The spinners are out in full force when it comes to today's by-elections. The Cons are presenting a laughably skewed take in order to try to claim some momentous victory if they can eke out a win in territory which has voted for actual or expelled Cons all but once in the past 40 years; the Libs are understandably pointing out that the ridings aren't friendly terrain in order to justify a set of third-place finishes to come; and the NDP and Bloc are playing up their credentials in order to boost morale for election day. But let's put the current spin aside and take a look at the most likely outcomes in each riding.
New Westminster-Coquitlam
It's been well documented that the battle here is between the NDP's Fin Donnelly looking to take over the seat previously held by Dawn Black based on a combination of personal appeal and anger over the HST, while the Cons' Diana Dilworth tries to hide out and hope that the "Conservative" next to her name carries the day. Meanwhile, Lib Ken Beck Lee and Green Rebecca Helps figure to be fairly firmly entrenched in third and fourth place respectively - though it's worth wondering whether the flattening effect of a by-election can push Lee within striking distance of the top two contenders.
X-factor: The HST didn't manage to have much effect on a provincial by-election in Ontario, and today's vote may serve as the primary test of whether or not it'll sway votes in British Columbia.
Outcome Estimates: 65% chance of Donnelly win; 30% chance of Dilworth win; 5% chance of Lee win; 10% chance of Lee 2nd; 25% chance of Helps 3rd or higher
Hochelaga
Gilles Duceppe is now looking to downplay his party's all-out attack on the NDP. But all indications are that the NDP has put in place a couple of pieces from its winning formula in Outremont by winning the sign war and positioning itself as one of the two main alternatives in most commentary on the race - leaving the question of whether the final piece (shifting votes from other parties into the NDP's camp once that two-way race is set up) will push Jean-Claude Rocheleau ahead of the Bloc's Daniel Paille. The Libs normally run second in the riding but candidate Robert David hasn't been heard from much, while the Cons' Stephanie Cloutier looks to be even further back.
X-factor: It's been a common phenomenon in Quebec races involving the Bloc for federalist organizers and voters to unite behind one of the national parties. But for all of Rocheleau's strength through the campaign, I haven't heard much indication that he's managed to pull off the feat - and it's hard to see how he can overcome the Bloc's usual margin if not.
Outcome Estimates: 80% chance of Paille win; 15% chance of Rocheleau win; 5% chance of David or Cloutier win; 60% chance of Rocheleau 2nd; 20% chance of David 2nd; 40% chance of Cloutier 3rd or higher
Montmagny – L'Islet – Kamouraska – Rivière-du-Loup
I still have to figure it's a bad sign for the Cons if their star challenger Bernard Genereux is having to run against his own party. But there's at least a fairly plausible set of turnout assumptions which would nonetheless propel him to victory over the Bloc's Nancy Gagnon (particularly with the provincial Lib machine behind him), making this as likely a riding as any to change hands. Further back, while the NDP has done an effective job promoting Francois Lapointe, it'll have to be a pleasant surprise if he can make up a 10-point gap on the Libs to beat out Marcel Catellier for third place.
X-factor: Will the Cons' major highway announcement on Friday tip votes into their column based on Genereux' promise of patronage, or will it simply lead to voter fatigue?
Outcome Estimates: 60% chance of Gagnon win; 40% chance of Genereux win; 20% chance of Catellier 2nd; 30% chance of Lapointe 3rd or higher
Cumberland – Colchester – Musquodoboit Valley
While Bill Casey's old seat is being seen as an extremely close contest (with even the likes of Craig Oliver picking the NDP to win), I'll have to take a slightly less optimistic view of the likely outcomes. Yes, the NDP's Mark Austin is likely to finish a fairly strong second - but the Cons in one incarnation or another (PC, Con or Independent via Casey) have held the seat 36 of the last 40 years, and the safe bet has to be on Scott Armstrong continuing that pattern. With Lib Jim Burrows and Green Jason Blanch likely slotting into 3rd and 4th respectively, the other question to watch in the riding is whether the Christian Heritage Party's Jim Hnatiuk will develop enough traction to pass any of the national parties - but the likely answer there is "no".
X-factor: As much progress as the NDP has made within the riding provincially, the outcome will come down to whether the riding's voters are ready to forgive the Cons for their treatment of Casey now that one of his loyalists is carrying the party's banner. If so, then Armstrong should win in a walk based on the riding's historical tendencies; if not, then Austin figures to be the beneficiary of personal factors which easily trumped partisan identification in 2008.
Outcome Estimates: 70% chance of Armstrong win; 30% chance of Austin win; 25% chance of Burrows 2nd or higher; 20% chance of Hnatiuk 4th or higher.
As always, the above numbers reflect my own (hopefully reasonable educated) guesses rather than any mathematical formula. And it won't be long before we'll have some real results to mull over and analyze - hopefully with at least a couple more NDP MPs to show for the races.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Compare and contrast
It's great to see the Star reporting on the latest invasion of the Cons' Pod People. But there's another interesting new piece of information from the story which nicely highlights the relative priorities of the NDP's MPs compared to those of the Cons.
Remember that when Con MP John Duncan received an e-mail which wasn't intended for him, the result was his party surrepetitously dialling into and then leaking a private telephone call for political gain.
In contrast, the Star reveals that when NDP MP Linda Duncan received an e-mail which wasn't intended for her, the result was...the newfound knowledge being used to help her constituents:
But Linda Duncan's response also highlights the fact that there are indeed MPs to be found whose main focus is working to serve their constituents rather than taking credit for what others are doing. And the fact that Duncan's main challenger has that set of priorities exactly backwards should give Edmonton-Strathcona voters ample reason to keep Duncan in Parliament.
Update: And lest I forget, you too can help out the cause.
Remember that when Con MP John Duncan received an e-mail which wasn't intended for him, the result was his party surrepetitously dialling into and then leaking a private telephone call for political gain.
In contrast, the Star reveals that when NDP MP Linda Duncan received an e-mail which wasn't intended for her, the result was...the newfound knowledge being used to help her constituents:
In Edmonton-Strathcona, the only Alberta riding the Conservatives do not hold, local Tory candidate Ryan Hastman has participated in at least five government announcements over the past few months, while the local NDP MP, Linda Duncan, says she has been excluded from all of them. Hastman boasts of his participation in pictures on his Facebook page.Now, there's plenty of reason for concern about how the Cons themselves apparently tried to keep the funding deadlines to themselves. (And it's probably worth some followup as to whether that might help to explain the glaring gap between stimulus funding for Con-held ridings and that for the rest of the country.)
Duncan, who calls the "whole process offensive," says it becomes doubly irritating when a Conservative candidate claims credit for funds she helped to get for the community, as the duly elected MP.
"What I find reprehensible about all this is that they just can't seem to accept the fact that Edmonton-Strathcona voters elected me, not a Conservative," Duncan said.
Hastman was on hand, posing for pictures with Labour Minister Rona Ambrose, when the Conservatives gave a $14.8 million cheque to the GO community sports centre in Edmonton in September, for example.
Duncan had worked with the centre to get the application into the government before the deadline elapsed earlier in the year – and says she only found out about that deadline because someone accidentally sent her an email directed to the Alberta Conservative caucus.
But Linda Duncan's response also highlights the fact that there are indeed MPs to be found whose main focus is working to serve their constituents rather than taking credit for what others are doing. And the fact that Duncan's main challenger has that set of priorities exactly backwards should give Edmonton-Strathcona voters ample reason to keep Duncan in Parliament.
Update: And lest I forget, you too can help out the cause.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
On headaches
Cameron and impolitical have already picked up on the fact that the Cons' candidate in Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup is effectively running to turn the party into something other than what it is. But I'd think it's worth wondering just where that decision came from, particularly in a party notorious for message control (as epitomized by their refusal to allow a single one of their MPs to talk about the gun registry on national TV today).
Cameron speculates about Bernard Genereux "going rogue". That's certainly one possibility - and if it's true, the Cons may well be hoping for Genereux to merely hold a close second place in the riding rather than becoming an inside voice against their environmental neglect.
But I'd think there's another equally plausible possibility as well. Could it be that the Cons have authorized Genereux to criticize them based on a conclusion that he can only win the by-election as an anti-Conservative? And might that make for a rare crack in the Cons' PR facade which has the potential to weaken the entire structure?
Cameron speculates about Bernard Genereux "going rogue". That's certainly one possibility - and if it's true, the Cons may well be hoping for Genereux to merely hold a close second place in the riding rather than becoming an inside voice against their environmental neglect.
But I'd think there's another equally plausible possibility as well. Could it be that the Cons have authorized Genereux to criticize them based on a conclusion that he can only win the by-election as an anti-Conservative? And might that make for a rare crack in the Cons' PR facade which has the potential to weaken the entire structure?
Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging
Needless to say, there's plenty to be satisfied with in the 'Riders' win over Calgary which clinched first place. After two nail-biters in the team's earlier games against Calgary, the 'Riders managed to maintain at least some advantage throughout the game, then pulled away late to the point where the Stamps didn't even bother leaving Henry Burris in the game for their last drive. So let's note what the team did particularly well to win yesterday - and what it will need to work on in case the Stamps are back in town two weeks from now.
The biggest plus for Saskatchewan was the most consistent offensive game the team has put together in some time. While Andy Fantuz seems to have finally broken out as a superstar receiver, the rest of the team's success was once again based on balance between a number of threats, with five receivers and three rushers posting 24 or more yards of production.
About the only time the offense was ever bottled up was in the first quarter after the 'Riders' first touchdown - but by then the Stamps were already on their heels due to the 'Riders' lead. After that point, the 'Riders posted a grand total of one two-and-out the rest of the game to go with no turnovers and few significant losses of yardage (thanks largely to Darien Durant's creativity when the Stamps managed to get pressure on him). And that combination will usually ensure that a team at least stays in any game - or holds a lead once it exists.
What's more, even while winning the game by 16 the 'Riders had more near misses than their opponents when it came to piling up even more points. Several deep passing routes were no more than a stride away from turning into long TDs, while a couple of drives were stopped just short of field goal range (including one where a rare sack may have made the difference between a field goal attempt and a punt). Which offers the 'Riders some obvious room for improvement - but holds out the potential that the 'Riders could blow out their conference final opponent without much change from how they played yesterday.
Meanwhile, the defence was remarkably effective in slowing down Henry Burris. The defensive line surrounded Burris on most plays so that he couldn't generate big gains on the ground, while the secondary did a superb job shutting down deep routes and making quick tackles when Burris was forced to throw short. (In particular, credit has to go to Omarr Morgan, who regularly seemed to be in a better position to catch passes thrown his way than the Stamps' receivers.)
The price of that focus was yet another huge game for Joffrey Reynolds, and one would surely like to see a few more of his first-down runs stopped after 2-3 yards rather than watching another steady stream of 7-10-yard gains following broken initial tackles. But for this game at least, the 'Riders were able to firm up their defence nearly every time the Stampeders were within striking distance of the end zone. And allowing Reynolds some yardage closer to his own end of the field in exchange for limiting the Stamps' passing offence is probably a trade-off which any team will be glad to make.
Finally, special teams were largely a saw-off in yesterday's game, with no game-changing returns and only a few significant kicking plays. The Stamps managed to expose one weakness in when Sandro DeAngelis recovered his own kickoff in the third quarter, but it should be a fairly easy fix for the 'Riders to keep one player in front of the kicker to keep that from being repeated. Meanwhile, the 'Riders greatest strengths were ones which should remain effective for the rest of the season: in particular Louie Sakoda's punting and kicking is turning into a major boon for the team.
We'll find out next week who the 'Riders will end up facing in the West final. But the prospect of adding a few of the team's injured players back into the lineup after a game as strong as yesterday's has to serve as a great sign for the 'Riders' chances of turning a Calgary Grey Cup into an effective home game.
The biggest plus for Saskatchewan was the most consistent offensive game the team has put together in some time. While Andy Fantuz seems to have finally broken out as a superstar receiver, the rest of the team's success was once again based on balance between a number of threats, with five receivers and three rushers posting 24 or more yards of production.
About the only time the offense was ever bottled up was in the first quarter after the 'Riders' first touchdown - but by then the Stamps were already on their heels due to the 'Riders' lead. After that point, the 'Riders posted a grand total of one two-and-out the rest of the game to go with no turnovers and few significant losses of yardage (thanks largely to Darien Durant's creativity when the Stamps managed to get pressure on him). And that combination will usually ensure that a team at least stays in any game - or holds a lead once it exists.
What's more, even while winning the game by 16 the 'Riders had more near misses than their opponents when it came to piling up even more points. Several deep passing routes were no more than a stride away from turning into long TDs, while a couple of drives were stopped just short of field goal range (including one where a rare sack may have made the difference between a field goal attempt and a punt). Which offers the 'Riders some obvious room for improvement - but holds out the potential that the 'Riders could blow out their conference final opponent without much change from how they played yesterday.
Meanwhile, the defence was remarkably effective in slowing down Henry Burris. The defensive line surrounded Burris on most plays so that he couldn't generate big gains on the ground, while the secondary did a superb job shutting down deep routes and making quick tackles when Burris was forced to throw short. (In particular, credit has to go to Omarr Morgan, who regularly seemed to be in a better position to catch passes thrown his way than the Stamps' receivers.)
