An uncovered agenda

Shorter CanWest chain on the Saskatchewan election outcome:
Of course the NDP shouldn't have been believed when it talked about Sask Party privatization. But that doesn't mean there's any reason to delay the selloff now that the election's done with.

Post-election notes

A few notes on tonight's election results...

- Obviously the outcome is disappointing for the NDP, if far from the wipeout some were predicting from a party standpoint. But while it's always tough to lose power (and in this case the progressive leadership that came with it), the NDP should have an extremely solid platform from which to put an inexperienced government under the microscope. In particular, with the swing vote apparently having taken Brad Wall at his bare word that he'd avoid doing serious damage to Saskatchewan's public sector and refuse to sign onto the TILMA, the NDP will hopefully be able to hold the Sask Party's feet to the fire to prevent any retreat from those positions.

- As for the NDP's future strategy, my initial reaction is that despite the discussion in some quarters about choosing a new leader, there's no reason at all for Lorne Calvert to step down (or for the party to push him from the helm). If Wall stumbles in office - which wouldn't be the least bit surprising - then the NDP may be best served being able to draw a contrast between an out-of-its-element Sask Party and the effective government that preceded it. And if the NDP decides it needs to renew at the top as well as within the ranks of its caucus, then there's plenty of time to make that call in a year or two to give a new leader time to settle in before 2011.

- The Sask Party seems to have forgotten to tell Wall that the campaign is over with, such that he can take at least a brief break from rapid-fire slogans. Will "Wall. Beats. Hackneyed. Phrases. To. Death." be the overriding theme of the next four years of Saskatchewan politics?

- Finally, a suggested first step for the Sask Party to appear concerned about the environment. At this point, it's long past time to put Saskatchewan Liberals on the endangered species list.

Hypothetically speaking

A quick hypothetical for today's election.

Suppose you've lived in a home for over a decade. It's been a comfortable, secure place to live. You've done some renovations, and have plans to do more - but you're also wondering whether it might be time for a change, and what other houses might be available. So when another house a few blocks away comes on the market with an asking price within your range, you decide to have a look.

The owner greets you at the door and gives you a brief tour of the house. You can tell that there are some elements you like - a somewhat larger garage, a more elaborate security system. There are also some elements that you don't like - the appliances are older, it's less energy-efficient, and the location isn't quite as good. But you decide that those are issues you can deal with, and that if the new house is all it appears to be, you'll want to buy it.

However, you also notice a couple of cracks in the walls, and the basement seems a bit damp for your liking. So you ask the owner if it'll be a problem to bring an inspector in to check the house out thoroughly.

And the owner responds, "I'm selling the house as is, where is. No inspectors, and we have to close now.

"But I don't see why that would be a problem. You want to choose a home based on hope rather than fear, right?"

Now, is that the kind of line that would inspire confidence? Would you react by saying, "The owner has a point, let's close the deal now"? Or by walking away and deciding that you'll revisit the possibility of moving later on?

And which of those above choices seems more likely to lead to a better end result?

On opportunities

Based on recent history, an election campaign seems to be inevitably dominated primarily by discussion of negatives. And unfortunately, much of the promise held by Saskatchewan's current campaign seems to have been lost in the shuffle. But with the election close at hand, let's take a few minutes to remember the positive choices at stake.

Tomorrow, voters have the choice to place Saskatchewan at the forefront of the evolution of Canada's public health care system through a universal prescription drug plan. Instead of limiting coverage for the fastest-growing component of health care costs to a quarter of the population, our province could lead the way in declaring that all residents have access to a vital aspect of health care at a manageable price - while also making needed investments in new surgical facilities to strengthen an already-improving health care system.

Tomorrow, voters have the choice to endorse a citizen's assembly which could modernize the way Saskatchewan chooses its leaders - and the outcome of that assembly could be felt for many elections to come. Instead of a third party feeling the need to pretend the election has been decided early in the campaign in a desperate bid for relevance, it could enjoy the opportunity to receive seats in proportion to its popular support; instead of being largely ignored, smaller parties could have the opportunity to hold real power.

Tomorrow, voters have the choice to put their vote behind a continued leadership role in the development of wind, solar and other green energy opportunities - both through SaskPower's own investments, and through independent developments which receive credit under a reverse metering system.

