Shorter TD Economics HST analysis:
On its face, tax harmonization thoroughly screws over consumers in order to give money to business. But if one pointlessly takes into accounts goods and services not covered by the harmonization, the screwing looks much smaller. And the actual screwing decreases even more in theory once one assumes that businesses will return some of the giveaway to consumers, though the net result does indeed remain a screwing. So what's not to like?
Saturday, September 19, 2009
'Rider Tidbit of the Day
It doesn't seem to have received much notice so far, but let's point out that one of the Saskatchewan Roughriders' strengths this season has been the sheer number of effective receivers. In the team's 10 games so far the 'Riders have had 7 different leading receivers, including Weston Dressler (games 1, 2 and 8), Andy Fantuz (game 3), Rob Bagg (games 4 and 6), Chris Getzlaf (game 5), Jason Clermont (game 7), Wes Cates (game 9) and Gerran Walker (game 10). And it's not out of the question that a few more names could find their way onto the list by the end of the season: Stu Foord, Hugh Charles, Jason Armstead, Johnny Quinn, Eric Morris and Adam Nicolson all have the potential to put up a high-double-digit yardage total or more given the opportunity to make some catches, and of course Matt Dominguez is still waiting in the wings.
All of which means that the 'Riders had no trouble making teams pay for playing off any of their receivers. And that only figures to make it easier for the players like Dressler, Fantuz and Cates who normally demand extra attention to find openings that the 'Riders' opponents can't afford to give them.
All of which means that the 'Riders had no trouble making teams pay for playing off any of their receivers. And that only figures to make it easier for the players like Dressler, Fantuz and Cates who normally demand extra attention to find openings that the 'Riders' opponents can't afford to give them.
So now what?
The last few days have seen numerous twists and turns in the apparent course of events in the House of Commons - with the latest appearing to be a conclusion that the EI legislation which the NDP wants to work with will be held up by the Bloc. And there are still plenty of ways in which either the EI bill or other matters in Parliament could shift again to move Canada back toward the fall election which seemed inevitable just a couple of weeks ago.
But with the NDP having generally set itself up on a track to avoid an election, there's one serious question now facing the party which the Libs never bothered to answer when in a relatively similar stance. Namely, what exactly will the party be doing to improve its position while prolonging the current Parliament? Or if the NDP's goal is to avoid an election now, what's the plan to make sure that it's better placed for an election later?
I've mentioned a couple of opportunities which the NDP will presumably want to pursue. But those are dependent on at least one of the other parties in Parliament recognizing common interests and working with the NDP - and while it would be a plus if those came to fruition, it's obviously impossible to plan based on matters beyond a party's control. (Again, this is one of the lessons that the Libs never seemed to figure out.)
Of course I'll be mooting some more suggestions of my own, and I'll invite readers to do the same. But the most important answers will have to come from those within the NDP who concluded that the party's best choice was to buy time now rather than seeking to take advantage of the opportunities from a fall election: what return are we expecting to get on the investment?
But with the NDP having generally set itself up on a track to avoid an election, there's one serious question now facing the party which the Libs never bothered to answer when in a relatively similar stance. Namely, what exactly will the party be doing to improve its position while prolonging the current Parliament? Or if the NDP's goal is to avoid an election now, what's the plan to make sure that it's better placed for an election later?
I've mentioned a couple of opportunities which the NDP will presumably want to pursue. But those are dependent on at least one of the other parties in Parliament recognizing common interests and working with the NDP - and while it would be a plus if those came to fruition, it's obviously impossible to plan based on matters beyond a party's control. (Again, this is one of the lessons that the Libs never seemed to figure out.)
Of course I'll be mooting some more suggestions of my own, and I'll invite readers to do the same. But the most important answers will have to come from those within the NDP who concluded that the party's best choice was to buy time now rather than seeking to take advantage of the opportunities from a fall election: what return are we expecting to get on the investment?
Municipal roundup
The Leader-Post updates a couple more entries into Regina's council races this fall. Incumbent Fred Clipsham will jump right in to the four-candidate pileup in Ward 3, while Danny Berehula will try again in Ward 7 after losing to incumbent Sharron Bryce in 2006.
