On relativity

Since we're seeing another wave of hysteria about Tom Mulcair's support in the general public as the NDP's convention approaches, let's check in with the main poll being cited for the thesis that there's some imminent issue with his popular support.

And in particular, let's take a look at the question which considers leaders in absolute rather than relative terms:

More than seven of ten Canadians (72.0%) believe Trudeau has the qualities of a good political leader while 56.3% say the same of Mulcair, 28.4% of Ambrose and 36.5% of May. 

So which of these theories fits the data?

(a) ZOMGEVERYBODYHATESMULCAIRMUSTREPLACENOW!!!
(b) Tom Mulcair remains a respected leader whose "preferred" numbers in comparison to Trudeau have dropped primarily due to the latter's honeymoon phase.

As during the election, Mulcair is running into the flip side of the axiom that "it's good enough to be a 3 if everybody else is a 2": it's not good enough to be a 6 if somebody else manages to be seen as a 7.

But that doesn't mean any party can reasonably ignore a relatively strong starting point. And so whatever reasons there are for reviewing Mulcair's leadership, his level of public approval can't plausibly be seen as one of them.

New column day

Here, taking a look at the voter pools the NDP will be looking to win over in order to come out ahead in if this fall's federal election turns into a two-party race. And I'll note that while Alberta may serve as the most recent precedent, similar patterns can be found in the NDP's previous rises to power in other provinces.

For further reading...
- Both Nanos and EKOS have polled as to the federal parties' accessible and second-choice support, with the NDP currently leading the pack on both fronts.
- And for more about the business groups who have reason to want to see a change from the Cons, Dean Beeby discusses the problems facing Canada's manufacturing sector. Daniel Tencer reported on tech industry opposition to Bill C-51. And Karen Briere reports on how the Trans-Pacific Partnership is creating uncertainty in supply-managed agricultural sectors, while Michael Geist highlighted some of the other obvious costs of the deal.

New column day

Here, expanding on this post about the new challenges the Cons are facing heading into this fall's election.

For further reading...
- Geoffrey Stevens offers his own take on the Cons' weaknesses.
- Meanwhile, Nik Nanos (as reported by Theophilos Argitis) focuses on the possibility of vote splitting working to the Cons' benefit. But that analysis seems to miss the point that no amount of vote-splitting between two competitors can get the Cons into majority territory if their own support levels remain stuck in the low 30s.
- And on a more interesting note, Robin Sears wonders whether the leader's tour model of campaign coverage will soon be a thing of the past - which might offer some reason to expect different influences to affect election results. But it doesn't seem that either the parties or the media are headed for a drastically different model this time out - nor is it clear that a shift would do anything but play to the strengths of more popular leaders.

On decisive choices

Nanos' latest poll on the parties under consideration by voters has received plenty of attention. But the discussion so far seems to miss the most plausible explanation for the poll results.

Compared to previous polling, the latest survey shows:
- little change in the actual support levels of Canada's federal parties; and
- a dramatic drop in the number of voters listing each of the national opposition parties as "under consideration".

Now, the first point means that - contrary to the initial analysis by Nik Nanos - we shouldn't interpret the poll as affecting the "shine" or first-choice popularity for the parties involved. Instead, the question is whether that perception is shared by a group of people beyond a party's core supporters.

And the second point does signal that public preferences are hardening. Voters who may have taken time to lock in a preference among the NDP, Libs and Greens are reaching some more firm conclusions, and thus dropping second and third choices from the list of parties "under consideration".

We'll of course find out whether that trend holds. But if it does, then a reduction in voter volatility may reduce both the risk and the upside for each opposition party over the next couple of years. And if we're going to see three parties with reasonably firm support levels in the 25%-36% range for the foreseeable future, then it's about time to start thinking about how two of them can work together after the 2014 election.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Susan Delacourt comments on the role of robocalls in turning citizens away from politics - though it's worth pointing out that the Cons may well see that as a desirable result to capitalize on a modest base of support:

What may need more testing, however, is how robocalls work as a tool to suppress votes. Sure, they don’t make people any more likely to turn out at the polls, or vote for a particular party.

