#SKNDPLDR Roundup

So far, the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership campaign has been awfully quiet. And with a membership deadline looming for anybody who wants to be able to vote in the leadership election, time is running out for anybody looking to attract support from outside the party's existing membership base.

While it remains to be seen whether she'll success, Kaitlyn Harvey has taken a couple of steps which should pique some interest: announcing the endorsement of Seth Klein as one of the country's prominent voices for climate action, and unveiling a platform based on principles of sustainability and harm prevention, as well as a far more honest assessment of the costs of maintaining the status quo. 

There's some obvious potential for those messages both in establishing Harvey's bona fides within the climate justice movement, and for the party's future path as a part of that movement. But time is running short to convert that potential into memberships and votes. 

Meanwhile, Carla Beck's campaign has demurred from releasing a detailed platform. Instead, she's offered a list of priorities with a few policy proposals, along with an explanation for not going into much more detail than that. (And there's actually another reasonable argument on that point which she doesn't address, which is the effort underway to improve the NDP's internal policy development.) 

Not surprisingly, Beck has also added to her list of endorsements - though it's hard to see those as a novel development in a race where she's had establishment support lined up behind her from day one. 

We'll find out fairly soon whether there are any surprises in the membership numbers which may affect the balance of the race. In the meantime, though, a quiet campaign looks to favour Beck as the default favourite. 

On structural barriers

As the NDP's federal leadership race approaches its conclusion, Tom Parkin has been doing some noteworthy writing on some of the issues which voters may want to keep in mind. And I'll start with Parkin's discussion as to how some of the systems which most deserve to be modeled may not translate easily to Canada's political realities.

In particular, Parkin notes that the Nordic model which holds plenty of appeal for social democrats may not be as easily implemented in a federal system where crucial authority over social and labour policy is held by the provinces:

We should import the Nordic model, say many Canadian social democrats. But—is it coincidental?—the Nordic countries all have a fundamentally different political constitution than ours. They are all unitary nations without provinces, states or territories. Canada is a federation with powers constitutionally divided between two levels of government.

Social democrats at the head of a unitary state have all policy levers and pulleys close at hand. A single Cabinet runs economic ministries, training, health care, education and welfare. It sets laws to shape and encourage—or not—collective bargaining. It runs capital and credit organizations such as the central bank, public pension funds, development banks and housing market credit agencies. In unitary states, a Cabinet can co-ordinate policies that adopt and adapt the social democratic model. We don’t.
...
Understanding federalism and getting the alignment right means a federal NDP leader who is constantly bolstering provincial NDP sections and always has something to say that will be well-received in provincial capitals—at least among social democrats, whether in government or opposition.

Such a stance could also support the NDP’s recent and hard-won success in Quebec. A helpful federal partner that encourages the social democratic development of Quebec—rather than blocks it—could provide a pathway to reorient the Quebec left—regardless of language—to the project of Canada, rather than separation.

But what none of the current federal leadership campaigns have talked about—not specifically, anyway—is how clean energy transition and diversification (or another strategy) could help develop an economy based on social partnership and the stability the unitary Nordics have developed.

...

The point is that to achieve what social democrats hope for, federal New Democrats need to understand and leverage Canada’s federal structure. Water cannot run uphill. Time cannot go backward. And social democracy cannot be implemented from Ottawa.

Creating the social partnership that is the core of social democracy—in the Nordic model, anyway—is a provincial undertaking which can greatly benefit from a strong federal ally. Federal New Democrats need to be social democratic federalists, constantly looking for ways to support provincial social democratic projects in ways that will strengthen social partnerships. It means being powerfully strategic and bold in the places where the opportunities for structural economic change lie.

Social democratic federalism would not only politically align the federal party and provincial sections while setting out a path to social democracy. It may also create an enduring bond among progressives in Quebec and across Canada through an attractive and practical alternative to both separatism and neo-liberalism. It’s time to look with clear eyes about how social democrats make change. Our federal constitution has been a brake on success. But perhaps, with the right strategy, it can become an engine for change.

It's certainly fair to note the difficulties in promising federal action in areas where provinces have both the ability and the inclination to reject it. But it's also worth pointing out (as Parkin does) that Canada's most valued social programs are already the product of cooperation between the federal and provincial governments - and recognizing how jurisdictional barriers have been and can be overcome.

Parkin mentions partisanship as an issue, with particular reference to Kathleen Wynne's choice to thumb her nose at the NDP's 2015 child care plan. But while that may serve as an unfortunate example, it would also figure to rule out the type of ambition which the NDP should be seeking to support.

After all, if the threshold for building a national program is to have one party in power in all provinces at once such as to completely align federal and provincial interests, then it's going to be awfully difficult to make the case that change for the better is ever feasible. And indeed, the Libs themselves would surely be thrilled to operate based on that principle - pointing to the fact that a few provinces have yet to elect NDP governments, and thus claiming that they're the only party which can ever hope to achieve national progress (while glossing over their disinclination to do so).

Moreover, leaving political calculations aside, there's strong evidence to suggest the federal government can be both powerful and opportunistic in shaping provincial decisions - and there's also room for it to act on its own toward many of the points raised by Parkin.

Remember that it was just last year that negotiations broke down between Ottawa and the provinces as a group on health care funding. Within two months, most provinces and territories had accepted virtually all of the federal government's terms. And the final holdout gave in last month, as the pressure to accept incremental funding increases outweighed any disagreement over either the form or content of the federal government's demands.

Few provincial governments would figure to have done anything of the sort in responding to party promises during a federal election campaign: after all, then they'd be in a position to either demand more, or benefit their own party by holding out. But the situation changes when immediate funding is at stake - and so an elected government is in a much better position to actually shape the terms of provincial action.

Of course, that shouldn't be the preferred means of developing national policy. And on the opportunism side, there's plenty of room for the federal government to merely take up the invitations of the body which already pursues change based on the consensus of the provinces.

The provinces' original desire to discuss health care at a common table serves as one prime example as to where a federal government looking for coast-to-coast-to-coast cooperation on a key issue could have found a receptive audience. The Council of the Federation has long been pushing for pharmacare, and has expressed consensus support for improved primary care and seniors' care among other steps toward a healthier Canada. And of course the provinces have already signed on to child care programs which have been limited only by the federal Libs' cynicism and stinginess.

As a result, there's little reason for concern that significant improvements in Canada's social structure couldn't be brought about with the provinces' agreement.

