Steve has already discussed the latest Nanos second-choice numbers from the Libs' perspective. But to the extent it's possible to draw conclusions from the relatively small numbers involved in the poll, let's note a few other interesting trends in the responses.
To start with, the Libs, Cons and Bloc all figure to have more to lose than to gain to the extent that voters in general consider switching to their second choice rather than staying where they're currently parked. The Libs have 223 of their own current voters listing a second choice, to 160 supporters of other parties listing the Libs as a second option; for the Cons, those numbers are 157 and 122; and the Bloc have 44 supporters who have a second choice in mind, to only 18 voters who would make the Bloc their second choice.
In contrast, the NDP and Greens each have a greater amount of second-choice potential than current first-choice support which might move elsewhere - by a 129-87 margin for the NDP, and a 121-49 margin for the Greens. Which is a fairly remarkable result in a poll where nearly 36% of respondents didn't list a second choice at all, and suggests that those parties have the greatest amount to gain from anything which might shake up existing party loyalties.
Of course, the flip side of the likelihood of switching support is the degree to which respondents have locked into one party. There, the Bloc (52%) and Cons (44%) benefit from having the supporters least likely to have another party choice in mind. But for the Bloc's results, it's particularly striking how the second-choice results line up out of those who do express a preference.
With the Cons having just abandoned their efforts at wooing soft sovereigntists and the Libs now trying to make a similar move, one would expect there to be at least some prospect of Bloc movement to one or the other. But Bloc supporters gave the two the lowest second-choice numbers of any party with a tie at 7.7% (ignoring for the moment the Bloc's own numbers which are distorted by the party's lack of a national presence).
Meanwhile, both the NDP and the Greens would seem to have ample room to make inroads among current Bloc supporters, with the NDP leading the way at 19%. And with so few current Bloc voters having any interest in either the Cons or the Libs, it would stand to reason that the solid second-choice numbers for the NDP might only be amplified if current "no second choice" voters find reason to start looking elsewhere - say, if Gilles Duceppe makes a long-anticipated departure which gets taken as a sign that the Bloc is on the decline.
Combined with the apparent fluidity between NDP/Lib/Green voters on the nominal left and the Libs' likely move to the right, that figures to open up plenty of opportunities for the NDP to build itself up by focusing its efforts on current Green and Bloc supporters in hopes of building up a 32% minority as a progressive alternative to both the Cons and Libs. And the more successful the NDP can be in tailoring a message to voters who understandably see little difference between the Cons and the Libs, the better its chances will be of peeling support off the Libs' left flank as well.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Unhealthy grassroots
A longtime Con supporter offers this hint as to what anybody can expect in joining the party:
"The feeling is when we need something from them, they don't listen. But when they want us to do something, they come to us," said one long-time member, who feared losing his party membership if he were identified. "There is so much control by (Tory party) headquarters that it is insulting."Update: Cam has more.
Friday, April 10, 2009
A Brief History of Liberal Declarations that they Can't Go On Supporting the Harper Government's Every Whim
Following up on this morning's post, a quick trip down memory lane...
October 20, 2007:
October 20, 2007:
Dion told his MPs that it would be unthinkable for him to yield to the humiliation of supporting the throne speech and Harper's vision of Canada. He said that he'd merely be suffering the death "of 1,000 cuts," as long as he propped up the government and he would emerge from the whole ordeal with reputation and leadership damaged.December 2, 2007:
Dion has had a rough year dealing with constant questions about his leadership abilities, crucial by-election losses in Quebec, and low poll numbers that have forced him to prop up the Conservatives in order to avoid heading to the ballot box.January 14, 2008:
However, Dion vowed to The Canadian Press that the coming year will be a different story.
"2008 will be another ball game," he said. "You cannot keep alive forever a government who wants to die."
"I honestly don't see how they can support the budget. They are the opposition, they are there to oppose. This notion of appeasing and sitting on your hands, that's run its course. The political price to be paid for doing nothing is too high. If the Tories were to come out with a very Liberal budget, that might diffuse it, but what are the chances of that especially since they [the government] don't have a lot of money," said one top Liberal who requested anonymity.February 17, 2008:
"The Liberals are coming around to the notion that they can't continue to abstain so I think that's not a viable long-term strategy. So, I don't see the government getting Liberal support on this budget or abstaining."
"We hear now that ... Chretien and Jean Pelletier, his former chief of staff, are telling him it's a matter of credibility, that he can't support the government any more and that the timing would be right," Jean Lapierre told CTV's Question Period on Sunday.April 9, 2008:
Lapierre, now a political commentator for Quebec's TVA network, said Dion would be "comfortable with that advice."
The Liberals have hammered away at the government in recent weeks over the bill, accusing the Conservatives of seeking a back-door way to enforce an anti-immigrant agenda. But they have refused to say when or if they will actually oppose it in Parliament.October 20, 2008:
Some political observers say the Liberals could suffer damage within one of their core constituencies — ethnic communities in urban and suburban ridings — unless they back up their rhetoric with action.
One of the chief questions, being asked of returning Liberal MP's- are they prepared to endure another period of abstentions? The theory being, a weakened opposition, with no leader and no money, will be forced to dodge and weave to avoid another election. I would argue, that there should be little chance for a repeat of last spring's embarrassing string of abstentions.
Suitable for framing
A anonymous "close advisor of Michael Ignatieff" nicely sums up the problems with the Libs' track record of capitulations to the Cons in explaining why the party figures to try to force an election sometime around November-December 2009 (roughly translated from Le Devoir):
At some point, you can't wait forever. You can't play cat and mouse. You have to have the courage to defeat the government. With the economy deteriorating, you have to be capable of providing an alternative, or else you're endorsing the government.Of course, it's left unexplained how lacking in courage and endorsing the government on every confidence vote for over two years is supposed to be a mark in the Libs' favour in an election this fall. But voters who take the source's comments at face value would seem to have every reason to question why the Libs have stuck Canada with more Harper government now.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
On half efforts
I'll have plenty more to say about the Libs' 2008 election returns (discussed at the Pundits' Guide) over the weekend.
But here's the quick takeaway for now. During last year's general election campaign, while the Libs screamed to anybody who would listen that they and only they were able to stop Stephen Harper - not to mention begged their candidates, volunteers and donors to squeeze out every last drop - they made a deliberate choice to do less than they could to oppose the Cons despite obvious incentives to the contrary. And the "party executives" who made the call would figure to have some significant overlap with the people responsible for the Ignatieff coronation.
Edit: Definitely worth mentioning the Libs themselves who got pulled in by the campaign appeals.
But here's the quick takeaway for now. During last year's general election campaign, while the Libs screamed to anybody who would listen that they and only they were able to stop Stephen Harper - not to mention begged their candidates, volunteers and donors to squeeze out every last drop - they made a deliberate choice to do less than they could to oppose the Cons despite obvious incentives to the contrary. And the "party executives" who made the call would figure to have some significant overlap with the people responsible for the Ignatieff coronation.
Edit: Definitely worth mentioning the Libs themselves who got pulled in by the campaign appeals.
On interested parties
Hands up if you can spot what's missing from Jim Prentice's decision-making process when it comes to greenhouse gas emission regulations:
Ottawa announced the broad framework of its proposed greenhouse gas regulations two years ago, and would require companies to cut their carbon emissions in relation to their actual output rather than to specified levels.That's right: it's the vast majority of Canada, which Cons apparently see as having absolutely no interest in the results of any emissions policy. Which is why they're now using the position of the developed world's most notorious climate-change laggard as the higher boundary of what they're prepared to put in place, and pumping up the interests of the oil industry to further attack even that position.
It has yet to produce reduction targets for different industries, or the detailed regulations that are to come into force in 2010. Mr. Prentice said he hopes to unveil those rules before November, as he works to satisfy the Americans, on the one hand, and oil-producing provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan on the other.
On ethical issues
One of the emerging Con messages lately has been to try to claim that a lack of cabinet resignations or the like makes the Harper government an unusually clean and ethical one. And it looks like even some normally-canny commentators are buying the line so far. So let's take a look at the Cons' real track record to see just how problematic the assertion is.
In the time since Harper' Cons took office, among many other dubious actions by Con cabinet ministers:
- his Finance Minister handed a six-figure, no-bid consulting contract to a political crony in contravention of federal tendering guidelines, which was allowed to slide with nothing more than a promise not to do it again;
- four of his cabinet ministers were named as participants in the Conadscam scheme to evade the spending limits under the Canada Elections Act, with no apparent consequences;
- his Minister of Foreign Affairs and parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport altered travel disclosures after the original amounts listed were made public, with no apparent consequences;
- multiple children and other relatives of Con MPs (including cabinet ministers) were found to have been hired by other Cons' offices, with no apparent consequences; and
- his Minister of Fisheries and Oceans used departmental resources for a false partisan attack, with no consequences other than repayment of the billed costs for the press release involved.
Now, it's certainly arguable that the above wouldn't be considered offences deserving of resignation in any event. But the common threads between each of them still send a strong signal that under Harper, being Conservative means never taking responsibility for any wrongdoing. Which hardly bodes well for the assertion that one can equate a lack of resignations with an absence of behaviour which might warrant one.
And indeed, the one exception to the zero-accountability rule only serves to highlight how the Cons have handled misdeeds within their own ranks. Remember what happened when Maxime Bernier actually did resign as Minister of Foreign Affairs over the Couillard scandal:
But when the Cons are willing to take a wait-and-see approach even when an incident which they strongly suspect might warrant dismissal has already been made public - and in light of the obsessive secrecy imposed by Harper - what are the odds that any incident which did warrant dismissal would be made public? And what incentives would that secrecy tend to create among Harper's cabinet ministers themselves?
Now, it is indeed theoretically possible that Harper's secrecy is serving only to hide just how ethically pure his government is. But Harper has done plenty to create reason to doubt that premise - and there's no reason to give him the benefit of that doubt now.
In the time since Harper' Cons took office, among many other dubious actions by Con cabinet ministers:
- his Finance Minister handed a six-figure, no-bid consulting contract to a political crony in contravention of federal tendering guidelines, which was allowed to slide with nothing more than a promise not to do it again;
- four of his cabinet ministers were named as participants in the Conadscam scheme to evade the spending limits under the Canada Elections Act, with no apparent consequences;
- his Minister of Foreign Affairs and parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport altered travel disclosures after the original amounts listed were made public, with no apparent consequences;
- multiple children and other relatives of Con MPs (including cabinet ministers) were found to have been hired by other Cons' offices, with no apparent consequences; and
- his Minister of Fisheries and Oceans used departmental resources for a false partisan attack, with no consequences other than repayment of the billed costs for the press release involved.
Now, it's certainly arguable that the above wouldn't be considered offences deserving of resignation in any event. But the common threads between each of them still send a strong signal that under Harper, being Conservative means never taking responsibility for any wrongdoing. Which hardly bodes well for the assertion that one can equate a lack of resignations with an absence of behaviour which might warrant one.
