(Peter) Russell said Harper made at least two important commitments: that Parliament would return soon, and that his government would then produce a budget that could pass.But I have to wonder whether Russell's revelation sheds some light on the events of the following winter as well. Might Harper's late-2009 request for prorogation by phone then have served not only to create a precedent in favour of the prime ministerial government which Harper is so eager to impose, but also as a form of personal payback for Jean's earlier message that she wouldn't give total deference to the PM's anti-democratic whims?
...
Russell, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto, said the prime minister's promises had a large influence on Jean, and he cautioned Canadians against seeing her decision to grant Harper's request for prorogation as a rubber stamp.
"I think they were extremely important in her weighing all the factors on both sides of the question," Russell said.
"For instance, if Mr. Harper had made no pledge to meet Parliament early, if he said well, he thought his financial position, which had been so badly received in the House, was terrific and he wasn't going to make any changes, I think she would have probably had to make the decision the other way."
...
Russell's revelation suggests the meeting that day was a negotiation in which the Governor General wielded considerable power.
"She made it clear these reserve powers of the Governor General may sometimes be used in ways that are contrary to the advice of an incumbent prime minister," Russell said.
"Because if the contrary was the case, any PM could, at any time, for any reason, not only dissolve Parliament, but prorogue it for any length of time for any reason. We wouldn't have parliamentary government. We would have prime ministerial government."
Saturday, October 02, 2010
On conditional reprieves
It's a definite plus to see both the advice Peter Russell gave to Michaelle Jean during the Con-fabricated 2008 constitutional crisis, and the fact that Jean was able to secure at least a couple of concessions from Stephen Harper - including a commitment to reconvene Parliament quickly rather than ruling by fiat while shuttering the House of Commons indefinitely:
Friday, October 01, 2010
Well said
Brian Topp laments the reverse Robin Hood principle that's been applied by Libs and Cons alike to ensure that less-wealthy Canadians pay more and get less for the benefit of those who already have money to burn:
The previous Liberal and current Conservative governments have pretended to cut taxes. In fact, in good part they have simply transferred taxes from those most able to pay them (profitable companies and wealthy individuals) to those least able to do so (the unemployed). This is reverse-Robin Hood economics, taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
In the process the Liberals and Conservatives have moved a significant portion of the tax burden (in net terms, almost $60-billion in recent years) from relatively progressive income and consumption taxes, to a grossly regressive poll tax.
...
Canada's federal government today is largely irrelevant to the daily lives of Canadians. That is why federal politics are increasingly driven by symbolic issues that have little to do with the underlying work of Parliament or its government. The consequences can be measured in growing income disparity; eroding economic competitiveness; rising foreign ownership and economic hollowing-out; rising poverty and household debt; and a subtle, pervasive unraveling of the strands of solidarity, mutual aid and common endeavour that bind us together as a society. This is the legacy Mr. Martin and Mr. Harper will leave their successors – no more clearly underlined that in the disgraceful mess they have made of income security in Canada.
Friday Morning Links
Some light reading to end your work week...
- Andrew Potter highlights the obvious response to the Cons' determination to eliminate reasoned discussion by focusing on gut-level politics instead:
- Andrew Potter highlights the obvious response to the Cons' determination to eliminate reasoned discussion by focusing on gut-level politics instead:
(T)he ultimately more effective instrument is the control of language itself. The Tories have spent the past year rolling out a few slogans, most of them aimed at framing the terms of debate for the next election. And so we’ve heard the Prime Minister repeatedly tell us that “losers don’t get to form governments,” that the Liberals will form a coalition with “socialists and separatists,” and, now, that anyone who supports the long-gun registry is a member of an urban elite. It’s a straight-up appeal to the gut, aimed at short-circuiting more sophisticated thinking.- I've spent plenty of time discussing the "coalition" angle on the Cons' scare tactics. Now, Chris Selley takes on the "separatist" side and finds it equally unreasonable:
As the Tories’ resilience at the polls suggests, gut-level politics is incredibly effective, which is why George Lakoff suggested that the only real option for the Democrats would be to engage to Republicans on their own terms—take back the White House by taking back the dictionary. It is increasingly clear that you can’t win in modern politics by having evidence or good ideas on your side, and so it might be time for the opposition in Canada to take their cue from the Democrats down south, start fighting the Tories on their own turf. For example, Stéphane Dion would have had an easier time selling his Green Shift plan if the phrase “tax bads, not goods” had even once passed his lips. More radically, the opposition might want to try reframing the anti-gun registry crowd as the “death lobby.”
It’s often said that until Quebecers decide they want to participate in the governance of Canada — i.e., by voting Liberal, Conservative or NDP — we’ll just have to live with the appalling consequences of officially separatist MPs infesting the House of Commons. I have no time for the argument. The Quebecers who don’t want to participate in federal governance don’t vote in federal elections. If we were willing to swallow our dusty, antiquated hardcore federalist pride, we could make the system work better — which is to say, as it’s supposed to work — right now.- Eric Reguly comments on the wider implications of BHP Billiton's bid for PCS:
Never mind the fact the Bloc’s MPs often seem more honestly concerned for Canadian democracy than the other parties‚ (even if they’re only concerned insofar as it benefits Quebec). The Canadian Alliance was perfectly willing to negotiate with the Bloc in 2000 if the Liberals hadn’t won their third consecutive majority. In 2006 the House of Commons voted 266 to 16 to declare that les Québécois “form a nation within a united Canada.” On Wednesday night, the House went further — voting unanimously to censure Maclean’s magazine for having “denigrate[d] the Quebec nation” (my emphasis). The federalist high road was demolished years ago. The October Crisis was four decades ago. As Mme. Jean’s tenure as governor-general proves yet again, the federalist/separatist divide is not nearly as wide or as bitter as politicians like us to think. There’s no point continuing the charade.
So should the Canadian government prevent BHP from scooping Potash Corp. into its voracious maw? Ignoring the fact that potash is a strategic, irreplaceable resource that prevents mass starvation, why should Canada allow companies that are actually or effectively takeover-proof to buy homegrown corporate hotties?- Finally, it's well worth highlighting the Harper Cons' hiring of more and more executive staff even as they tell everybody else in the country to cut back. But can somebody ask Brian Lilley to either explain the building management implications of hiring increased numbers of "guys in the corner offices", or use language that actually describes the executive's function rather than burying the facts under a pile of inaccurate descriptions?
...
Most subsidiaries, regardless or their size, have no say in the company’s important financial, legal, human resources and financing decisions. That, in turn, means that the spinoff benefits, such as the use of local lenders, legal teams and the like, are nil to negative. Tax, or lack thereof, is another big consideration. Typically, foreign buyers load up their new foreign subsidiaries with debt, all the better to minimize the local tax hit. Is that what BHP has in mind for Potash Corp.? If Investment Canada isn’t asking that question, there’s something wrong. If it isn’t legally allowed to ask that question, there’s something even more wrong.
BHP may be a fine owner of Potash Corp. Then again, it may not. If Investment Canada won’t block the takeover of a company that doesn’t need taking over, it has to ensure “net benefit” means as much. BHP can afford to deliver what the agency demands. It’s just that its demands for the last quarter century have been laughable. As a result, Canada is turning into a branch plant, A Mari usque ad Mare.
Regina Northeast - Dwayne Yasinowski Nominated for NDP
CJME has already covered the basics of last night's Regina Northeast nomination meeting which saw Dwayne Yasinowski win a nail-biter over Bill Wells on the second ballot. And I'll be glad to see Dwayne carrying the NDP's banner.
But it's worth noting that the nomination race was as lively and intense as it was close. Each of the candidates was able to create plenty of energy in a packed hall (including 200 Regina Northeast members plus 78 guests), as David Froh's lower numbers were balanced out by the youth and enthusiasm of his supporters. And with Froh endorsing Yasinowski while Wells made a concerted effort to keep the nomination campaign positive, there's every reason to think that all sides can come together now that the riding's members have had a chance to choose their nominee.
Of course, the flip side is that the NDP will need a strong grassroots effort to counter the money the Sask Party is throwing behind its hand-picked candidate. But if last night is any indication, there should be enough member interest to get the job done.
But it's worth noting that the nomination race was as lively and intense as it was close. Each of the candidates was able to create plenty of energy in a packed hall (including 200 Regina Northeast members plus 78 guests), as David Froh's lower numbers were balanced out by the youth and enthusiasm of his supporters. And with Froh endorsing Yasinowski while Wells made a concerted effort to keep the nomination campaign positive, there's every reason to think that all sides can come together now that the riding's members have had a chance to choose their nominee.
Of course, the flip side is that the NDP will need a strong grassroots effort to counter the money the Sask Party is throwing behind its hand-picked candidate. But if last night is any indication, there should be enough member interest to get the job done.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Burning question
So in this brave new world of ministerial responsibility, is it Sebastien Tognieri or Christian Paradis that gets charged with lying to Parliament?
Update: We can confirm that ministerial responsibility involves letting the underling take the fall. But that raises another point: will the Cons try to decree that an ex-staffer can ignore a summons from Parliament even over a subject for which he's lost his job?
Update: We can confirm that ministerial responsibility involves letting the underling take the fall. But that raises another point: will the Cons try to decree that an ex-staffer can ignore a summons from Parliament even over a subject for which he's lost his job?
Yessiree, that sounds plausible
Shorter PMO spin on today's sort-of-news that Stephen Harper was prepared to call in the Queen or anybody else he thought could keep him in power when faced with imminent defeat in the House of Commons:
We masters of seven-dimensional ultrachess don't need no stinkin' plan B.
We masters of seven-dimensional ultrachess don't need no stinkin' plan B.
Thursday Morning Links
A few links and comments to start your day...
- Boris picks up on the discussion of Lawrence Martin's new book by nicely summarizing what motivates the Harper Cons:
- Finally, Rick Salutin's dismissal from the Globe and Mail has given rise to plenty of protest so far. But I do wonder whether the focus is being put on the wrong element of the Globe and Mail's decision: isn't the greater problem the fact that virtually no genuinely progressive voices are being added to the media landscape (even as the reactionary right can add full networks to the mix), rather than what may be some expected churn among the longer-serving left-wing commentators?
- Boris picks up on the discussion of Lawrence Martin's new book by nicely summarizing what motivates the Harper Cons:
(H)atred is the motivation behind everything Harper and his band of orcs do. From visits to the Governor General, to mass prisons and beat-downs in the streets of Toronto, the one 'ideology' we see is a pathological hatred of anything and everyone standing against what they do or think.- Meanwhile, James Travers criticizes the fear and loathing the Cons are so eager to spread among the public:
This isn't politics. They aren't interested in parliament. There's no tradition of intellectual or philosophical thought underwriting their platform. Their numbers betray their rhetoric about small government for a lie. They shut down critical institutions of state that produce information independent of political control. They break protocol and convention at will. All they want to do is smash and destroy anything and anyone not fitting their worldview.
Only an audience contentedly frozen in the Cold War could still fret that the Russians are coming. Tamils put themselves more at risk than us by crossing the Pacific in a rusting hulk. Canadian jails — the ones Conservatives plan to overflow with hardened litterers, crazed dope smokers and Stockwell Day’s masterminds of unreported crime — have yet to incarcerate their first long-form census scofflaw.- And while the Cons blow nonexistent threats and gripes out of proportion, we can fully expect to hear nothing about problems that probably do deserve public outcry - such as the discovery of billions of dollars which look to have been illegally hidden so that wealthy Canadians (i.e. those with a minimum of half of million spare dollars to shelter) could avoid paying the taxes they owe.