Finally, while the federal government may lack the ability to set up a full bureaucracy to administer all aspects of economic policy, it surely has the authority to set up or manage exactly the "capital or credit organizations" discussed by Parkin. Moreover, it can also establish both public enterprises of its own to act directly where it sees a benefit in doing so, and coordinating bodies to equalize and stabilize economic decision-making across levels of government.

To be clear, Parkin is right in arguing that the NDP needs to be conscious of the limits of federal jurisdiction, and plan its mix of immediate proposals and future plans accordingly. But we shouldn't use federalism as an excuse to shy away from discussing the types of social and economic structures needed to support a more fair society.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Louis-Philippe Rochon reminds us why even if we were to (pointlessly) prioritize raw GDP over fair distributions of income and wealth, inequality is bad for economic growth in general:

The more we redistribute income and wealth, the more consumption increases, which then increases demand. In turn, this should encourage the private sector to invest, thereby accelerating the growth process.

So reducing inequality, in addition to social and health benefits, has important economic implications: our economies grow, and growth itself becomes less volatile. In short, inequality is bad economics.
...
To restart economic growth, a major preoccupation of many Canadians, there are a number of policies that can be adopted. For instance, higher incomes can be taxed at a much higher marginal rate, including capital gains and income earned from dividends; wealth can also be taxed more.

In light of the Panama Papers, government can close tax loopholes; we can also prevent the private-sector practice of buying back their own shares, which unnecessarily inflates the dividends of shareholders, which in turn favours short-term financial gains to the detriment of long-term economic growth.

Finally, we can adopt a full employment policy.

- Meanwhile, PressProgress points out new research by Cristobal Younga, Charles Varnera, Ithai Lurieb and Richard Prisinzanob showing no statistically significant connection between tax rates and millionaires' locations - signalling that there's no reason to take seriously any threat that more progressive taxes will lead the wealthy to move to avoid paying their fair share.

- Aru Pande discusses how U.S. non-profits are being forced to try to fill in glaring gaps in public services for children living in poverty.

- Ian McLeod reports that the Libs' plans to do anything about C-51 are limited to secret Parliamentary oversight after the fact - meaning that the public will have continue to have no idea how its rights are being violated. And Michael Geist writes that there's no longer any doubt just how much needless surveillance is taking place in Canada.

- Finally, Zeynep Engin reviews Beth Simone Noveck's Smart Citizens, Smarter State on the future of governance:

The key terms that I believe best describe the spirit of the book emerge as ‘targeted expertise’, ‘crowdsourcing’, ‘experimental governance’ and ‘citizen engagement’. Instead of the traditional advisory committee model that mainly relies on stakeholder representation (missing the epistemic value of committee membership) and typically produces a report or a set of recommendations over months or even years, Noveck suggests that new technologies should allow us ‘to make consultation on a day-to-day basis and to strive for constant conversation with an engaged and knowledgeable public’. Going beyond ‘crowdsourcing widely to crowdsourcing wisely’ to match the right experts to the right opportunities on a large scale is more likely to lead to faster and better decision-making. Modes of expert engagement can be accommodated at all stages of ideation, discussion, formulation and assessment as opposed to limiting public participation to consultation on pre-formulated drafts of ‘professional policy-makers’ in government departments. This would also lead to redefinition of ‘the public service and the public servant as the steward of such a conversation’. The challenges with this type of engagement and potential strategies to overcome them are also covered widely.
...
Those with technology and ‘hard’ sciences backgrounds would hugely benefit from a comprehensive understanding of government and policy domains in order to set new research agendas with significant potential for wider impact. At the other end of the spectrum, those with politics and social science backgrounds would find it very helpful for understanding the current technologies of expertise and the new trends in public decision-making, offering great promise for transforming the ways that governments should operate under the ongoing data revolution.

 [Edit: fixed typo.]

A place for discussion

Following up on yesterday's column, I'll expand somewhat on some of the decisions the NDP may want to consider as (or before) it elects new leaders. And since the recent federal convention has been treated by other commentators as everything from a shining example of party democracy in action to an absolute calamity, let's start at that level - with a particular focus on what should be seen as having worked and not in Edmonton.

I'll start by taking the view that whatever one's views on the merits, the convention's handling of resolutions related to the Leap Manifesto should be seen as an excellent example as to how policy debate can happen within a party.

Plenty of work went into developing a main resolution and informing members (and the public) about it. The convention's resolution panel examined its options, and put forward a primary resolution which addressed concerns about the original wording. The underlying issue was one which left room for thoughtful debate even among the convention's featured speakers. And the debate on the floor featured meaningful contributions from a combination of high-profile and rank-and-file members.

About all that was lacking was any sense of willingness to work with the outcome - which is unfortunate given that the resolution which passed leaves ample room for debate as to which portions of Leap should be accepted or not.

Unfortunately, time and capacity limitations make it impossible to engage in that level of discussion when it comes to all but a few resolutions at any given convention. And that seems to me to be a particularly important problem if conventions are seen as the sole direct opportunity for membership-level input into policies and choices.

But that's a problem which should be fairly readily fixed. The NDP's federal council has authority to make final decisions on policy between conventions - and the sheer volume of resolutions brought forward at every policy convention seems to me to signal some significant demand to ensure that more policy issues are dealt with.

With the council serving as a check on any mischief, there's no reason why the resolutions (PDF) which haven't yet been addressed by convention (and additional ideas put forward afterward) couldn't be made subject to systematic review and discussion through party channels. And the result of facilitating ongoing policy discussion could be to make the NDP and its policy conventions more productive in two ways.

First, it should help to narrow and clarify the issues up for discussion.

At the moment, there's a large amount of redundancy in the resolutions submitted since electoral district associations and commissions submit their own resolutions with little (if any) coordination. But the development of an ongoing policy forum should make it easier for EDAs and commissions to discuss and agree on the wording intended to address any given issue - which should reduce the number of resolutions submitted while better focusing their intent.

And second, the convention itself should run more efficiently and accomplish more if members' concerns have been addressed in advance, or can be addressed afterward.

In particular, there should be less room for argument about how much time is devoted to any specific policy - or policy in general - at a convention if there's a readily-available alternative forum in which to carry on the discussion.

