Sure, Greg is right to criticize the Libs for being willing to provoke a national unity crisis for political gain. But I'm not sure when that became reason for surprise: have we already forgotten that the party's main Quebec strategy during its stay in government from 1993 to 2006 involved picking fights with the Bloc in order to create the most polarized environment possible between sovereigntists and nationalists, then happily taking the smaller share of that split?
Which isn't to say there aren't a couple of difference this time out.
First, there's the fact that the Libs' strategy is one which has been emphatically repudiated by actual Quebec voters every time they've had the chance.
Provincially, it was the ADQ who first stunned the Libs and their stage adversaries in the PQ by suggesting that maybe that polarization didn't make for the best way of viewing politics. (And while the ADQ didn't end up having much else to offer, there's no particular indication that its later decline actually reflected any change from that inclination.)
Now, the NDP has swept the province federally with substantially the same message about looking beyond the tired old sovereignty battle, combined with an appeal to work together to achieve better results for Quebec and Canada alike.
Given that history, a party interested in learning from its mistakes might respond by looking for some way to fit into a new alignment in Quebec. But if the Libs insist on going back to the same well even after it's proven to have run dry, that only looks like all the more reason to treat them as utterly irrelevant.
And indeed, the other major difference between this and past efforts to use sovereignty as a wedge issue is that this time, the Libs have been reduced to trying to fabricate an issue which is far removed from any substantive effect.
Of course they've had some help, as it's remarkable how quick the media has been to jump all over Jack Layton with future hypotheticals when it's Stephen Harper's definition of a valid referendum that will actually dictate what happens in the near future. But at some point, they're bound to notice that instead of being able to point to any principles or common vision as they try to define themselves and rebuild from electoral disaster, they apparently have nothing better to do than to try to foment divisions in a stronger opposition party. And while that may keep the Libs' hyperpartisans busy, it hardly figures to improve their perception in the general public.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- thwap is among a few bloggers to rightly slam the Cons' obscene message to flooded Quebeckers that the only way they can hope for help is if somebody stands to profit from it:
- But even while recognizing how the Libs' reversal fully validates the NDP's position on corporate taxes, Seth Klein points out some significant obstacles to the move based on their previous rationale for lowering the corporate income tax rate:
- thwap is among a few bloggers to rightly slam the Cons' obscene message to flooded Quebeckers that the only way they can hope for help is if somebody stands to profit from it:
Toews (is) justifying removing Canadian Forces from helping with the clean-up after a Quebec flood, NOT apparently as punishment for Quebec voters having rejected harpercon villainy, but because they're worried that they'll displace private sector service providers inspired by the idea of profiting from their misfortune.- Erin notes the good news in the B.C. Libs' latest HST machinations:Furthermore, the services you're asking for -- if they were authorized -- would place the Canadian Forces in competition with the private sector, at the local or provincial level, which could perform this type of repair work.Ah! But Vic! Doesn't the same logic justify having all our work in Afghanistan carried out by mercenaries and private prison contractors? Why should we deprive mercenaries of a chance to make a buck out of some misplaced devotion to archaic ideas about who should fight wars on the taxpayers' dime?
Now that BC’s opposition has successfully pushed back on the HST, the government is starting to follow the logic of its own argument, promising to combine the HST with a corporate tax increase. However, the reversal of BC’s corporate tax cuts would not collect enough revenue to fully offset the removal of sales tax from business inputs.
Nevertheless, this development seems to improve the chances of BC restoring its corporate tax rate to a more appropriate level. More broadly, it weakens the narrative that corporate taxes must always and everywhere decline. The business lobby’s acceptance of the government’s plan undermines its usual claims that raising corporate taxes would be unimaginably horrible.
- But even while recognizing how the Libs' reversal fully validates the NDP's position on corporate taxes, Seth Klein points out some significant obstacles to the move based on their previous rationale for lowering the corporate income tax rate:
More importantly, the government has now acknowledged that we can increase corporate income taxes and the sky will not fall. It is no small irony that when Adrian Dix proposed during the NDP leadership race that corporate income taxes be returned to their 2008 level, he was accused by government representatives and media pundits of being a “class warrior”. Yet now Christy Clark has proposed doing just that (and even gone a step further with a proposed delay to planned reductions in the small business tax rate).- Finally, Dan Gardner finds plenty of Stephen Harper positions which look to be mostly unassailable - but only if one goes back as far as 1996 when he was the one challenging the type of distorted top-down politics he now practices:
And another rather delicious irony: those corporate income taxes reductions since 2008 were part of the carbon tax’s revenue recycling regime. Meaning, if the government did actually increase the corporate income tax, they would have to amend their carbon tax legislation, which requires that the tax be revenue neutral. Again, I’m all for that. The CCPA has long said that making the carbon tax revenue neutral (and giving big tax cuts to business) made little sense, and that the carbon tax income should be partially used to fund other climate initiatives. So nice to know the new Premier is now ready to break with revenue neutrality there.
"In today's democratic societies, organizations share power," wrote two conservative intellectuals.
