostly leave it to others to discuss the merits of Don Martin’s advice for Michael Ignatieff. But it’s worth using Martin’s column as a reminder that there’s more than one path from the status quo to a Harper majority – and the Libs’ current state of disarray may only help to produce that result.
Here are the relevant pieces from Martin:
But that number is somewhat misleading for two reasons. First, with Lib Peter Milliken serving as Speaker (removing his vote from the picture in most cases and obliging him to vote to preserve the status quo in the event of a tie), the Cons effectively gain a relative vote compared to the opposition. And second, Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier independent MP Andre Arthur was effectively made an honorary Con as Harper elected not to run a candidate against him – and usually votes the part.
What’s more, the upcoming set of by-elections is likely to see at least one more Con elected, as Bill Casey’s resignation leaves Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley likely to return to its usual party leanings. And it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that another seat might wind up in Con hands.
Now, as long as the party standings leave the Cons 12 seats short of a true majority, the prospect of flipping enough current MPs to bridge that number of seats looks relatively remote. And even a position 8-9 seats short of a functional majority - with no apparent momentum toward getting MPs to switch sides - may make for a sufficiently daunting gap to keep Harper focused on adding to his caucus through elections rather than through floor-crossing.
But if Ignatieff were to expel Coderre from the Libs, it’s difficult to imagine that either Coderre or Harper would have too many scruples about a switch to the Cons. And if a Coderre party switch were followed by two more Libs also gravitating toward power – reducing the majority gap to 5-6 seats while setting a precedent for others who might consider jumping – then the cost/benefit analysis involved in trying to entice existing MPs might look far more appealing both to Harper and to the opposition MPs who might be interested (presumably consisting of power-seeking Libs and right-wing Bloc MPs).
So what does that mean for the Libs’ strategy at the moment? For one thing, they’d be well advised to support Don Davies’ anti-floor-crossing bill if only to increase the pressure on their own MPs to stay loyal.
From a party management standpoint, though, Ignatieff has to worry not only about keeping his party generally satisfied with his leadership, but also with keeping his individual MPs from finding their way over to the Cons as a matter of personal interest. In Coderre’s case, that presumably means trying to be conciliatory rather than responding to his petulance in kind; in the case of caucus members who might be tempted to jump to the Cons even without being expelled first, that requires making a compelling argument as to why individual MPs who may have been enticed to get involved in politics due primarily to the promise of power should stick around opposition benches rather than seeking what Harper might have on offer. And if Ignatieff fails in those tasks, then all the ad campaigns in the world won’t help stop Harper from reaching majority status.
Here are the relevant pieces from Martin:
Fire Denis CoderreNow, the connection between these two items should be obvious when one considers the current party standings in the House of Commons. At the moment, the Cons’ 143 seats leave them 12 short of a nominal majority in the House.
The former Quebec lieutenant did more than mere subordination when he quit in a huff at being overruled in a Montreal riding nomination fight. When he summoned media to blast his leader’s Toronto preference, he precipitated a family feud and handed the Bloc Québécois an invitation to attack the Liberals as a poor fit with Quebec interests. Having watched Prime Minister Stephen Harper ditch a candidate this week for merely stating the obvious — elect a Conservative if you want stimulus megabucks in your riding — Mr. Ignatieff must show similar spine and get rid of an MP who became a traitor to his party’s hopes. If he wants to be a particularly evil genius, he could simply refuse to sign Mr. Coderre’s nomination papers, thus denying him the right to run as a Liberal. It’s drastic, but necessary, action.
…
Bond with caucus
This is a very speculative rumble, but at least two MPs have mused in private about crossing the floor to join the Conservatives. Others complain their leader is deaf to their input and trivializes their value. Given that the Conservatives are no longer markedly different from the Liberals in fiscal or social policy, Mr. Ignatieff might be more caring of his caucus lest his MPs start looking for another party leader who can do better.
But that number is somewhat misleading for two reasons. First, with Lib Peter Milliken serving as Speaker (removing his vote from the picture in most cases and obliging him to vote to preserve the status quo in the event of a tie), the Cons effectively gain a relative vote compared to the opposition. And second, Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier independent MP Andre Arthur was effectively made an honorary Con as Harper elected not to run a candidate against him – and usually votes the part.
