Since Jim Flaherty's Question Period answers on the HST suggest that he's either a bit unclear on the concepts of "raising" and "reducing" or having trouble with basic integers, let's help him out in figuring out what his government has done for the citizens of B.C. and Ontario.
7% (GST starting point) - 2% (GST cuts) + 7% (increase as PST-exempt goods are harmonized) = 12%. 7% < 12%. Therefore, sales taxes in British Columbia have been raised, not reduced, on goods and services subject to harmonization.
7% (GST starting point) - 2% (GST cuts) + 8% (increase as PST-exempt goods are harmonized) = 13%. 7% < 13%. Therefore, sales taxes in Ontario have been raised, not reduced, on goods and services subject to harmonization.
And since Deficit Jim was the one who paid off the provinces to carry out the increase linked to harmonization, that would make his a "party that raises taxes".
Hopefully this at least gives Flaherty a slightly better idea how numbers work. But one would think it might have been a good idea to start learning sooner than three and a half years into his stay as federal Finance Minister.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Hate to spoil a good fabrication, but...
...for all the attempts from the Libs to project two years of mostly-suppressed self-loathing onto another party, the NDP's message still makes far more sense in terms of laying responsibility for an election with the Cons than as a sign of any shift in the likelihood of actually getting there. And it'll be particularly happy to be able to link Harper's refusal to even discuss whether there's any way to salvage some positive results from the current Parliament with Ignatieff's message that cooperation is beneath him.
The Harper/Ignatieff Sales Tax
So Michael Ignatieff has made it official: even as his party tries to capitalize off public frustration with the nicely-branded Harper Sales Tax, he has every intention of doing exactly the same thing as long as he gets to put his name on it. Which should leave no room for doubt that for all the Libs' insincere bluster, it's the NDP alone which doesn't want to use federal money to pay British Columbia and Ontario to increase taxes on their citizens.
Sask Party Plans to Run a Red Light
Bill Boyd desperately wants to pretend that Dan Perrins' report on public opinions about uranium development in Saskatchewan was anything but a clear repudiation of the Wall government's determination to build a nuke-dependent Saskatchewan:
What about the other pieces of the Wall government's nuclear agenda? The other live issue is Wall's proposal to slap up a reactor to produce nuclear isotopes - but that too was rejected by a wide margin as citizens pointed out that isotopes can be generated through other means:
Perhaps most interesting, though, is Perrins' chart of the common themes within submissions received (page 32 of the report). Of the 2,263 submissions, well over 60% (1401 in total) set out opposition to nuclear power [see update below], with the next most common themes being concern about health, safety and the environment; opposition to nuclear waste storage; concern about the costs of uranium development; support for renewal energy sources; concern about the UDP report itself; and opposition to mining and exploration.
That was the last theme listed with the total number of mentions at 519. But Perrins' text includes nine more themes presumably based on the same type of ranking process, and none of those were actually supportive of nuclear development either.
That's particularly noteworthy in light of the best efforts of the business community to hijack the process before throwing a tantrum over the fact that people were actually being heard. Indeed, I'm surprised that there wasn't enough of an astroturfing effort to at least push some nuclear propaganda into the top 16 messages taken from the consultation process.
But in the final result, it's hard to imagine the consultation process producing a more clear signal to the Sask Party that they need to stop trying to foist the nuclear industry on Saskatchewan. And the fact that they're so blatantly ignoring what Saskatchewan's citizens have had to say should speak volumes as to how likely they are to "get it right" given any opening to pursue their nuclear agenda.
Update/correction: On further review, I note that the numbers listed within each theme in Perrins' summary don't necessarily fit the heading: for example, the 1,401 listed under "opposition to nuclear power" actually include submissions in favour of nuclear power. But the strength of opposition to nuclear power is even more striking when that breakdown (84%-14% within the 1,401) is taken into consideration: an absolute majority of all submissions made stated their opposition to nuclear power, while a paltry 8% offered support for it.
"When I look at this report, it's neither a green light nor a red light for future uranium development," said Energy and Resources Minister Bill Boyd in a news release.So what kind of language does Boyd consider to be an instruction to keep forcing nuclear development on the province? Let's take a look at some highlights from the report...
"It's more like a yellow light — take any next steps with caution. Saskatchewan people are saying — take your time, get it right, consider all the options. I think that's wise counsel."
Theme 1: Opposition to Nuclear Power GenerationNow, it may be worth following up to determine whether Boyd was sheltered from the actual outcome of the consultations in order to be able to make that kind of statement with a straight face. But it's hard to see how a document that explicitly says the overwhelming response wants to rule out nuclear development can be taken as evidence that it should be pursued by anybody who isn't either utterly clueless, or determinedly dishonest.
Overall, while there is some support for nuclear power generation, the overwhelming response to this public consultation was that nuclear power generation should not be a choice for Saskatchewan, whether it is intended to serve the needs of Saskatchewan people only, or for a combination of Saskatchewan people and other provinces or states.
What about the other pieces of the Wall government's nuclear agenda? The other live issue is Wall's proposal to slap up a reactor to produce nuclear isotopes - but that too was rejected by a wide margin as citizens pointed out that isotopes can be generated through other means:
Most people were opposed to uranium research, development, and training. They pointed to opportunities in alternative energies, to the desire to avoid non-green technologies including uranium, and to the costs of doing research (including opportunity costs) in this field.In fact, exactly twice as many respondents expressed support for producing isotopes by means other than fission than for producing isotopes generally (a margin of 54-27) - reflecting the greater number of opponents than supporters on the "research/isotope" section in general.
People were interested in the topic of medical isotopes and expressed a need for more information on isotope production and use. Responses were divided on this issue. In fact, many people who expressed support for the production of medical isotopes stipulated it should occur without the use of nuclear fission.
Perhaps most interesting, though, is Perrins' chart of the common themes within submissions received (page 32 of the report). Of the 2,263 submissions, well over 60% (1401 in total) set out opposition to nuclear power [see update below], with the next most common themes being concern about health, safety and the environment; opposition to nuclear waste storage; concern about the costs of uranium development; support for renewal energy sources; concern about the UDP report itself; and opposition to mining and exploration.
That was the last theme listed with the total number of mentions at 519. But Perrins' text includes nine more themes presumably based on the same type of ranking process, and none of those were actually supportive of nuclear development either.
That's particularly noteworthy in light of the best efforts of the business community to hijack the process before throwing a tantrum over the fact that people were actually being heard. Indeed, I'm surprised that there wasn't enough of an astroturfing effort to at least push some nuclear propaganda into the top 16 messages taken from the consultation process.
But in the final result, it's hard to imagine the consultation process producing a more clear signal to the Sask Party that they need to stop trying to foist the nuclear industry on Saskatchewan. And the fact that they're so blatantly ignoring what Saskatchewan's citizens have had to say should speak volumes as to how likely they are to "get it right" given any opening to pursue their nuclear agenda.
Update/correction: On further review, I note that the numbers listed within each theme in Perrins' summary don't necessarily fit the heading: for example, the 1,401 listed under "opposition to nuclear power" actually include submissions in favour of nuclear power. But the strength of opposition to nuclear power is even more striking when that breakdown (84%-14% within the 1,401) is taken into consideration: an absolute majority of all submissions made stated their opposition to nuclear power, while a paltry 8% offered support for it.
Monday, September 14, 2009
On self-destruction
My first reaction to Michael Ignatieff's declaration that meetings with other party leaders are beneath him was to look at the event as an unforced error. But on further reflection, that's probably a serious understatement: instead, this is roughly the equivalent of Ignatieff rearing back, taking a mighty but ill-aimed swing, and knocking himself unconscious with his own racket while a set point sails merrily past him.
After all, one of the weaknesses which the Cons have tried to attach to Ignatieff has been an inflated ego coupled with a detachment from the reality facing most Canadians. Needless to say, that reputation will only be bolstered by his becoming probably the first Canadian political leader ever to declare that he has no intention of working with his peers. (Even Harper has regularly met with the opposition leaders - if only for show before he goes about doing what he planned to do anyway.)
And the image will only get worse when it's applied to more specific situations. The Bloc in particular has to be gleeful about sending the message that Ignatieff has publicly ruled out listening to Quebec (or at least the majority of the province's ridings that it represents) - and the NDP too figures to have some opportunity to pull votes from the Libs by pointing out a need to force Ignatieff to listen when he doesn't plan to do so if he can avoid it.
But then, Ignatieff can't exactly afford to backtrack from the statement either. However ill-advised it's been for him to make coalition-bashing into his preferred hobby, he'll only undermine his own credibility on that point if he backtracks from his current statement of unwillingness to work with the NDP and the Bloc. Which means that one way or another, Ignatieff's declaration that his fellow opposition leaders are unworthy of his time figures to open him up to nothing but trouble.
After all, one of the weaknesses which the Cons have tried to attach to Ignatieff has been an inflated ego coupled with a detachment from the reality facing most Canadians. Needless to say, that reputation will only be bolstered by his becoming probably the first Canadian political leader ever to declare that he has no intention of working with his peers. (Even Harper has regularly met with the opposition leaders - if only for show before he goes about doing what he planned to do anyway.)
And the image will only get worse when it's applied to more specific situations. The Bloc in particular has to be gleeful about sending the message that Ignatieff has publicly ruled out listening to Quebec (or at least the majority of the province's ridings that it represents) - and the NDP too figures to have some opportunity to pull votes from the Libs by pointing out a need to force Ignatieff to listen when he doesn't plan to do so if he can avoid it.
But then, Ignatieff can't exactly afford to backtrack from the statement either. However ill-advised it's been for him to make coalition-bashing into his preferred hobby, he'll only undermine his own credibility on that point if he backtracks from his current statement of unwillingness to work with the NDP and the Bloc. Which means that one way or another, Ignatieff's declaration that his fellow opposition leaders are unworthy of his time figures to open him up to nothing but trouble.
Your new cooperative politics at work
Yessiree, Michael Ignatieff sure is showing them how it's done when it comes to a more positive and respectful brand of politics rather than an insular, party-only focus:
As for the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition of late last year, Ignatieff has said that's off the table.Which, for those playing along at home, means that Ignatieff has declared his intention to reflexively vote against the government in Parliament - but also to refuse to work with the other opposition parties to actually mount any effective challenges to that government. So what exactly do the Libs expect to accomplish on Parliament Hill that couldn't be done equally well by cardboard cutouts?
In fact, he says he has not spoken to Layton and Duceppe about the fall session and has no plans to.
On responses
Following up on this post, I'll put on my armchair strategist hat to suggest what the NDP should do in response to the Cons' EI benefit extension proposal. The first step is of course to wait for the bill to be introduced: if any EI reform is tied to a poison pill, then that should be taken as further evidence that Harper's government isn't interested in doing anything but poking the opposition with sharp sticks. (And yes, that's what the NDP did with the Cons' previous confidence bills as well, while expressing appropriate skepticism about the likelihood of their justifying a vote in the Cons' favour.)
Assuming the Cons bring forward a clean bill with reasonable EI improvements, that's where the decision point comes for the NDP. But I don't see any path forward which involves the NDP voting alone alongside the Cons.
Instead, the NDP's next move should then be to talk to the other parties and to the public to see if it's possible to pass the EI bill with unanimous consent - which would of course remove the dangers associated with the Cons delaying the bill and demanding votes to prop themselves up in the meantime. If all parties agree, then something positive would get done due largely to the NDP's contributions - giving Layton an ideal position going into an election campaign which can then start from the next confidence vote.
Of course, the idea that all of the parties will go along with even the most desirable of reforms probably deserves a laugh track. But a public effort to round up unanimous consent would still create some positive results for the NDP.
The most likely outcome would see the Cons refusing to pass their own bill immediately as they did when the Libs tried a similar gambit with previous crime bills. But that would thoroughly undermine the Cons' effort to win over the support of workers who would see the changes as a plus. And moreover, it would give the opposition parties a powerful argument to claim that the Cons saw the bill purely as a political calculation rather than something which they actually cared about passing - laying the blame entirely on the Cons for continued political games as a non-confidence vote takes place.
Equally plausibly, the Libs might choose to withhold their consent to passing an EI bill quickly, calculating that their desire to avoid being seen working with the NDP and Bloc outweighs both good policy and the desire to take EI away from the Cons as an issue. But from the NDP's standpoint, that would present some opportunities as well: they'd be able to point to the Libs' plan to obstruct any progress as evidence that it's indeed time for an election, and make a case that the Libs both failed to get anything done while supporting the Cons, then prevented the other parties from generating positive results once they came around to the NDP's point of view.
And if by some chance both the Libs and Cons balk? I'd think the incentive would be for at least one to take advantage of the other's holding the measure up by claiming to have wanted to get the measures passed. But as another piece of the "same old story" puzzle, that too would be just fine for the NDP.
Again, the crucial point is that there's little apparent reason why the NDP would allow an EI reform bill to get introduced and put in the legislative pipeline without moving the debate toward whether to pass it immediately. Either it passes before it's put at risk by another confidence vote, or the system isn't working and it won't pass anyway - and either way, the next contentious confidence vote should see the NDP voting down the Harper government.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Assuming the Cons bring forward a clean bill with reasonable EI improvements, that's where the decision point comes for the NDP. But I don't see any path forward which involves the NDP voting alone alongside the Cons.
Instead, the NDP's next move should then be to talk to the other parties and to the public to see if it's possible to pass the EI bill with unanimous consent - which would of course remove the dangers associated with the Cons delaying the bill and demanding votes to prop themselves up in the meantime. If all parties agree, then something positive would get done due largely to the NDP's contributions - giving Layton an ideal position going into an election campaign which can then start from the next confidence vote.
Of course, the idea that all of the parties will go along with even the most desirable of reforms probably deserves a laugh track. But a public effort to round up unanimous consent would still create some positive results for the NDP.