"Corporations, churches, universities, hospitals, even public sector bureaucracies make decisions through consultation, committees, and consensus-building techniques. Only in politics do we still entrust power to a single faction expected to prevail every time over the opposition by sheer force of numbers.
Even more anachronistically, we persist in structuring the governing team like a military regiment under a single commander with almost total power to appoint, discipline, and expel subordinates. Among major democracies, only Great Britain so ruthlessly concentrates power."
That's a pretty good summary of what I've been writing lately about the Conservative government.
Which is curious. Because the authors are Tom Flanagan and Stephen Harper. Flanagan is a conservative political scientist. And Stephen Harper, well, you know him.
...
"The two parties could begin by agreeing to advocate electoral reform." Scrapping the first-past-the-post system is a realistic possibility, Harper and Flanagan wrote, because the NDP would support it, "allowing even a minority conservative government to pass the necessary legislation."
It was an essential step. "Many of Canada's problems stem from a winner-take-all style of politics that allows governments in Ottawa to impose measures abhorred by large areas of the country."
Change a few details and the Harper/Flanagan essay could be published today. Word for word.
...
"Right now, if Harper wanted to, he could be a complete dictator, because there is no way to stop a majority government," Conservative senator Bert Brown observed recently.
There was a time when conservatives found that appalling. But an awful lot of them seem quite comfortable with it today.
What they find appalling, what makes them quiver with indignation, is a journalist who makes the same arguments they once did about a prime minister who has become what he once opposed.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
On shadows
A couple of quick notes on the NDP's shadow cabinet announced today...
The most intriguing set of announcements comes in the form of several up-and-coming MPs assigned to a counterintuitive set of roles. Indeed, if one had to guess on the placement of Linda Duncan, Megan Leslie and Romeo Saganash among Environment, Aboriginal Affairs and Natural Resources, one might have wondered what link Leslie had to Natural Resources before guessing wrong at all three.
But as a matter of strengthening the NDP's front benches for years to come, it makes plenty of sense to ensure that a number of its strongest MPs get exposed to multiple different portfolios - making the superficially surprising shifts look to have plenty of potential to help the party's future growth.
That said, there is one slightly worrisome side to the new strategy. Rather than including positions to address issues like poverty, child care, Crown corporations and (particularly surprisingly) youth which have been mentioned in past critic assignments, the new shadow cabinet effectively sticks to the Cons' definitions of the role of government - which has the unfortunate effect of giving no direct critic profile to some of the causes where the NDP's efforts will be most important in highlighting issues the Cons would like to ignore.
Of course, the fact that the NDP hasn't set up critic roles doesn't mean that it can't still raise those issues. But it's still worth being careful about allowing the Cons to define which subject are to be taken off the table for the next four years.
The most intriguing set of announcements comes in the form of several up-and-coming MPs assigned to a counterintuitive set of roles. Indeed, if one had to guess on the placement of Linda Duncan, Megan Leslie and Romeo Saganash among Environment, Aboriginal Affairs and Natural Resources, one might have wondered what link Leslie had to Natural Resources before guessing wrong at all three.
But as a matter of strengthening the NDP's front benches for years to come, it makes plenty of sense to ensure that a number of its strongest MPs get exposed to multiple different portfolios - making the superficially surprising shifts look to have plenty of potential to help the party's future growth.
That said, there is one slightly worrisome side to the new strategy. Rather than including positions to address issues like poverty, child care, Crown corporations and (particularly surprisingly) youth which have been mentioned in past critic assignments, the new shadow cabinet effectively sticks to the Cons' definitions of the role of government - which has the unfortunate effect of giving no direct critic profile to some of the causes where the NDP's efforts will be most important in highlighting issues the Cons would like to ignore.
Of course, the fact that the NDP hasn't set up critic roles doesn't mean that it can't still raise those issues. But it's still worth being careful about allowing the Cons to define which subject are to be taken off the table for the next four years.
On continued momentum
In case there's any doubt, the usual caveats about paying too much attention to polling are probably all the more important now that any federal election is more than four years away. But with that caution out of the way, it's certainly worth watching whether the response of voters to a transformational election is to keep moving in the same direction, or to revert to previous patterns.
On that front, at least the first indications suggest that we're looking at the former - with the NDP holding onto its election-day vote share in Quebec, and actually gaining ground in the rest of Canada. And the more NDP support comes to be the new normal among voters who changed their minds over the course of the election campaign, the better the chances of the party being able to build on that base for years to come.
On that front, at least the first indications suggest that we're looking at the former - with the NDP holding onto its election-day vote share in Quebec, and actually gaining ground in the rest of Canada. And the more NDP support comes to be the new normal among voters who changed their minds over the course of the election campaign, the better the chances of the party being able to build on that base for years to come.
New column day
Here, on how the Wall government has turned what would be considered "corrupt practices" in any other voting process into a rational strategy for employers trying to prevent workers from organizing.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
The challenge ahead
Brian Topp nicely sums up the next steps for the NDP:
So our friends (the folks used to running things) are going to stop ignoring us. They will shortly stop laughing. And then they're going to fight.
New Democrats should welcome this – it is how Canada's entitled are going to inadvertently communicate to the people of Canada that the NDP is close to victory. We won't be hearing about “don't waste your vote” any more. Now it's going to be “don't make a terrible mistake”.