Of course, it will inevitably take time for a new process to be developed and implemented. And I'd fully expect some of the past issues to remain until members' expectations adapt to a new policy review process. But in the long run, I'd think it's possible to put both convention time and members' policy interest to better use by making sure needed conversations about the NDP's direction take place on a continuous basis.

Up for discussion

Kady O'Malley has already highlighted a few of the noteworthy resolutions (PDF) submitted to this weekend's NDP policy convention. But I'll point out a few more which look to me to deserve attention.

First, in the category of simple good ideas regardless of one's ideological orientation...

1-08-16 SEVERANCE FLEXIBILITY 
London-Fanshawe 
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the following be added to Section 1.5 in the policy book:
1.5.f. Amending the Employment Insurance Act (severance) and the Income Tax Act so that employees who have lost their jobs due to plant closure can, on a one-time-only basis, retain their severance packages and be able to invest some or all of that severance money into RRSPs even if the investment is above their RRSP contribution limit and can, immediately upon termination of employment, collect the Employment Insurance to which they are entitled without any loss of severance monies.

About the only concern is that this might be too narrowly framed in applying only to plant closures. But it's well worth looking at ways to make sure that EI does more for workers (see also 3-05-16 among other resolutions for examples) - and the principle that EI should supplement severance packages rather than swallowing them up for workers in an especially difficult job market its the bill.

1-20-16 PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE 
NDP Quebec Section 
...
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the NDP require that for each device purchased, the consumer must have access to the following information:
§ A clear indication making it possible to know if the device is repairable and the duration of the availability of separate parts and accessories, as well as the device’s reasonable life cycle;
§ An explanation of the product’s environmental impact provided by the producers, such as:

§ Impact of CO2 emitted when the product was produced;
§ Preservation of natural resources: quantity of non-renewable resources (gold, silver and tin) in the composition of the product;
§ Instructions for recycling the device or returning it to the producer for recycling.

This would fit neatly into the categories of consumer protection and environmental policy, at least allowing people to make more informed purchasing decisions and hopefully encouraging the development of more responsible production processes.

5-03-16 MAXIMUM LENGTH OF FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS 
NDP Quebec Section, Richmond-Arthabaska, Jonquière 
...
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the NDP support the adoption of legislation limiting the length of an election campaign to a maximum of 45 days. 

I'm not sure if anybody saw any merit in Stephen Harper's extended 2015 campaign for any purpose other than his own partisan advantage. But a legislated limit on the campaign period would seem a logical response to the issues raised when a prime minister can otherwise singlehandedly extend timelines and increase expense limits.

Meanwhile, a few other resolutions fit with ideas which have been discussed elsewhere, but haven't been given extensive attention among Canada's federal political parties. Among those are 1-18-16 (among others) on postal banking, 1-21-16 on a financial transaction tax, 1-27-16 calling for a review of tax policy including challenging the Cons' GST cuts among others dealing with more progressive taxation, 1-67-16 providing for an inheritance tax, 3-06-16 on a basic income, 3-16-16 and others supporting a fully funded mental health and addictions strategy, 3-89-16 to eliminate mandatory minimum criminal sentences, and 6-04-16 to call for an end to carding.

And several more offer some important fodder for discussion, including a charter of citizen and corporate responsibilities (1-47-16), a detailed plan to transition to a low-carbon economy as the basis for the next campaign (2-24-16), a prohibition against genetic discrimination (3-26-16), a fund to encourage youth involvement in politics (5-12-16), and a move toward more ongoing participatory policy-making (7-14-16 among others).

Of course it's doubtful that this weekend will even scratch the surface of the above (along with many more worthwhile ideas which have been put before the convention). But there's certainly no lack of thoughtful ideas worth taking away even if they don't make it to the floor - and hopefully several of the above will find their way into platforms and policy before long.

On rebuilding steps

I've posted before about the NDP's strong progressive stance since the October election - which looks to be a positive move in terms of principles and politics alike. 

But there's also a great deal of work to be done on the party side. And I'll suggest a couple of points which strike me as important in advance of the spring convention where Tom Mulcair's leadership is up for review.

First, there's the seemingly simple matter of the party's policy book (which I believe is found in an updated PDF here) and other member-generated documents.

As a reminder, the policy book was originally developed as part of Jack Layton's effort to professionalize the party - providing a statement of core values which could then form the foundation for platform development (while being general enough to allow plenty of room for maneuvering).

Nothing has been done to make the policy book any less authoritative than it ever was in reflecting the policy set by NDP members. And it would thus seem important both as a standing expression of values, and a starting point for resolutions which riding associations may want to develop.

But the policy book was removed from the NDP's website in advance of the election based on what still strikes me as a dubious rationale. And it doesn't seem to have been replaced since; in fact, the party's website no longer seems to point to any of the party documentation which was once available.

At best, that might be explained based on the party's priorities falling elsewhere in the immediate aftermath of the election. But if the issue was once one of a perceived lack of urgency, an impending resolution deadline for the convention surely makes it worth letting people know where party policy stands now. (And I'd also argue it's worth making sure that far more of the party's history in action, including convention resolutions past and present, is preserved and made available.)

Second, there's the concern about the central campaign's treatment of important parts of the progressive social movement - which arose both in candidate vetting, and in the message sent to some candidates during the campaign.

There's little way for the party to know what it can (or can't) accomplish by reaching out to the people who were refused a place within the election campaign. But at the very least, it should make the effort to do so on the basis that winning back past supporters and strengthening ties with the activist left need to be top priorities following a disappointing election.

If some of the key individuals who were turned away directly or who spoke out at the time can be brought back into the fold, that would go a long way toward confirming that Mulcair can win over some of the people who tuned out the NDP in 2015 and lead a movement-based party toward power. But even if Mulcair didn't find a receptive ear, he and the party would be better off for recognizing the need to try.

On statements of values

It's true that a party's policy book is not the same as its election platform.

But it's also true that there is more to a party than a single campaign or platform. And considering that the difference between a policy book and a platform can be pointed out in a single sentence, I'm hard-pressed to see what the NDP stands to gain by limiting access to the policy goals developed by its members.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Lonnie Golden studies the harm done to workers by irregular schedules. And Matt Bruening comments on how Missouri, Kansas and other states are passing draconian restrictions on benefits by trying to get the middle class to envy the poor.

- Meanwhile, Scott Santens expands on the connection between increasing automation and a basic income which could ensure that people displaced from jobs by technological advancement aren't left without a livelihood. And Sara Mojtehedzadeh talks to Guy Standing about a basic income as a means of relieving against reliance on precarious work:

What is the “precariat”?

