Compare and contrast

There's still plenty of ground to be covered in examining the Cons' responsibility for bribing Ontario and B.C. to raise taxes on their citizens. And one of the more interesting areas for further discussion comes in comparing the process followed for the HST payoff with the one applied to the Cons' much-ballyhooed infrastructure spending.

In the case of infrastructure, the Cons made a pool of money available with a stated intended purpose. But rather than actually proposing any projects, the Cons have left it to municipalities and provinces to apply with their own "ideas" for spending - pausing at most to filter out some spending for partisan gain, then passing money along based on proposals from the provincial or municipal level.

And the predictable result? Con actors from Stephen Harper down to to rank-and-file MPs have spent the entire summer running to the nearest camera to claim full responsibility for every announcement they can fit into their schedules.

In the case of the HST, the Cons actually spent more time and effort trying to convince the provinces to go along with a scheme which actually originated at the federal level. But the rough process has been the same: money was set aside for a specified purpose, and the Cons have responded to provincial interest by signing on to pay out money as they initially proposed.

But the Cons claim they bear no responsibility that since the provinces made a decision to go along with their payoff.

So let's assume that there's some validity to the Cons' effort to flee any responsibility for the HST. By the same standard, hasn't every single infrastructure project initiated this year been the result of a proposal and decision from one or more other levels of government? And applying the same standard which they're trying to apply to the HST, shouldn't the Cons be scrupulously avoiding any credit for infrastructure spending which doesn't come from their own ideas?

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

In some ways, Friday night's game again the Alouettes made for as positive a loss as a team can hope for. Facing the cream of the CFL crop this season, the 'Riders kept the game within reach virtually all the way - but lost by just enough that it's tough to cast blame or second-guessing on any one player or play. But there's obviously room for concern that the team's weaknesses this season only seem to be getting more glaring with time - and the bye week would seem to be the last and best chance to bring in some new personnel to deal with those problems.

While most of the focus after the game has been on the 'Riders' offence in both its effectiveness moving the ball and the number of turnovers that kept Montreal ahead, the biggest plus from the game looks to me to have once again come on the defensive side of the ball.

For the second week in a row, the 'Riders dedicated their defensive efforts to limiting the effectiveness of a red-hot player. And after holding DeAndra Cobb to 29 yards against Hamilton, Saskatchewan again did the job, holding Anthony Calvillo to by far his weakest passing totals of the season, with 170 yards in the air compared to a previous low of 236.

But there were two problems with that approach. First, the Als's dink-and-dunk offence based on short passes and a solid ground game from Avon Cobourne was effective in limiting Saskatchewan's ability to force turnovers - which put the pressure on the offense to similarly hold onto the ball. And conversely, the Als often started with superb field position - meaning that the yardage totals didn't mean limiting the Als' scoring, as the defence gave up touchdowns on drives of 22, 28 and 57 yards.

Meanwhile, the 'Riders' offence followed exactly the opposite approach, piling up big yardage (8.5 per play to 5.2 for Montreal) but losing the field-position and turnover battles. In particular, while Darien Durant deserves full credit for making plenty of big plays, his interceptions ended one promising Saskatchewan drive and gave the Alouettes a short field for two of their touchdowns. And the 'Riders seem to have relied almost entirely on Durant rather than establishing much of a running game - making it all the easier for Montreal to focus in on his passes.

As for the special teams, this was once again a case of the less said, the better. But it's particularly noteworthy that the kick coverage teams - which had been the one relative strength for the 'Riders' special teams this year - managed to sink to the same depths as the rest of the unit, giving up two massive returns to Larry Taylor. That might be a sign of the special teams spending more time than they could afford trying to paper over their weaknesses - but with a bye week ahead, there can't be any excuses if the 'Riders aren't able to start improving some of the problem areas, whether or not that can be done with the talent now on the roster.

Deep thought

Since Peter Van Loan is avoiding responsibility for tornado relief by saying any emergency response depends on a mathematical formula rather than anything within his control, we can surely count on the Cons not being so crass and dishonest as to try to take credit for the application of that formula if money ever gets paid.

One down, many more to go

There's seldom much doubt that the causes of tying Canada to the U.S. and handcuffing government in the name of corporatism will always emerge in some new format as soon as the last one falls by the wayside. But Stuart Trew is right to note that the official demise of the Security and Prosperity Partnership still calls for at least some celebration - if only to help build energy for the next battles to come.

Update: Of course as Alison points out, the successor to the SPP is already in the works.

Feeding the grassroots

For quite some time, I've wondered why many political parties have seemed reluctant to build up online support networks for themselves, using their websites as self-contained messaging devices rather than trying to develop a network of supporters. But it's great to see that the Saskatchewan NDP is apparently breaking out of that pattern with its caucus website, sending interested readers to this and other familiar blogs which have commented on the Wall government's fiscal mismanagement.

Of course, that along with a successful venture into Facebook and Twitter makes for only a start in trying to build online capacity for the Saskatchewan NDP - and hopefully the next little while will see a concerted effort to encourage member-generated content and discussion in addition to pointing toward existing sources. But it's certainly a step in the right direction for the party to be building connections to its grassroots supporters - and both the NDP and the blogs themselves figure to benefit in the long run from the move.

By necessary implication

Cameron has answered the latest attempt to pretend that opposing the Cons is the same as supporting the Libs with due mockery. But let's go a step further and ask what it means if the Libs' logic is taken at face value.

The claim is based on the following pattern of reasoning:

1. Canadian voters have only two choices for government, the Cons and the Libs. (False, but let's keep going to see where it leads.)
2. Because Canadians have only those two choices, any statement or action related to one of the Libs or the Cons constitutes an endorsement as between the two.
3. Included within (2), any statement that the Cons should be removed from government is then taken to constitute an endorsement of the Libs.

But there's just one glaring problem from the Libs' standpoint if that reasoning is accepted.

Assume that it's true that any declaration that the Cons ought to be removed from power constitutes an endorsement of the Libs as against them. Isn't it then equally true that any declaration that the Cons ought to be kept in power constitutes no less an endorsement of the Cons as against the Libs?

And by that logic, haven't the Libs been endorsing Stephen Harper against their own leaders for the better part of two years?

Again, there are obvious flaws in the argument to begin with (if ones which the Libs have gone to great pains to avoid noticing). But Steve V and other Libs might want to take a closer look at what they're saying in stating that each party can choose between Con government or Lib government, full stop - because they've made a rather damaging choice in that department themselves for the past 79 confidence votes.

(Edit: fixed title, typo.)

Musical interlude

Electrostatic - Electron Gun

Do-not-expose

Anybody else remember how the purpose of the CRTC's do-not-call list was to provide telemarketers with a handy list of people who care enough to sign up to avoid being harassed, then protect them from any public attention when they break the rules associated with the list? Me neither.

Evading responsibility

In case there was any doubt, Brad Wall lets us all know his party's philosophy when it comes to accountability for such trifling errors as budgeting based on potash revenues three times what they'll actually be:

I don't hold anybody responsible for that. It is what it is...

So keeping in mind that Wall doesn't think any responsibility exists for a $1.3 billion hole in the province's budget, who wants to put their money on the Sask Party accurately estimating the costs or benefits of any of their policies?

Deep thought

If my goal was to move past a gross distortion of a party's position by its opponents, my first reaction wouldn't be to encourage several more rounds of he-said, she-said as to what the position actually is.

Mercy, mercy, mercy

The federal Cons have predictably started pointing fingers at the nearest available target after reaching the shocking realization that citizens of Ontario and B.C. might not appreciate Stephen Harper's choice to pay off their provinces to raise their tax bills. But the CP helpfully provides the answer to a burning question: would any MP be punished for parroting the party line?

Harris said he did not approach Flaherty, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, his caucus colleagues or their staff for guidance on how to handle his constituents' concerns about tax harmonization.

Sources say none of the MPs will be punished for speaking out.