The most likely outcome would see the Cons refusing to pass their own bill immediately as they did when the Libs tried a similar gambit with previous crime bills. But that would thoroughly undermine the Cons' effort to win over the support of workers who would see the changes as a plus. And moreover, it would give the opposition parties a powerful argument to claim that the Cons saw the bill purely as a political calculation rather than something which they actually cared about passing - laying the blame entirely on the Cons for continued political games as a non-confidence vote takes place.
Equally plausibly, the Libs might choose to withhold their consent to passing an EI bill quickly, calculating that their desire to avoid being seen working with the NDP and Bloc outweighs both good policy and the desire to take EI away from the Cons as an issue. But from the NDP's standpoint, that would present some opportunities as well: they'd be able to point to the Libs' plan to obstruct any progress as evidence that it's indeed time for an election, and make a case that the Libs both failed to get anything done while supporting the Cons, then prevented the other parties from generating positive results once they came around to the NDP's point of view.
And if by some chance both the Libs and Cons balk? I'd think the incentive would be for at least one to take advantage of the other's holding the measure up by claiming to have wanted to get the measures passed. But as another piece of the "same old story" puzzle, that too would be just fine for the NDP.
Again, the crucial point is that there's little apparent reason why the NDP would allow an EI reform bill to get introduced and put in the legislative pipeline without moving the debate toward whether to pass it immediately. Either it passes before it's put at risk by another confidence vote, or the system isn't working and it won't pass anyway - and either way, the next contentious confidence vote should see the NDP voting down the Harper government.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
One more voice in the mix
Regular readers of this blog will know that I'm often critical of the corporate media for failing to give NDP voices a chance to be heard. So let's note one major positive development on that front, as Brian Topp has been added to the Globe and Mail's list of bloggers. But what will Douglas Bell do for material now that Topp's writings figure to appear on his own blog instead?
A good start, but...
...it's hard to see how the Cons' proposed EI benefit extension for long-term employees can make much difference in the current path toward an election. If the benefit is passed quickly on its own, then there's still plenty of potential to go to the polls on a non-confidence motion in the near future; if the Cons try to extend their stay in power by delaying its passage (or attach it to anything contentious), then it doesn't look to be anywhere near enough to justify support from any opposition party.
Monday Morning 'Rider Blogging
It's not very often that a team comes away with a 45-point win. It's even less common to win by that margin while still managing to leave plenty of points on the field as the Saskatchewan Roughriders did yesterday. So what happened in yesterday's Banjo Bowl doesn't figure to be a repeatable result for the 'Riders - especially given how dependent the outcome was on the Bombers' propensity for self-destruction.
That said, the game looks to have been a potential watershed moment for the 'Riders in one important way. Throughout the 2009 season, the team has normally had little trouble staking itself to first-half leads, but has struggled to hold on in the second half.
Yesterday was the first time the 'Riders have substantially broken that pattern. Rather than letting up or making mistakes of their own after taking the lead, the 'Riders managed to keep going in the right direction throughout the game - playing safely enough to avoid giving Winnipeg any easy points, while at the same time staying aggressive enough to pull away until the game was out of reach.
On offence, full credit goes to Darien Durant for a steady game where his final numbers didn't match the positive results the offence was able to generate. In the midst of a season where he's seemed to try several different patterns of game management, Durant's performance yesterday was straight out of the Kerry Joseph 2007 playbook: loads of scrambling to extend plays combined with a willingness to throw the ball away rather than taking unnecessary risks, enough big plays to keep the defence on its heels, and enough ability to capitalize on short fields to put the game solidly in the win column. Which was exactly what the team needed for this game - and probably makes for a model which it can keep up for the rest of the season.
Of course, that does count on the defence continuing to generate turnovers. Yesterday's count was largely the result of the Bombers' own mistakes, but the 'Riders have previously shown they can get the job done on that front under somewhat more challenging circumstances. And the fact that the 'Riders' secondary was good enough to largely shut down the pass yesterday even while the team loaded up against the Bombers' running attack should give Gary Etcheverry even more flexibility to send pressure at opposing quarterbacks.
We'll find out next week how that strategy works against a quarterback who isn't quite as gaffe-prone as Michael Bishop. But for now, all indications are that the 'Riders have managed to at least partially fix their biggest issues while continuing to build on their early-season strengths - and it's hard not to like where the team is positioned for the rest of the CFL season.
That said, the game looks to have been a potential watershed moment for the 'Riders in one important way. Throughout the 2009 season, the team has normally had little trouble staking itself to first-half leads, but has struggled to hold on in the second half.
Yesterday was the first time the 'Riders have substantially broken that pattern. Rather than letting up or making mistakes of their own after taking the lead, the 'Riders managed to keep going in the right direction throughout the game - playing safely enough to avoid giving Winnipeg any easy points, while at the same time staying aggressive enough to pull away until the game was out of reach.
On offence, full credit goes to Darien Durant for a steady game where his final numbers didn't match the positive results the offence was able to generate. In the midst of a season where he's seemed to try several different patterns of game management, Durant's performance yesterday was straight out of the Kerry Joseph 2007 playbook: loads of scrambling to extend plays combined with a willingness to throw the ball away rather than taking unnecessary risks, enough big plays to keep the defence on its heels, and enough ability to capitalize on short fields to put the game solidly in the win column. Which was exactly what the team needed for this game - and probably makes for a model which it can keep up for the rest of the season.
Of course, that does count on the defence continuing to generate turnovers. Yesterday's count was largely the result of the Bombers' own mistakes, but the 'Riders have previously shown they can get the job done on that front under somewhat more challenging circumstances. And the fact that the 'Riders' secondary was good enough to largely shut down the pass yesterday even while the team loaded up against the Bombers' running attack should give Gary Etcheverry even more flexibility to send pressure at opposing quarterbacks.
We'll find out next week how that strategy works against a quarterback who isn't quite as gaffe-prone as Michael Bishop. But for now, all indications are that the 'Riders have managed to at least partially fix their biggest issues while continuing to build on their early-season strengths - and it's hard not to like where the team is positioned for the rest of the CFL season.
On targets
With a federal election likely around the corner, one of the main questions for the NDP is how effectively it can build on the inroads it's made in historically barren terrain. And Norman Spector notes that the party's Quebec strategy may not be what one might have expected based on its 2008 results:
Outremont and Gatineau are obviously the NDP's two strongest ridings in Quebec. But while there are some points in favour of each of the other two priority ridings as being potentially favourable territory, neither would jump out as potential targets based on their recent results.
In Sherbrooke, the NDP ran a respectable fourth with 13.1% of the vote in 2008. But one could say the same for dozens of Quebec ridings which aren't apparently being promoted to the top of the NDP's list of targets as a result. Which means that the riding will likely serve as a test case for the NDP's ability to find demographic factors aside from voting results alone which can bring a riding into play.
Meanwhile, Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup was actually one of the NDP's weaker Quebec ridings, with the party taking only 5.7% of the vote compared to 12.2% province-wide. Mind you, there is one obvious reason why the riding would be its target: its former MP (the Bloc's Paul Crete) resigned giving rise to a by-election campaign, and the combination of no incumbent and the resources put in during the by-election campaign might well create an ideal set of conditions for a breakthrough.
Still, the NDP's current position includes a seemingly more promising base in ridings where it has already moved up in the party standings and substantially closed the vote gap such as Hull-Aylmer, Drummond and Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, as well as ridings where it took second place like Westmount-Ville-Marie, Rivière-du-Nord and Repentigny. And we'll likely find out before long whether the ridings which surprisingly made the party's shortlist ahead of those better-developed options will actually offer more fertile territory.
(B)efore you forget about an imminent election so as to get on with your life, you should note that La Presse is reporting that “An election is inevitable. … An NDP source indicated last night that there have been no discussions with emissaries of the Harper government to find common ground. 'This leads us to believe that they, too, want an election.'" And, behind its fire-wall, Le Devoir is carrying a report this morning that suggests that NDP planning in Québec is proceeding full speed ahead:Of course it isn't the NDP's message that figures to come as news, as the opportunity to have the party's traditional "same old story" line of attack reinforced by the strongest party on the Quebec political scene makes for an opening far too valuable to miss. But it's worth noting where that message is apparently going to be focused.
“Strategists have set four ridings as their priorities, and those ridings will have greater resources during the campaign: Gatineau, Outremont, Sherbrooke and Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. … New Democrats will be reinforcing the Bloc message, which is attempting to demonstrate that Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper are one in the same for Québec. The NDP will hammer home the fact that the Liberals have voted 79 times to save the Conservatives from being defeated in the Commons."
Outremont and Gatineau are obviously the NDP's two strongest ridings in Quebec. But while there are some points in favour of each of the other two priority ridings as being potentially favourable territory, neither would jump out as potential targets based on their recent results.
In Sherbrooke, the NDP ran a respectable fourth with 13.1% of the vote in 2008. But one could say the same for dozens of Quebec ridings which aren't apparently being promoted to the top of the NDP's list of targets as a result. Which means that the riding will likely serve as a test case for the NDP's ability to find demographic factors aside from voting results alone which can bring a riding into play.
Meanwhile, Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup was actually one of the NDP's weaker Quebec ridings, with the party taking only 5.7% of the vote compared to 12.2% province-wide. Mind you, there is one obvious reason why the riding would be its target: its former MP (the Bloc's Paul Crete) resigned giving rise to a by-election campaign, and the combination of no incumbent and the resources put in during the by-election campaign might well create an ideal set of conditions for a breakthrough.
Still, the NDP's current position includes a seemingly more promising base in ridings where it has already moved up in the party standings and substantially closed the vote gap such as Hull-Aylmer, Drummond and Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, as well as ridings where it took second place like Westmount-Ville-Marie, Rivière-du-Nord and Repentigny. And we'll likely find out before long whether the ridings which surprisingly made the party's shortlist ahead of those better-developed options will actually offer more fertile territory.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
A few municipal notes
For those looking for reason to be excited about the possibilities in this fall's municipal elections, look no further than Heather McIntyre's run to unseat Jocelyn Hutchinson in Regina's Ward 2 (first publicly announced on Kent Peterson's blog). McIntyre was one of the main forces behind the scenes of Yens Pedersen's remarkably successful leadership campaign, and her candidacy looks to be in great shape due to the enthusiasm that's built among Regina's NDP supporters since the leadership race ended.
For those looking out for an old favourite in a new role, longtime MLA Glenn Hagel has formally declared his intention to run for mayor of Moose Jaw. So far there are two other candidates in the race, but neither with much political profile that I'm aware of - making Hagel the early frontrunner.
And for those looking for a multi-candidate pileup, look no further than Regina's Ward 3, where Don Young's announcement that he'll once again join the perpetually-crowded race leaves him facing off against John Conway, Shirley Dixon and possibly incumbent Fred Clipsham (who still hasn't formally announced his intentions).
We'll find out before too long who will emerge from the pack to win the council seat this fall. But barring some unexpected influx of challengers elsewhere, there may be as many nominally left-wing candidates finishing as also-rans in Ward 3 as there are similarly progressive candidates mounting serious challenges in all of Regina's other wards combined. And I have to wonder if the city as a whole would be better served if the big names looked at using their greater visibility either to take aim at some of council's more reactionary members, or better yet to take on Pat Fiacco in the mayoral vote - rather than adding more names to the ballot in a ward whose representative is bound to be a comparatively progressive vote on council no matter who wins.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
For those looking out for an old favourite in a new role, longtime MLA Glenn Hagel has formally declared his intention to run for mayor of Moose Jaw. So far there are two other candidates in the race, but neither with much political profile that I'm aware of - making Hagel the early frontrunner.
And for those looking for a multi-candidate pileup, look no further than Regina's Ward 3, where Don Young's announcement that he'll once again join the perpetually-crowded race leaves him facing off against John Conway, Shirley Dixon and possibly incumbent Fred Clipsham (who still hasn't formally announced his intentions).
We'll find out before too long who will emerge from the pack to win the council seat this fall. But barring some unexpected influx of challengers elsewhere, there may be as many nominally left-wing candidates finishing as also-rans in Ward 3 as there are similarly progressive candidates mounting serious challenges in all of Regina's other wards combined. And I have to wonder if the city as a whole would be better served if the big names looked at using their greater visibility either to take aim at some of council's more reactionary members, or better yet to take on Pat Fiacco in the mayoral vote - rather than adding more names to the ballot in a ward whose representative is bound to be a comparatively progressive vote on council no matter who wins.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Alberta NDP Convention Liveblogging - DRP Resolution
11:08 AM The room has been fairly well involved through the proceedings this morning, but it wasn't hard to tell which issue figures to inspire the most passionate views, as lines including dozens of people formed once the resolution was called. And while the first speaker of course gets to speak in favour in trying to talk down the NDP's chances on its own, the overwhelming majority of the speakers are (as expected) set to speak against the resolution.
11:09 AM Brian Mason is the first speaker against the resolution and gets a strong round of applause. He discusses some of the history the DRP's previously-rejected efforts as raising the potential for a split within the NDP itself, and asks the DRP's proponents to respect the decision of the convention if it does vote against the resolution.
11:12 AM That answers my question - one of the DRP backers lists the 10% number in the resolution as a typo which should read "40%". He goes on to make a case which interestingly mirrors some of the focus on "winning" vs. "principle" which has arisen in various was at both the Saskatchewan and federal NDP conventions.
11:15 AM One of the apeakers against the resolutions takes on the question of strategy head-on by noting the dangers for candidate recruitment and development, as well as the federal party's chances of being sufficiently organized to add to its seat total.
11:17 AM The third "pro" speaker paints the DRP strategy as a path toward PR in contrast to the present strategy playing to an FPTP system, stating that the time to be "NDPers plain and simple" would be after a change in electoral systems.