The precariat consists of a growing proportion of our total society. It is being habituated to accept a life of unstable labour and unstable living. Often they’re unable to say what their occupation is, because what they’re doing now might be quite different from what they were doing three months ago. (They) have to do a hell of a lot of work that doesn’t get counted (i.e. job training, travel time, job applications). People in the precariat find themselves in the situation where the level of their education and qualifications is almost always higher than the sort of labour that they’re going to be able to obtain. This is the first time in history when an emerging part of our citizens are losing rights. (With) many of the benefit cuts, there is no due process. I think that leaves scope for tremendous amounts of injustice.

You warn that the precariat is also very vulnerable to poverty traps.

People in the precariat rely very heavily on money wages. You cannot apply for benefits until two weeks after you’ve lost a job, for example.The gap between losing a job can be months, not weeks or days. Now, if you think about it, that means there’s very little incentive to take a low-paying job, especially as you could then subsequently be unemployed again.

For you, a big part of the answer is a guaranteed basic income for all. Why?

In terms of social justice you could say, look — everybody should receive a dividend from the investments of past generations to give us the security to develop our capabilities. But in addition, a basic income would be a modest way of redistributing income, because we’ve got chronically unequal societies. There is no other way in which the precariat could obtain basic security.

- But Sunny Freeman notes that the Cons are in fact likely to push more Canadians into debt and other poverty traps if their false balanced budget law has any substantive effect. And Seth Klein warns against following the path toward a zombie policy whose harms are well known.

- Mike Blanchfield reports that the Cons have turned Canada into one of the most miserly countries in the world when it comes to supporting international development. And Michael Harris writes that despite hundreds of millions of dollars in ad spending trying to convince us otherwise, the Cons don't rate any better on competence than they do on ethics or values.

- Finally, Lauren Dobson-Hughes argues that an election campaign is the wrong time for civil society groups to try to influence public policy, while offering an alternate suggestion as to how the spotlight of a campaign can benefit social causes:

An election campaign should be *the* place for civil society organizations to engage. To shape public opinion, to highlight the problems we face, to represent their members, and to push candidates to prove they’re worthy our votes. It says something about the state of democracy that election campaigns are essentially, a policy discussion vacuum.

So where is the value in elections campaigns, for civil society? I’d suggest elections are a much better tool for invigorating your base, educating them and providing them with an outlet for their passions. They can attend all-candidates debates, write letters to the editor, host policy discussions amongst themselves, and identify potential champions of their issues. This is democracy in action. Its impact on political decision-making is debatable, but as a means of empowering Canadians to engage politically, it can be very effective.

And perhaps therein lies the disconnect. Civil society wants to engage in elections. They feel they have (and should have) a crucial role to play. In many cases, they are deeply involved. And yet, their involvement appears entirely unconnected to any impact.

This sounds awfully cynical. And that’s not the intent. But if you’re going to engage as a civil society organisation, do it with your eyes open.

Saturday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your weekend reading.

- Gerald Caplan writes that we all bear some responsibility for growing inequality - and how we'll need to use our electoral power to reverse it:

(S)elf-sacrifice is not going to be the key to reducing inequality, with all the great damage it inflicts on society. Government needs to act, and Mr. Mackenzie offers perfectly realistic policies to any party that is seriously committed to greater equality. For example, the tax break on stock options generously provided by our government is worth a cool half-trillion to the top 100 – a nice day’s “work,” for sure. And since federal corporate taxes, an affordable 29 per cent only 15 years ago, now stand at 15 per cent, we can expect Mr. Mackenzie to report even higher rewards for his hearty band next January.

Anyone who dabbles in the field for even a moment knows there are lots of ideas for reducing inequality. Some are political non-starters but others are quite simple and workable. Knowing what to do is not the issue. The issue, as usual, is the political will to attack the problem frontally. The NDP is so far proposing a distinctly modest increase in corporate taxes, which is more than its opponents. As of now, with an election less than a year away, the big winner once again, and still champion, is inequality.

- Marc Lee rightly challenges the theory that any steps to deal with climate change should exacerbate inequality by being revenue-neutral.

- But Susana Mas reports that the Cons are once again refusing to consider any increases in revenue, and using their failed bet on an oil-dependent economy as an excuse to cut even further into Canada's public services.

- Karl Nerenberg notes that in addition to having the only plan to combat inequality, the NDP is also the only one party is willing to treat voters like adults. But it's worth noting that the NDP isn't the only party with a relatively detailed policy document: the difference is that the NDP has enough respect for members and the public alike to make its policy work readily accessible, while the Cons force non-members to go on a scavenger hunt (or at least search their site from the outside) to find theirs.

- Finally, Stephen Maher recognizes that the greatest threat we face from acts of terror lies in the people who would use the excuse to crack down on civil rights and freedoms.

On limited victories

Truly, I wish Andrew Coyne's latest actually described policy-making in Canada, and not merely the state of theoretical political debate.

But in fact, we live in a country where "let's consider whether a trade agreement actually has benefits, rather than signing whatever gets shoved in front of us" has been shouted down by two national parties and the corporate press as an extreme view.

In fact, the "progressive" premier put forward as the paragon of leftism is from a government which brags about both trashing regulations for the sake of trashing regulations, and imposing perpetual real-money cuts to the public sector.

And in fact, we're seeing far more Crowns actually privatized (in whole or in part) than we're seeing proposals for any meaningful new public institutions or programs to meet our evolving needs.

Now, it's true that there are more "serious proposals on the table" for progressive ideas than conservative ones. But that's primarily a function of the fact that being serious isn't a prerequisite for the radical changes generally preferred - and regularly implemented - by the right.

Building an effective program or institution requires ample planning, consultation and review. And so we can fully expect people who believe government can and should provide those things to carry out at least some of the necessary advance work on a regular basis.

In contrast, destroying one takes a single swing of the wrecking ball with no previous warning or debate. And right-leaning governments across the country have been following that pattern for decades, with no sign of letting up anytime soon.

At the federal level alone, the Cons have privatized or eliminated core functions of AECL, the Canadian Wheat Board and Canada Post, not to mention set up a ten-figure P3 promotion apparatus put in place to ensure infrastructure is built to benefit big business over the public. And all this based on precisely zero advance discussion, and in the face of evidence showing them to be asinine ideas from any standpoint other than one focused solely on turning public investments into private profits.