Tomorrow, voters have the choice to support investments in infrastructure, research and development which will help to ensure that Saskatchewan's prosperity lasts far past the current resource boom.

And tomorrow, voters have the choice to make sure that the benefits of Saskatchewan's boom are spread to the province's population as a whole - through reduced tuition which benefits all students, tax rebates which benefit all residents, an increased minimum wage to ensure that all workers receive a boost from the province's economic expansion, and the continued provision of the lowest utility costs in the country.

In sum, the election is indeed about opportunities as well as risks, hopes as well as fears. And one of the greatest risks of all lies in the fact that by this time tomorrow, the most significant set of progressive policy proposals offered to Saskatchewan voters in decades may have passed us by.

Fortunately, there's still time for voters to decide to vote for the possibilities in front of them - along with the reassurance that the province will remain in capable hands for another term. And the more voters who take that opportunity, the better off the province will be.

A slipping mask

So far in the Saskatchewan election campaign, it's been clear that the Sask Party has taken up the federal Cons' strategy of muzzling its candidates to avoid any unwanted honesty. But even with that already-problematic plan in place, the Sask Party's candidates still haven't been able to avoid some hints at reopening an issue which Wall and company have desperately tried to defuse.

Remember that this summer, Wall surprisingly took a public stand against the TILMA. While he claimed (without any apparent basis in reality) that a less toxic agreement could have been reached if Saskatchewan had been a part of the negotiations, he said in no uncertain terms that he "would not sign on" to the deal as it stands.

During the campaign, however, a couple of Wall's candidates have been suggesting a rather different view.

The most obvious public statement was that of Moose Jaw North candidate Warren Michelson, who said that he doesn't think his party would "say absolutely no to TILMA". But perhaps more significant based on his relative stature is the shift in position from Weyburn-Big Muddy MLA Dustin Duncan, who seems to have edited out any problems with TILMA itself in order to focus solely on the view that Saskatchewan should have joined Klein and Campbell behind closed doors:

In regard to the labour shortage, (Duncan) noted the shortage is being felt all across western Canada, and not too long ago the B.C. and Alberta governments met to discuss ways of dealing with the labour shortage, but Saskatchewan's government wasn't there.

Naturally, Duncan seems to have avoided referring to the TILMA by name. But it seems equally clear that he perceives the TILMA as a "way of dealing with the labour shortage", and figures that the NDP's choice not to participate in the original closed-door negotiations was a mistake which his party would change.

Now, it isn't certain whether Michelson and Duncan fully represent their party's view when it comes to the TILMA. And unfortunately, by suppressing the issue this long, Wall has likely succeeded in preventing a full public debate about the TILMA (and his party's actual stance on it) during the campaign.

But at the very least, it's obvious that there's some strong appetite within the party to reverse one of the party's efforts to become more palatable to Saskatchewan voters. And the more clear it becomes that the image the Sask Party has tried to portray during the campaign isn't what voters can expect once the election is over, the more likely voters are to have second thoughts about taking the Sask Party at its word.

Poll position

SaskVotes reports that the turnout at Saskatchewan's advance polls has been up substantially from that in 2003. And it'll be interesting to see what that spike in early voting means when all is said and done:

If the advance polls are any sign of things to come, election day could break records in Saskatchewan.

Dave Wilkie, the assistant chif electoral officer, says the first four days of advance polls were swamped. Saskatoon Silver - Springs saw over 1100 people turn out, compared to 700 last election during the same time.

Wilkie attributes good weather as one of the possible reasons for a good turnout.

While the good weather may be one factor, there are other possible reasons for a strong advance turnout as well. For one, it could be that more voters are simply finding it convenient to avoid the post-work rush at their regular polling stations.

But then, the advance polls may also reflect a strong turnout among party volunteers who want to get voting out of the way in order to accomplish as much as they can closer to election day. If that's the case, then as quiet as the campaign has been so far, the numbers could signal that there's little danger of any party's supporters taking anything for granted. And if Saskatchewan's election machines are indeed fully revved up, it should make for an interesting race to the finish line.

An all-consuming Enterprise

The Saskatchewan News Network reports that while there doesn't seem to be much disagreement about the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce's long-term population goal for the province, there's a significant dispute about how to get there. And the difference suggests just how much power the Sask Party would plan to hand to Enterprise Saskatchewan if it gets the chance:

The three major political parties agree that Saskatchewan should try to hit a population of 1.5 million by 2030, but disagree on how to hit the target, says the president of the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce...