The price of that focus was yet another huge game for Joffrey Reynolds, and one would surely like to see a few more of his first-down runs stopped after 2-3 yards rather than watching another steady stream of 7-10-yard gains following broken initial tackles. But for this game at least, the 'Riders were able to firm up their defence nearly every time the Stampeders were within striking distance of the end zone. And allowing Reynolds some yardage closer to his own end of the field in exchange for limiting the Stamps' passing offence is probably a trade-off which any team will be glad to make.
Finally, special teams were largely a saw-off in yesterday's game, with no game-changing returns and only a few significant kicking plays. The Stamps managed to expose one weakness in when Sandro DeAngelis recovered his own kickoff in the third quarter, but it should be a fairly easy fix for the 'Riders to keep one player in front of the kicker to keep that from being repeated. Meanwhile, the 'Riders greatest strengths were ones which should remain effective for the rest of the season: in particular Louie Sakoda's punting and kicking is turning into a major boon for the team.
We'll find out next week who the 'Riders will end up facing in the West final. But the prospect of adding a few of the team's injured players back into the lineup after a game as strong as yesterday's has to serve as a great sign for the 'Riders' chances of turning a Calgary Grey Cup into an effective home game.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
On clunkers
Now that the first snarky response to Andrew Steele's latest HST sales pitch is out of the way, let's deal with the more substantive problem with Steele's most recent posts. Steele tries to rely on a report by the University of Calgary's Jack Mintz as demonstrating that the HST (along with a number of other moves by the McGuinty government) will create 591,000 "net new jobs" over the next decade, and argues that the report will fundamentally change the terms of Ontario's debate over the HST.
Let's leave aside for the moment that Steele's first post on the subject falsely tried to attribute that entire amount of theoretical job growth to the HST alone. Even looking solely at what Mintz' report actually says rather than the spin Steele is so eager to place on it, there's simply no basis for taking its numbers seriously: while Mintz' highly specific number speaks of "net new jobs", it doesn't actually take into account any of the costs of the HST or other associated policies to provide a "net" picture.
To start with, Mintz utterly fails to take into account how factors other than theoretical investment through global capital markets might affect Ontario's economy. Even other backers of the HST acknowledge that it'll result in higher costs for consumers, which is bound to create a cost in jobs in the meantime as well as undercutting the supposed gains in incomes. But Mintz cuts that out of the picture in order to focus solely on corporate investment.
And there are problems with that unduly narrow focus as well. Others have pointed out that corporate tax cuts like those included in Mintz' study may simply change the recipient of the same corporate tax amounts, rather than providing even a theoretical increase in economic activity.
But again, Mintz doesn't mention that as a factor, looking solely at the nominal "marginal effective tax rate" payable to Ontario rather than the amount which American companies in particular would actually pay. Which makes for a particularly glaring omission given both Ontario's interdependence with U.S. markets, and Mintz' attempt to paint changes by multijurisdictional businesses as one of the main benefits of reducing marginal tax rates.
In effect, Mintz' job estimate is the equivalent of a clueless would-be businessperson excitedly declaring "Eureka! If we sell 5,000 widgets for $200 apiece, we'll make a million dollars in net profit!". And the fact that it takes such an obviously distorted study to make the HST look good has to seriously call into question whether there's any benefit to be had for anybody but corporations looking to boost their share of public wealth.
Mind you, Steele tries to paint Mintz as the "Cadillac of Canadian public policy and economics" in hopes that nobody will look too closely at what he's actually done. But it may bear pointing out that businesses which actually put reliance on brands like Cadillac over creating quality products haven't exactly fared well for themselves - and indeed have contributed to Ontario's downfall in the first place.
Update: Erin points out a few more problems with Mintz' report.
Let's leave aside for the moment that Steele's first post on the subject falsely tried to attribute that entire amount of theoretical job growth to the HST alone. Even looking solely at what Mintz' report actually says rather than the spin Steele is so eager to place on it, there's simply no basis for taking its numbers seriously: while Mintz' highly specific number speaks of "net new jobs", it doesn't actually take into account any of the costs of the HST or other associated policies to provide a "net" picture.
To start with, Mintz utterly fails to take into account how factors other than theoretical investment through global capital markets might affect Ontario's economy. Even other backers of the HST acknowledge that it'll result in higher costs for consumers, which is bound to create a cost in jobs in the meantime as well as undercutting the supposed gains in incomes. But Mintz cuts that out of the picture in order to focus solely on corporate investment.
And there are problems with that unduly narrow focus as well. Others have pointed out that corporate tax cuts like those included in Mintz' study may simply change the recipient of the same corporate tax amounts, rather than providing even a theoretical increase in economic activity.
But again, Mintz doesn't mention that as a factor, looking solely at the nominal "marginal effective tax rate" payable to Ontario rather than the amount which American companies in particular would actually pay. Which makes for a particularly glaring omission given both Ontario's interdependence with U.S. markets, and Mintz' attempt to paint changes by multijurisdictional businesses as one of the main benefits of reducing marginal tax rates.
In effect, Mintz' job estimate is the equivalent of a clueless would-be businessperson excitedly declaring "Eureka! If we sell 5,000 widgets for $200 apiece, we'll make a million dollars in net profit!". And the fact that it takes such an obviously distorted study to make the HST look good has to seriously call into question whether there's any benefit to be had for anybody but corporations looking to boost their share of public wealth.
Mind you, Steele tries to paint Mintz as the "Cadillac of Canadian public policy and economics" in hopes that nobody will look too closely at what he's actually done. But it may bear pointing out that businesses which actually put reliance on brands like Cadillac over creating quality products haven't exactly fared well for themselves - and indeed have contributed to Ontario's downfall in the first place.
Update: Erin points out a few more problems with Mintz' report.
On false equivalencies
Shorter Andrew Steele:
"Cutting corporate taxes" (by transferring costs to mere citizens) is the new "saving childrens' lives".
"Cutting corporate taxes" (by transferring costs to mere citizens) is the new "saving childrens' lives".
Friday, November 06, 2009
The reviews are in
Don Martin:
It takes considerable effort to become a complete embarrassment.
Congratulations Senator Mike Duffy, you've finally done it.
With his wild rant on a CBC national politics show this week, the television icon has accomplished the difficult feat of offending all those in his parliamentary orbit -- his former journalistic occupation, the Conservative party, senators, MPs and even the prime minister who appointed him.
...
It's not easy for me to write this because Mike Duffy was a personal friend until I derided his appointment to the Senate, but Thursday's antics have cost him any lingering credibility.
Many senators are decent types trying to make intelligent and constructive contributions to public policy.
But Mike Duffy's only value has become that of poster boy for why the Senate needs, at very least, major reform if not outright abolition.
On perpetual campaigns
So what can we take away from the Sask Party's announcement that just halfway through its mandate, it's already making the 2011 election its main focus? From my standpoint, there are two crucial points worth mentioning.
First, it said enough about the weakness of the Sask Party's caucus when Wall named Bill Boyd as Minister for Everything the Government Cares About. But apparently Wall's opinion of the rest of the Sask Party's supporters isn't any higher, as he's now piling party responsibilities onto Boyd as well.
The choice of Boyd over not only his caucus-mates but also party staff and community supporters suggests that however much money the Sask Party is able to bring in, its list of members Brad Wall trusts to carry out any task more complex than tying their own shoes consists of exactly one name.
That leads nicely to the second point, as Wall seems to have sent a clear signal as to his party's focus for the next two years - and it's hardly one that figures to play well with the public.
Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the first time I'm aware of a governing party explicitly starting its re-election campaign this early. And that timing is especially striking in light of everything else that's already on Boyd's plate.
At a point in time when Boyd's departments are supposed to be making major decisions over the course of the next few months, Wall apparently figures Boyd's time is better spent on the politics of getting elected two years down the road than on actually governing in the meantime. And that order of priorities should raise a serious question for Saskatchewan citizens as to whether or not they're satisfied with a half-time government.
First, it said enough about the weakness of the Sask Party's caucus when Wall named Bill Boyd as Minister for Everything the Government Cares About. But apparently Wall's opinion of the rest of the Sask Party's supporters isn't any higher, as he's now piling party responsibilities onto Boyd as well.
The choice of Boyd over not only his caucus-mates but also party staff and community supporters suggests that however much money the Sask Party is able to bring in, its list of members Brad Wall trusts to carry out any task more complex than tying their own shoes consists of exactly one name.
That leads nicely to the second point, as Wall seems to have sent a clear signal as to his party's focus for the next two years - and it's hardly one that figures to play well with the public.
Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the first time I'm aware of a governing party explicitly starting its re-election campaign this early. And that timing is especially striking in light of everything else that's already on Boyd's plate.
At a point in time when Boyd's departments are supposed to be making major decisions over the course of the next few months, Wall apparently figures Boyd's time is better spent on the politics of getting elected two years down the road than on actually governing in the meantime. And that order of priorities should raise a serious question for Saskatchewan citizens as to whether or not they're satisfied with a half-time government.
In need of abolition
There's been plenty of talk about the yesterday's showdown between NDP MP Peter Stoffer and Con Senator Mike Duffy over Senate expenses. But while many people have noticed the contrast between Stoffer's calm demeanour and Duffy's sputtering rage, I'm not sure anybody has pointed out what looks to me to be the most glaring problem with Duffy's attacks on Stoffer.
While Duffy did indeed get angrier and angrier over the course of the appearance, there's little indication that his attacks on Stoffer were a matter of going too far personally in a single outburst. Duffy first went to the "fakers" line at a point when nobody else was speaking in a way that could even be argued to have set him off - and repeated it several times intertwined with other Con talking points thoroughout the interview. Which suggests to me that the problem isn't Duffy going off message, but that he's being given more and more inflammatory messages to deliver.
Now, there's some obvious logic as to why the Cons might want to set up a strategy where their unelected, unaccountable, unfireable Senate hacks are the ones sent out to deliver the most personal attacks they can. Anytime an MP or candidate who faces the voters is the one to be associated with such a message or to show unbridled anger in public, they face the danger of a backlash at the polls.
But with Duffy and his ilk put in front of the cameras, there's no similar risk of direct consequences. Instead, the Cons can claim some degree of deniability if comments are construed as being offensive. And if any stunt isn't immediately met with public outcry, then their elected officials can move in and start repeating and reinforcing it.
In effect, then, the Cons seem to have turned Duffy into a Canadian version of a Rush Limbaugh or a Glenn Beck: somebody responsible for pushing the boundaries of acceptable debate, road-testing extreme and personal messages with no electoral repercussions. And the only obvious differences are ones where the Cons' version looks even worse: while Limbaugh and Beck are at least nominally in control of their own message and financially affected by their choices, Duffy is proud to take orders directly from Stephen Harper and money from the Canadian public.
In other words, yesterday's appearance is probably best seen less as a problem with Duffy alone, and more as yet another turning point where the Cons have abused public institutions for their partisan ends. And the fact that the Senate is ripe for such misuse offers up an even more compelling argument for abolition than the waste and patronage that Duffy was so eager to deflect from in the first place.
Update: For those who haven't seen it yet, Glen Pearson's take is worth a read.
While Duffy did indeed get angrier and angrier over the course of the appearance, there's little indication that his attacks on Stoffer were a matter of going too far personally in a single outburst. Duffy first went to the "fakers" line at a point when nobody else was speaking in a way that could even be argued to have set him off - and repeated it several times intertwined with other Con talking points thoroughout the interview. Which suggests to me that the problem isn't Duffy going off message, but that he's being given more and more inflammatory messages to deliver.
Now, there's some obvious logic as to why the Cons might want to set up a strategy where their unelected, unaccountable, unfireable Senate hacks are the ones sent out to deliver the most personal attacks they can. Anytime an MP or candidate who faces the voters is the one to be associated with such a message or to show unbridled anger in public, they face the danger of a backlash at the polls.
But with Duffy and his ilk put in front of the cameras, there's no similar risk of direct consequences. Instead, the Cons can claim some degree of deniability if comments are construed as being offensive. And if any stunt isn't immediately met with public outcry, then their elected officials can move in and start repeating and reinforcing it.
In effect, then, the Cons seem to have turned Duffy into a Canadian version of a Rush Limbaugh or a Glenn Beck: somebody responsible for pushing the boundaries of acceptable debate, road-testing extreme and personal messages with no electoral repercussions. And the only obvious differences are ones where the Cons' version looks even worse: while Limbaugh and Beck are at least nominally in control of their own message and financially affected by their choices, Duffy is proud to take orders directly from Stephen Harper and money from the Canadian public.
In other words, yesterday's appearance is probably best seen less as a problem with Duffy alone, and more as yet another turning point where the Cons have abused public institutions for their partisan ends. And the fact that the Senate is ripe for such misuse offers up an even more compelling argument for abolition than the waste and patronage that Duffy was so eager to deflect from in the first place.
Update: For those who haven't seen it yet, Glen Pearson's take is worth a read.
On blocked channels
Shorter Brad Wall:
Any public servant who thinks we're covering up a public safety issue should be entirely satisfied pointing that fact out only to the same people responsible for the cover-up.