Which isn't to say the contest of ideas doesn't matter: obviously if we want to build a better world, it's essential to have some idea what it looks like. But well-crafted, thoughtful policies are only a necessary precondition, not a sufficient one. And there's not much to celebrate as long as the right (in whatever party guise) is able to treat anti-social vandalism as a viable governing strategy.

On lasting influence

Murray Dobbin continues his quest to push for more big ideas from the federal NDP here. But it's worth dividing his take into one theory well worth applying, and one which would be entirely counterproductive.

At the outset, I'll agree with Dobbin's take that a number of the NDP's current policy themes reflect defensive positions or basic oppositional choices rather than a bold push into new political space:

Megan Leslie lists a number of NDP policies which she describes as "bold," but with all due respect, most are defensive, involve resisting Stephen Harper's anti-democratic agenda, or are long-standing policies that have also been supported by the Liberals -- such as child care. Returning to pre-Harper corporate tax levels is a start -- but Thomas Mulcair's absolute refusal to consider increasing personal income taxes even on the wealthy shows timidity, not boldness. And without reclaiming lost revenue, promises of child care and a national housing program ring hollow.

Leading "the charge against Stephen Harper's attempt to import voter suppression tactics" is what any opposition party should be doing, and opposing the outrageous subsidies given to oil companies is good policy but hardly a "big idea."

And while there's room for debate in both the elements included in Dobbin's list of "big ideas" and some obvious exclusions, they're certainly some possibilities which deserve further discussion:

If the pathologically destructive nature of finance capitalism is to be addressed, there needs to be a political party that can do so by expanding the window of acceptable policies. And that means promoting bold ideas that directly challenge the policies that are creating the crises. Some examples: make advertising to children illegal and begin to address the obesity epidemic; instead of capping credit card fees, establish a public national bank to compete directly with the private banks; get out of NAFTA; use the Bank of Canada's mandated power to lend to governments at near-zero interest rates and pay down the debt; challenge the outrageous behaviour of pharmaceutical companies by establishing a public company actually dedicated to people's health and not shareholder profit, and ban the use of antibiotics in animal feed before they become useless and people start dying again from a scraped knee.

But having made the case for policies which may deserve greater attention, Dobbin also argues that the NDP shouldn't care whether it's ever in a position to implement those policies:

(I)f you want to see a big, bold idea accepted as government policy you have to expand that window to include the new idea. Overton described the evolution to broad public acceptance as a process that develops by degrees: "Unthinkable; Radical; Acceptable; Sensible; Popular; Policy." The right used this model and stuck with it for 30 years to achieve its current dominance. Ideas like slashing unemployment insurance and welfare, privatizing crown corporations, gutting taxes on the wealthy, making huge cuts to social programs and signing "trade" deals that give corporations more power, were all "unthinkable" or "radical" in the beginning. But after 30 years of relentless promotion and the courting of politicians, all of these ideas are now public policy. The advent of medicare in Saskatchewan followed precisely this road to fruition.

And any party wishing to actually deal with the crises we face will need to accept that it will take time to make the necessary bold policies sensible and popular. But so long as the NDP clings to the fantasy of winning a majority it will avoid big ideas for this reason. Contrast that with the NDP in the 1960s, when it took the big idea of medicare to the national stage and forced the Liberal government to implement it. That is the NDP's historic role in progressive social policy: not winning elections but promoting bold ideas until they become popular.

The dramatic shift in strategy -- seriously going for a majority -- has been disastrous for the NDP. It led them to opportunistically defeat the Liberal government and give power to Stephen Harper. Inexorably, the NDP is becoming another liberal party in order to be competitive. Federally, they're badly trailing a Liberal Party with a pretty face and no policies. The tragic irony in this is, of course, that even if the NDP did win, it would have a mandate limited to liberal policies.

Of course, this analysis conspicuously omits any explanation as to why the NDP ought to be limited to some "historical role", or how winning elections is somehow something to be avoided.

In fact, it can hardly escape notice that the NDP's greatest historical influence was linked to the perception that it could plausibly form the government in the relatively near future. The era of big policy wins in the 1960s and 1970s arose in no small part out of the Libs' concern about the growth potential of the NDP (which had of course come together precisely for the purpose of challenging for government where the CCF had failed). In contrast, the perception that the NDP was a minor political force forced Jack Layton to keep his requests modest and focused on short-term gains in recent minority Parliaments.

Which means that Dobbin's own limited focus contains its own tragic irony: a party which rules out a serious attempt to build toward government is far less likely to earn enough influence to be able to shape public policy. (And it certainly won't be able to set the example as to how progressive policies can work in practice - as Saskatchewan's CCF did as a precursor to the national adoption of Medicare.)

Moreover, Dobbin seems to miss some of the most important value in the NDP's recent organizing efforts. Greater outreach to a wider range of people can only help build both the NDP's credibility in making policy suggestions and public awareness of the NDP's own proposals - not to mention providing a mechanism to reach the public directly in assessing what policies might prove both popular and desirable without being unduly constrained by the Ottawa conventional wisdom. 

In sum, Dobbin is right to highlight the need for the NDP to champion policies which meaningfully counter the Con/Lib corporate consensus. But he's wrong to assume that represents a reason to abandon any effort to win a place in government - especially if that means perpetually ceding power to exactly those parties.

Instead, big ideas and political strength are each necessary elements of a meaningful effort to build a more progressive society. And the NDP will do best for itself and for Canada if it works on developing both.

#mtlqc13 - Day 3 Review

Once again, Aaron has a list of the resolutions passed at the NDP's federal convention - and I won't comment much on what passed other than to note that once again, some key resolutions (on social housing, health care funding and temporary foreign workers) were passed by the plenary session after being pushed to the front of the line by members at convention.

However, I'll take some time to discuss the session on the party's constitution and internal governance.

While far too much talk about the convention focused on the constitutional preamble (which I discussed here), two other highly-ranked resolutions also raised the prospect of constitutional change. And indeed, the first resolution on the topic led to my first direct intervention in a federal NDP convention.