While Regina doesn't figure to suffer from any lack of competitive council races, Saskatoon is apparently lamenting the fact that over half of its incumbents currently appear to be unopposed. But it's worth noting that the Star-Phoenix isn't exactly being subtle in pointing out which candidates it wants to see elected.
While progressive candidates Sean Shaw and Derek Rope don't get either any political identifiers or policy proposals mentioned in the Star-Phoenix' coverage, right-wing candidates Carol Reynolds and Mark Horseman are actually identified as such. And what's more, Horseman receives an opportunity to complain about city spending which is then reinforced by former councillor Owen Fortosky - meaning that even non-candidates spreading a message of spending cuts are being offered more attention by the Star-Phoenix than actual candidates who actually want their municipal government to be useful.
While Regina doesn't figure to suffer from any lack of competitive council races, Saskatoon is apparently lamenting the fact that over half of its incumbents currently appear to be unopposed. But it's worth noting that the Star-Phoenix isn't exactly being subtle in pointing out which candidates it wants to see elected.
While progressive candidates Sean Shaw and Derek Rope don't get either any political identifiers or policy proposals mentioned in the Star-Phoenix' coverage, right-wing candidates Carol Reynolds and Mark Horseman are actually identified as such. And what's more, Horseman receives an opportunity to complain about city spending which is then reinforced by former councillor Owen Fortosky - meaning that even non-candidates spreading a message of spending cuts are being offered more attention by the Star-Phoenix than actual candidates who actually want their municipal government to be useful.
Friday, September 18, 2009
On selective patriotism
Shorter Kelly McParland, on learning that a single U.S. administration official had proposed treating Canada similarly to Mexico in terms of border issues:
Oh noes!!! We must drop everything and run - nay, SPRINT!!! - to the nearest megaphone and shout at the top of our lungs to defend our honour on border management and security, lest the slightest inaccuracy or unfair portrayal of Canada affect U.S. policy!!!! SHRIEEEEEK!!!!
Shorter Kelly McParland on the suggestion that it might be a good idea to point out a few of the inaccuracies being spread about Canada's health care system within the U.S. health care debate:
Meh. Why should anybody care whether one of the U.S.' major political parties uses every moment available to it on airwaves which cut through both countries to fabricate conspiracy theories about our health care system? After all, it's not as if it matters what they do anyway.
(Edit: added label & fixed wording.)
Oh noes!!! We must drop everything and run - nay, SPRINT!!! - to the nearest megaphone and shout at the top of our lungs to defend our honour on border management and security, lest the slightest inaccuracy or unfair portrayal of Canada affect U.S. policy!!!! SHRIEEEEEK!!!!
Shorter Kelly McParland on the suggestion that it might be a good idea to point out a few of the inaccuracies being spread about Canada's health care system within the U.S. health care debate:
Meh. Why should anybody care whether one of the U.S.' major political parties uses every moment available to it on airwaves which cut through both countries to fabricate conspiracy theories about our health care system? After all, it's not as if it matters what they do anyway.
(Edit: added label & fixed wording.)
On closed minds
Shorter corporate Saskatchewan on the province's overwhelming rejection of nuclear development through the UDP consultation process:
If the lowly general public has the nerve to disagree with what we've heard in our well-sealed echo chamber, that just proves that it isn't worth listening to.
If the lowly general public has the nerve to disagree with what we've heard in our well-sealed echo chamber, that just proves that it isn't worth listening to.
On foolish games
Never mind Omar Alghabra, it looks like Michael Ignatieff may want to have a word with Michael Ignatieff over his political games. Ignatieff today:
Mr. Ignatieff at first told reporters Friday that he did not want to play “games” by criticizing the NDP's position, but did later poke fun at his rivals on the opposition benches.Now, the statement that Ignatieff doesn't want to play games looks odd enough based on the quote which follows. But it looks downright ridiculous compared to Ignatieff's public position yesterday:
The Liberals have offered to speed passage of Tory EI legislation, hoping to rob the NDP of its rationale for propping up the Harper government.Of course, it remains to be seen how many more "games" Ignatieff and his party continue to play by their own definition. But it should be abundantly clear that Ignatieff isn't interested in trying to do much other than dig himself down to Stephen Harper's level of complete disconnection between what he claims to aspire to and how he actually acts. And that's unlikely to be a winning angle when Canadians prepared to put up with that kind of duplicity already figure to be in Harper's camp.