Any public servant who thinks we're covering up a public safety issue should be entirely satisfied pointing that fact out only to the same people responsible for the cover-up.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
The appropriate response
For all that's been said about Brad Trost's attempt to eliminate federal funding to Planned Parenthood's international operations, the definitive word so far goes to Stephen Whitworth:
Reasonable, tolerant people do not launch petitions against Planned Parenthood because it provides legal abortions. I'm officially calling it and I'm sticking to it: Saskatoon MP Brad Trost is unfit for public office and frankly he's a threat to human rights, freedoms and civil society.
On alternatives
In case there was any doubt whether the NDP's efforts in the Hochelaga by-election are bearing fruit, it's worth noting just who the Bloc is attacking in order to try to keep the seat. Apparently the Libs (who actually finished second in the riding in 2008 and have plenty of history winning seats including the Hochelaga area) don't even rate a mention in the Bloc's late-campaign advertising efforts, while the NDP alone is on the receiving end of a campaign criticizing a position held in common by the NDP and the Libs. Which would seem to send a fairly compelling signal that the Bloc is treating the NDP's Jean-Claude Rocheleau as its sole perceived competitor.
Of course, that's a double-edged sword for the NDP to at least some extent, particularly given the Bloc's track record of cutting their main opponent down to size. But it's surely better to be seen as the main competition heading into Monday's vote than not - and we'll find out before long just how many inroads the NDP has been able to make during the by-election campaign.
Of course, that's a double-edged sword for the NDP to at least some extent, particularly given the Bloc's track record of cutting their main opponent down to size. But it's surely better to be seen as the main competition heading into Monday's vote than not - and we'll find out before long just how many inroads the NDP has been able to make during the by-election campaign.
Deep thought
The Wall government's efforts to turn Saskatchewan's governance over to the corporate sector have sure done wonders to ensure business confidence in the province.
Thursday Morning Link Blast
Time to clear off a few tabs...
- Ontarians worried that the province's decision to impose the HST on them (with federal inducement of course) was made without their views being taken into account will surely take plenty of solace in the fact that some of McGuinty's MLAs are in the same boat.
- Joe Kuchta details the fact that a decision on nuclear power isn't the only one that the Wall government is looking to force by the end of the year without full information. Instead, after promising not to sign the TILMA, it's looking to sign onto an arrangement which differs (if at all) only in its application to municipalities and Crown corporations who have been allowed into the inner circle - while once again freezing the public out of the process.
- Canada's correctional investigator points out the obvious fact that a more punitive penal system does nothing to help public safety. But I'm not sure that anything much was said in response: the Cons even bother with their rote "we know better than any so-called 'facts'", or did this particular report simply get entirely ignored?
- Finally, it shouldn't be a huge surprise that Con candidate Diana Dilworth is going to comical lengths to avoid talking to the media in the New Westminster-Coquitlam by-election. But one has to wonder whether anybody remembers what happened the last time the Cons tries the same flee-the-media strategy in a by-election where there's plenty of attention being paid to what the individual candidates actually have to say for themselves. And it may be worth sending them a reminder by pitching in for the NDP's Fin Donnelly.
- Ontarians worried that the province's decision to impose the HST on them (with federal inducement of course) was made without their views being taken into account will surely take plenty of solace in the fact that some of McGuinty's MLAs are in the same boat.
- Joe Kuchta details the fact that a decision on nuclear power isn't the only one that the Wall government is looking to force by the end of the year without full information. Instead, after promising not to sign the TILMA, it's looking to sign onto an arrangement which differs (if at all) only in its application to municipalities and Crown corporations who have been allowed into the inner circle - while once again freezing the public out of the process.
- Canada's correctional investigator points out the obvious fact that a more punitive penal system does nothing to help public safety. But I'm not sure that anything much was said in response: the Cons even bother with their rote "we know better than any so-called 'facts'", or did this particular report simply get entirely ignored?
- Finally, it shouldn't be a huge surprise that Con candidate Diana Dilworth is going to comical lengths to avoid talking to the media in the New Westminster-Coquitlam by-election. But one has to wonder whether anybody remembers what happened the last time the Cons tries the same flee-the-media strategy in a by-election where there's plenty of attention being paid to what the individual candidates actually have to say for themselves. And it may be worth sending them a reminder by pitching in for the NDP's Fin Donnelly.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
On partisan screening
The news that applicants for federal civil service jobs are being forced to write essays on the Cons' economic policies is unsettling enough on its own. But there's another seemingly-overlooked piece of the story which leaves little room for doubt that the move is designed to serve the Cons' political goals:
Spaces are in high demand among university graduates.Now, the move to require job applicants to write paeans to the Cons' policies would seem problematic enough if it had been the lone change to the hiring process (and implemented by the same body normally responsible for recruitment). But it's surely not by accident that the move coincides with the secretive, domineering Harper PCO taking over. And considering how determined Harper's office has been to politicize everything else it's touched, it figures to be a near certainty that positions in the training program will be allocated based on the Cons' political ends.
But this year, for the first time, candidates need to provide more than a list of qualifications and good marks. They also must to write 1,000 words on the federal government's last budget, promoted widely as the Economic Action Plan.
...
Applications need to be submitted by Monday. It's the first time recruits have to submit an essay. It's also the first time recruiting has been led by the Privy Council Office. Treasury Board spearheaded the program in previous years.
The reviews are in
Greg Weston:
Canadians who fear their hard-earned tax money is disappearing down a black hole will no doubt be relieved to learn they are actually investing in government mismanagement on a grand scale.
Auditor general Sheila Fraser's latest compendium of federal misdeeds calls into question the basic competence of a Conservative government already under fire over stimulus squander and the current flu-shot fiasco.
Surprising only to those awaking from a long coma, Fraser concluded that Stephen Harper's government of big cardboard cheques is far better at making announcements than actually implementing them.
Some of Fraser's findings would be worthy of a comedic spoof were the consequences not so dire.
Incidentally...
...those looking to impose an NDP litmus test in favour of the federal gun registry may want to take a look at the history behind its implementation. The "yea" votes for Bill C-68 included a grand total of one NDP MP (Svend Robinson), while the "nay" votes when the registry first passed included the rest of the NDP caucus - including such familiar names as Audrey McLaughlin, Bill Blaikie and Simon de Jong.
Which isn't to say that the party couldn't rightfully change its mind in the interim. But surely there would be some significant explanation needed as to how the position held by all but one NDP member when a measure passed initially would be grounds for punishment when it comes to reversing course.
Which isn't to say that the party couldn't rightfully change its mind in the interim. But surely there would be some significant explanation needed as to how the position held by all but one NDP member when a measure passed initially would be grounds for punishment when it comes to reversing course.
Off the mark
Somewhere, Stephen Harper is laughing his ass off over the intraparty fighting he's managed to provoke by pushing Candace Hoeppner's private member's bill to eliminate the federal long gun registry. But I'll suggest that for those who are eager to fight over today's vote (and future ones), the current strategy of attacking NDP and Liberal MPs over their willingness to vote against the gun registry is at best marginally productive for a single vote, and thoroughly counterproductive in the long run.
So far, the lone apparent strategy has been to try to pressure rural opposition MPs (some of whom actually ran on repealing the gun registry) to vote with their party leader instead of with their constituents. But to the extent the issue is seen as one involving a rural/urban split, doesn't it make more sense to instead put pressure on urban or suburban Con MPs to listen to their constituents as well, rather than setting up a situation where opposition MPs are the only ones in the line of fire?
It's obvious that the Cons are trying to have it both ways by playing up the "free vote" line for opposition MPs while their party looks to be entirely whipped. But that messaging can be used against them by the opposition parties: they can embrace the free-vote principle for themselves (rather than calling for whipped votes as some are doing), then turn a spotlight onto Con MPs as to their individual choices.
From there, it should be an easy step to turn the tables on urban and suburban Cons - not only by pointing out the support of police chiefs for the registry, but also by highlighting crimes which have taken place in a particular community where the gun registry would be a useful tool in law enforcement, and asking why the Con MP doesn't want to see them solved.
Again, I'm far from sure that the gun registry is in fact a hill that any opposition party should be willing to die on. But if the issue is one that's going to be a public fight (at the expense of the patronage and incompetence themes that were starting to take hold), then surely it's at least better to make Con MPs the battleground - rather than assuming that Harper's hold over his party can't be challenged, and thus needlessly taking on damage to the opposition that can be avoided.
Update: Steve V makes the case for free votes as a matter of principle.
So far, the lone apparent strategy has been to try to pressure rural opposition MPs (some of whom actually ran on repealing the gun registry) to vote with their party leader instead of with their constituents. But to the extent the issue is seen as one involving a rural/urban split, doesn't it make more sense to instead put pressure on urban or suburban Con MPs to listen to their constituents as well, rather than setting up a situation where opposition MPs are the only ones in the line of fire?
It's obvious that the Cons are trying to have it both ways by playing up the "free vote" line for opposition MPs while their party looks to be entirely whipped. But that messaging can be used against them by the opposition parties: they can embrace the free-vote principle for themselves (rather than calling for whipped votes as some are doing), then turn a spotlight onto Con MPs as to their individual choices.
From there, it should be an easy step to turn the tables on urban and suburban Cons - not only by pointing out the support of police chiefs for the registry, but also by highlighting crimes which have taken place in a particular community where the gun registry would be a useful tool in law enforcement, and asking why the Con MP doesn't want to see them solved.
Again, I'm far from sure that the gun registry is in fact a hill that any opposition party should be willing to die on. But if the issue is one that's going to be a public fight (at the expense of the patronage and incompetence themes that were starting to take hold), then surely it's at least better to make Con MPs the battleground - rather than assuming that Harper's hold over his party can't be challenged, and thus needlessly taking on damage to the opposition that can be avoided.
Update: Steve V makes the case for free votes as a matter of principle.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Zero confidence
Now this is why it pays to read the fine print of a Sask Party initiative. Sure, a "Mission: Zero" strategy seemingly aimed at putting an end to work injuries would seem to be a plus on its face. But apparently a more accurate title for the Wall government's view of workplace safety would be "Mission: Zero Reporting".
Deep thought
Mark Sakamoto has some nerve thinking he's entitled to respond to a "street interview" with anything other than the statement, "I'm a Liberal, so my opinion doesn't count".
HUAC north indeed.
(Edit: corrected name.)
HUAC north indeed.
(Edit: corrected name.)
The reviews are in
The Star-Phoenix editorial board:
Oh, how eager was newly minted Prime Minister Stephen Harper to do the public's business in a transparent and accountable way, as he rode to power in 2006 on a wave of promises to govern differently from the entitlement-minded Liberals who'd worn out their welcome with Canadians over the adscam fiasco.
But that was then and this is now, with Mr. Harper's second-term Conservative government going even further than its predecessors to erect an opaque barrier between itself and citizens employing what an alarmed Information Commissioner Robert Marleau described in January as a "communications stranglehold" on the bureaucracy.
...
It's hard to believe that the mealy-mouthed utterance, "administrative alternatives, such as enhanced guidance and training that can be equally effective," actually came from a cabinet minister of a Conservative administration that took power on a promise to overhaul the system.
Four years in power is all it's taken for political sclerosis to set in.
On incentives
Your Brad Wall government, in a nutshell...
Gross incompetence which results in an inmate serving time for sexual assault being set free before his sentence is up? No problem there as far as Wall is concerned.
A cover-up to ensure that nobody knows said sexual offender has been freed? Fine by the Sask Party, and indeed expected.
But if somebody has the nerve to let the truth out? Now that's time to start not just pointing fingers, but punishing public servants based on mere suspicion.
Gross incompetence which results in an inmate serving time for sexual assault being set free before his sentence is up? No problem there as far as Wall is concerned.
A cover-up to ensure that nobody knows said sexual offender has been freed? Fine by the Sask Party, and indeed expected.
But if somebody has the nerve to let the truth out? Now that's time to start not just pointing fingers, but punishing public servants based on mere suspicion.
Monday, November 02, 2009
Egowarriors indeed
Shorter Kelly McParland:
It's impossible to take environmentalists seriously when a few of them have an unrealistically inflated sense of self-worth. Now stay tuned for part 738 of Ezra Levant's 2,105-part series, "Why Me and the Other Speech Warriors are like Gandhi, Jesus and Superman All Rolled Into One".
It's impossible to take environmentalists seriously when a few of them have an unrealistically inflated sense of self-worth. Now stay tuned for part 738 of Ezra Levant's 2,105-part series, "Why Me and the Other Speech Warriors are like Gandhi, Jesus and Superman All Rolled Into One".
On misinformation
You probably don't need me to tell you that the Cons' excuses for not providing information to Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page are absolute nonsense. But just in case there was any doubt, the Cons' excuses for not providing information to Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page are absolute nonsense.
Here's the latest excuse from a John Baird spokesflack:
What's more, the PBO has been set up to scrupulously avoid the disclosure of any information whose release might affect third parties:
Now, I'm sure the Cons will simply give the Wheel of Excuses another spin even if it does get pointed out that their supposed concern for protecting information has no basis in reality. But it's still worth pointing out just how implausible their explanations actually are to make sure that the next round receives the skepticism it deserves.
