If you believe Finance Minister Rod Gantefoer, Saskatchewan just had the fastest recession in history.
Asked by Saskatoon StarPhoenix legislative reporter James Wood earlier this week whether Saskatchewan was in a recession, Gantefoer responded: "No. Well, the country's in a recession, North America is probably in a recession ... While our positive growth is pretty minuscule, it's still positive. So technically we're not."
By Tuesday, Gantefoer was in full retreat: "By the end of the year, we will be in a recession," he told reporters.
By Thursday, Gantefoer had done a complete about-face and was back on the offensive. "Saskatchewan is not going into a recession, we're coming out of one," Gantefoer said in question period.
Let me get this straight.
In the space of a week, Saskatchewan went from being technically not in a recession, to being in a recession by year-end, to coming out of a recession.
...
For Gantefoer to claim that Saskatchewan was "technically not in recession'' as late as this week is disingenuous, at best, and misleading, at worst.
...
I'm sympathetic to Gantefoer's plight as the guy who's left holding the bag when the promised flood of potash revenues turns to a trickle.
But I have little or no sympathy for a finance minister who tries to keep the public in the dark about the true state of the province's economy -- and its fiscal health -- for months at a time.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
The reviews are in
Bruce Johnstone:
Compare and contrast
A couple more Shorters from the Con government's adventures abroad. First, their stance on climate change:
The U.S.' overwhelming dominance makes it pointless for us to even try to take a separate position. So we'll do exactly what they force us to, and no more.
---
But it's a different shorter story when it comes to corporate interests in attacking Buy American policies:
All we need to do is work together with our international allies, and we're sure we can convince the U.S. to see the light!
The U.S.' overwhelming dominance makes it pointless for us to even try to take a separate position. So we'll do exactly what they force us to, and no more.
---
But it's a different shorter story when it comes to corporate interests in attacking Buy American policies:
All we need to do is work together with our international allies, and we're sure we can convince the U.S. to see the light!
On holdouts
Shorter Stephen Harper:
There's no hope of making meaningful progress on climate change unless everybody pitches in and does their part. And since I have no intention of doing anything of the sort, the rest of you might as well just give up.
There's no hope of making meaningful progress on climate change unless everybody pitches in and does their part. And since I have no intention of doing anything of the sort, the rest of you might as well just give up.
Friday, November 13, 2009
It all makes sense
Sure, at first glance it might seem like Shelly Glover is speaking absolute nonsense in claiming she can't conceive of any way to promote French immersion other than by distributing Con propaganda. But after some reflection, the statement may not be quite as far-fetched as it seems.
After all, as a Con MP under Stephen Harper, Glover long since signed away her own ability to think for herself. So it would make sense that she doesn't have any ideas beyond what her party gives her.
And it's equally well-documented that the Cons themselves can't think of anything other than pure partisan advantage. So even if Glover asked for some idea as to what she could give students that didn't have the Cons' logo on it, they too would probably draw a blank.
So let's not look at Glover as an offender. Instead, let's just politely point out that it's indeed possible to offer congratulations - and even accompanying tokens of appreciation - without slapping a partisan logo on them. And hopefully Glover and her partymates can then take today's events as a learning experience.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
After all, as a Con MP under Stephen Harper, Glover long since signed away her own ability to think for herself. So it would make sense that she doesn't have any ideas beyond what her party gives her.
And it's equally well-documented that the Cons themselves can't think of anything other than pure partisan advantage. So even if Glover asked for some idea as to what she could give students that didn't have the Cons' logo on it, they too would probably draw a blank.
So let's not look at Glover as an offender. Instead, let's just politely point out that it's indeed possible to offer congratulations - and even accompanying tokens of appreciation - without slapping a partisan logo on them. And hopefully Glover and her partymates can then take today's events as a learning experience.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
On lost capacity
Last night I noted the disconnect between the Libs' layoffs and their fund-raising rhetoric over the past year. But there's another angle on the Libs' staff cuts that looks even more telling about the party's fortunes.
There doesn't seem to be much room for doubt that over the course of the fall, the Libs have fallen short of what would seem to be their goals as a party - presumably including countering the Cons' attacks on Michael Ignatieff, developing and promoting their own policy, and building electoral machinery for future elections. At best, one can give them partial marks for developing and sticking to a couple of consistent lines of attack against the Cons, but it's hard to see any payoff yet in the impressions of Canadians toward the respective parties - particularly with both polls and by-election results looking weak for the Libs.
Now, one might see those failings as reason to replace staff who haven't performed to expectations, as seems to be the case with Ignatieff's original cadre. But it strikes me as an entirely different step to be cutting exactly the staff capacity which the Libs will ultimately need to try to turn things around.