11:18 AM A Labour Caucus member takes to one of the "con" microphones to emphasize labour's respectful opposition - recognizing some frustration within the DRP and indeed in the labour movement as reasonable motivation, but rejecting the proposal as making it less likely that a progressive government would actually emerge (while appealing to other opponents of the DRP to work with its members).
11:21 AM The next "pro" speaker launches into a laundry list of concerns about the state of Alberta politics based on voter turnout and party membership and says "something has to change" based on the assumption that Albertans generally are not partisans. He mentions precedents of other NDP provincial branches in Manitoba and Nova Scotia which once didn't run full slates, but I'm not sure how the analogy is supposed to apply unless either of them actually reduced their scope from province-wide to a more limited focus rather than merely building up from less ridings to more.
11:24 AM The next "con" speaker paints the NDP's position as being the "voice of the people" as distinct from the PCs and the Liberals who remain "the voice of business", and the Greens with their "ultra-ring-wing politics".
11:26 AM A "pro" speaker paints the issue as being about the needs of the many vs. the needs of the few - with the former best served by cooperating with other parties to take down the PCs and implement PR. This seems to be a common theme - but is there any indication that the Alberta Liberals in particular are favourable toward PR?
11:28 AM A point of personal privilege is raised about the proceedings being videotaped; the chair needs to take some time to consult, but the issue is quickly resolved as the camera operator agrees not to film any more.
11:30 AM A "con" speaker notes that the political scene is already looking more favourable with the Wildrose Alliance splitting votes on the right and the Greens out of the picture, and expresses concerns about trading away the ability to run a campaign in Edmonton Gold Bar (getting huge applause by stating he won't vote Liberal under any circumstances).
11:32 AM Alvin Finkel speaks up in favour of the resolution and criticizes the idea of "needing to work harder" as being a solution, and speaks in favour of working with the Liberals to avoid backlash for rejecting an expected appeal from David Swann.
11:35 AM Rachel Notley speaks against the resolution, pointing to research showing that voter splits don't actually figure to favour the NDP in ridings where Liberals aren't an option - such that an arrangement wouldn't actually solve any of the problems, and would stop candidates like Linda Duncan from ever running (let alone winning).
11:38 AM A "pro" speaker says he was threatened while campaigning and thrown off of a reserve while trying to win a seat to improve living conditions in MacLeod.
11:40 AM The blog's good friend Idealistic Pragmatist speaks to her disillusionment in the U.S. which made her a Canadian by choice, criticizing the idea that a choice of only two options can make for a healthy democracy and pointing out that the motion doesn't reflect the desire for PR that many people share on both sides.
11:42 AM The "pro" speaker notes an increase in involvement on her side of the question - and it does seem fair to point out that as quickly as the DRP has sometimes been dismissed, it does seem to have a reasonable number of speakers on its side. The speaker also points to the prospect of a coalition at the federal level, and notes right-wing coalitions in other provinces like Saskatchewan and B.C. which have managed to remove NDP governments from office.
11:45 AM The "con" speaker characterizes the resolution as "desperate", leading to the NDP being perceived as disenfranchising its supporters and volunteers and failing to speak for the province as a whole.
11:47 AM A "pro" speaker expresses concern about the amount of time required to get the NDP to power in comparison to the damage being done in the meantime, citing her history working with the NDP in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and stating that Alberta's situation is fundamentally different based on longstanding public support for the PCs.
11:49 AM The Chair tests the view of the room as to whether to continue with the debate - and surprisingly there's still a strong vote in favour of continued debate.
11:52 AM David Eggen speaks on the "con" side - approving of the effort at meaningful democratic engagement on both sides of the debate, and pointing to that as an example for trying to get the public involved as well. He then points to his own experience in Edmonton Calder as an example of how efforts to remove choices can backfire - as the Liberal campaign's weakness allowed the PCs to siphon off votes on the soft right and take back the seat.
11:53 AM A "pro" speaker notes the support for Parliamentary cooperation on both the provincial and federal levels, and suggests it should be reasonable to do the same an electoral level.
11:56 AM On the "con" side, a former candidate comments on her experience knocking on doors in a riding where the NDP hadn't done that in 25 years, and expresses concern about giving voters the opportunity to be heard.
11:58 AM Talk of conciliation on the "pro" side, as a speaker expresses her desire to continue working with all sides of the party before criticizing the province's current governance by "oil barons" and pointing out shared policies with the Libs which might improve matters on the environmental front.
12:00 PM A UFCW speaker wonders exactly how much interest there will be from the other parties, and argues that any alliance will have long-term ramifications even if it's intended to be only temporary while expressing her gratitude for the NDP's support for the union (and criticizing the Liberals' failure to support labour priorities).
12:02 PM "Reluctant" support for the motion from a Leduc supporter: "what attracted me to the NDP wasn't the brand, but the need to build socialism in my province and my country". The speaker notes that the NDP itself is effectively a coalition in Manitoba, while Alberta's political culture includes a division between the centre and centre-left.
12:05 PM A "con" speaker discusses the dangers of the "thin edge of the wedge", as the means to a recognized end may become harmful in the ultimate effort. In this case, her concern is that a two-party system won't actually work, and that the attempt to get there will prove divisive.
12:08 PM Another test of the floor as to whether to continue debate, and this time a motion passes to call the question.
And the vote goes strongly against the resolution, as the "pro" side's strength in speeches doesn't appear to have made much headway within the broader crowd. The final count is announced as 123-27.
11:09 AM Brian Mason is the first speaker against the resolution and gets a strong round of applause. He discusses some of the history the DRP's previously-rejected efforts as raising the potential for a split within the NDP itself, and asks the DRP's proponents to respect the decision of the convention if it does vote against the resolution.
11:12 AM That answers my question - one of the DRP backers lists the 10% number in the resolution as a typo which should read "40%". He goes on to make a case which interestingly mirrors some of the focus on "winning" vs. "principle" which has arisen in various was at both the Saskatchewan and federal NDP conventions.
11:15 AM One of the apeakers against the resolutions takes on the question of strategy head-on by noting the dangers for candidate recruitment and development, as well as the federal party's chances of being sufficiently organized to add to its seat total.
11:17 AM The third "pro" speaker paints the DRP strategy as a path toward PR in contrast to the present strategy playing to an FPTP system, stating that the time to be "NDPers plain and simple" would be after a change in electoral systems.
11:18 AM A Labour Caucus member takes to one of the "con" microphones to emphasize labour's respectful opposition - recognizing some frustration within the DRP and indeed in the labour movement as reasonable motivation, but rejecting the proposal as making it less likely that a progressive government would actually emerge (while appealing to other opponents of the DRP to work with its members).
11:21 AM The next "pro" speaker launches into a laundry list of concerns about the state of Alberta politics based on voter turnout and party membership and says "something has to change" based on the assumption that Albertans generally are not partisans. He mentions precedents of other NDP provincial branches in Manitoba and Nova Scotia which once didn't run full slates, but I'm not sure how the analogy is supposed to apply unless either of them actually reduced their scope from province-wide to a more limited focus rather than merely building up from less ridings to more.
11:24 AM The next "con" speaker paints the NDP's position as being the "voice of the people" as distinct from the PCs and the Liberals who remain "the voice of business", and the Greens with their "ultra-ring-wing politics".
11:26 AM A "pro" speaker paints the issue as being about the needs of the many vs. the needs of the few - with the former best served by cooperating with other parties to take down the PCs and implement PR. This seems to be a common theme - but is there any indication that the Alberta Liberals in particular are favourable toward PR?
11:28 AM A point of personal privilege is raised about the proceedings being videotaped; the chair needs to take some time to consult, but the issue is quickly resolved as the camera operator agrees not to film any more.
11:30 AM A "con" speaker notes that the political scene is already looking more favourable with the Wildrose Alliance splitting votes on the right and the Greens out of the picture, and expresses concerns about trading away the ability to run a campaign in Edmonton Gold Bar (getting huge applause by stating he won't vote Liberal under any circumstances).
11:32 AM Alvin Finkel speaks up in favour of the resolution and criticizes the idea of "needing to work harder" as being a solution, and speaks in favour of working with the Liberals to avoid backlash for rejecting an expected appeal from David Swann.
11:35 AM Rachel Notley speaks against the resolution, pointing to research showing that voter splits don't actually figure to favour the NDP in ridings where Liberals aren't an option - such that an arrangement wouldn't actually solve any of the problems, and would stop candidates like Linda Duncan from ever running (let alone winning).
11:38 AM A "pro" speaker says he was threatened while campaigning and thrown off of a reserve while trying to win a seat to improve living conditions in MacLeod.
11:40 AM The blog's good friend Idealistic Pragmatist speaks to her disillusionment in the U.S. which made her a Canadian by choice, criticizing the idea that a choice of only two options can make for a healthy democracy and pointing out that the motion doesn't reflect the desire for PR that many people share on both sides.
11:42 AM The "pro" speaker notes an increase in involvement on her side of the question - and it does seem fair to point out that as quickly as the DRP has sometimes been dismissed, it does seem to have a reasonable number of speakers on its side. The speaker also points to the prospect of a coalition at the federal level, and notes right-wing coalitions in other provinces like Saskatchewan and B.C. which have managed to remove NDP governments from office.
11:45 AM The "con" speaker characterizes the resolution as "desperate", leading to the NDP being perceived as disenfranchising its supporters and volunteers and failing to speak for the province as a whole.
11:47 AM A "pro" speaker expresses concern about the amount of time required to get the NDP to power in comparison to the damage being done in the meantime, citing her history working with the NDP in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and stating that Alberta's situation is fundamentally different based on longstanding public support for the PCs.
11:49 AM The Chair tests the view of the room as to whether to continue with the debate - and surprisingly there's still a strong vote in favour of continued debate.
11:52 AM David Eggen speaks on the "con" side - approving of the effort at meaningful democratic engagement on both sides of the debate, and pointing to that as an example for trying to get the public involved as well. He then points to his own experience in Edmonton Calder as an example of how efforts to remove choices can backfire - as the Liberal campaign's weakness allowed the PCs to siphon off votes on the soft right and take back the seat.
11:53 AM A "pro" speaker notes the support for Parliamentary cooperation on both the provincial and federal levels, and suggests it should be reasonable to do the same an electoral level.
11:56 AM On the "con" side, a former candidate comments on her experience knocking on doors in a riding where the NDP hadn't done that in 25 years, and expresses concern about giving voters the opportunity to be heard.
11:58 AM Talk of conciliation on the "pro" side, as a speaker expresses her desire to continue working with all sides of the party before criticizing the province's current governance by "oil barons" and pointing out shared policies with the Libs which might improve matters on the environmental front.
12:00 PM A UFCW speaker wonders exactly how much interest there will be from the other parties, and argues that any alliance will have long-term ramifications even if it's intended to be only temporary while expressing her gratitude for the NDP's support for the union (and criticizing the Liberals' failure to support labour priorities).
12:02 PM "Reluctant" support for the motion from a Leduc supporter: "what attracted me to the NDP wasn't the brand, but the need to build socialism in my province and my country". The speaker notes that the NDP itself is effectively a coalition in Manitoba, while Alberta's political culture includes a division between the centre and centre-left.
12:05 PM A "con" speaker discusses the dangers of the "thin edge of the wedge", as the means to a recognized end may become harmful in the ultimate effort. In this case, her concern is that a two-party system won't actually work, and that the attempt to get there will prove divisive.
12:08 PM Another test of the floor as to whether to continue debate, and this time a motion passes to call the question.
And the vote goes strongly against the resolution, as the "pro" side's strength in speeches doesn't appear to have made much headway within the broader crowd. The final count is announced as 123-27.
Alberta NDP Convention - Resolutions
The resolution from the DRP which figures to give rise to the most interesting debate this morning is as follows:
The resolution is fourth from the beginning of the list today - and with the first one passing without discussion and the second not taking too long, it looks like we'll have time for at least some discussion.
Whereas many Albertans firmly believe that Alberta Progressive Conservatives can be defeated if the Alberta NDP, Alberta Liberals, and the Greens form a tactical electoral alliance; andI'm not sure where some pieces of the resolution come from (in particular the combined share of the three parties' votes was about 40% - though if one squints hard enough it's not that far from 10% short of the PCs' share of the vote), and other parts of it may require some significant updating based on the deregistration of the Alberta Greens. But the larger issues still remain even if some of the details aren't quite right.
Whereas the combined support of these poarties committed to a greener economy and greater social justice is already about 10%, and an electoral alliance will attrac many currently disillusioned non-voters.
Therefore, be it resolved that this Convention direct the party leader to initiate a public negotiation with the leaders of the Alberta Liberals and the Green Party to conclude a tactical electoral alliance and to specify a procedure to allocate seats to each of the three parties for exclusive nominations in the next provincial election.
The resolution is fourth from the beginning of the list today - and with the first one passing without discussion and the second not taking too long, it looks like we'll have time for at least some discussion.
Alberta NDP Convention - Jack Layton Speech
Jack Layton's speech starts off focusing on local accomplishments and concerns, then segues into a theme of "anything is possible" linked to the enthusiasm behind the campaigns to get Lewis Cardinal and Ray Martin elected.
On the national scene, the speech is consistent with his recent message - describing us as being "on the brink" of an election, while demanding that Harper work together with other parties to avoid forcing one. Layton's "what he's hearing" discussion talks about the difficulties of a worker who's just lost a longtime job and is perceived as too old to start a new career or a student whose difficulty finding a job over the summer results in a lack of resources to get back to school, and targets Harper to ask that their concerns be dealt with. In principle those appear to be areas where the Cons might be willing to make some small moves, though we'll have to see whether the current speculation amounts to anything.