And indeed, the one exception to the zero-accountability rule only serves to highlight how the Cons have handled misdeeds within their own ranks. Remember what happened when Maxime Bernier actually did resign as Minister of Foreign Affairs over the Couillard scandal:
Mr. Bernier submitted his resignation Monday morning, after learning that his ex, Julie Couillard, had given a potentially damaging interview to the French-language TVA network stating that he was careless with confidential documents.So the Cons have made it clear that in determining whether or not to force a minister's resignation, the only factor they'll take into consideration is political convenience.
He was told to wait it out. Still, he was pulled out of meetings throughout the day and was absent from a meeting of the cabinet's priority and planning committee, the cabinet's most important and powerful committee.
The powers-that-be wanted to assess just how bad the interview by Ms. Couillard would be. The waiting game was all about media strategy.
But when the Cons are willing to take a wait-and-see approach even when an incident which they strongly suspect might warrant dismissal has already been made public - and in light of the obsessive secrecy imposed by Harper - what are the odds that any incident which did warrant dismissal would be made public? And what incentives would that secrecy tend to create among Harper's cabinet ministers themselves?
Now, it is indeed theoretically possible that Harper's secrecy is serving only to hide just how ethically pure his government is. But Harper has done plenty to create reason to doubt that premise - and there's no reason to give him the benefit of that doubt now.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Comparison shopping
We now have two federal parties whose leaders have utterly lost interest in the ongoing recession, and have resorted instead to a cynical game of "look at the other guy!".
And then there's the NDP, which is working hard to actually listen to Canadians' needs during a time of crisis.
Needless to say, that type of focus doesn't tend to get rewarded in the headlines. But is there much doubt which course of action is closer to what Canadians actually want out of their leaders when it matters?
And then there's the NDP, which is working hard to actually listen to Canadians' needs during a time of crisis.
Needless to say, that type of focus doesn't tend to get rewarded in the headlines. But is there much doubt which course of action is closer to what Canadians actually want out of their leaders when it matters?
A historical inquiry
For obvious reasons, it figures to remain true that Michael Ignatieff supporters and his critics from the left will have different interpretations of his entreaties to Brian Mulroney. But in the interest of looking for common ground, I'll invite Lib supporters (and any other interested readers) to fill in the historical picture in case I'm missing something.
Simply put, is there any historical precedent - from any country or level of government - which meets the following test which to me boils down the key elements of Ignatieff's call?
(1) the leader of one political party
(2) spontaneously calling the former leader/head of government of another political party
(3) in the absence of any prior relationship between the two
(4) solely for a social/personal conversation (rather than, say, for policy advice or in response to a public event)
If it's the case that such calls (or meetings or other forms of interaction) have been carried out in the past, I'd have to figure they'd be likely to find their way into memoirs, biographies, or the like as a matter of historical interest - much as Ignatieff's call to Mulroney was seen as worth reporting by CTV. So is there anything on record to suggest that similar calls are indeed a matter of common courtesy?
Simply put, is there any historical precedent - from any country or level of government - which meets the following test which to me boils down the key elements of Ignatieff's call?
(1) the leader of one political party
(2) spontaneously calling the former leader/head of government of another political party
(3) in the absence of any prior relationship between the two
(4) solely for a social/personal conversation (rather than, say, for policy advice or in response to a public event)
If it's the case that such calls (or meetings or other forms of interaction) have been carried out in the past, I'd have to figure they'd be likely to find their way into memoirs, biographies, or the like as a matter of historical interest - much as Ignatieff's call to Mulroney was seen as worth reporting by CTV. So is there anything on record to suggest that similar calls are indeed a matter of common courtesy?
The reviews are in
The Winnipeg Free Press publishes a few excerpts from Parliamentary Democracy In Crisis, which figures to be even more of a must-read now:
Simon Fraser University professor Andrew Heard says Harper's prorogation was "unconstitutional... (T)his type of manoeuvre is simply unheard of among modern established democracies. It is a fundamental abuse of power to shut down a newly elected parliament at the moment when it is poised to vote non-confidence in the incumbent government."
The University of Toronto's Peter Russell says the crisis has "left a legacy that could be the basis of a serious constitutional crisis in the near future: a country dangerously divided over the fundamental principles and the rules of its parliamentary democracy."
The most damning indictment comes from David Cameron, chair of the University of Toronto's political science department. "Stephen Harper demonstrated that there was no bridge he would not burn, no low road he would not take, to stay in power. Beyond the deceit and the intentional obfuscation, what could not be forgiven was the prime minister's willingness to conjure up our national-unity demons...
"Successive prime ministers have seen it as their duty to manage the national unity file with prudence and care; to light a match near a can of gasoline -- to set east against west... simply for the sake of personal political survival was to scatter this primordial leadership obligation to the four winds."
Shocking
Shorter L. Ian MacDonald:
It took longer than usual this time. But I've figured out how the Mulroney feud within the Cons is the fault of outside agitators rather than the Glorious Leader.
It took longer than usual this time. But I've figured out how the Mulroney feud within the Cons is the fault of outside agitators rather than the Glorious Leader.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Leadership 2009 Links
I've added a new set of links at the top right for the duration of the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race, including the candidates' sites as well as media sources which have reported on the race so far or at least figure to do so as the race progresses. And for those looking for a complete set of coverage so far, I'll point out that last week's Moose Jaw leadership forum managed to receive some local reporting from Discover Moose Jaw (which naturally tends to be a particularly good source for Deb Higgins news).
I'll be looking to add to the list as the campaign progresses - so if you know of any additional local coverage which is available online, let me know and I'll include it in the list.
I'll be looking to add to the list as the campaign progresses - so if you know of any additional local coverage which is available online, let me know and I'll include it in the list.
Compare and contrast
Worried about how a possible GM bankruptcy might affect the warranty on a new vehicle? Have no fear: Tony Clement is here to save you.
Worried about how a possible GM bankruptcy might affect pension benefits which you earned through decades of service? Let there be no doubt: Tony Clement couldn't care less.
Worried about how a possible GM bankruptcy might affect pension benefits which you earned through decades of service? Let there be no doubt: Tony Clement couldn't care less.
On illusions
Andrew Steele's post on the advantages of incumbency obviously reflects a Lib/Con-centric view of politics. (No, "parties of all stripes" don't set up artificial barriers to nomination challenges - it's the Cons and Libs alone who do so.) But the post is definitely worth a read in outlining evidence that the only real effect of incumbency is to dissuade otherwise-viable challengers:
Indeed, the studies mentioned by Steele are themselves based primarily on general election results rather than internal party challenges. And the inescapable message is that a substantial amount of the actual advantage of incumbents is based on the fact that opposing parties tend to mount something less than the greatest possible challenge.
Applying that principle to the Canadian political scene, it's then worth wondering whether many of our current political assumptions are themselves a product of parties failing to appreciate what may be possible.
The current conventional wisdom seems to suggest that the approximate party results which have been relatively consistent over the past decade will continue to be so. But is there any reason to think that the seeming tiers among Canadian political parties are any more an inevitability than the supposed advantage of incumbency? And if convincing potential candidates and supporters to push forward in the face of a perceived advantage is more than half the battle in making up any actual ground, then doesn't that become an even more important task?
Stephen Levitt, famous for Freakonomics, and Catherine Wolfram from Harvard did a complex econometric study into the causes of incumbent advantage, rather than simply measuring the advantage as earlier studies had done. They found that the source may actually be incumbents getting better at scaring away high-quality opponents.Now, Steele uses the evidence to suggest merely that the Libs and Cons should rethink their arbitrary barriers to nomination challenges (which would seem obvious to some of us simply from the perspective of internal accountability). But it seems to me that the concept applies far beyond nomination races alone.
Rather than anything based in reality, the advantage is that people thinking about running for public office over estimate the ability of the incumbent to retain office. High-profile candidates decline to run, fundraising goes uncollected by default, volunteers sit unmotivated on the sidelines and the incumbent gets back in because no one bothered to run hard against him.
Ken Carty from UBC found similar evidence in Canada. Where they are not intimidated, "local party organizations of non-winning candidates are in the position of being able to realize potentially significant electoral returns through the mobilization of additional personnel or financial resources in their constituency campaigns.
Indeed, the studies mentioned by Steele are themselves based primarily on general election results rather than internal party challenges. And the inescapable message is that a substantial amount of the actual advantage of incumbents is based on the fact that opposing parties tend to mount something less than the greatest possible challenge.
Applying that principle to the Canadian political scene, it's then worth wondering whether many of our current political assumptions are themselves a product of parties failing to appreciate what may be possible.
The current conventional wisdom seems to suggest that the approximate party results which have been relatively consistent over the past decade will continue to be so. But is there any reason to think that the seeming tiers among Canadian political parties are any more an inevitability than the supposed advantage of incumbency? And if convincing potential candidates and supporters to push forward in the face of a perceived advantage is more than half the battle in making up any actual ground, then doesn't that become an even more important task?
Monday, April 06, 2009
Burning question
Is it more problematic if Michael Ignatieff's latest love letter to Brian Mulroney is based on his agreeing with Mulroney's policies, or instead focused on their mutual agreement that all that counts is winning at all costs?
A teaching moment
Leftdog and others have rightly described the Sask Party's uranium development motion last week as a matter of mischief or nuisance rather than a serious policy issue. And that temporary effect went beyond creating at least a momentary division within the NDP, as it largely distracted the NDP's leadership candidates from presenting their vision for the province.
But fortunately, it doesn't seem to have taken long for the leadership contestants to get back on course. And Ryan Meili's education policy release today should help to push the discussion back toward where the NDP's potential leaders plan to take Saskatchewan. So with that in mind, I'll highlight what looks to be an important statement on one of the often-overlooked aspects of education policy:
Of course, one wouldn't expect too many candidates to disagree with the value of teachers in principle. But it's still worth highlighting the connection between the goals of the education system, and the people who dedicate their careers to achieving them. And the more any candidate keeps in mind the importance of the individuals involved in making any system work, the better that candidate's chances of being able to make positive changes within the system when the opportunity arises.
But fortunately, it doesn't seem to have taken long for the leadership contestants to get back on course. And Ryan Meili's education policy release today should help to push the discussion back toward where the NDP's potential leaders plan to take Saskatchewan. So with that in mind, I'll highlight what looks to be an important statement on one of the often-overlooked aspects of education policy:
Teachers—the heart and soul of the education system—deserve the opportunity to both improve upon their existing skills and learn additional and emerging skills throughout their careers. The central role of teaching needs to be recognized by providing pay that reflects the value of the work and the supports teachers need to do their work.Not surprisingly, Meili covers plenty of more traditional questions about education policy as well. But greater recognition of the value of teaching may itself play an important part in improving Saskatchewan's education system - both to ensure that those currently in the role receive every opportunity to better themselves, and to attract more educators to increase the options available to Saskatchewan students.