Banging the drum so loudly about so little is a sure sign other mischief is afoot. That contrived bit of Ruskie theatre was really about positioning the Prime Minister as Canada’s fearless protector of Arctic interests and justifying spending a breathtaking $16 billion on stealth fighters. Getting tough with Tamils is part of the trend shifting immigration from a social and economic dilemma into a law-and-order peril. Blowing smoke about jailing citizens for census disobedience is cover for the determined Conservative effort to control information.
- Finally, Rick Salutin's dismissal from the Globe and Mail has given rise to plenty of protest so far. But I do wonder whether the focus is being put on the wrong element of the Globe and Mail's decision: isn't the greater problem the fact that virtually no genuinely progressive voices are being added to the media landscape (even as the reactionary right can add full networks to the mix), rather than what may be some expected churn among the longer-serving left-wing commentators?
A temporary reprieve
There's certainly some good news to be found in an arbitrator's ruling that private surgery clinics are permissible as a temporary measure at most due to their not being cost-effective as a permanent systemic change. But it's also worth pointing out the dangers of relying on a collective bargaining agreement as the means of preserving Saskatchewan's public health care system.
After all, it's entirely foreseeable that the same government which imposed the mandate to use private operators in the first place might meddle in future negotiations to ensure that it doesn't run into such snags in the future. And if that results in the removal of the relevant CBA provisions (either by bargaining or by legislation) before the 2013 deadline expires, then yesterday's decision may serve as little more than a speed bump on the Wall government's road to for-profit health care.
So while it's worth celebrating some arbitral confirmation that building capacity in the public sector is the only move that makes sense for long-term cost efficiency, the most important task in defending the province's health-care system is still to replace a government bent on its privatization.
After all, it's entirely foreseeable that the same government which imposed the mandate to use private operators in the first place might meddle in future negotiations to ensure that it doesn't run into such snags in the future. And if that results in the removal of the relevant CBA provisions (either by bargaining or by legislation) before the 2013 deadline expires, then yesterday's decision may serve as little more than a speed bump on the Wall government's road to for-profit health care.
So while it's worth celebrating some arbitral confirmation that building capacity in the public sector is the only move that makes sense for long-term cost efficiency, the most important task in defending the province's health-care system is still to replace a government bent on its privatization.
On missed opportunities
John Ibbitson's article is headlined by a "revelation" that seems to me to be less than newsworthy: that Stephen Harper would do anything, including demanding that the Queen overrule the Governor General, in an effort to cling to power.
But what strikes me as a more interesting revelation is the report that for at least some time in 2008, Harper was actually set to leave peacefully:
Instead, we remain stuck with a PM all the more convinced that no strategy is too destructive or dishonest if it keeps him in power. And it's anybody's guess as to whether he'll ever be willing to voluntarily cede power again, no matter how clear it is that he lacks any democratic legitimacy.
But what strikes me as a more interesting revelation is the report that for at least some time in 2008, Harper was actually set to leave peacefully:
During the political crisis of December 2008, as Mr. Harper realized that he had made exactly that kind of mistake by announcing an end to government financing of political parties, which united the opposition against him, he sank into something approaching despair, according to Mr. Martin.Now, the followup point that it was the presence of Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe at a signing ceremony that put Harper back in the mood to fight for power at all costs looks to be tacked on rather conveniently given the Cons' current rhetoric. But to the extent one takes it at face value, it's worth noting that as with the later videotape fiasco, the biggest problem seems to have been an insufficient amount of cooperation among the other parties rather than an excess of it. If Stephane Dion had listened to Gilles Duceppe's suggestion that Duceppe not participate in a photo-op when he was never intended to be part of the coalition in any event, then Harper may well have gone down willingly.
“He was resigned to defeat, prepared to give up the government,” Mr. Martin writes. “Staffers had never seen him like this, pale and shaken. He told them, in so many words, that it was over, that the government would fall.”
Instead, we remain stuck with a PM all the more convinced that no strategy is too destructive or dishonest if it keeps him in power. And it's anybody's guess as to whether he'll ever be willing to voluntarily cede power again, no matter how clear it is that he lacks any democratic legitimacy.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Attack of the Paleo-Libs - War Resister Edition
I've pointed out before that there are plenty of Lib MPs kept in office by party nomination rules which strangle any grassroots organization toward better representation, but positively begging to be dumped in favour of a more progressive alternative - with Alan Tonks featuring prominently in that group.
Now, having actually voted against his partymate's bill to offer amnesty to war resisters, Tonks may have just earned himself the top spot on the list. But given the number of abstentions which caused Gerard Kennedy's cause to fail, it's obvious that there are more than a few Libs still in need of replacement.
Now, having actually voted against his partymate's bill to offer amnesty to war resisters, Tonks may have just earned himself the top spot on the list. But given the number of abstentions which caused Gerard Kennedy's cause to fail, it's obvious that there are more than a few Libs still in need of replacement.
Wednesday Afternoon Links
- Impolitical is right to note the absurdity of the "conventional wisdom" that a Con-dominated Senate should feel entitled to block whatever it wants regardless of what's passed by Canada's elected representatives. But even leaving aside the fact that a Lib flip-flop has made the issue moot when it comes to EI, should anybody be surprised that the Cons are using the unelected Senate to impose their will on the country given their track record of doing just that?
- Meanwhile, the Cons are also doing their best to eliminate any good the Senate could otherwise do as a source of policy ideas, offering nothing but complete rejection for a plan to deal with poverty.
- Dog Blog has already posted on the subject, but I'll also encourage readers interested in getting involved in Regina's municipal boards, commissions and committees to take a look at the openings and apply to participate.
- Finally, while Murray Mandryk jumps to a few too many conclusions based on a single federal poll, he's duly cynical about the Harper Cons' handling of the gun registry - echoing the question of why a party which has fomented public outrage for years over its flaws will soon be arguing to keep it in place without improvements.
- Meanwhile, the Cons are also doing their best to eliminate any good the Senate could otherwise do as a source of policy ideas, offering nothing but complete rejection for a plan to deal with poverty.
- Dog Blog has already posted on the subject, but I'll also encourage readers interested in getting involved in Regina's municipal boards, commissions and committees to take a look at the openings and apply to participate.
- Finally, while Murray Mandryk jumps to a few too many conclusions based on a single federal poll, he's duly cynical about the Harper Cons' handling of the gun registry - echoing the question of why a party which has fomented public outrage for years over its flaws will soon be arguing to keep it in place without improvements.
Wednesday Morning Links - Coalition Edition
- Angus Reid releases its latest poll results featuring Canadians' view of the country's federal leaders. And predictably, the terms most associated with Stephen Harper are..."Secretive (38%), arrogant (36%), dishonest (36%), out of touch (33%), uncaring (31%)" - making for a seemingly ideal contrast with an open, caring, attentive coalition if anybody notices the opportunity.
- Meanwhile, Jeffrey Simpson eviscerates the Cons' latest set of talking points, including those relating to coalitions. But in doing so, he also highlights why the opposition parties should take another angle: does anybody think it'll accomplish more to spend the entire lead-up to the next election trying to explain why...
- And finally, Postmedia looks at the potential role of the Governor General after the next federal election. But I'd take issue with one point raised by Errol Mendes:
- Meanwhile, Jeffrey Simpson eviscerates the Cons' latest set of talking points, including those relating to coalitions. But in doing so, he also highlights why the opposition parties should take another angle: does anybody think it'll accomplish more to spend the entire lead-up to the next election trying to explain why...
the Bloc was never part of the ill-fated “coalition” between the Liberals and the NDP almost two years ago. The Bloc said it would support the other two parties, but not enter an agreement with them....rather than to pitch a simple, understandable message of "cooperation = good"?
- And finally, Postmedia looks at the potential role of the Governor General after the next federal election. But I'd take issue with one point raised by Errol Mendes:
Moreover, if Harper continues to publicly deliver those warnings after an election, said Mendes, Johnston will have to deal with the issue "with great finesse and diplomacy."Simply put, there doesn't seem to be any reason why the GG would take on the job of debunking the Harper government's spin if other actors haven't already done so. Which is why it's so important that commentators set the record straight now, as the Cons are all too obviously willing to lie to the public in an effort to cling to power.
"At a certain stage, he may have to debunk the standard rhetoric of the Harper government that all coalitions are evil."
On overpayments
The Citizen's report on the U.S.' rethinking its F-35 purchase focuses mostly on the prospect that Canada will be left out in the cold when it comes to industrial benefits. But it's also worth pointing out the per-unit costs which are leading the U.S. to rethink the whole idea - as our neighbours to the south are blanching at numbers which the Harper Cons were entirely happy to sign onto:
Needless to say, with the main purchaser involved already looking to change direction and any supposed bidding opportunities apparently evaporating, there's absolutely no reason why Canada should be the lone country eager to push ahead at a price no other country is irresponsible enough to accept. And the more desperately the Cons try to pretend that we have no choice but to pour billions down the drain in a fighter jet deal, the more clear it should be that the Cons have no clue what they're doing with our public money.
(T)he cost of each stealth fighter has jumped from $50 million (U.S.) to at least $92 million, with some U.S. estimates putting that price-tag as high as $135 million. That has sparked a push in the U.S. to cut costs.By way of comparison, the Cons' agreement to purchase 65 planes for $9 billion dollars results in a final cost of...$138 million per plane. Which means that thanks to Stephen Harper's desire to throw free money at big military, we're stuck with a bill higher than the U.S.' estimated worst-case scenario as our base price.
...
Asked what impact the initiatives will have on F-35 contracts now being carried out by Canadian firms, as well as potential future contracts, Adams said "it's too soon to provide a detailed assessment of the implications and potential impacts on our programs and business."
He said, however, that Lockheed Martin is on "the path to achieving an average unit cost of about $60 million" in U.S. dollars for the F-35.
Needless to say, with the main purchaser involved already looking to change direction and any supposed bidding opportunities apparently evaporating, there's absolutely no reason why Canada should be the lone country eager to push ahead at a price no other country is irresponsible enough to accept. And the more desperately the Cons try to pretend that we have no choice but to pour billions down the drain in a fighter jet deal, the more clear it should be that the Cons have no clue what they're doing with our public money.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Tuesday Night Cat Blogging
It's helpful enough that Tigger and Wonder fit into standard-size cupboards for easy storage.
But it's even better that they can interlock to save space.
But it's even better that they can interlock to save space.
Pop quiz
For John Ivison:
Name a single instance where the Cons' reaction to a firm, direct denial of one of their talking points was a pleasant "Oh, you weren't planning to do that? So sorry for making the unjustified allegation. We won't speak of it again."
Name a single instance where the Cons' reaction to a firm, direct denial of one of their talking points was a pleasant "Oh, you weren't planning to do that? So sorry for making the unjustified allegation. We won't speak of it again."
On imbalanced conclusions
Shorter Tony Clement:
Surely we can all agree to stop the public's unjustified fears about the census by giving in to baseless fear-mongering.
Surely we can all agree to stop the public's unjustified fears about the census by giving in to baseless fear-mongering.
On paper transactions
I'll grant Alan Reynolds this much in his Great Inequality Debate with Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks: he's absolutely right to recognize that the issue goes far beyond labour income. But I'm not sure he recognizes the implications of his argument for ignoring the higher nominal income gaps that have developed over the past few decades:
That would seem to offer reason to establish a baseline relationship between the two so that there's no particular value in shifting back and forth to game the tax laws in place at any given time. But I have my doubts that Reynolds would want to see that kind of system put in place, since his tax-cutting ilk seem to prefer attacking only one form of taxes at a time rather than acknowledging the long-term implications of a race to the bottom in both corporate and personal taxes.
What about the issue of compliance, though? It's easy enough to point out that if the wealthy have been abusing the tax system in a way that allows them to leave taxes unpaid, the answer out of both budgetary common sense and principles of fairness is to step up enforcement, not to lower tax rates in hopes that they'll be more willing to pay what they owe voluntarily.