Of course, this isn't the first example of the Benevolent Dear Leader showing his extreme compassion in matters of Conservative advantage. When cabinet ministers have ever so carelessly inserted party messages into what's supposed to be government business, or regional chairs have usurped the role of elected MPs by naming Con "liaisons" to do their jobs instead, Harper's forgiveness has been so obvious that nobody's even thought to wonder whether any punishment might be forthcoming. And he's likewise shown nothing but patience in dealing with Con MPs who succumbed to their party's pressure to participate in Conadscam.

But of course, even the most generous of compassion has its limits. For Harper, those apparently end when the same (or lesser) offences are committed by anybody not wearing Con blue. And let's not even speak of the unpardonable crime of travelling while brown.

The field expands

Regina's Ward 3 race this fall was already shaping up to be lively enough with John Conway challenging incumbent Fred Clipsham. But there's now another strong candidate taking her campaign public, as Shirley Dixon has gone online with a Facebook group in support of her own challenge to Clipsham.

Dixon's supporters already include both SFL president Larry Hubich and Ward 6 contestant Brenda Mercer, and there figure to be plenty more yet to come. Which means that while we're still waiting for challengers to a stale slate of incumbents in most of the city, Ward 3 voters will once again have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to progressive options.

Blowing in the wind

The fact that the Wall government's refusal to develop wind power within the province is now costing Saskatchewan workers their jobs certainly deserves plenty more attention:

News of 150 layoff and work-share notices being issued for this October at the wind tower department of Hitachi Canadian Industries in Saskatoon shows that the Wall government’s inaction on wind power expansion is costing our province both economically and environmentally, NDP Leader Dwain Lingenfelter said today.

“Hitachi’s layoff notices were sparked by a lack of orders this fall for towers used in wind power projects. In other parts of Canada, the problem is arranging financing for wind power projects in an economic downturn. In Saskatchewan, the problem is a lack of political will and leadership on the part of the Wall government,” Lingenfelter said.

After almost two years in government, the Sask Party has yet to produce a single megawatt of new wind power in Saskatchewan. Between 2002 and 2006, the former NDP government built 172 Megawatts of wind power capacity — enough electricity to power more than 73,000 homes.

Of course, Wall himself has spent much of the last year talking about a supposed economic "booster shot" to avoid exactly the kind of job losses currently being suffered at Hitachi. And given the province's obvious need both to preserve jobs in the current downturn and create them in expanding industries for the longer term, there surely can't be any excuse for his government's choice not to invest a reasonable price in an industry which serves both purposes, while wasting time trying to shove nuclear power down the province's throat.

But apparently Wall's government is so committed to making nuclear the only choice for power generation that it's willing to throw away jobs rather than investing in an obvious opportunity to develop wind power. And the province as a whole stands to lose out in the long run.

Running scared

There's good reason why the federal Cons are trying to escape responsibility for their choice to bribe provinces to shifting sales tax costs onto consumers. But let's take a quick look at just how much involvement the Harper Cons have actually had in pushing harmonization.

Of course, it started as early as the Cons' first budget after they took power, where the Cons made clear that harmonization was high on their priority list:

(T)he Government is committed to working with remaining provinces that want to enhance their economic competitiveness and productivity by harmonizing their retail sales taxes with the GST.
...
The Government invites all provinces that have not yet done so to engage in discussions on the harmonization of their provincial retail sales taxes with the federal GST.

Every budget since has also included a section demanding that provinces go along with harmonization. But the Cons' push to make individuals pay more in sales taxes didn't stop there.

In 2007, the Cons apparently figured that provinces might be more likely to go along if there was a pool of money waiting to be doled out. As a result, they set aside a $5 billion fund for the sole purpose of paying off any province willing to go along with the plan.

And needless to say, the Cons have been anything but silent on the issue in the meantime. Take this from an April 2008 Jim Flaherty speech:

We will continue to raise this subject, certainly looking for more stimulus in the Ontario economy in particular. We've done our stimulus at the federal level but we really needed the province to do its part, and of course we're also calling on the remaining provinces that have not harmonized their PST with the GST to work with us to accomplish that goal of harmonization.

Indeed, after Dalton McGuinty signed on, Flaherty was eager to take credit:

I really am quite encouraged today by the fact that the Government of Ontario decided to harmonize their PST with the GST. This is significant. We have a group of provinces in Canada that are still not harmonized—Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. With Ontario deciding to harmonize, this is a tremendous boost for business in that province. It means that 75 to 80 per cent of Canadian businesses will now be able to do business in a harmonized way with the PST and GST.
...
This is good economic policy, which we've been encouraging the non-harmonized provinces to do since 2006. So I am encouraged by that.

Of course, it's entirely in character for Larry Miller, Dick Harris and others to spend much of their time trying to point fingers elsewhere. But let there be no doubt that the federal Cons have done everything in their power to push the provinces toward harmonization - and while each of Ontario and B.C. had an opportunity to decline, neither would be where they are today if it wasn't for Jim Flaherty's single-minded determination to shift costs from business to consumers.

Update: More from BicCityLib and impolitical. Good to see some Lib bloggers pointing out the Cons' duplicity - though it's also worth wondering where their party will come down after initiating the first wave of harmonization in the '90s.

Chutzpah

Is it just me, or were the Cons rather less concerned with the misuse of elected positions as a launching pad for federal office when they appointed a sitting mayor as a "government liaison" to bypass an elected NDP MP?

Systematic misdirection

Shorter Robert Ouellet in his final shot at public health care as head of the CMA:

Opponents of privatized health care should support privatized health care, lest a failure to privatize health care now result in privatized health care later.

Monday Morning Abbreviated Rider Blogging

Defence: superb, particularly in shutting down the run.
Offence: still developing, though the yardage totals may understate just how effective virtually all of the backs and receivers were once they got the ball.
Special teams: pitiful.
Outcome: victory.

We'll take it.

And now back to radio silence for a couple of days.

On choosing sides

It's no particular surprise that a ridiculous proportion of the coverage of #HFX09 in the media and blogosphere has focused on a single proposal that didn't make it to the floor rather than the dozens of policy resolutions that were discussed. But it's interesting to note one other element of the convention which has also seemed to go unnoticed despite fitting nicely into the type of issue that normally occupies plenty of attention: namely, the unveiling of "On Your Side" as a theme and backdrop for Jack Layton's keynote speech.

Of course, the phrase is far from a new one either for the NDP (which has made use of it provincially in B.C. and Ontario) or for the federal political scene (where it was presented as a Con slogan in 2008, but was then de-emphasized as the campaign's focus turned to the economy). But it would seem to suggest a couple of noteworthy priorities for the federal NDP, particularly to the extent the party's actions match the theme (unlike the 2008 Cons).

First, the message draws a more stark division compared to the other federal parties.

While the "New Kind of Strong" theme in 2008 presented a positive NDP message, it didn't raise a great degree of implicit criticism of the other parties, who could be seen at worst as either "weak" or "old strong" by comparison. In contrast, "On Your Side" effectively brands the NDP's opponents as fighting against the best interests of Canadians - calling at least for an explanation as to how that view is wrong, which figures to keep the debate on friendly terrain for the NDP.

Second and more importantly, the theme also seems to hint at a concerted effort to build connections with and among voters in keeping with Marshall Ganz' message. In effect, voters will be invited to think more closely about what their "side" actually involves, with at least some reason to expect that the NDP will then work toward listening and responding to the answer.

Mind you, it remains to be seen how well "On Your Side" will work in the end. But it has potential to both better define the dividing lines in federal politics, and encourage the NDP to stay on the right side of them - making it one of the elements of the convention which figures to reverberate for some time to come.

NDP Convention - Constitutional Resolutions

And now the constitutional committee's resolution which is first on the agenda (and which took 15 minutes just to read) has been split into six component motions. Let's officially call the name change debate as not happening.

NDP Convention - Party Name Update

We've just finished the first set of resolutions this morning. But barring some surprising developments (i.e. far more smooth progress through the party affairs resolutions than we've had for any of the other topics), it doesn't look like the party name resolutions will come up for debate when the final set of resolutions is discussed.

The resolution on consultation about the party name was placed reasonably high on the priority list in advance of the convention, but there are a few other significant issues ahead of it (including one on the establishment of a constitution for the Participation of Women Committee which was bumped ahead in the priority list in panel). And the resolution for an immediate change is well back on the list.