Here's the latest excuse from a John Baird spokesflack:
Mr. Baird said that the amount of pages is large because there are 7,600 projects underway. Mr. Day said that the reason why these files were hard copies was because of the nature of the documents, information gathered as part of the application process, some of which can be confidential commercial information that could not be released without the consent of third parties.Now, one might read that response and ask, is the PBO's office really set up so that its efforts to shed light on Canada's public finances can be stymied by third parties who refuse to consent to the disclosure of relevant information? Fortunately, the answer is "not by a long shot":
"We would have to go through and get consent and permission from every single one of our proponents and we're bound by privacy laws," said Mr. Day. "We provided [the Parliamentary Budget Officer] with the data, some of it is sensitive information, it may include some financial statements, budgets, board information and all that stuff. We've got thousands of pages worth of documents to him and his staff can go through it and do their due diligence, do the financial analysis."
79.3 (1) Except as provided by any other Act of Parliament that expressly refers to this subsection, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is entitled, by request made to the deputy head of a department within the meaning of any of paragraphs (a), (a.1) and (d) of the definition “department” in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act, or to any other person designated by that deputy head for the purpose of this section, to free and timely access to any financial or economic data in the possession of the department that are required for the performance of his or her mandate.For those wondering, the exemptions referred to in section 79.3(b) include personal information under section 19 of the Access to Information Act, information subject to a statutory prohibition on disclosure under Schedule II of the Access to Information Act (none of which would appear to apply to infrastructure spending), and information which the Privy Council Office chooses to make confidential. And I doubt the public would have reason for sympathy if the records surrounding the use of stimulus money are of "personal" use or are being suppressed by the Cons' own choice.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of any financial or economic data
(a) that are information the disclosure of which is restricted under section 19 of the Access to Information Act or any provision set out in Schedule II to that Act; or
(b) that are contained in a confidence of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada described in subsection 69(1) of that Act, unless the data are also contained in any other record, within the meaning of section 3 of that Act, and are not information referred to in paragraph (a).
What's more, the PBO has been set up to scrupulously avoid the disclosure of any information whose release might affect third parties:
79.4 The Parliamentary Budget Officer, and every person acting on behalf or under the direction of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, shall not disclose any financial or economic data that come to their knowledge under section 79.3, unless the disclosure is essential for the performance of his or her mandate and the financial or economic data to which the disclosure relates are not information described in subsection 13(1), section 14, any of paragraphs 18(a) to (d), section 18.1, any of paragraphs 20(1)(b) to (d) or section 20.1 of the Access to Information Act.So to sum up, then: the federal government isn't entitled to refuse to disclose information to the PBO merely because it's "commercial information"; there's no reason why any third party would have to consent to the disclosure of information to the PBO; and even if one wanted to ignore the PBO's entitlement to the information requested, there's no plausible reason to suggest that sensitive information which does get disclosed would be at risk.
Now, I'm sure the Cons will simply give the Wheel of Excuses another spin even if it does get pointed out that their supposed concern for protecting information has no basis in reality. But it's still worth pointing out just how implausible their explanations actually are to make sure that the next round receives the skepticism it deserves.
On ceasefires
Michael Byers' proposal for cooperation among the national opposition parties in the next federal election figures to be a major topic of conversation over the next little while. So let's take a closer look at what Byers suggests, as well as the impact it figures to have on the political scene.
To start off with, there seems to be little indication that Byers' suggestion is based on anything more than a personal idea. Significantly, he doesn't even begin to discuss the obvious practical hurdles associated with a plan - particularly the question of how (if it all) the plan could be approved within the NDP's existing structures which don't allow for the same degree of top-down control exercised by other parties' leaders. And aside from raising an issue as to how democratic such a proposal would be, that hints to me that Byers hasn't looked ahead as to whether the proposal could practically be implemented - nor discussed the idea in detail with anybody who has considered the question.
So what about the substance of his proposal? I've posted before about my take on what elements a deal for electoral cooperation would have to include for me to see it as a plus overall - and while Byers' plan comes somewhat closer to the mark than some others I've seen, it still seems to be lacking in a few key areas.
First and most fundamentally, there's little reason to think that an electoral ceasefire would actually hold much of a chance of success.
Byers bases his argument on the raw 2008 vote totals for the NDP and the Libs, without so much as recognizing the possibility that one party's votes wouldn't necessarily transfer en masse to the other. But even that would lead to a Parliament where the two parties' combined seats would fall short of a majority - leaving little prospect that a referendum on proportional representation would be allowed to take place without the Cons and Bloc voting down any new government.
And even that scenario is likely too generous an interpretation of the probable outcome. After all, the track record of multi-party deals suggests that any combined effort tends to add up to less than the sum of its parts - a problem which seems particularly obvious for NDP ridings under an agreement where a substantial number of Lib votes would bleed to the Cons. And there's equally some history of completely unforeseen consequences: see e.g. the B.C. effort by the two traditional parties to suppress the CCF, which instead led to the rise of Social Credit as it unraveled.
Meanwhile, there are also pitfalls in Byers' plan if it succeeds beyond anybody's expectations. Byers himself notes that there would be a chance of the Libs winning a majority government if a combined effort manages to turn the tide strongly enough against the Cons. But he doesn't note the obvious implication of that possibility: a Lib majority government would have absolutely no incentive to follow through on a promise to do anything about proportional representation, and the NDP would have no hammer at its disposal to force the issue. So Byers' plan falls short on the question of enforceability as well.
And as an added problem, the focus on 2008 results would lead to a complete lack of flexibility. To the extent both parties were to agree on a common goal of toppling the Cons, it would seem obvious that it's in nobody's interest for a party to be arbitrarily assigned a seat where it doesn't have the best chance of winning. But the allocation of seats based on past results combined with the elimination of any other opposition candidates would ensure that there would be no way to correct for any realization that a particular candidate or party actually doesn't have the better chance to defeat a Con opponent.
Finally, I'll note that there are serious questions to be raised about the timing of Byers' proposal. I could see a far better argument for the necessity of cooperation at what's seen to be a particularly crucial decision point in Canadian politics. But Ignatieff already broke an agreement with the NDP at the last one of those to leave the Con government in charge of dealing with Canada's recession. And the threat of a Harper majority isn't a particularly new one either, as it loomed as a distinct possibility through most of the 2008 campaign.
In sum, then, I'm not clear on what's changed since a year ago to justify a deal along the line of Byers' proposal. Which means that while he deserves credit for looking to spread a message of cooperation, there doesn't seem to be much prospect that his suggestion will find much traction.
Update: Pogge is much more succinct.
(Edit: fixed wording re: B.C. example.)
To start off with, there seems to be little indication that Byers' suggestion is based on anything more than a personal idea. Significantly, he doesn't even begin to discuss the obvious practical hurdles associated with a plan - particularly the question of how (if it all) the plan could be approved within the NDP's existing structures which don't allow for the same degree of top-down control exercised by other parties' leaders. And aside from raising an issue as to how democratic such a proposal would be, that hints to me that Byers hasn't looked ahead as to whether the proposal could practically be implemented - nor discussed the idea in detail with anybody who has considered the question.
So what about the substance of his proposal? I've posted before about my take on what elements a deal for electoral cooperation would have to include for me to see it as a plus overall - and while Byers' plan comes somewhat closer to the mark than some others I've seen, it still seems to be lacking in a few key areas.
First and most fundamentally, there's little reason to think that an electoral ceasefire would actually hold much of a chance of success.
Byers bases his argument on the raw 2008 vote totals for the NDP and the Libs, without so much as recognizing the possibility that one party's votes wouldn't necessarily transfer en masse to the other. But even that would lead to a Parliament where the two parties' combined seats would fall short of a majority - leaving little prospect that a referendum on proportional representation would be allowed to take place without the Cons and Bloc voting down any new government.
And even that scenario is likely too generous an interpretation of the probable outcome. After all, the track record of multi-party deals suggests that any combined effort tends to add up to less than the sum of its parts - a problem which seems particularly obvious for NDP ridings under an agreement where a substantial number of Lib votes would bleed to the Cons. And there's equally some history of completely unforeseen consequences: see e.g. the B.C. effort by the two traditional parties to suppress the CCF, which instead led to the rise of Social Credit as it unraveled.
Meanwhile, there are also pitfalls in Byers' plan if it succeeds beyond anybody's expectations. Byers himself notes that there would be a chance of the Libs winning a majority government if a combined effort manages to turn the tide strongly enough against the Cons. But he doesn't note the obvious implication of that possibility: a Lib majority government would have absolutely no incentive to follow through on a promise to do anything about proportional representation, and the NDP would have no hammer at its disposal to force the issue. So Byers' plan falls short on the question of enforceability as well.
And as an added problem, the focus on 2008 results would lead to a complete lack of flexibility. To the extent both parties were to agree on a common goal of toppling the Cons, it would seem obvious that it's in nobody's interest for a party to be arbitrarily assigned a seat where it doesn't have the best chance of winning. But the allocation of seats based on past results combined with the elimination of any other opposition candidates would ensure that there would be no way to correct for any realization that a particular candidate or party actually doesn't have the better chance to defeat a Con opponent.
Finally, I'll note that there are serious questions to be raised about the timing of Byers' proposal. I could see a far better argument for the necessity of cooperation at what's seen to be a particularly crucial decision point in Canadian politics. But Ignatieff already broke an agreement with the NDP at the last one of those to leave the Con government in charge of dealing with Canada's recession. And the threat of a Harper majority isn't a particularly new one either, as it loomed as a distinct possibility through most of the 2008 campaign.
In sum, then, I'm not clear on what's changed since a year ago to justify a deal along the line of Byers' proposal. Which means that while he deserves credit for looking to spread a message of cooperation, there doesn't seem to be much prospect that his suggestion will find much traction.
Update: Pogge is much more succinct.
(Edit: fixed wording re: B.C. example.)
Sunday, November 01, 2009
By necessary implication
It's understandable to a point that the opposition's messaging about the Cons' misuse of public money to take credit for even the most mundane actions has been based on direct confrontation rather than trying to seek any admissions out of a government notorious for stonewalling its opponents. But it seems to me that there's an available next step where the current allegation against the Cons actually becomes their defence to an even more irresponsible implication coming from their current position.
There's plenty of material already available where the Cons send the following messages:
- First, that their "economic action plan" is synonymous with stimulus spending.
- Second, that they see stimulus spending as a temporary measure which they're eager to end at the earliest opportunity.
- Third, that the vast majority of any stimulus spending (90% by their reckoning) has already been committed.
Based on that combination, can't it be said that Canadians should look at the type of activity that's being included within the "Economic Action Plan" by Cons' own advertisement - and conclude that the Harper government has no intention of investing in any similar priorities at any point in the foreseeable future once their "exit strategy" from stimulus spending plays out? And shouldn't the opposition parties be eager to draw exactly that connection?
As best I can tell, that argument would create an extremely target-rich environment. Any opposition MP could point to, say, a stretch of a national highway with an Economic Action Plan sign (ideally in a Con riding); point to another stretch of highway in obvious need of repair without such a sign (ideally in an opposition riding), and announce that the Cons have declared that the latter won't be dealt with as long as they're in office since the stimulus money has basically run out.
Or better yet, point to maintenance being carried out with "Action Plan" publicity, and announce that it's going to stop as soon as the stimulus period is done with. From my standpoint, the strategy gets even better with each example of an "Action Plan" sign where it doesn't belong - i.e. in an area which obviously had to be invested in regardless of whether or not there was any need for immediate stimulus.
One option in response to such examples would be for the Cons to answer that they have no intention of investing in any federal infrastructure once the recession is over. But that would raise the spectre of the Cons effectively allowing federal institutions to go to seed, playing to some of the public's worst fears about the party.
Or instead, the Cons could try to start drawing fine distinctions as to what types of "Action Plan" spending will continue and what types won't. But that would create some significant contradictions against their current message, and indeed result in their effectively admitting that their PR campaign goes far beyond anything that can plausibly be claimed as stimulus.
The above is a far less direct strategy than the one currently being used. But I'd have to think it's far more likely to create some real contradictions in the Harper government's message - and that should pay far more dividends than the current he said/she said when it comes time to use the Cons' own words against them.
There's plenty of material already available where the Cons send the following messages:
- First, that their "economic action plan" is synonymous with stimulus spending.
- Second, that they see stimulus spending as a temporary measure which they're eager to end at the earliest opportunity.
- Third, that the vast majority of any stimulus spending (90% by their reckoning) has already been committed.
Based on that combination, can't it be said that Canadians should look at the type of activity that's being included within the "Economic Action Plan" by Cons' own advertisement - and conclude that the Harper government has no intention of investing in any similar priorities at any point in the foreseeable future once their "exit strategy" from stimulus spending plays out? And shouldn't the opposition parties be eager to draw exactly that connection?
As best I can tell, that argument would create an extremely target-rich environment. Any opposition MP could point to, say, a stretch of a national highway with an Economic Action Plan sign (ideally in a Con riding); point to another stretch of highway in obvious need of repair without such a sign (ideally in an opposition riding), and announce that the Cons have declared that the latter won't be dealt with as long as they're in office since the stimulus money has basically run out.