But again, it's also worth asking whether there's any indication that high tax rates actually affect the economy as Reynolds and company accept and preach as an article of faith. And if Reynolds is right in suggesting that the only real difference caused by higher tax rates is in reporting and transaction structure rather than economic activity, then it's hard to buy any argument that there isn't room to raise taxes on the wealthy if needed to balance the U.S.' federal budget.
(M)ost growth of top 1% incomes since the 1986 tax reform has been the result of shifting income from corporate tax forms to individual tax forms (by using Subchapter S corporations, partnerships and LLCs) when individual tax rates fell in 1987 and 2003. There were also unusually large increases in reported capital gains and dividends after those tax rates were cut in 1997 and 2003.Now, the former point seems to me to offer a compelling refutation of the claim that lowered tax rates do anything to increase productivity or generate any other positive economic outcome. Instead, according to Reynolds' own analysis, the link between lower income tax rates and higher income is the result of wealthy individuals shuffling the same activities from "corporate tax forms" to "individual tax forms".
...
CBO estimates are extremely sensitive to what Piketty and Saez (in an article with Anthony Atkinson of Oxford University) refer to as “the response of reported income to changes in tax law.” When tax rates on capital gains were reduced in 1997 and 2003, taxable capital gains reported by the top 1% soared for four years. When the dividend tax was cut to 15% in 2003, dividends reported by the top 1% quintupled in four years.
That would seem to offer reason to establish a baseline relationship between the two so that there's no particular value in shifting back and forth to game the tax laws in place at any given time. But I have my doubts that Reynolds would want to see that kind of system put in place, since his tax-cutting ilk seem to prefer attacking only one form of taxes at a time rather than acknowledging the long-term implications of a race to the bottom in both corporate and personal taxes.
What about the issue of compliance, though? It's easy enough to point out that if the wealthy have been abusing the tax system in a way that allows them to leave taxes unpaid, the answer out of both budgetary common sense and principles of fairness is to step up enforcement, not to lower tax rates in hopes that they'll be more willing to pay what they owe voluntarily.
But again, it's also worth asking whether there's any indication that high tax rates actually affect the economy as Reynolds and company accept and preach as an article of faith. And if Reynolds is right in suggesting that the only real difference caused by higher tax rates is in reporting and transaction structure rather than economic activity, then it's hard to buy any argument that there isn't room to raise taxes on the wealthy if needed to balance the U.S.' federal budget.
On withdrawal
Needless to say, Ryan Meili's withdrawal from the Saskatoon Sutherland nomination race makes for a disappointment for many within the Saskatchewan NDP - not to mention a shock coming less than a week away from the riding's nomination meeting. But let's take a closer look at what his departure figures to mean both for Meili and the party.
From Meili's perspective, the nomination race looks to have gone wrong in nearly every way that last year's leadership race went right. Instead of starting out as a virtual unknown who was able to make a positive impression without facing a lot of opponents' potshots, Meili began the nomination race as the front-runner - and the obvious target for the other candidates (with going especially negative for a nomination campaign).
What's more, instead of being able to count on broad appeal to boost his candidacy, Meili ran into the realities of local politics where a highly focused effort on a single cultural community by a well-connected candidate can swamp the membership numbers in the balance of a riding. And indeed, the race may raise some reason for wider discussion as to whether the NDP should work on eliminating any perceived barriers to membership in order to facilitate broader decision-making at the riding level.
But while Anwar's impressive membership sales raised questions about whether Meili would be likely to win, they hardly figures to explain his dropping out of the race without even testing whether Anwar's supporters would turn out.
Instead, I have to wonder whether the biggest issue for Meili was his own response to the challenges - including the recent jawing between his camp and Cam Broten (wherever it may have originated). During a sometimes-acrimonious leadership race, Meili did a remarkable job of staying above the fray. But he apparently wasn't quite so successful in the nomination race, and that might explain why he wouldn't want to keep going from a personal standpoint even if there was still a substantial chance of winning the nomination.
If there's any good news, it's an important caveat in Meili's announcement - that he "(intends) to continue to work for a better world, but not by seeking public office". And while many of us hoped to see what he could do as an MLA, there's plenty of reason for optimism that a leader who managed to inspire many an NDP member can still have a substantial impact in venues other than the Legislature.
So what does Meili's departure mean for the party as a whole? By all accounts, Anwar had already managed to achieve front-runner status in the nomination race - so barring a weak turnout among his newly-recruited supporters, it might not affect the immediate chances of taking Saskatoon Sutherland.
Instead, the more obvious potential impact is the prospect that some of Meili's enthusiastic leadership supporters might become similarly disillusioned by the electoral process. And the party would be well served to make sure that both Meili and his grassroots movement are seen to have a voice as it develops its slate of candidates and policies for 2011.
From Meili's perspective, the nomination race looks to have gone wrong in nearly every way that last year's leadership race went right. Instead of starting out as a virtual unknown who was able to make a positive impression without facing a lot of opponents' potshots, Meili began the nomination race as the front-runner - and the obvious target for the other candidates (with going especially negative for a nomination campaign).
What's more, instead of being able to count on broad appeal to boost his candidacy, Meili ran into the realities of local politics where a highly focused effort on a single cultural community by a well-connected candidate can swamp the membership numbers in the balance of a riding. And indeed, the race may raise some reason for wider discussion as to whether the NDP should work on eliminating any perceived barriers to membership in order to facilitate broader decision-making at the riding level.
But while Anwar's impressive membership sales raised questions about whether Meili would be likely to win, they hardly figures to explain his dropping out of the race without even testing whether Anwar's supporters would turn out.
Instead, I have to wonder whether the biggest issue for Meili was his own response to the challenges - including the recent jawing between his camp and Cam Broten (wherever it may have originated). During a sometimes-acrimonious leadership race, Meili did a remarkable job of staying above the fray. But he apparently wasn't quite so successful in the nomination race, and that might explain why he wouldn't want to keep going from a personal standpoint even if there was still a substantial chance of winning the nomination.
If there's any good news, it's an important caveat in Meili's announcement - that he "(intends) to continue to work for a better world, but not by seeking public office". And while many of us hoped to see what he could do as an MLA, there's plenty of reason for optimism that a leader who managed to inspire many an NDP member can still have a substantial impact in venues other than the Legislature.
So what does Meili's departure mean for the party as a whole? By all accounts, Anwar had already managed to achieve front-runner status in the nomination race - so barring a weak turnout among his newly-recruited supporters, it might not affect the immediate chances of taking Saskatoon Sutherland.
Instead, the more obvious potential impact is the prospect that some of Meili's enthusiastic leadership supporters might become similarly disillusioned by the electoral process. And the party would be well served to make sure that both Meili and his grassroots movement are seen to have a voice as it develops its slate of candidates and policies for 2011.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Well said
It's not often that I'll see fit to quote Ross Douthat - and there's plenty not to like about his preferred outcome when it comes to the options available to governments in handling their budgets. But his column today is right on target with his critique of Republican money mismanagement - and the point applies equally well at home if one substitutes "Conservative" for "Republican":
Officially, the Republican Party stands for low taxes and limited government. But save during the gridlocked 1990s, Republican majorities and Republican presidents have tended to pass tax cuts while putting off spending cuts till a tomorrow that never comes.
Conservatives have justified this failure with two incompatible theories. One is the “starve the beast” conceit, which holds that cutting taxes will force government spending downward. The other is the happy idea that tax cuts actually increase government revenue, making deficit anxieties irrelevant.
The real world hasn’t been kind to either notion.
On confidence matters
I posted earlier about the Harper Cons' cynical manipulation of supporters when it comes to the gun registry. But let's meet about the only point anybody could possibly make in the Cons' defence before it gets made.
It's bad enough that the Cons are claiming to be doing everything in their power to dismantle the long gun registry after never bringing the issue up for a single vote as a government bill. But was there actually a chance for them to pass such a bill if they'd tried?
There, the answer is a clear yes.
After all, it was alongside the Cons' 2007 Speech from the Throne that they introduced their confidence gambit to pressure the Libs, declaring that the defeat of any of their throne speech priorities would result in an election. Which is how the Cons strongarmed the Libs into supporting them on matters ranging from and Afghanistan extension to multiple crime bills.
And that Speech from the Throne included the long gun registry as one of the Cons' potential confidence issues in no uncertain terms:
In effect, the Libs didn't just let a throne speech pass which included eliminating the gun registry as a confidence measure. Instead, they also took issue with a number of the Cons' priorities without even hinting that they'd object to having the registry dismantled.
And the Cons chose to do nothing, rather than taking the opportunity to hold a vote to repeal the gun registry.
Again, all of this is aside from the merits of the long gun registry. But with the Cons telling rural voters that the registry is the only issue that matters and that they have some interest in getting rid of it, it's well worth pointing out that the registry only exists today because Stephen Harper chose to leave it in place.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
It's bad enough that the Cons are claiming to be doing everything in their power to dismantle the long gun registry after never bringing the issue up for a single vote as a government bill. But was there actually a chance for them to pass such a bill if they'd tried?
There, the answer is a clear yes.
After all, it was alongside the Cons' 2007 Speech from the Throne that they introduced their confidence gambit to pressure the Libs, declaring that the defeat of any of their throne speech priorities would result in an election. Which is how the Cons strongarmed the Libs into supporting them on matters ranging from and Afghanistan extension to multiple crime bills.
And that Speech from the Throne included the long gun registry as one of the Cons' potential confidence issues in no uncertain terms:
In addition to tougher laws, our government will provide targeted support to communities and victims. It will help families and local communities in steering vulnerable youth away from a life of drugs and crime, and the Anti-Drug Strategy will help to treat those suffering from drug addiction. It will again ask Parliament to repeal the wasteful long-gun registry.So how did the Libs respond? Michael Ignatieff said that he didn't see any poison pills in the speech - serving to highlight that the Libs' newfound devotion to the registry doesn't actually reflect anything but recent political calculation. And Stephane Dion introduced an amendment which dealt with several other matters, but didn't even mention the gun registry.
In effect, the Libs didn't just let a throne speech pass which included eliminating the gun registry as a confidence measure. Instead, they also took issue with a number of the Cons' priorities without even hinting that they'd object to having the registry dismantled.
And the Cons chose to do nothing, rather than taking the opportunity to hold a vote to repeal the gun registry.
Again, all of this is aside from the merits of the long gun registry. But with the Cons telling rural voters that the registry is the only issue that matters and that they have some interest in getting rid of it, it's well worth pointing out that the registry only exists today because Stephen Harper chose to leave it in place.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Zero action
To follow up on one of themes of last week's Blogger Battle Royale which is echoed in the Hill Times, let's take a closer look at how the Cons handled the long gun registry before their wedge politics on Bill C-391.
Since taking office, the Cons have introduced three government bills which would have had the effect of repealing the long gun registry. And as the governing party, they've had full control as to when the bills would be debated and voted on.
Bill C-21 was introduced in June 2006. It then sat in limbo until a year later when it was debated at second reading, three days before the end of the spring session of Parliament in 2007. The Cons then prorogued Parliament before the fall sitting, killing the bill.
The same legislation was reintroduced as Bill C-24 in November 2007 - at a time when the Libs were actively rolling over at every opportunity. This time, the Cons didn't even bother bringing the bill forward for debate before they chose to pull the plug and call an election in 2008.
Finally, the Cons introduced Bill S-5 into the Senate as an apparent April Fool's joke on their constituents in 2009. And once again, it was never even debated before Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament again.
So in all their time in office, after introducing three bills to pretend to be taking action, the Cons have never so much as bothered to bring a government bill on the gun registry up for a vote.
With that in mind, readers can judge for themselves whether Harper and company actually want the registry gone, or simply want to grandstand about it while preserving it as a fund-raising tool. But I'd think the evidence points strongly toward the latter.