That's then followed by some areas where the Cons aren't so likely to want to listen: an environmental message surrounding the NDP's current climate change bill, sharp criticism of the Cons' two-tiered citizenship, a call for Canada to be a voice for peace internationally, a discussion of the merits of pursuing a balanced economic approach with both a broad base of development and proper regulation, and an appeal for a national pharmacare program leading into a crowd-rallying call to build a better world.
All in all, there isn't too much surprising in Layton's speech. That's said, it's worth noting that the vast majority of it looks to have been focused on firing up the crowd in advance of an immediate election rather than laying much groundwork to avoid one - and that appears to have been in tune with the the mood of the room.
On the national scene, the speech is consistent with his recent message - describing us as being "on the brink" of an election, while demanding that Harper work together with other parties to avoid forcing one. Layton's "what he's hearing" discussion talks about the difficulties of a worker who's just lost a longtime job and is perceived as too old to start a new career or a student whose difficulty finding a job over the summer results in a lack of resources to get back to school, and targets Harper to ask that their concerns be dealt with. In principle those appear to be areas where the Cons might be willing to make some small moves, though we'll have to see whether the current speculation amounts to anything.
That's then followed by some areas where the Cons aren't so likely to want to listen: an environmental message surrounding the NDP's current climate change bill, sharp criticism of the Cons' two-tiered citizenship, a call for Canada to be a voice for peace internationally, a discussion of the merits of pursuing a balanced economic approach with both a broad base of development and proper regulation, and an appeal for a national pharmacare program leading into a crowd-rallying call to build a better world.
All in all, there isn't too much surprising in Layton's speech. That's said, it's worth noting that the vast majority of it looks to have been focused on firing up the crowd in advance of an immediate election rather than laying much groundwork to avoid one - and that appears to have been in tune with the the mood of the room.
Alberta NDP Convention Liveblogging
For those wondering what type of liveblogging I has hinted at last week, my travels have taken me to Edmonton just in time for the Alberta NDP's provincial convention. And I'll be posting on what look to be some interesting proceedings today - including both a speech from Jack Layton, and the possibility of a lively debate over the Democratic Renewal Project. So stay tuned...
Friday, September 11, 2009
On making connections
In a comment on my post a couple of weeks back discussing the Saskatchewan NDP's new (and continuing) focus on linking to blog posts as part of its communication strategy, Garry Aldridge mentioned a few more ideas currently in the works and asked for further suggestions as to how to use the party's website to get more people involved:
I'll start by noting what the NDP is doing very well at the moment. The caucus website is both well-designed and steadily updated, with new content generated by the party most working days to reward frequent visitors (and passed along through Facebook and Twitter as well as through web updates). Meanwhile, past content is readily available through easily-navigated archives, while the new focus on blogs at least sends viewers to one available forum to discuss the issues being raised by the party.
That said, there are a few key areas where I'd think there's ample room for improvement, with varying degrees of effort required to carry them out.
Content Generation
Again, the provincial caucus already does well in this department. But that can only go so far in building a platform for member involvement (particularly when the provincial caucus' messages end up primarily being disseminated through a website which doesn't allow for comments).
Fortunately, this would seem to be a relatively easy issue to fix. I'd have to figure that riding associations, candidates and members generally are likely interested in ways to get their message out just as the party is interested in developing more widespread involvement. So it would seem to be a natural step to make a concerted effort to have as many Saskatchewan NDP voices making regular appearances on social media such as Facebook and Twitter as possible - maybe ensuring that all AGMs and nomination meetings are announced on Facebook and setting a target of at least one tweet each week from each MLA/candidate/riding association on a common hashtag, and encouraging additional involvement beyond that.
The result would be to create sourcea which doesn't require party oversight where interested readers can get a far better idea what's happening with the party province-wide than would be possible through a centralized medium - and hopefully an increase in discussion about the party to match the increase in messaging from it.
Content Distribution
While increased involvement on existing social media sites may be the low-hanging fruit in building the Saskatchewan NDP's online presence, however, I'd think the real aspiration should be to make the site into something of a social media site of its own.
On the minimalist side, that might involve setting up a regular roundup of NDP-friendly blog posts, media articles and other content from around the province, with a focus on directing traffic toward sources which don't often get picked up by major media sources (or even by bloggers who aren't in the habit of combing through local papers). That could easily build on the current effort to direct traffic to blogs - but would ideally involve both a regular time interval to reward repeat visitors (I'd hope at least daily), and a slightly broader focus than the current blog strategy.
The result would be to set up the NDP's website as an aggregator as well as a delivery point for its own content. And an effort to make the NDP into a leading source of Saskatchewan news generally strikes me as the most promising possible step in securing additional traffic.
After all, the NDP's site as it stands will only tend to attract readers whose purpose is to seek out information which originates with the party. Which inherently limits the number of people who are likely to visit.
But that could change in a hurry if the NDP is seen to offer the best available roundup of news of interest to supporters - or indeed anybody wanting to stay informed about Saskatchewan politics. And I'm not sure the goal would all that difficult to reach given the dearth of current Saskatchewan-based aggregators.
Presumably the province's local papers would be interested in alerting the NDP to their own content in order to increase their own reach. But even if not, I'd have to figure the NDP is already working to monitor its own media coverage - and surely that effort can be harnessed for the additional purpose of allowing the NDP to point website viewers toward articles of interest.
If the party wants to be even more ambitious, the step up from merely providing roundup-style lists of links to both news sources and specific posts/article would be to set up a constant stream of dynamic content through the NDP's site. Which brings us to...
Interactivity
Not surprisingly, the last point of concern is that of allowing for user involvement in the site. I've made the case for allowing for discussion through on-site comments before and won't belabour the point now; however, I would think that users will likely be more interested in having their comments seen and discussed by the public on the site than in simply submitting issues to the party without an obvious indication that there will be any follow-up.
That can be taken a step further by making use of wikis to develop party policies and documents. I'd hope to see that implemented for the upcoming policy review, with members receiving access to draft documents and having the opportunity to make edits to be approved or rejected by other party members on the site, and in turn by the full membership at the ensuing policy convention. (Given the attention which the policy review process is bound to receive, this would seem to be an ideal opportunity to get people signed up and involved in an ongoing discussion.)
But let's take the idea of interactivity further yet, and note the potential to turn the Saskatchewan NDP's site into a web portal and social networking site. For now, I'd suggest examining whether it's feasible to add:
- a list of RSS, Twitter and other feeds related to Saskatchewan politics, with a mechanism to check or uncheck each based on user preferences and display dynamic updates;
- messaging, scheduling and content-posting capability for members/users; and
- regular online interaction between MLAs/candidates and both members/users and the general public.
In effect, the goal would be to go beyond merely establishing the NDP's site as a news source, and instead position it as a start page for members and users by putting more of what's of interest to Saskatchewan NDP members in one place than they can find (or at least find easily) on any other site.
Of course, the downside of going to the effort of putting together a site along those lines is that people might well prefer to use other platforms, resulting in the effort creating capability which ultimately goes unused. But the potential to have the eyes of thousands of Saskatchewan citizens looking to the NDP as a primary source of news, information and online networking would seem to be more than worth the work involved.
Conclusion
Needless to say, I wouldn't see any one of the above options being exclusive of the others. And indeed it's not hard to see how they could reinforce each other: a tweet from a rural riding about an article which might otherwise get missed can serve as the spur to have it included in a roundup, which then gives rise to a lively discussion on the NDP's site and elsewhere. And I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to fit the above in with other ideas to improve the NDP's online presence.
In closing, though, I'll note why it is that I'd see the NDP as being the right entity to go to the trouble of putting together a site which could in theory be assembled by any number of actors.
Simply put, the NDP more than any other group, cause or institution in Saskatchewan possesses both the need and the ability to ensure that the province's citizens are well-informed and engaged in the political scene.
Looking at the other actors who could try to beat the NDP to the punch:
- the corporate media within Saskatchewan is able to see its online presence as merely another format in which to release the content it's producing anyway, and doesn't have any interest in promoting competing media;
- the Saskatchewan Party would have similar capacity, but can rely on corporate funding to try to blast its message out to the people of the province around election time, and indeed is probably best served if there isn't too much attention to what it does in the meantime;
- any individual or group with less than a province-wide base of operations will face comparative difficulties in trying to assemble enough content and reach enough people to make a web portal viable;
- any business looking to justify the development of a site on the basis of cash returns alone will have less relative incentive than a political party which can look at membership numbers, volunteerism and votes as sufficiently positive outcomes to justify operating a site without obvious financial returns (though improved party fund-raising too could well be another result if a site meets its full potential).
As a result, I'd suggest that the NDP should be taking up the opportunity to turn its website into more than just a conduit for immediate party messages (and the supporters' messages which have just started to receive attention). And the benefits of that effort could help to restore the NDP to its place on the cutting edge of citizens' involvement in their party and their province.
We are looking at providing an online 'Your Issues' section where Party Members or Concerned Citizens could identify issues large or small that they would like to see NDP MLAs speak to more forcefully in the future.With that in mind, I'll take some time to discuss in some detail what model I'd most like to see from the Saskatchewan NDP's website (and encourage both critiques of my suggestions and additional ideas in comments).
We hope this would encourage everything from discussion of province-wide issues like Green Energy expansion to local issues such as problems with a local highway or government program cuts in a particular community.
To me, the problem with this or similar methods of two-way communication is not controlling the content; it is ensuring enough people know about the opportunity to generate a variety of content that will bring others back on a regular basis.
We would welcome your thoughts.
I'll start by noting what the NDP is doing very well at the moment. The caucus website is both well-designed and steadily updated, with new content generated by the party most working days to reward frequent visitors (and passed along through Facebook and Twitter as well as through web updates). Meanwhile, past content is readily available through easily-navigated archives, while the new focus on blogs at least sends viewers to one available forum to discuss the issues being raised by the party.
That said, there are a few key areas where I'd think there's ample room for improvement, with varying degrees of effort required to carry them out.
Content Generation
Again, the provincial caucus already does well in this department. But that can only go so far in building a platform for member involvement (particularly when the provincial caucus' messages end up primarily being disseminated through a website which doesn't allow for comments).
Fortunately, this would seem to be a relatively easy issue to fix. I'd have to figure that riding associations, candidates and members generally are likely interested in ways to get their message out just as the party is interested in developing more widespread involvement. So it would seem to be a natural step to make a concerted effort to have as many Saskatchewan NDP voices making regular appearances on social media such as Facebook and Twitter as possible - maybe ensuring that all AGMs and nomination meetings are announced on Facebook and setting a target of at least one tweet each week from each MLA/candidate/riding association on a common hashtag, and encouraging additional involvement beyond that.
The result would be to create sourcea which doesn't require party oversight where interested readers can get a far better idea what's happening with the party province-wide than would be possible through a centralized medium - and hopefully an increase in discussion about the party to match the increase in messaging from it.
Content Distribution
While increased involvement on existing social media sites may be the low-hanging fruit in building the Saskatchewan NDP's online presence, however, I'd think the real aspiration should be to make the site into something of a social media site of its own.
On the minimalist side, that might involve setting up a regular roundup of NDP-friendly blog posts, media articles and other content from around the province, with a focus on directing traffic toward sources which don't often get picked up by major media sources (or even by bloggers who aren't in the habit of combing through local papers). That could easily build on the current effort to direct traffic to blogs - but would ideally involve both a regular time interval to reward repeat visitors (I'd hope at least daily), and a slightly broader focus than the current blog strategy.
The result would be to set up the NDP's website as an aggregator as well as a delivery point for its own content. And an effort to make the NDP into a leading source of Saskatchewan news generally strikes me as the most promising possible step in securing additional traffic.
After all, the NDP's site as it stands will only tend to attract readers whose purpose is to seek out information which originates with the party. Which inherently limits the number of people who are likely to visit.
But that could change in a hurry if the NDP is seen to offer the best available roundup of news of interest to supporters - or indeed anybody wanting to stay informed about Saskatchewan politics. And I'm not sure the goal would all that difficult to reach given the dearth of current Saskatchewan-based aggregators.
Presumably the province's local papers would be interested in alerting the NDP to their own content in order to increase their own reach. But even if not, I'd have to figure the NDP is already working to monitor its own media coverage - and surely that effort can be harnessed for the additional purpose of allowing the NDP to point website viewers toward articles of interest.
If the party wants to be even more ambitious, the step up from merely providing roundup-style lists of links to both news sources and specific posts/article would be to set up a constant stream of dynamic content through the NDP's site. Which brings us to...
Interactivity
Not surprisingly, the last point of concern is that of allowing for user involvement in the site. I've made the case for allowing for discussion through on-site comments before and won't belabour the point now; however, I would think that users will likely be more interested in having their comments seen and discussed by the public on the site than in simply submitting issues to the party without an obvious indication that there will be any follow-up.
That can be taken a step further by making use of wikis to develop party policies and documents. I'd hope to see that implemented for the upcoming policy review, with members receiving access to draft documents and having the opportunity to make edits to be approved or rejected by other party members on the site, and in turn by the full membership at the ensuing policy convention. (Given the attention which the policy review process is bound to receive, this would seem to be an ideal opportunity to get people signed up and involved in an ongoing discussion.)
But let's take the idea of interactivity further yet, and note the potential to turn the Saskatchewan NDP's site into a web portal and social networking site. For now, I'd suggest examining whether it's feasible to add:
- a list of RSS, Twitter and other feeds related to Saskatchewan politics, with a mechanism to check or uncheck each based on user preferences and display dynamic updates;
- messaging, scheduling and content-posting capability for members/users; and
- regular online interaction between MLAs/candidates and both members/users and the general public.
In effect, the goal would be to go beyond merely establishing the NDP's site as a news source, and instead position it as a start page for members and users by putting more of what's of interest to Saskatchewan NDP members in one place than they can find (or at least find easily) on any other site.