"All three leaders congratulated the chamber on initiating the discussion of long-term growth in Saskatchewan," said chamber president Dave Dutchak. "While we have received clear commitment, they were not of the same mind as to the process."

Dutchak said the chamber is firm on establishing a task force to lead the process.

NDP Leader Lorne Calvert believes sustained economic and social growth in the province must be a collaborative effort, but noted the role of government is to set parameters for a task force and also to invite participation.

Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall voiced concern that the task force would be a duplication of his economic development authority, Enterprise Saskatchewan, but was eager to work with the chamber to determine the correct process for the strategy.

It's noteworthy enough that the Chamber of Commerce's position better matches the NDP's view than the Sask Party's. But the more important lesson is what Wall's response says about the planned scope of Enterprise Saskatchewan.

After all, a goal based on population growth is one which obviously has multiple implications for the province. While economic considerations are obviously a part of what's at stake, any effort to grow Saskatchewan's population surely needs to take into account both other factors in achieving that growth to begin with, and other effects on the province from an influx of people. Which should mean inviting a different and wider set of parties to the table than might be necessary to deal solely with economic development.

From Wall's response, however, the Sask Party sees things differently. It could be that the party has a myopic enough view not to see how population growth could raise any additional issues. Or instead, the Sask Party could plan to have all additional issues also dealt with by a body whose composition is itself geared toward the Sask Party's corporatist vision over all other considerations. Either way, though, it seems virtually certain that all issues other than how to get the most money into private hands as quickly as possible would receive short shrift.

Moreover, while Wall's answer was aimed toward population growth in particular, it's worth wondering how far the same principle would apply. After all, virtually any issue facing the provincial government has at least some economic component to it. And if Enterprise Saskatchewan were charged with the mandate of dealing with any matter which could affect or be affected by economic development, then Wall's appointed body would usurp virtually the entire role of the provincial government before long.

We'll see if Wall is willing to offer any answers about just how much power he'd devolve to Enterprise Saskatchewan, and what groups would get left out as a result. But it seems far more likely that this is just one more area where Saskatchewan voters are being asked to put their blind faith in the Sask Party. And as those areas keep piling up, there's ever less reason to give the Sask Party the benefit of any doubt.

An open question

On further reflection, I have to wonder whether Brad Wall's attempt to change the subject by introducing new promises at the end of the campaign could turn out to be an outright disaster for the Sask Party.

After all, it seems clear from Wall's announcement that the Sask Party's platform doesn't fully set out what the party already has planned if it forms government. Which means that there's a serious need to ask what else Wall has promised that was left out of his party's public platform. And if Wall can't offer a thorough explanation as to why this would be the only surprise he has in mind, then voters have every reason to doubt that he or his platform can be taken at face value.

On diversions

I suppose the Saskatchewan election campaign was bound to have some late surprise. But I for one wouldn't have expected the Sask Party to take one of the least successful pages out of Paul Martin's playbook, making up new promises at the end of the campaign in an apparent attempt to shift public discussion away from topics which it doesn't want to have to discuss.

Of course, any reporting on Wall's latest diversion has been far more friendly than the media treatment of Martin's Charter pump fake. (Bob Hughes in particular is predictably salivating at being able to recycle his usual daylight savings time tirade in the lead-up to a referendum - though if the Sask Party felt a need to pander to him personally, there may be reason to think its vote in the cities is far softer than we know so far.)

Fortunately, though, it's entirely likely that Saskatchewan's voters are less gullible than the Sask Party seems to think. And if Wall's weak attempt to use a referendum on a small issue in four years to deflect attention from his own refusal to answer questions about who he would appoint to run the province's economy next week receives the attention it deserves, then the swing vote seems all the more likely to end up in the NDP's column.

Endgame

A few notes on the Insightrix poll released today.

For the NDP and the Sask Party, there's both significant opportunity and significant risk in the numbers.

From the NDP's standpoint, the downside obviously comes in the surprising regional breakdowns which show the Sask Party with a narrow lead in the NDP's city strongholds. While it would be shocking if those results were replicated on election day, it looks like a few more of the NDP's urban seats will be in play than would have been expected earlier in the campaign.