What’s more, the upcoming set of by-elections is likely to see at least one more Con elected, as Bill Casey’s resignation leaves Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley likely to return to its usual party leanings. And it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that another seat might wind up in Con hands.
Now, as long as the party standings leave the Cons 12 seats short of a true majority, the prospect of flipping enough current MPs to bridge that number of seats looks relatively remote. And even a position 8-9 seats short of a functional majority - with no apparent momentum toward getting MPs to switch sides - may make for a sufficiently daunting gap to keep Harper focused on adding to his caucus through elections rather than through floor-crossing.
But if Ignatieff were to expel Coderre from the Libs, it’s difficult to imagine that either Coderre or Harper would have too many scruples about a switch to the Cons. And if a Coderre party switch were followed by two more Libs also gravitating toward power – reducing the majority gap to 5-6 seats while setting a precedent for others who might consider jumping – then the cost/benefit analysis involved in trying to entice existing MPs might look far more appealing both to Harper and to the opposition MPs who might be interested (presumably consisting of power-seeking Libs and right-wing Bloc MPs).
So what does that mean for the Libs’ strategy at the moment? For one thing, they’d be well advised to support Don Davies’ anti-floor-crossing bill if only to increase the pressure on their own MPs to stay loyal.
From a party management standpoint, though, Ignatieff has to worry not only about keeping his party generally satisfied with his leadership, but also with keeping his individual MPs from finding their way over to the Cons as a matter of personal interest. In Coderre’s case, that presumably means trying to be conciliatory rather than responding to his petulance in kind; in the case of caucus members who might be tempted to jump to the Cons even without being expelled first, that requires making a compelling argument as to why individual MPs who may have been enticed to get involved in politics due primarily to the promise of power should stick around opposition benches rather than seeking what Harper might have on offer. And if Ignatieff fails in those tasks, then all the ad campaigns in the world won’t help stop Harper from reaching majority status.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Eyeing the jump
It remains to be seen whether or not Wajid Khan actually will jump to the Cons as speculated by Susan Delacourt. But it can't be a good sign for the Libs that Khan himself doesn't even pretend to have a preference to stay in his current party:
Of course, the Libs were entirely willing to ignore their own member's nonexistent loyalty as a factor last time one of their MPs crossed the floor. But the more often Canadians see the apparent interchangeability between the Libs and Cons in the eyes of the MPs jumping back and forth, the less likely they are to believe the Libs' protestations that there's a real difference between the two.
(W)hether Khan intends to stay as a Liberal or cross the floor to the Conservatives became more of a mystery yesterday when neither he nor the Prime Minister's Office wanted to answer any questions about the political future of the MP for Mississauga-Streetsville.Mind you, it would have helped if the Libs had insisted on some of that discussion last summer when Harper first recruited Khan as an adviser. Instead, they've allowed the issue to fester for several months, offering PMS a prime opportunity to offer Khan whatever inducements he may want in exchange for a party swap. And Khan's public silence only seems to suggest a refusal to acknowledge any party loyalty - which has to call into question whether he really has any preference as between the Libs and the Cons.
"You are best to go to Khan directly on this," said Carolyn Stewart Olsen, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
"I will not comment on speculations and rumours," said Khan.
Nor would the PMO, on the eve of today's expected cabinet shuffle, answer questions about whether Khan had been approached to join the Tory caucus, as has been expected.
The mystery may not be allowed to last for too long, though. New Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion is due to sit down with Khan by the end of this week.
A spokesperson for Dion said yesterday that the discussion would include questions about the MP's future political allegiance.
"He is scheduled to come in and meet Stéphane later on this week. ... I'm sure it's something that will be addressed when they meet," said André Fortin, Dion's spokesperson.
Of course, the Libs were entirely willing to ignore their own member's nonexistent loyalty as a factor last time one of their MPs crossed the floor. But the more often Canadians see the apparent interchangeability between the Libs and Cons in the eyes of the MPs jumping back and forth, the less likely they are to believe the Libs' protestations that there's a real difference between the two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)