Since taking office, the Cons have introduced three government bills which would have had the effect of repealing the long gun registry. And as the governing party, they've had full control as to when the bills would be debated and voted on.
Bill C-21 was introduced in June 2006. It then sat in limbo until a year later when it was debated at second reading, three days before the end of the spring session of Parliament in 2007. The Cons then prorogued Parliament before the fall sitting, killing the bill.
The same legislation was reintroduced as Bill C-24 in November 2007 - at a time when the Libs were actively rolling over at every opportunity. This time, the Cons didn't even bother bringing the bill forward for debate before they chose to pull the plug and call an election in 2008.
Finally, the Cons introduced Bill S-5 into the Senate as an apparent April Fool's joke on their constituents in 2009. And once again, it was never even debated before Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament again.
So in all their time in office, after introducing three bills to pretend to be taking action, the Cons have never so much as bothered to bring a government bill on the gun registry up for a vote.
With that in mind, readers can judge for themselves whether Harper and company actually want the registry gone, or simply want to grandstand about it while preserving it as a fund-raising tool. But I'd think the evidence points strongly toward the latter.
New Brunswick Goes to the Polls
We've finally reached election day in New Brunswick, with plenty of potential for some highly interesting results as little seems to have been decided so far. Most of the projections have the NDP at 1 or 2 seats, with the main question being whether the party is able to build on its momentum from this year's campaign or whether a past trend of losing support late in the campaign continues. But nbpolitico has a full list of ridings which are particularly worth watching from the NDP's perspective:
Of course, there's still a day's worth of GOTV efforts to determine who will win out in the end. And we'll look forward to finding out whether voters are frustrated enough with a campaign of wilful self-delusion from the Graham Libs and Alward Cons to give the NDP an unprecedented presence in New Brunswick's legislature.
(Edit: updated link.)
The NDP is in play in somewhere between 2 and 4 ridings (Tracadie-Sheila, Nepisiguit, Bathurst and Tantramar) according to my analysis. They may also be in play in Saint John Harbour, Saint John East and Fredericton-Silverwood, though my analysis says no.Note that nbpolitico has also modeled a series of "surge scenarios", leading to a fascinating set of possible outcomes.
Of course, there's still a day's worth of GOTV efforts to determine who will win out in the end. And we'll look forward to finding out whether voters are frustrated enough with a campaign of wilful self-delusion from the Graham Libs and Alward Cons to give the NDP an unprecedented presence in New Brunswick's legislature.
(Edit: updated link.)
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Reason to howl
So what's the more damning part of the latest news on the Cons' use of public money to promote themselves?
Is it the instant classic line that "Bunting is allowed, plaques are an allowable expense"?
Or is it the scope of promotional material compared to the RinC fund as a whole?
To put that in perspective, let's do a bit of back-of-the-envelope math. Based on approved signage of up to $9,000 per project for over 2,000 projects in total, the Cons green-lighted no less than $18 million for signs and plaques alone. Which amounts to over 3.5% of the money allocated for the RinC program.
And that's not even counting the bunting.
Is it the instant classic line that "Bunting is allowed, plaques are an allowable expense"?
Or is it the scope of promotional material compared to the RinC fund as a whole?
To put that in perspective, let's do a bit of back-of-the-envelope math. Based on approved signage of up to $9,000 per project for over 2,000 projects in total, the Cons green-lighted no less than $18 million for signs and plaques alone. Which amounts to over 3.5% of the money allocated for the RinC program.
And that's not even counting the bunting.
A plan to fail
Jim Flaherty's latest excuse for not extending the deadline for stimulus projects - even those delayed for reasons entirely out of anybody's control - is that he's more worried about balancing the federal budget than continuing with any stimulus. So let's ask the question: what impact would extending funding actually have on the federal government's fiscal picture?
After all, one would hope that enough money to complete the agreed stimulus projects in full would have been budgeted in any event. So whether the money is spent before or after March 2011 will have precisely zero effect on any long-term budgeting issues.
That is, unless the Cons have been budgeting for some of their allocated money to go unused - in effect banking on the failure of part of their stimulus efforts. But if that's the case, shouldn't we know exactly how much of the money they've promised is in fact intended to be pulled back?
Update: I'm apparently not the only one suggesting that it shouldn't matter if money is held over. But the fact that provinces had been proposing a way to meet Flaherty's concern even before he made it public only makes his determination to cut off funding all the more galling.
After all, one would hope that enough money to complete the agreed stimulus projects in full would have been budgeted in any event. So whether the money is spent before or after March 2011 will have precisely zero effect on any long-term budgeting issues.
That is, unless the Cons have been budgeting for some of their allocated money to go unused - in effect banking on the failure of part of their stimulus efforts. But if that's the case, shouldn't we know exactly how much of the money they've promised is in fact intended to be pulled back?
Update: I'm apparently not the only one suggesting that it shouldn't matter if money is held over. But the fact that provinces had been proposing a way to meet Flaherty's concern even before he made it public only makes his determination to cut off funding all the more galling.
Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging
The Saskatchewan Roughriders' victory over Hamilton yesterday may serve as the perfect summary of the team's season. While the 'Riders showed plenty of vulnerability on both sides of the ball, they managed to make enough big plays to pull out the game in the end. And the result was another notch in the win column - if not a clear statement that the 'Riders can keep piling them up in the future.
The story offensively was of course the number of jaw-dropping receptions that made for key plays on the 'Riders' touchdown drives. Presumably thanks in part to the wind in Hamilton, Darien Durant's deep throws weren't quite as precise as they'd been the previous week - but thanks to the stellar play of Weston Dressler, Rob Bagg and Andy Fantuz, they nonetheless connected more often than not. And the Ticats' fear of the bomb managed to open up enough room underneath for the 'Riders to do fairly well in the ball-control department as well (even if Wes Cates seems to have slowed back down after showing a bit more burst early in the season).
So the 'Riders' offense generally looked good...as long as one doesn't take turnovers into account. But Durant did serve up a couple of stinkers: an interception by Dylan Barker on a pass that looked doomed from the beginning, and a fumble on Saskatchewan's last offensive play of the game that gave Hamilton new life when the 'Riders had a chance to put the game away. And the timing of the latter giveaway looks like a particularly strong indication that Durant is still working on deciding when it's worth taking risks.
Meanwhile, the defence had a fairly easy answer to the same question about risk-taking - as it spent the entire game trading off big plays for the chance at turnovers, with remarkably strong results.
In theory, Kevin Glenn should be one of the last CFL quarterbacks to get suckered by deceptive coverage schemes - but he threw one interception and one near-miss on plays where defensive backs went unaccounted for on deep throws. And Deandra Cobb's valiant efforts to churn out extra yardage were turned into a negative by the 'Riders' propensity for forcing fumbles.
Again, that has to be balanced against the Ticats' success in moving the ball, with the 'Riders' focus on turnovers resulting in sloppy tackling through much of the game. And Glenn's already-impressive numbers could have been even better if not for a couple of embarrassing dropped passes. But once again, the tradeoff looks to have worked in the 'Riders' favour. And if the 'Riders' defence is creative enough to find ways to force turnovers even without generating its usual amount of pressure due to a banged-up defensive line, opposing offences may have little choice but to reduce their own production by playing it safe.
Finally, the special teams look to have been at worst a wash for Saskatchewan, making the game a relative success in that department. Ryan Grice-Mullen may not have the best hands of any returner around (as he showed with a fumble which he was able to recover), but his combination of raw speed and willingness to attack the coverage team resulted in a better return game than we've seen through most of the season. And while the 'Riders' kicking team had some rough moments, it was at least roughly able to match the production of its Hamilton counterpart.
So the end result is that while there's ample room for improvement on most fronts other than the receiving corps, the 'Riders once again did just enough to pull out a win against a contending team. And with the 'Riders enjoying both a winning streak and a strong position in the standings, the big question is once again whether they can sustain and build on their current level of play (rather than what can be done to fix major defects).
The story offensively was of course the number of jaw-dropping receptions that made for key plays on the 'Riders' touchdown drives. Presumably thanks in part to the wind in Hamilton, Darien Durant's deep throws weren't quite as precise as they'd been the previous week - but thanks to the stellar play of Weston Dressler, Rob Bagg and Andy Fantuz, they nonetheless connected more often than not. And the Ticats' fear of the bomb managed to open up enough room underneath for the 'Riders to do fairly well in the ball-control department as well (even if Wes Cates seems to have slowed back down after showing a bit more burst early in the season).
So the 'Riders' offense generally looked good...as long as one doesn't take turnovers into account. But Durant did serve up a couple of stinkers: an interception by Dylan Barker on a pass that looked doomed from the beginning, and a fumble on Saskatchewan's last offensive play of the game that gave Hamilton new life when the 'Riders had a chance to put the game away. And the timing of the latter giveaway looks like a particularly strong indication that Durant is still working on deciding when it's worth taking risks.
Meanwhile, the defence had a fairly easy answer to the same question about risk-taking - as it spent the entire game trading off big plays for the chance at turnovers, with remarkably strong results.
In theory, Kevin Glenn should be one of the last CFL quarterbacks to get suckered by deceptive coverage schemes - but he threw one interception and one near-miss on plays where defensive backs went unaccounted for on deep throws. And Deandra Cobb's valiant efforts to churn out extra yardage were turned into a negative by the 'Riders' propensity for forcing fumbles.
Again, that has to be balanced against the Ticats' success in moving the ball, with the 'Riders' focus on turnovers resulting in sloppy tackling through much of the game. And Glenn's already-impressive numbers could have been even better if not for a couple of embarrassing dropped passes. But once again, the tradeoff looks to have worked in the 'Riders' favour. And if the 'Riders' defence is creative enough to find ways to force turnovers even without generating its usual amount of pressure due to a banged-up defensive line, opposing offences may have little choice but to reduce their own production by playing it safe.
Finally, the special teams look to have been at worst a wash for Saskatchewan, making the game a relative success in that department. Ryan Grice-Mullen may not have the best hands of any returner around (as he showed with a fumble which he was able to recover), but his combination of raw speed and willingness to attack the coverage team resulted in a better return game than we've seen through most of the season. And while the 'Riders' kicking team had some rough moments, it was at least roughly able to match the production of its Hamilton counterpart.
So the end result is that while there's ample room for improvement on most fronts other than the receiving corps, the 'Riders once again did just enough to pull out a win against a contending team. And with the 'Riders enjoying both a winning streak and a strong position in the standings, the big question is once again whether they can sustain and build on their current level of play (rather than what can be done to fix major defects).
What you don't know won't hurt you. As far as you know.
Sure, the revelation that the federal government is illegally withholding test results showing consistently false advertising by food manufacturers might seem like evidence that our public sector needs to be a bit more focused on the public interest rather than on papering over corporate misdeeds:
(W)hen the Organization for Economic Co-operation and DeveThlopment has just reported that better food labelling is a crucial component in fighting Canada's obesity epidemic, the government's actions are particularly damaging. Earlier this month, my Postmedia colleague Sarah Schmidt revealed that testing by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency found that 122 out of 208 breads and baked goods had contents that didn't match label claims that they were low-fat or contained certain grains.But in true free-market style, can't we all agree that anybody who really cares whether the food they buy at the grocery store actually fits the description on the label should have to pay for the testing themselves?
Among 161 snack foods, 79 were found to have ingredients that didn't match labelling about low sodium or certain contents.
Other claims found not to stand up included "100 per cent pure," "genuine" and "real."
The CFIA also found that one in five packages of "lean" and "extra-lean" ground beef tested did not meet their labels' claims.