Resolution 7-01-13, explained as being intended to ensure that nomination rules are set at the federal level rather than devolved to the NDP's provincial wings, read as follows:

7-01-13
Resolution to Amend the Constitution Submitted by Federal Council
WHEREAS the NDP has different rules governing nominations in each province; and
WHEREAS using different rules in each province creates inconsistency and confusion;
BE IT RESOLVED that Article XV of the constitution be struck and replaced by:
Article XV: Rules governing the nomination of candidates
1. The Federal Council shall create rules and procedures for the nomination of the federal candidates.
2. The Federal Council shall review these rules after each general election. 

Unfortunately, having spent most of my time analyzing the convention resolutions looking at policy points which I hoped to see promoted, I hadn't looked a in a lot of detail at the issues seen as non-controversial enough to already be at the front of the line. And while I'm happy to see standards set at the national level, it struck me as questionable to leave total discretion in the hands of federal council rather than ensuring that the NDP's nomination rules and procedures are based on meaningful constitutional guidelines - particularly given my frequent criticism of other parties for practices like shielding incumbents from nominations or appointing candidates from the top.

As a result, I moved as follows:

MOVED that Resolution 7-01-13 be referred to Federal Council to develop a new Article XV providing for federal nomination standards which respect the principles of open nominations and electoral district association-level nomination elections.

Fortunately, Nathan Rotman's response indicated that those values would be taken into account in the current Council's work. But ultimately, I'd still see it as important to ensure that the core values underlying the NDP's nomination process can't be fundamentally altered by Federal Council without membership approval - and I'll want to see some discussion on that point (with a lot more advance preparation on my part) at the party's Edmonton convention in 2015.

Naturally, the constitutional preamble - featuring a couple of amendments from the pre-convention version - was the subject of a heated debate. But the most effective interventions came from the pro side - including the likes of Bill Blaikie who could say that he had concerns about the party's previous proposed amendment, but saw the new version (which he of course participated in drafting) as having resolved those issues. (And that stood in stark contrast to the "con" side, which seemed aimed mostly at expressing the greatest possible outrage rather than convincing anybody who might have been on the fence).

If there was any key lesson to be learned from the standpoint of planning the convention, it may have been that there's a need to address more policy than it's possible to debate over the course of a weekend. In particular, I wonder whether a mechanism to designate some resolutions as "non-controversial" would allow for a show of party support without spending a lot of time debating resolutions which don't face any opposition - but there's obviously room to discuss how best to get to more policy priorities.

But this weekend nonetheless highlighted how an engaged membership and an effective leader can reinforce each other rather than being seen as mutually inconsistent - and the NDP looks to be on solid ground on both fronts as it builds up to the 2015 election and beyond.

On priorities

Yesterday, I posted a brief overview of the policy resolutions set to be discussed at the NDP's federal convention in Montreal next weekend. But over the next few days, I'll go a step further in taking a look at the ones I see as most important for the party's development into Canada's leading progressive option over the long term.

Before I start listing individual resolutions, though, here are a few of the criteria I'll be applying in evaluating them.

First, I'll want to ensure that a priority resolution is substantive. It's well and good to offer statements of general principle or to state one's intention to study an issue, but I'll be looking for resolutions which provide some concrete definition to the NDP's policies in the years to come.

Second, a priority resolution should be forward-looking. While the convention is of course the product of a particular moment, I see it as better to define priorities which will remain relevant in future election cycles until such time as a policy proposal is fully implemented than to limit ourselves to reacting to the headlines. (On that front, I'll prefer resolutions which shape the NDP's long-term policy book to freestanding ones which will tend to be lost in the mists of time once the convention is over.)

Third, I'll be looking for resolutions which are distinctive. Thanks in no small part to the media Village, there's constant pressure on the party's leadership and caucus to equivocate or hew to the positions of other political competitors - and I don't see any particular value in having the membership further that cause. Instead, the most important contribution the membership can make is to evaluate which ideas set us apart from other parties.

Fourth, I'll want to promote resolutions that are innovative. It's natural that a large number of resolutions involve responses to immediate political issues, including the ones which are already being handled by the NDP's caucus. But I don't see the convention merely as a time to affirm that members agree with the caucus' opposition to the Cons' most egregious mistakes: instead,we should be looking to direct the party's attention to issues which haven't received the attention they deserve.

Finally, a priority resolution should be pragmatic. That doesn't mean that I want to limit the party's policy debate to bland incrementalism - but it does mean that I'll want to see some apparent means as to how an idea might be implemented in practice before making it a key focus for discussion.

Fortunately, there are plenty of resolutions submitted for the Montreal convention that look solid on all counts. And it'll be worth working to make sure those are the ones which receive the most attention from members at the convention - with the intention of ensuring that even media outlets inclined to focus solely on familiar frames are forced to notice there's a deeper progressive discussion happening within the NDP.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- The U.S.' budget negotiations are leading to some public lobbying as to whether wealthy Americans will make any contribution whatsoever to closing the country's deficit. On the plus side, Warren Buffett is renewing his call for a minimum tax for those who can afford it - but the usual suspects are also trying to push yet more freebies for the rich alongside service cuts for those who actually need public support.

- Mike de Souza reports on a much-needed response to the Cons' cuts to First Nations, while Stephanie Levitz notes that the Cons are likewise slashing support for refugees and demanding that private charities pick up the bill.

- Which looks like a rather opportune time to contrast the Cons' plans against Ian Welsh's eminently reasonable proposal as to the starting point we should apply in developing public policy:

If there is one policy point I’d like to make it isn’t a policy point, it’s an ethical one: default to kindness.

Or try kindness first.

In policy terms, the kind thing to do is usually the right thing to do.  I’d go so far as to say, almost always.

The first thing you should do, in any policy situation, is ask “what would the golden rule have me do?”  Most of the time, this will be the correct policy, which will produce the best results.  People who are treated with kindness, in general, reciprocate and are productive.  Yes, there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.

Further, kindness is the default position even with the worst people.  If you allow rapists to be raped, you become a rapist.  If you torture torturers, you are now a torturer.  You do not, in the old phrase, sink to their level.  That doesn’t mean being a pushover, it doesn’t mean no justice, it does mean that the State has no business seeking revenge and that the rules, which should default to kindness, apply equally the worst people and the best.  This is not just the right thing to do, it is the only thing to do, because the State often decides the best people are the worst people, as even a cursory examination of history will attest, and it very often makes mistakes, as the many errors in capital cases have brought to light.  But, again, even if someone is the worst of the worst beyond even the shadow of a doubt, they must be treated with kindness even as they are incarcerated, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because doing anything else degrades those who do it.  Torturers are always corrupted by torturing, occupying armies always become weak, corrupt and brutal.  You cannot do evil and not be, yourself, scarred by it.