...
"We don't want to give Mr. Layton any alibis," Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said.
The reset button
The Libs evidently think they've managed to accomplish some great feat by basing their entire Parliamentary strategy on a desire to embarrass the NDP. But the end result may be the opposite of what they're expecting.
Keep in mind that the Cons' current habit in government has been to push ahead with its agenda with absolutely no need to negotiate or take into account the policy goals of other parties. But that doesn't mean such an outcome was ever inevitable; instead, it was brought about by opposition parties (first the Bloc, then the Libs) who didn't bother trying to get any policy results in exchange for their backing.
Now, circumstances have already changed enough for the Cons to have felt a need to introduce EI improvements beyond their existing budget plans. And the Libs' effort to speed up the process of passing that set of changes may only make it easier for the NDP to get more of its priorities passed into law.
After all, there's no indication that the NDP's position that it'll need the Cons to offer reasons for any future support will change - and indeed Layton has already presented that as his bottom line.
So suppose the EI bill does pass in the next two weeks before the Libs' next scheduled confidence vote. At that point, Layton will have another opening to declare that Harper needs to give the NDP some reason to support the government.
Now, Harper could refuse to offer anything at that point. But the fact that Harper put the current EI expansion on the table suggests that he perceives some significant risk in being seen to have precipitated an election by offering absolutely nothing to a party who's willing to work within the current Parliament. So it's more likely that he'd then turn to another item on the NDP's list of policy priorities - pensions? credit card regulation? - and make a public overture to the NDP on that in order to try to get Layton's vote on the next confidence motion.
From there, I doubt the Libs would bother trying the expedited process gambit again on their own. But once it's been used once, there would seem to be little reason not to apply it to issues that cut far enough across ideological lines to be seen as desirable by both the NDP and the Cons. And as each NDP priority passes, the cycle figures to begin again - creating a new baseline expectation where the Cons have to first accommodate and eventually negotiate with the NDP to stay in power, as well as a list of concrete accomplishments the NDP can point to in the next federal election campaign.
In sum, rather than allowing the NDP twist in the wind for several months over a single EI bill, Ignatieff may instead have created the conditions for the NDP's best-case scenario under the current Parliament: a government looking to it for support, and a Parliament with no roadblocks to getting those agreed measures passed. So after two years of ensuring that their confidence votes would count for nothing, the Libs may have just set up the NDP's votes to generate the greatest possible return.
Keep in mind that the Cons' current habit in government has been to push ahead with its agenda with absolutely no need to negotiate or take into account the policy goals of other parties. But that doesn't mean such an outcome was ever inevitable; instead, it was brought about by opposition parties (first the Bloc, then the Libs) who didn't bother trying to get any policy results in exchange for their backing.
Now, circumstances have already changed enough for the Cons to have felt a need to introduce EI improvements beyond their existing budget plans. And the Libs' effort to speed up the process of passing that set of changes may only make it easier for the NDP to get more of its priorities passed into law.
After all, there's no indication that the NDP's position that it'll need the Cons to offer reasons for any future support will change - and indeed Layton has already presented that as his bottom line.
So suppose the EI bill does pass in the next two weeks before the Libs' next scheduled confidence vote. At that point, Layton will have another opening to declare that Harper needs to give the NDP some reason to support the government.
Now, Harper could refuse to offer anything at that point. But the fact that Harper put the current EI expansion on the table suggests that he perceives some significant risk in being seen to have precipitated an election by offering absolutely nothing to a party who's willing to work within the current Parliament. So it's more likely that he'd then turn to another item on the NDP's list of policy priorities - pensions? credit card regulation? - and make a public overture to the NDP on that in order to try to get Layton's vote on the next confidence motion.