In effect, having already failed to counter the Cons' messaging machine with the extra 30 workers on hand, the Libs will now be making less of an effort to try; having done little work toward their supposed 308-riding strategy as evidenced by their mediocre by-election results, they'll now have fewer staff working on picking up the slack.
Under the circumstances, the Libs' choice only makes sense if they that they were running a larger organization than they could afford in the first place. But it hardly speaks well for the Libs' potential to reverse their decline if even an unsustainably large operation can't do any better than keep them around their lowest support levels ever. And there's reason to wonder whether the Libs will take on even more water now that they'll have less hands on deck.
There doesn't seem to be much room for doubt that over the course of the fall, the Libs have fallen short of what would seem to be their goals as a party - presumably including countering the Cons' attacks on Michael Ignatieff, developing and promoting their own policy, and building electoral machinery for future elections. At best, one can give them partial marks for developing and sticking to a couple of consistent lines of attack against the Cons, but it's hard to see any payoff yet in the impressions of Canadians toward the respective parties - particularly with both polls and by-election results looking weak for the Libs.
Now, one might see those failings as reason to replace staff who haven't performed to expectations, as seems to be the case with Ignatieff's original cadre. But it strikes me as an entirely different step to be cutting exactly the staff capacity which the Libs will ultimately need to try to turn things around.
In effect, having already failed to counter the Cons' messaging machine with the extra 30 workers on hand, the Libs will now be making less of an effort to try; having done little work toward their supposed 308-riding strategy as evidenced by their mediocre by-election results, they'll now have fewer staff working on picking up the slack.
Under the circumstances, the Libs' choice only makes sense if they that they were running a larger organization than they could afford in the first place. But it hardly speaks well for the Libs' potential to reverse their decline if even an unsustainably large operation can't do any better than keep them around their lowest support levels ever. And there's reason to wonder whether the Libs will take on even more water now that they'll have less hands on deck.
Suddenly lacking urgency
Shorter Doug Finley:
As a recent and high-profile recipient of Senate patronage, I strongly believe that Canadians should be patient with the Senate and its associated patronage. For at least the next 12 years.
As a recent and high-profile recipient of Senate patronage, I strongly believe that Canadians should be patient with the Senate and its associated patronage. For at least the next 12 years.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Deep thought
I'd have figured that a party which has trumpeted its fund-raising the last four quarters in a row would at least have brought in enough money to avoid massive layoffs. But maybe that's just me.
Far beyond belief
Shorter Tom Flanagan:
To learn the true measure of a leader, one must ignore his instinctual reaction to a perceived crisis in favour of whatever image he now finds it most beneficial to project. (Warning: only applies to Stephen Harper.)
To learn the true measure of a leader, one must ignore his instinctual reaction to a perceived crisis in favour of whatever image he now finds it most beneficial to project. (Warning: only applies to Stephen Harper.)
Without regret
The Cons let Canadians in general - and new citizens in particular - know what they really think about Canada's shameful legacy of residential schools:
Now, one might argue that a citizenship manual should be relatively neutral in its description of historical events rather than getting into value judgments. But one can't claim that's the Cons' goal, as the same manual which looks to minimize the horror of residential schools as a matter of insufficient funding isn't anywhere near as shy about using terms like "regrettably" and avoiding any possible positive associations when it comes to wartime internment camps. (There, as an added signal of the Cons' priorities, they manage to phrase the coerced confinement of Japanese Canadians as mere "relocation" while providing a value judgment about the "forcible sale of their property".)
As a result, the only available conclusion is that while the Cons want new Canadians to recognize which past actions we most regret as a country, they don't see residential schools as meeting that standard. Which should offer plenty of reason to doubt both Harper's sincerity in the apology which the Cons are so eager to highlight, and his party's view of how First Nations and other cultures should be treated today.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
From the 1800s until the 1980s, the federal government placed many Aboriginal children in residential schools to educate and assimilate them into mainstream Canadian culture. The schools were poorly funded and inflicted hardship on the students; some were physically abused. Aboriginal languages and cultural practices were mostly prohibited. In 2008, Ottawa formally apologized to the former students.That's right: as far as the Cons are concerned, new Canadians should think that the most notable problem with residential schools was their level of funding - so that if the general goal of eradicating First Nations culture had received more resources, it would have been far less objectionable. And indeed, the concept of assimilation is listed only in direct conjunction with a desire to "educate" students - framing it in an outright positive light.