Be kind, and remember, what you insist on your government doing to others changes your government, and will effect (sic) its treatment of you.

- And there's still reason for optimism that most Canadians agree with that focus - despite the massive sums of money the Cons have spent to try to push their anti-social values.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Yves Engler thoroughly discusses how the Harper Cons' foreign policy has included bullying countries around the world into placing the profits Canadian mining interests over the needs of their own citizens - and the effect that action has had on Canada's reputation:

Under Harper all levels of Canadian diplomacy have promoted mining. Anthony Bebbington, director of the Graduate School of Geography at Clark University, told the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development in February 2012 that a "sub-secretary in a [Latin American] ministry of energy and mines" told him "as far as I can tell, the Canadian ambassador here is a representative for Canadian mining companies." The Massachusetts-based academic also quoted an unnamed Latin American environment minister, who complained about Canadian lobbying and mining, saying: "I don't know if Canada has been quite so discredited in its history."
...
Further south, the Conservatives signed a free trade agreement largely to protect $5 billion in Canadian mining investment in Peru from the type of legislative changes Ecuador implemented. Signed in the midst of intense mining conflict, the 2010 trade agreement -- with environmental and labour safeguards "even weaker than NAFTA's" -- was designed to remove any future Peruvian government's ability to change mining regulations or to expropriate the properties of Canadian companies. In June 2011 indigenous Aymara in eastern Peru led a wave of anti-mining protests. Six protesters were killed when 1,000 demonstrators tried to occupy the Inca Manco Capac Airport near Lake Titicaca. In response to the protests the Ministry of Mines and Energy withdrew Vancouver-based Bear Creek Mining's concession to develop a silver deposit. After the company's concession was withdrawn Bear Creek CEO Andrew Swarthout threatened the Ministry.
...
In at least one case the Conservatives established diplomatic relations with a country simply to serve mining interests. In April 2008 Agence France Presse reported: "Canada will establish a new trade mission in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, this year to help Canadian companies active in the region's mining sector."
...
With some 20 Canadian mining companies active in the country, Canada was the second largest investor in Mongolia. Ottawa's biggest concern was Vancouver-based Ivanhoe, which owned a copper and gold project in the Gobi desert. This $6 billion project, noted the Financial Post, "was the major campaign issue" in Mongolia's 2008 election. In April 2006 at least 3,000 people marched against foreign mining in Mongolia's capital, with protesters burning an effigy of Ivanhoe's Robert Friedland. The ire directed towards Friedland was partly because of comments he made in 2005. Friedland explained his Mongolian venture to an investor's conference this way: "So we're coming in from outer space and landing at Oyu Tolgoi... And the nice thing about this: there's no people around; the land is flat, there's no tropical jungle; there's no NGOs. We're only 70 kilometres from the Chinese border. It does not snow here. You've got lots of room for waste dumps." The company also took heat for loaning $50 million to the government in exchange for tax concessions.

The Conservatives actively lobbied the Mongolian government on behalf of Ivanhoe. A Globe and Mail Report on Business headline described a Jan. 2008 trip to Mongolia by Trade Minister David Emerson (who joined the board of a mining company after he left public office): "Emerson to push for Ivanhoe deal in Mongolia." As part of its efforts to woo the country's decision-makers, the Conservatives doled out tens of millions of dollars in aid to Mongolia. In Aug. 2011 development minister Oda visited Mongolia and CIDA ramped up its funding to a country with limited historic ties to Canada.

- And recognizing the difference between Canada's actual economy and the narrow interests being pushed by the Harper Cons, Thomas Walkom suggests that our premiers work together on the former point without expecting the federal government to offer any help at all.

- Susan Delacourt wonders whether conditional promises will turn out to be one of the lasting political developments of Canada's 2011 election campaign. But I'm far from sure we should see that development as a plus to the extent it offers an excuse for inaction based on outside factors which may or may not be beyond a government's control: better instead to identify problems and paths to solve them which will be pursued to the extent possible, rather than announcing massive promises coupled with an intention not to start pursuing them until much later.

- Finally, John Moore follows up David Macdonald's demolition of the Fraser Institute's spin on inequality and poverty with a rebuttal based on his personal experience:

The Fraser Institute study hinges on the false premise that because someone starts their career in the salary basement, they are necessarily “poor,” in the sense of the word that is commonly understood. By that assumption, a 22-year-old commerce-degree holder from a first-rate university who’s doing a Bay Street internship while sleeping on a friend’s sofa is exactly the same as a high-school drop-out from the wrong side of the tracks who will spend the rest of her career working the cash at a supermarket. Almost all of us set out from the same set of starters blocks, but we’re not all running the same race.

There’s no doubt that some poor people do manage to lift themselves out of poverty. One of my radio listeners wrote to tell me about being born in Montreal’s Griffintown to a family of six kids. She put herself through night school working for $80 a week at Dominion Textile and today is a highly successful career woman. That is a great story of grit and determination. Probably also luck and mentoring. But it’s not a common one. And to pretend it’s the story of most Canadians ignores issues of poverty, race, status, gender, education and countless other variables that factor into lifetime economic outcomes.

Far from blowing myths out of the water, the Fraser Institute is merely muddying the currents.

Leadership 2013 Roundup

One might have thought that the final days of municipal elections around the province would make for a relatively quiet stretch in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership campaign. But instead, it looks like most of the campaigns are neatly using greater public awareness of politics generally to build interest in the leadership race.

- In addition to calling out the Sask Party for backing the Cons' attacks on the health of immigrants, Ryan Meili offered up his answers to Scott Stelmaschuk's questionnaire - featuring this on where he sees the most room for improvement within the NDP:

What do you plan to change about Saskatchewan’s NDP? And what do you plan to keep the same?

The fundamental principles of the CCF/NDP movement don't need to change. What does need to change is the degree to which we are connected to the social movements that built the party in the first place and sustained it through its most productive periods. What needs to change is the amount of real democratic influence that members have on the party's direction, and the degree to which our actions - both in opposition and in government - reflect those principles.

 - Meanwhile, Cam Broten released his policy on democratic reform within both the legislature and the NDP. Of particular note, the latter plan focuses on permanent policy commissions whose reports could become official party policy upon membership approval - though I'm curious as to whether that will mean members' votes will be limited to accepting a commission's text as written, or whether there's some place for further discussion after a commission reports back.