Of course, the downside of going to the effort of putting together a site along those lines is that people might well prefer to use other platforms, resulting in the effort creating capability which ultimately goes unused. But the potential to have the eyes of thousands of Saskatchewan citizens looking to the NDP as a primary source of news, information and online networking would seem to be more than worth the work involved.
Conclusion
Needless to say, I wouldn't see any one of the above options being exclusive of the others. And indeed it's not hard to see how they could reinforce each other: a tweet from a rural riding about an article which might otherwise get missed can serve as the spur to have it included in a roundup, which then gives rise to a lively discussion on the NDP's site and elsewhere. And I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to fit the above in with other ideas to improve the NDP's online presence.
In closing, though, I'll note why it is that I'd see the NDP as being the right entity to go to the trouble of putting together a site which could in theory be assembled by any number of actors.
Simply put, the NDP more than any other group, cause or institution in Saskatchewan possesses both the need and the ability to ensure that the province's citizens are well-informed and engaged in the political scene.
Looking at the other actors who could try to beat the NDP to the punch:
- the corporate media within Saskatchewan is able to see its online presence as merely another format in which to release the content it's producing anyway, and doesn't have any interest in promoting competing media;
- the Saskatchewan Party would have similar capacity, but can rely on corporate funding to try to blast its message out to the people of the province around election time, and indeed is probably best served if there isn't too much attention to what it does in the meantime;
- any individual or group with less than a province-wide base of operations will face comparative difficulties in trying to assemble enough content and reach enough people to make a web portal viable;
- any business looking to justify the development of a site on the basis of cash returns alone will have less relative incentive than a political party which can look at membership numbers, volunteerism and votes as sufficiently positive outcomes to justify operating a site without obvious financial returns (though improved party fund-raising too could well be another result if a site meets its full potential).
As a result, I'd suggest that the NDP should be taking up the opportunity to turn its website into more than just a conduit for immediate party messages (and the supporters' messages which have just started to receive attention). And the benefits of that effort could help to restore the NDP to its place on the cutting edge of citizens' involvement in their party and their province.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Light blogging ahead
This space will be fairly quiet for the next couple of days. But keep an eye out for some bonus liveblogging on Sunday.
The worst-laid plans
Shorter Jim Flaherty:
What follows is my plan to get Canada out of deficit.
(five minutes of dead silence)
Thank you for listening to my plan to get Canada out of deficit. In conclusion, we must stay the course, because my opponents have no plan to get Canada out of deficit.
What follows is my plan to get Canada out of deficit.
(five minutes of dead silence)
Thank you for listening to my plan to get Canada out of deficit. In conclusion, we must stay the course, because my opponents have no plan to get Canada out of deficit.
The big picture
MIchael Ignatieff looks to have taken a bit more of Robert Silver's counterproductive advice than would have been ideal. But due credit for him for not biting on all of Stephen Harper's bait (at least based on a couple of tweets from his press conference this morning):
If Ignatieff had taken the bait and echoed Harper's rhetoric, the results would operate almost entirely to the Cons' benefit. The most obvious effect would be to take Ignatieff's time and focus away from criticizing the Cons to attack the other parties in Parliament: every time the Cons raised the coalition possibility, he'd effectively have to respond with a reflexive bashing of the other opposition parties, and they'd of course end up having to respond in kind. The result would be to help out the Cons by bolstering their dichotomy of "scary-Bloc/NDP-supported government" and "Con majority government": with the Libs busy doing the Cons' legwork in taking potshots at the other parties, the Cons would be free to work on polishing up their own image just enough to sneak into majority territory.
And as for the Libs' hopes of escaping any prospect of a coalition with a sufficient degree of Bloc- and NDP-bashing? After Dion's ill-advised declaration that he wouldn't seek a coalition in the last campaign, the Libs probably won't and can't be taken seriously in claiming that they'd never consider the possibility. And that leads in turn to the area where Ignatieff still has some room for improvement.
I'll grant that it might not be a bad idea to try to portray Ignatieff's decision to nix the most recent coalition as an example to counteract the Cons' "he wants power at all costs" criticism. But I'd think for the future, Ignatieff is better off portraying himself as open to a coalition under the right circumstances. After all, what better example could there be of the difference between a "big", nationally-interested philosophy and a "small", narrowly-partisan one than a Prime Minister who considers the possibility of cross-party cooperation to be a scare tactic rather than a goal to be pursued?
Update: Greg (twice) and pogge have more based on today's more explicit anti-coalition message from Ignatieff.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
DanGoodchild @M_Ignatieff: "The BQ are my adversaries, but they're not my enemies."The common thread between those two comments is that rather than echoing Harper's message that Canadians should be scared of the NDP or the Bloc, Ignatieff is focusing on a contrast with Harper while showing basic respect for his other competitors. Which looks to make for a necessary first step in avoiding an obvious trap set by the Cons.
...
JeffJedras @m_ignatieff: I don't think there's been a socialist in the NDP for 30 years, so let's all relax here.
If Ignatieff had taken the bait and echoed Harper's rhetoric, the results would operate almost entirely to the Cons' benefit. The most obvious effect would be to take Ignatieff's time and focus away from criticizing the Cons to attack the other parties in Parliament: every time the Cons raised the coalition possibility, he'd effectively have to respond with a reflexive bashing of the other opposition parties, and they'd of course end up having to respond in kind. The result would be to help out the Cons by bolstering their dichotomy of "scary-Bloc/NDP-supported government" and "Con majority government": with the Libs busy doing the Cons' legwork in taking potshots at the other parties, the Cons would be free to work on polishing up their own image just enough to sneak into majority territory.
And as for the Libs' hopes of escaping any prospect of a coalition with a sufficient degree of Bloc- and NDP-bashing? After Dion's ill-advised declaration that he wouldn't seek a coalition in the last campaign, the Libs probably won't and can't be taken seriously in claiming that they'd never consider the possibility. And that leads in turn to the area where Ignatieff still has some room for improvement.
I'll grant that it might not be a bad idea to try to portray Ignatieff's decision to nix the most recent coalition as an example to counteract the Cons' "he wants power at all costs" criticism. But I'd think for the future, Ignatieff is better off portraying himself as open to a coalition under the right circumstances. After all, what better example could there be of the difference between a "big", nationally-interested philosophy and a "small", narrowly-partisan one than a Prime Minister who considers the possibility of cross-party cooperation to be a scare tactic rather than a goal to be pursued?
Update: Greg (twice) and pogge have more based on today's more explicit anti-coalition message from Ignatieff.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Nine. Freaking. Days. (With no public input.)
Today's news about the Sask Party's plan to allow for virtually no discussion about Saskatchewan's energy future doesn't come as much surprise. But it's worth comparing the Wall government's rush to push toward nuclear power with the amount of time it's taken for virtually everything else it's done - and especially the time frames involved for the Sask Party's preferred option.
This spring, the Sask Party claimed to need at least the summer to figure out how to word a bill on the proceeds of recollections of crime - even though the law could have been cut and pasted from one already passed in Manitoba.
But when it comes to evaluating the full range of energy options which will drive Saskatchewan's economy for the next 60 years, they claim the province should settle for Nine. Freaking. Days. With no public input.
Last fall, the Sask Party gave its Uranium Development Partnership five months to produce a creative writing assignment on Why Saskatchewan's Taxpayers Should Make Me Rich. And in its report, the UDP assumed away the bulk of Saskatchewan's best energy options - yet still had no choice but to admit that even under the most optimistic of cost projections, some power sources would still be more cost-effective than nuclear.
Now, the Wall government wants to gloss over everything the UDP missed, ignored and omitted in Nine. Freaking. Days. With no public input.
The time frame for the construction of a nuclear reactor is approximately 10 years - though of course one wouldn't want to bank on its being completed on time. The time frame for the operation of a nuclear plant is approximately 50 years - a number which too tends to be extended as provinces accept increased risk once a facility is actually built in order to wring a few more years out of its life span. And the time frame for the waste produced by a nuclear plant is in the hundreds of thousands of years.
And the Wall government wants to evaluate and summarily rule out all other options in Nine. Freaking. Days. With no public input.
Even the NDP's proposal for a consultation process lasting through next spring itself seems to fall short of completely making up for the head start which the Sask Party has given to the nuclear industry: for actual fairness, one would want to see other sources of power given the same type of funding which the Sask Party funnelled to the nuclear industry to make its case. That said, the NDP's timeline would at least seem to be a reasonable compromise to make sure that proponents of other types of power have some meaningful chance to make their case to Saskatchewan's public.
But Wall is apparently scared to death that any real conversation on power sources will lead to the conclusion that nuclear isn't the way to go. Which would seem to be the only plausible explanation for his decision to cut off discussion at Nine. Freaking. Days. With no public input.
This spring, the Sask Party claimed to need at least the summer to figure out how to word a bill on the proceeds of recollections of crime - even though the law could have been cut and pasted from one already passed in Manitoba.
But when it comes to evaluating the full range of energy options which will drive Saskatchewan's economy for the next 60 years, they claim the province should settle for Nine. Freaking. Days. With no public input.
Last fall, the Sask Party gave its Uranium Development Partnership five months to produce a creative writing assignment on Why Saskatchewan's Taxpayers Should Make Me Rich. And in its report, the UDP assumed away the bulk of Saskatchewan's best energy options - yet still had no choice but to admit that even under the most optimistic of cost projections, some power sources would still be more cost-effective than nuclear.
Now, the Wall government wants to gloss over everything the UDP missed, ignored and omitted in Nine. Freaking. Days. With no public input.
The time frame for the construction of a nuclear reactor is approximately 10 years - though of course one wouldn't want to bank on its being completed on time. The time frame for the operation of a nuclear plant is approximately 50 years - a number which too tends to be extended as provinces accept increased risk once a facility is actually built in order to wring a few more years out of its life span. And the time frame for the waste produced by a nuclear plant is in the hundreds of thousands of years.
And the Wall government wants to evaluate and summarily rule out all other options in Nine. Freaking. Days. With no public input.
Even the NDP's proposal for a consultation process lasting through next spring itself seems to fall short of completely making up for the head start which the Sask Party has given to the nuclear industry: for actual fairness, one would want to see other sources of power given the same type of funding which the Sask Party funnelled to the nuclear industry to make its case. That said, the NDP's timeline would at least seem to be a reasonable compromise to make sure that proponents of other types of power have some meaningful chance to make their case to Saskatchewan's public.
But Wall is apparently scared to death that any real conversation on power sources will lead to the conclusion that nuclear isn't the way to go. Which would seem to be the only plausible explanation for his decision to cut off discussion at Nine. Freaking. Days. With no public input.
Deep thought
This could easily have been avoided if the Portrait Gallery of Canada had just gone along with the Cons' plan to make Stephen Harper the focal point of every picture.
Burning questions
A couple of quick questions about Keith Martin's bizarre position on the HST.
Has there ever been any threat by the Cons to pull back their pay-off to provinces who go along with the plan to tax businesses less and individuals more? (Keep in mind that they had allocated $5 billion for HST pay-offs two years ago, long before anybody had taken them up on the offer.)
And even if Martin was right to wonder whether the Cons might get cold feet about harmonization, is it a meaningful critique of a bribe to express concern that it might get taken off the table?
Has there ever been any threat by the Cons to pull back their pay-off to provinces who go along with the plan to tax businesses less and individuals more? (Keep in mind that they had allocated $5 billion for HST pay-offs two years ago, long before anybody had taken them up on the offer.)
And even if Martin was right to wonder whether the Cons might get cold feet about harmonization, is it a meaningful critique of a bribe to express concern that it might get taken off the table?
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Just wondering...
...but isn't the most surprising part of Stephen Harper's leaked speech less the fact that he's demanding a majority to eliminate the already-limited checks on his power, and more the fact that the man who has set Canadian records for Senate pork and budget deficits has the gall to seek applause from his less-informed supporters by claiming to be fighting both?
No slant here, nosiree
Following up on this post, Macleans offers up Exhibit A as to how the media is working to ensure public disinterest in an election campaign. (At least, assuming this isn't followed by a "what's the biggest upside to a federal election?" poll - and I'm not holding my breath on that one.)
(Edit: fixed wording.)
(Edit: fixed wording.)
The fight against apathy
At least somewhat of a blame game is bound to result when a federal election is caused by the opposition parties voting down a minority government. And all of the parties have done their best to try to deflect that responsibility elsewhere. But it's worth noting that while the opposition parties may each want to avoid being held responsible for an election, they also have a strong collective incentive not to do so in a way which deflates voter interest or validates the idea that Canadians should be fatigued or angry about the prospect of an election.
As the conventional wisdom goes, it tends to be high-turnout elections that result in a change of government - which presumably all of the opposition parties would like to see following the next trip to the polls. And that theory goes doubly where the current governing party has relied on transparently cultivating voter apathy and cynicism to try to eke out a majority government where an engaged population would want nothing of the sort.
Unfortunately, each of the opposition parties (yes, including the NDP) has at times fallen into the trap of suggesting at least implicitly that Canadians should see an election campaign as a source of frustration rather than an opportunity for change. But I'll suggest that while there may not be any agreement as to how the votes from newly-engaged citizens should shake out in the end, it's best for everybody concerned other than the Cons if the opposition parties regularly discuss the importance of taking interest in an election rather than suggesting that there's reason to tune out.
Edit: Or put another way, this is bad.
As the conventional wisdom goes, it tends to be high-turnout elections that result in a change of government - which presumably all of the opposition parties would like to see following the next trip to the polls. And that theory goes doubly where the current governing party has relied on transparently cultivating voter apathy and cynicism to try to eke out a majority government where an engaged population would want nothing of the sort.