The good news, though, is that the high number of undecided voters across the province suggests that Wall is far from having earned the trust of enough voters to be assured of forming government. Which means that if the NDP controls the message for the last week of the campaign(as seems likely so far), there's easily enough of a swing left to push the final result into the NDP's column.

Of course, the Sask Party will have the converse reaction to the results. And it'll be interesting to see if Wall is forced to come out of hiding to try to win over some of the large number of undecided voters, or whether he'll gamble that enough leaners will break his way without his doing anything to overcome the NDP's push.

As for the Libs...well, this may be my last mention of them for the campaign, as it's now looking like their 10% result from the previous SWNA poll (which I charitably figured to be an outlier) was in fact accurate, if not generous.

To put the Libs' 9% standing among decided voters in context, take a look at the historic Saskatchewan polling data from Environics. The only time in the past decade when the Libs' support had ever dropped into the single-digit range was in October 1999 - immediately after a significant chunk of its party had left to form the Sask Party, and the rest of its remaining caucus had joined a coalition with the NDP.

Yet two polls in a row have now put the Libs in that territory. And this is before both Karwacki's bizarre debate performance, and what figures to be another strong late-campaign push from the NDP to stop the Sask Party.

In sum, the campaign's endgame is (not surprisingly) down to an NDP vs. Sask Party contest for Saskatchewan's undecided voters. And it'll be interesting to see whether Calvert can replicate his closing ability from 2003 in order to keep Saskatchewan on a progressive path.

On storylines

A couple of new developments have surfaced in this morning's reporting on the Saskatchewan election. And from all indications, both the NDP's policy vision and its campaign message look to be getting some long-overdue attention just as the campaign enters its home stretch.

First, the Saskatchewan News Network reports on expert opinions about the NDP's universal prescription drug plan. And not surprisingly, the reviews from those who have studied the impact of making prescription drugs more affordable are almost entirely positive:

Health-care academics and experts from across Canada are praising the NDP's big ticket campaign promise of a universal drug plan...

Ken Fyke, whose 2001 study on the future of Saskatchewan's health-care system stopped short of recommending universal drug coverage, now believes it's the right thing to do.

"I have no problem with it being universal if the expansion is tied to other quality measures. I believe in pharmacare," Fyke said in an interview from his British Columbia home.

"I think it's a good idea. I believe in a strong public role for health care," said Paul Grootendorst, associate professor in the Leslie Dan faculty of pharmacy at the University of Toronto...

Professor Jeremiah Hurley of the Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis at McMaster University said pharmacare is one of the most pressing issues for the health system.

He said universal drug coverage is generally a "good thing," particularly because of the bulk purchasing power emphasized by Grootendorst and others, such as Steve Morgan of the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research at the University of British Columbia.

"In principal (sic), this idea is one of the best ways to spend health-care dollars. In the long run, it could be a cost savings," Morgan said.

Morgan and others cite the example of New Zealand, which introduced universal drug coverage. Drug costs had been spiralling there, but under the universal plan annual increases have been curbed to just two per cent.

While the article notes a couple of dissenting views, it's obvious that there's plenty of support among the experts who have studied the issue most closely. And the prospect that a universal program could in fact save money is one which makes the plan look all the more desirable - particularly when the Sask Party's platform uses basically the same nominal amount of money for a purpose as frivolous as favouring a small number of used-car purchases.

Second, hidden within Murray Mandryk's column today is this tidbit about what Brad Wall can expect the rest of the campaign:

Wall, also claiming momentum, addressed a small but enthusiastic group of supporters at his party's Regina-Qu'Appelle Valley campaign office. The Sask. Party leader was pressured by reporters to reveal more on how Enterprise Saskatchewan would function, how many jobs in the Industry and Resources Department it would displace and whether he would reveal the makeup of the Sask. Party's transition team.

Needless to say, those questions are ones that desperately need to be answered. And it looks like the media has recognized Wall's poor dodges from the debate, and will keep pushing for a meaningful response.

No wonder Wall is apparently limiting his number of public appearances - as it presumably beats either having to give non-answers even more often, or actually saying something and risking an unwanted dose of honesty. But even that strategy is far from a sure one.

After all, it's been noted many times that the media will tend to look for the most interesting narrative possible in reporting on a campaign. And since neither "Wall: ..." nor "Karwacki: 120% of Edmontonians Die in Fiery Wrecks Every Year! We Need Paralegals In Our Motels!" figures to sustain much of a storyline, that leaves the NDP's progressive policy vision and legitimate questions about the Sask Party's plans as the stories which figure to dominate the last week of the campaign.