But they may just be annoying enough to turn people off politics or voting — and, from all accounts, that seemed to be the motive behind the rash of robocalls in the 2011 campaign. Robocalls are the political equivalent of telemarketers; the scourge of Canadian households, especially around dinnertime.

If you were trying to find a way to make people mad or cynical about politics, it would be hard to find a better medium than the irksome telephone.

- Meanwhile, Nanos' latest polling shows both the NDP and the Libs with a significantly greater pool of potential voters than the Cons in Quebec and elsewhere. And while most of the related commentary has focused on the fact that potential support is somewhat dispersed among various first choices, I'd have to think any party would prefer a larger universe of potential supporters rather than a smaller one.

On that front, the fact that the Cons haven't expanded their pool of possible support in the slightest since winning a majority looks to signal that their hold on power is in fact fairly precarious. But then, they're far from the party with the greatest contraction in possible support - as Nanos shows the Bloc's potential support in Quebec lower than the actual support held in the party's 2011 wipeout.

- The Guardian discusses how needless austerity has been tested in the UK - and has failed miserably. Better Way Alberta notes that an obsession with eliminating tax and royalty revenue has led to Alberta being stuck in the red even as its resources are exploited. Paul Krugman catches anti-equality spinmeisters trying to pass off increased wealth disparity as evidence that there's any benefit to the middle class in further divergence. And Andrew Jackson makes the case for taxes on accumulated wealth as a means of fostering both greater equality and increased economic development.

- Finally, David McNally writes about the role of the labour movement in addressing inequality:

When Chicago teachers waged their highly successful strike in September, many commentators rightly noted the enormous significance of the wide public support they garnered. But few appreciated that this support was a result of years of community-based organizing by the Coalition of Rank and File Educators (CORE), a progressive caucus in the teachers union, to prevent school closures in poor, racialized neighbourhoods. In 2010, activists from CORE won the executive elections in the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU). So, when the union struck in the fall of 2012, it could credibly claim it was striking as much for the needs of students as for the jobs and wages of teachers. Throughout the walkout, the CTU continued to foreground its commitments to challenging racism and poverty. The result was an outpouring of community support for the union, including solidarity rallies at schools throughout working class neighbourhoods. So shaken by this groundswell were city officials, that the CTU won important victories – for students and poor communities as much as the teachers themselves.

Closer to home, the last couple of years have seen the emergence of a vigourous alliance between the Ontario division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and the feisty, Toronto-based Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP). Together, CUPE and OCAP have spearheaded an energetic “Raise the Rates” campaign devoted to increasing social assistance rates in Ontario – something absolutely indispensable to alleviating poverty. Combining education and grassroots activism, the Raise the Rates campaign has been a genuine example of a community-labour alliance that transcends conventional collective bargaining. By creating an authentic and activist solidarity between poor people and trade unionists it offers a refreshing alternative to business style unionism.

There are reasons to believe, therefore, that a reinvigorated trade unionism is possible – one committed to gender, racial and generational justice. And such a trade unionism, mobilizing communities in a way labour has not done for generations, could become a powerful force in reversing the rampant social inequality promoted by neoliberalism.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Erika Shaker points out how Quebec's student protests are a natural and justified reaction to the policy choice to saddle young workers with debt:

(T)he effects of student debt are not exactly “character building”. Postponement of owning a home or starting a family. Fewer assets. Having to settle for temporary, insecure and part-time jobs that often become long-term while trying to pay off loans and living in your parent’s basement. Graduates are finding themselves taking jobs—any job—regardless of how well-suited it is, or whether they have a future in this line of work, or whether they want it…or just desperately need the paycheque.