Unfortunately, each of the opposition parties (yes, including the NDP) has at times fallen into the trap of suggesting at least implicitly that Canadians should see an election campaign as a source of frustration rather than an opportunity for change. But I'll suggest that while there may not be any agreement as to how the votes from newly-engaged citizens should shake out in the end, it's best for everybody concerned other than the Cons if the opposition parties regularly discuss the importance of taking interest in an election rather than suggesting that there's reason to tune out.
Edit: Or put another way, this is bad.
On rejected opportunities
Despite receiving relatively little public attention, a new initiative called Save Our Saskatchewan Crowns has been piling up supporters over the last little while. And now we've received an obvious reminder of why that effort is needed, as the Sask Party's anti-Crown ideology is resulting in its telling the Saskatchewan Transportation Company not to even look at taking up profitable bus routes which may be abandoned by Greyhound:
Of course, one could reasonably argue that it's worth being fairly risk-averse in reaching the answers. But it would seem to reflect nothing short of wilful blindness to refuse to even ask the questions.
Predictably, though, the Sask Party isn't the least bit interested in any cost-benefit analysis as to how STC can run its business better by taking on out-of-province routes - meaning that both travellers who might benefit from STC's offering a choice and Saskatchewan citizens who would stand to benefit from any STC profits will end up missing out on that opportunity. And while that might be a great result for a private operator who might be able to make more money off the routes than it could if STC was allowed to act as a functioning business, it's hard to see how the Sask Party's ideology is doing anything but placing Saskatchewan's interests last behind those of businesses outside the province.
With Greyhound Canada planning to cut service in Manitoba and northern Ontario and reviewing operations in Saskatchewan and Alberta, the NDP’s Ron Harper sees a chance for the provincially-owned bus company to cash in.Now, it would seem obvious to me that anybody who wanted STC to be operated as a viable business would be looking to ask questions along the lines of, what routes is Greyhound abandoning? Who else might take them up? Is STC in the best position to do so? Can STC make a profit for itself by doing so?
“The real issue here is an opportunity for STC to expand its services to pick up those routes that are abandoned by Greyhound that are very lucrative,” said Harper, mentioning as examples the Winnipeg-to-Edmonton or Winnipeg-to-Calgary routes and not the unprofitable rural routes that are at the root of Greyhound’s plans.
The revenue from such operations between large centres could be enough to potentially eliminate the government’s annual operating subsidy for STC, which hit $7.8 million this year, said Harper.
But Jim Reiter, appointed in May as the Saskatchewan Party government’s minister responsible for STC, slammed the brakes on the idea.
He said the notion was “hypothetical” and that even if Greyhound goes through with its threat to cut services, other private companies may step in to fill the void.
...
The NDP said the government is being blinded by ideology and at the least has a responsibility to examine the potential of STC expansion before dismissing it out of hand.
Of course, one could reasonably argue that it's worth being fairly risk-averse in reaching the answers. But it would seem to reflect nothing short of wilful blindness to refuse to even ask the questions.
Predictably, though, the Sask Party isn't the least bit interested in any cost-benefit analysis as to how STC can run its business better by taking on out-of-province routes - meaning that both travellers who might benefit from STC's offering a choice and Saskatchewan citizens who would stand to benefit from any STC profits will end up missing out on that opportunity. And while that might be a great result for a private operator who might be able to make more money off the routes than it could if STC was allowed to act as a functioning business, it's hard to see how the Sask Party's ideology is doing anything but placing Saskatchewan's interests last behind those of businesses outside the province.
Revenge of the Nervous Nellies
Ever since they decided to start acting like an opposition last week, the Libs have largely managed to suppress any public doubts within their own party as to whether they're more comfortable returning to their traditional role propping up the Harper Cons. But John Ivison column features what looks to be the first major wave of internal backlash:
(M)any members of the caucus have come down with a bad case of cold feet since Mr. Ignatieff announced last week his decision to bring down the government at the first opportunity. Speaking privately to a number of MPs and backroom Liberals yesterday, many professed extreme disquiet at Mr. Ignatieff's strategy.Mind you, it'll be another step for Libs to start attaching their names to further attempts to back down. But all indications are that at least some of Ignatieff's troops are trying to push for yet another retreat - and there can't be much doubt that the Libs' ability to go into battle will suffer for that fact.
One MP said the mood at the caucus meeting in Sudbury was "near unanimous" against a fall election. Yet, less than an hour after caucus had debated the issue, the Liberal leader emerged to hand down his decision.
"We might as well have stayed in bed," said the MP.
Another Liberal said Mr. Ignatieff should have explained to Canadians why the Conservatives have to go, and why the Liberals deserve to replace them, before saying he intends to bring down the government.
"I'm waiting for Mr. Ignatieff to make that case. The cart is before the horse," he said. "We need to provide a compelling road map."
The MP said it is not too late to pull back from the edge. "If the membership and the public clamour loudly that this is not what we need at this point, cooler heads may prevail. If not, we risk a significant backlash over spending $300-million on an election at a time when the country can't afford it -- a backlash that could push the Conservatives into majority territory."
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
On special treatment
Linda McQuaig's column on the federal government's disinterest in collecting taxes hidden from Canadian authorities in offshore bank accounts is definitely worth a read. But it's worth noting that the media generally would seem to play a role in keeping the phenomenon out of sight: for all the ink and air time used on violent crimes, how often do tax evasion and other white-collar crimes even get reported when they doesn't involve either a previous celebrity or a completely gutted financial empire?
HST Shocker!!!
Unless Stockwell Day is flat-out lying to his constituents as to who's been pushing for tax harmonization, the B.C. government has been requesting "resources" to move toward an HST from the moment the Cons first took power, including ghost-writing portions of the Cons' budgets and demanding an HST trust fund!!!
And we know Stockwell would never be anything short of completely forthright and open about his government's actions, don't we?
(h/t to BigCityLib.)
And we know Stockwell would never be anything short of completely forthright and open about his government's actions, don't we?
(h/t to BigCityLib.)
We've been here before
It's perhaps not surprising that much of the Libs' current attempt to rebuild their image is based on trying to recreate the dynamics which swept them to power in 1993. But as Michael Ignatieff tries to connect the current situation to what happened then, it's worth pointing out that plenty of the points of comparison are less than flattering to the Libs.
In 1993, the Libs campaigned against a highly unpopular tax pushed by the federal government. But of course, they did absolutely nothing to change it once they took power.
In 1993, the Libs promised not to cut social transfers to the provinces in their effort to balance the budget. Two years later, the provinces found out just what the Libs' word was worth.
In 1993, the Libs tried to paint themselves as green by promising a 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions. When they lost power over twelve years and three majority governments later, they still hadn't developed a plan to get that done - or even to meet the less ambitious targets they committed to by signing on to the Kyoto Protocol.
In 1993, the Libs promised a national child care program. When they lost the 2006 election, they managed to convince themselves that they'd have pulled it off if only they'd had two more months to work with, rather than taking any responsibility for breaking their promise during the decade-plus in between.
Of course, even now the Libs have made it clear that they're happy to go years at a time doing something other than what they were elected to do. So the real message to be taken from the Libs' belief that it's 1993 all over again is that their campaign promises don't figure to be worth the paper they're printed on.
Fortunately, there are plenty of other key differences which make it highly unlikely that a repeat of 1993 is in the works (which I'll deal with in a later post). But there shouldn't be any doubt that the Libs' effort to draw parallels between then and the present day ultimately represents reason to be skeptical about what they have to say.
In 1993, the Libs campaigned against a highly unpopular tax pushed by the federal government. But of course, they did absolutely nothing to change it once they took power.
In 1993, the Libs promised not to cut social transfers to the provinces in their effort to balance the budget. Two years later, the provinces found out just what the Libs' word was worth.
In 1993, the Libs tried to paint themselves as green by promising a 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions. When they lost power over twelve years and three majority governments later, they still hadn't developed a plan to get that done - or even to meet the less ambitious targets they committed to by signing on to the Kyoto Protocol.
In 1993, the Libs promised a national child care program. When they lost the 2006 election, they managed to convince themselves that they'd have pulled it off if only they'd had two more months to work with, rather than taking any responsibility for breaking their promise during the decade-plus in between.
Of course, even now the Libs have made it clear that they're happy to go years at a time doing something other than what they were elected to do. So the real message to be taken from the Libs' belief that it's 1993 all over again is that their campaign promises don't figure to be worth the paper they're printed on.
Fortunately, there are plenty of other key differences which make it highly unlikely that a repeat of 1993 is in the works (which I'll deal with in a later post). But there shouldn't be any doubt that the Libs' effort to draw parallels between then and the present day ultimately represents reason to be skeptical about what they have to say.
On limited options
Denis Lessard reports on an impending Bloc ad campaign targeting both Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff as indistinguishable from each other, and focuses largely on what it may say about Gilles Duceppe's current confidence level. But it's worth wondering what impact that type of ad blitz might have among the federalist parties in Quebec:
But the list of issues is one where there's relatively little disagreement between the NDP and the Bloc - which means that to the extent the Bloc succeeds in painting Harper and Ignatieff as adverse to Quebec's interests on each point, it may only help to drive voters toward the federal leader whose popularity already outstrips that of his federalist competitors. And that may be particularly important given that the Bloc would seem to be severely narrowing the type of arrangement it can reasonably reach with Canada's national parties.
In the past, Duceppe has left some obvious potential for cooperation by focusing his party's attention on only one of its national competitors (attacking the Libs up to '06 and the Cons in '08). But the more time the Bloc spends declaring that both are entirely off base, the stronger the argument the NDP can mount to the effect that voters in Quebec and across the country need to put their support behind a governing alternative.
Selon ce qu'a appris La Presse, la publicité du Bloc présentera côte à côte les photos de Stephen Harper et Michael Ignatieff. Une moitié de visage seulement, avec des images peu flatteuses. Le message martèlera que les deux hommes portent «le même regard» sur le Québec.Now, it's not hard to see how the Bloc could see some significant potential in that strategy in weakening both the Cons and the Libs in Quebec.
La publicité, qui sera aussi diffusée à la radio, assimilera les positions de MM. Harper et Ignatieff sur l'environnement, la TPS, la foresterie et même la «nation québécoise».
But the list of issues is one where there's relatively little disagreement between the NDP and the Bloc - which means that to the extent the Bloc succeeds in painting Harper and Ignatieff as adverse to Quebec's interests on each point, it may only help to drive voters toward the federal leader whose popularity already outstrips that of his federalist competitors. And that may be particularly important given that the Bloc would seem to be severely narrowing the type of arrangement it can reasonably reach with Canada's national parties.
In the past, Duceppe has left some obvious potential for cooperation by focusing his party's attention on only one of its national competitors (attacking the Libs up to '06 and the Cons in '08). But the more time the Bloc spends declaring that both are entirely off base, the stronger the argument the NDP can mount to the effect that voters in Quebec and across the country need to put their support behind a governing alternative.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Your Labour Day message...
...from Sid Ryan:
Labour alone didn’t create Medicare, Canada Pension, Employment Insurance, the 40-hour workweek, child labour laws and minimum wages, pay equity and so many other cherished threads of our social fabric. A broad coalition of progressives from all walks of life -- including labour unions -- made a case to the public and our politicians that everyone deserved these reforms.
The issues, the means of communication and the tactics change and evolve with the times, but this model endures in small and big ways, across Ontario and beyond...
Looking forward, we must commit ourselves to joining with others who share that dream, so together we can lobby, cajole and push businesses and governments to act in the public’s interest, rather than their own. Together, we make the dream of secure, stable public pensions for all a reality. We can move forward on Kennedy’s dream of the world encapsulated by an earlier line in that famous speech. Humanity, he said, held in its mortal hands, “the power to abolish all forms of human poverty.”
Together with our friends -- civil society groups like the Council of Canadians, our fellow private and public-sector unions, progressively-minded politicians, political parties and ordinary women and men who aspire to a fairer, better world for everyone -- we have made and will continue to take action towards making that world a reality.
Individually, none of us has all the answers. Collectively, we possess many.
Just wondering...
In the wake of his government's choice to pay off Ontario and B.C. to increase taxes on their citizens, doesn't it seem that Stephen Harper is far less categorical about not raising taxes than he once was about not facing a recession or not going into deficit?
Mind you, I wouldn't object if the Cons were to radically change direction and actually start discussing different options rather than pre-emptively defining even the slightest hint of acknowledgment that rates can be adjusted in two different directions as evidence of a conspiracy to raise taxes to INFINITY PERCENT ON EVERYTHING. But absent any evidence that they plan to do that, it would seem fair to evaluate Harper by his own standards.
Mind you, I wouldn't object if the Cons were to radically change direction and actually start discussing different options rather than pre-emptively defining even the slightest hint of acknowledgment that rates can be adjusted in two different directions as evidence of a conspiracy to raise taxes to INFINITY PERCENT ON EVERYTHING. But absent any evidence that they plan to do that, it would seem fair to evaluate Harper by his own standards.
Yes we can.
Tyler photoshops. You view. And suggest the next steps - maybe turning the top half NDP orange rather than red to make the NDP connection more obvious?
Update: Ian has the remixed version.
Update: Ian has the remixed version.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Sunday Afternoon 'Rider Blogging
The Labour Day Classic today may have included plenty of room for improvement for the Saskatchewan Roughriders - and they probably didn't play as well as the final score would suggest. But the game nonetheless reflects both the continuation of one pattern which is serving the 'Riders well, as well as the apparent end of one of the team's consistent problems.
On offence, the story of the game was a superb start with two consecutive touchdown drives against a stiff wind in the first quarter. But after those first two possessions, the team returned to its usual inconsistency. Wes Cates was fairly productive throughout the game both on the ground and through the air - but after the first quarter the 'Riders' passing performance was otherwise littered with drops (particularly from the usually-reliable Weston Dressler), mis-timed routes and near-picks.