Trainwrecki

A quick post-mortem on the Saskatchewan leaders' debate.

For Calvert and Wall, the debate seems to have gone pretty much exactly as planned. Calvert was on the attack for most of the debate, and succeeded in pointing a few of the tough questions that need to be asked about the Sask Party while emphasizing a commitment to sharing Saskatchewan's wealth - though a few of his good points seem to have been lost in the open-time shouting match. Meanwhile, Wall showed signs of being a star pupil at the Stephen Harper School of Content-Free Politics, scrupulously avoiding any meaningful answers when challenged by Calvert while generally sticking to the Sask Party's script.

Which isn't to say that one of the leaders didn't manage to make an impact. But it's probably not the one that the Libs' leader was aiming for.

After starting off by managing to avoid answering a softball first question, Karwacki mostly made his presence felt as an obstacle to any meaningful discussion - remarkably managing to outdistance the other two by far in his unwillingness to allow the others to speak in what was undoubtedly a poorly-designed format. And along the way, he also managed strategic errors such as giving the NDP the opportunity to speak up for its efforts in saving jobs in Prince Albert and Meadow Lake, and taking an inexplicable stance against rural highway improvement.

At this rate, if Karwacki's still around by the next election, the Saskatchewan Libs will be begging to be excluded from the leaders' debate.

For now, though, his main impact in the campaign seems to have been to add momentum to his party's slide in the polls. Which means that if an NDP/Lib swing really is the decisive factor in Saskatchewan politics at the moment, then the Sask Party figures to be celebrating far too soon.

Politics & principles

Yesterday, I discussed how the Sask Party's platform on Crown corporations would lead to negative consequences for both the Crowns and the province even if Wall and company stuck to their word. But let's discuss why there's serious reason to doubt the Sask Party's commitment to keeping the Crowns public at all.

Part of the problem lies in the Sask Party's obvious ideological distaste for public-sector economic activity, which is readily visible both in their members' past statements on the subject, and in their desire to eliminate any Crown functions which could seemingly impact the private sector. And that undertone has been the main focus of the NDP's attacks so far.

That said, my suspicion is that the biggest problem is a lack of principle rather than an excess of it.

While Wall's answers may be getting even more abrupt within the campaign, the Sask Party's general comments on keeping Crowns public have been notable for their lack of a principled explanation. Instead of developing any particular reasoning as to the value of public ownership in the limited scope contemplated by their platform, the Sask Party has at best offered vague wording about how Crowns "work for Saskatchewan", and more frequently merely offered a flat denial in order to change the subject.

All of this signals that when it comes to the Crowns, the Sask Party has decided that politics will trump principle. Which seems well and good to the extent that it means denying any intent to privatize the Crowns in order to appear acceptable to voters.

But what happens to that political calculation if the Sask Party then forms government?

It seems to be a foregone conclusion that the Starship Enterprise Saskatchewan would chart a course to privatize what no man has privatized before. And if the Sask Party sees a track record of losing in 2003 in a Crown-based election and winning in 2007 only by changing the subject, then it surely won't want to seek an electoral mandate for privatization (or have to defend the group's conclusions) in 2011.

Moreover, as I noted yesterday, even the Sask Party's existing platform figures to substantially weaken the Crowns. And if a lot of Crown employees recognize that the Sask Party's chains are likely to lead to future decay and job losses, then the issue will once again figure to be a serious source of trouble for Wall down the road.

Faced with those choices, the Sask Party's political nerve centre figures to see at least one more option. Namely, they could privatize as much as they can as quickly as they can, accept the "broken promises" tag that comes with that action (and which will likely attach itself to a new government in any event), shatter one of the NDP's most reliable voting blocs, and hope that by 2011 the issue is far enough in the past to avoid any further harm to the Sask Party.

Note that this third option doesn't even have to be based on a principled dislike of the Crowns (though the Sask Party's stronger ideologues would surely be happy with it). Instead, it only seems logical that a party which treats the Crowns as a damaging issue to be dealt with based on political convenience will want to take a serious look at how to take that issue out of play. And there's certainly no reason to believe that anybody in the Sask Party holds any strong principles which would stop that course of action.