Youth is a life stage characterized by economic dependence and this can be maintained or changed at the cultural and political level. But the collective impact of growing personal debt, cuts to public services, governments wedded to self-amputation, growing inequality, and a precarious labour market with a youth unemployment rate of more than 20% has extended this stage of dependence. It’s a one-two punch: governments are reinforcing the economic instability that restricts authentic choices for youth for longer periods of time, and media punditry blames youth for not being more economically independent.
...
(W)hen we vilify people for wanting something better than what they’re told is their lot in life, we condemn us all to social regression. We can only make gains when we are prepared to fight for improvements that we may never personally enjoy—but our kids will. Or our grandkids. Or someone else’s kids. Which is why the argument that “others have it worse, so what right do you have to complain?” is the ultimate red herring.

- Thomas Walkom rightly notes that Stephen Harper figures to use any new global economic downturn to do what he tried to do last time: slashing jobs and social programs even further at a time when economic growth is most needed. And Harper's refusal to answer questions about his plans only looks to confirm that expectation.

- Nanos is the latest pollster to confirm that the NDP and Thomas Mulcair are both still on the upswing as the debate over polluter-pay continues to play out - even as so many pundits have proclaimed that Mulcair would have no choice but to back down on any interest in environmental responsibility.

- Meanwhile, Don Lenihan raises one noteworthy question about the relationship between the federal and provincial governments: namely, is Harper even pretending that his role involves anything other than being a fully-owned subsidiary of the Alberta oil industry (leaving Alison Redford to play prime minister)?

- Finally, as much as I tend to disagree with Michael Taube on policy issues, I'll give him full credit for being a rare conservative willing to call for smarter and better-informed politics.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Duncan Cameron discusses how the Cons have already taken Canada and the world in exactly the wrong direction. But Murray Dobbin points out that we should be working on how to change things for the better once they're finally removed from office, and has a few noteworthy suggestions:

Ironically, the projection of extremely low economic growth for the foreseeable future actually provides an imposed opportunity to examine what we desperately need to do anyway - begin to put together plans for a sustainable economy, a redefined prosperity that is not based on unfettered growth in the private sector - the economy of stuff.

If ever there was a time to move in this direction it is now - with corporations sitting on over $700 billion in cash which they refuse to invest because their own policy preferences and reckless behaviour has destroyed demand for private goods and services. Perhaps a tax on idle capital would make sense - a declaration by government that if the private sector can no longer allocate capital investment in the interests of the country and its citizens, then we will take some of it back and allocate it ourselves as public investment. It's not that we don't need investment. A no-growth economy is actually a misnomer, for what its advocates are really talking about is a different kind of growth - the kind that only governments can create: mass transit, green energy, a national food strategy, child care, pharma care, home care, culture and anti-poverty programs including affordable housing.
...
In the end it is all about reclaiming the commons - robbed from us by the one per cent and the perverse ideology of neo-liberalism. Maybe we could begin with a small step in that direction - by reinstating Sunday closing. I know, there are lots of objections (its initial roots in Christianity being one) but imagine there actually being a day when you couldn't buy more stuff. We could bring back an ancient commons tradition: talking to each other.

- Of course, we're still stuck with the Cons for now, with waste, lies and cover-ups all part of a typical day's work. But the fact that this time the lie was explicitly directed at the media should help emphasize why declarations from the Cons' spokesflacks aren't fit to print.

- While Nanos' poll of issues taken verbatim from the Conservative Party website has received far too much attention today, let's take a step back and ask this: what purpose does it serve to merely repeat and entrench the governing party's list of priorities, rather than actually testing what Canadians consider to be most important? (Particularly when Canadians given an open or thorough set of choices tend to have a rather different set of concerns?)

- Finally, Thomas Walkom discusses the CAW/CEP plan for Canada's labour movement to expand its presence well beyond unionized workplaces. And it's worth noting that the right-wing push to slash public services and supports may only offer plenty of opportunity for unions to attract support by picking up some of the slack.

On subtle effects

I'm not the first to make the point, but I'll briefly wade into the Frank Graves vs. Nik Nanos debate over Robocon by noting why this may be a scandal which may have far more of an impact on Canadians' perceptions than prorogation or contempt of Parliament.