From there, I doubt the Libs would bother trying the expedited process gambit again on their own. But once it's been used once, there would seem to be little reason not to apply it to issues that cut far enough across ideological lines to be seen as desirable by both the NDP and the Cons. And as each NDP priority passes, the cycle figures to begin again - creating a new baseline expectation where the Cons have to first accommodate and eventually negotiate with the NDP to stay in power, as well as a list of concrete accomplishments the NDP can point to in the next federal election campaign.
In sum, rather than allowing the NDP twist in the wind for several months over a single EI bill, Ignatieff may instead have created the conditions for the NDP's best-case scenario under the current Parliament: a government looking to it for support, and a Parliament with no roadblocks to getting those agreed measures passed. So after two years of ensuring that their confidence votes would count for nothing, the Libs may have just set up the NDP's votes to generate the greatest possible return.
Burning question
As unseemly as it is that the Ontario government is threatening to release a "document on the negative impact of management fees for investors" as retaliation for the mutual fund industry's campaign against the HST, isn't it at least as problematic that it's withheld that information from the public in the first place?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
On systemic issues
Kudos to the CCPA for its effort in putting together a comprehensive list of the Campbell government's public service cuts. But isn't it a sure sign of a broken political system that the government's own reporting is too opaque for anybody to tell what's been given the axe without that kind of effort?
(h/t to the Tyee.)
(h/t to the Tyee.)
L'Affaire Jaffer
I wasn't planning to post on Rahim Jaffer's arrest initially. But now that it's given rise to a media lovefest which is eager to present him as the lone victim of his own apparent offences, I'd think there's a need to ask some serious questions about Jaffer's actual IOKIYAC treatment by the media and his potential treatment by the justice system.
Shouldn't those now going out of their way to paint Jaffer as a "decent person who was an inspiration to young political hopefuls" whose arrest was merely the result of his being "too human" also be spending at least a bit of time pointing out that Jaffer's party is doing its utmost to make sure that our justice system isn't equipped to take those kinds of factors into account in sentencing?
Of course, there's another way around that in terms of the types of charges which prosecutors may choose to pursue. And I wonder if there's a serious question on that point as well: will minimum-sentence laws premised on the claim that nobody committing a particular offence can possibly deserve to avoid jail time simply lead to the Crown choosing not to pursue the maximum charges properly applicable to "respectable" offenders like Jaffer?
Shouldn't those now going out of their way to paint Jaffer as a "decent person who was an inspiration to young political hopefuls" whose arrest was merely the result of his being "too human" also be spending at least a bit of time pointing out that Jaffer's party is doing its utmost to make sure that our justice system isn't equipped to take those kinds of factors into account in sentencing?
Of course, there's another way around that in terms of the types of charges which prosecutors may choose to pursue. And I wonder if there's a serious question on that point as well: will minimum-sentence laws premised on the claim that nobody committing a particular offence can possibly deserve to avoid jail time simply lead to the Crown choosing not to pursue the maximum charges properly applicable to "respectable" offenders like Jaffer?
On glass houses
Omar Alghabra might want to have a word with his party's leader - or vice versa. Omar Alghabra:
(Edit: fixed wording and link.)
The EI debate: Canadians are being deprived a meaningful debateMichael Ignatieff:
It is almost impossible to have a meaningful debate with the Conservatives and Stephen Harper. They are more interested in one upmanship games than articulating what it is that they stand for.
Although Liberals believe the EI bill "falls radically short of serious employment insurance reform," Ignatieff said they want to expedite its passage.Alghabra:
It appears that the Conservatives have no vision and don’t know what they believe in. They are mostly interested in humiliating their opponents rather than engage in policy debates.Ignatieff:
The Liberals have offered to speed passage of Tory EI legislation, hoping to rob the NDP of its rationale for propping up the Harper government.And in case there's any doubt, I'd fully agree with the strategy of seeking to pass the bill quickly as a means of getting help to workers. But shouldn't the Libs have at least some shame about using their criticisms of the Cons as a blueprint for their own actions?
...