Of course, that's a matter of delegate choice, as there was an opportunity to change the order in the panels on Friday. But it would appear that there's less appetite for a name change than some might have thought - with the result that the subject might not even be dealt with on the convention floor.

NDP Convention - Day 2 Notes

If yesterday's speeches were tilted slightly toward the side of top-down politics, the training sessions today were even more oriented toward traditional conceptions of politics. There was plenty of talk about networking, fund-raising (including an online fund-raising seminar which focused solely on e-mail without mentioning social networking except as a means of gathering recipients), and pulling the vote, but not much to suggest the party had taken up what seem to me to be the most valuable lessons and ideas from recent political history.

But fortunately, the entire convention was treated to an ideal reminder of how the Obama campaign expanded the perceived possibilities in politics through Marshall Ganz' speech this afternoon. Billed for his role in Obama's "ground game", Ganz didn't concern himself with identifying the parts of the campaign which would be common to any party.

Instead, he called much-needed attention to the need to build a true constituency of supporters motivated to work together for their common values and goals - contrasting that with a marketing-based style of politics which appeals only to individual self-interest. And that's a message which should fit ideally into the NDP's efforts - particularly after a campaign where it ran by all accounts the best traditional campaign on paper, but achieved only modest gains as a result.

Betsy Myers has just taken the stage, and there's much more activity to come tomorrow (along with the Tweet-up tonight). But hopefully it's Ganz' message that will be remembered the most from #HFX09 - ideally leading to a significantly changed focus by the next time the party gets to work on training on a national scale.

NDP Convention - Election Results

And in something less than a surprise, the winners are...

Peggy Nash - President
Rebecca Blaikie - Treasurer

NDP Convention - Results...

...To come at 4 PM.

NDP Convention - John Orrett Speech

Orrett is the Socialist Caucus' nominee, and starts off with a fiery speech on economics and a desire to move the party to the left generally before getting into internal matters. We'll see whether that message sells, but a platform plank of defined funding to riding associations looks to be a popular one.

NDP Convention - Rebecca Blaikie Speech

On to the speeches for treasurer before any votes. Rebecca Blaikie also starts with a couple of endorsements, with her speech consisting of a fairly general view of the role of the treasurer (delivered strongly in both French and English).

NDP Convention Update - Peggy Nash Speech

Nash's speech starts with 2 endorsements, including one from MP Denise Savoie. Nash herself thanks all candidates running in the various party races (including Kinsella by name), then transitions from the "building momentum" convention themes to a few general policy points (and of course her own mention of the grassroots).

NDP Convention Update - Elections

We're on to elections at #HFX09, with Kevin Kinsella and Peggy Nash announced as the two candidates for president. It's worth noting that Kinsella spoke in favour of added time for policy discussion yesterday, setting up a grassroots vs. centre contest (a theme which Kinsella is now pressing in his speech).

NDP Convention - Day 1 Notes

I'll be blogging more frequently over the next couple of days as the more substantive parts of #HFX09 (notably elections and constitutional resolutions) get dealt with. For now, though, here are a few notes on the convention's first day.

The most surprising development was an extended dispute over the convention agenda - which was amended by motion to delay Marshall Ganz' scheduled appearance to make room for more policy debate, then returned to its original form following a motion to reconsider when it became apparent that Ganz wouldn't be able to reschedule.

In retrospect it's perhaps most interesting that the motion was set up to actually move Ganz' slot rather than merely replacing some break time with more policy discussion. That may have been seen as a more symbolic decision to replace a training agenda with more policy discussion - but the choice likely made for the main reason why the change was bound to be reversed where an extra hour of policy discussion might have been allowed to stand.

Meanwhile, the training from today's proceedings was a bit on the top-down side at times, with Manitoba NDP campaign manager Bob Dewar sending a particularly dispiriting message about his campaign priorities: "Target. Target. Target. Message. Message. Message. Discipline. Discipline. Discipline." It's tough to argue with Dewar's results - but it's worth wondering how much of the grassroots cultivation which did wonders for the Obama campaign will be part of the convention message as well (and a couple of speakers did at least hint along those lines).

Finally, the line of the day went to Gary Doer: "Some parties have one member, one vote. But only the NDP follows a rule of one delegate, one resolution."

Again, there's plenty more to come - so stay tuned...

A new suggestion

Andrew Potter's take on the name-changing debate within the NDP is definitely worth a read as one of the better arguments I've seen on the side of keeping the name as is:

What the left in Canada should be trying to do is secure their base and push it out, not sacrifice it in the name of centrism.

Which is why the last thing they should do is drop the "New" from their name. The "New" in the name isn't a statement of the party's origins, like "New Coke." It's a promise that offers the ongoing hope of political change, social progress and institutional renewal. This is the very core of the NDP's brand identity, and far from giving it up, they should make it the activating ideal of their platform and messaging.

The party actually took a step in this direction during the last election, with their "New Strong" ad campaign. It was easily the best set of ads from any of the major parties, and it did a very good job of repositioning their policy negatives (anti-Americanism, anti-corporation) as strength. If I were in charge of the NDP's new brand strategy, I would put the promise of New at the very centre: New Environmentalism. New Economy. New Sovereignty. The New Democrats.

Of course, Potter's suggestion doesn't exactly break new ground, as similar messages have been used to good effect. But it's certainly worth wondering whether an all-out emphasis on "new" as part of the NDP's message might do more to help the party than eliminating the term.

Mind you, there's one major risk involved in that strategy on its own: the more the NDP relies on "new" as part of its message in a single election campaign, the more public fatigue may develop with the term as part of the party's brand.

But fortunately, the party may have an ideal opportunity for a litmus test as to whether the term has run its course.

After all, the resolutions before this weekend's convention will include an option to send the name issue for study as well as one to make the change immediately.

Obviously if the party sees value in keeping the "new" it won't want to go with an immediate switch. But might it make sense to support the deferral option as a compromise at the convention, then get as much mileage out of a "new" message as possible in the next election campaign to produce a fresh batch of information as to the impact the term is currently having on the NDP's brand?

(Edit: fixed formatting.)

Light blogging ahead

Apparently there's some kind of event going on this weekend, and yours truly departs tomorrow to leave some time to explore Nova Scotia. Expect updates once the convention starts, but light if any posting in the meantime.

On advice

Barry McLoughlin's advice that the NDP should work on discussing and organizing its policy values would have far more resonance if that wasn't already happening.

Likewise, Judy Rebick's earnest suggestion that the NDP focus on issues like the tar sands and improving health care would be far more valuable if the party wasn't already doing so.

So due credit to Kelly McParland for actually offering some proposals which would undoubtedly mean doing something differently. But I do suspect that the NDP will respectfully decline his suggestion to transform into a conservative party.

On taxing considerations

As promised in my earlier post on the HST, let's take a closer look at how a harmonized tax would actually affect the balance between individuals and businesses - and why the claim of long-term benefits for consumers looks to be highly dubious.

To start with, keep in mind that even under the current system, there's an inherent preference for purchases by business rather than individuals based on the GST reimbursement system.

After all, there's no lack of goods which will have applications both for individuals and businesses. Whether it's furniture and electronics which are commonly found in both business and personal settings, or simply staple goods which end up getting used both at home and in work settings, there's obvious overlap between the basket of goods which may be useful for a business and those typically purchased by individuals.

And as matters stand even in the absence of harmonization, there's already an artificial preference toward business purchasers. To the extent a good is subject to the GST, individuals face an extra 5% charge on the price which isn't borne by businesses competing to purchase the same good. (But of course market distortions in favour of business aren't distortions at all as far as some are concerned.)

Presumably, that set of incentives isn't entirely without effect on the behaviour of all parties. While retailers are forced to keep in mind the impact of a sales tax on individuals, they can also try to avoid that issue by marketing themselves toward business customers whose purchases are comparatively subsidized by the GST rebate program. And there's an incentive for consumers to find some way to label purchases as occurring through a business in order to avoid the GST.

What harmonization then does is to more than double these impacts. And the lowered cost for business is no less a factor than the increased prices for individuals.