In those cases, while political observers were quick to recognize the seriousness of the Cons' intrusion on democracy, issues about the Cons stonewalling Parliament may not have been seen to bear any link to the daily reality of Canadians - especially the "least informed, least engaged voters" who don't much follow politics between elections. And that distance between the Cons' actions and anything which could connect to everyday experiences made it easy for voters to forget about them.

But the nuisance of unwanted marketing phone calls is a constant reality for...well, pretty much everybody. And if each annoying call gets linked even slightly in the minds of Canadians to the Harper Cons, that subtle annoyance factor may make a world of difference when voters who don't think much about politics decide who seems like an acceptable choice in 2015.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Boxing Day reading - with plenty of interesting news below the headlines.

- Naturally the Globe and Mail's headline focuses on a modest dip (to a 14-point lead) in Quebec rather than the NDP's strong national performance. But the more noteworthy development in the latest Nanos polling looks to be the NDP's gaining ground both nationally and in Ontario - even after a fall session where the media regularly edited the Leader of the Official Opposition out of political coverage. And with the NDP's leadership race now set to lead political coverage at the start of 2012, there's plenty of reason for optimism that the NDP can build from its current base.

- Meanwhile, Postmedia's own hand-wringing about the NDP in Quebec is at least based on the single poll which, taken alone, could explain the angle. But more striking than the current poll numbers is the line taken by the one party with the most obvious chance to take ground back from the NDP:

Elected the new leader of the Bloc on Dec. 11, Daniel Paille immediately leaped into the fray to attack the party that ravaged them so badly in May.

He said the NDP's inability to defend Quebec's interests in the same way the Bloc used to explains part of the NDP's slide.

"The NDP house members from Quebec are there because they are truly Canadian first," Paille said at his first news conference as leader. "If they have a question, if they have a problem, they have to go to the national caucus in Ottawa, wait to express their opinions about (issues related to) Quebec values in comparison to the (issues related to) Canadian values."

Now, it makes sense that the Bloc might see a hard-line anti-Canada approach as representing its best chance to rebuild a fund-raising and volunteer base. But considering that the NDP's message which resonated so thoroughly in Quebec was "travaillons ensemble", it's hard to see how a concerted attack on the idea of cooperation will be anything but a millstone around the Bloc's neck when it comes to winning over the general public.

- Also on the polling front, Eric points out one feature of more recent polling that's gone largely unnoticed so far:

The NDP is also poised to make gains in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. In the context of the end of the Canadian Wheat Board, Conservative support has slipped to below 50 per cent in the two provinces, allowing the New Democrats to pull above 30 per cent. This puts them in a particularly good position in Saskatchewan, where there were a number of close ridings in the last election.

- Mia Rabson's year-end roundup features some make-or-break expectation-setting by the Libs:

Right off the top in 2012, the Liberals will hold a major policy convention in Ottawa. Scheduled for Jan. 13 to 15, the biennial convention will begin carving the road forward for the Liberals. They will elect a new president, and debate and pass a number of policy resolutions with the hope of generating policy positions for the party, which may once again interest voters and draw them to the Liberal fold.
...
Liberal organizers need this convention to re-engage everyday Canadians and attendance and interest in the convention alone will be telling for the party.

Outgoing president Alfred Apps predicts it will be a better attended convention than even the NDP and Conservatives have had recently. The party has a lot of work to do and whether it is dying or can come back from the nearly dead will remain a chief topic of conversation next year.

- Finally, on the subject of why it's so important to ensure the NDP is in a position to form government in 2015, Barrie McKenna points out that right-wing anti-tax spin serves as little other than a catalyst for long-term deficits:

Tax cuts actually increase demand for government services, in the same way that lowering the price of gas increases consumption. The result is ever-expanding budget deficits, according to Mr. Ura and Ms. Socker. Tax cuts create a “fiscal illusion” – a sense that life is good and a “perception” that government services are better value.
...
Even controlling for such variables as inflation, unemployment and the level of domestic spending, the study finds a statistical link between larger federal deficits and increased public demand for government. In essence, one follows the other.