Now, one might argue that a citizenship manual should be relatively neutral in its description of historical events rather than getting into value judgments. But one can't claim that's the Cons' goal, as the same manual which looks to minimize the horror of residential schools as a matter of insufficient funding isn't anywhere near as shy about using terms like "regrettably" and avoiding any possible positive associations when it comes to wartime internment camps. (There, as an added signal of the Cons' priorities, they manage to phrase the coerced confinement of Japanese Canadians as mere "relocation" while providing a value judgment about the "forcible sale of their property".)
As a result, the only available conclusion is that while the Cons want new Canadians to recognize which past actions we most regret as a country, they don't see residential schools as meeting that standard. Which should offer plenty of reason to doubt both Harper's sincerity in the apology which the Cons are so eager to highlight, and his party's view of how First Nations and other cultures should be treated today.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
On limited exemptions
There's been some attempt to paint the McGuinty government's expected announcement about some more exclusions from its HST plan as a major capitulation - and it's certainly a plus to the extent it signals that the Ontario government's plans aren't set in stone generally. But isn't there reason to wonder just what it says that McGuinty is now setting up the system to favour fast food and fish wrap rather than actual necessities of life which are set to become more expensive due to the HST?
On turnout
Alice has some excellent advice for anybody who wants to focus unduly on cutting into other parties' support as the main growth strategy for the NDP:
Incidentally, it's worth noting that the by-elections themselves provided a strong example of the dangers of low turnout in a riding where the NDP made relatively modest gains compared to what it may have hoped for:
All of which is to say that for all the differences between Canada's assorted regions, the most important part of the NDP's formula for growth may well be the same across the country. And while it will be difficult to tell before a general election whether the party has made any progress in reversing the recent slide in voter interest, that may be the ultimate measure as to whether the NDP can continue to build from its current position.
Using the per cent of the electorate rather than per cent of the vote allows us to look at the fastest-growing “party” of the last 20 years in British Columbia: non-voters. In fact, if the non-voters were a political party, they would have won every B.C. seat in 2008 except Saanich-Gulf Islands and Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale.Of course, the alternatives aren't necessarily mutually exclusive: presumably some of the same messages which may help to win additional voters away from other parties may also get some new participants involved in the political process, and the NDP will likely need a mix of both to continue its recent growth. But to the extent there's a choice to be made, there's more theoretical upside to be found in working to boost turnout overall than in following suit with the Harper Cons' brand of slice-and-dice politics - and it may be that the next possible wave of support for the NDP among regular voters will only surface once it's brought out enough new participants to reshape the current party standings.
Looking at elections results this way, we notice that Conservative support has remained fairly constant in most B.C. federal ridings since 1988. It’s just that the turnout is down.
...
NDP support is most likely to drop when turnout drops, since their support correlates with low-income status, and that correlates with lower voter participation. And in 1993 as the NDP vote plummeted in virtually every B.C. riding, about half of the drop could be accounted for by big increases in non-voters. But in 2004, the B.C. seats showing the biggest gains for the NDP were also seats where turnout went up.
So, Byers may want to go back to the drawing board to find a more successful formula, and perhaps a different dance partner.
Incidentally, it's worth noting that the by-elections themselves provided a strong example of the dangers of low turnout in a riding where the NDP made relatively modest gains compared to what it may have hoped for:
An official with Elections Canada said that based on by-election data they had available dating back to 1960, Monday’s 22.3 per cent turnout in Hochelaga is the lowest.I've pointed out one side of the equation in the riding, to the effect that a clear cross-party push would be needed to make the NDP the default federalist option for the riding. But with the Bloc taking more than half the riding's votes as it was, it's apparent that no amount of federalist cooperation will flip ridings like Hochelaga unless it's paired with some additional turnout as well.
All of which is to say that for all the differences between Canada's assorted regions, the most important part of the NDP's formula for growth may well be the same across the country. And while it will be difficult to tell before a general election whether the party has made any progress in reversing the recent slide in voter interest, that may be the ultimate measure as to whether the NDP can continue to build from its current position.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Truly the idiocracy is upon us
Apparently Pat Fiacco's continued confusion between the roles of "public official" and "second-rate deejay" is contagious. Be sure to tune in tomorrow for your chance to win when Stephen Harper broadcasts live from a secret mystery location.
The reviews are in
Chantal Hebert's takeaway for the NDP from Monday's by-elections:
(W)ith the Liberals under Michael Ignatieff going nowhere fast in Quebec, federalists are looking at other options. While the Conservatives are the main beneficiaries of the Liberal vacuum outside Montreal, the NDP is picking up support on the island.