The move is clearly designed to embarrass NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has said his party will prop up the government at least until the EI reforms are implemented.
"We don't want to give Mr. Layton any alibis," Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said.
(Edit: fixed wording and link.)
Too costly
It's definitely for the best that the overwhelming public outcry over the Sask Party's nuclear agenda has forced even Brad Wall to acknowledge some of the main problems with nuclear power. But considering that Wall still doesn't apparently see those as reasons to stop pushing ahead, there's still plenty of work to be done:
So Wall seems to have accepted all the premises behind the NDP's position that the only decision he can validly make is to nix the idea of nuclear power - while at the same time refusing to acknowledge the resulting conclusion. Which means there's reason for suspicion that he's looking for little more than excuses to falsely declare the cost issue resolved (presumably through the Sask Party's usual creative accounting) rather than actually dealing with the obvious concerns of Saskatchewan's citizens.
Nuclear power may be too large and too costly for a province like Saskatchewan, which needs to keep its energy options open, Premier Brad Wall said Wednesday.Needless to say, the problem with Wall's seeming recognition of the problems with nuclear power is that it's contradicted by his actions. Even ignoring the other issues which Wall downplays, there's no apparent reason to think that the actual cost of nuclear construction will drop before the end of the year when Wall wants to be able to commit Saskatchewan to reactor construction. And there's absolutely no way around the fact that the proposals floated so far would make Saskatchewan almost entirely dependent on nuclear power.
...
In an interview before Wednesday's cabinet meeting at the legislature, Wall did not close the door on nuclear power, saying it was still on the agenda.
But while the high costs of nuclear reactor construction are nothing new, he said there are factors that have led to the increased concern over price.
Those include the cost of upgrading the province's transmission system to accommodate the large scale of a reactor, uncertainty around the ability to export the power generated and the increasing potential of electricity generation from natural gas that could remain cheap for some time to come.
...
"That is one of the challenges of nuclear power. . . . The cost is significant enough that it may just, on a de facto basis, rule out pursuing some of the rest of the envelope, the rest of the options, including clean coal, which is not an inexpensive technology," said Wall.
The premier said it would be a mistake for a government-owned electrical utility such as SaskPower to be reliant on a single source of power. The government envisions a mix of energy sources -- including clean coal, natural gas and renewables such as wind power -- in the province's power supply.
So Wall seems to have accepted all the premises behind the NDP's position that the only decision he can validly make is to nix the idea of nuclear power - while at the same time refusing to acknowledge the resulting conclusion. Which means there's reason for suspicion that he's looking for little more than excuses to falsely declare the cost issue resolved (presumably through the Sask Party's usual creative accounting) rather than actually dealing with the obvious concerns of Saskatchewan's citizens.
On reasonable expectations
It's rare for the Harper government to come up with a new form of government secrecy that they haven't yet trotted out many times before. But the Cons' response to the news that they hadn't bothered answering an e-mail from the NDP looks to have managed the feat:
But apparently the Cons are managing to claim that their failure to respond somehow constitutes a confidential non-communication. So as far as the Cons are concerned, their government's silence on the NDP's policy proposals - or presumably any other issue - is nobody's business but their own.
For the record, the Prime Minister’s spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, responded late yesterday to a Globe and Mail story published online that morning. The story quoted New Democrat spokesman Karl Belanger saying that it was “telling” that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Guy Giorno, has yet to respond to an email sent to him several days ago by NDP Leader Jack Layton’s chief of staff, Anne McGrath.Leaving aside the NDP's absolutely correct point that it's the Cons who have gone out of their way to leak actual private conversations, let's keep in mind what the "correspondence" actually involved: an e-mail from the NDP to the Cons, period. Which means that no information could possibly have been "leaked" from the government because...well, it didn't actually provide any information capable of being leaked in any meaningful sense of the word.
The NDP said the email was to follow up on questions the Conservatives had raised about NDP policies during an Aug. 25 meeting between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mr. Layton, attended by both Ms. McGrath and Mr. Giorno.
Mr. Soudas offered this response.
“Why would we reply to people who leak e-mail correspondence?” he wrote in an email.