The key for policymakers, according to Mr. Ura and Ms. Socker, is to steer clear of “revenue policies that obscure the actual costs of government programs and services.”
...
The Harper government has offered billions of dollars worth of tax breaks since taking power in 2006. It lowered the goods and services tax, cut corporate income taxes, introduced tax breaks for small businesses and manufacturers, and handed out a batch of small, targeted goodies for individuals.

Ottawa has so far made no commitment to review its lengthy list of tax expenditures as it prepares the next budget, expected as early as February.

That’s a lost opportunity. Tax expenditures are essentially government programs delivered via the tax system. The government must demonstrate that they work – that they produce the intended outcomes at a reasonable price – particularly as it moves to slash the size of government.

If, for example, the government is going to slash Industry Canada’s budget, it should also determine whether it’s getting good value for the nearly $4-billion a year spent on research-and-development tax credits for businesses. Similarly, if Natural Resources is taking a haircut, maybe it’s also time to review the resource company flow-through share deductions and mineral exploration tax credits ($335-million a year). The same questions apply to the $200-million a year in film- and video-production credits, which should be weighed against big cuts to Canadian Heritage. Or, as Ottawa ponders cuts to Health Canada, does it know whether five years of the children’s fitness tax credit ($115-million a year) has made children any healthier?

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Nanos confirms that even as cities are starting to crack down on the Occupy movement, the general public is highly sympathetic to the message about reining in inequality and corporate control:

The Nanos Research poll conducted for The Globe and Mail and La Presse found that 58 per cent of Canadians who are aware of the protests have a favourable or somewhat favourable impression of them.
...
The most significant demographic that views the Occupy movement favourably is people who are between 18 and 29 years of age, the poll found, which may be reflective of a tough job market for new workers. Nearly 73 per cent of people under 30 said they have a favourable or somewhat favourable impression of the protests.

Although respondents in their 40s view the protests less favourably than other demographics, about 50 per cent of them still expressed a favourable or somewhat favourable impression of the protests. People in their 60s had the most polarized reactions to the protests, with 34 per cent saying their impression is favourable and 32 per cent saying it is unfavourable.

- Carly Weeks points out that we may be facing shortages of needed medications simply because big pharma wants to phase out cheaping drugs for more expensive ones. Which should offer yet another reason as to why a public-sector manufacturer could do a world of good.

- The two stories are stunning enough on their own. But it's particularly galling to juxtapose the fact that employment insurance is becoming less and less accessible with the Cons' edict that the Office of Client Satisfaction that's supposed to address concerns is to be kept secret.

- Erin notes that Saskatchewan's election results don't change the fact that getting a reasonable return on our resources is a matter of competent management rather than politics alone.

- Finally, those of us interested in turning potential political involvement into the actual votes needed to bring about change may want to take a close look at Kevin Chief's example.

Leading nowhere

After several months of interim NDP leader Nycole Turmel being neatly edited out of far too much coverage of Canadian politics, it shouldn't come as too much surprise that she's behind Bob Rae in the latest Nanos leadership polling. But I'd think the most important news is that Rae himself hasn't made much progress.

After all, the combination of Turmel's low profile and the fact that the NDP hadn't yet started its leadership campaign in earnest made the past few months about the best opportunity Rae would ever have to distance himself from the NDP's leading lights. Yet Nanos shows Rae scoring no higher than 18% in any of the relevant leadership measures even on the most favourable possible playing field - while the NDP is holding its share of popular support from the May election.

Now, the NDP's next set of leadership contenders figures to be the main topic of discussion over the next five months. And once the leadership race is over, the new leader figures to then become the main focus for a period of several months - with many of the same advantages as Rae now holds since the Libs will be headed into their own race.

So for those of us focused on where Canadian politics are headed in the long run rather than merely where they are on an interim basis, the NDP has little reason for concern in where the current interim leaders stand. And any Libs hoping for Rae to be their saviour have reason to doubt that it's going to happen.