Which gets us to the core of the business that lies before the New Democrats over the next four years: That is to earn the new role Canadians have given the party and to build on it – into a governing mandate – whether the voices of the past like it or not.
On selective benefits
We'll find out before too long whether the B.C. Libs' latest attempt to survive the imposition of the HST will be any more successful than what they've tried for the last two years. But the more interesting effect of today's announcement may be its impact on the other province which harmonized its taxes at the same time.
Here's the message which I'm sure will be repeated plenty more as the HST referendum progresses:
Now, with B.C.'s government publicly acknowledging the real consequences of the HST and at least trying to paper over its effects, the Ontario Libs figure to have an even tougher time defending their choices. And it shouldn't come as much surprise if it's the party which has offered the more accurate critique of the HST all along that benefits as a result.
Here's the message which I'm sure will be repeated plenty more as the HST referendum progresses:
In order to head off that fiscal reckoning, the B.C. Liberals propose to raise corporate taxes by two points effective Jan 1 of next year and to postpone a scheduled reduction in the small business tax.Of course, in Ontario that benefit to the corporate sector from the HST was packaged with...more benefits to the corporate sector in the form of income tax cuts. And all this just before the McGuinty government declared that it had to start cutting back on public services due to the deficit which ballooned as a result of those giveaways.
The moves constitute a reversal of longstanding tax policy under the B.C. Liberals, who've systematically reduced taxes on the business sector. When the New Democrats proposed similar increases, the Liberals denounced them, saying it would negatively impact the investment climate.'
But Finance Minister Kevin Falcon justified the increases by saying that the corporate sector had enjoyed most of the benefits of the tax shift under the HST.
Now, with B.C.'s government publicly acknowledging the real consequences of the HST and at least trying to paper over its effects, the Ontario Libs figure to have an even tougher time defending their choices. And it shouldn't come as much surprise if it's the party which has offered the more accurate critique of the HST all along that benefits as a result.
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- As part of her look at what lies ahead for the NDP, Barbara Yaffe recognizes why it figures to make for a tougher opponent than the Libs have over the past few years:
- While plenty of people have pointed to Stephane Dion's paper for the MacDonald-Laurier Institute, I'm not sure anybody else has noticed what looks like a major part of the story.
Namely, when did Stephane Dion start writing for a Con-promoted and funded special interest group which mostly serves as a front for Con spin? And if the likes of Dion are lending their names and opinions to the greater glory of the Cons' cronies, what does that say about the Libs' hopes of building any competing institutions?
- Finally, Benjamin Wallace-Wells' feature on Paul Krugman includes this noteworthy tidbit on how economic gains have been divided in the U.S.:
- As part of her look at what lies ahead for the NDP, Barbara Yaffe recognizes why it figures to make for a tougher opponent than the Libs have over the past few years:
How will Conservatives react to Layton leading the main opposition party in Parliament?- All those who predicted that Newfoundland and Labrador would be the first province to see any effort to call Stephen Harper's Senate bluff (even if based only in the province's opposition parties), please collect your winnings.
It remains to be seen whether they will mount an advertising campaign against him as they did against Liberal leaders Paul Martin, Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff.
Conservatives may have met their match, though. After all, Layton has led his party since 2003 and may be too much of a known quantity to be successfully attacked by government backroomers.
- While plenty of people have pointed to Stephane Dion's paper for the MacDonald-Laurier Institute, I'm not sure anybody else has noticed what looks like a major part of the story.
Namely, when did Stephane Dion start writing for a Con-promoted and funded special interest group which mostly serves as a front for Con spin? And if the likes of Dion are lending their names and opinions to the greater glory of the Cons' cronies, what does that say about the Libs' hopes of building any competing institutions?
- Finally, Benjamin Wallace-Wells' feature on Paul Krugman includes this noteworthy tidbit on how economic gains have been divided in the U.S.:
From 1979 to 2004, the income of the richest one percent of Americans grew by 176 percent, that of the richest one fifth of the country by 69 percent, and that of everyone else by less than 25 percent. Working through the numbers, Krugman came to believe that “only a fraction” of the change was compelled by global forces, which had been the standard explanation. The rest, he concluded, was political.And I'd have to wonder whether the observations can be applied elsewhere: is there reason to doubt that the wealthy will tend to see relatively consistent gains in income, while the main distinction between different governments and societies is whether anybody else also benefits? And if so, wouldn't that seem like a rather compelling reason to focus all the more on redistribution rather than hoping that policies which obvious favour the wealthy on their face will somehow have trickle-down effects?
It was Krugman’s Princeton colleague Larry Bartels who made the critical connection, in research Krugman devoured and still cites. Perhaps the most important influence on income inequality, Bartels argued, was something economists had not emphasized: whether a Democrat or a Republican was in the White House. Since World War II, Bartels found, wealthy families in the 95th percentile in income had seen identical income growth under both parties. But for families in the 20th percentile, the difference was astonishing: Under Democratic presidents, their income grew at six times the rate it did under Republican ones. There was, for Krugman, a kind of radicalization implied in this.