Naturally, part of the problem can be laid at the feet of Darien Durant's decision-making. But the more easily solved issue seemed to me to involve the 'Riders' pass protection schemes. Normally one of Durant's greatest strengths is his ability to escape pressure to make plays either on the ground or through the air - but in this game it didn't seem that he ever had an escape route other than straight backwards, which led to a number of throw-aways and forced passes rather than allowing for any positive results.
On defence, meanwhile, the 'Riders kept up their pattern of taking direct aim at the opponents' greatest strength and emerging victorious, this time by holding the league's leading rushing team to 37 yards on the ground (or less than a tenth of its previous performance against B.C.) without sacrificing the 'Riders' usual disruptive pass rush. About the only problem on the defensive side of the ball was an outbreak of weak tackling in the secondary which allowed Adarius Bowman and Terence Edwards to generate scads of yards after catches - which made Michael Bishop's yardage total look respectable even though his actual passing was atrocious through most of the game.
And then there are the special teams. The most obvious reason to be happy with those came in the form of a few respectable to solid returns by Jason Armstead, including a 37-yard kickoff return. But perhaps even more importantly than the ones where Armstead managed to generate significant yardage were his good decisions throughout the game, including conceding a single on the opening kickoff and not forcing plays toward the end when the benefit of trying for a big return would have far outweighed the risks of a turnover.
Not that Armstead's stay so far has been entirely without reason for concern. But if he can keep playing how he did today, the 'Riders would seem to have patched up their most glaring weakness - and particularly if the offence can connect on a few more of its near-misses, that should put them in great shape for the rest of the season.
On offence, the story of the game was a superb start with two consecutive touchdown drives against a stiff wind in the first quarter. But after those first two possessions, the team returned to its usual inconsistency. Wes Cates was fairly productive throughout the game both on the ground and through the air - but after the first quarter the 'Riders' passing performance was otherwise littered with drops (particularly from the usually-reliable Weston Dressler), mis-timed routes and near-picks.
Naturally, part of the problem can be laid at the feet of Darien Durant's decision-making. But the more easily solved issue seemed to me to involve the 'Riders' pass protection schemes. Normally one of Durant's greatest strengths is his ability to escape pressure to make plays either on the ground or through the air - but in this game it didn't seem that he ever had an escape route other than straight backwards, which led to a number of throw-aways and forced passes rather than allowing for any positive results.
On defence, meanwhile, the 'Riders kept up their pattern of taking direct aim at the opponents' greatest strength and emerging victorious, this time by holding the league's leading rushing team to 37 yards on the ground (or less than a tenth of its previous performance against B.C.) without sacrificing the 'Riders' usual disruptive pass rush. About the only problem on the defensive side of the ball was an outbreak of weak tackling in the secondary which allowed Adarius Bowman and Terence Edwards to generate scads of yards after catches - which made Michael Bishop's yardage total look respectable even though his actual passing was atrocious through most of the game.
And then there are the special teams. The most obvious reason to be happy with those came in the form of a few respectable to solid returns by Jason Armstead, including a 37-yard kickoff return. But perhaps even more importantly than the ones where Armstead managed to generate significant yardage were his good decisions throughout the game, including conceding a single on the opening kickoff and not forcing plays toward the end when the benefit of trying for a big return would have far outweighed the risks of a turnover.
Not that Armstead's stay so far has been entirely without reason for concern. But if he can keep playing how he did today, the 'Riders would seem to have patched up their most glaring weakness - and particularly if the offence can connect on a few more of its near-misses, that should put them in great shape for the rest of the season.
Ad nauseum
The Libs' set of ads has already received more comment than it probably deserves, so I'll stick to a couple of short observations.
First, I can only assume the Libs' inexplicable giddiness about the ads is based on a plan to spend enough money blasting out the ads to make up for the fact that they don't have much to say on their face.
And second, it's worth noting just how much the party which has finally started publicly acknowledging the Harper Cons' view of politics is taking up the same philosophy for itself. In particular, the English ad looks to be based entirely on the blueprint from Harper's much-mocked blue sweater ads - suggesting that the Libs, like the Cons, are aiming for "inoffensive and vaguely positive" rather than trying to actually inspire anybody. But considering how eagerly the Libs' supporters are grasping at crumbs, it's not hard to see why they'd see that as a viable strategy.
First, I can only assume the Libs' inexplicable giddiness about the ads is based on a plan to spend enough money blasting out the ads to make up for the fact that they don't have much to say on their face.
And second, it's worth noting just how much the party which has finally started publicly acknowledging the Harper Cons' view of politics is taking up the same philosophy for itself. In particular, the English ad looks to be based entirely on the blueprint from Harper's much-mocked blue sweater ads - suggesting that the Libs, like the Cons, are aiming for "inoffensive and vaguely positive" rather than trying to actually inspire anybody. But considering how eagerly the Libs' supporters are grasping at crumbs, it's not hard to see why they'd see that as a viable strategy.
On absolute requirements
Not surprisingly, I'm in agreement with the consensus view that the Cons' toxic trial balloon on greenhouse gas emissions is an utter joke. But while the "reverse NEP" line (reinforced by the explicitly different treatment of different industries in different provinces) may be an effective one, it's worth noting where the real problem lies.
As long as criticism focuses on differential treatment as opposed to the type of target, the Cons have another choice available to them: namely, putting "intensity" targets in place Canada-wide rather than for the tar sands alone. And that could actually result in a more painful adjustment for a lot of industries than the hard-cap alternative.
That's not because intensity targets reflect better environmental policy in general, but because they impose greater relative compliance costs on industries which can't realistically grow their way around the intensity target. And indeed for any business already looking at having to reduce production to weather the economic storm, an obligation to spend substantial money to reduce per-unit emissions at the same time could well be the last straw - making for a particularly unjust result for those industries which have been ahead of the curve in reducing emissions and thus don't have much low-hanging fruit to improve matters now.
Instead, the ultimate message needs to be a reminder that "intensity" targets themselves are a bad joke - a fact which is particularly obvious based on projections for the tar sands themselves, where they're expected to result in actual emissions increasing several times over. And the fact that the Cons insist on treating such illusory standards as a meaningful development in regulating the most emission-intensive industry in Canada rather than setting out absolute targets should be reason enough to laugh down their position.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
As long as criticism focuses on differential treatment as opposed to the type of target, the Cons have another choice available to them: namely, putting "intensity" targets in place Canada-wide rather than for the tar sands alone. And that could actually result in a more painful adjustment for a lot of industries than the hard-cap alternative.
That's not because intensity targets reflect better environmental policy in general, but because they impose greater relative compliance costs on industries which can't realistically grow their way around the intensity target. And indeed for any business already looking at having to reduce production to weather the economic storm, an obligation to spend substantial money to reduce per-unit emissions at the same time could well be the last straw - making for a particularly unjust result for those industries which have been ahead of the curve in reducing emissions and thus don't have much low-hanging fruit to improve matters now.
Instead, the ultimate message needs to be a reminder that "intensity" targets themselves are a bad joke - a fact which is particularly obvious based on projections for the tar sands themselves, where they're expected to result in actual emissions increasing several times over. And the fact that the Cons insist on treating such illusory standards as a meaningful development in regulating the most emission-intensive industry in Canada rather than setting out absolute targets should be reason enough to laugh down their position.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Lowered expectations
In commenting on the U.S. Department of Transportation's decision on Air Canada charter flights, the Harper government's point man on virtually everything:
(a) picked a gratuitous fight with the superpower next door; and
(b) showed he either doesn't know the difference between the U.S. executive and legislative branches, or is eager to launch attacks at Congressional Democrats even when he knows they're false.
And apparently nobody else in Canada so much as batted an eye. Doesn't that say it all about what we've come to expect from the Harper government?
(a) picked a gratuitous fight with the superpower next door; and
(b) showed he either doesn't know the difference between the U.S. executive and legislative branches, or is eager to launch attacks at Congressional Democrats even when he knows they're false.
And apparently nobody else in Canada so much as batted an eye. Doesn't that say it all about what we've come to expect from the Harper government?
By way of clarification
One of the current memes circulating around Canadian political punditry is the claim that the legitimacy of any coalition government following the next Canadian election would be dependent on what's been promised during the course of the campaign, such that Michaelle Jean should take into account leaders' statements from the campaign in determining whether to recognize a coalition government - and perhaps refuse to recognize a coalition agreement if anybody's promised not to enter into one. And it's time to call bullshit on that argument in the clearest of terms.
Whatever one's view about the basic ethics underlying the actions involved, the Governor-General hasn't treated the Cons' election promises as reason to refuse the exercise of what would otherwise be constitutional powers (such as, say, appointing senators or calling an election in advance of a fixed election date). And while ideally I'd like to see as many of the opposition parties as possible actually defend the idea of a coalition in principle so that the issue doesn't arise, there's absolutely no basis for applying a different standard to a coalition which might form following an election based on what's said during the course of the campaign.
Whatever one's view about the basic ethics underlying the actions involved, the Governor-General hasn't treated the Cons' election promises as reason to refuse the exercise of what would otherwise be constitutional powers (such as, say, appointing senators or calling an election in advance of a fixed election date). And while ideally I'd like to see as many of the opposition parties as possible actually defend the idea of a coalition in principle so that the issue doesn't arise, there's absolutely no basis for applying a different standard to a coalition which might form following an election based on what's said during the course of the campaign.
On open seats
There's been plenty of discussion about the Bloc's intention to run Daniel Paille as its candidate in Hochelaga. But there seems to have been far too little mention of the fact that some Bloc loyalists themselves are less than happy to have Harper's hand-picked investigator imposed on them as a candidate:
After all, as Stockholm notes at babble, the Hochelaga riding looks on its face to have a fairly strong left-wing bent as well as sovereigntist predilections. And in recent memory, the Bloc has held it by large margins while running Real Menard, whose credentials on both the sovereigntist and progressive angles were difficult to challenge.
But the expected nomination of Paille - with his resume including not only his appointment by Harper to try to uncover dirt on the Libs, but also a fairly heavy pro-corporate background (warning: PDF) - might well result in a split in those factions. And the NDP will be offering a strong progressive alternative by once again running prominent union leader Jean-Claude Rocheleau.
Of course, the Bloc will still be the heavy favourite, particularly based on Paille's name recognition. But the combination of a fairly favourable riding and a Bloc base with two obvious reasons for disillusionment should make this into one of the NDP's better targets in Quebec - meaning that if nothing else, the going shouldn't be as easy for the Bloc as it has been in the past.
As an aside, let's note this tidbit from another article on Paille's nomination:
Maxime Bellerose, le président d'association dans ce bastion bloquiste, a pressé son chef de renoncer à cette idée, hier, en rappelant que les dirigeants du parti se sont formellement engagés, il y a une semaine à peine, à ce qu'une assemblée d'investiture en bonne et due forme ait lieu dans Hochelaga.From the sound of it, the Bloc will ultimately go ahead with an actual nomination meeting while simply naming Paille as an economic adviser, rather than outright appointing Paille as a candidate. But it's worth wondering whether an eventual nomination itself will be seen as a result of party meddling - and more importantly, whether the Bloc's current support base might end up fracturing if Paille becomes the candidate.
Selon M. Bellerose, la nouvelle que M. Duceppe compte imposer Daniel Paillé a soulevé «inquiétude et incrédulité» chez les militants bloquistes...
«Nous pensons que notre parti et surtout notre chef croient fortement au processus démocratique, et nous sommes convaincus que pour le bien de la vie démocratique du parti, il y aura une assemblée d'investiture juste et équitable pour tous les candidats. Si le parti passait outre et choisissait de ne pas accorder d'investiture en invoquant l'urgence d'élections imminentes, ce serait un grave déni de démocratie pour les citoyens et membres de Hochelaga», a soutenu hier M. Bellerose.
After all, as Stockholm notes at babble, the Hochelaga riding looks on its face to have a fairly strong left-wing bent as well as sovereigntist predilections. And in recent memory, the Bloc has held it by large margins while running Real Menard, whose credentials on both the sovereigntist and progressive angles were difficult to challenge.
But the expected nomination of Paille - with his resume including not only his appointment by Harper to try to uncover dirt on the Libs, but also a fairly heavy pro-corporate background (warning: PDF) - might well result in a split in those factions. And the NDP will be offering a strong progressive alternative by once again running prominent union leader Jean-Claude Rocheleau.
Of course, the Bloc will still be the heavy favourite, particularly based on Paille's name recognition. But the combination of a fairly favourable riding and a Bloc base with two obvious reasons for disillusionment should make this into one of the NDP's better targets in Quebec - meaning that if nothing else, the going shouldn't be as easy for the Bloc as it has been in the past.
As an aside, let's note this tidbit from another article on Paille's nomination:
Paille said he looks forward to joining the Bloc and has admired the party for a long time.Which would seem to suggest all of the opposition parties are on side with the idea of cornering the Cons on tax harmonization - even if the Libs aren't playing quite the best possible role in that regard.
He said he intends to fight Ottawa on its plan to create a national securities regulator, and criticized what he called the Tories' stubbornness on tax harmonization.
Showdown
So much for my concern that the Libs might be quiet about the HST as a federal election issue merely because they'd have to be insane to focus attention on their own nonsensical position. Instead, it looks like they may be just crazy enough to try to use the issue to build outrage against the Cons without offering any suggestion as to what they'd do differently - and it's anybody's guess how the attempt will play out:
But for the Libs, there's the small problem that the reality doesn't show any meainingful distinction between the Libs and Cons on the issue.
After all, it was a Lib government which made similar deals with the Atlantic provinces. And more importantly, with Ignatieff himself looking to "make the tax work better" rather than actually wanting to reverse Harper's plan, there would seem to be ample reason to doubt Canadians can expect the Libs to change course to any meaningful degree. Which could bode extremely well for the federal NDP if it can present itself as the real opponent of the HST as its provincial cousins in B.C. have already managed to do.