Once a good gets included in the harmonized system, the difference between the cost of purchasing by a business and the comparative cost for an individual will rise into double digits. And no vendor paying the slightest bit of attention can avoid noticing both the greater ability of business to pay higher base prices, and the relative incentive to market to businesses rather than individuals.

Likewise, the incentive to push purchases through a business structure as a coupon for 12-13% OFF ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING!!!! can only become far more significant. Which would figure to lead to plenty of busy work setting up shell companies, while creating no real value for anybody.

So harmonization doesn't just increase direct costs for consumers - though that's obviously an important reason for concern as well. Equally strikingly, though, it also creates a commercial environment designed to further prioritize the interests of businesses ahead of the needs of individuals. And there's plenty of reason to question whether that's a redistribution of wealth which people are eager to see - particularly when the federal government is having to pay off provinces to do it.

On blame games

Shorter Stephen Harper:

Sure, it might look like my government imposed draconian visa rules on Mexico without warning, then pointed the finger at legislation which we've made no effort to change even knowing that the main opposition party will pass anything we put in front of them. But let me assure you that the entire country made us do it.

Standing for nothing

Warren Kinsella continues the Libs' pattern of projection:

By way of conclusion, we would only echo that old adage: if you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.

So after rolling over on 79 consecutive confidence votes, what are the Libs doing to demonstrate their strong beliefs which are supposed to keep them from naively falling for anything?

Answers to policy specifics are difficult to come by at the moment. With the party directing their attention to the summer "working group" on Employment Insurance — the line they drew in the sand and a likely election trigger come September — a lot of other policy issues have been sidelined.

Add to this the fact that some Liberal MPs appear to be shrinking from the media this summer. The Liberal communications apparatus is directing journalists to address policy questions to Liberal MPs in their shadow cabinet — but many of those MPs are travelling or on vacation over the summer and not doing media interviews.

"We're being very strategic in the sense that there are certain issues we've come out on — for example on early learning/childcare, and high speed rail," MP Bains says. "The other issues — we will see when we want to communicate those. It could be just before a campaign, during a campaign... it's more of a strategic decision. Right now, it's still a work in progress and we're still consulting the party, stakeholders and Canadians, and the ideas that we do have, that we feel comfortable with right now, we've decided to hold off and communicate those at a later date."

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

So the good news after the 'Riders' loss to B.C. is that they're still tied for first place in the West - albeit a three-way tie at 3-3.

But what about the game itself? For once, let's start with special teams, which went from a slight weakness for most of the season to a catastrophe against the Lions. And once again, the biggest issue was with the 'Riders' punt returns, where Gerran Walker fumbled away a second-quarter touchdown and didn't do much positive on his other opportunities.

Fortunately, there seems to be an easy enough solution even if the team doesn't trust Stu Foord to handle punt returns. And no, I'm not talking about entertaining the kids with Casey McGahee's juggling act, or cycling back to Eric Morris. Instead, the 'Riders' backup option thus far is looking more and more appealing as a primary choice.

At the start of the season, the team planned to use Weston Dressler exclusively on offence after he emerged as the 'Riders' top receiver last year. But if there's been any consistent positive trend on offence, it's been the regular emergence of receiving threats: Rob Bagg and Chris Getzlaf have shown that they can serve as primary targets, while Johnny Quinn (who made a brilliant catch to set the 'Riders up for their last touchdown against the Lions) and Walker have shown more aptitude in offensive sets than on the return teams, providing plenty of depth to go with Andy Fantuz (once he's healthy), Jason Clermont and Dressler. So why not assign Dressler the task of returning punts regularly, rather than sending him back only after somebody else has failed?

Granted, aside from his field-goal return against the Stamps Dressler hasn't done much when given the opportunity to field kicks this year. But at the very least, he'll give the team the most sure set of hands it can get. And there's little reason to think he can't work his way back to last season's form if he's told to prepare to be the 'Riders' primary punt returner.

Given the trade-off of having a slightly less skilled receiver on the field for a few plays a game in exchange for 5-10 yards at the start of every drive (and maybe a few turnovers avoided), I'd have to think Ken Miller would have to be interested in the exchange. And that goes doubly if the best alternative is to keep swapping in and out the same players who have already flopped in the role.

As for the rest of the team, there were certainly some areas for concern. In particular the offence again went dormant during the third quarter, and a switch to Steven Jyles at quarterback in the fourth quarter didn't seem to help much.

Indeed, I'll sound a note of caution about Jyles' passing numbers. For most of the quarter, he showed virtually no ability to find receivers in the face of a relentless pass rush - leading to loads of sacks, along with a few decent gains on scrambles. It was only with roughly a minute to go in the game and the Lions in more of a prevent defence that he managed to put up some yardage - but the team obviously can't count on having that working in Jyles' favour most of the time.

As a result, the better strategy at quarterback looks to be the one the team used against Calgary - giving Jyles a chance relatively early on so that Darien Durant can get a different view of the game, but making sure that Durant is in the game when it matters most.

Meanwhile, the defence allowed Buck Pierce to put up a disturbingly high completion percentage and control the ball for much of the second half. But it does figure to be the unit with the most to be proud of in the game, particularly since the Lions turned the tables on the 'Riders by parlaying 16 yards of offence into 21 points thanks to turnovers.

Next up for the 'Riders will be a contest against the resurgent Tiger-Cats following a long week. And given how regularly CFL teams coming off poor games have redeemed themselves the next week, I'd be hesitant to pick against Saskatchewan this time out. But there isn't much room for doubt that the 'Riders' problems are staying in place or worsening from week to week - and by a third of the way into the season, there can't be much excuse if the team isn't figuring out how to fix problems that have been apparent from day one.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

On pseudonymity

There's been loads of talk over the past couple of days about the unfortunately-departed Tiny Perfect Blog. But most of the discussion seems to be riddled with undue potshots at one of the better political bloggers I've read based solely on the anonymity behind the blog - and while there's one unfortunate side to the story which doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet, it's worth taking some time to make the case in defence of anonymous or pseudonymous blogging in the face of that misplaced criticism.

The core of the argument against TPB in particular and anonymity in general seems to be highlighted by Graham Thomson:

Tiny Perfect wasn't the only anonymous blog on Alberta politics, but it gained a reputation as the nastiest. Most bloggers put their names front and centre, which tends to make them think twice before hitting "send." The AUPE's Climenhaga has been running a personal blog since 2007 and says while he doesn't want to sound holier-than-thou compared to Tiny Perfect, "if my opinion is going to have any validity in my community it's important to say who I am."

What's of course utterly lacking in Thomson's analysis is any basis for concluding that anonymous or pseudonymous bloggers are generally any less likely than named ones to "think twice before hitting 'send'", or any less entitled to have their opinions heard. After all, whether an individual is named or not, credibility within the blogosphere tends to come from exactly the same factors.

When it comes to opinions, there's especially little reason to bother differentiating between named and anonymous sources. The value of the opinion expressed within a blog is bound to come down to a question of how readers respond to the blog in substance: an insightful observation or compelling argument is no less so for being written anonymously, just as a piece of poorly-reasoned tripe doesn't become any more convincing by having a name attached to it.

In that sense, the blogosphere at least holds out the prospect of a meritocratic structure: the value of an opinion is at least theoretically found in its own content, such that a person who isn't well-known or even named can reach a wide audience with a good point (or be skewered for a bad one).

Which isn't to say that personal connections don't dictate at least in part how widely a particular view ends up being distributed, giving an advantage to people or profiles who are better known. But there too, there's little reason why an extended track record of connections through a blog persona should be ignored entirely.

What about factual assertions? Again, the major question there is whether a blogger's track record matches the facts which can be verified from other sources including one's own observations.

Of course, one may see reason to be suspicious where any blogger without a track record of accuracy makes implausible or inflammatory claims. But there's no reason why the same content would be seen as any more or less trustworthy depending on whether it's written by brand-new anonymous blogger Mr. X., or brand-new named blogger John Smith whose judgment is equally untested and untestable. And where an anonymous blog has provided accurate information in the past, there's no reason why the mere fact of anonymity should prevent readers from considering that fact in assessing future information from the same source.