On operating assumptions
A couple of notes on today's news about the elimination of per-vote funding to Canada's political parties.
On the relatively bright side, the phase-out period looks to ensure that each party besides the Cons ends up in the black coming out of the federal election:
- The NDP will receive roughly $13.5 million, which will more than fund the 50% share of the party's election costs that isn't already covered by the Elections Canada expense rebate.
- The Libs will receive just over $8 million - which wouldn't quite cover a full national campaign, but should come close to the party's actual expenses after it declined to authorize a $3 million ad blitz at the end of the campaign.
- The Bloc will take in a little under $2.7 million, which should just cover about half of the party's $5.7 million spending limit.
- And the Greens will receive about $1.75 million, which may well cover their entire rebated campaign cost (keeping in mind that the party spent under $3 million in 2008 in a campaign with a far more widespread focus).
Oh, and the Cons will receive about $17.5 million which they don't particularly seem to need.
So for the opposition parties, the smart operating assumption seems to be that the remaining per-vote funding should be seen as effectively wiping the costs of the 2011 campaign off the books - leaving fund-raising to cover future party operations and elections.
But on that front, we're indeed seeing the Libs wanting to change the rules to allow bigger money back into the system:
On the relatively bright side, the phase-out period looks to ensure that each party besides the Cons ends up in the black coming out of the federal election:
Flaherty said the government will also make good on the campaign pledge to phase the cut in over time, giving political parties three years to wean themselves off the subsidy.In effect, then, it sounds like the parties will receive $3 per 2011 vote over the next three years. Which means that based on the actual election results and the $21 million national party spending limit...
In their platform, the Tories proposed cutting the subsidy first to $1.50, then $1 and then 50 cents before ending it altogether.
- The NDP will receive roughly $13.5 million, which will more than fund the 50% share of the party's election costs that isn't already covered by the Elections Canada expense rebate.
- The Libs will receive just over $8 million - which wouldn't quite cover a full national campaign, but should come close to the party's actual expenses after it declined to authorize a $3 million ad blitz at the end of the campaign.
- The Bloc will take in a little under $2.7 million, which should just cover about half of the party's $5.7 million spending limit.
- And the Greens will receive about $1.75 million, which may well cover their entire rebated campaign cost (keeping in mind that the party spent under $3 million in 2008 in a campaign with a far more widespread focus).
Oh, and the Cons will receive about $17.5 million which they don't particularly seem to need.
So for the opposition parties, the smart operating assumption seems to be that the remaining per-vote funding should be seen as effectively wiping the costs of the 2011 campaign off the books - leaving fund-raising to cover future party operations and elections.
But on that front, we're indeed seeing the Libs wanting to change the rules to allow bigger money back into the system:
Liberal MP Marc Garneau, who is running for the interim Liberal leader’s job, said his party recognizes that the financial blow is going to hurt.Update: And John McKay serves up an even more galling quote here:
...
Liberals will, however, press for an increase in individual donation limits if Conservatives do end the subsidy, he said.
“If individuals want to give more than the $1,100, that’s something that should be discussed,” he said.
“There are certain Canadians who are much more capable of making donations to political parties than others, and I don’t know why they should be denied that opportunity. Five thousand dollars struck me as being a good cap.”As I noted yesterday, the Cons already figured to have some decisions to make on whether to play around with the donation limit. And the Libs' decision to add their voice to the mix ensures that the issue will receive some more attention while complicating their calculations even further: on the one hand an increased donation limit might be seen as a sign of cooperation even if it's based solely on the Cons' assessment of their own self-interest, but on the other hand it might also turn into an increasingly effective wedge for the NDP to portray itself as the only party opposed to basing political influence on wealth.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Tuesday Afternoon Links
Assorted content to end your day.
- Lawrence Martin's column taking Canada's media to task is well worth a read. But perhaps most important is his declaration as to what needs to happen now:
- Truly, nobody could have suspected that the Alliance wing of the Cons might decide to change the rules once it had removed the PCs from the scene. But I do have to wonder whether the duplicity is being allowed based on the hope that it'll make it more difficult for the Cons' opponents to work through a similar process to the one that assembled Harper's coalition.
- Finally, there's a ways to go yet, but this looks like a rather strong introduction for the NDP's new official opposition caucus.
- Lawrence Martin's column taking Canada's media to task is well worth a read. But perhaps most important is his declaration as to what needs to happen now:
During the election campaign, there were stories of voter-suppression tactics by the Tories, of barring people from rallies, of pork-barrelling with G8 funds and the like. In the last week of the campaign, there was a seeming attempt by a Conservative operative to present Michael Ignatieff as an Iraq war planner. One can imagine what would happen if this kind of thing, straight out of Nixonland, happened in a U.S. campaign. The media would blow the roof off. Here, the story passed in a day or two without further comment.- And for those looking for examples of serious issues deserving of substantial investigation, Canada's embarrassing showing when it comes to addressing corruption and bribery would seem to be near the top of the list.