Untrusted

Daniel Leblanc emphasizes the even lower score for Quebec's provincial government in Nik Nanos' trust barometer. But isn't it rather striking that the Cons' federal government - which has supposedly enjoyed a free ride since winning a majority - is still falling short of a passing grade on trust? And if Stephen Harper isn't managing to win over Canadians even while facing a set of three interim leaders, isn't there ample reason to doubt whether he'll be able to do so once the NDP in particular sets its new course?

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Aaron Wherry takes a look at how the NDP caucus has responded to Jack Layton's death and the resulting outpouring of public sympathy:

After Jack Layton had departed Parliament Hill for the final time last week, his flag-draped casket loaded into a waiting hearse and driven away as a large crowd applauded, those NDP MPs who had gathered to see him off fanned out to greet and thank the well-wishers and mourners. “What I kept on saying to people over and over again,” says Libby Davies, one of Layton’s two deputy leaders, “without even thinking, it was just instinct, was, ‘Don’t worry, we’re going to keep working.’ ”

While they mourned their leader, New Democrats could hardly ignore the many questions left in his absence: about their viability, direction and meaning as a party without the man who seemed to define them. But if, in the wake of Layton’s passing, there was a certain fear for the future of the NDP—raised by any number of pundits who now deem the party doomed—New Democrats themselves claim only resolve.
...
A sense of solidarity was already said to have taken hold amid the June filibuster that delayed passage of back-to-work legislation for Canada Post employees. The loss of their leader and inspiration is now said to have united the caucus all the more. “When you go through a tragedy like this—it’s that old saying, ‘What doesn’t kill you is going to make you stronger,’ ” says Comartin. And in this case, there is, strengthening that resolve, a clear sense of responsibility. “Every single caucus member that I’ve spoken to, there’s the same absolute, resolute feeling that we are united, that we’re together, that we have to carry on Jack’s work,” says Davies.

When it came time for McGrath to sign one of the books of condolences for her departed boss—a man she had spoken to nearly every day for the last three years—she chose to put her commitment in writing. “I love you, I miss you, I know what you want from us,” she wrote, “and we’re going to do it, you can count on us.”

- And Linda McQuaig notes that Stephen Lewis' eulogy has resonated well beyond the NDP's caucus and membership:

Allowing Layton a state funeral was probably Stephen Harper's most generous prime ministerial act. But it led to a nationally televised scene that will likely haunt him and surely inspire progressives for years to come: Stephen Lewis, the iconic elder statesman of Canada's social democratic movement, standing in front of Canada's most right-wing prime minister ever, speaking truth to power.

Determined that the event be more than just a tribute to the goodness of one man, Lewis used the heft of the occasion, as Layton would have wanted, to drive home Layton's social democratic vision for the country.

With the Conservatives' new hammerlock on power — accomplished with a mere 40 per cent of the national vote — here at least was one joyous moment in which we could watch the country's most powerful orator confront a prime minister who had no choice but to stand every time the rest of the room rose in rapturous pleasure at Lewis's inspiring call for a more equal and generous Canada.

- Meanwhile, Erika Shaker theorizes as to the source of the Cons' constant rage:

I think the rage comes from a place of fear. I think the Conservative bunker mentality requires their constant vigilance to squash anything that vaguely resembles a differing point of view, or even a reminder that although the election is over, the opposition is not going away. Because when that opposition is coherent, passionate, and persuasive, and is accompanied by action…that’s when things get scary. Particularly when those unpredictable youth are involved.