And there should be no doubt that anonymity is far from decisive in either direction in assessing a blogger's judgment. While Thomson paints TPB as "the nastiest (anonymous blog)" in Alberta, he distinctly fails to take into account the far greater amount of vitriol and nastiness to which others have happily attached their names. And I can assure Thomson that at least some pseudonymous bloggers are interested enough in their own reputation that they do think twice before hitting "send" even if their names aren't attached to the blog.

With all that out of the way, though, there are a couple of points where my own perspective parts company with that of TPB. And the differences might hint at what I'd see as the biggest questions which would-be anonymous bloggers may want to keep in mind.

When I started blogging semi-anonymously, that choice was based on a combination of uncertainty as to how my own experiment in blogging would play out, and a fairly gentle request from my employer. While I've seen fit to keep the blog in the same format, that's been more a matter of sticking to a default than any determined commitment to avoid having my name known. And a growing list of people has come to know who I am personally - meaning that if anybody was particularly motivated to "out" me, it wouldn't be particularly difficult to do so.

But there are two reasons why that would provoke far less of a concern for me personally than it seemed to for TPB.

First, while I don't recall the blog being as inflammatory as Thomson makes it out to be, it does seem that TPB wound up making some enemies who saw the blog as a direct threat. That may not be such a bad result in terms of serving the gadfly role where blogs can often do their best work - but it also leads to a virtual certainty that somebody will "take an interest" in exposing and attacking the individual behind a blog.

Of course, I've spent plenty of time in the realms of snark and satire myself. But I'd like to think that I've also taken a respectful enough posture toward those who don't share my viewpoints that nobody holds the kind of grudge that would make them want to move past the medium of discussion of issues in the blogosphere.

More importantly, though, I'm also lucky enough to be in a position where anonymity is more a matter of convenience than necessity. That certainly won't be true for some potential bloggers, and apparently wasn't for TPB - but it's always kept the perceived risk of being named at a level where I've seen little reason to worry.

In sum, for anybody wondering whether blogging anonymously is at all tenable, these are the factors to keep in mind. Are you expecting to be blogging in a way that will provoke people to want to do you harm? And will you in fact consider yourself harmed substantially if your identity gets made public?

Unfortunately, the answers for TPB seem to have been "yes" and "yes", making for a highly dangerous combination. And we've lost what looked to be one of the better NDP blogs I've seen as a result. But while the result may be a cautionary tale for anybody considering following in TPB's footsteps as an anonymous blogger, there's no basis for spinning the incident as reason to slam the nature of anonymous or pseudonymous blogging in general.

HST - Photoshops

On further reflection, I'm not sure that this post should be limited to a one-time bit of snark. So expect to see plenty more in this space about the Cons' decision to pay off provinces to transfer wealth from citizens to businesses.

I'll deal with the policy implications of harmonization in a later post, but for now here's a first set of Photoshops designed to build off the familiar GST branding the Cons used to try to paint themselves as pocketbook-friendly. (Sadly the images will be different for the two provinces now planning to harmonize, since BC's 12% harmonized level and Ontario's 13% make for slightly different results - hence the two different versions of each.)






(Edit: fixed typo.)

On competing visions

There hasn't been much news on the candidate front in municipal politics over the past couple of weeks. But that doesn't mean there haven't been a couple of points worth noting which may play a role in Saskatchewan's municipal races this fall and beyond.

First, there's been plenty of talk from Ontario about the role which a party structure can play within municipal politics. And it shouldn't come as any surprise if a similar issue as to the best type of political organization on the municipal level once again comes to the forefront in Saskatchewan.

Of course, the most recent effort to organize a formal municipal party in Regina looks to have gone quiet for this year's election cycle. But while that likely means that a full party structure is out of the picture for this year, there are plenty of hints that there's still significant interest in developing a concerted progressive effort at the municipal level - including recognition from the NDP's new leader and other party contenders that it's in the provincial party's best interests to develop its own strength through elections for municipal councils and school boards. So stay tuned to see how much progress can be made by the time this year's elections roll around...

Meanwhile, another important theme which figures to be a factor is the recognition even among some elected officials that municipalities are ultimately best served if their positions are tested through a vote rather than being won by acclamation. And Maple Creek's mayor Anne Weisgerber deserves particular credit for her comments:

Weisgerber says winning by acclamation is not a good thing, because it means citizens do not get an opportunity to engage in a discussion about local issues.

"When there's no election, there is no involvement. People don't get as involved," Weisgerber told CBC News on Wednesday. "It also gives people who are running, both for mayor and council, some time to say: 'This is what my vision is for the community. This is what I'd like to see happen'. And when there's no election, that doesn't happen."
...
"Yes, I could lose my job," Weisgerber said about her invitation to challengers. "And if the people of the community decide that somebody else is who they want, I guess that's the way it goes."

One would think that Weisgerber's invitation would serve to help break down any perception that a run against an incumbent would be seen as an unwarranted intrusion on the status quo rather than a valuable contribution to one's community. And more importantly, if the message that municipalities ought to have an opportunity to choose between competing visions manages to spread, it could open the door for challengers elsewhere as well - particularly where the incumbents see civic engagement as a threat to be combated rather than a value to be promoted.

Nicely done

ETP skewers the Cons on their campaign dishonesty about the federal deficit. Give it a look.

Musical interlude

Sash! feat. Tina Cousins - Mysterious Times

On new beginnings

While there's still a bit of work yet to be done to close off the last great battle in Saskatchewan politics, the next ones are also coming into view. And Noah Evanchuk's newly-unveiled website and campaign launch should offer up some useful ideas for anybody wondering what comes next.

Here's Noah on his reasons for running:

As a lawyer, I am no stranger to uphill fights. I frequently defend those who have no voice, who society has no time for. Throughout my career, I have seen successive Liberal and Conservative governments import American Republican policies. I have seen our court system swamped by a caseload where poor people, First Nations and Métis people, those suffering from mental illness are over-represented. I have seen the presumption of innocence, the cornerstone of our justice system, systematically eroded.

I have had enough.

In a democratic system, it is up to the people to effect change. In Canada today, only the New Democratic Party is fighting for the change we need. Only New Democrats are fighting for real justice.

Of course, there's some work to be done within the NDP as well in the broader political system to try to work on a criminal justice system focused on real outcomes rather than manufactured outrage. But Noah's prominent role in an underdog provincial campaign should leave little room for doubt that he'll be a strong voice both inside and outside of the party - so stop by and get involved in the effort to win him a place in Parliament.

Deep thought

I wonder if Lorne Gunter is insured against his home and property.

On impact assessments

In earlier posts I've discussed a few of the major problems with the Sask Party's isotope reactor proposal and associated posturing. But let's take a closer look at the proposal to see just how bizarre the Sask Party's plan seems to be.

For consistency's sake, the below chart lists the top-end estimated numbers for both estimated costs and economic impacts (GDP and labour income) as presented by the Sask Party's proposal:

Phase	Costs	Economic Impact	Difference
Development/Construction	$750 million	$663 million	$87 million
Operation (annual)	$70 million	$65 million	$5 million

So what do those numbers tell us? By way of comparison, consider what would happen if Brad Wall's Sask Party government was obsessed with, let's say, dirt rather than uranium.

Presumably the Sask Party's focus on megaprojects would lead it to build the Brad Wall Centre of Excellence in Soil Relocation, consisting of paying $750 million to dig a giant pit and $70 million in annual operating costs to move dirt around. And by the Sask Party's method of counting "economic impact", that would result in a productive activity, as every dollar put into each of those tasks would be measured as GDP or labour income.

Which would seem to be a reasonable baseline result for a pure make-work project: every dollar spent would result in exactly one dollar of economic activity, with no expectation of adding any value to the economy.

Now, nobody figures to advocate for the construction of a giant pit anytime soon. And the actual public policy choices figure to involve areas like social housing, child care, etc. where the up-front economic activity generated by government funding would make for only a small part of the ultimate benefit.

But what's remarkable is that by the Sask Party's own standards, even the giant dirt pit would actually result in a more efficient means of turning government funding into economic impact.