Our media, particularly The Canadian Press, have performed well in breaking stories on ethical abuse. And there have been examples, such as The Globe’s reporting for several years running on the Afghan detainee controversy, of staying with a story. But we get softer with time. In the Chrétien era, there was less let up. With much help from the Auditor-General, we chased the Liberals down on Shawinigate and Adscam.
In a majority government, particularly one headed by an all-controlling Prime Minister, one of the few checks on power is strong journalism. It is what holds the government to account. If the standards of the media decline in carrying out this function, the standards and quality of democracy itself will decline.
- Truly, nobody could have suspected that the Alliance wing of the Cons might decide to change the rules once it had removed the PCs from the scene. But I do have to wonder whether the duplicity is being allowed based on the hope that it'll make it more difficult for the Cons' opponents to work through a similar process to the one that assembled Harper's coalition.
- Finally, there's a ways to go yet, but this looks like a rather strong introduction for the NDP's new official opposition caucus.
Deep thought
If the NDP's biggest challenge is to deal with MPs who have lots to say and plenty of ideas to offer, then there's reason to think the party is in great shape.
On funding decisions
The Hill Times' report on the future of party financing in Canada is just one of a few recent pieces to miss the different effect of different changes on Canada's political parties. So let's quickly review what seems possible based on the actions which might be paired with a cut in per-vote funding.
To start with, as a result of the shift in positioning among the opposition parties, the effect of eliminating per-vote funding may itself be somewhat different from what's long been assumed. For the first time, the NDP stands to lose more in raw dollars than the Libs once per-vote funding is removed - a loss which might only amplified to the extent it prevents the NDP from developing an operation on the scale of the one the Libs have normally run. And while the NDP's increased caucus funding will help to fill the dollar gap, we'll have to wait to find out whether the NDP can parlay its new position as official opposition into a longer-term fund-raising advantage over the Libs (who seem to have done fairly well filling their coffers late in the election campaign once it became clear that focusing on votes wasn't going to accomplish much).
Meanwhile, the Greens saw a huge drop in their popular vote as a result of their successful focus on winning a single seat - meaning that the national party which may once have been most vulnerable to an end to per-vote funding has somewhat less to lose.
As a result, the landscape as to how an end to per-vote funding will affect Canada's opposition parties has changed dramatically based on how those votes actually played out on May 2. And the Cons will have some choices to make based on how they perceive the relative strength of their opponents.
Similarly, the talk of raising individual funding limits looks to be based mostly on a sense that times have changed since 2006 (when the Cons and NDP worked together on reducing the limit from $5,000 to roughly $1,100, based largely on the view that the Libs benefitted more than any other party from higher-dollar donors).
On the one hand, one wouldn't expect Harper to want to reverse course if he can avoid it, particularly since it would leave him vulnerable to NDP attacks on bringing bigger money back into politics.
But to the extent his future political strategy depends on trying to prevent any opposition from coalescing behind one party, Harper may well be tempted to raise the limit again in order to strengthen the Libs' position as compared to the NDP. And stronger competition from the NDP as an alternative government may also make it possible for the Cons to position themselves as the chief recipient of big-money donations.
Then there's one more possibility: Harper could look to reduce the federal political tax credit (which naturally figures to be more damaging for donors with less disposable income). If paired with an increase in (or elimination of) individual limits, that would have the effect of limiting receipts from the small-money donor bases of both the Cons and the NDP, while at the same time giving far more influence to big-money donations just at the time when Harper is best positioned to bring those in as the party which will hold power for the next four-plus years.
In sum, we should expect the Cons' decisions on party financing to be based on Harper's calculations as to his own party's advantage in the proportion of money raised through big versus small donations, as well as which of the NDP or Libs he fears most in elections to come. And we shouldn't assume that his past promises and actions won't be undone in the process.
To start with, as a result of the shift in positioning among the opposition parties, the effect of eliminating per-vote funding may itself be somewhat different from what's long been assumed. For the first time, the NDP stands to lose more in raw dollars than the Libs once per-vote funding is removed - a loss which might only amplified to the extent it prevents the NDP from developing an operation on the scale of the one the Libs have normally run. And while the NDP's increased caucus funding will help to fill the dollar gap, we'll have to wait to find out whether the NDP can parlay its new position as official opposition into a longer-term fund-raising advantage over the Libs (who seem to have done fairly well filling their coffers late in the election campaign once it became clear that focusing on votes wasn't going to accomplish much).
Meanwhile, the Greens saw a huge drop in their popular vote as a result of their successful focus on winning a single seat - meaning that the national party which may once have been most vulnerable to an end to per-vote funding has somewhat less to lose.
As a result, the landscape as to how an end to per-vote funding will affect Canada's opposition parties has changed dramatically based on how those votes actually played out on May 2. And the Cons will have some choices to make based on how they perceive the relative strength of their opponents.
Similarly, the talk of raising individual funding limits looks to be based mostly on a sense that times have changed since 2006 (when the Cons and NDP worked together on reducing the limit from $5,000 to roughly $1,100, based largely on the view that the Libs benefitted more than any other party from higher-dollar donors).
On the one hand, one wouldn't expect Harper to want to reverse course if he can avoid it, particularly since it would leave him vulnerable to NDP attacks on bringing bigger money back into politics.