...
We need to find innovative ways to respond to the particular challenges of rural education. Many schools in rural Saskatchewan offer only a subset of the courses students need. For example, upper year science classes are absent in many schools in Northern communities. We will all be better served if local people return to their communities to become teachers, doctors and other professionals. We need to provide all students with access to the courses they need.
Of course, one wouldn't expect too many candidates to disagree with the value of teachers in principle. But it's still worth highlighting the connection between the goals of the education system, and the people who dedicate their careers to achieving them. And the more any candidate keeps in mind the importance of the individuals involved in making any system work, the better that candidate's chances of being able to make positive changes within the system when the opportunity arises.
In order of precedence
The full CCPA report which I mentioned yesterday is now available. And in addition to dealing with my concern about accepting the Cons' estimates at face value, it also raises a few more important questions about the budget:
After all, the Cons' failure to actually get any benefits into the hands of Canadians who need them most would seem to make them vulnerable in the short term - particularly as they try to preach patience about a stimulus package which already falls short of dealing with the economic downturn to date. But it might be a lot more difficult for the Libs to vote non-confidence this fall just as the Cons' funding finally starts to trickle through to a slightly larger range of recipients.
Of course, the most likely outcome might well be for the Libs to find another excuse to keep propping up the Cons through the rest of the spring, then point to the start of funding as a reason not to force an election well into 2010. But it must surely be obvious that Canadians looking for federal leadership through a severe recession deserve better than a government which has chosen to slow down the flow of stimulus funds - and voters have every reason to be as impatient with the Libs who have chosen to keep the Harper government in power as with the Cons who have once again shown where their priorities lie.
As the government’s 2009–10 fiscal year begins April 1, 2009, it stands to reason that the government expects almost all of its measures to begin within a month or two of that date. But that may be wishful thinking.Not that it should come as much surprise that the Cons' vote-buying efforts have been placed at the front of the line ahead of benefits for those who actually need them. But it's also worth noting how the Cons' timeline may influence the Libs' current calculations about when to pull the plug on the Harper government.
The Home Renovation Tax Credit, for instance, worth $3 billion for Canadians who have the means to build a cedar deck on their cottage, flowed almost immediately following the introduction of Budget 2009. Such expedited funding shows how quickly funding can flow when government commitment exists.
In contrast, the hardest hit Canadians will have to wait longer than usual to see their benefit. The Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB), the only tax measure for those making less than $25,000, does not get the same retroactive treatment as the home renovation tax credit for Canada’s cottage owners. Instead, the working poor will not be able to claim any additional support until early 2010, when they file their 2009 tax returns. As stimulus, it will be too little too late.
Changes in the Canada Child Tax Benefit and National Child Benefit supplement also do not receive expedited treatment. They will not be implemented in April when almost all other tax measures begin to be funded. Instead, those who live close to the poverty line and have children will have to wait until summer to receive their additional benefits.
The hardest hit in Canada are the first to face unemployment and sometimes bankruptcy, but they are the last to receive benefits from the government’s changes to the tax system.
Income transfers to low-income Canadians are also the most effective way to stimulate the economy through the tax system, based on Budget 2009’s own estimates. Low-income transfers are more than twice as effective as corporate or broad-based personal tax cuts. Yet the federal government is quickly implementing broad-based tax cuts that are least effective and procrastinating on those measures, like WITB, that have the largest stimulative effect on the economy.
After all, the Cons' failure to actually get any benefits into the hands of Canadians who need them most would seem to make them vulnerable in the short term - particularly as they try to preach patience about a stimulus package which already falls short of dealing with the economic downturn to date. But it might be a lot more difficult for the Libs to vote non-confidence this fall just as the Cons' funding finally starts to trickle through to a slightly larger range of recipients.
Of course, the most likely outcome might well be for the Libs to find another excuse to keep propping up the Cons through the rest of the spring, then point to the start of funding as a reason not to force an election well into 2010. But it must surely be obvious that Canadians looking for federal leadership through a severe recession deserve better than a government which has chosen to slow down the flow of stimulus funds - and voters have every reason to be as impatient with the Libs who have chosen to keep the Harper government in power as with the Cons who have once again shown where their priorities lie.
The more things change...
The Hill Times offers up one more entry for the rapidly-growing list of failed Stephane Dion strategies which are getting reused for lack of any new ideas under Michael Ignatieff:
Liberal insiders told The Hill Times that Mr. Ignateiff (sic) is torn between those who say they have the momentum now and should pull the plug to capitalize on this opportunity, and those who argue that he should use the summer to raise money and build the party infrastructure for a successful election campaign. Another complicating factor that Liberals say could happen is that Prime Minister may pre-empt the Liberal leader by engineering his own defeat in order to fight the Liberals before they're ready.Because if there's anything that makes an opposition party look strong and decisive, it's publicly waffling over possible election opportunities until the decision gets taken out of one's hands. Just ask Prime Minister Dion.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Leadership 2009 - Week in Review, April 5
With the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race headed into what may be the decisive stretch over the next few weeks, as the formal debates lead up to the membership signup deadline. And it shouldn't come as much surprise that some of us will be watching each development closely from an NDP perspective. But I'll use this edition of the Week in Review to highlight the fact that it isn't just NDP partisans who have a stake in the outcome - and to encourage participation in the leadership vote even from people who may not otherwise have any interest in NDP politics.
So why would it be worth the effort? I'd argue that taking part in the leadership vote figures to present the best opportunity for anybody with an interest in Saskatchewan politics to shape the direction of things to come.
For those who expect to decide between the NDP and any other party or parties in the next provincial election, the leadership race will do more to influence just what your choices are than anything else that happens between now and 2011. And indeed there's plenty of reason to think that a leadership vote will give you more incremental influence than any general election vote could.
After all, the number of voters may not be much more than that which would vote in a provincial riding. But a leadership vote will be sure to have a direct effect on a major party's future course, rather than going toward electing a single one of 58 MLAs in a legislative assembly whose composition is mostly determined in votes outside one's own riding.
And the leadership race may be even more important for anyone who might sympathize with the NDP in principle but hasn't been happy with its actions in practice. Not only will the leadership race provide you with an opportunity to make sure the NDP gets things right in the future, but you'll also have a chance to make common cause with others within the party who share your concerns regardless of the outcome of the race.
Of course, there may be a tendency to see party membership as a barrier to getting involved. But there's no reason in principle why politically interested but non-partisan voters shouldn't participate in shaping the face of political parties - much as already takes place in the U.S. presidential primary system. And the comparison is one worth making at a time when many on the Canadian political scene are lamenting the relative weakness in leadership on our side of the border.
With that in mind, I'll encourage current non-members - whether or not they agree with my previous take on the leadership race or the political scene as a whole - to sign up in advance of the April 24 deadline in order to be able to cast a ballot in June. And if the end result is to get more citizens thinking about the ideas being presented on all sides of the leadership race, then that's a result which both the NDP as a party and the province as a whole can only see as a positive.
So why would it be worth the effort? I'd argue that taking part in the leadership vote figures to present the best opportunity for anybody with an interest in Saskatchewan politics to shape the direction of things to come.
For those who expect to decide between the NDP and any other party or parties in the next provincial election, the leadership race will do more to influence just what your choices are than anything else that happens between now and 2011. And indeed there's plenty of reason to think that a leadership vote will give you more incremental influence than any general election vote could.
After all, the number of voters may not be much more than that which would vote in a provincial riding. But a leadership vote will be sure to have a direct effect on a major party's future course, rather than going toward electing a single one of 58 MLAs in a legislative assembly whose composition is mostly determined in votes outside one's own riding.
And the leadership race may be even more important for anyone who might sympathize with the NDP in principle but hasn't been happy with its actions in practice. Not only will the leadership race provide you with an opportunity to make sure the NDP gets things right in the future, but you'll also have a chance to make common cause with others within the party who share your concerns regardless of the outcome of the race.
Of course, there may be a tendency to see party membership as a barrier to getting involved. But there's no reason in principle why politically interested but non-partisan voters shouldn't participate in shaping the face of political parties - much as already takes place in the U.S. presidential primary system. And the comparison is one worth making at a time when many on the Canadian political scene are lamenting the relative weakness in leadership on our side of the border.
With that in mind, I'll encourage current non-members - whether or not they agree with my previous take on the leadership race or the political scene as a whole - to sign up in advance of the April 24 deadline in order to be able to cast a ballot in June. And if the end result is to get more citizens thinking about the ideas being presented on all sides of the leadership race, then that's a result which both the NDP as a party and the province as a whole can only see as a positive.
From day one
It's definitely a plus to see the CCPA pointing out how obviously inadequate the Cons' stimulus package looks - not only based on the expected losses yet to come, but even compared to the actual economic damage at the time the Libs chose to pass the budget. But it's worth noting that the study may actually be overly generous to the Cons and Libs in relying on Deficit Jim and Recession Stephen's questionable assumptions to begin with:
That said, it's certainly worth highlighting how inadequate the Cons' budget was from the moment it was presented. And that fact should offer all the more reason to doubt that either the Cons or their enablers within the Libs can be taken seriously by Canadians looking for a meaningful response to the recession.
The CCPA report said the estimated effect the stimulus package is supposed to have on employment was eclipsed the day before the stimulus budget was made public.Now, the problem with the numbers cited by the Cons is that they themselves figure to substantially overestimate the effects of the Con/Lib budget. As some of us have noted from the beginning, the largest dollar amounts within the stimulus are directed toward measures where they either won't generate new economy activity, or may not even be used at all. Which means that the actual effect of any stimulus from the budget may have run out far more quickly than even the CCPA estimates.
The government says its $29-billion stimulus package would maintain or create 189,000 jobs this year, and rise to 250,000 by the end of 2010.
The study says 296,000 people have been thrown out of work since the economic decline began in October, and that job losses hit 189,000 one day before Finance Minister Jim Flaherty stood up in Parliament to deliver his stimulus budget.
"The Conservative stimulus plan wasn't enough the day it was introduced and since then Canada has lost 106,000 more jobs and the economy has shrunk another 0.7 per cent," Macdonald said.
His study, which uses Statistics Canada figures, said the government's stimulus efforts don't even make up for the economic shrinkage that had occurred by the end of 2008.
While the size of the economy declined by $20 billion between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31, 2008, the government estimates its package will add 1.6 per cent to Canada's real GDP, or a growth of $19.7 billion.
This means the economic impact of the stimulus package was "exhausted" by the end of December, almost one month before the government introduced the package, CCPA said.
That said, it's certainly worth highlighting how inadequate the Cons' budget was from the moment it was presented. And that fact should offer all the more reason to doubt that either the Cons or their enablers within the Libs can be taken seriously by Canadians looking for a meaningful response to the recession.
On slanted reporting
Before going into detail about the the UDP's nuclear wish list, let's start with a few high-level observations.