- Trent Wotherspoon made his first foray into shaping the campaign's policy agenda by releasing his education plan. And while there's plenty of talk of incremental changes, Wotherspoon's broader goals include making education more accessible from early childhood to the post-secondary level.

- And Erin Weir responded to Brad Wall's latest giveaway to the corporate sector, pointing out that a substantial chunk of the foregone revenue from a cut to corporate tax rates will in fact flow directly to Washington rather than actually helping business even under the assumption that lower taxes would result in investment.

- Finally, in addition to having created the questionnaire mentioned above, Scott Stelmaschuk continues to offer loads of noteworthy commentary on the campaign - featuring his updated take on Broten, Meili, Weir and Wotherspoon respectively.

Leadership 2013 Roundup

Assorted news from the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership campaign over the past few days...

- Ryan Meili explained his choice not to start unveiling policy just yet by suggesting that leadership starts with listening - and the list of user-submitted ideas on his website looks to be expanding nicely to signal that people are interested in contributing. Meanwhile, Meili was also the subject of the most frivolous campaign story of the week.

- Erin Weir commented on the general effect of free trade agreements, raising a natural question as to what he'd plan to do to counter the chilling effect of such agreements:

Economist Erin Weir of the Progressive Economics Forum adds another negative, as he sees it.

He says FTA and NAFTA, which followed five years later, have restricted the power of governments to intervene in the economy to push back against global forces, namely because they fear law suits for protectionist practices. He cites the $130-million payout to AbitibiBowater in return for expropriated assets by Newfoundland after the company shut down its Grand-Falls Windsor pulp and paper mill.

- Cam Broten and Trent Wotherspoon unveiled assorted endorsements, while Wotherspoon also earned a report in the Nipawin Journal.

- Finally, Joe Couture reported on the candidates' websites. But it's worth noting that while it's probably true that all of the sites are relatively safe in terms of candidate-driven content (which I'd think would be expected), all but Broten's have at least some form of publicly-submitted content as well. And I'd expect candidates' interactions with visitors to make for one of the more significant signs as to how they'll engage with the public.

Leadership 2013 Roundup

A few notes from the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership campaign over the past few days...

- Cam Broten's supporters have been highlighting his statement of values, with his focus on long-term thinking offering a particularly noteworthy development if put into practice (while also setting up a noteworthy test for Broten on the campaign trail):

Thinking in generations

Cam knows that the generations to come will feel the impacts of the decisions we make today and the decisions we put off making. Much better policies are made when decision-makers take a long-term perspective and are fundamentally committed to being fair and generous to not only current generations, but also future generations.

- Ryan Meili's campaign is encouraging site visitors to offer their own policy proposals. And Dave Mitchell's suggestion of a progressive legislation wiki looks to deserve a long look no matter what else happens during the course of the leadership race: it would seem just as easily set up by an individual or group as through the party, and indeed might be best developed outside formal party structures to encourage unfiltered discussion.

- Scott posts the contents of Erin Weir's first digital town hall, including this succinct statement of Weir's top policy priorities:

Q: What two measurable and quantifiable outcomes will be indicate that your time as leader was a success?

A: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and poverty. 

- Finally, Trent Wotherspoon's tour around the province has earned him plenty of local media coverage. And after pointing to another report yesterday, I'll highlight Wotherspoon's comments on education from the Lloydminster Source:

Wotherspoon said he will be laying out his platform as the six-month campaign unfolds. He did say that some of the themes he will be focusing on is making sure education fits the needs of families in the province and the economy.

“I think in many ways we see areas where there is constraint occurring in the education system but also, in many ways, a system that was built for another era and a different economy,” said Wotherspoon.

New column day

Here, on how we know better in our personal lives than to think money is everything - and how we should expect public policy to follow the same principle.

For further reading, see my earlier posts on the subject. And the best-developed Canadian means of measuring is the Canadian Index of Wellbeing.

A Healthy Society - Chapter 2 Discussion

Chapter 2 of Ryan Meili's A Healthy Society discusses the place of politics as "medicine on a larger scale". Meili looks for lessons in our political discussion based on how medical knowledge has advanced in the past few decades, and points out a new definition of success that looks to be entirely transferable to our expectations of government:

One interesting result of this approach is that the definition of success has changed. We now talk about meaningful outcomes. When we know what is meaningful to patients and their families, we can know whether to move ahead with a difficult treatment, or spare the expense and discomfort. The guiding principle is to do what will make the most meaningful improvement in the patient’s quality of life rather than a focus on cure rates, survival times, or adherence to strict guidelines. This humanizing approach, based on what is significant in improving people’s lives rather than an insensitive numerical standard, is an important principle to remember when we discuss political interventions as well as medical.

Of course, this doesn't figure to mean that measurable standards are entirely inapplicable, as Meili notes in discussing the move toward evidence-based medicine as another advance which we should seek to import into political discussion:

The analogy of the past practice of medicine and the current practice of politics is striking. Rather than on the best evidence, political decisions are made based on a polling of their popularity, ideology, and other sorts of best guesses of what might work. What is needed is a move to evidence-based policy. We need to develop the clearest understanding possible of our goals, our meaningful outcomes. We then must understand the obstacles to reaching them, and the actions most likely to have the desired effect. We need to use the best information and examples available to us in order to build a healthy society.

But it's worth keeping in mind the lesson that it's impossible to arrive at the right answer as to how to make government work for people without constant engagement to determine whether we're asking the right questions. And the difference in incentives between the private and public sectors may offer a hint as to the role government can and should play.

After all, businesses figure to be motivated to take an individual's concerns into account only to the extent it's profitable to do so. But government actors bear responsibility for all people within their jurisdiction - and are ultimately responsible to make sure that everybody is included in decision-making.

Rather than applying the choose-from-a-predetermined-menu service model to the public sector, we should thus consider how we can set up our civil service to be able to achieve meaningful results in as many cases as possible, rather than being overly confined by top-down program definitions which leave too many concerns being answered with "that's not my job" or "we can't do that". And that flexibility in turn should be subject to a careful evaluation as to whether intervention on that basis achieves value for the resources used - which can both highlight areas of citizen demand that aren't being addressed, and determine which options might need to be closed off.

[Edit: fixed typo.]