Or better yet, point to maintenance being carried out with "Action Plan" publicity, and announce that it's going to stop as soon as the stimulus period is done with. From my standpoint, the strategy gets even better with each example of an "Action Plan" sign where it doesn't belong - i.e. in an area which obviously had to be invested in regardless of whether or not there was any need for immediate stimulus.
One option in response to such examples would be for the Cons to answer that they have no intention of investing in any federal infrastructure once the recession is over. But that would raise the spectre of the Cons effectively allowing federal institutions to go to seed, playing to some of the public's worst fears about the party.
Or instead, the Cons could try to start drawing fine distinctions as to what types of "Action Plan" spending will continue and what types won't. But that would create some significant contradictions against their current message, and indeed result in their effectively admitting that their PR campaign goes far beyond anything that can plausibly be claimed as stimulus.
The above is a far less direct strategy than the one currently being used. But I'd have to think it's far more likely to create some real contradictions in the Harper government's message - and that should pay far more dividends than the current he said/she said when it comes time to use the Cons' own words against them.
The reviews are in
Greg Weston:
In the world according to federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, the national deficit will disappear when the Conservatives stop printing those big cardboard cheques for roads, sewers and new door knobs.
The finance minister's recent economic report went so far as to promise the country would "return to budgetary balance" without raising taxes, or cutting support to seniors or families.
Canada will be back in the black, Flaherty promised, without reducing employment insurance benefits or funding to the provinces for health care, social services or regional equalization.
Instead, the author of federal budgets lucky to get the page numbering right would have us believe that when the recession ends, the deficit will too.
Or not. A closer look at what is actually driving the government $55 billion into the red this year shows much of the shortfall is the result of permanent Conservative tax measures and other factors that won't simply vanish in an economic recovery.
Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging
Most of the talk about yesterday's loss to Hamilton looks to be painting the game as a writeoff for the 'Riders as a whole. But I'm not sure that analysis is fair either to the parts of the team which did play pretty well, or to the offence which needs to look at the game as a sign of serious room for improvement rather than than a mulligan.
The relatively bright side starts with the special teams, where Jason Armstead again managed to give the offence plenty of opportunities with superb field position, and the kick and cover teams were both solid (though Luca Congi was just off on a couple of long field goals which could have changed the complexion of the game if they'd succeeded).
More importantly, Saskatchewan's defence held up remarkably well for a game where it was stuck on the field for 39 minutes. While Deandra Cobb had a big game in the final numbers, he at least faced tough going most of the game until the final drive when the outcome wasn't really in doubt. And a depleted secondary managed to hold Kevin Glenn to his lowest numbers since he took over the Ticats' starting job, completely shutting down any deep passing game and causing enough trouble on shorter routes to keep Hamilton from pulling more than a couple of scores ahead.
But that of course leads into the real problem for the 'Riders, which was that scores of any kind seemed to be beyond the capability of Saskatchewan's offence. And the problem wasn't limited to any one player or strategy: while it would be easy to focus in on Darien Durant's early turnovers and later inaccuracy, there were equally obvious issues with receivers dropping passes, the offensive line collapsing under pressure and Wes Cates finding absolutely no room to run.
In effect, yesterday looks to be the flip side of what I noted last week. Even when it's been fairly productive, Saskatchewan's offence has functioned mostly by spotting the small holes created by aggressive defences and targeting those with precision timing, rather than by actually controlling the game for itself. And yesterday's outcome is a vivid example of what happens when the usual precision is lacking: after missing the narrow windows offered up by the defence, the 'Riders can end up getting swamped at every turn.
Of course, it's probably too late for any major changes to Saskatchewan's game plan. So hopefully the 'Riders will be able to get back to their previous pattern of living on the edge - rather than watching the season end early as their offence plummets off a cliff.
The relatively bright side starts with the special teams, where Jason Armstead again managed to give the offence plenty of opportunities with superb field position, and the kick and cover teams were both solid (though Luca Congi was just off on a couple of long field goals which could have changed the complexion of the game if they'd succeeded).
More importantly, Saskatchewan's defence held up remarkably well for a game where it was stuck on the field for 39 minutes. While Deandra Cobb had a big game in the final numbers, he at least faced tough going most of the game until the final drive when the outcome wasn't really in doubt. And a depleted secondary managed to hold Kevin Glenn to his lowest numbers since he took over the Ticats' starting job, completely shutting down any deep passing game and causing enough trouble on shorter routes to keep Hamilton from pulling more than a couple of scores ahead.
But that of course leads into the real problem for the 'Riders, which was that scores of any kind seemed to be beyond the capability of Saskatchewan's offence. And the problem wasn't limited to any one player or strategy: while it would be easy to focus in on Darien Durant's early turnovers and later inaccuracy, there were equally obvious issues with receivers dropping passes, the offensive line collapsing under pressure and Wes Cates finding absolutely no room to run.
In effect, yesterday looks to be the flip side of what I noted last week. Even when it's been fairly productive, Saskatchewan's offence has functioned mostly by spotting the small holes created by aggressive defences and targeting those with precision timing, rather than by actually controlling the game for itself. And yesterday's outcome is a vivid example of what happens when the usual precision is lacking: after missing the narrow windows offered up by the defence, the 'Riders can end up getting swamped at every turn.
Of course, it's probably too late for any major changes to Saskatchewan's game plan. So hopefully the 'Riders will be able to get back to their previous pattern of living on the edge - rather than watching the season end early as their offence plummets off a cliff.
Shocking, positively shocking
So the Cons are no longer even pretending to care about doing anything about the Senate now that their unelected partisan hacks are about to outnumber the Libs' unelected partisan hacks. Who could have suspected?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
On useless alternatives
Greg has already pointed out the predictability of part of Bill Boyd's response to this week's much-discussed report on climate change. But it's worth noting that Boyd also managed to be both clueless and disingenuous at the same time in presenting what apparently passes for an alternative:
Which leads to the disingenuous side of Boyd's pronouncement. When the Sask Party took office, it inherited a $320 million Green Future Fund which it promptly diverted to other uses. In the Wall government's first two budgets, the Sask Party by its own accounts instead allocated under $30 million in total new funding which can even arguably be linked to dealing with climate change. And the vast majority of that was either tied into carbon sequestration which at best would deal with a small percentage of Saskatchewan's actual CO2 emissions, or set aside with no apparent idea as to how it would be spent.
In sum, then, the Sask Party's actions in options flatly refute any claim that it has any interest in working toward any significant technological development - and Boyd's response pretending otherwise simply looks to confirm the fact that the Sask Party shares the Harper government's desire to stand in the way of any progress in dealing with climate change. But while it would be a disaster for all concerned if we could do nothing more than hope for some mysterious technology to materialize on its own to make up for the Wall government's negligence, Saskatchewan citizens will get the chance to elect a more responsible government before too long.
Mr. Boyd said the way to solve climate-change concerns is through technology – and perhaps a technology fund – not transfers of wealth from energy-producing provinces.Needless to say, the most obviously laughable part of Boyd's response is the idea that "technology" and a "technology fund" are actually separate plans to address climate change. Granted, it might well be that Boyd's preferred choice would be to wait for some technology to magically appear out of thin air while complaining that there's nothing else we can do. But it shouldn't come as news that any actual technological advancements will require funding (among other forms of public support) in order to develop.
Which leads to the disingenuous side of Boyd's pronouncement. When the Sask Party took office, it inherited a $320 million Green Future Fund which it promptly diverted to other uses. In the Wall government's first two budgets, the Sask Party by its own accounts instead allocated under $30 million in total new funding which can even arguably be linked to dealing with climate change. And the vast majority of that was either tied into carbon sequestration which at best would deal with a small percentage of Saskatchewan's actual CO2 emissions, or set aside with no apparent idea as to how it would be spent.
In sum, then, the Sask Party's actions in options flatly refute any claim that it has any interest in working toward any significant technological development - and Boyd's response pretending otherwise simply looks to confirm the fact that the Sask Party shares the Harper government's desire to stand in the way of any progress in dealing with climate change. But while it would be a disaster for all concerned if we could do nothing more than hope for some mysterious technology to materialize on its own to make up for the Wall government's negligence, Saskatchewan citizens will get the chance to elect a more responsible government before too long.
Burning questions
Am I the only one who wonders whether CanWest's move to put the National Post into the same corporate division as its local newspapers figures to be based less on any actual improvement to the real financial situation of any CanWest entity, and more on a desire to allow the National Post to argue that it can't be put out of business without depriving major cities of their local dailies? And if the National Post is at the point where it can't justify its existence based on anything more than the threat to take down other papers as well, isn't that a sure signal that it's due to go under?
Friday, October 30, 2009
On stifled discussions
In addition to sending minders to keep anybody from stumbling onto any potentially-dangerous knowledge about what's already being done to Canada's supposedly independent institutions, the Cons are also making clear that they have absolutely no interest in debating what policies are worth pursuing in the future. Shorter Jim Prentice:
It's entirely irresponsible to bother trying to work out how greenhouse gas emission reductions might actually work. But don't worry, we can have a serious discussion about how to deal with climate change...never. Is never good for you?
It's entirely irresponsible to bother trying to work out how greenhouse gas emission reductions might actually work. But don't worry, we can have a serious discussion about how to deal with climate change...never. Is never good for you?
'Rider Tidbit of the Day
Ian Hamilton writes about the possibility that Wes Cates might be the only featured running back in the CFL to fall short of 1,000 yards on the season. But there's an even more interesting twist in the 'Riders' individual yardage totals: at their current per-game paces and taking into account Weston Dressler's injury, not a single 'Rider is on pace to notch 1,000 yards rushing or receiving this year (though Cates, Rob Bagg and Andy Fantuz may be within striking distance), even as the team ranks second in the CFL in points scored.
So how rare is that kind of combination in a contending team? CFL.ca has lists of the league's leaderboards going back to 2002 - and here's the full list of teams who haven't had a 1,000-yard rusher or receiver at the end of a season since then:
2007 Toronto - 11-7 record (thanks to the league's best defence), 340 points (4th)
2007 Hamilton - 3-15 record, 315 points (8th)
2006 Hamilton - 4-14 record, 292 points (8th)
2002 B.C. - 10-8 record, 480 points (4th)
I'm somewhat surprised that there are as many winning teams as losing ones on the list. But it's fairly clear that the three recent examples don't involve teams which won because of their offence.
Which makes the comparison to the 2002 Lions particularly interesting. They too had a veteran bruiser at tailback who contributed by catching passes as well as running (Sean Millington), along with a running quarterback who ate up enough yardage to give the team an effective ground game even without a top rusher (Damon Allen). And more importantly, they also relied on a deep group of receivers (four with 735 or more yards) to make up for the lack of any huge individual numbers: Geroy Simon was just a year away from breaking out as a CFL superstar, Jason Clermont made a solid CFL debut, former All-Star Alfred Jackson had one last productive season, and Ryan Thelwell led the team with 815 yards receiving in his second year in the CFL.
Now, there's a case to be made that Saskatchewan may have even more room to grow based on the number of options it's managed to develop within its offence. Unlike the Lions, the 'Riders aren't counting on a declining star as one of their top options - and while the 'Riders have relied mostly on three receivers rather than four, they also boast a second tier of receiving threats (Getzlaf, Walker and Clermont) to keep opponents guessing even more. But even if that doesn't turn out, the 'Riders would surely be happy to follow the path the Lions took in the years that followed their 2002 season.
So how rare is that kind of combination in a contending team? CFL.ca has lists of the league's leaderboards going back to 2002 - and here's the full list of teams who haven't had a 1,000-yard rusher or receiver at the end of a season since then:
2007 Toronto - 11-7 record (thanks to the league's best defence), 340 points (4th)
2007 Hamilton - 3-15 record, 315 points (8th)
2006 Hamilton - 4-14 record, 292 points (8th)
2002 B.C. - 10-8 record, 480 points (4th)
I'm somewhat surprised that there are as many winning teams as losing ones on the list. But it's fairly clear that the three recent examples don't involve teams which won because of their offence.
Which makes the comparison to the 2002 Lions particularly interesting. They too had a veteran bruiser at tailback who contributed by catching passes as well as running (Sean Millington), along with a running quarterback who ate up enough yardage to give the team an effective ground game even without a top rusher (Damon Allen). And more importantly, they also relied on a deep group of receivers (four with 735 or more yards) to make up for the lack of any huge individual numbers: Geroy Simon was just a year away from breaking out as a CFL superstar, Jason Clermont made a solid CFL debut, former All-Star Alfred Jackson had one last productive season, and Ryan Thelwell led the team with 815 yards receiving in his second year in the CFL.
Now, there's a case to be made that Saskatchewan may have even more room to grow based on the number of options it's managed to develop within its offence. Unlike the Lions, the 'Riders aren't counting on a declining star as one of their top options - and while the 'Riders have relied mostly on three receivers rather than four, they also boast a second tier of receiving threats (Getzlaf, Walker and Clermont) to keep opponents guessing even more. But even if that doesn't turn out, the 'Riders would surely be happy to follow the path the Lions took in the years that followed their 2002 season.