Of course, there's always the chance that a Sask Party government would retreat from the issue. But it seems beyond question that the party's stance on Crowns will continue to be based on what's best for the party's interests, not on any principled view of what's best for the province. And there's serious reason to doubt that the Crowns will survive the Sask Party's calculations.

On public investments

So far in the Saskatchewan election campaign, most discussion of the role of Crown corporations (see e.g. the comments here) has been met at least in part with a question from Sask Party supporters as to why Crowns should be allowed to do anything more than carry out their "core" operations, mirroring the comments of Sask Party MLA Dan D'Autremont. I'll take a moment now to answer that question, and set the stage for the wider issue about the Sask Party's view on Crowns.

Let's start with the usual example, being SaskTel's place in offering home security services.

Now, one of the usual core principles of free-market supporters is that competition is good. And it seems fairly clear that as a general rule, the more suppliers there are pursuing the same dollars in the same area, the better the results will be for consumers.

So what happens when SaskTel offers a security service alongside its other operations? Simply put, the effect is to provide one more option in the marketplace.

Now, it may be that SaskTel has better connections to suppliers based on its existing knowledge base, as well as greater cost efficiencies due to the fact that its core operations already include a presence in most Saskatchewan homes. In that case, consumers benefit from receiving a better option than they would from private-sector competitors, and the province benefits a second time from SaskTel's profits in providing that more efficient service.

Or it may be that SaskTel isn't able to provide more efficient service. In that case, their private-sector competitors don't figure to have anything to worry about - though they may still be forced to meet better standards of price and service based on the existence of another option.

Either way, Saskatchewan residents benefit from the added competition provided by SaskTel. And in the best-case scenario, the province as a whole receives an added benefit, as any profits earned by SaskTel result in improved core services, lower rates, and/or dividends to the province.

So what's the Sask Party's take on that set of possibilities? It's eager to legislate away the Crown competition and see consumers pay higher prices for less if it means avoiding the risk that the profit might go into public hands rather than private ones.

Now, I'm sure some Sask Party apologist will start the usual rant about how additional competitors are driven away where SaskTel is already in the marketplace. Needless to say, I'm not buying that one: anybody capable of offering a better deal than SaskTel would still have every reason to enter the market, and consumers are obviously worse off if SaskTel vacates the market to make way for someone offering a worse option.

So it's clear that consumers benefit from Crowns which do more than just the bare minimum. But what about the Crowns themselves?

It should be obvious that in carrying out core operations, a Crown will acquire some resources which can be put to more than just one use - be they business connections, technological resources, physical space, or anything else. And by taking advantage of the opportunities created by those resources, a Crown can better carry out its core function of providing the basic services to the province as a whole for the lowest possible price.

In contrast, a Crown prevented from doing anything to make use of its additional resources will wind up having more difficulty carrying out its core services as a result. And a purge of non-core operations which represent an efficient use of public resources would be a natural first step in trying to paint the Crowns as stodgy, inefficient and ripe for a private-sector takeover. Which in all likelihood would lead to a new private-sector owner doing exactly what the Crowns are doing now - only with the profits flowing into private hands instead of public ones.

For reasons I'll get into in my next post on the subject, I'm not convinced that the Sask Party would wait before moving into whole-sale privatization in any event. But even if one takes at face value their claim that they'll only cut down the Crowns to avoid competition with private-sector actors, the end result is still to make the Crowns - and the province - far worse off in the long run.

Crowning achievements

Shorter Murray Wood:
Given the chance, the Sask Party would obviously do everything it can to undermine Saskatchewan's Crowns while technically honouring a promise not to sell them off just yet. And it would be for the best if the province had a full debate on the issue. But shame on the NDP for trying to start one when Brad Wall doesn't find it politically convenient to defend his side.

On progressive choices

In this post, I dealt with federal Lib supporters who continually seek any excuse to complain that the federal NDP is in league with the Cons, yet are entirely willing to explicitly help the conservative Sask Party provincially in order to try to cut down the NDP. And you can see the continued hypocrisy in full bloom over at Abandoned Progressive Principles, where Saskboy can't hand Brad Wall a majority fast enough if it'll win David Karwacki some of those gold-plated benefits he's always complaining about.