Schmidt's report prompted another Postmedia colleague, Paula Simons, to ask the CFIA for the names of the foods and their makers. She was (wrongly) told federal privacy legislation prevented the agency from naming the products and manufacturers.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Saturday Afternoon Links
For your weekend reading pleasure...
- Dr. Dawg rightly points out that a bill involving far more intrusions on civil liberties than anybody could possibly associate with the long gun registry managed to pass second reading with full Con and Lib support (to go with virtually no public attention).
- Rick Salutin notes that the rise of Rob Ford and other destructive right-wing ideologues has much to do with a serious expectation gap between progressive citizens and the leaders they've managed to elect:
- And finally, Armine Yalnizyan reminds us that there's still plenty of time to fix the census.
- Dr. Dawg rightly points out that a bill involving far more intrusions on civil liberties than anybody could possibly associate with the long gun registry managed to pass second reading with full Con and Lib support (to go with virtually no public attention).
- Rick Salutin notes that the rise of Rob Ford and other destructive right-wing ideologues has much to do with a serious expectation gap between progressive citizens and the leaders they've managed to elect:
(F)or most people, winning an election changes nothing; that’s when the fight should intensify. Something similar seemed to happen to Barack Obama when he became president, as if his hope was the same as his voters’.- Meanwhile, James Travers is somewhat more hopeful that those attempting to manipulate citizens' frustration to further press against the public interest will soon face a backlash of its own:
This is partly due to our political system: We get to vote occasionally for leaders, then leave it all in their hands, leading to excessive reliance on “them,” and turning on them when things don’t gel. A political culture of blame and rage is the upshot, rather than shared responsibility and the will to keep going. What could change that? Something more ongoingly, truly democratic, perhaps.
Seasoned politicians recognize that dynamic and its threat to their survival; they just can’t change it much. So many leaders have broken so many promises that only the most naïve or quiescent voter still believes that parties steeped in tradition and hierarchy will act more honourably in the future than in the past.- Stockwell Day nearly got away with a profoundly idiotic set of spin about continued tax slashing, claiming it would both pay for itself and eliminate any need for further stimulus. But Erin sets the record straight.
Lashing out is a familiar and feel-good form of democratic justice: Voters have long used one party as a stick to beat sense into another. What’s changed is that a wider swath is now being cut by those fearful of what lies ahead for them and furious at politicians who are doing just fine while others suffer.
Some incumbents, including Conservatives here, hope to save themselves by aligning with the angry against the elites. Wish them well for they are again trying to play voters for fools and sooner or later will pay the ultimate political price.
- And finally, Armine Yalnizyan reminds us that there's still plenty of time to fix the census.
On inflexibility
Ralph Surette raises a point that I've been wondering about myself.
It's obvious enough why any talk about compromise on the long gun registry has thus far focused on ways to make the existing system less onerous, as it's originated entirely from leaders who favour keeping the registry. But why wouldn't the Cons even pretend to be interested in a compromise from the anti-registry perspective - i.e. scrapping the registry in exchange for improvements to other aspects of Canada's gun control regime to defuse the arguments for the registry itself?
(That is, aside from the obvious conclusion that they prefer keeping the registry around in its current form as a political football to doing anything that might actually improve matters.)
(Edit: fixed wording.)
It's obvious enough why any talk about compromise on the long gun registry has thus far focused on ways to make the existing system less onerous, as it's originated entirely from leaders who favour keeping the registry. But why wouldn't the Cons even pretend to be interested in a compromise from the anti-registry perspective - i.e. scrapping the registry in exchange for improvements to other aspects of Canada's gun control regime to defuse the arguments for the registry itself?
(That is, aside from the obvious conclusion that they prefer keeping the registry around in its current form as a political football to doing anything that might actually improve matters.)
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Blogger Battle Royale
CBC's Day 6 recruited yours truly for a political bloggers' bout against Dan Arnold and Stephen Taylor. Have a listen.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Let's nip this in the bud
I'm not sure how Chantal Hebert developed her assumption that the NDP has any interest in propping up the Cons this fall, let alone enough to be willing to accept poison pills to do so. But the theory seems to fit all too well with her argument from lack of information about the NDP in general - including her bizarre assertion that the NDP's much-heralded free vote on the invocation of the War Measures Act somehow serves as evidence that it shouldn't have free votes now.
In any event, there doesn't seem to be any particular evidence that the opposition parties have changed their roles from this spring, with the Libs wanting to appear responsible by avoiding an election and the NDP and Bloc voting against the Cons on confidence matters. And considering how the Libs got burned last time they tried to alter that equilibrium, it'll be a major surprise if we see any changes this fall.
In any event, there doesn't seem to be any particular evidence that the opposition parties have changed their roles from this spring, with the Libs wanting to appear responsible by avoiding an election and the NDP and Bloc voting against the Cons on confidence matters. And considering how the Libs got burned last time they tried to alter that equilibrium, it'll be a major surprise if we see any changes this fall.
On competing interests
Murray Mandryk is eager to canonize Brad Wall for offering up a "not yet" to BHP Billiton's takeover bid for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan even as he's set up a corporate-friendly process to tell him what to do. But before we buy Mandryk's claim that Wall's position reflects his first-ever inclination to protect Saskatchewan's interests over those of big business, let's note that there's another obvious explanation which wouldn't reflect so well on Wall.
As I noted from the outset when BHP Billiton's bid was first announced, Wall has already meddled in the potash industry by showering its competitor Mosaic with public money in exchange for a photo-op. And presumably in order to be able to use that "success story" in the 2011 election, Wall will need Mosaic onside. So doesn't it seem at least as likely that Wall's current position merely reflects an entirely predictable choice of crony capitalism over the unfettered free-market version?
As I noted from the outset when BHP Billiton's bid was first announced, Wall has already meddled in the potash industry by showering its competitor Mosaic with public money in exchange for a photo-op. And presumably in order to be able to use that "success story" in the 2011 election, Wall will need Mosaic onside. So doesn't it seem at least as likely that Wall's current position merely reflects an entirely predictable choice of crony capitalism over the unfettered free-market version?
On simple choices
Susan Riley's column on Jack Layton as a voice of cooperation and civility is well worth a read. But it's particularly worth highlighting what seems to me to be the greatest weakness in the Cons' anti-coalition hysteria:
But Layton's message nicely highlights why the Libs' choice should be an obvious one. Nothing they can say will get the Cons to stop talking incessantly about a coalition; the crucial question is whether a possible coalition will be seen by voters as a positive opportunity for parties to work together in Canada's best interest, or as an abomination against partisan nature as the Cons are arguing. And the longer the Libs try not to talk about the issue (rather than coming to the defence of the idea of cooperative politics), the more likely it is that the "perpetual war" model will win out.
(T)here is a larger battle being waged in our politics: between civility and common sense and cynicism and perpetual war. The next election could tell us not just which party wins, but what kind of people we are.I've made the point before that if the coalition issue is framed properly as a contest between Con tribalism against cooperative politics, it can turn against the Cons in a hurry - with the main danger for anybody opposed to Harper being the possibility that the Libs might get spooked enough to denounce the prospect of a coalition and do the Cons' work for them.
Layton is a natural optimist. He works hard at keeping open channels of communication with other leaders. Harper usually returns his calls. Michael Ignatieff is also talking to him these days, although it took a while. He regularly bumps into Gilles Duceppe at the gym.
"I don't feel animosity to any of those individuals," Layton said in a recent interview. "I try not to personalize things; I try to keep the lines open."
...
Layton laughs off the (coalition) threat, noting that "the (Conservatives) already have the ads made" no matter what the opposition does. In creating a coalition boogyman, Harper is "running against the notion that political parties should work together."
But Layton's message nicely highlights why the Libs' choice should be an obvious one. Nothing they can say will get the Cons to stop talking incessantly about a coalition; the crucial question is whether a possible coalition will be seen by voters as a positive opportunity for parties to work together in Canada's best interest, or as an abomination against partisan nature as the Cons are arguing. And the longer the Libs try not to talk about the issue (rather than coming to the defence of the idea of cooperative politics), the more likely it is that the "perpetual war" model will win out.
On test cases
There are plenty of questions floating around about what the Harper Cons can possibly think they're doing, whether by launching gratuitous partisan attacks in the least appropriate of venues or doubling down on a complete abandonment of reason on the gun registry. And it's true enough that those types of actions make very little sense from the standpoint of trying to gradually accumulate support toward a level that can win a majority.
But let's not forget that the Cons have seen their overall support stagnate or drop for the bulk of 2010: even when the Libs were collapsing in the spring and summer, the Cons seldom managed to move much past about 30-35% in the polls. And it's hard to see what they could possibly do over the next six months to a year (in which an election seems fairly likely) to substantially improve their underlying support base from an incremental building perspective.
With that in mind, the Cons' strategy at this point looks to be based almost entirely on trying to time an election with a temporary spike in support. And that impression is only reinforced by their coalition fearmongering, which is of course based on the theory that a temporary backlash (which dissipated in a matter of weeks even when based on real events rather than speculation) can be recreated to the Cons' advantage.
Meanwhile, the opposition parties don't seem to have much desire to force an election anytime soon. And that minimizes the potential downside for the Cons in taking some risks to test whether they can set up even a faintly plausible majority scenario this fall.
So one can fairly easily make sense of the Cons' brinksmanship by seeing it less in terms of an expectation of raising support, and more in terms of a shock intended to temporarily increase risk and variance levels in party support - with the upside of temporarily pulling an extra 5% of the vote into the Cons' corner to set up a snap election seen as worth both the risk of producing the opposite effect in the short term, and the damage done to the Cons' self-image of stability in the longer term.
But if that is the Cons' reasoning, then it only makes sense based on an admission that Harper's incremental strategy has failed, such that the Cons have little left to do but go for broke even if it means bleeding away soft support over time. And with the first couple of shocks earning the Cons nothing but criticism so far, we may not be far from the end of Harper's stay in power.
But let's not forget that the Cons have seen their overall support stagnate or drop for the bulk of 2010: even when the Libs were collapsing in the spring and summer, the Cons seldom managed to move much past about 30-35% in the polls. And it's hard to see what they could possibly do over the next six months to a year (in which an election seems fairly likely) to substantially improve their underlying support base from an incremental building perspective.
With that in mind, the Cons' strategy at this point looks to be based almost entirely on trying to time an election with a temporary spike in support. And that impression is only reinforced by their coalition fearmongering, which is of course based on the theory that a temporary backlash (which dissipated in a matter of weeks even when based on real events rather than speculation) can be recreated to the Cons' advantage.
Meanwhile, the opposition parties don't seem to have much desire to force an election anytime soon. And that minimizes the potential downside for the Cons in taking some risks to test whether they can set up even a faintly plausible majority scenario this fall.
So one can fairly easily make sense of the Cons' brinksmanship by seeing it less in terms of an expectation of raising support, and more in terms of a shock intended to temporarily increase risk and variance levels in party support - with the upside of temporarily pulling an extra 5% of the vote into the Cons' corner to set up a snap election seen as worth both the risk of producing the opposite effect in the short term, and the damage done to the Cons' self-image of stability in the longer term.
But if that is the Cons' reasoning, then it only makes sense based on an admission that Harper's incremental strategy has failed, such that the Cons have little left to do but go for broke even if it means bleeding away soft support over time. And with the first couple of shocks earning the Cons nothing but criticism so far, we may not be far from the end of Harper's stay in power.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Alone in the world
Lest anybody think Susan Delacourt's damning comparison of the relative international interest in hearing Stephen Harper compared to other leaders is an anomaly, let's not forget that this is far from the first time leaders from around the globe have distanced themselves from the Cons when given the chance. And one has to wonder how much of the rest of the world is waiting for Canada to do the same.
On irrelevant factors
Andrew Coyne points out the political convenience in Scott Simms' personal story - poignant though it is - being leaked to the media before yesterday's gun registry vote.