But apparently the Cons are managing to claim that their failure to respond somehow constitutes a confidential non-communication. So as far as the Cons are concerned, their government's silence on the NDP's policy proposals - or presumably any other issue - is nobody's business but their own.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Now that's responsiveness
When I suggested that the Saskatchewan NDP should work toward developing a news aggregator as part of a strategy to turn its website into a hub for news about the province, I didn't think they'd be able to put a first version online in a matter of days. So far the News and Views page includes a collection of Saskatchewan-focused blog posts and news stories from fairly familiar sources, which is itself a handy enough addition to the NDP's caucus site. But if the party is able to take the next step and start incorporating sources which don't otherwise get much online exposure, then it should be well on its way to ensuring that anybody looking for the best collection of information on Saskatchewan politics looks to the NDP first.
On possibilities
Not surprisingly given my earlier posts on NDP strategy, I'm with pogge in not seeing a lot of upside to the NDP's declaration that it will support the Cons until EI changes are passed - particularly since that announcement wasn't paired with any particular urgency to actually pass the new EI bill. But I do wonder whether the fact that the NDP signed on to vote in favour of Friday's ways and means motion - even after the Bloc had already indicated that the Con government wouldn't be toppled - might be a sign of potential or actual cooperation between the NDP and the Bloc along the lines of what I mooted earlier this year.
After all, there's been a fairly clear line drawn between the Con/Lib and NDP/Bloc groupings within the House of Commons over the past few months. Both Harper and Ignatieff have publicly declared that they have no intention of working with either of the latter two parties - which means that in order to increase their influence, both the NDP and the Bloc have a strong interest in improving the share of seats taken out of those two parties' hands. And of course the NDP and the Bloc also share a common strategy of painting the Cons and Libs as mirror images of each other.
So might the NDP's decision to give the Bloc some political cover on its vote with the Cons be a first step toward the two parties working together more often - giving them an effective voting bloc larger than the Libs in the current Parliament, with an eye toward applying joint pressure on the Cons as matters stand now and developing a governing alternative in the future?
After all, there's been a fairly clear line drawn between the Con/Lib and NDP/Bloc groupings within the House of Commons over the past few months. Both Harper and Ignatieff have publicly declared that they have no intention of working with either of the latter two parties - which means that in order to increase their influence, both the NDP and the Bloc have a strong interest in improving the share of seats taken out of those two parties' hands. And of course the NDP and the Bloc also share a common strategy of painting the Cons and Libs as mirror images of each other.
So might the NDP's decision to give the Bloc some political cover on its vote with the Cons be a first step toward the two parties working together more often - giving them an effective voting bloc larger than the Libs in the current Parliament, with an eye toward applying joint pressure on the Cons as matters stand now and developing a governing alternative in the future?
Well said
Greg:
Liberals quite frankly don't care whether the NDP votes with the Conservatives or not, in the real world. In their hearts, the NDP always votes with the Conservatives, because they, the NDP, are not Liberals. Whereas although Liberals do vote regularly with the Conservatives, that is entirely different. After all, they are Liberals. It is the difference that makes all the difference.
On poor judgment
In response to Dr. Dawg's challenge, there's one Lib blogger willing to try to defend the Cons' free trade agreement with Colombia. But this one leads to a follow-up test: try to find a word of Bionic Liberal's post which wouldn't be equally applicable as an argument in favour of expanded trade with, say, apartheid-era South Africa. (If not more so, given that the obvious problems in Canada which BL claims should disqualify us from trying to take any action to preserve human rights anywhere were actually the model for the regime which Canada boycotted.)
So the rallying cry has gone up from the Libs: "we are all Rob Anders now".
So the rallying cry has gone up from the Libs: "we are all Rob Anders now".
On levels of support
It shouldn't come as much surprise that the Libs, the Cons and their media buddies doing their utmost to strongarm the NDP into backing the Cons even while concern trolling about how disastrous that move would be. And there's no doubt that the NDP's response needs to be based on its own assessment of how matters stand rather than on those external forces.