To begin with, let's note the extended time frames involved in the UDP's assumptions and recommendations - and particularly how the report encourages snap decisions which would have serious ramifications extending tens or hundreds of years into the future.
When it comes to nuclear power generation, the report can't avoid acknowledging that the plant construction is prohibitively expensive up front compared to any other alternative. Which means that any attempt to justify nuclear power based on cost relies on a 50+ year time frame for plant operation.
But the UDP report which actually sees Saskatchewan's uranium reserves running out within that time frame. And when that possibility is combined with the suggestion that nuclear development will continue to expand elsewhere, there's little reason to think that operating costs will actually stay at currently-assumed levels - calling into question the conclusion that lower costs over time could justify the massive construction costs associated with a nuclear reactor.
Meanwhile, the time factor involved in the report's recommendation to encourage Saskatchewan communities to become nuclear waste depositories is even more striking. It surely isn't by accident that the report notes that a community wouldn't want to risk any existing resources by placing the site near them, and that any future development near the waste facility would likely be ruled out over a time period of centuries.
But even from the starting point that a waste disposal site would severely restrict any future development for the community involved, the report is wholly bullish on the idea. Which results in its recommendation that the province should push the efforts of any municipality which holds its nose long enough to ask to be the home site - with no apparent concern for the possibility that the decision might be a dangerous one in the longer term.
A second major theme worth pointing out about the report is its consistent focus on theory rather than practice - perhaps best epitomized by its statement on the role of the CNSC:
In the UDP report, the reality of how the CNSC has actually operated is conveniently whitewashed from the picture in favour of a depiction of the CNSC as a fully independent guarantor of nuclear safety. And the problem with a presentation of the CNSC is idealized terms rather than realistic ones isn't only limited to the current Con government. In general, any recommendation that the province should rely on federal actors to ensure nuclear safety is bound to carry some serious risk based on the federal government of the day - and the fact that we now have about the most problematic possible combination between the two levels of government only helps to highlight the point.
It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate from there as to how the UDP's depictions of other parties involved may similarly be based on wishful thinking rather than reality. And it's hard to imagine a starting point less compatible with a realistic assessment of the risks and opportunity costs involved in focusing on nuclear development.
That leads nicely into the last point which I'll make for now: while the report presents plenty of theoretical job and GDP figures associated with its proposals, it utterly ignores the question of how money and resources can otherwise be applied. Which may be entirely consistent with the UDP's mandate to cheerlead for the nuclear industry, but renders the report utterly useless as an assessment of nuclear development as compared to any other priority.
To begin with, let's note the extended time frames involved in the UDP's assumptions and recommendations - and particularly how the report encourages snap decisions which would have serious ramifications extending tens or hundreds of years into the future.
When it comes to nuclear power generation, the report can't avoid acknowledging that the plant construction is prohibitively expensive up front compared to any other alternative. Which means that any attempt to justify nuclear power based on cost relies on a 50+ year time frame for plant operation.
But the UDP report which actually sees Saskatchewan's uranium reserves running out within that time frame. And when that possibility is combined with the suggestion that nuclear development will continue to expand elsewhere, there's little reason to think that operating costs will actually stay at currently-assumed levels - calling into question the conclusion that lower costs over time could justify the massive construction costs associated with a nuclear reactor.
Meanwhile, the time factor involved in the report's recommendation to encourage Saskatchewan communities to become nuclear waste depositories is even more striking. It surely isn't by accident that the report notes that a community wouldn't want to risk any existing resources by placing the site near them, and that any future development near the waste facility would likely be ruled out over a time period of centuries.
But even from the starting point that a waste disposal site would severely restrict any future development for the community involved, the report is wholly bullish on the idea. Which results in its recommendation that the province should push the efforts of any municipality which holds its nose long enough to ask to be the home site - with no apparent concern for the possibility that the decision might be a dangerous one in the longer term.
A second major theme worth pointing out about the report is its consistent focus on theory rather than practice - perhaps best epitomized by its statement on the role of the CNSC:
In Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is responsible for ensuring the public, the environment, and workers are protected from any potential effects of nuclear energy and that all international industry guidelines are followed.Needless to say, anybody who's followed the actual operations of the CNSC over the past few years should have some serious questions about that description. To wit: what of Linda Keen? Political meddling in nuclear regulation? Discharges going unreported until well after the fact?
The CNSC operates as an independent agency of the Federal Government that reports to Parliament (via the Minister of Natural Resources). The agency has no role in promoting nuclear power and is split into a decision-making Commission Tribunal and a
staff organization including technical experts in nuclear safety and controls.
One of the main responsibilities of the Commission Tribunal is to run the nuclear licensing process. Before being granted a license or renewal, licensees are required to prove to the CNSC that their facility or activity is acceptably safe. The CNSC approach to safety assumes that nothing is 100 percent risk free, but that risk can be minimized through multiple layers of verifiable protection. When a facility is licensed, the staff organization supports the compliance activities (among other things) and ensures that domestic nuclear operators provide quarterly reports highlighting radio-active discharges.
In the UDP report, the reality of how the CNSC has actually operated is conveniently whitewashed from the picture in favour of a depiction of the CNSC as a fully independent guarantor of nuclear safety. And the problem with a presentation of the CNSC is idealized terms rather than realistic ones isn't only limited to the current Con government. In general, any recommendation that the province should rely on federal actors to ensure nuclear safety is bound to carry some serious risk based on the federal government of the day - and the fact that we now have about the most problematic possible combination between the two levels of government only helps to highlight the point.
It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate from there as to how the UDP's depictions of other parties involved may similarly be based on wishful thinking rather than reality. And it's hard to imagine a starting point less compatible with a realistic assessment of the risks and opportunity costs involved in focusing on nuclear development.
That leads nicely into the last point which I'll make for now: while the report presents plenty of theoretical job and GDP figures associated with its proposals, it utterly ignores the question of how money and resources can otherwise be applied. Which may be entirely consistent with the UDP's mandate to cheerlead for the nuclear industry, but renders the report utterly useless as an assessment of nuclear development as compared to any other priority.
The reviews are in
Chris Selley:
Quite apart from the absurdity of the condition, Foreign Affairs itself had until recently been petitioning to have Abdelrazik’s name stricken from that list, citing all-clear verdicts from CSIS, the RCMP and Sudanese intelligence. Also, the blacklist doesn’t prevent anyone on it from returning home. Nevertheless, Mr. Cannon made it official yesterday: "I denied Mr. Abdelrazik an emergency passport on the basis of national security,” he said. No further explanation was forthcoming.
What the hell is going on here? The idea that Foreign Affairs is digging in its heels simply to avoid being seen to back down implies a lack of foresight and a level of sociopathy that I’m not willing to ascribe to Cannon, or to most cabinet ministers for that matter...
In case it actually needs to be said, the government knowing or suspecting something about a Canadian citizen isn’t enough to essentially exile him. Ottawa’s incredibly churlish behaviour on this file—endlessly setting conditions, then arbitrarily changing them when they’re met—brings the very foundations of government and citizenship into disrepute. It has to stop.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Mulronicons
As you'll see shortly, I'm in the early stages of using Photoshop to add a bit more visual punch to some of the ideas from this blog. Here's a first installment inspired by Michael Ignatieff's birthday greeting to Brian Mulroney.
As you may have guessed, I'm not entirely settled on a punchline. So additional suggestions are welcome.
As you may have guessed, I'm not entirely settled on a punchline. So additional suggestions are welcome.
On targets
I'll deal later with the less-than-surprising results of the Sask Party's attempt to push nuclear development on the province. But let's note that Dwain Lingenfelter's policy statement on the environment also came out yesterday - and while it doesn't figure to get as much public attention as the UDP report, it may have some interesting effects in both the NDP leadership race and the broader political scene:
In the absence of anybody else taking on the continuation of Calvert's legacy as part of their leadership message, it wouldn't be at all surprising if Lingenfelter tries to take on that role on more issues as the campaign progresses. While that type of move might seem to be counterintuitive, an effort to bring Calvert's more devoted supporters under Lingenfelter's tent (however unlikely that may have seemed at the start of the campaign) could well be as significant an incremental gain as Lingenfelter can expect to make now that his head start is over with. And that boost might in turn offer the best chance for Lingenfelter to try to get back toward a message of inevitability even in the face of three strong opponents.
Meanwhile, considering that it represents the most nuclear-friendly take among any of the NDP leadership candidates, Lingenfelter's policy position also figures to be an interesting one in response to the UDP's report. In particular, his endorsement of Peter Prebble's recommendations for Saskatchewan's power mix would seem to make Lingenfelter's stance incompatible with the UDP's recommendations. And with the Sask Party likely looking to hide behind the UDP rather than sticking out its neck with a separate suggestion as to what percentage of power it wants to hand to the nuclear industry, a firm commitment to that position could go a long way toward ensuring that the NDP ends up on the right side of the nuclear issue next time it gets debated in the Legislature.
Unfortunately, with per capita greenhouse gas emissions that are three times higher than the Canadian average and the highest of any Canadian province, we are not fulfilling our responsibility to protect our environment and show public policy leadership in embracing the green economy. I believe it doesn’t have to be this way. I believe there are public policy solutions that can make Saskatchewan a green economy leader.The first point worth noting about Lingenfelter's policy position is the angle it takes toward the Calvert government's efforts. I've mentioned a few times that to my mind, Deb Higgins figured to be the leadership candidate best positioned to take credit for (and stand up for) the legacy of the outgoing NDP leader. But with her campaign apparently placing the focus elsewhere, it looks like Lingenfelter is making a play for that position on the environment file at least.
In 2007, the NDP government moved to remedy this situation by introducing a comprehensive plan to secure our long-term economic prosperity through the setting of aggressive targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. While the Sask Party committed to adhere to these targets during the last provincial election campaign, the Wall government scrapped the NDP’s climate change plan, and then refused to release a plan of its own. In a recent report, the David Suzuki Foundation congratulated the NDP for having put in place a “reasonably ambitious target for greenhouse gas emissions” but slammed the Sask Party for adopting the NDP’s target with “no plan or strategy to get there.”
Elsewhere too, the Wall government is moving our province backward on the environment. Brad Wall:
• Abolished the NDP’s $320 million Green Future Fund that provided funding for projects to fight climate change
• Eliminated the Saskatchewan Office of Energy Conservation
• Scrapped the Climate Change Secretariat
• Gutted renewable energy programs
• Bought his Cabinet Ministers brand new, gas-guzzling SUVs
Brad Wall’s Minister of the Environment has mused about not only backing away from the NDP government’s targets, but adopting targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases that are even “less stringent” than the extremely minimal targets set by the Harper government.
Due to Brad Wall’s lack of leadership, Saskatchewan will fail to meet the NDP government’s target of stabilizing its greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, and we will waste valuable time as other jurisdictions work to build their green economies and create green jobs...