And when political awareness and action is an ongoing process rather than the equivalent of something that resembles a cross between Groundhog Day and Leap Year (you know, when Canadians crawl out of their houses once every four years, haul themselves down to the polls to do their civic duty, then return home to shake their collective heads about how the old boss looks an awful lot like the new boss…but hey, whatareyagonnado?); when those whose sense of order relies on low voter turnout and an uninformed electorate realize that, for a lot of people, democracy is a way of life and not just a spectator sport….then it’s time to panic.
...
(Layton's) vision as he articulated it was powerful; it resonated because it felt authentic, and because it was expressed authentically. His closing sentence has already become a mantra because it speaks to a vision of Canada, a way of life, and a set of priorities that people see in their best selves. Within hours, love, hope and optimism blew the “Conservative Values are Canadian Values” ad campaign out of the political and social water.
...
Words to strike fear into the hearts of those who like their politics predictable, their youth apathetic, and their worldview uncomplicated by all this “making a difference” or “democracy is a way of life” nonsense. And I think being confronted with a different set of political and social principles that resonates deeply and authentically among a variety of communities only feeds the fear that drives the fury.

- Finally, Nik Nanos points out both why any talk of an NDP/Lib merger misses both the impossibility of completely combining the two parties, and the lack of any particular need to do so.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your midweek reading.

- The Star skewers the Cons' insistence on pushing ahead with bad budget choices:

As the Star argued during the election, Canada needs progressive economic vision in the form of strategic investments in scientific research and innovation, health care, a national child-care plan and improving the Canada Pension Plan for younger workers and the elderly poor. Measured by these needs, this budget, like its predecessor, is a bust.

Moreover, it remains packed with dubious spending, including an unwarranted $6 billion corporate tax cut and a smattering of other giveaways. And the Conservatives’ profligacy won’t end there. They are on an imprudent course to spend untold billions on F-35 fighter aircraft and prison-building, as other priorities go unmet.

Apart from its fundamentally skewed agenda, the budget is built on an unstable platform of rosy optimism that may not survive the gathering economic storm. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty readily acknowledges that “the global economic recovery remains fragile.” Even so, he says he can eliminate the $32 billion deficit by 2014/15 by trimming spending by 5 per cent. Yet Ottawa’s anticipated revenue growth could be dragged down by a variety of factors: the weak American economy, $100 a barrel oil, Europe’s debt woes, slowing growth in China and India, or Japan’s tsunami fallout. Anything less than an optimal outcome could force Ottawa to cut more deeply than the $4 billion a year it has earmarked to balance the books.

- And Thomas Walkom also notes the problems with Harpernomics:

When Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tabled his budget this week, he used precisely these kinds of calming words.

Sure, we’ll be doing a bit of cutting here and there, he said. But don’t sweat it. We’re only talking about trimming up to $4 billion a year from $80 billion worth of direct program spending. That’s just 5 per cent. Chill out.

Yet the reality of his plan is quite different.

First, he’s not planning to cut just $4 billion. He’s planning to cut up to $4 billion every year for four years. As his budget document points out, the cumulative total of these as-yet-unspecified cuts is $11 billion.

But that’s on top of the cuts that the government announced in past budgets but that have not yet kicked in. The cumulative total of these, according to Flaherty’s own figures, is at least $9.7 billion.

Add the two together and you get more than $20 billion in planned cutbacks between now and 2015. That’s not 5 per cent of federal direct program spending. It’s closer to 25 per cent.

Which is radical surgery.

So what gives?

The most obvious explanation is that the government is being dishonest.
...
Harper and his finance minister are taking a gamble. Taking a leaf from the Jean Chrétien Liberals, the Conservatives are using the deficit as an excuse to continue dismantling the parts of government they’ve already signalled they don’t like — such as health and safety regulation, veterans’ disability pensions and job training.

This would move Canada in the direction Harper wants it to go. But I suspect the Prime Minister knows his cuts could also threaten jobs and income should the world economy take another turn for the worse.

In that sense, the government’s careful rhetoric is more appropriate than its actions. This is a time for caution. It’s not a time for massive spending cuts, no matter how ideologically attractive the right might find them.