After all, unlike any sane policy proposal, the isotope reactor proposal actually seems to be designed to hemorrhage money. By the numbers in the Sask Party's proposal, $87 million in construction costs and $5 million in annual operating costs are planned to vanish into thin air, being presented as costs in excess of any associated benefit.

But what about the perceived benefits of building an isotope reactor beyond GDP and wages? One would expect the panel responsible for presenting the province's bid to have at least some idea how to assign a value to the factors which are supposed to justify spending millions of dollars of public money. But one would be entirely wrong in that expectation.

Instead, the other "impacts and expected outcomes" are presented solely as theoretical and unquantified concepts. So as far as anybody has bothered to measure or even plausibly estimate the outcomes, the Sask Party is eager to see hundreds of millions of dollars vanish. (And never mind the total cost of the project - even the money which Wall wants to make disappear would exceed the actual cost of the two other Western Canadian proposals to generate isotopes.)

Of course, it's worth granting as noted by Lee Harding that it isn't any better to overestimate the perceived economic impact of a particular action. But when even a project proposal involves government actors paying a tithe of hundreds of millions of dollars to we're not sure who for the privilege of turning their money into economic activity, that should be an obvious signal that the project in question doesn't pass the laugh test.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

A brief appeal

Following up on my post this morning, word has come out that the reported fund-raising and expense totals from the Saskatchewan NDP leadership candidates are from the end of the campaign period. And in the case of Ryan Meili's campaign, about $5,000 more has been raised since that time to cut the reported debt in half.

But it would still be a major plus for all involved to get the remaining campaign debts squared away so that Ryan and the rest of his team can focus fully on the next steps in building the Saskatchewan NDP. So let's start an informal campaign based on Meili's 45% share of the vote on the second ballot: please take a moment and stop by Meili's donation page with a donation ending in .45.

The price of fraud

Not that I entirely disagree with Margarent Wente's argument that corporate crime needs to be far better prosecuted and punished. But she's far off base in suggesting that it's only in Canada that corporate crooks can buy their way out of serious consequences.

Here's Wente:

(T)hose in business must know Canada is a fine place to fleece the innocent and cook the books. Not for us the crusading prosecutors, the quick indictments, the speedy trials, and the lifetime jail sentences so popular in the United States.

Here, you can be pretty sure the law will take years to catch up to you (if it ever does). In the event you are found guilty, the penalty won't be so bad.

So let's check on the latest prominent white-collar crime story from the U.S. to see just what kind of sentence is being applied for those who "cook the books":

Federal regulators accused Maurice R. Greenberg, the former chief executive of the beleaguered American International Group, on Thursday of overseeing deals that fraudulently overstated A.I.G.’s financial position, claims that came after a four-year investigation.

Mr. Greenberg, 84, will pay $15 million to settle the suit, an agreement that was announced simultaneously as the government described the accusations against him. A former chief financial officer at A.I.G., Howard I. Smith, will pay $1.5 million to settle similar accusations.
...
The S.E.C. said that Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Smith were involved in “numerous improper accounting transactions” that inflated A.I.G.’s earnings from 2000 to 2005. Regulators said Mr. Greenberg publicly boasted about the company’s strength and double-digit growth while concealing its weaknesses through accounting sleights of hand.

“Greenberg and Smith oversaw various improper transactions that presented a false financial picture and allowed A.I.G. to claim success in meeting its performance goals,” Robert S. Khuzami, director of the S.E.C.’s division of enforcement, said in a statement.

Now, I'll readily note that there's a case to be made that both systems are likely painfully underequipped to provide the combination of enforcement and punishment that would be required to properly limit the risk of white-collar crime. But for anybody actually looking to determine where they can pay the lowest price for defrauding the public, the choice between at least receiving a prison sentence and being able to buy one's way out of trouble south of the border would seem to make for a fairly clear conclusion that Canada isn't the most enticing target.

(H/t to John Cole.)

Burning question

When was last time the Leader-Post (or any other media outlet) worried about the right of citizens to go about their lives without being "hassled" by corporate logos or advertisers?

Indeed, I'd think the L-P's editorial makes for a watershed moment. Apparently even the long-standing statement that "the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread" is a bit too egalitarian for Regina's main media outlet; instead, it's now clear that begging in the streets is acceptable only if it's done by a corporate entity.

Update: Carle Steel goes to town. You read.

On final tallies

James Wood reports on the final financial results from Saskatchewan's NDP leadership race. And if there's any major surprise, it's that the candidate fund-raising totals ended up substantially matching the result of the first ballot: despite a publicly-disclosed total nearly $12,000 behind Deb Higgins just days before the June convention, Yens Pedersen apparently managed to eke ahead of her in the financial department as well.

Now, it's not clear whether part of the new totals reflect some surprisingly effective fund-raising after the vote itself, or whether they mean that Pedersen's small-donor income during the leadership campaign dwarfed his disclosed donations. But either way, the example is one which candidates in future leadership campaigns and other races would do well to follow.

Deep thought

Maybe Bruce Campion-Smith has a point that the NDP should assume it will be referred to by a two-letter acronym. Just think how the many Canadians are already confused into thinking that elections consist of a choice between a wire service and a vinyl record.

On inducements

The move by Gordon Campbell's B.C. government to harmonize its sales tax with the GST - just weeks after saying it had no intention of doing so during an election campaign - has rightly given rise to a massive public outcry.

But it's worth taking a look at the other side of the picture as well. Much of Campbell's excuse seems to be tied to the knowledge that Deficit Jim Flaherty would be happy to funnel federal dollars B.C.'s way for the conversion - in effect using promised federal funding to patch over the holes Campbell blew in the provincial budget. But at a time when Canada's budget is itself headed for years of red ink, isn't it worth revisiting whether the Cons should be spending federal money to push provincial tax burdens from businesses onto consumers?

On policy discussions

Following up on yesterday's post about Andrew Steele's misplaced attempts to smear the NDP, let's take the opportunity to point out one of the most interesting aspects of the Halifax convention that seems to have slipped below the radar so far. While Steele wrongly criticizes the NDP for not planning to discuss policy, the reality is that the party has in fact put together a policy book (warning: PDF) which will form the basis for the resolutions to be debated at the convention. So rather than merely debating freestanding topics (as the Libs are apparently continuing to do), the NDP will in fact be carrying on a more thorough policy discussion based on fitting specific resolutions into a full set of governing principles.

Of course, we're still waiting on word as to what resolutions will be addressed at the convention, and there will almost certainly be areas where there's some lively dispute as to how the current policy book should be changed. But it's surely a point in its favour that the NDP (unlike Steele's party of choice) is actually willing to make its principles public for discussion and debate. And as a reward, the NDP will come out of the convention with the framework of a full platform to show for it.

On reactions

On their face, the caveats and cost-sharing provisions in Sask Party's nuclear isotope reactor proposal could have been taken to reflect at least some acknowledgment that it wouldn't be a great idea for the province to say "cost and public opinion be damned!" in pushing ahead. But Bill Boyd has set the record straight, declaring that the Sask Party will be happy to funnel more money in and trying to minimize any possibility that public concerns might be worth addressing.

Here's Boyd's stunningly ill-advised comment on the question of cost:

Bill Boyd, Energy and Resources Minister in the Saskatchewan Party government, acknowledged to reporters that the provincial government itself could end up carrying more than the funding share outlined in the proposal submitted to the federal government last week and made public Tuesday.

Under the plan put forward by the U of S and the province, the federal government would pick up 75 per cent of the construction costs, with the province paying for the remainder. Saskatchewan also wants the federal government to pay 60 per cent of the operating costs, with the province covering 25 per cent and the rest coming from isotope sales and industrial science.

“I suppose that those are negotiable items that the federal government might want to negotiate. We think they are good starting points,” Boyd said at the legislature.

“They are our proposal going forward. The federal government may have some different ideas with regard to cost-sharing for these types of things.”

Boyd did say the project would be unlikely to go ahead without a significant financial commitment from the federal government.

So in effect, rather than reflecting a serious allocation of costs, the numbers in the proposal don't appear to be much more than a cap on what the federal government might be called on to contribute. And with Boyd publicly stating that the province is willing to put in more money if the federal government would like to spend less (and do we seriously need to ask whether that might be the case?), it's painfully clear that the final result won't be anything like the current proposal.