But to the extent his future political strategy depends on trying to prevent any opposition from coalescing behind one party, Harper may well be tempted to raise the limit again in order to strengthen the Libs' position as compared to the NDP. And stronger competition from the NDP as an alternative government may also make it possible for the Cons to position themselves as the chief recipient of big-money donations.
Then there's one more possibility: Harper could look to reduce the federal political tax credit (which naturally figures to be more damaging for donors with less disposable income). If paired with an increase in (or elimination of) individual limits, that would have the effect of limiting receipts from the small-money donor bases of both the Cons and the NDP, while at the same time giving far more influence to big-money donations just at the time when Harper is best positioned to bring those in as the party which will hold power for the next four-plus years.
In sum, we should expect the Cons' decisions on party financing to be based on Harper's calculations as to his own party's advantage in the proportion of money raised through big versus small donations, as well as which of the NDP or Libs he fears most in elections to come. And we shouldn't assume that his past promises and actions won't be undone in the process.
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- I don't entirely agree with Duncan Cameron's timeline for the NDP's Quebec victory, as the party had in fact been gaining at least some ground in the polls for months before this year's election. But he's absolutely right as to what we should expect next:
- Meanwhile, the Cons' own employment philosophy hasn't changed with their transition to a majority, as they're setting a new record for the cost of the federal cabinet. But then, silence in positions of nominal power does carry a price.
- But let's give them credit for evolving on at least some points - as rather than trying to serve as a Pod Person MP like some of her western partymates, new Con Senator Josee Verner is actively declaring that she couldn't care less what her former constituents have to say:
- I don't entirely agree with Duncan Cameron's timeline for the NDP's Quebec victory, as the party had in fact been gaining at least some ground in the polls for months before this year's election. But he's absolutely right as to what we should expect next:
Francophone voters made the Liberals the dominant party in Canada; French speaking Québec has now elected New Democrats. Contrary to what the mainstream media has been reporting, the new NDP Quebec caucus is full of young, bright, energetic, and talented individuals. How well the NDP succeeds in bringing its new Quebec players front and centre will decide whether or not the New Democrats are poised to become the dominant player in Canadian politics. No one should underestimate how much the new Quebec MPs can accomplish by building on the lessons the NDP learned from the successful 2011 election campaign.- The CP is right to note that there may be employment-related dangers involved in even basic online activity. But rather than simply accepting that as inevitable, I'd think it's worth asking a follow-up question: should employers in fact be entitled to use an employee's ordinary online activity as a basis for discipline or discrimination? And if not, might the solution have to come through legislation?
- Meanwhile, the Cons' own employment philosophy hasn't changed with their transition to a majority, as they're setting a new record for the cost of the federal cabinet. But then, silence in positions of nominal power does carry a price.
- But let's give them credit for evolving on at least some points - as rather than trying to serve as a Pod Person MP like some of her western partymates, new Con Senator Josee Verner is actively declaring that she couldn't care less what her former constituents have to say:
Verner made it clear that in this new role, she has no intention of representing the people in her home Quebec City region.- Finally, Joe nicely highlights the Wall government's contempt for Saskatchewan's freedom of information system:
“The region of Quebec City didn’t wish to have representatives in government,” she told Le Soleil newspaper. “There are those who won the ridings here, and so the people should call them.”
...
There’s no question of raising Quebec City’s voice in the Conservative caucus or to her former cabinet colleagues, either: “It’s not my mandate,” she declared.
...
Verner is acting like a “spoiled child” instead of noting how the Tories might be trying to ensure better representation for Quebec, given that the province elected only five Conservative MPs, commented Jean-Jacques Samson, a columnist from Le Journal de Quebec, on TVA.
“I think it’s disappointment and bitterness,” said Jean-Claude Rivest, who sits as an independent in the Senate and has worked with Verner in the past.
A follow-up email was sent to Johnston on May 16 asking how many records and the total number of pages was being withheld. The reply from Johnston later that day was stunning to say the least:
“I cannot tell you how many briefing notes, pages etc. have been prepared on this issue as we did not ask the branches of the ministry to submit them since we knew we wouldn’t be releasing them under the legislation,” he said. “This would have required several hours of work for staff searching, reviewing and copying documents knowing that they would not be released. As you can appreciate planning for and conducting negotiations requires confidentiality, particularly given that negotiations are continuing at this time. Thank you again for your interest in this matter.”
So it would appear the ministry lied on May 6 when it said that “all the records” relevant to the request were being reviewed.
Under section 8 of the province’s freedom of information legislation, government institutions are required to give access to as much of the record as can reasonably be severed without disclosing the information to which the applicant is refused access. When asked if this mandatory section was applied to the request, Johnston replied:
“From speaking with the people who prepared briefings on the matter, there would be very little left in as the notes go over what is offered and what is proposed and next steps. We cannot disclose proposals, analysis of those proposals, possible options, next steps or strategy. Some information such as what the STF is requesting in terms of pay and the response of the collective bargaining committee has been publicly communicated and is already publicly available. Some proposals have not been made public and would not be disclosed. In summary, once severing was done on a briefing note the only information left in it would have been what is already publicly available through media reports and other public communications.”