Running interference
Yesterday's Question Period serves up another example of the lengths the Cons have gone to in trying to control the flow of information from federal institutions - even ones which are supposed to be independent of the government:
Presumably the Cons wouldn't have had any way of knowing that a meeting was about to take place between Crombie and Canada Post officials without a system requiring an arm's-length institution to clear its schedule with political staffers. And that reflects a worrisome enough degree of control Canada's Crowns to begin with.
But it's especially alarming that the Cons' priorities are so warped that even officials at Canada Post - presumably not a political hot spot by any stretch of the imagination - are being prohibited from meeting with opposition MPs (particularly with a government-approved "briefing" being offered as the alternative). And it's hard to imagine what actual work the Cons have time to do given how much of their effort seems to be focused on promoting themselves and running interference on their opponents.
Mrs. Bonnie Crombie (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.):Of course, the latter question and answer are included primarily to point out the Cons' usual ever-shifting standards which apply only where politically expedient. But it's Crombie's initial story which sounds particularly noteworthy.
Mr. Speaker, recently I requested a meeting with officials from a crown corporation, namely Canada Post. To my surprise, a staff member from the office of the Minister of State for Transport tried to crash my private meeting. Consequently, the minister would not allow the crown corporation, Canada Post, to meet with me without his micro-management.
Is it the practice for the Conservative political staffers to attend private meetings of crown corporations?
Hon. Rob Merrifield (Minister of State (Transport), CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I recall that I actually chatted with the member with regard to any information she would like about any crown corporation, not just Canada Post, and she is welcome to that. She is absolutely welcome to come to my office or to have it at any room in this place. Not only for that individual but for any of the opposition members, we would be more than obliged.
Mrs. Bonnie Crombie (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, crown corporations are supposed to operate at arm's-length from the government, but the Conservatives will not let crown corporations like Canada Post meet with an MP without overriding political control. However, we are supposed to believe that they have allowed the Federal Bridges Corporation, another crown corporation, to operate at arm's-length. The Conservatives cannot have it both ways.
When will the government admit there is nothing arm's-length about Senator Housakos, those Conservatives and the Federal Bridges Corporation?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):
What is very clear, Mr. Speaker, is the member opposite wanted a meeting with a crown corporation. The meeting was offered to her. We offered to put everything on the table so she could get a briefing for her new role as critic for crown corporations, and I want to congratulate her on that promotion.
Presumably the Cons wouldn't have had any way of knowing that a meeting was about to take place between Crombie and Canada Post officials without a system requiring an arm's-length institution to clear its schedule with political staffers. And that reflects a worrisome enough degree of control Canada's Crowns to begin with.
But it's especially alarming that the Cons' priorities are so warped that even officials at Canada Post - presumably not a political hot spot by any stretch of the imagination - are being prohibited from meeting with opposition MPs (particularly with a government-approved "briefing" being offered as the alternative). And it's hard to imagine what actual work the Cons have time to do given how much of their effort seems to be focused on promoting themselves and running interference on their opponents.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Short-sighted
Shorter Tim Powers:
It's madness - MADNESS, I say! - for a province to sign away control over its own ability to set long-term policy in exchange for a single lump sum payment. That is, unless it's Jim Flaherty handing out the money.
It's madness - MADNESS, I say! - for a province to sign away control over its own ability to set long-term policy in exchange for a single lump sum payment. That is, unless it's Jim Flaherty handing out the money.
On questionable operations
Buckdog points out the Wall government's plan to pay a premium to have Saskatchewan residents' surgeries performed in British Columbia. But since most of the discussion has focused on the impact for B.C. residents who will get pushed to the back of the line, it's worth expanding on what the consequences would be for Saskatchewan.
By favouring out-of-province surgeries rather than building capacity here, the Wall government would produce two results:
- an expectation that surgeries will be performed quickly regardless of the systemic consequences in terms of cost; and
- a lack of Saskatchewan public-sector capacity to actually perform those surgeries, as the case load which would otherwise provide a basis for expanding our own facilities is instead handled elsewhere (and at a premium price no less).
Now, it's well and good to say that there should be an expectation that medical procedures will be carried out reasonably quickly within the public health system. But any responsible government would be seeking to figure out how we can improve our current system to achieve that goal in the short and long term, rather than throwing money at another province in order to meet a single artificial deadline with no regard for what happens after that. And whether the ultimate problem is short-sightedness based on the Sask Party's arbitrary deadlines or an ideological desire to avoid building any public-sector capacity to do anything (see also the Sask Party's continued efforts to get SaskPower out of the business of actually generating power), all indications are that the Wall government is headed determinedly in the wrong direction.
By favouring out-of-province surgeries rather than building capacity here, the Wall government would produce two results:
- an expectation that surgeries will be performed quickly regardless of the systemic consequences in terms of cost; and
- a lack of Saskatchewan public-sector capacity to actually perform those surgeries, as the case load which would otherwise provide a basis for expanding our own facilities is instead handled elsewhere (and at a premium price no less).
Now, it's well and good to say that there should be an expectation that medical procedures will be carried out reasonably quickly within the public health system. But any responsible government would be seeking to figure out how we can improve our current system to achieve that goal in the short and long term, rather than throwing money at another province in order to meet a single artificial deadline with no regard for what happens after that. And whether the ultimate problem is short-sightedness based on the Sask Party's arbitrary deadlines or an ideological desire to avoid building any public-sector capacity to do anything (see also the Sask Party's continued efforts to get SaskPower out of the business of actually generating power), all indications are that the Wall government is headed determinedly in the wrong direction.
On mixed messages
In general, last night's municipal election results seem to reflect loads of narrowly-missed opportunities for positive change. And a lack of citizen interest figuring to be the main culprit.
For example, Heather McIntyre fell just short of winning ward 2 in a race whose numbers look like an instant replay of the Hutchinson/Shreesh Juyal contest of 2006 - except that the nearly 2,000 votes which went to a third candidate last time out stayed home. John Conway came within 150 votes of beating out Fred Clipsham - and again, about 2,000 less people voted in the ward this year than in 2006. Indeed, while a few of the 2006 ward vote totals look to have disappeared into the ether, it looks like the only ward where the 2009 winner had substantially more votes than the 2006 victor was Ward 1 - and that primarily due to the fact that there were only 3 candidates instead of 9.
Of course, it's disappointing both that public interest in the elections dropped off so precipitously from its already-minimal levels, and that we won't have more direct positive change to show for all the hard work that went into the elections. But it's also worth noting that the incumbents can hardly feel particularly comfortable either, particularly to the extent any may have actually believed that the "83% council approval" number would be reflected in the vote totals.
Rather than being able to rely on any favourable public impressions to coast to easy victory, two of the incumbents fell and three more hung on by the skin of their teeth. And not a single one of the council candidates actually reached 83% of the vote in yesterday's results - with 2006 upstart Mike O'Donnell coming closest at 75% in ward 8.
So while there wasn't much of a mandate for change, nor was there any particular groundswell of support for the current direction of the city council. Which should give all sides reason to spend a lot more time and effort building citizen interest than they seem to have done over the last three years.
For more about the elections, see LRT and Dog Blog.
For example, Heather McIntyre fell just short of winning ward 2 in a race whose numbers look like an instant replay of the Hutchinson/Shreesh Juyal contest of 2006 - except that the nearly 2,000 votes which went to a third candidate last time out stayed home. John Conway came within 150 votes of beating out Fred Clipsham - and again, about 2,000 less people voted in the ward this year than in 2006. Indeed, while a few of the 2006 ward vote totals look to have disappeared into the ether, it looks like the only ward where the 2009 winner had substantially more votes than the 2006 victor was Ward 1 - and that primarily due to the fact that there were only 3 candidates instead of 9.
Of course, it's disappointing both that public interest in the elections dropped off so precipitously from its already-minimal levels, and that we won't have more direct positive change to show for all the hard work that went into the elections. But it's also worth noting that the incumbents can hardly feel particularly comfortable either, particularly to the extent any may have actually believed that the "83% council approval" number would be reflected in the vote totals.
Rather than being able to rely on any favourable public impressions to coast to easy victory, two of the incumbents fell and three more hung on by the skin of their teeth. And not a single one of the council candidates actually reached 83% of the vote in yesterday's results - with 2006 upstart Mike O'Donnell coming closest at 75% in ward 8.
So while there wasn't much of a mandate for change, nor was there any particular groundswell of support for the current direction of the city council. Which should give all sides reason to spend a lot more time and effort building citizen interest than they seem to have done over the last three years.
For more about the elections, see LRT and Dog Blog.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
On updated information
For those looking for news about Regina's municipal elections before the final results are in, the ReginaElections Twitter feed is worth a look. There's nothing surprising in the reports yet (one would expect the polls in Ward 3 to be busy and those in ward 9 to be quiet in the absence of a council race) - but stay tuned for "estimated return updates" to come at 1 and 6.
Voting information
Dog Blog has set up a handy FAQ of where, when and how to vote in Regina. Polls are open from 9 AM until 8 PM; be sure to vote if you haven't already.
Municipal Election Breakdown - Regina Mayoralty
For election day let's add one more post to the series. The result of the mayoralty race probably isn't in much doubt, but it's still worth taking a slightly closer look at what each of the candidates have to offer and what we can expect later today.
Jim Elliott - video profile
Until Elliott entered the race, it looked far too plausible that Fiacco might get acclaimed. Rather than letting that happen, Elliott has done an effective job at least calling Fiacco out on a few of his more problematic points.
But while it's great that Elliott has stepped up to ensure Fiacco doesn't get an entirely free pass, there's little indication that Elliott's previous electoral experience will position him to draw many voters out to the polls. Indeed, the 2006 Ward 6 council campaign in which Elliott came in a distant second behind Wade Murray saw by far the lowest turnout of any of the city's wards - meaning that there's little reason to expect Elliott to bring out many voters who weren't planning on voting anyway (and conversely plenty of potential support for Brenda Mercer to try to appeal to in that ward).
What will be interesting to see is the comparison between Elliott's result and that of Jim Holmes in 2006. On paper Holmes would seem to have been a stronger candidate, meaning that any significantly better result for Elliott would seem to either point to the stadium issue as galvanizing somewhat more opposition to Fiacco than anything that was presented three years ago, or reflect the media backlash against the CCFR's party concept.
Pat Fiacco - video profile
I've probably said all that needs to be said about Fiacco here. In fairness to Fiacco he at least pays lip service to a broad range of issues - but it's hard not to see that as more a matter of strategy than any personal commitment to any particular policy cause.
Linda White
In theory, White's last-minute entry may have had the potential to radically reshape the race. At the beginning of the race, there was plenty of opportunity for another candidate besides Elliott to become the main opposition to Fiacco by combining a strong stance on the issues with a compelling personal story. And White's poignant personal history combined with her unabashed self-description as a "social service recipient" seemed like a combination with the potential to at least make voters who don't often see the effects of poverty rethink some of their assumptions about it.
Instead, White's campaign seems to have had little public effect - and indeed she hasn't even taken advantage of the city's means of spreading her message about housing through a video statement and online profile. That leaves White as a one-issue candidate who's had less profile talking about her issue than Elliott - and seems likely to ensure that she'll finish a distant third.
Endorsement
The result may be a foregone conclusion, but it'll be for the best if the race is at least reasonably close to encourage a stronger challenger to Fiacco in 2012. With that in mind, the endorsement goes to Jim Elliott.
Jim Elliott - video profile
Until Elliott entered the race, it looked far too plausible that Fiacco might get acclaimed. Rather than letting that happen, Elliott has done an effective job at least calling Fiacco out on a few of his more problematic points.
But while it's great that Elliott has stepped up to ensure Fiacco doesn't get an entirely free pass, there's little indication that Elliott's previous electoral experience will position him to draw many voters out to the polls. Indeed, the 2006 Ward 6 council campaign in which Elliott came in a distant second behind Wade Murray saw by far the lowest turnout of any of the city's wards - meaning that there's little reason to expect Elliott to bring out many voters who weren't planning on voting anyway (and conversely plenty of potential support for Brenda Mercer to try to appeal to in that ward).
What will be interesting to see is the comparison between Elliott's result and that of Jim Holmes in 2006. On paper Holmes would seem to have been a stronger candidate, meaning that any significantly better result for Elliott would seem to either point to the stadium issue as galvanizing somewhat more opposition to Fiacco than anything that was presented three years ago, or reflect the media backlash against the CCFR's party concept.
Pat Fiacco - video profile
I've probably said all that needs to be said about Fiacco here. In fairness to Fiacco he at least pays lip service to a broad range of issues - but it's hard not to see that as more a matter of strategy than any personal commitment to any particular policy cause.
Linda White
In theory, White's last-minute entry may have had the potential to radically reshape the race. At the beginning of the race, there was plenty of opportunity for another candidate besides Elliott to become the main opposition to Fiacco by combining a strong stance on the issues with a compelling personal story. And White's poignant personal history combined with her unabashed self-description as a "social service recipient" seemed like a combination with the potential to at least make voters who don't often see the effects of poverty rethink some of their assumptions about it.