So what about Boyd's concurrent suggestion that the province would require a "significant financial commitment" from the federal government? On its face, the phrase is vague enough to allow for almost any federal contribution to be spun as being sufficient. But the context is even worse than the lack of content: given that one of the flimsy rationales for building a reactor in Saskatchewan is supposed to be the support of the provincial government, does anybody think the Sask Party would have a reasonable response to a federal suggestion that the proposed provincial share of the cost should be seen as meeting the standard? That would leave the province on the hook for $500 million-plus during construction and $40 million-plus during operation - which presumably serves the Sask Party's purpose of tying the hands of future provincial governments, but can't be seen as a plus for anybody else.

Meanwhile, Boyd's take on the proposal also involves both trying to predetermine the outcome of the UDP consultation process, and declaring that the Sask Party will ignore it if it doesn't like the results:

If the report of Dan Perrins, who chaired the public consultations, puts forward that public opinion is dead-set against a research reactor, it could derail the government’s proposal, said Boyd.

He added that he does not expect that to be the case, given the submissions in public hearings, but said that the public debate over the issue won’t necessarily be ended by Perrins’ report.

In case it wasn't clear enough how disingenuous the latter statement is, remember that the UDP hearings didn't often discuss an isotope reactor in detail precisely because the UDP report itself didn't consider an isotope reactor to be a high priority. In fact, it was only after the public hearings were done with that Wall declared that he wanted to push ahead with an isotope reactor. Which means that Boyd's attempt to paint the fact that large crowds turned up at the public meetings to oppose a reactor for power generation as support for an isotope reactor looks to be at best nonsensical, and at worst the height of dishonesty.

But then, Boyd apparently recognizes that there was some time after an isotope reactor became a topic of public conversation in which participants were able to make their concerns known. Hence his last attempt to hedge his bets by declaring that if the public managed to dodge his government's misdirection to make its concerns clear during the consultation process, the Sask Party still won't take that as ending its efforts to keep foisting nuclear development on the province.

Fortunately, there's still reason to hope that the federal government will actually compare the price tags of the different proposed projects and correctly conclude that the Sask Party's makes absolutely no sense based on the expected return on investment (which I'll deal with further in another post). But the fact that the Sask Party's point man on nuclear development doesn't seem to care about the cost involved and is eager to distort the public input received so far should signal that we still shouldn't expect any reasonable decision-making from within Wall's government.

Baghdad Duff

I was planning to give Mike Duffy a pass for merely being painfully sycophantic toward Stephen Harper and the Cons, if only because it hardly qualifies as news at this point.

But Mike Duffy having the nerve to bash the report on his painful sycophancy for pointing out what it actually was, then taking the opportunity to spew even more of the same? That seems to make for a new low - at least for now.

An inefficient proposal

There's plenty worth dissecting in the Wall government's latest attempt (warning: PDF) to sell anything they can think of with the word "nuclear" in the title. But here are a couple of take-away points from the isotope reactor proposal.

In terms of cost, the proposal looks to be completely out of whack with every other suggested alternative for isotope production. While the accelerator proposals from UBC and Manitoba have put forward costs in the range of $35-$50 million to get to actual isotope production, the Saskatchewan proposal involves spending roughly that much in a "development" phase before construction even begins - and 10 to 15 times as much to actually get a reactor running (without even considering how to get any isotopes processed).

Likewise, the timelines involved suggest that the Saskatchewan proposal is by far the worst available option out of the ones presented in western Canada: a 2016 start time, compared to 2012 or sooner for the other possibilities. Though that may be good news to the extent that it means the province won't be following Brad Wall's previous musings about slapping a nuclear reactor together in two years.

Of course, the proposal tries to get around its frailties compared to other alternatives by suggesting that it would create only a complementary source of isotopes. But there's little apparent reason why the federal government should be looking to pay far more for a far slower option. And the fact that Wall and his government are willing to burn more money as part of a relatively small provincial share under its proposal than it would cost to put the B.C. and Manitoba proposals into effect combined should serve as a fairly clear signal that the Sask Party's nuclear agenda has nothing at all to do with what's best for the province.

On false branding

Pop quiz time. Which is the first Canadian political party that comes to mind based on the following description?

...consumed by internal obsessions and bogged down with endless scandal and mismanagement...

Send your answer to Andrew Steele for his information.

Mind you, Steele's utterly bizarre theory about the NDP's current position goes a bit further than that phrase alone. But it doesn't make his take any more plausible:

The other, bigger issue is the toxic legacy of past NDP governments. Few would choose to return to profligate regimes consumed by internal obsessions and bogged down with endless scandal and mismanagement.

A vigourous debate about how to govern would be in the NDP's best interest. The time has come to move past some of the discredited shibboleths clogging up the NDP's policy cupboard - rent control and nationalized energy spring to mind - and find more effective policies to ennunciate the NDP's values.

Starting with the painfully obvious, the next party which actually has an internal debate about what level of "internal obsession,...scandal and mismanagement" it should seek to pursue while in office would be the first. (Even if I'd have to acknowledge that it would make for a highly entertaining conversation.) So Steele's supposed advice is obviously based more in an attempt to falsely brand the NDP than in any idea about what the party should actually be discussing.

But what about that attempted brand? There, the question is one of evidence rather than statements which fall apart even on their own internal absurdity. But Steele's case doesn't come out any better in his first description of the NDP as "profligate" based on the historical record:

NDP governments have balanced the books 46 per cent of the time. Manitoba’s NDP government has posed surpluses every year it has been in office and Saskatchewan’s NDP government posted 11 consecutive balanced budgets after ending a decade of Conservative mismanagement and corruption.

Despite Paul Martin’s frequent pronouncements on fiscal responsibility, Liberals have the worst fiscal record overall. Liberal federal, provincial and territorial governments have posted year-over-year budget deficits an astonishing 79 per cent of the time.

Conservative governments have only a slightly better record than the Liberals, logging deficits 65 per cent of the years in which they’ve been in power.

The report issued today by the Liberal government’s Department of Finance looks at federal, provincial and territorial accounts over the past 22 years.

In other words, NDP = fiscally responsible. Steele's Liberals = profligate. And dishonest about that fact.

But one might say, what if Steele were referring only to the federal NDP as compared to the provincial governments who have consistently been more responsible than their Lib or Con counterparts? I'd think that's more than ruled out by the feigned concern over the "legacy of past NDP governments", but just for kicks let's see how that assumption works with the rest of Steele's thesis.

So let's have another pop quiz - this a two-parter.

1. Never mind Steele's descriptor "endless", name a single scandal involving the federal NDP.

Go ahead, take your time.

2. If you've come up with anything at all, compare it to Steele's party's sponsorship scandal in scope, breadth, and damage to the party and/or the wider political system.

Now which federal party can possibly be considered as one associated with "endless scandal"? And I won't even get started on a Liberal criticizing another party for "internal obsessions" getting in the way of effective political action.

In sum, Steele seems to be putting up nothing more than a cynical effort to try to tar the NDP with his own party's obvious weaknesses. And while there are some honest points to be made about areas where the NDP can look to improve, it's fairly clear that Steele's are something else entirely.

Could have been avoided

One of the more interesting developments on the federal political scene last week was the first wave of public discussion about the fact that the Cons went out of their way to avoid actually passing their much-promoted home renovation tax credit - presumably (as noted by Paul Wells) as a means of ensuring that the Libs roll over on a fall confidence vote. But it's particularly remarkable in retrospect how thoroughly the strategy was telegraphed.

Here's an exchange between Lib MP Massimo Pacetti and Deficit Jim Flaherty all the way back in February:

Mr. Massimo Pacetti:
...
The home renovation credit doesn't seem to be anywhere in the budget, it doesn't seem to be anywhere in the ways and means. And the third quick question is, has anybody calculated how much money the Government of Canada is guaranteeing via EDC loans, BDC loans, CMHC, swapping bad assets for good assets? Has anybody made a calculation as to how much money the Government of Canada is on the hook for?