Electrical generation is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Saskatchewan and the decisions we make in this area will be key for our future economic prosperity as well as environmental sustainability. Instead of recognizing the important role that renewable energy plays in a vibrant green economy, the Wall government has halted the progress on renewable energy that had been made under the NDP. In doing so, Brad Wall is out of step with the rest of the world. All of the member countries of the European Union recently agreed that 20% of their energy consumption would come from renewable sources by 2020. Similarly, sixteen American states now have legislated a ‘renewable energy portfolio standard’ that requires a certain percentage of their future electrical generation to come from renewable sources.
Consistent with Peter Prebble’s 2006 report on Renewable Energy Development and Conservation, I believe Saskatchewan should legislate a renewable energy and conservation portfolio standard that will require at least 50% of our electrical generation to come from conservation measures and renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and hydro electricity by 2025. In order to reach this target, the provincial government should provide financial incentives to Saskatchewan communities to build small-scale renewable energy projects such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass projects. These projects could sell their excess production to the SaskPower grid.
At the same time as Saskatchewan gets serious about building its renewable energy capacity, we should strengthen our energy conservation efforts. I believe we should introduce energy efficient building codes, provide larger grants and tax incentives to retrofit homes and businesses, and require the provincial government and municipalities to lead the way by improving their energy conservation practices. This should include a commitment to install solar panels or other renewable energy sources on all new public buildings and in all planned renovations of existing public buildings.
In the absence of anybody else taking on the continuation of Calvert's legacy as part of their leadership message, it wouldn't be at all surprising if Lingenfelter tries to take on that role on more issues as the campaign progresses. While that type of move might seem to be counterintuitive, an effort to bring Calvert's more devoted supporters under Lingenfelter's tent (however unlikely that may have seemed at the start of the campaign) could well be as significant an incremental gain as Lingenfelter can expect to make now that his head start is over with. And that boost might in turn offer the best chance for Lingenfelter to try to get back toward a message of inevitability even in the face of three strong opponents.
Meanwhile, considering that it represents the most nuclear-friendly take among any of the NDP leadership candidates, Lingenfelter's policy position also figures to be an interesting one in response to the UDP's report. In particular, his endorsement of Peter Prebble's recommendations for Saskatchewan's power mix would seem to make Lingenfelter's stance incompatible with the UDP's recommendations. And with the Sask Party likely looking to hide behind the UDP rather than sticking out its neck with a separate suggestion as to what percentage of power it wants to hand to the nuclear industry, a firm commitment to that position could go a long way toward ensuring that the NDP ends up on the right side of the nuclear issue next time it gets debated in the Legislature.
Then and now
Shorter Cons last week:
Sure, funnelling $3 billion into a slush fund with no accountability except to a secretive and highly-partisan government might seem like a bad idea. But we pinky-swear to have oodles of federal accountability mechanisms in place.
Shorter Cons today:
We take absolutely no responsibility for how stimulus money is spent. Buyer beware, suckers.
Sure, funnelling $3 billion into a slush fund with no accountability except to a secretive and highly-partisan government might seem like a bad idea. But we pinky-swear to have oodles of federal accountability mechanisms in place.
Shorter Cons today:
We take absolutely no responsibility for how stimulus money is spent. Buyer beware, suckers.
CanWest math
Reality:
The latest numbers show only 40% of respondents approve of the Cons' handling of the economy, with 48% disapproving. And the Cons' approval rating is down to 38%, with 51% disapproving.Which evidently has little overlap with CanWest World:
Like most Canadians, we are satisfied that Mr. Harper has handled the recession in a measured, serious way.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Selective comparisons
Shorter Jim Flaherty:
And furthermore, our government's track record for honesty and openness looks far better if your point of comparison is Apate, Greek god of deception.
And furthermore, our government's track record for honesty and openness looks far better if your point of comparison is Apate, Greek god of deception.
The reviews are in
Paul Wells, with another in our continuing series of reviews which apply equally well to most files under the Cons' control:
“There’s nothing to hide, we’re sticking to the plan,” (the communications director who suppressed the Transportation Safety Board's report on the death of Laura Gainey) said. Well, not quite: the plan, as the new emails show, was to hide. So there was something to hide, but they were sticking to the plan.
This is unacceptable. The latest round of denials is as transparently false as the first several rounds of denials were.
For further study
While the Saskatchewan NDP caucus' handling of yesterday's nuclear development motion was definitely problematic, that's not to say the Sask Party is emerging unscathed on the issue. And indeed a couple of Lyle Stewart's comments from yesterday's question period hint at just how vulnerable they see themselves as being.
Remember that last year, Sask Party ministers happily joined Bruce Power in announcing both the start of its "feasibility study", and the government then declared its fealty to Bruce Power after the study was done. And of course all indications are that Bruce Power figures to be the main beneficiary of any actual nuclear development that takes place.
Which makes it rather stunning that Stewart is now trying to distance the Wall government from a study which it did so much to promote:
After all, there's no indication that Bruce Power sees any problem with its feasibility study. Yet the Sask Party government is effectively conceding that it's so woefully inadequate - both in the limited amount of time involved and apparently its contents - that even one of ministers who proudly announced its creation has been reduced to describing it as "whatever it was".
On its face, that position seems to be based on an attempt to avoid answering for the contents of the study. But it raises an even more important question: if the Sask Party doesn't disagree with the conclusion that Bruce Power was hurried and sloppy in putting together a mere feasibility study, why in the world would the Wall government trust Bruce Power to run a nuclear reactor?
Remember that last year, Sask Party ministers happily joined Bruce Power in announcing both the start of its "feasibility study", and the government then declared its fealty to Bruce Power after the study was done. And of course all indications are that Bruce Power figures to be the main beneficiary of any actual nuclear development that takes place.
Which makes it rather stunning that Stewart is now trying to distance the Wall government from a study which it did so much to promote:
Mr. Calvert: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today have to do about the Bruce Power feasibility study. We‟ll come to the UDP [Uranium Development Partnership] in a few moments but right now we're talking about the Bruce Power feasibility study, of which many paragraphs and pages have been blacked out. But interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, some sentences that have been released have some points of interest. It is indicated by this document that the Bruce Power feasibility study began by public announcement on June 17. ButNow, the contradictions in the Sask Party's position are certainly worth pointing out in and of themselves. But it seems even more noteworthy to me what Stewart's refusal to defend Bruce Power's report says about the province's relationship with the company which is driving the entire process.
interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, this document indicates that the government was aware of the findings of that study by September 29 — September 29. Mr. Speaker, that's a period of about 15 weeks.
Does the minister believe a period of 15 weeks was an adequate time to do a full, comprehensive feasibility study about the future of a nuclear reactor or reactors in Saskatchewan?
...
Hon. Mr. Stewart:
...
Mr. Speaker, on that specific question, the answer is that that was Bruce Power's study. I don't know if that's enough time or not. It has nothing to do with this government.
...
Mr. Calvert: — So, Mr. Speaker, we are predicting then and planning the future of the electrical supply of Saskatchewan —
never mind what it might cost the electrical consumer in this province — on a feasibility study to which the minister now volunteers in the House that he's not sure if it's any good or not, Mr. Speaker. It's a very peculiar situation.
...
Hon. Mr. Stewart: — Mr. Speaker, as I have stated repeatedly in this House and in public forums and privately, this government was not responsible for the Bruce Power . . . whatever it was. Whatever it was.
After all, there's no indication that Bruce Power sees any problem with its feasibility study. Yet the Sask Party government is effectively conceding that it's so woefully inadequate - both in the limited amount of time involved and apparently its contents - that even one of ministers who proudly announced its creation has been reduced to describing it as "whatever it was".
On its face, that position seems to be based on an attempt to avoid answering for the contents of the study. But it raises an even more important question: if the Sask Party doesn't disagree with the conclusion that Bruce Power was hurried and sloppy in putting together a mere feasibility study, why in the world would the Wall government trust Bruce Power to run a nuclear reactor?
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Bad for everybody else
The good news for Lib supporters: for one brief and shining moment, Michael Ignatieff actually took a principled stand based on common sense rather than parroting the spin of corporate interests...
Last weekend, on a tour of Vancouver Island, Ignatieff was asked about his position on asbestos, and he said he favoured banning exports.But needless to say, a complete reversal wasn't far behind:
"I'm probably walking right off the cliff into some unexpected public policy bog of which I'm unaware, but if asbestos is bad for Parliamentarians in the Parliament of Canada, it just has to be bad for everybody else," he said. "Our export of this dangerous product overseas has got to stop."
But in a scrum with reporters in Ottawa on Wednesday, Ignatieff was asked about his statement and he didn't mention a ban.It's left as a challenge for any reader to figure out how one can square the statement that Canada "has got to stop" exporting a "dangerous product" with the recent position. But that figures to be no less an exercise in futility than any other effort to justify most of Ignatieff's actions since he took over the Libs.
"We have had 60 years of experience with this product. What I said in answer to a question is that we have an obligation to international agreements to the countries that we export to, to make them aware of the risks. That is all I said."
On one-sided votes
Apparently Saskatchewan's current NDP MLAs saw a different political calculus than I did in responding to the Sask Party's attempt to favour nuclear development over all other priorities. Rather than voting down a motion which seems like nothing but a poor attempt at political cover for Brad Wall's nuclear obsession, the NDP caucus (an abstaining Deb Higgins excepted) voted in favour of the motion.
Needless to say, that makes for a disappointing result - and one that presumably would have been different if Dwain Lingenfelter had joined his leadership competitors in raising concerns about the motion. But the good news is that with three of the four leadership contenders rightly opposing the motion, there's still a strong chance that the NDP will soon have a leader who recognizes the folly in prioritizing nuclear power over every other concern in the province. And while that may not take place in time to factor into the Sask Party's farce of a consultation period, it hopefully won't be too late to turn the tide before anything irrevocable gets done.
Needless to say, that makes for a disappointing result - and one that presumably would have been different if Dwain Lingenfelter had joined his leadership competitors in raising concerns about the motion. But the good news is that with three of the four leadership contenders rightly opposing the motion, there's still a strong chance that the NDP will soon have a leader who recognizes the folly in prioritizing nuclear power over every other concern in the province. And while that may not take place in time to factor into the Sask Party's farce of a consultation period, it hopefully won't be too late to turn the tide before anything irrevocable gets done.
Ready. Aim at foot. Fire.
It won't come as much surprise to those who have followed my thinking on the federal gun registry that I'd view Michael Ignatieff's declaration that he plans to whip a Senate vote in favour of the registry as an utterly boneheaded stance. And it's doubly so to the extent that it actually feeds into two of the Cons' long-standing hobby-horses, as Harper will be able to blame the Senate for the move even though the strategy comes from Ignatieff himself.
But let's leave that aside for a moment to consider Ignatieff's timing.