Instead, White's campaign seems to have had little public effect - and indeed she hasn't even taken advantage of the city's means of spreading her message about housing through a video statement and online profile. That leaves White as a one-issue candidate who's had less profile talking about her issue than Elliott - and seems likely to ensure that she'll finish a distant third.
Endorsement
The result may be a foregone conclusion, but it'll be for the best if the race is at least reasonably close to encourage a stronger challenger to Fiacco in 2012. With that in mind, the endorsement goes to Jim Elliott.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Municipal Election Breakdown - Regina Ward 1
The series of ward race reviews ends with what was by far the most lively race in 2006, with Louis Browne coming out in front in a nine-candidate free-for-all. This year, only Browne and third-place finisher Shawn Kuster (who finished only 400 votes behind Browne) are left from that field, while Andy Asherbranner has joined the race as well.
Andy Asherbranner - video profile - website
There's lots to like about Asherbranner's campaign in the department of communicating with voters: he's made a concerted effort to respond to questionnaires (and pointed out his opponents' failure to do so), posted plenty of interesting content on his regularly-updated website, and included some noteworthy twists like a "wall of shame" showing areas of Ward 1 in need of repair.
But sadly, Asherbranner doesn't fare nearly as well when it comes to the question of what he's actually communicating. Not only does he start off with a taxes-and-crime boilerplate message (including an unsourced claim to increasing crime rates in the ward) before mentioning services as an afterthought, he's also dedicated a disproportionate amount of his website content to attacks on incumbent Louis Browne. Which would seem to have him nicely positioned to play the role of Andy Schmidt this year - but there's probably a reason why Schmidt fell short last time.
Louis Browne - video profile - website
If you take the time to seek out Browne's brochure (warning: PDF), you'll find some highly worthwhile ideas about environmental sustainability and strengthened municipal democracy to go along with the usual talk about tax and crime.
But unfortunately, Browne's first choice of message is a one-two punch of the current council's "vision statement" and a recitation of the city-wide poll about Council satisfaction. And from that starting point, it's hard not to conclude that the positive ideas are afterthoughts at best compared to his interest in preserving the status quo.
Shawn Kuster - video profile
Kuster's most distinctive idea is a plan to ensure that home renovations don't give rise to property tax increases - which makes for a possibility worth discussing, if perhaps one which could have plenty of unintended consequences. And he too provides at least a balance of other concerns, with interest in establishing a curbside recycling program and working on green space to go with talk of tax and crime.
But again, there's reason for concern that Kuster's campaign is based less on those issues than on an entirely superfluous one (that being a focus on Browne's residence outside the ward).
Endorsement
Needless to say from the above, there's something not to like about each of the candidates. But for those who don't feel like writing in Mark Docherty's name, let's go with the theory that Louis Browne is more likely to be able to work with progressives on council if he sees a shift in that direction.
Andy Asherbranner - video profile - website
There's lots to like about Asherbranner's campaign in the department of communicating with voters: he's made a concerted effort to respond to questionnaires (and pointed out his opponents' failure to do so), posted plenty of interesting content on his regularly-updated website, and included some noteworthy twists like a "wall of shame" showing areas of Ward 1 in need of repair.
But sadly, Asherbranner doesn't fare nearly as well when it comes to the question of what he's actually communicating. Not only does he start off with a taxes-and-crime boilerplate message (including an unsourced claim to increasing crime rates in the ward) before mentioning services as an afterthought, he's also dedicated a disproportionate amount of his website content to attacks on incumbent Louis Browne. Which would seem to have him nicely positioned to play the role of Andy Schmidt this year - but there's probably a reason why Schmidt fell short last time.
Louis Browne - video profile - website
If you take the time to seek out Browne's brochure (warning: PDF), you'll find some highly worthwhile ideas about environmental sustainability and strengthened municipal democracy to go along with the usual talk about tax and crime.
But unfortunately, Browne's first choice of message is a one-two punch of the current council's "vision statement" and a recitation of the city-wide poll about Council satisfaction. And from that starting point, it's hard not to conclude that the positive ideas are afterthoughts at best compared to his interest in preserving the status quo.
Shawn Kuster - video profile
Kuster's most distinctive idea is a plan to ensure that home renovations don't give rise to property tax increases - which makes for a possibility worth discussing, if perhaps one which could have plenty of unintended consequences. And he too provides at least a balance of other concerns, with interest in establishing a curbside recycling program and working on green space to go with talk of tax and crime.
But again, there's reason for concern that Kuster's campaign is based less on those issues than on an entirely superfluous one (that being a focus on Browne's residence outside the ward).
Endorsement
Needless to say from the above, there's something not to like about each of the candidates. But for those who don't feel like writing in Mark Docherty's name, let's go with the theory that Louis Browne is more likely to be able to work with progressives on council if he sees a shift in that direction.
On thuggery
One would think that after the mess Michael Ignatieff made for his party in Outremont earlier this year, he'd at least make sure that the nomination process played out without any further obvious personal slights to would-be candidates. But apparently a fair and open nomination process is far beyond the Libs' capability, as Martin Cauchon's main rival for the nomination has been run out of the race.
Not only was Comlan Amouzou repeatedly pressured to withdraw - a message at least once traced back to Cauchon's camp - but he was apparently denied the ability to sell party memberships in order to try to mount a challenge. And while Amouzou has apparently withdrawn from the nomination battle, he isn't taking the party's slights lying down:
But since it was Ignatieff himself who theoretically announced an open race in Outremont, Amouzou's removal from the race would appear to raise concerns not only about a disconnect between the values of grassroots supporters and the Libs' inner circle, but also about an inability on Ignatieff's part to oversee even minimal amounts of internal democracy. And it remains to be seen just how much the Libs will lose now that their longtime Outremont campaign manager has decided the party doesn't share his values or those of "ethnic communities" (to use Amouzou's term).
(h/t to DivaRachel.)
Not only was Comlan Amouzou repeatedly pressured to withdraw - a message at least once traced back to Cauchon's camp - but he was apparently denied the ability to sell party memberships in order to try to mount a challenge. And while Amouzou has apparently withdrawn from the nomination battle, he isn't taking the party's slights lying down:
M. Amouzou affirme que la direction du PLC-Q refuse de lui fournir des cartes de membre, ce qui l'empêche de recueillir des appuis.Now, Michael Ignatieff's original fondness for candidate appointments in Quebec might make somewhat more sense in retrospect if his party isn't willing to allow open nomination contests to take place anyway.
Il affirme qu'à au moins une reprise, un appel anonyme lui a demandé de régler ça à l'amiable avec l'entourage de Martin Cauchon. «Cette personne m'a laissé un numéro de téléphone en disant d'appeler là et de m'entendre pour quitter la course. J'ai fait des recherches et ce numéro m'amenait directement au clan Cauchon», affirme M. Amouzou.
Il dit avoir été «intimidé» dans les dernières semaines par des gens au sein du PLC, qu'il refuse de nommer. «Je me pose de très sérieuses questions sur la place des communautés ethniques au sein du Parti libéral du Canada au Québec, dit-il. Ce parti est devenu une chasse gardée pour quelques privilégiés qui agissent en fonction de leurs intérêts et de leurs ambitions au détriment des aspirations des militants de la base. Je ne reconnais plus les véritables valeurs libérales.»
But since it was Ignatieff himself who theoretically announced an open race in Outremont, Amouzou's removal from the race would appear to raise concerns not only about a disconnect between the values of grassroots supporters and the Libs' inner circle, but also about an inability on Ignatieff's part to oversee even minimal amounts of internal democracy. And it remains to be seen just how much the Libs will lose now that their longtime Outremont campaign manager has decided the party doesn't share his values or those of "ethnic communities" (to use Amouzou's term).
(h/t to DivaRachel.)
Looking backwards
The Saskatchewan NDP has rightly been pointing out Dwain Lingenfelter's goals for party development from the party's response to the Wall government's throne speech. But there's another part of the NDP's reply which looks to deserve more attention than it's received so far. Here's Deb Higgins:
I got a copy of the Speech from the Throne when I was leaving the legislature yesterday, sat down with a highlighter, and I went through and marked what were former initiatives that they were again highlighting — not over just last year but over the previous two years — and my final count came to 53 old initiatives that were highlighted again in the Speech from the Throne. And I was being generous, Mr. Speaker, in what I considered a new initiative, and I think there's around 15. Now I counted some of them that I have heard being announced before, but I thought, well I'll be generous; maybe there is more to come as we get into session and we start looking at this.Of course the few new parts of the throne speech - coupled with Brad Wall's distraction tactics - have largely managed to throw the media off the scent so far. But when Wall has reached the point after just two years in government where he needs to spend over three quarters of his time looking back rather than being able to suggest anything new, there's reason to suspect that the Sask Party will be completely out of gas by the time the next election rolls around.
So when I look at the front and the cover of the speech and it was titled “Moving Forward,” it's pretty hard to move forward when you're spending so many pages in your vision for the future looking back and patting yourself on the back.
Deep thought
I'm sure there's a good reason why the pundits who regularly slammed the idea of collaborative efforts in municipal politics back in 2006 haven't bothered to mention that most of Regina's council incumbents are singing from the same hymn book.
Municipal Election Breakdown - Regina Ward 2
As I've mentioned before, Ward 2 is the one municipal campaign where I've been directly involved this year, so my endorsement shouldn't come as much surprise. That said, it's still worth taking a look at what we can expect come tomorrow night in a ward which was home to one of the closer races in 2006.
Jocelyn Hutchinson - video profile - website
While Hutchinson largely sticks to the "more of the same" party line, she's also more explicit than any of the other council candidates in pushing for ever more and bigger development, seeing the city as taking the "lead role" in MEGAPROJECTS!!! like the transport hub.
In fairness, that's balanced somewhat by at least some acknowledgment that the city also needs to invest in culture and community organizations. But if there was any doubt where Hutchinson's priorities lie, it should be put to rest when one notes that her 2006 promise of a better recycling program seems to have been dropped from her platform this time around. But then I suppose it's tough to juggle even a single new idea along with a deep philosophical position like "lives in the ward".
Heather McIntyre - video profile - website
Needless to say, Hutchinson's abandonment of green issues makes for a stark contrast compared to McIntyre, whose platform includes both a curbside recycling program in particular, and a more general commitment to sustainable development among other policy priorities.
As for most of the challengers, the main question for McIntyre is whether she's been able to get her message out to enough people to overcome the name recognition advantage of the incumbent. All indications that I've seen look promising - but we'll have to wait until tomorrow to find out for sure.
Endorsement
Strong progressive challenger + weak conservative incumbent = easy decision. The endorsement goes to Heather McIntyre.
Jocelyn Hutchinson - video profile - website
While Hutchinson largely sticks to the "more of the same" party line, she's also more explicit than any of the other council candidates in pushing for ever more and bigger development, seeing the city as taking the "lead role" in MEGAPROJECTS!!! like the transport hub.
In fairness, that's balanced somewhat by at least some acknowledgment that the city also needs to invest in culture and community organizations. But if there was any doubt where Hutchinson's priorities lie, it should be put to rest when one notes that her 2006 promise of a better recycling program seems to have been dropped from her platform this time around. But then I suppose it's tough to juggle even a single new idea along with a deep philosophical position like "lives in the ward".
Heather McIntyre - video profile - website
Needless to say, Hutchinson's abandonment of green issues makes for a stark contrast compared to McIntyre, whose platform includes both a curbside recycling program in particular, and a more general commitment to sustainable development among other policy priorities.
As for most of the challengers, the main question for McIntyre is whether she's been able to get her message out to enough people to overcome the name recognition advantage of the incumbent. All indications that I've seen look promising - but we'll have to wait until tomorrow to find out for sure.
Endorsement
Strong progressive challenger + weak conservative incumbent = easy decision. The endorsement goes to Heather McIntyre.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Municipal Election Breakdown - Regina Ward 3
I've mentioned before how fiercely contested the race figures to be in Ward 3, with the top two finishers from the 2003 and 2006 races joined by longtime school board member John Conway and newcomer Shirley Dixon. And not surprisingly with four strong candidates in the race, there are plausible scenarios where any one of them emerges victorious. But what should we be expecting come Wednesday?
Fred Clipsham - video profile
While Clipsham has faced criticism from a few different angles in the lead up to this fall's election, he still ranks as the favourite to hold the seat after mounting a surprisingly strong win in the face of tough opposition in 2006.
That said, it's still an open question as to whether it's for the best if he does hold on. Clipsham looks to be splitting the difference between parroting the "vision for 2020" line recited by so many of the incumbents, and discussing some potential progress on recycling, downtown development and culture. But for Ward 3 residents who would like to see their councillor play a more forceful role rather than going along with the party line, there's ample reason to want to see Clipsham dislodged from the seat.
John Conway - website
In contrast, Conway could serve as an ideal leader of the opposition on council: as a school board member he was the lone incumbent to lend his profile to the CCFR in 2006, and of course any candidate willing to discuss the problems with a city run based on the priorities of the business lobby looks to provide a much-needed challenge to the city's conventional wisdom.
But while he'd make an ideal gadfly on council, there's reason to wonder whether Conway would face some difficulty in actually working with other councillors to the extent there's an opportunity to implement changes. Which means that while Conway us probably the strongest challenger to Clipsham on paper, there may be reason for concern about what might happen if he succeeds in winning the seat.