The short answer is no, the ministry did not follow the law.
Monday, May 23, 2011
On delayed reactions
It's bad enough that the National Post is so eager to present a fawning take on the Cons' dumb-on-crime legislation. But in presenting another point of view, it apparently hasn't bothered to take into account which party actually makes up Canada's official opposition - neglecting to mention the NDP while including this:
‘‘We remain unwavering in our commitment to fighting crime and protecting Canadians so that our communities are safe places for people to live, raise their families and do business,’’ said Pamela Stephens, spokesperson for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson. “We will be bringing forward comprehensive tackling-crime legislation to be passed within 100 days. Further details will be announced in due course.”And likewise, QMI's exclusive opportunity to cheerlead for the Cons' F-35 debacle-in-the-making includes the past official opposition rather than the present one:
The Liberals, until recently the Official Opposition, claim crime has fallen in volume and severity in the past few years, and that the legislation simply goes too far. They argued that the United States, with its “mega prisons,” is suffering from the effects of this sort of tough-on-crime legislation.
But critics have blasted the Conservative government for agreeing to buy the jets in what they allege was a sole-source deal, and worry the estimated production and service costs will balloon.So what seems more likely: is Canada's media just too lazy to find any quotes on the same topics from the party actually preferred by voters to challenge the Cons? Or is it making a conscious choice to try to shut out Canada's official opposition?
The Liberals vowed that if they formed a government, they would scrap the deal and hold a competitive bid to replace Canada's fighter jets.
Monday Afternoon Links
Assorted content for your holiday reading.
- Murray Dobbin highlights the Harper Cons' regular support for the irrational, then points out the policy focus from the NDP which can best serve to point out the difference between the Cons' world and the Canada most voters will want to live in:
- Erin follows up on his post about the difference between wage- and profit-driven economies with a prescription for Canada:
- Murray Dobbin highlights the Harper Cons' regular support for the irrational, then points out the policy focus from the NDP which can best serve to point out the difference between the Cons' world and the Canada most voters will want to live in:
So if we can expect even more irrationality in the next four years, where might Harper be vulnerable to a rejuvenated civil society and a resurgent NDP Opposition? One area is the economy. where Harper will continue to try to maintain his edge on other parties. He is very vulnerable here, as the dollar continues to rise, the U.S. economy declines and the housing bubble eventually bursts.- J.J. McCullough raises some good points as to why it's somewhat misleading to talk about being able to unite multiple parties as representing a united left in Canada. But I'd think it's worth drawing a distinction between how Canadian politics have operated to date, and how they figure to play out in the future - and with the most powerful federal party being one that's working much harder on drawing ideological distinctions than previous governments have normally done, I wouldn't think it's out of the question that Canadians could have their choices far better defined by 2015 than they have been in the past.
The appeal to the irrational will not work if the economy begins to tank. This is one area where Opposition forces need to focus and not get distracted by Harper's efforts to keep his base happy.
The same applies to the jet fighter issue. If the economy begins to decline (and with it revenues), as many expect, this outrageous expenditure will be more and more vulnerable and it must be a focus of opposition, both the NDP and civil society. The government is right now looking at billions of dollars in spending cuts. Asking Canadians whether it should come from Medicare or jet fighters will be a potent political question.
...
The last two major issues for which even Harper's Christian base demands rational policy are Medicare and economic security for seniors. Harper knows that seniors vote in much higher percentages than the general population and the NDP put the issue squarely on the agenda before the election. It needs to stay there -- both because it is good policy, and because it will make Harper's budget slashing more difficult.
Medicare will be Harper's biggest test. He hates it and would dearly love to get rid of it altogether, but if he does not tread carefully and slowly, it could be his downfall.
- Erin follows up on his post about the difference between wage- and profit-driven economies with a prescription for Canada:
In large, relatively-closed economies (the Eurozone and United States), it would probably be sufficient to raise wages and redistribute income, allowing higher aggregate demand to then boost business investment.- And on a related note, the wage/profit distinction leads to a point from Paul Krugman which seems to me to have wider application than merely an assessment of which measure of inflation to adopt for the purposes of setting monetary policy:
These same pro-labour policies would be desirable in Canada, but given import leakages, the additional domestic demand may well be insufficient to spur investment. Therefore, Canadian progressives also need more direct policies to spur investment, such as public capital spending (whether on infrastructure or through Crown corporations) and targeted incentives for private capital spending.
I’ve suspected that what we’re really seeing is the inadequacy of even core inflation as a way to purge transitory effects of volatile prices: the measure takes out purchases of food and energy, but it doesn’t take out indirect effects of raw material prices on costs. New research from Goldman Sachs (no link) seems to support that view: it finds that core inflation is getting a temporary bump from the prices of imported raw materials, and will probably subside if the commodity surge is in fact over.
This in turn suggests that policy should really be based on some kind of “supercore” inflation. Should this simply be wage growth? Adam Posen at the Bank of England has certainly gone well down this route, arguing that the relatively high rate of even core inflation in the UK reflects one-off factors and that stagnant wages show that there are few risks. And I totally agree with Posen about the UK policy issues.