Hon. Jim Flaherty:
The home renovation tax credit is not in the bill; it was in the ways and means. It's a tax measure, yes, and it has been approved by the House. I had this discussion recently with your colleague from Markham--Unionville. This is not easy to design. The design is complex. So the home renovation tax credit will be in the usual second budget bill this year.

Let's start by dispensing with the excuse that some complex design was required which would take months upon months for the Cons to work out compared to the rest of the budget. Remember that the bill which the Cons put forward was the same 551-page behemoth which gutted the federal pay equity structure, rewrote rules about competition and foreign investment and created new, accountability-free rules for federally-run "bridge institutions" in the case of a financial meltdown. From that starting point, it shouldn't have been all that difficult to make the case that the Cons should have been able to get their act together to include a single tax credit which supposedly formed the centrepiece of their stimulus package.

But failing that, the Cons would have had a few months in which to pass the home renovation tax credit as a standalone bill before the summer break - which presumably would have made for a reasonable request for cooperation over the balance of the spring session. Instead, the Libs were happy to ignore an obvious trap which seems set to close on them over the next couple of months.

Now, would it have been obvious at the time that the trap wouldn't be sprung until the fall? Let's note that the concept of a "usual" second budget bill is somewhat misleading given that only once have the Cons actually allowed a session of Parliament to last through an entire calendar year beginning with a budget. But for anybody checking their history, it should have been a fairly simple matter to note that their second budget implementation bill in 2006 wasn't even introduced until October of that year.

So from the time of Flaherty's response to Pacetti nearly six months ago, it should have been clear what was afoot. And indeed the Libs' current position is that they saw the problem coming:

Liberal finance critic John McCallum said he asked Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to put the credit in the spring budget implementation bill so consumers would have certainty, but Flaherty apparently declined.

"I still think it will go through at the end of the day because we will certainly honour it, but people might still have a nagging doubt until it is passed and this could have been avoided," said McCallum.

But the reality is that it's the Libs who chose to support Deficit Jim's budget on the Cons' terms. Which means that if and when the Libs get strong-armed into backing the Cons once again based on an inevitable set of threats about the home renovation tax credit, they'll have nobody to blame but themselves.

Deep thought

It doesn't strike me as a good sign when a party's top example of fresh talent supposedly attracted by its new leader is somebody who lost the same riding under the old one.

On separation

The NDP's upcoming convention is starting to get plenty of mainstream coverage. But while most of the reporting about a party name change and election readiness sounds familiar, there does appear to be one new development in the topics up for discussion:

In related resolutions, delegates will be asked whether to separate the NDP's provincial and federal memberships, which total about 70,000.

"As the caucus gets larger, as we build our infrastructure and get our party into more of a breakthrough mode, these issues are taking on a greater significance," says NDP national director Brad Lavigne.

Now, I'll be curious to see what rationale there is for splitting off provincial and federal memberships. But for now, I'd have to be skeptical of the proposal.

After all, a common membership list effectively allows the two levels of NDP organization to complement each other: where one recruits a new member, the other both benefits from the new arrival within the party, and can avoid putting its own resources into pursuing the same individual. In contrast, a membership split would seem to me to require each level of the party to go through its own registration process for each individual member - creating double the workload just to administer the current level of membership even if the numbers stay the same.

So even leaving aside the question of whether a split membership process would make it more difficult to share information or otherwise coordinate between the federal and provincial wings, there would seem to be an obvious cost to the plan.

Meanwhile, the apparent benefit of splitting the two types of membership would be the potential to add new members at one level of government who prefer not to be affiliated at the other. But it's hard to see how the federal party would stand to gain much on that front either.

Of the provinces where there's any arguable gap in political orientation between the NDP's federal and provincial wings, it's uniformly the provincial wing which has expanded its reach somewhat further toward the political centre than the federal wing. Which means that by separating the lists, the federal NDP would seem to be undercutting its own apparent efforts to work with an expanded base of potential support. Yet it's not clear that the provincial wings would seem to benefit much from a split either, as the dual membership requirement may well keep more activists inside the party's tent than would be the case otherwise.

Mind you, there's an important exception to the rule in Quebec, where one can make the case that there might be a wave of potential recruits into the federal NDP who wouldn't want to bind themselves to any provincial party in the process. Indeed, I'm not sure for the moment how the dual membership requirement even applies in a province where the NDP doesn't run candidates provincially.

That said, it would seem to make more sense to establish an exception for provinces where there isn't a substantial NDP presence at the provincial level than to make a change which would radically overhaul the party's membership structure across the country. And hopefully the convention will agree that the last thing that either the federal or provincial wings should want to do is to limit the NDP's cooperation and party unity across jurisdictional divides.

On repeated patterns

Sure, it might seem like Robert has caught the CP's Joan Bryden and her sources for an article on EI distorting easily-checked facts about the impact of an eight-week eligibility standard. But don't we know by now that truth is no object when it comes to keeping the uppity working folk from benefiting from government action?

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

Needless to say, it's a pleasant surprise to be able to write about an hard-fought victory over the defending Grey Cup champtions rather than looking for bright spots in a third consecutive loss. But what's most impressive about the 'Riders' result yesterday is that they won in a way which hadn't yet worked this season.

Again, the two previous 'Rider victories followed a fairly predictable pattern: the defence and special teams forced a ton of turnovers early on, the offence capitalized with a good number of points on a short field, and then the team clung to a lead the rest of the way despite some rough patches on both sides of the ball. But when a similar start resulted instead in a gut-wrenching defeat last week, it figured to be time for the team to go back to the drawing board.

So rather than counting on stripping the ball from opponents at every available opportunity, the 'Riders played more of a bend-but-don't-break defence - generating enough pressure to keep Henry Burris from getting too comfortable, but not forcing a single turnover until two failed third-down plays in the game's closing minutes.

Granted, Calgary managed to churn up more yardage than would have been ideal, and the 'Riders gave up another 100-yard game on the ground. And indeed the defence seldom seemed in control of the game until the Stamps' final three possessions where they had clearly abandoned one part of their offence (a two-and-out when Joffrey Reynolds was handed the ball in hopes of running out the clock and staying in field-goal range, and two three-and-outs when Burris had little choice but to go to the air.)

But the overall result was to hold the Stamps' point total to a level where the offence had a reasonable chance to win the game. Which they did, despite a few missed opportunities for points earlier in the game. And it may have been one of Darian Durant's perceived weaknesses that actually allowed Saskatchewan to generate the decisive play.

After all, a team facing a quarterback with a reputation for a stronger arm almost certainly would have had some better deep support in the secondary while clinging to a 6-point lead. But the Stamps instead left enough room in their defensive backfield for Chris Getzlaf to both get open, and find a relatively uncontested path to the end zone.

Meanwhile, credit also has to go to Steven Jyles for his second-quarter performance. If there was any point where the defence looked like it was about to snap, it would have been after the Stamps had controlled the ball for most of the quarter, settling for two fairly short field goals with the wind at their back but having plenty of time on the field to wear out Saskatchewan's defence. Rather than letting them get the ball back, Jyles and the offence ran the five-plus minutes left in the half off the clock - never generating any huge plays, but getting into field goal range with a gritty ground game and a few well-placed passes. That kept the 'Riders within striking distance going into the second half, where their first third-quarter points of the season kept the game within reach the rest of the way.

So what should the team be looking to improve going into B.C.? Once again, punt returning looks to be a serious issue, as Gerran Walker may have been the least effective returner yet with his unfortunate habit of running backwards or in circles. The rest of the special teams also had some issues throughout the game, with Luca Congi missing two field goals (one on a tip) and Jamie Boreham's punting also looking subpar in both gross and net results. And while the tackling was somewhat better, there's still ample room for improvement there.

Ultimately, the 'Riders probably can't count on getting a few of the breaks they got against the Stamps in most games. But they found a way to win a game decided on field position and offensive production against the best team on paper in the West. And while the game probably would have been a reasonably successful one in that respect even if Getzlaf's second TD hadn't happened, the fact that the 'Riders managed to put another notch in the win column should relieve plenty of the pressure previously facing the team.

In solidarity

Angelo Persichilli's fact-free rant about unions positively cried out for a thorough debunking. And Dr. Dawg has delivered so the rest of us don't have to.