But I'd think the more important reason for cynicism about the story's leak is its irrelevance to a vote where Simms wasn't allowed to make decisions for himself. If one takes the Libs at their word in having a confirmed whip that was dictated by Michael Ignatieff as far back as April, then wasn't the "reason for (Simms') decision to support the long-gun registry" long since determined regardless of what happened since?
But I'd think the more important reason for cynicism about the story's leak is its irrelevance to a vote where Simms wasn't allowed to make decisions for himself. If one takes the Libs at their word in having a confirmed whip that was dictated by Michael Ignatieff as far back as April, then wasn't the "reason for (Simms') decision to support the long-gun registry" long since determined regardless of what happened since?
Thursday Morning Links
Assorted content for your perusal...
- Dr. Dawg picks up on a stunningly evasive answer from Gérard Latulippe of Rights and Democracy about the "forensic audit" which was supposed to have been made public six months ago. But I'm not sure that I agree with his description of the answer as "bafflegab": isn't it more of a flat-out declaration that he refuses to talk about the main issue facing his organization?
- Donald Savoie continues to be thoroughly unimpressed with the empty promises coming from Cons and Libs alike in New Brunswick's ongoing election. But while I can understand his not wanting to be seen taking any party's side, wouldn't it be worthwhile to mention the alternative which is actually talking honestly about the province's fiscal mess?
- Meanwhile, the federal NDP's push to make the Cons look completely out of touch with rural Canada seems to be proceeding nicely thanks to a concerted focus on issues that matter more than the long gun registry. Though as I noted yesterday, the especially fun part will come when the Cons get to stand up to try to defend keeping the registry as it stands as the NDP works to improve it.
- Finally, the Cons' distrust of evidence-based government has taken its most extreme form yet: apparently it's too intrusive to bother keeping track of how many health inspectors are actually monitoring livestock transportation.
- Dr. Dawg picks up on a stunningly evasive answer from Gérard Latulippe of Rights and Democracy about the "forensic audit" which was supposed to have been made public six months ago. But I'm not sure that I agree with his description of the answer as "bafflegab": isn't it more of a flat-out declaration that he refuses to talk about the main issue facing his organization?
- Donald Savoie continues to be thoroughly unimpressed with the empty promises coming from Cons and Libs alike in New Brunswick's ongoing election. But while I can understand his not wanting to be seen taking any party's side, wouldn't it be worthwhile to mention the alternative which is actually talking honestly about the province's fiscal mess?
- Meanwhile, the federal NDP's push to make the Cons look completely out of touch with rural Canada seems to be proceeding nicely thanks to a concerted focus on issues that matter more than the long gun registry. Though as I noted yesterday, the especially fun part will come when the Cons get to stand up to try to defend keeping the registry as it stands as the NDP works to improve it.
- Finally, the Cons' distrust of evidence-based government has taken its most extreme form yet: apparently it's too intrusive to bother keeping track of how many health inspectors are actually monitoring livestock transportation.
On failing strategies
The media narrative on the Cons' coalition fearmongering seems to be settling into place - and aside from the usual false assertion that the NDP joined the Libs in promising not to enter a coalition in 2008, the consensus seems to be that the Cons are misfiring badly. Here's the National Post editorial board:
(T)imes have changed. If the Liberals and New Democrats were now to admit that that they are open to coalition talks after the results of the next election are known...then claims that the two are engaged in a "coup d'etat" would fall on deaf ears.And even Lorne Gunter can't take the Cons' histrionics seriously:
(A)re the Tories guilty of still fighting the last battle, rather than the next one?
There was genuine outrage the last time a coalition reared its head, but conditions have changed enough since then that the outrage likely will not form again this time. It is no longer one month after the last election, for instance, as it was the last time the Liberals and New Democrats tried a coalition. Moreover, last time there was a genuine attempt to form a coalition, with real coalition papers drawn up and everything. Last time, the Libs and NDs were actually trying to pull one off. So far this time all we have are Tory scare stories about possible future coalitions. And fairy tales, while occasionally powerful in politics, as seldom as powerful the real deal.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
What comes next
No, the long gun registry isn't done with as an issue by any stretch of the imagination.
But it may get a lot more interesting in the wake of today's vote rejecting a bill to scrap it. With the NDP and Libs both apparently wanting to work on addressing the concerns of registry opponents, will the Cons now fight against efforts to make it less intrusive? And if so, will their donor base start to recognize just how blatantly it's been used on the issue for the past 15 years? Stay tuned...
But it may get a lot more interesting in the wake of today's vote rejecting a bill to scrap it. With the NDP and Libs both apparently wanting to work on addressing the concerns of registry opponents, will the Cons now fight against efforts to make it less intrusive? And if so, will their donor base start to recognize just how blatantly it's been used on the issue for the past 15 years? Stay tuned...
On healthy outcomes
There's little reason to think Jean Charest's attempt to impose health-care user fees will be the last provincial attack on the Canada Health Act, and plenty of work to be done to improve our health care system at both the provincial and federal levels. But it's still well worth celebrating a victory in preserving a universally accessible system when we get the opportunity. So congratulations to the activists who have now pushed Charest to abandon his scheme.
At long last, an introduction
For over five years I've kept this blog pseudonymous. And I'll stand by my argument that there's no reason why that should affect anybody's ability to enjoy or make use of the information on this or any other blog.
But of course, the pseudonymity has created some limitations on what I've been able to do in linking Accidental Deliberations to the rest of my persona. For example, I've avoided getting into the habit of pet blogging despite ample material to work with:
Now, thanks to an opportunity to participate in an interesting media project this week (more to come on that), I've been asked to put my name in the public domain. And so...
I'm Greg Fingas of Regina, Saskatchewan. I'm an associate at the Regina law firm of MLT, doing general litigation work and also specializing in information and privacy. Outside work, I keep busy with my involvement in the NDP provincially and federally as well as with the Saskatchewan Elocution and Debate Association. (Time for the mandatory disclaimer: this blog represents my opinion alone along with that of any guest contributors, and should not be taken as authorized by or representing the views of MLT, the NDP, SEDA or any other party.)
I'm blissfully married to Brandy, whose thoughtful organization and planning keeps the home fires burning even as she puts in tireless work in the non-profit sector. And the furry friends in the picture above are Wonder (until now the most-publicized member of our family) and Tigger.
I'll leave the post at that for now. Hopefully you'll enjoy the blog as it takes a turn for the more personal - and I'll look forward to being able to interact in new ways with readers and the political system at large.
But of course, the pseudonymity has created some limitations on what I've been able to do in linking Accidental Deliberations to the rest of my persona. For example, I've avoided getting into the habit of pet blogging despite ample material to work with:
Now, thanks to an opportunity to participate in an interesting media project this week (more to come on that), I've been asked to put my name in the public domain. And so...
I'm Greg Fingas of Regina, Saskatchewan. I'm an associate at the Regina law firm of MLT, doing general litigation work and also specializing in information and privacy. Outside work, I keep busy with my involvement in the NDP provincially and federally as well as with the Saskatchewan Elocution and Debate Association. (Time for the mandatory disclaimer: this blog represents my opinion alone along with that of any guest contributors, and should not be taken as authorized by or representing the views of MLT, the NDP, SEDA or any other party.)
I'm blissfully married to Brandy, whose thoughtful organization and planning keeps the home fires burning even as she puts in tireless work in the non-profit sector. And the furry friends in the picture above are Wonder (until now the most-publicized member of our family) and Tigger.
I'll leave the post at that for now. Hopefully you'll enjoy the blog as it takes a turn for the more personal - and I'll look forward to being able to interact in new ways with readers and the political system at large.
On oversimplification
Like most Canadian political junkies, I'm a big fan of the work of Eric at Three Hundred Eight in compiling poll results and modeling the possible electoral outcomes. But I'll use one of Eric's recent posts to highlight one of the main problems that arises where analysts oversimplify the effect of a particular seat distribution rather than acknowledging the place of the House of Commons as a whole.
Here's how Eric analyzes a "best-case scenario" (i.e. highest possible seat count) for the Liberals which would result in party standings of 127 Lib, 111 Con, 51 Bloc, 19 NDP:
So no, a push to the top of the party standings wouldn't guarantee the Libs a place in government. But then, nor would the Cons be assured of staying in power in a distribution of 148 Con, 87 Lib, 50 Bloc and 23 NDP as Eric suggests:
In fact, what Eric's analysis ultimately shows is that even under the most wildly optimistic scenarios based on current polling, no party figures to be in a position to govern without somebody else's support (except to the extent the Cons decide not to face the House). And that means that it's absolutely essential to take into account the possible permutations among the second, third, fourth and potentially fifth parties, rather than assuming that the party with the most seats will be able to form government.
Here's how Eric analyzes a "best-case scenario" (i.e. highest possible seat count) for the Liberals which would result in party standings of 127 Lib, 111 Con, 51 Bloc, 19 NDP:
As for the Liberals, their best case scenario is the thing the party has been hoping for since being defeated in 2006: a return to government.Of course, the problem with that analysis is that it leaves out the question of whether the Libs on their own would have any ability to gain the confidence of the House in the first place. After all, the Cons would formally stay in power following an election until they resigned or lost a confidence vote - and given the measures Stephen Harper has taken to stay in power in the past, would anybody be surprised if he either tries to proclaim that his party should remain in government (with Lib or Bloc support) for the sake of stability, or simply shuts down Ottawa as long as he can in hope of a do-over?
...
It's generally the same size of caucus that Paul Martin won in 2004, but the problem is that the Liberals would need to rely on the support of either the Bloc Quebecois or the Conservatives to get legislation passed - something Martin had to deal with as well.
So no, a push to the top of the party standings wouldn't guarantee the Libs a place in government. But then, nor would the Cons be assured of staying in power in a distribution of 148 Con, 87 Lib, 50 Bloc and 23 NDP as Eric suggests:
The Conservatives win 76 seats in the West and North, 55 in Ontario, nine in Atlantic Canada, and eight in Quebec. It ensures that their minority government survives for a few more sessions, but probably tests the patience of the Conservative Party for their three-time minority leader.Once again, this analysis avoids the question of whether the Cons would be able to secure enough support from another party to actually hold on for "a few more sessions". And as some of us have pointed out, Harper's "our majority or their majority" rhetoric may only be laying the groundwork for a coalition to replace his government to the extent democratic processes are allowed to run their course.
In fact, what Eric's analysis ultimately shows is that even under the most wildly optimistic scenarios based on current polling, no party figures to be in a position to govern without somebody else's support (except to the extent the Cons decide not to face the House). And that means that it's absolutely essential to take into account the possible permutations among the second, third, fourth and potentially fifth parties, rather than assuming that the party with the most seats will be able to form government.
On routine breaches
The bombshell news about regular and glaring breaches of Sean Bruyea's privacy by the Department of Veterans Affairs is obviously an important story in and of itself. But while most of the attention figures to be focused on Bruyea's case in particular, it's worth noting that he seems to be far from the only veteran whose privacy was violated:
Mr. Stogran said he was shocked to learn about what had been written about Mr. Bruyea. He said the security officer at the department told him around the time of his appointment in 2007 that his own file had been accessed at least 400 times.Of course, one of the purposes of privacy law is to ensure that "routine curiosity" can't be satisfied at the expense of individual rights - meaning that Stogran's example too calls out for a follow-up investigation. And if anybody with a remotely high profile can expect to have been subject to similar intrusions which don't appear to have raised any concerns even when information reached the ministerial or PMO levels, then there's ample reason to wonder just what other personal information has been misused - particularly since the Harper Cons started seeing any Canadian with a dissenting view as an enemy to be crushed.