Former Liberal minister Martin Cauchon, who has set his sights on winning back his ex-riding of Outremont from NDP deputy leader Thomas Mulcair in the next election, might want to take note of the 20 per cent NDP score in neighbouring Hochelaga – a riding where the Liberals used to outvote the NDP by a ratio of 5 to 1 only five years ago.
In British Columbia, the NDP scored a hit with its campaign against the province's upcoming harmonized sales tax, holding on to the New Westminster-Coquitlam riding with an increased majority. It remains to be seen whether a protest vote against a provincial tax can be sustained throughout a full-fledged federal campaign but the issue does provide Jack Layton with a unique wedge against both the Liberals and the Conservatives in a crucial province for the three main parties.
By definition, a good by-election night for Harper and Layton means a sleepless one for the Liberals. There could be more to come. This was Ignatieff's first electoral test and the results are comparable to Stéphane Dion's dismal 2008 score. Against all expectations, it may be that the Liberals did not bottom out in the last election.
On sudden reversals
What a difference a day makes. Just this Monday, Saskatchewan Finance Minister Rod Gantefoer was trying to pretend that the province was continuing to experience overall growth rather than facing a recession:
But Gantefoer's turn on a dime - from blustering about "growth predicted currently" (with an admonition that nobody should even talk about the reams of evidence to the contrary) to admitting that we're actually in a recession in a matter of a single day - suggests that the Wall government has now combined the economic cluelessness of Grant Devine with the secrecy and dishonesty normally associated with the Harper Cons. And considering how quickly the Harper government's talk of never seeing a recession or running a deficit turned into record-setting seas of red ink, there's every reason to worry that the same is in store if Wall and Gantefoer are left in control of Saskatchewan's public resources any longer than we can avoid.
Mr. Wotherspoon:And what's more, Gantefoer was trying to stamp out any talk about the mere possibility of a recession:
...
To the Minister of Finance: why is he the only person in Saskatchewan that does not know there’s a recession going on?
...
Hon. Mr. Gantefoer: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to stand up in this House and talk about the strength of Saskatchewan’s economy.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there has been an unprecedented economic slowdown, not only in Canada, not only in North America, but in indeed the entire world. And
through it all, Saskatchewan has done relatively better than any other jurisdiction in that same environment.
Mr. Speaker, granted that the rate of growth predicted currently for Saskatchewan’s economy is very, very small. But even that small amount in 2009 is the highest number in the country of Canada and is higher than most jurisdictions. And so we do have some satisfaction in those numbers, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Gantefoer: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can’t understand why the opposition is so determined to put a negative spin on what is pretty good numbers for the province of Saskatchewan and what is very good numbers in comparison to other jurisdictions.But by Tuesday, Gantefoer's line had taken a significant turn for the worse:
The Saskatchewan Party government is facing a harsh new reality after two years buoyed by a soaring economy and swelling provincial coffers.Now, it's hardly news that the Sask Party has eagerly taken up the Saskatchewan PCs' legacy of fiscal mismanagement.
Finance Minister Rod Gantefoer confirmed this week that the provincial economy will shrink in 2009 and the province will likely be in recession by the end of the year.
...
Going down as well at mid-term will be the government's economic growth projection for the province, which began at 2.1 per cent in the budget and was downgraded to 0.6 per cent at first quarter.
By the end of the year there will likely be two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the province, which means Saskatchewan will be in recession, acknowledged Gantefoer.
But Gantefoer's turn on a dime - from blustering about "growth predicted currently" (with an admonition that nobody should even talk about the reams of evidence to the contrary) to admitting that we're actually in a recession in a matter of a single day - suggests that the Wall government has now combined the economic cluelessness of Grant Devine with the secrecy and dishonesty normally associated with the Harper Cons. And considering how quickly the Harper government's talk of never seeing a recession or running a deficit turned into record-setting seas of red ink, there's every reason to worry that the same is in store if Wall and Gantefoer are left in control of Saskatchewan's public resources any longer than we can avoid.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
On disturbing positions
Shorter Leona Aglukkaq:
If we were applying the minimum standards for humane treatment of prisoners set out by the Geneva Conventions to combatants in Afghanistan, that would be a scandal and an outrage. But have no fear, there's no danger of that happening anytime soon.
(via Aaron Wherry.)
If we were applying the minimum standards for humane treatment of prisoners set out by the Geneva Conventions to combatants in Afghanistan, that would be a scandal and an outrage. But have no fear, there's no danger of that happening anytime soon.
(via Aaron Wherry.)