After all, the gun registry has been in the news regularly over the past few months, revolving primarily around Garry Breitkreuz' Bill C-301 (which I discussed here). And even after the Harper government effectively signalled its approval for that bill - which would loosen other restrictions beyond the gun registry alone and also invite the Auditor General to criticize gun laws through regular audits - Ignatieff didn't bother to take a position one way or other.
Now, Ignatieff has been presented with a bill in the Senate which is mostly tailored toward doing nothing but dismantling the registry as it concerns long guns. But it's in response to that seemingly lesser threat that he's personally decided to whip his party's vote. And in doing so, he's also used phrasing which suggests that he doesn't see any basic difference between the two bills - which can only make it easier for the Cons to justify ramming C-301 down the Libs' throat (or at least appearing to do so for financial gain).
Again, that calculation is only made worse by Ignatieff's extra misstep in whipping the Senate vote rather than allowing the bill to be voted on by the elected members of the House. But there's plenty of reason to question why Ignatieff would attack both bills simultaneously now after leaving Breitkreuz' bill untouched for months. And the answer figures only to highlight the fact that Ignatieff has once again missed the boat.
But let's leave that aside for a moment to consider Ignatieff's timing.
After all, the gun registry has been in the news regularly over the past few months, revolving primarily around Garry Breitkreuz' Bill C-301 (which I discussed here). And even after the Harper government effectively signalled its approval for that bill - which would loosen other restrictions beyond the gun registry alone and also invite the Auditor General to criticize gun laws through regular audits - Ignatieff didn't bother to take a position one way or other.
Now, Ignatieff has been presented with a bill in the Senate which is mostly tailored toward doing nothing but dismantling the registry as it concerns long guns. But it's in response to that seemingly lesser threat that he's personally decided to whip his party's vote. And in doing so, he's also used phrasing which suggests that he doesn't see any basic difference between the two bills - which can only make it easier for the Cons to justify ramming C-301 down the Libs' throat (or at least appearing to do so for financial gain).
Again, that calculation is only made worse by Ignatieff's extra misstep in whipping the Senate vote rather than allowing the bill to be voted on by the elected members of the House. But there's plenty of reason to question why Ignatieff would attack both bills simultaneously now after leaving Breitkreuz' bill untouched for months. And the answer figures only to highlight the fact that Ignatieff has once again missed the boat.
Endorsed
Following up on my earlier posts about endorsements in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race, let's add one more public show of support to the list, as SNDW President Leah Sharpe is included in Deb Higgins' list of supporters. Aside from Sharpe's statement (which seems to have been publicized only through Higgins' website), it's been an extremely quiet couple of weeks on that front - but we'll see how long that lasts as the candidates move into the stretch run to sign up party members.
The judicial reviews are in
Kelen J. of the Federal Court on Jason Kenney:
(I)n his 13-page ruling yesterday, Justice Michael Kelen said the minister "may have breached the duty of fairness" for not giving the group notice that an annual $1 million funding contract would be cancelled and for not providing the group with reasons for the cut.
"The court finds that the evidence to date demonstrates that the respondent minister did probably breach his legal duty to act fairly to the applicant," Kelen wrote.
"This is a serious issue, an elementary principle of administrative law, and the minister and his officials must act according to the law."
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
A step forward
There is some good news on the environmental front, as the Libs were apparently cowed enough by the backlash against their plan to abandon any binding targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions to vote in favour of the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act:
But even if the Libs have contradicted themselves, they at least come out on the right side of the issue for today's vote. And hopefully they'll remain there as the bill continues on its way through Parliament.
Edit: fixed typos.
Climate change harmony has been restored between the Liberals, New Democrats, the Bloc Québécois and Ottawa environmentalists – for now.Mind you, it's not clear that the Libs' new position - to the effect that it's the targets within the bill that they want to see reworked - makes the least bit of sense given their rhetoric last week. After all, McGuinty's previous stance was supposedly based on disagreeing withthe idea of implementing binding targets at all without a complete plan to reach them - in effect holding any progress on the emission reductions hostage as long as Michael Ignatieff keeps the Cons in power.
The three opposition parties joined forces Wednesday afternoon, winning a 141-128 second reading vote on a NDP private members bill dealing with climate change. The bill will now be studied by the House of Commons environment committee.
New Democrats stirred up a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign over the weekend after receiving signals that Liberals intended to break ranks with a long-standing opposition pact on climate change targets.
...
"We're going to take this bill to committee and we're going to examine it. We're going to examine the targets," Mr. McGuinty said. "And we're going to rework it."
Whether the targets will be reworked up or down, Liberals aren't saying. But for now, all of this is fine with Mr. Layton.
"We're certainly open to fine tuning but this bill," the NDP leader said.
But even if the Libs have contradicted themselves, they at least come out on the right side of the issue for today's vote. And hopefully they'll remain there as the bill continues on its way through Parliament.
Edit: fixed typos.
We've heard this one before
And the award for worst April Fool's joke of the day goes to...
Jim Prentice, for reusing the Cons' one-liner about planning to implement fuel efficiency standards that was unfunny enough the first time.
Jim Prentice, for reusing the Cons' one-liner about planning to implement fuel efficiency standards that was unfunny enough the first time.
Poll position
All the usual caveats about reading too much into poll results are only amplified when a poll is taken early on in a race involving unfamiliar candidates. And Sigma Analytics' survey on the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership race looks to be particularly problematic in that it seems to have polled the general public rather than the NDP members who will actually decide the leadership race. But there are still a couple of points worth noting about the results:
In principle, one would think that Higgins' profile would be relatively close to Lingenfelter's level. After all, in addition to being the lone current MLA in the race, she too has spent a substantial amount of time in cabinet, including some files which (for better or for worse) have placed her at the centre of attention at times. And of course her time in the spotlight was more recent than Lingenfelter's.
But from the looks of the poll results, Higgins doesn't seem to be benefiting from much more of a profile than relative newcomers Pedersen or Meili. Which would apparently serve as evidence either of strength on Lingenfelter's part in getting his name back in the news since the race started, or weakness on Higgins' when it comes to building up her public image.
Again, all of the candidates have reason to take the results with a truckload of salt. While there doesn't seem to be much doubt that Lingenfelter holds the lead, it would seem highly likely that his majority-plus in the Sigma poll is based at least in a part on a combination of name recognition with respondents who aren't following the race closely, and his relative right-wing position which might make him the preferred candidate of other parties' supporters who wouldn't be voting in the NDP race. But Sigma's findings do suggest that the competition behind Lingenfelter is far closer than might have been suspected - which can only bode well in giving all the candidates reason to keep the pedal to the floor as the membership deadline approaches.
Relatively few Saskatchewanians are following the race for the leadership of the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party, but among who are, the clear favourite is former cabinet minister Dwain Lingenfelter, a new Leader-Post-Sigma Analytics poll says.It's difficult to disagree with Cooper's analysis that the numbers likely have far more to do with merely recognizing a name rather than detailed individual preferences. But it's worth highlighting how the candidates seem to have lined up in that department.
He drew the support of about 62 per cent of those who expressed a preference.
Coming second was Moose Jaw MLA Deb Higgins with 16. 7 per cent, followed by Yens Pedersen and Ryan Meili at 11.9 per cent and 9.1 per cent, respectively.
“I think that what you’re seeing is that Dwain Lingenfelter is a known name — and has been for a couple of decades,” said pollster Cam Cooper. “He’s kept up his profile even though he’s been away, so he’s sustained his position in the public consciousness whereas the other candidates have a much lower profile.”
In principle, one would think that Higgins' profile would be relatively close to Lingenfelter's level. After all, in addition to being the lone current MLA in the race, she too has spent a substantial amount of time in cabinet, including some files which (for better or for worse) have placed her at the centre of attention at times. And of course her time in the spotlight was more recent than Lingenfelter's.
But from the looks of the poll results, Higgins doesn't seem to be benefiting from much more of a profile than relative newcomers Pedersen or Meili. Which would apparently serve as evidence either of strength on Lingenfelter's part in getting his name back in the news since the race started, or weakness on Higgins' when it comes to building up her public image.
Again, all of the candidates have reason to take the results with a truckload of salt. While there doesn't seem to be much doubt that Lingenfelter holds the lead, it would seem highly likely that his majority-plus in the Sigma poll is based at least in a part on a combination of name recognition with respondents who aren't following the race closely, and his relative right-wing position which might make him the preferred candidate of other parties' supporters who wouldn't be voting in the NDP race. But Sigma's findings do suggest that the competition behind Lingenfelter is far closer than might have been suspected - which can only bode well in giving all the candidates reason to keep the pedal to the floor as the membership deadline approaches.
The reviews are in
Carol Goar:
The only opposition leader who has put forward a clear alternative to the government's position is Layton. His New Democrats want every Canadian with 360 hours of paid work to qualify for EI benefits.
The NDP has been consistent on this issue since the budget was tabled on Jan. 27. Last month, the party put a resolution before Parliament, proposing this reform. The Liberals and Bloc Québécois supported it.
The Liberals said afterward they voted for "the spirit of the motion." Ignatieff would unveil his own proposals soon.
Last week, he accused Harper of "trying to patch EI with duct tape while evading the real issue, which is eligibility." When asked what he would do, he said it was the Prime Minister's job to govern.
Ignatieff has done this repeatedly. He could have proposed an amendment to the budget, calling for specific EI reforms, but didn't. He could have endorsed the substance of the NDP motion as well as the spirit, but didn't. He could have told Canadians what changes a Liberal government would make, but hasn't...
Unfortunately, neither the New Democrats nor the Bloc have enough votes in Parliament to force this issue. That puts the onus on the Liberals to spell out what they want and what they're prepared to do about it.
This is not a time for posturing. Canadians are losing their jobs at a rate of 3,800 a day. Many paid EI premiums, believing they were entrusting their money to the government for a rainy day. Now it's pouring and they can't claim it.
Finley doesn't want to hear any more "whining" about it. Ignatieff doesn't want to commit himself to anything concrete.
The EI system isn't the only thing that's broken in Ottawa.
Forum shopping
When Ryan Meili and Yens Pedersen announced their plan for a joint La Ronge forum, I theorized that the other two Saskatchewan NDP leadership candidates might see it as being in their interest to rely on each other for cover in not attending. But a source now suggests that Deb Higgins has confirmed her attendance at the April 14 forum.
That would then leave Dwain Lingenfelter's camp alone in trying to delay any northern appearance until after the April 24 membership deadline. As I'd noted before, though, Lingenfelter would seem to have a far more difficult time holding out with Higgins on board. And while it's never easy for a front-runner to be seen to back down, it would be surprising if Lingenfelter is so bent on pushing ahead with what looks to be a solo forum as to snub one which all three other candidates will be attending.