Mr. Stogran said he thought it was just routine curiosity, but is now wondering.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
A test of ideology
Today's pop quiz is in essay and proof form:
Explain why private ownership and operation of publicly-funded projects is so innately valuable that the only apparent hope to secure federal funding for a possible Regina stadium is a dedicated P3 fund. Show your work.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Explain why private ownership and operation of publicly-funded projects is so innately valuable that the only apparent hope to secure federal funding for a possible Regina stadium is a dedicated P3 fund. Show your work.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
On misplaced celebration
Shorter Norman Spector:
Huzzah! We've successfully killed off any global action on climate change! Let's party while we burn!
Huzzah! We've successfully killed off any global action on climate change! Let's party while we burn!
The four-dimensional chess continues
Sure, at first it might seem like Jim Flaherty's speech today is more a matter of stale hyperpartisan excess than meaningful strategy.
But let's keep in mind that the Pirate Party of Canada exists, and indeed may be running candidates by the next election campaign. Is it completely out of the question that the Cons are so devoid of substance as to have concluded their best chance at a majority is to confuse voters about which party is which, and hope that voters mark the Pirate Party box when meaning to vote for their friendly neighbourhood potential-coalition candidate?
It may be too early to say. But if John Baird starts referring to Michael Ignatieff as a rhinoceros without any apparent explanation, we'll know what he's up to.
But let's keep in mind that the Pirate Party of Canada exists, and indeed may be running candidates by the next election campaign. Is it completely out of the question that the Cons are so devoid of substance as to have concluded their best chance at a majority is to confuse voters about which party is which, and hope that voters mark the Pirate Party box when meaning to vote for their friendly neighbourhood potential-coalition candidate?
It may be too early to say. But if John Baird starts referring to Michael Ignatieff as a rhinoceros without any apparent explanation, we'll know what he's up to.
Beyond Bay Street
Let's add one final follow-up point to Jack Layton's speech at the NDP's Regina caucus meeting last week. While it's never surprising to hear Layton point out the problems with corporate privilege (and indeed a major plus that he and the NDP continue to do so), it's worth noting that the phrasing of Layton's message seems to have been based more on tapping into past themes than a thorough depiction of current corporate culture:
At the same time, though, there's some risk in focusing solely on domestic interests when the battle between people and profits is playing out no less obviously on the global stage. While it's useful in some sense to point primarily to examples which will be readily familiar to observers, it's also important not to be seen as addressing only parochial Canadian concerns while ignoring the bigger picture. And indeed, the surest way to lose in a long-term contest between people and profits is to aim solely at national policy questions when capital can flow freely around the world.
What's more, it's not as if there's any lack of material worth pointing out on the global front. Indeed, the Harper Cons have been among the worst offenders in favouring big-money interests around the world, with examples ranging from their efforts to push through free-trade agreements with violent regimes to their cheerleading for gratuitously expensive military procurement to their stonewalling on behalf of the oil industry against any meaningful action to fight climate change.
So while it's well and good to criticize the Cons' corporatism, it may be time to move past targeting Bay Street above the similar battles taking place around the globe.
Stephen Harper isn’t helping out the middle class family. He’s giving breaks to Bay Street bankers.Again, the "Bay Street" language is bound to be well-known in NDP circles. And it's true enough that the largest beneficiaries of the Cons' corporate tax slashing will be the biggest Canadian banks.
5 billion dollars worth this year alone.
The very people who need the help the least.
At the same time, though, there's some risk in focusing solely on domestic interests when the battle between people and profits is playing out no less obviously on the global stage. While it's useful in some sense to point primarily to examples which will be readily familiar to observers, it's also important not to be seen as addressing only parochial Canadian concerns while ignoring the bigger picture. And indeed, the surest way to lose in a long-term contest between people and profits is to aim solely at national policy questions when capital can flow freely around the world.
What's more, it's not as if there's any lack of material worth pointing out on the global front. Indeed, the Harper Cons have been among the worst offenders in favouring big-money interests around the world, with examples ranging from their efforts to push through free-trade agreements with violent regimes to their cheerleading for gratuitously expensive military procurement to their stonewalling on behalf of the oil industry against any meaningful action to fight climate change.
So while it's well and good to criticize the Cons' corporatism, it may be time to move past targeting Bay Street above the similar battles taking place around the globe.
Tuesday Morning Links
A few items that have come to my attention...
- this magazine points out seven private members' bills that deserve to be enacted - and the list is well worth a read. But let's not forget what may be the most significant private members' bill currently in the pipeline: the Climate Change Accountability Act, which has already managed to pass among Canada's elected representatives but at last notice was being held up by Cons in the Senate.
- Unfortunately, Murray Dobbin's proposed Police State Watch looks like it's sorely needed based on his stark examples of how peaceful dissent is being treated as a matter of criminality or even pathology.
- If anybody thought B.C.'s anti-HST movement would slow down now that Gordon Campbell has offered a vote somewhere down the road on the Libs' preferred terms, that notion has been put to rest. Instead, the recall campaign looks to be moving at full speed ahead - and even having some fun in deciding which MLAs will bear the brunt of citizens' frustration with the Campbell government.
- Brian Topp points out how the PC Trust Fund controversy fits into Brad Wall's wider problems:
- this magazine points out seven private members' bills that deserve to be enacted - and the list is well worth a read. But let's not forget what may be the most significant private members' bill currently in the pipeline: the Climate Change Accountability Act, which has already managed to pass among Canada's elected representatives but at last notice was being held up by Cons in the Senate.
- Unfortunately, Murray Dobbin's proposed Police State Watch looks like it's sorely needed based on his stark examples of how peaceful dissent is being treated as a matter of criminality or even pathology.
- If anybody thought B.C.'s anti-HST movement would slow down now that Gordon Campbell has offered a vote somewhere down the road on the Libs' preferred terms, that notion has been put to rest. Instead, the recall campaign looks to be moving at full speed ahead - and even having some fun in deciding which MLAs will bear the brunt of citizens' frustration with the Campbell government.
- Brian Topp points out how the PC Trust Fund controversy fits into Brad Wall's wider problems:
(T)he increasingly successful New Democratic opposition, led by former deputy premier Dwain Lingenfelter, have been handed a useful prop to demonstrate the direct link between Mr. Wall's government and Mr. Devine's former administration and record.- Finally, the Cons offer yet another example of what they believe deserves funding ahead of democratic diversity - spending a record $130 million to advertise themselves at public expense in 2009. (Which, for those keeping track at home, is four times the amount they want to axe in per-vote funding to political parties as being unnecessary for political promotion.)
Mr. Wall seems to have a problem with money. His government made a $2-billion mistake estimating the province's revenues this year, patched over through a set of desperate expedients. He must be tempted to take the $3-million in that fund and burn it in the parking lot in front of the Legislature -- not unlike what he has done to the provincial finances. Instead, the fund is doing a slow burn inside the "Saskatchewan Party's" carefully-reconstructed brand.
Monday, September 20, 2010
On futile efforts
I'm not sure if anybody actually held out hope that the Harper Cons would live up to their perpetual empty promises of civility this fall. But surely any such optimism has to be snuffed out by the news that the Cons can't even mourn a cancer victim without taking shots at their political opponents.
On shared barriers
Naturally, the Globe and Mail tries to spin the issue as being one of bureaucratic "red tape". But let's be more accurate about the real problem faced by the Peace Region Internet Society in its efforts to bring high-speed wireless Internet access to remote parts of British Columbia: it's been told that it can't apply to use a portion of the public wireless spectrum unless it adopts a corporate share structure:
Hopefully the group involved will find a way to keep improving its services - whether or not that involves going to the trouble of setting up more formal corporate structures in order to meet the Canadian control requirement. But the fact that federal policy dictates that only corporate formations may make use of public airwaves should serve as yet another example of our culture of corporate privilege, rather than reason to complain about "red tape".
(Edit: fixed wording.)
(T)he society was...deemed un-Canadian because it does not issue shares. The organization instead relies upon a structure where any profits are plunged back into providing services to its members in remote areas.Now, it may not be much of a secret that far too many would see organizing wireless Internet service around a non-profit model as being un-Canadian, as what could possibly motivate action other than the pursuit of corporate gain? But it's remarkable to learn that such an assumption is actually codified into law, serving as an entry barrier against cooperative efforts to solve problems within a community.
“The definition of being Canadian-owned and -controlled requires that Canadians beneficially own 80 per cent of the corporation’s voting shares (issued and outstanding), and the [Peace Region society], being a corporation without share capital, does not issue voting shares and therefore doesn’t meet the requirement,” said an e-mail from an Industry Canada official.
Hopefully the group involved will find a way to keep improving its services - whether or not that involves going to the trouble of setting up more formal corporate structures in order to meet the Canadian control requirement. But the fact that federal policy dictates that only corporate formations may make use of public airwaves should serve as yet another example of our culture of corporate privilege, rather than reason to complain about "red tape".
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Taken for granted
Let's quickly pick up on one of the more notable messages developed by the federal NDP during its caucus retreat in Regina. Jack Layton's quote that the Cons have taken Western voters for granted is itself a theme worth focusing on - but it's especially worth noting how the message is being applied to the Cons' main attempt to pursue rural votes:
And what's more, rather than merely suggesting that voters consider changing their minds, it actually sets a precedent for doing so - while avoiding too judgmental a line toward those who have cast votes for the Cons in the past based on the promise of better than the Harper government has been willing to offer. Which makes for an ideal starting point for Layton's extended argument about the need to build bridges rather than bombing them.
Of course, the major question is whether the NDP can make the message stick, particularly in the face of the Cons' big-money ad blitz. But it can never hurt for MPs to send the message that they share voters' concerns in dealing with the governing party. And particularly with the message of cooperation winning plenty of plaudits, it may well turn out that Saskatchewan voters who have probably been taken for granted by the Cons more than any across the country will join Angus and others in deciding they've had enough.
At the Ottawa news conference, meanwhile, Mr. Angus said his mind was changed, in part, by the aggressive tactics being employed by Mr. Harper and his team to pressure MPs not to change their votes.In effect, Angus' message looks to be identifying the position of NDP MPs with that of rural swing voters who may have supported the Cons in recent elections. Having been willing to look at the Cons' position on the merits, both have then been treated rudely for their trouble, even as the Cons continue to demand their votes.
“The Conservatives have taken our votes for granted. ... They have not addressed our rural concerns,” Mr. Angus said. “They’ve attacked the credibility of our front-line police officers. Now in these last desperate days they have taken to their attack billboards and their radio ads in trying to intimidate MPs into voting for them.”
And what's more, rather than merely suggesting that voters consider changing their minds, it actually sets a precedent for doing so - while avoiding too judgmental a line toward those who have cast votes for the Cons in the past based on the promise of better than the Harper government has been willing to offer. Which makes for an ideal starting point for Layton's extended argument about the need to build bridges rather than bombing them.
Of course, the major question is whether the NDP can make the message stick, particularly in the face of the Cons' big-money ad blitz. But it can never hurt for MPs to send the message that they share voters' concerns in dealing with the governing party. And particularly with the message of cooperation winning plenty of plaudits, it may well turn out that Saskatchewan voters who have probably been taken for granted by the Cons more than any across the country will join Angus and others in deciding they've had enough.
Meanwhile...
...I can only conclude that Brian Lilley's Fraser Institute contacts just missed his call when he went trolling for government-bashing quotes to fill an article whipped up in a span of 15 minutes. Because how else can one explain the omission of Canada's leading market dogmatists from a piece so obviously devoted to preaching their gospel unquestioned?
On selective outrage
Shorter Kevin Libin:
BREAKING SCANDAL! An organization funded in part by anonymous donors may have attempted to INFLUENCE CANADIAN POLITICS up to three times over a four-year period!!!
More cases of the vapours as this story develops. We now return to our regularly-scheduled parade of guest columns graciously provided by the Manning Centre, the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation...