- No, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that the Bush administration saw Stephen Harper's Con government as a useful tool from day one. But it's striking how both the U.S. and the Cons seem to have overestimated the value of the softwood lumber debacle in giving Harper room to sell out Canada's interests further:

“That said, I see a real opportunity for us to advance our agenda with the new government,” Mr. Wilkins wrote. “I recommend early on that we look for an opportunity to give Harper a bilateral success story by resolving an irritant such as the Devil's Lake filter system or entering into good faith negotiations to reach a solution on softwood lumber. Press reports here indicate a growing willingness across Canada to get back to the table. Early success on a bilateral issue will bolster Harper and allow him to take a more pro-American position publicly without as much political risk.”

Less than four months later, Canada and the US reached an agreement on softwood lumber, with the Americans returning 80 per cent of the $5.3 billion in duties it had collected on lumber imports over the years.

However, if the deal was supposed to give the Conservative government an accomplishment to show the public it could stand up for the country and defend Canada’s interests in dealing with the US, it badly backfired.

A large number of softwood lumber industry groups, the BC government and the federal Liberals and NDP strongly opposed the agreement, declaring that the Harper government had in fact sold out to the Americans. The Conservatives retaliated by describing it as the best agreement possible and made the deal a confidence motion.

- Paul Krugman sums up how fiscal policy designed for the benefit of current creditors ends up harming the general public. [Update: And then highlights exactly who stands to gain as a result.]

- Finally, Nik Nanos' advice to the NDP may not be particularly surprising, but it nicely summarizes the message the party will need to develop:

“What’s always risky for a party is when it does things that seem to be inauthentic,” Mr. Nanos said. “Your guys and gals are going, ‘Hey what’s this all about now,’ now that we’re in the opposition people will expect certain things from the New Democrats.”

Mr. Nanos added: “I would say that the best way for the New Democrats to try to consolidate second spot is to deliver what people would expect from New Democrats, which is a socially progressive agenda that’s very compassionate, fighting for the little guy and gal.”

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Pogge rightly calls out the "supportive stakeholders" who are eagerly giving up any credibility in order to serve as spokesflacks for the Harper Cons:

At least three major business organizations -- the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canadian Trucking Alliance -- quickly issued statements praising the framework agreement Friday.

So these three groups aren't just self-interested lobby groups. They're quite happy to collude with the Conservatives to keep secrets from us. That pretty much confirms their willingness to be dishonest in their dealings with the Canadian public and eliminates any credibility they may have left. Don't be surprised to see me link back to this post any time that John Manley of the CCCE or Perrin Beatty of the Chamber of Commerce open their mouths in public. I'll assume from now on that any public statements they make are part of another conspiracy to deceive us.

- For all the justified criticisms of the Cons' plan to axe per-vote party funding, I don't see much reason to think Nik Nanos is right in theorizing that the result would be a two-party system. Instead, based on the historical information which Alice has already assembled, the main effect would look to be a very slight expansion of all of the current gaps between the national federal parties - which is much of the reason why I don't see it making sense for any of the opposition parties to go along with the plan unless it's more focused on fighting off the parties in the rear-view mirror than trying to advance its standing.

- Shorter Sun editorial: we must prove our independence from the U.S. by taking its orders to buy F-35s!

- Though in fairness, the Cons' stubbornness is at least resulting in some winners in Canada.

- Finally, David Beers points out one of the largest problems with the current usage-based billing debate:

This week, we heard small Internet service providers say that what the big telecoms want to charge for “extra” gigabytes used is 10, even 100 times more than the actual cost. Big telecoms also have other motivations to discourage you from downloading Netflix – by charging a lot, they can then offer a discount on their own movie download products. Or nudge you back to their broadcast television properties.

So how much is too much to charge? Sadly, as we’ve learned, the CRTC itself can only base its decisions on cost estimates provided by the big telecoms, because there is so little independent auditing in this area. We won’t know until what a Globe and Mail editorial called the “black box” of Internet infrastructure costs is opened to public view. Then maybe we’ll know why South Koreans pay a fraction of the cost for 10 times the bandwidth we get here.
...
The very way in which we address these issues needs profound reform, to be opened to the light of debate and scrutiny. Until then, the regulators of Canada’s digital future have lost the public trust.