That would then leave Dwain Lingenfelter's camp alone in trying to delay any northern appearance until after the April 24 membership deadline. As I'd noted before, though, Lingenfelter would seem to have a far more difficult time holding out with Higgins on board. And while it's never easy for a front-runner to be seen to back down, it would be surprising if Lingenfelter is so bent on pushing ahead with what looks to be a solo forum as to snub one which all three other candidates will be attending.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Direct from the mouth of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, we bring you John Ivison
John Ivison is begging to be Fisked. Who's up for it?
Friendly reminders
Tonight is the end of the first quarter for 2009 fund-raising. And while the Libs are surely hoping that their shift to the right under Michael Ignatieff will give them a financial advantage, now might be the perfect time to help the NDP keep pace.
And for those in Saskatchewan who haven't yet taken out or renewed an NDP membership in advance of the leadership vote, the deadline for that is April 24. But why not beat the deadline and make sure you're able to vote?
And for those in Saskatchewan who haven't yet taken out or renewed an NDP membership in advance of the leadership vote, the deadline for that is April 24. But why not beat the deadline and make sure you're able to vote?
Core issues
It's never been much of a secret that nuclear development was going to be a key issue in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race - and two of the candidates are taking strong stances in the face of an impending vote on a Sask Party motion. But while it's not surprising to see positions being staked out for later, it's worth noting that there wouldn't seem to be much basis for disagreement when it comes to the motion itself.
On the policy side, both Yens Pedersen and Ryan Meili have come out with strong arguments against nuclear development generally. Here's Pedersen in his earlier blog post:
But what about the political side? Here's where it gets interesting from today's statements. First, Pedersen's statement makes a couple of noteworthy diversions from the pure policy issue:
Pedersen then went to say this:
Meanwhile, Meili's press release takes a shot at Dwain Lingenfelter's position that a "blue-ribbon panel" could justify nuclear development:
But it's worth noting that even Lingenfelter's proposed panel would "explore the costs and benefits of nuclear power". Which would seem to me to stand in stark contrast to the rah-rah position of the Sask Party motion, which tries to tie nuclear development to "growth and prosperity" with absolutely no hint of the costs or risks involved.
So while there are significant areas of difference between the leadership candidates on some aspects of nuclear development, there shouldn't be much reason for any split within the NDP when it comes to Thursday's vote.
On the policy side, both Yens Pedersen and Ryan Meili have come out with strong arguments against nuclear development generally. Here's Pedersen in his earlier blog post:
Why would we go with the most dangerous, most complex and one of the most expensive options, when we have safer, simpler and cheaper options available? I am not opposed to new technology, but I do insist that there be clear benefits to embracing new technology which outweigh the costs. In all the research that I have done over the last year (which is a lot), it is clear to me that the costs associated with proven nuclear technology outweigh the benefits. The benefits are:And Meili from today's press release:
-a tremendous ability to produce energy from a relatively small amount of material (but the real issue is not the quantity of material, rather the energy return on energy expended),
-economic development, and
-a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
The costs and risks are significant, including:
-the low (but still significant) risk of an enormous incident,
-the health costs of exposing a population to ongoing low level radiation (which we are just beginning to understand),
-the economic costs of building the reactor (no reactor has ever been built without taxpayer money),
-the economic costs of ’spinning reserves’ (backup power) equal to the size of the reactor required for NERC standards,
-the economic costs of building transmission lines (at $1.5 million/km),
-the economic costs of the costs of decommissioning (which are huge and will fall to the taxpayer),
-the risk of building a reactor which may not work (eg. Gentilly 1, the Maples) or which fails before the capital investment is recovered, and
-the economic costs of permanent waste storage (which hasn’t been proven or developed yet anywhere in the world).
You also have to compare the options that we have available - in which case you find that there is better economic development with renewable energy (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and biomass), more grid reliability with renewable energy, better greenhouse gas reductions with renewables, and less concern about the availability of water with renewables. Despite the protestations of dinosaurs stuck in old paradigms, other places in the world are showing that renewables like wind and solar can be integrated into the power grid in much greater proportions than we are currently doing. The best dollar spent is on conservation and efficiency which could reduce our electricity demand by at least 10%. We could easily expand our wind power production 9 fold.
• Nuclear power isn’t cheap. A nuclear reactor is a very expensive undertaking and the people of Saskatchewan will pay for it on their electricity bills for a long time to come, if it is allowed to be built. We pay 10 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity now. Whether its Bruce Power or SaskPower, no one will build a nuclear reactor in Saskatchewan for less than 20 cents per kilowatt hour – double the current price of electricity. That simple fact is why most private sector utilities in the United States have been avoiding nuclear power – they know there are too many hidden costs and that most nuclear power construction projects have huge cost over-runs. Add to that expensive repair bills, the high cost of disposing of radioactive nuclear fuel waste and the very high cost of decommissioning a radioactive reactor core. When compared to wind power at 11 cents per kilowatt hour and electricity conservation at less than 6 cents per kilowatt hour, nuclear power’s economics make no sense.Of course there are some subtle differences in the two positions: in particular, Meili's stance rightly takes issue with two of the supposed positives mentioned by Pedersen, as nuclear development is neither sustainable indefinitely nor necessarily an effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But on the whole, it's certainly a plus.
• Nuclear power puts our environment at risk. Yes, nuclear power can reduce the carbon footprint. But that assumed you ignore the massive carbon emissions involved in building the reactor – particularly if it is built in a remote area. A nuclear reactor will also produce intensely radioactive waste materials which no country on earth has successfully disposed of. Why should the next generation of Saskatchewan residents bear the burden of disposing of this radioactive waste material, with the worry that it must be kept out of ground water supplies for tens of thousands of years into the future.
• Nuclear power doesn’t address our immediate energy needs. Nuclear reactors are not designed and built quickly. Sites are not chosen quickly. Even if the process started today, it would be nearly 20 years before a proposed nuclear facility contributed a single watt to the energy grid.
• Nuclear power doesn’t address our long-term energy needs either. It is simply another non-renewable resource which, by current projections, will have exhausted itself well within a century and possibly within a generation.
But what about the political side? Here's where it gets interesting from today's statements. First, Pedersen's statement makes a couple of noteworthy diversions from the pure policy issue:
He says nuclear power is expensive and risky — with dangers to health and the environment that are not fully known. Pedersen says if politicians think it's safe, they should build a nuclear power plant on Wascana Lake near the legislature or in downtown Saskatoon.Now, there are some problems with Pedersen's geographic argument. To the extent one perceives the reports created to date as reasonable assessments of potential development, it would be implicit that other sites such as Saskatoon or (particularly) Regina would lack some of the factors which have resulted in reactors being proposed for elsewhere in the province - meaning that the ultimate problem is with the credibility of the reports, not necessarily a politically-driven choice as to where to potentially place a reactor.
Pedersen then went to say this:
Pedersen is also worried that if the NDP supports nuclear power, it could push rank-and-file New Democrats to vote for the Green party.As I'll get to below, Pedersen's take seems to be exactly right in describing the motion. But it's interesting to see him publicly raise the danger of losing votes to the Greens in that context, offering a high-profile mention to one of the NDP's competitors which normally wouldn't seem to be the subject of much direct attention from the party even if it shares some common areas of concern.
"This is not some innocuous statement about 'considering' options — it is a slanted and one-sided motion and supporting it could cause thousands of Saskatchewan people to 'consider' supporting the Green party," he said in a news release.
Meanwhile, Meili's press release takes a shot at Dwain Lingenfelter's position that a "blue-ribbon panel" could justify nuclear development:
Many of us will remember countless expert panels on this issue over the years. My fellow leadership candidate Dwain Lingenfelter has proposed a panel of his own to study this issue. Many progressive activists have become quite cynical about these “studies / panels / commissions.” Too often, their final recommendations have appeared to be predetermined. That is certainly so in this case. It is likely to be the case regardless of who appoints the panel.There's certainly plenty of force to Meili's critique that any study aimed solely at discussing nuclear development has the effect of narrowing the perceived options available. And that figures to make for the main point of disagreement within the NDP's leadership race.
...
We need to consider our energy future. Limiting that consideration to an either-or discussion of nuclear power narrows the debate and ignores our best options.
But it's worth noting that even Lingenfelter's proposed panel would "explore the costs and benefits of nuclear power". Which would seem to me to stand in stark contrast to the rah-rah position of the Sask Party motion, which tries to tie nuclear development to "growth and prosperity" with absolutely no hint of the costs or risks involved.
So while there are significant areas of difference between the leadership candidates on some aspects of nuclear development, there shouldn't be much reason for any split within the NDP when it comes to Thursday's vote.
Not according to plan
One more note on the Libs' message as to why they apparently intend to vote against the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act and its binding greenhouse gas emission reductions:
Which means that the Libs have a choice between passing the NDP's bill and pointing to a plan which already has majority approval in Parliament as a starting point, or starting once again from scratch. And the fact that they apparently see zero progress as their preferred option should speak volumes about how seriously Canadians should take any future proposal.
See more from pogge.
Though he supported the bill in the past, Mr. McGuinty now suggests its targets are fiscally irresponsible because there is no accompanying plan to accomplish them.There's just one problem with McGuinty's position: it's not as if the opposition parties are lacking a plan in principle. After all, it was over two years ago that they agreed on amendments to the Cons' ineffective legislation which would have set out both targets and a legislative framework to meet them. And the main divergence among the parties since then would seem to have been eliminated now that the Libs have scrapped their carbon tax plsn.
Which means that the Libs have a choice between passing the NDP's bill and pointing to a plan which already has majority approval in Parliament as a starting point, or starting once again from scratch. And the fact that they apparently see zero progress as their preferred option should speak volumes about how seriously Canadians should take any future proposal.
See more from pogge.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Change for the worse
It's been well chronicled that Michael Ignatieff has adopted all of the worst aspects of Stephane Dion's failed tenure as leader of the federal Libs, combining empty rhetoric and confidence-vote brinksmanship with a consistent willingness to give Stephen Harper whatever he wants. But lest anybody think there hasn't been any change under Iggy, it's worth noting that the Libs are distancing themselves from any real interest in the environment:
Fortunately, there is some upside to the Libs' position, as Hyer points out:
Michael Ignatieff pulled his Liberals away from a coalition with NDP leader Jack Layton. Now Liberals are hinting they may no longer support Mr. Layton's climate change bill.So in other words, the Libs' new stance on the environment consists of refusing to set any targets, and announcing some vague intention to develop a plan at some point in the future after the U.S. acts first. Which, for those keeping score at home, is exactly the same position which the Libs have been rightly bashing when it comes from the Harper government.
Liberal MP and environment critic David McGuinty said he and his party have yet to decide what they will do Wednesday when the bill, C-311, comes to a vote.
Originally introduced in the last Parliament by Mr. Layton, the bill would put into law deep targets for reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. The bill calls for reductions of 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050 and interim targets starting in 2015.
When Stéphane Dion led the Liberals, the three opposition parties worked together to move the bill through the House, agreeing on amendments and consulting with environmental groups, but the bill died when the 2008 election was called...