The reviews are in
James Travers:
Once there were reasons for the costly, long and deadly Canadian commitment to Afghanistan. Now there are none.
...
Canada's reasons for its blood and treasure offerings to Afghanistan have never been quite what they seemed or exactly as first Liberal and then Conservative governments explained. Creating a model democracy and civil society from warring factions and feudal customs is a softly engaging narrative that gains veracity through repetition. It's not the hard-headed stuff that persuades prime ministers to put their political hegemony at risk by putting lives in harm's way.
...
(I)n politics and war, triumphs are fleeting. Bowing to U.S. pressure to continue a losing battle won't appreciably improve cross-border relations now shaped as much by domestic economics as international threats. Any extension of the combat mission beyond 2011 would jeopardize current military success by demanding more than can be sustained by a small force already stretched too thin.
Whatever the motivations for going to Afghanistan, Canada has no compelling reason to stay longer.
On lessons learned
Not surprisingly, last night's by-elections produced no major upsets and only a slight shift in party strength in the House of Commons. Which means that their ultimate impact will likely be reflected more in what the parties are able to take away from the by-elections to help shape their message for the future. And interestingly enough, it's there - not in the actual results - that the Libs look to have lost the most ground.
For the NDP, the general lessons are obvious based on the strategies applied in three of the four ridings contested last night. Fin Donnelly's romp in New Westminster-Coquitlam confirmed that the HST is a winning issue in BC; Jean-Claude Rocheleau's difficulty getting within 30 points of the lead even while jumping into second place offered a fairly compelling signal that the Bloc won't easily be displaced in ridings like Hochelaga; and Mark Austin's moderately distant second in Cumberland – Colchester – Musquodoboit Valley provided an indication of exactly how far the NDP has come (and how far it has left to go) in building strength across Nova Scotia.
Likewise for the Cons, the contrast between a disappointing result from their invisible candidate in New Westminster-Coquitlam and victories for the more opinionated Bernard Genereux and Scott Armstrong would offer some evidence that strong individual candidates who actually speak publicly can sway more voters than party branding alone. And last night also offered a hint at some of the issues which may prove toxic (the HST) and beneficial (timed pork-barrelling) for the Cons down the road.
For the Libs, it's no huge surprise that last night's vote totals weren't all that great - and indeed Jim Burrows' reasonably close third in Cumberland – Colchester – Musquodoboit Valley likely made for a somewhat better outcome than might have been expected. But can anybody actually point to anything the Libs did in the by-elections other than going through the motions? And if not, then doesn't that reflect a failure in planning by a party which desperately needs to move past the realm of habit?
Simply put, it's one thing to lose by-elections while testing out messages and strategies which can be developed (or abandoned) for later - but it's something else entirely to sleepwalk through an opportunity to test in practice what works and what doesn't. And it's hard to escape the conclusion that the Libs were the lone national party in Parliament who faced a lose-lose outcome last night as a result.
For the NDP, the general lessons are obvious based on the strategies applied in three of the four ridings contested last night. Fin Donnelly's romp in New Westminster-Coquitlam confirmed that the HST is a winning issue in BC; Jean-Claude Rocheleau's difficulty getting within 30 points of the lead even while jumping into second place offered a fairly compelling signal that the Bloc won't easily be displaced in ridings like Hochelaga; and Mark Austin's moderately distant second in Cumberland – Colchester – Musquodoboit Valley provided an indication of exactly how far the NDP has come (and how far it has left to go) in building strength across Nova Scotia.
Likewise for the Cons, the contrast between a disappointing result from their invisible candidate in New Westminster-Coquitlam and victories for the more opinionated Bernard Genereux and Scott Armstrong would offer some evidence that strong individual candidates who actually speak publicly can sway more voters than party branding alone. And last night also offered a hint at some of the issues which may prove toxic (the HST) and beneficial (timed pork-barrelling) for the Cons down the road.
For the Libs, it's no huge surprise that last night's vote totals weren't all that great - and indeed Jim Burrows' reasonably close third in Cumberland – Colchester – Musquodoboit Valley likely made for a somewhat better outcome than might have been expected. But can anybody actually point to anything the Libs did in the by-elections other than going through the motions? And if not, then doesn't that reflect a failure in planning by a party which desperately needs to move past the realm of habit?
Simply put, it's one thing to lose by-elections while testing out messages and strategies which can be developed (or abandoned) for later - but it's something else entirely to sleepwalk through an opportunity to test in practice what works and what doesn't. And it's hard to escape the conclusion that the Libs were the lone national party in Parliament who faced a lose-lose outcome last night as a result.
Monday, November 09, 2009
By-election Chat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)