But let's leave aside the personal motivations and contradictions of the bloggers involved, and ask a more basic question about the provincial Libs' position. Namely, will the "Brad Wall Government Is Inevitable. You Must Assimilate" strategy actually work?

It's obvious that the provincial Libs see some appeal in trying to paint the election primarily as a battle for second place rather than a contest of governing values. And obviously the Sask Party isn't complaining about having the Libs declare victory on their behalf. But let's momentarily take the Libs' current argument at face value.

If the main question in the election is that of which party will offer the best progressive opposition to a Wall government, why would any voter answer "the party which conceded government to Wall in the first place"?

And the picture for progressives only looks worse if one takes a closer look at the Libs' actual policies. The Libs' current stances would actually take the Sask Party to the right in some areas, calling for a selloff of at least some Crown assets and demanding that the government do nothing to save Saskatchewan jobs. Meanwhile, judging from their current issues page, the Libs have no apparent interest in prescription drugs, child care, or broader environmental programs than curbside recycling - suggesting that these areas of progressive accomplishment under the NDP simply aren't priorities for Karwacki, and will be soon forgotten if the Libs and Sask Party have the two loudest voices on the province's political scene.

In sum, a Wall government with a Karwacki opposition - while obviously the Libs' current goal for the campaign - would be the worst possible outcome for progressive voters. And there's plenty of time for Calvert and company to not only highlight that fact to bring any Lib/NDP swing voters back into the fold, but also make clear that it's not too late to stop the Sask Party.

The chopping block

Buckdog asks one interesting question about the Sask Party's long-term plans for the province. But there's another one which seems to me to require a more immediate answer.

After all, the Sask Party's first priority is to artificially cap the size of Saskatchewan's civil service.

But the Sask Party's other platform planks include several which will require additional government resources. In addition to needing a crew for the Starship Enterprise Saskatchewan, they're planning at least three new health care structures (plus likely adding to the administrative burden on the province's Drug Plan through a means-tested program), and their numerous promised spending increases will presumably have to be administered by somebody.

With that in mind, which existing civil service jobs do they plan to axe in order to fit within their own public service cap?

Credibility issues

Current announced funding for Saskatchewan's Green Initiatives Fund:
$350 million.

The Sask Party's proposed funding for Saskatchewan's Green Initiatives Fund:
$70 million.

The Sask Party's explanation (roughly paraphrased):
"If you ignore over 90% of the currently-announced funding, we'll more than double the size of the fund!"

Evaluate the rest of the Sask Party's promises accordingly.

See the story from CBC.

A thought experiment

Over the last couple of years, a consistent theme has developed among the now-Red Green alliance. In an effort to blame the federal NDP while painting the Libs as innocent victims completely unresponsible for their own demise, apologists have tried desperately to find evidence of a grand conspiracy against the Libs. And in the process, they've accused the NDP of being in bed with the Cons based on the most ridiculous of "evidence", ranging from Con supporter entreaties rejected by NDP supporters, to idle speculation about things which will never happen.

But let's put to a test just what kind of principle underlies the Red Green position.

Suppose there were an election pitting a long-time centre-left government against a right-wing opposition party which had spent a decade trying to moderate its image. Suppose the governing party had brought up the election's most progressive ideas on child care, the environment, health care, and electoral reform, while the opposition's platform consisted largely of targeted tax cuts (but with enough promised spending to take away some of the fear factor).

Now let's add a third party to the mix - one with nowhere near either the current seat count or the current support level of either of the two main parties, and whose most recognizable contribution in recent years had been to support the left-wing government when it was limited to a minority.

Suppose that third party tried to position itself as an ostensibly left-wing alternative to replace the "tired" government. But in doing so, the third party failed to offer any substantially different left-wing policies from those already proposed (and indeed implemented in part) by the governing party, instead running primarily on a platform of accountability in an effort to build up a perceived need for change.

And suppose as well that the third party not only withheld its fire from the right-wing party, but outright conceded the election to the conservative party in an explicit bid to position itself as a future opposition.

I bet those principled Red Greeners would be positively howling with outrage at the third party's damage to the progressive cause, and probably pointing out the likelihood of an active conspiracy between the third party and the right-wing party. Don't you?

Politics first

Shorter Sask Party message on health care:
The biggest problem with health care in Saskatchewan is that too many resources are diverted to peripheral structures rather than front-line care for patients. And we plan to create several new peripheral structures to prove it.