In an interview, Mr. McGuinty said a lot has changed since the last Parliament. His list of new factors includes the election of Barack Obama as U.S. president, the change in Liberal leadership and the fact that his party was defeated in the last election after releasing a detailed environmental plan centered around a carbon tax.
"I think we've learned from that," he said.
He said Mr. Ignatieff will announce a new environmental policy in time, but that it won't be rushed simply because of the upcoming vote on Mr. Layton's bill, which is now sponsored by NDP MP Bruce Hyer.
Fortunately, there is some upside to the Libs' position, as Hyer points out:
The bill's sponsor, Mr. Hyer, said he was "hugely disappointed" by Mr. McGuinty's comments. He said he hopes the Liberals do some "soul searching" before Wednesday's vote.Update: Cam has more.
"I'm beginning to wonder if they have an ethic that they stick to on anything," Mr. Hyer said. The first term NDP MP did say however that he thought it might be good for the NDP if the Liberals change their position.
"To be honest, it will probably be really good for the NDP and me if the Liberals vote against this," he said, "because I think they're going to wear it."
On life rafts
It's entirely true that there's little for the Cons to like in the latest Leger Marketing poll. But while the poll obviously shows that respondents have little confidence in the Harper government, it also hints at how the Cons can drag the Libs down with them.
The latest numbers show only 40% of respondents approve of the Cons' handling of the economy, with 48% disapproving. And the Cons' approval rating is down to 38%, with 51% disapproving.
Which makes it less than surprising that both the Cons as a party and Stephen Harper individually now find themselves in a weak position compared to the Libs - but due in large part to their surprising strategy over the last month or so. Remember that rather than accurately portraying the Libs' budget capitulation as a sign of agreement, the Cons instead tried to take sole credit for its contents - apparently gambling that if the economy turned on a dime, then any ability to take sole credit would make for an easy path to a majority.
Of course, with the budget now properly seen as insufficient, the Cons have instead been alone on the hook for its failings. But absent any realistic prospect of the Libs bringing them down anytime soon, the Cons would still seem to have time to take the road which seemed to make more sense from the beginning - particularly now that they've managed to sow the seeds for an "Ignatieff is weak" argument later on through their recent brinksmanship.
Rather than playing up conflict with the Libs, they still have every opportunity to paint the budget as a bipartisan effort which could never have passed without Ignatieff's support - ensuring that Ignatieff gets to wear an equal share of the blame when it proves unpopular. And the leadership numbers which show Ignatieff ahead can be particularly easily turned against the Libs given that he himself stated an effective preference to keep Harper in power.
Again, that course of action may hold less perceived upside for Harper than the current plan, as it would seem likely to reduce the ability of either the Libs or Cons to create a gap compared to the other. But with the current path clearly not leading the Cons where they want to go anytime soon, one has to figure that there's another change of direction in the Cons' future. And if the Cons can succeed in sticking the Libs with an equal share of responsibility for their own continued economic mismanagement, then the Libs' current numbers based on a contrast with the Cons would figure to have nowhere to go but down.
The latest numbers show only 40% of respondents approve of the Cons' handling of the economy, with 48% disapproving. And the Cons' approval rating is down to 38%, with 51% disapproving.
Which makes it less than surprising that both the Cons as a party and Stephen Harper individually now find themselves in a weak position compared to the Libs - but due in large part to their surprising strategy over the last month or so. Remember that rather than accurately portraying the Libs' budget capitulation as a sign of agreement, the Cons instead tried to take sole credit for its contents - apparently gambling that if the economy turned on a dime, then any ability to take sole credit would make for an easy path to a majority.
Of course, with the budget now properly seen as insufficient, the Cons have instead been alone on the hook for its failings. But absent any realistic prospect of the Libs bringing them down anytime soon, the Cons would still seem to have time to take the road which seemed to make more sense from the beginning - particularly now that they've managed to sow the seeds for an "Ignatieff is weak" argument later on through their recent brinksmanship.
Rather than playing up conflict with the Libs, they still have every opportunity to paint the budget as a bipartisan effort which could never have passed without Ignatieff's support - ensuring that Ignatieff gets to wear an equal share of the blame when it proves unpopular. And the leadership numbers which show Ignatieff ahead can be particularly easily turned against the Libs given that he himself stated an effective preference to keep Harper in power.
Again, that course of action may hold less perceived upside for Harper than the current plan, as it would seem likely to reduce the ability of either the Libs or Cons to create a gap compared to the other. But with the current path clearly not leading the Cons where they want to go anytime soon, one has to figure that there's another change of direction in the Cons' future. And if the Cons can succeed in sticking the Libs with an equal share of responsibility for their own continued economic mismanagement, then the Libs' current numbers based on a contrast with the Cons would figure to have nowhere to go but down.
Manipulating the numbers
Lest anybody think that Vic Toews' plan to track crime based on surveys rather than actual reported crimes was the only example, Dr. Dawg points out another triumph of the Cons' propensity putting perception over reality - this time when it comes to employment equity:
Barrados said the (Public Service Commission) devised a new way of counting, which showed 17.3 per cent of all hires last year are visible minorities compared with earlier estimates of 9.5 per cent. To complicate matters, Treasury Board released, on the same day, its long-overdue employment equity reports showing visible minorities are still under-represented and their numbers are about half of those estimated by the commission.No word yet as to when the Cons will claim that there isn't actually a recession taking place based on self-reporting from a focus group of Jason Kenney.
Deep thought
Surely a longtime Reform/Alliance supporter should know better than to believe the Harper government could care less about the homeless.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Leadership 2009 - Week in Review, March 29
Over the last 7 days, the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race managed to completely escape any media attention (at least according to Google News). But that doesn't mean there hasn't been plenty going on just below the radar - as you can tell from my archives on the subject. And there looks to be plenty more news on the horizon.
Most notably, one of the more surprising omissions of the campaign so far looks to have been corrected without any public fanfare. Deb Higgins' original web page was remarkably weak in both style and substance for one of the political veterans in the race - and its replacement with first an error message and then a placeholder didn't do much to ease any concerns. But Higgins' full site has finally gone live, featuring all of the elements (a simple donation process, event and policy information, etc.) which were sorely lacking in her campaign's first design.
And in turn, Higgins' campaign theme has also been unveiled: "True Commitment. Real Leadership." Like the other most recent development in Higgins' campaign, the slogan looks innocuous on its surface, but figures to highlight a weakness in Dwain Lingenfelter's campaign even without offering up any direct criticism.
Remember that Higgins' political funding proposal criticized the influence of "Alberta's corporate elite" on Saskatchewan politics - referring directly to Brad Wall's Calgary fund-raising, but with at least an underlying inference that Lingenfelter carries some of the same problem. Likewise, the inclusion of "commitment" in her theme does more than just highlight a strength for Higgins based on her record of service within the NDP: it also creates an implicit contrast based on Lingenfelter's time out of province, not to mention the seemingly remote odds that he'd run for the party if his leadership campaign proves unsuccessful.
Coming on the heels of the similarly implicit criticism of Lingenfelter's original plan for a northern forum in the announcement of a joint event by Ryan Meili and Yens Pedersen, it seems clear that while Lingenfelter's opponents are being careful about opening up any irreparable chasms within the party, they're not going to be shy about pointing out Lingenfelter's possible downsides as a means of drawing in support. And with perhaps the most important month of the campaign about to begin, it'll be extremely interesting to see how much further the candidates and their supporters end up going over the next few weeks.
Most notably, one of the more surprising omissions of the campaign so far looks to have been corrected without any public fanfare. Deb Higgins' original web page was remarkably weak in both style and substance for one of the political veterans in the race - and its replacement with first an error message and then a placeholder didn't do much to ease any concerns. But Higgins' full site has finally gone live, featuring all of the elements (a simple donation process, event and policy information, etc.) which were sorely lacking in her campaign's first design.
And in turn, Higgins' campaign theme has also been unveiled: "True Commitment. Real Leadership." Like the other most recent development in Higgins' campaign, the slogan looks innocuous on its surface, but figures to highlight a weakness in Dwain Lingenfelter's campaign even without offering up any direct criticism.
Remember that Higgins' political funding proposal criticized the influence of "Alberta's corporate elite" on Saskatchewan politics - referring directly to Brad Wall's Calgary fund-raising, but with at least an underlying inference that Lingenfelter carries some of the same problem. Likewise, the inclusion of "commitment" in her theme does more than just highlight a strength for Higgins based on her record of service within the NDP: it also creates an implicit contrast based on Lingenfelter's time out of province, not to mention the seemingly remote odds that he'd run for the party if his leadership campaign proves unsuccessful.
Coming on the heels of the similarly implicit criticism of Lingenfelter's original plan for a northern forum in the announcement of a joint event by Ryan Meili and Yens Pedersen, it seems clear that while Lingenfelter's opponents are being careful about opening up any irreparable chasms within the party, they're not going to be shy about pointing out Lingenfelter's possible downsides as a means of drawing in support. And with perhaps the most important month of the campaign about to begin, it'll be extremely interesting to see how much further the candidates and their supporters end up going over the next few weeks.
On unrepresentative samples
Not-really-shorter Jason Kenney:
I have an MP's salary and pension. So poverty and unemployment aren't real.
I have an MP's salary and pension. So poverty and unemployment aren't real.
Relevant possibilities
On further reflection, I probably aimed too low in my suggestion that the Speaker of the House of Commons should merely apply the same standards to questioners from all parties. Instead, if a relevance filter is being applied to questions, then why wouldn't the Speaker follow the exact same principle for the Cons' answers?
Just think about it: every Con non-response (which for the moment covers virtually all of their answers in question period) could be met with the Speaker's reply that the answer is out of order for failing to deal with the subject matter of the question.
Needless to say, constant statements to that effect - with video readily available for public consumption - would almost certainly serve as a source of immense embarrassment to the Cons. That would carry obvious pluses in and of itself - but even better, it could help to force a retreat from the Cons' all-talking-points, all-the-time communications strategy at least within question period.
So, I'll encourage Peter Milliken and his deputies to police question period to ensure that all sides are forced to stick to relevant issues - as nobody has more to lose from such an edict than the government which to this point has refused to do anything of the sort.
Just think about it: every Con non-response (which for the moment covers virtually all of their answers in question period) could be met with the Speaker's reply that the answer is out of order for failing to deal with the subject matter of the question.
Needless to say, constant statements to that effect - with video readily available for public consumption - would almost certainly serve as a source of immense embarrassment to the Cons. That would carry obvious pluses in and of itself - but even better, it could help to force a retreat from the Cons' all-talking-points, all-the-time communications strategy at least within question period.
So, I'll encourage Peter Milliken and his deputies to police question period to ensure that all sides are forced to stick to relevant issues - as nobody has more to lose from such an edict than the government which to this point has refused to do anything of the sort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)