(Edits: fixed wording; updated link as per comments.)
BREAKING SCANDAL! An organization funded in part by anonymous donors may have attempted to INFLUENCE CANADIAN POLITICS up to three times over a four-year period!!!
More cases of the vapours as this story develops. We now return to our regularly-scheduled parade of guest columns graciously provided by the Manning Centre, the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation...
(Edits: fixed wording; updated link as per comments.)
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Sunday Night Links
This and that to start your week...
- It's worth noting that Jim Prentice's reaction to fish deformities resulting from the tar sands is somewhat out of character for the Cons, consisting more of respectful acknowledgment than of immediate dismissal. But I still won't be holding my breath waiting for the Cons to do anything but stonewall any meaningful study or action.
- Alex Himelfarb comments on the insidious effect of social traps on the course of policy development:
- Michael Geist rightly skewers some "shockingly misleading" copyright propaganda. But aren't we past being shocked by now?
- Rick Salutin's column tracing the Straussian roots of Stephen Harper's political strategy doesn't cover a lot of new ground. But his theory that Canada's political scene might have offered an ideal target is worth some further discussion:
- Finally, while the two-party dynamic has once again made it difficult to get traction, the New Brunswick NDP seems to be getting a well-deserved positive reception for its economic plans. And this CBC piece presenting the party's job tax credit is well worth a look - particularly Tony Myatt's closing line:
- It's worth noting that Jim Prentice's reaction to fish deformities resulting from the tar sands is somewhat out of character for the Cons, consisting more of respectful acknowledgment than of immediate dismissal. But I still won't be holding my breath waiting for the Cons to do anything but stonewall any meaningful study or action.
- Alex Himelfarb comments on the insidious effect of social traps on the course of policy development:
(T)here is a good deal of room to disagree about which priorities merit our tax dollars and which criteria to use to assess what works. This is what politics is all about. But even among those who value a particular program, say public education or medicare, or agree on the value of particular public investments, say greening the economy, there will be tax reluctance if there is no trust. That’s the perfect social trap. We know what is in our shared interest but we do not have sufficient trust to do what is needed. For example, a recent Canadian study demonstrates how much money could be saved through a national pharmacare program, not to mention the benefits to health, productivity and social justice. Some Canadians will of course react with immediate horror at the very idea but, putting this aside for the moment, would those who do embrace the idea be willing to pay more taxes for it? Some will say, yes to the idea but ask, why me for more taxes, why not those who can most afford it or who derive most benefit from the advantages of Canada’s opportunities or who do most damage for example through pollution. Some will say that too many people will exploit the system, overuse it or worse, and I am not going to pay for that. And some will say government simply cannot deliver the goods. No trust. No taxes. Trapped.And sadly, Colby Cosh is working on ensnaring us all the more thoroughly.
- Michael Geist rightly skewers some "shockingly misleading" copyright propaganda. But aren't we past being shocked by now?
- Rick Salutin's column tracing the Straussian roots of Stephen Harper's political strategy doesn't cover a lot of new ground. But his theory that Canada's political scene might have offered an ideal target is worth some further discussion:
One can see the appeal of Canada to Straussians. The U.S. always had so much fevered religiosity, hypernationalism and paranoid individualism, you hardly needed to seed them there by stealth. Here, though, we still have liberals, Liberals, even social democrats. We may be Straussianism’s happy hunting ground.And might one add that a relatively civil scene on all sides prior to Harper's ascension made us ripe for manipulation?
- Finally, while the two-party dynamic has once again made it difficult to get traction, the New Brunswick NDP seems to be getting a well-deserved positive reception for its economic plans. And this CBC piece presenting the party's job tax credit is well worth a look - particularly Tony Myatt's closing line:
On systemic responses
A couple of Kady O'Malley's tweets from this morning offer a useful shorthand to describe how to define parliamentary privilege and confidence conventions. But it's worth noting exactly how the Harper Cons have tested the limits of both terms by Kady's definition, and questioning what it means for Canadian parliamentary democracy in years to come:
After all, if a future PM does indeed go bonkers, Harper has managed to set the precedent that even the most obviously-insane executive can cling to power indefinitely by refusing to allow the House of Commons to carry out a scheduled vote of non-confidence against it. (Which surely can't be the preferred outcome of anybody looking at the situation from any standpoint other than a current government which has maneuvered itself to the brink of disaster.) And unfortunately, that precedent has been set due to Harper's testing the limits of exactly what a prime minister can do to avoid the will of a majority of elected representatives.
Likewise, parliamentary privilege related to MPs' access to government documents and witnesses has taken a beating over the past few years. And that can be traced directly to the Cons' efforts to ensure the "destruction" of any opposition capacity to find out what its government is up to and hold it to account - even in cases where the apparent cost of allowing Parliamentary access to documents and witnesses wouldn't seem to justify the level of brinksmanship.
In effect, in trying to push the limits of executive power as long as they hold it, the Cons have converted the well-known maxim that "hard cases make bad law" into an invitation rather than a warning - systematically weakening the ability of our democratic system by forcing no-win choices. And while one can argue that there's some value in figuring out exactly where the limits of our democratic system lie, I'd think it's long past time to conclude that we're best off dealing with a few less direct questions about what to do in the face of an out-of-control Prime Minister than we can possibly expect as long as Harper remains in power.
i personally find it easiest to think of most confidence-related conventions in terms of what options the House has if the PM goes bonkers.So what can we say about how Parliament will function under both of those circumstances based on the time the Harper Cons have spent in office? Sadly, we've had plenty of chances to test both - with most of the movement going in the direction of bolstering the cause of out-of-control executives, and even the limited pushback resulting only from the Cons' efforts to further expand the boundaries of unilateral executive action.
.. and privilege matters in terms of how we would protect parliament against a demented, raging crown bent on its destruction.
After all, if a future PM does indeed go bonkers, Harper has managed to set the precedent that even the most obviously-insane executive can cling to power indefinitely by refusing to allow the House of Commons to carry out a scheduled vote of non-confidence against it. (Which surely can't be the preferred outcome of anybody looking at the situation from any standpoint other than a current government which has maneuvered itself to the brink of disaster.) And unfortunately, that precedent has been set due to Harper's testing the limits of exactly what a prime minister can do to avoid the will of a majority of elected representatives.
Likewise, parliamentary privilege related to MPs' access to government documents and witnesses has taken a beating over the past few years. And that can be traced directly to the Cons' efforts to ensure the "destruction" of any opposition capacity to find out what its government is up to and hold it to account - even in cases where the apparent cost of allowing Parliamentary access to documents and witnesses wouldn't seem to justify the level of brinksmanship.
In effect, in trying to push the limits of executive power as long as they hold it, the Cons have converted the well-known maxim that "hard cases make bad law" into an invitation rather than a warning - systematically weakening the ability of our democratic system by forcing no-win choices. And while one can argue that there's some value in figuring out exactly where the limits of our democratic system lie, I'd think it's long past time to conclude that we're best off dealing with a few less direct questions about what to do in the face of an out-of-control Prime Minister than we can possibly expect as long as Harper remains in power.
Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging
Most of the discussion following the 'Riders' stunning victory over Calgary has revolved around Ken Miller's odd decision to try to win the game with a punt single rather than a 35-yard field goal. But while that choice was certainly an odd one, the bigger story in the game was that the 'Riders were in a position to win to begin with against a team that had been demolishing all comers - and that they did it by adding elements to their offence that had seldom been seen in 2010.
Keep in mind that Calgary's defensive success over the past few years has been based largely on its being willing to trust the Stamps' secondary in regular man-to-man coverage - accepting slightly greater vulnerability to big plays if an offence could beat a top-level defensive back as the price of having more defenders available to load up the line of scrimmage. And Calgary has been more successful than ever this season in making that tradeoff work to their advantage.
Which looked to create serious problems for a Saskatchewan offence which hadn't made effective use of long passes in recent memory, and whose already-porous line seemed likely to let Calgary's defenders get to Darian Durant before he'd have time to set up deep throws. But the 'Riders managed to create just enough time for Durant to get the ball away on plenty of deep routes. And from there, a combination of great plays by the 'Riders' receivers and perfect timing or luck resulted in the 'Riders completing as many long (50-yard) passing plays as they had in their previous 10 games combined - not to mention putting up a total of 12 20+ yard gains based on a combination of passes to four different receivers and runs by Durant and Hugh Charles.
While the 'Riders amassed some yardage with more conventional offence as well, I don't think there's much room to argue that they would have come close to the Stamps if they hadn't put such a constant emphasis on big plays. Durant posted what has to be a remarkably low number of completions (23) and completion percentage (59%) for a 500-yard game, while Wes Cates was once again shut down on the ground. So the 'Riders had little choice but to match the Stamps' high-risk, high-reward defence with an equally aggressive offence - and the gamble obviously paid off.
Meanwhile, the 'Riders' defence fared about as well as can be expected against Calgary's high-powered offence. While 30 offensive points (plus a touchdown off a turnover) is normally more than a team can afford to give up, the 'Riders held the Stamps to a thoroughly mediocre ground performance, and managed to stop Henry Burris' passing attack as well when it counted most.
The bad news for the 'Riders is that their plan of attack against Calgary doesn't figure to work all that well against any other CFL team - meaning that if they plan to rely on winning shootouts in the future, they have plenty of work to do adding accuracy to their mid-range offensive game. But it's still a huge plus to see Durant's offence going toe-to-toe with one of the league's elite defences and producing enough long-range fireworks to win - and that looks to be a more important story going forward than the late-game maneuverings that nearly blew the 'Riders' chance to win.
Keep in mind that Calgary's defensive success over the past few years has been based largely on its being willing to trust the Stamps' secondary in regular man-to-man coverage - accepting slightly greater vulnerability to big plays if an offence could beat a top-level defensive back as the price of having more defenders available to load up the line of scrimmage. And Calgary has been more successful than ever this season in making that tradeoff work to their advantage.
Which looked to create serious problems for a Saskatchewan offence which hadn't made effective use of long passes in recent memory, and whose already-porous line seemed likely to let Calgary's defenders get to Darian Durant before he'd have time to set up deep throws. But the 'Riders managed to create just enough time for Durant to get the ball away on plenty of deep routes. And from there, a combination of great plays by the 'Riders' receivers and perfect timing or luck resulted in the 'Riders completing as many long (50-yard) passing plays as they had in their previous 10 games combined - not to mention putting up a total of 12 20+ yard gains based on a combination of passes to four different receivers and runs by Durant and Hugh Charles.
While the 'Riders amassed some yardage with more conventional offence as well, I don't think there's much room to argue that they would have come close to the Stamps if they hadn't put such a constant emphasis on big plays. Durant posted what has to be a remarkably low number of completions (23) and completion percentage (59%) for a 500-yard game, while Wes Cates was once again shut down on the ground. So the 'Riders had little choice but to match the Stamps' high-risk, high-reward defence with an equally aggressive offence - and the gamble obviously paid off.
Meanwhile, the 'Riders' defence fared about as well as can be expected against Calgary's high-powered offence. While 30 offensive points (plus a touchdown off a turnover) is normally more than a team can afford to give up, the 'Riders held the Stamps to a thoroughly mediocre ground performance, and managed to stop Henry Burris' passing attack as well when it counted most.
The bad news for the 'Riders is that their plan of attack against Calgary doesn't figure to work all that well against any other CFL team - meaning that if they plan to rely on winning shootouts in the future, they have plenty of work to do adding accuracy to their mid-range offensive game. But it's still a huge plus to see Durant's offence going toe-to-toe with one of the league's elite defences and producing enough long-range fireworks to win - and that looks to be a more important story going forward than the late-game maneuverings that nearly blew the 'Riders' chance to win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)