Shirley Dixon - video profile
Having noted the contrasting problems with Clipsham and Conway, Dixon looks to be an ideal mix of the two in theory, combining a strong progressive platform with a willingness and ability to cooperate with others to get results.
But it's not yet clear that Dixon has developed enough of a profile to put herself in contention in a race against three high-profile competitors. Which means that the issue surrounding Dixon is less whether she'd would be effective if elected than whether she's actually within striking distance of winning the seat.
Don Young - video profile
In at least half of the contested wards, two-time-runner-up Young would rank at the top of my list of candidates thanks to his mention of union relations, arts and culture, transit and downtown development as policy priorities.
But in Ward 3, the fact that he ranks those concerns behind crime and traffic leaves him to the right of his competitors. And considering that Young finished a fairly distant second in 2006 even with an election's worth of experience and support behind him, there's reason to doubt that the formula will work any better this time out in any event.
Endorsement
With four at least somewhat appealing candidates in the mix, it shouldn't be surprising that this is the one ward where I'll hedge somewhat in my endorsement. For voters who figure that there's little chance of much positive happening on the next council due to the state of the other races (or who expect Dixon to end up at the back of the pack), there would be every reason to choose Conway over his competitors to try to move the Overton window to the left over the next few years. But I'm optimistic both that there will be a chance for the next Ward 3 councillor to form alliances with a few other progressives across the city to make some real policy changes, and that the race will be close enough for all of the candidates to stay in the running - so my endorsement goes to Shirley Dixon.
Fred Clipsham - video profile
While Clipsham has faced criticism from a few different angles in the lead up to this fall's election, he still ranks as the favourite to hold the seat after mounting a surprisingly strong win in the face of tough opposition in 2006.
That said, it's still an open question as to whether it's for the best if he does hold on. Clipsham looks to be splitting the difference between parroting the "vision for 2020" line recited by so many of the incumbents, and discussing some potential progress on recycling, downtown development and culture. But for Ward 3 residents who would like to see their councillor play a more forceful role rather than going along with the party line, there's ample reason to want to see Clipsham dislodged from the seat.
John Conway - website
In contrast, Conway could serve as an ideal leader of the opposition on council: as a school board member he was the lone incumbent to lend his profile to the CCFR in 2006, and of course any candidate willing to discuss the problems with a city run based on the priorities of the business lobby looks to provide a much-needed challenge to the city's conventional wisdom.
But while he'd make an ideal gadfly on council, there's reason to wonder whether Conway would face some difficulty in actually working with other councillors to the extent there's an opportunity to implement changes. Which means that while Conway us probably the strongest challenger to Clipsham on paper, there may be reason for concern about what might happen if he succeeds in winning the seat.
Shirley Dixon - video profile
Having noted the contrasting problems with Clipsham and Conway, Dixon looks to be an ideal mix of the two in theory, combining a strong progressive platform with a willingness and ability to cooperate with others to get results.
But it's not yet clear that Dixon has developed enough of a profile to put herself in contention in a race against three high-profile competitors. Which means that the issue surrounding Dixon is less whether she'd would be effective if elected than whether she's actually within striking distance of winning the seat.
Don Young - video profile
In at least half of the contested wards, two-time-runner-up Young would rank at the top of my list of candidates thanks to his mention of union relations, arts and culture, transit and downtown development as policy priorities.
But in Ward 3, the fact that he ranks those concerns behind crime and traffic leaves him to the right of his competitors. And considering that Young finished a fairly distant second in 2006 even with an election's worth of experience and support behind him, there's reason to doubt that the formula will work any better this time out in any event.
Endorsement
With four at least somewhat appealing candidates in the mix, it shouldn't be surprising that this is the one ward where I'll hedge somewhat in my endorsement. For voters who figure that there's little chance of much positive happening on the next council due to the state of the other races (or who expect Dixon to end up at the back of the pack), there would be every reason to choose Conway over his competitors to try to move the Overton window to the left over the next few years. But I'm optimistic both that there will be a chance for the next Ward 3 councillor to form alliances with a few other progressives across the city to make some real policy changes, and that the race will be close enough for all of the candidates to stay in the running - so my endorsement goes to Shirley Dixon.
Deep thought
I'm sure Canadians concerned about their pensions will be entirely relieved to know the Cons' idea of dealing with the issue is a scheme which (a) does absolutely nothing to address the problem of plans which are already underfunded, and (b) figures to take a significant bite of the federal treasury in the long term for little discernible benefit.
The reviews are in
Howard Elliott:
The government, its messaging gurus and the professional help they retain all seem to forget that the people paying for this invaluable brand linkage are the same taxpayers so badly wounded by the recession. Many are out of work. Many have taken salary cuts or unpaid time, or made some other sacrifice. And not only are they paying for the government's multimillion-dollar advertising agenda, they're footing the bill for the Economic Action Plan itself.
Maybe that's why a lot of us get cranky, and more cynical than usual, when we hear the details of how this government, and others, use our own money to sell themselves. To us.
...
(T)here's no arguing this particular government has plain gotten carried away with partisan messaging on the public tab. They generated giant photo-op cheques, adorned with the Conservative logo and MP photos. They spent $100,000 for a one-hour photo-op event to boost their recession-fighting efforts. They're presiding over a pamphlet campaign in which MP mailings are being used to deliver partisan barbs at Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. (MP mailings are supposed to be about non-partisan communication to constituents.)
The other thing about effective communication is that you need to know your audience. The Tories don't know their audience nearly well enough if they think this doesn't bug taxpayers, who are also voters, who have a pretty good messaging strategy themselves come election time.
On maturity
Following up on last week's post, I'll take some time to expand on what Pat Fiacco's out-sized, self-promotional reaction to events like next year's Bon Jovi concert says about Regina as a city - and what we should be looking to do to take Regina's growth to the next level.
To start with, I'll note that it's indeed for the best that Regina is growing - and whoever gets to make decisions at City Hall next should be eager to continue that trend. But the current pattern of growth without much thought about where Regina fits into the wider scheme of things has effectively put the city in a state of urban adolescence: the population knows things are changing, but hasn't yet given much thought to the question of what change we actually want, settling instead for reassurance that somebody is willing to soothe our self-image.
And Pat Fiacco has positioned himself perfectly to take advantage of that situation. Indeed, one could hardly design a better political analogy to a boy-band/girl-band celebrity developed for the adolescent crowd: camera-friendly, well-funded, well-choreographed and utterly devoid of content.
Here's the problem, though: there's still a good ways left for Regina to go in its development as a city, and the next step is one which Fiacco seems incapable of taking based on his track record. It's well and good to celebrate the first few examples of Regina receiving a perceived boost among urban centres by attracting top-level music acts. But somewhere around the fourth or fifth concert announcement, we should be starting to grow into the understanding that it's not such a big deal as to justify putting the entire city on hold to celebrate.
Again, all of the other stops on Bon Jovi's Canadian tour are well past that point. Out of Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal, none placed the concert as a top local headline, and none had its mayor rushing for the cameras to promote the concert. And the contrast in how the concert was received highlights the fact that Regina has a ways to go before it truly becomes comfortable as a major centre - as well as the reality that Fiacco's political persona doesn't fit with that development.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much prospect of change at the top in this year's election. But some sorely needed new blood on City Council can make for a first step in ensuring that Regina starts growing up rather than just growing out. And hopefully by the next election cycle, we'll have matured to the point that any stunt like Fiacco's will be rightly taken as evidence that a candidate is behind the times.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
To start with, I'll note that it's indeed for the best that Regina is growing - and whoever gets to make decisions at City Hall next should be eager to continue that trend. But the current pattern of growth without much thought about where Regina fits into the wider scheme of things has effectively put the city in a state of urban adolescence: the population knows things are changing, but hasn't yet given much thought to the question of what change we actually want, settling instead for reassurance that somebody is willing to soothe our self-image.
And Pat Fiacco has positioned himself perfectly to take advantage of that situation. Indeed, one could hardly design a better political analogy to a boy-band/girl-band celebrity developed for the adolescent crowd: camera-friendly, well-funded, well-choreographed and utterly devoid of content.
Here's the problem, though: there's still a good ways left for Regina to go in its development as a city, and the next step is one which Fiacco seems incapable of taking based on his track record. It's well and good to celebrate the first few examples of Regina receiving a perceived boost among urban centres by attracting top-level music acts. But somewhere around the fourth or fifth concert announcement, we should be starting to grow into the understanding that it's not such a big deal as to justify putting the entire city on hold to celebrate.
Again, all of the other stops on Bon Jovi's Canadian tour are well past that point. Out of Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal, none placed the concert as a top local headline, and none had its mayor rushing for the cameras to promote the concert. And the contrast in how the concert was received highlights the fact that Regina has a ways to go before it truly becomes comfortable as a major centre - as well as the reality that Fiacco's political persona doesn't fit with that development.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much prospect of change at the top in this year's election. But some sorely needed new blood on City Council can make for a first step in ensuring that Regina starts growing up rather than just growing out. And hopefully by the next election cycle, we'll have matured to the point that any stunt like Fiacco's will be rightly taken as evidence that a candidate is behind the times.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
Municipal Election Breakdown - Regina Ward 5
Three of Regina's council races feature rematches between the top two finishers in 2006 - and none were closer last time than Ward 5, where John Findura finished approximately 700 votes behind 8-term councillor Bill Gray. Findura is taking another shot at the seat this year - but can and should he beat out the dean of the current Council?
John Findura - video profile - website
In theory, there's plenty to like about Findura's platform this year regardless of one's political stripe. For those concerned with progressive causes, his focus on issues including housing, recycling, transit and accessibility offers some reason for optimism, while anybody more concerned with avoiding any tax increases or cracking down on crime will also find what they're looking for among Findura's promises.
But ultimately, that mix of policy proposals leaves plenty of room for doubt as to which ones are actually top priorities for Findura. And since the latter list dominated his platform for his first run in 2006, there's reason for concern that it will take precedence once it comes time to choose between them.
Bill Gray - video profile
In contrast, Bill Gray's commitments are best classified as modest but achievable: accessibility for persons with disabilities, a fair share of city services for Ward 5, and improved management of the costs of traffic including road congestion, noise and dust.
Needless to say, those proposals don't seem to reflect a particularly inspired long-term vision for the city on their own. But they do at least position Gray as one of the few incumbents who recognizes that there's room for improvement within the city - and they may make for a valuable contribution to a council which focuses on efficiency and liveability.
Endorsement
Those following this series may have wondered if I'd ever end up endorsing any incumbents. And I've noted before that the prospect of new blood tends to be a tie-breaker when there isn't much to choose between candidates on the issues - particularly since the presence of two acclaimed incumbents eliminates any serious danger based on lack of continuity.
But for Ward 5, a modest positive platform wins out over the risk that Findura's real priorities are the ones he ran on in 2006. As a result, the endorsement is for a ninth term for Bill Gray.
John Findura - video profile - website
In theory, there's plenty to like about Findura's platform this year regardless of one's political stripe. For those concerned with progressive causes, his focus on issues including housing, recycling, transit and accessibility offers some reason for optimism, while anybody more concerned with avoiding any tax increases or cracking down on crime will also find what they're looking for among Findura's promises.
But ultimately, that mix of policy proposals leaves plenty of room for doubt as to which ones are actually top priorities for Findura. And since the latter list dominated his platform for his first run in 2006, there's reason for concern that it will take precedence once it comes time to choose between them.
Bill Gray - video profile
In contrast, Bill Gray's commitments are best classified as modest but achievable: accessibility for persons with disabilities, a fair share of city services for Ward 5, and improved management of the costs of traffic including road congestion, noise and dust.
Needless to say, those proposals don't seem to reflect a particularly inspired long-term vision for the city on their own. But they do at least position Gray as one of the few incumbents who recognizes that there's room for improvement within the city - and they may make for a valuable contribution to a council which focuses on efficiency and liveability.
Endorsement
Those following this series may have wondered if I'd ever end up endorsing any incumbents. And I've noted before that the prospect of new blood tends to be a tie-breaker when there isn't much to choose between candidates on the issues - particularly since the presence of two acclaimed incumbents eliminates any serious danger based on lack of continuity.
But for Ward 5, a modest positive platform wins out over the risk that Findura's real priorities are the ones he ran on in 2006. As a result, the endorsement is for a ninth term for Bill Gray.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Pod People II: In Their Own Words
Lest it get lost in the Twittersphere, Kady has pointed out a myriad of examples of Ryan Hastman, the Cons' unelected non-representative for Edmonton-Strathcona, appearing at government funding announcements - all while elected NDP MP Linda Duncan has been frozen out. So is there any discernable difference between this and the original Pod People scheme other than that the Cons' "shadow MPs" aren't being formally named?
Spot the contradiction
Shorter John Baird spokesflack:
It's completely unreasonable to draw conclusions about how federal stimulus money has been allocated by examining only a portion of overall spending. And we can prove it by cherry-picking an even smaller portion of overall spending.
It's completely unreasonable to draw conclusions about how federal stimulus money has been allocated by examining only a portion of overall spending. And we can prove it by cherry-picking an even smaller portion of overall spending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)