So while the NDP and Libs are apparently in full agreement that the Harper Cons need to wear the effect of tax harmonization, the current positioning seems likely to set up a head-on collision between the two in trying to capitalize on the resulting outrage. And with the Libs' advantages in money and media access balanced against the reality that they're tied to the provincial governments responsible and can't claim any principled objection to the policy in general, there's obvious reason why both parties might hold out reasonable hopes of coming out on top in that clash.
The federal Liberal Leader sought to put the 12 per cent HST, introduced after a provincial election in which the B.C. Liberals ruled it out, in play as the “Harper Sales Tax.”The key statement for now is "across Canada": while it sounded before like the Libs might try to wall the issue off as a localized B.C. issue, they now seem to be sending the correct message the issue is effectively the same in B.C. as in Ontario (and in the provinces that are still being pushed to harmonize). With that national focus, there's a significant opportunity to place the HST at the forefront of a federal election campaign - and the "Harper Sales Tax" phrasing can only help that cause.
He said his party is concerned the Tories have “pushed” sales tax harmonization across Canada at a time of recession, and “is now walking away from it, saying ‘It has nothing to do with us.' We think that's dishonest. They're fully implicated in this decision, and they should take responsibility for it.”
Without providing details, he said a federal Liberal government would look for ways to make the tax work better for British Columbians.
“For the moment, this squarely on Stephen Harper's shoulders. He keeps pushing this off, pretending it's a silly provincial matter,” he said. “It won't wash.”
But for the Libs, there's the small problem that the reality doesn't show any meainingful distinction between the Libs and Cons on the issue.
After all, it was a Lib government which made similar deals with the Atlantic provinces. And more importantly, with Ignatieff himself looking to "make the tax work better" rather than actually wanting to reverse Harper's plan, there would seem to be ample reason to doubt Canadians can expect the Libs to change course to any meaningful degree. Which could bode extremely well for the federal NDP if it can present itself as the real opponent of the HST as its provincial cousins in B.C. have already managed to do.
So while the NDP and Libs are apparently in full agreement that the Harper Cons need to wear the effect of tax harmonization, the current positioning seems likely to set up a head-on collision between the two in trying to capitalize on the resulting outrage. And with the Libs' advantages in money and media access balanced against the reality that they're tied to the provincial governments responsible and can't claim any principled objection to the policy in general, there's obvious reason why both parties might hold out reasonable hopes of coming out on top in that clash.
Friday, September 04, 2009
On transfers
David Akin's article on the Cons' jump in spending at the Privy Council office nicely lines up the contrast between Jim Flaherty's dishonest message about restraint and the actual actions of the Harper government:
Spending in the government department supervised directly by Prime Minister Stephen Harper soared by 14 per cent last year, despite a directive from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty that government must "show restraint."That said, let's put the Cons' insincerity in even more stark relief: if Harper had managed to get his way in cutting off political party funding, he'd simply have redirected the roughly $20 million which currently goes to the opposition parties toward expanding his own office rather than saving citizens a cent. And that point should be placed front and centre by all of the opposition parties when Harper tries to grandstand about ending party funding whenever the next election campaign begins.
Financial statements released this week show that spending by the Privy Council Office for the fiscal year that ended in March hit $172.5 million, compared to $151.8 million in fiscal 2008.
...
Last fall, as he tabled the economic and fiscal update that would prompt the Liberals and NDP to agree to form a coalition government, Flaherty said, "We cannot ask Canadians to tighten their belts during tougher times without looking in the mirror."
Among other things, Flaherty proposed in that statement to cut a public subsidy paid to all political parties. He also imposed unilateral wage restraints on the civil service.
"We are directing government ministers and deputy ministers from every single department and agency of the government to rein in their spending on travel, hospitality, conferences, exchanges and professional services," Flaherty said on Nov. 27. "Canadians have a right to look to government as an example. We have a responsibility to show restraint and respect for their money."
However, not only did the Privy Council Office fail to tighten its belt, it loosened it a few notches.
On strategic considerations
Over the past couple of days, corporate pundits and Lib hacks alike have tried to sell a dubious narrative that the federal NDP will be looking to avoid an election at all costs. But while it's usually a safe bet that the NDP is best off ignoring the concern trolling of those who always seem to think the party's best interest lies in doing what somebody else wants them to, let's take a closer look at just why it is that they're so far off base in examining the NDP's likely course of action this fall.
I'll start off by noting that the ideal scenario for the NDP probably doesn't involve an election. But nor does it involve the NDP supporting the Harper government on any confidence matters.
Instead, the best-case outcome for the NDP is still for the Libs to roll over once again. That would likely put to an end whatever sense of momentum Michael Ignatieff has managed to create within the party, and likely push a few of the Libs who have grudgingly gritted their teeth in supporting the Cons for this long out of the tent all together.
Despite those exact risks as well as Ignatieff's current bluster, I don't think it's as certain as some people seem to want to believe that they won't eventually be pressured into backing down. The Cons are obviously eager to put the onus back on the Libs to either vote with them or take responsibility for an election, and there have been plenty of corporate media objections to the Libs' course of action which might well shift the balance of opinion within the party far enough to get them to revert to their long-held position even after they've admitted that the NDP was right all along.
But let's assume for the moment that the Libs do stick with their current position. Under those circumstances, when would the NDP most want to fight an election against them and the Cons?
Before answering that question, it's worth pointing out what the Libs' priorities have been under Ignatieff. Their first order of business was to work on their fund-raising, with the assumption likely being that they can work on their party structure and brand once they have more cash in the bank to work with. And by all accounts, they've done reasonably well in that department. Which means that at the moment, the Libs have a fairly strong fund-raising machine which they haven't yet converted into party development.
So which would the NDP rather face in an election: a party with a slight fund-raising advantage which hasn't yet turned that into much else, or a party which has had another few months to a year in which to develop on all fronts with the money it's raised so far? I'd think the answer there is fairly obvious.
Likewise, any delay in an election will give Michael Ignatieff a chance to develop into something more than a cipher as the Libs' party leader. So far, he's largely had to improvise, and the results have been rather less than impressive - meaning that there's both a lower baseline to start from, and some significant potential upside for the NDP in the possibility that he'll flub up his first election campaign. But with more time for long-term development which isn't impeded by going in front of the cameras every couple of months to threaten an election then back down, Ignatieff figures to be able to define and prepare himself better for an election in 2010 than for one now.
Combine all that with a Lib base brought back from the dead by the party's decision to actually take on an opposition role and the dangers of dampening NDP support if the party supports the Cons without winning massive concessions, and to me the calculation seems fairly clear that the NDP is better off facing Ignatieff now rather than later.
On the surface, those factors might be balanced out in the short term by the popularity associated with being seen to get things done: remember that in the summer of 2005, the NDP did get a major boost in the polls after winning its budget concessions from the Libs. But that boost would seem to be no less illusory than the one Ignatieff got after deciding to prop up Harper, as anybody who approves of avoiding an election now would figure to be unhappy with whatever steps eventually led to an election later.
Which is why it makes sense for the NDP to make some public efforts at a deal which it doesn't expect to actually materialize - allowing the party to present itself as reasonable and accommodating, while acknowledging that it's highly unlikely that the Cons will do anything to justify allowing them to stay in government.
Interestingly, the absolute worst-case scenario would probably be for the Cons to stay in power with the support of the Bloc - which would give the Libs the opportunity to build capacity and try to erase all memory of the last two years, while eliminating any "getting things done" counterargument. And that explains why the NDP may want to keep itself front and centre in any talks about whether or not the Cons will stay in power now. As long as it's the party being the most conciliatory toward the Cons, the NDP can effectively hold the reins when it counts to ensure an election - while the sooner it abandons the field, the more opportunity the Cons will have to justify cutting a deal with Gilles Duceppe.
In sum, then, the NDP has every reason to conclude that it's actually best off going to the polls this fall if it can't secure a dramatic change in course from the Cons. And if the Libs are planning based on the opposite assumption, then they figure to be in for an unpleasant surprise once they have to take their untested machine into a race toward election day.
I'll start off by noting that the ideal scenario for the NDP probably doesn't involve an election. But nor does it involve the NDP supporting the Harper government on any confidence matters.
Instead, the best-case outcome for the NDP is still for the Libs to roll over once again. That would likely put to an end whatever sense of momentum Michael Ignatieff has managed to create within the party, and likely push a few of the Libs who have grudgingly gritted their teeth in supporting the Cons for this long out of the tent all together.
Despite those exact risks as well as Ignatieff's current bluster, I don't think it's as certain as some people seem to want to believe that they won't eventually be pressured into backing down. The Cons are obviously eager to put the onus back on the Libs to either vote with them or take responsibility for an election, and there have been plenty of corporate media objections to the Libs' course of action which might well shift the balance of opinion within the party far enough to get them to revert to their long-held position even after they've admitted that the NDP was right all along.
But let's assume for the moment that the Libs do stick with their current position. Under those circumstances, when would the NDP most want to fight an election against them and the Cons?
Before answering that question, it's worth pointing out what the Libs' priorities have been under Ignatieff. Their first order of business was to work on their fund-raising, with the assumption likely being that they can work on their party structure and brand once they have more cash in the bank to work with. And by all accounts, they've done reasonably well in that department. Which means that at the moment, the Libs have a fairly strong fund-raising machine which they haven't yet converted into party development.
So which would the NDP rather face in an election: a party with a slight fund-raising advantage which hasn't yet turned that into much else, or a party which has had another few months to a year in which to develop on all fronts with the money it's raised so far? I'd think the answer there is fairly obvious.
Likewise, any delay in an election will give Michael Ignatieff a chance to develop into something more than a cipher as the Libs' party leader. So far, he's largely had to improvise, and the results have been rather less than impressive - meaning that there's both a lower baseline to start from, and some significant potential upside for the NDP in the possibility that he'll flub up his first election campaign. But with more time for long-term development which isn't impeded by going in front of the cameras every couple of months to threaten an election then back down, Ignatieff figures to be able to define and prepare himself better for an election in 2010 than for one now.
Combine all that with a Lib base brought back from the dead by the party's decision to actually take on an opposition role and the dangers of dampening NDP support if the party supports the Cons without winning massive concessions, and to me the calculation seems fairly clear that the NDP is better off facing Ignatieff now rather than later.
On the surface, those factors might be balanced out in the short term by the popularity associated with being seen to get things done: remember that in the summer of 2005, the NDP did get a major boost in the polls after winning its budget concessions from the Libs. But that boost would seem to be no less illusory than the one Ignatieff got after deciding to prop up Harper, as anybody who approves of avoiding an election now would figure to be unhappy with whatever steps eventually led to an election later.
Which is why it makes sense for the NDP to make some public efforts at a deal which it doesn't expect to actually materialize - allowing the party to present itself as reasonable and accommodating, while acknowledging that it's highly unlikely that the Cons will do anything to justify allowing them to stay in government.
Interestingly, the absolute worst-case scenario would probably be for the Cons to stay in power with the support of the Bloc - which would give the Libs the opportunity to build capacity and try to erase all memory of the last two years, while eliminating any "getting things done" counterargument. And that explains why the NDP may want to keep itself front and centre in any talks about whether or not the Cons will stay in power now. As long as it's the party being the most conciliatory toward the Cons, the NDP can effectively hold the reins when it counts to ensure an election - while the sooner it abandons the field, the more opportunity the Cons will have to justify cutting a deal with Gilles Duceppe.
In sum, then, the NDP has every reason to conclude that it's actually best off going to the polls this fall if it can't secure a dramatic change in course from the Cons. And if the Libs are planning based on the opposite assumption, then they figure to be in for an unpleasant surprise once they have to take their untested machine into a race toward election day.
On public interest
Ryan Meili's Sasquatch column is definitely worth a read in highlighting the need for "less politics and more democracy" to get more people involved in. But while the Saskatchewan NDP will be working its way toward new ways of interacting with the public during the course of its upcoming policy development process, it can take pride in the fact that it's doing well in getting large numbers of people involved in its current electoral challenges:
In the first week and a half, Dwain's team already has more sign locations, more volunteers and more ground covered than we did in the 2007 election campaign.Now, the presence of more volunteers and more ground covered might be expected when all of Regina's NDP supporters are able to focus on a single riding. But it's the first of those indicators that's particularly remarkable: a third of the way through the by-election campaign, more voters in Regina Douglas Park had already made the decision to display their support for the NDP than was the case during an entire general election campaign for a popular, long-time MLA. And the fact that so many citizens even in a single riding are responding positively to the by-election campaign would seem to provide a hint as to how much more interest there may be once the party as a whole launches its process to give the public a stronger voice in democratic policy-making.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Ujjal Dosanjh Agrees with Bob Rae: Liberals Haven't Done their Jobs for Two Years
While Bob Rae may be the leader of the Libs' self-loathing caucus, he's apparently far from alone. Here's Ujjal Dosanjh:
i believe I was not elected to support Harper. Am pt o/offcl oppsn. So now doing what I wae elctd todo.And of course these are two members of Michael Ignatieff's inner circle. So if even those closest to power in the Libs recognize and acknowledge that they haven't been doing what they were elected to do...then what reason is there to think they'll act any differently if they get rewarded for that failure at the polls?
On self-loathing
When it comes to public demonstrations of stupidity like this, the main message to be taken away is that for all their preening about not having to contrive criticisms about Stephen Harper, they're threatened enough by the NDP to flat-out make up nonsense. But what does it say about the Libs' view of their own party that their supporters' idea of a damaging attack is to shriek that another party might (but on all available evidence won't) do what they've been doing for two years and counting?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)