But just as that means not being goaded by the taunts coming from the Cons and Libs, it also means resisting the pressure to knuckle under and offer more support than the Cons deserve for too little return. And with that in mind, here's how I'd see the path forward from this Friday's confidence vote.
In general, the NDP needs to differentiate between two different types of cooperation which current seem to be getting mixed up. Take in particular this line from CBC:
But one set of EI adjustments which falls far short of the NDP's own proposals shouldn't be seen as anywhere near meeting that standard. And that in turn leads to a far different set of calculations.
The NDP should make it clear that it supports the EI bill itself (depending on its contents), and that to the extent the EI bill is seen as a confidence matter the NDP will vote in favour of it. But it should also place the onus squarely on the Cons to act responsibly enough in how they act generally to shift the NDP from its entirely justified lack of confidence in the Harper government. And that should start with a vote against the Cons on Friday to make it clear that Harper has to demonstrate he's willing to govern in a way that the NDP can support - or declare otherwise and justify that refusal to Canada's voters.
Particularly in light of Harper's recent combination of taunting and unresponsiveness, the starting point needs to be that the Cons still have everything to prove - both in being serious about passing the EI reforms which have been floated so far, and in governing responsibly enough not to be brought down while the EI bill works its way through Parliament. (That should be paired with the unanimous consent strategy on the EI bill itself, which if the Libs play along would have the added bonus of raising the expectation that the changes will happen regardless of whether or not an election happens in the meantime.)
And if as seems likely the Cons choose to force the country to the polls rather than doing their job of working with anybody in Parliament, then there can't be much room for doubt that the NDP and the country would be even worse off in the long run if Harper were allowed to keep power rather than being called out on his stubbornness.
But just as that means not being goaded by the taunts coming from the Cons and Libs, it also means resisting the pressure to knuckle under and offer more support than the Cons deserve for too little return. And with that in mind, here's how I'd see the path forward from this Friday's confidence vote.
In general, the NDP needs to differentiate between two different types of cooperation which current seem to be getting mixed up. Take in particular this line from CBC:
NDP Leader Jack Layton had signalled he could support the government after the Tories announced a proposal to extend employment insurance for long-tenured workers. Layton said the EI plan was a "step in the right direction."Now, there might be some circumstances where the NDP should be willing to declare that a substantial enough set of policy proposals from the Cons could justify supporting the government more broadly to make sure they get implemented. If by some chance Harper were to adopt wholesale some combination of the NDP's proposals on EI, its climate change bill (with reinforcements based on the ability to pass a money bill) or pension protection, that's the point where the NDP should take a serious look at backing the Cons even on unrelated confidence votes - as the tangible gains from those specific policies would be seen to outweigh the costs of keeping the Cons in power long enough to get them passed.
For the EI changes to proceed, the NDP feels it would have to support the government on Friday.
But one set of EI adjustments which falls far short of the NDP's own proposals shouldn't be seen as anywhere near meeting that standard. And that in turn leads to a far different set of calculations.
The NDP should make it clear that it supports the EI bill itself (depending on its contents), and that to the extent the EI bill is seen as a confidence matter the NDP will vote in favour of it. But it should also place the onus squarely on the Cons to act responsibly enough in how they act generally to shift the NDP from its entirely justified lack of confidence in the Harper government. And that should start with a vote against the Cons on Friday to make it clear that Harper has to demonstrate he's willing to govern in a way that the NDP can support - or declare otherwise and justify that refusal to Canada's voters.
Particularly in light of Harper's recent combination of taunting and unresponsiveness, the starting point needs to be that the Cons still have everything to prove - both in being serious about passing the EI reforms which have been floated so far, and in governing responsibly enough not to be brought down while the EI bill works its way through Parliament. (That should be paired with the unanimous consent strategy on the EI bill itself, which if the Libs play along would have the added bonus of raising the expectation that the changes will happen regardless of whether or not an election happens in the meantime.)
And if as seems likely the Cons choose to force the country to the polls rather than doing their job of working with anybody in Parliament, then there can't be much room for doubt that the NDP and the country would be even worse off in the long run if Harper were allowed to keep power rather than being called out on his stubbornness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)