Yet there are problems with a wage target — mainly, you don’t want to base policy on the notion that wage gains are always a bad thing.
On durability
David Olive takes issue with the theory that the Harper Cons' coalition will be more durable than the one assembled under previous leaders such as Brian Mulroney. But it seems to me that the two arguments can be relatively easily reconciled.
The argument for the Cons having a durable base of support relies on the reality that at least since 2006, Harper has built a fairly consistent brand that has ensured that his party never drops below about 30% in the polls, and can rally another 5-10% of voters come election time. And while we always need to be careful about assuming that anything is impossible, there's little indication that the Cons will have any difficulty keeping that coalition of voters together if they keep up their current direction - meaning that a PC-style wipeout does seem fairly remote for the moment.
But the possibility that the Cons can rely on a support base in the 30s isn't mutually exclusive with a majority of the general public being opposed to Harper's direction. And, indeed all indications are that Harper has cultivated exactly that scenario as his means of winning and holding power in the face of a fragmented political system.
So yes, we should figure that at least for now, Harper has a larger and more solid base than his conservative predecessors. But that doesn't mean he has the upper hand in the longer term. And indeed, if the NDP can build on its election results to provide an alternative government which far more closely reflects the values of Canadians in general, Harper may have little choice but to risk some of his party's cohesiveness in an effort to expand its reach.
The argument for the Cons having a durable base of support relies on the reality that at least since 2006, Harper has built a fairly consistent brand that has ensured that his party never drops below about 30% in the polls, and can rally another 5-10% of voters come election time. And while we always need to be careful about assuming that anything is impossible, there's little indication that the Cons will have any difficulty keeping that coalition of voters together if they keep up their current direction - meaning that a PC-style wipeout does seem fairly remote for the moment.
But the possibility that the Cons can rely on a support base in the 30s isn't mutually exclusive with a majority of the general public being opposed to Harper's direction. And, indeed all indications are that Harper has cultivated exactly that scenario as his means of winning and holding power in the face of a fragmented political system.
So yes, we should figure that at least for now, Harper has a larger and more solid base than his conservative predecessors. But that doesn't mean he has the upper hand in the longer term. And indeed, if the NDP can build on its election results to provide an alternative government which far more closely reflects the values of Canadians in general, Harper may have little choice but to risk some of his party's cohesiveness in an effort to expand its reach.
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material to start your week.
- It's truly a shame that this makes for such a stark contrast against the Cons' governing philosophy:
- And it isn't only the NDP's top brass who recognize the value in actually learning and growing, as Ruth Ellen Brosseau for one is getting to work in a hurry:
- Finally, Sixth Estate provides a reminder that for all their posturing about "ending political party subsidies" Cons fully intend to keep the ones which benefit them more disproportionately than per-vote funding.
- It's truly a shame that this makes for such a stark contrast against the Cons' governing philosophy:
Thomas Mulcair does not hesitate when asked to share the most important lesson he was taught by Claude Ryan, the illustrious Quebec politician who mentored him throughout his early career in public service.But can we all agree that we're best off making sure that our elected officials work on knowing as much as they can about public policy in order to be able to discuss it, rather figuring their job is merely to memorize and repeat three or four party talking points?
“When you come into a room to discuss a file, it’s always good to know more about it than anybody else in the room,” says Mulcair.
- And it isn't only the NDP's top brass who recognize the value in actually learning and growing, as Ruth Ellen Brosseau for one is getting to work in a hurry:
Caught up in the “orange wave” that surged through Quebec and elected 59 NDP MPs, Ms. Brosseau, whose win was one of the biggest upsets, is now spending most of her time in Parliament, getting to know its corridors and corners and exactly how it all works.- Meanwhile, for those looking for some extra-credit reading, Alison offers up a lesson as to what's really behind the push for constant tar sands expansion.
...
At first, (Brosseau's son) Logan was nervous about her new role as MP, as he’s quite protective of her. But they plan to get an apartment in the riding and will spend the summer there; she’ll also be taking intensive French courses over the break.
Against this background, Ms. Brosseau has had to grow up quickly, and that maturity shows in the poise she displays in the interview.
- Finally, Sixth Estate provides a reminder that for all their posturing about "ending political party subsidies" Cons fully intend to keep the ones which benefit them more disproportionately than per-vote funding.
On breakdowns
While Alice is working on debunking the all-too-familiar refrain about one-time political standings dictate future strategy and results, Eric is taking the concept to new depths. So let's take a quick look at why it makes roughly zero sense to focus in on the demographic breakdown of the ridings represented by a party (based on a one-time electoral result) as determinative of its support and direction.
In effect, the assumption behind Eric's demographic profiling is that a party's raison d'etre is to represent all constituents within the ridings they've won, and none in the ridings they've lost.
But the supposed changes since May 2 themselves serve as an indication of just how far off base that assumption actually is. If one applies Eric's logic to the status quo as of a month ago, the NDP would have been considered a party whose geographic and demographic base was utterly inconsistent with any interest in winning votes in Quebec - based not just on its past vote shares, but on the theory that it would be too tied to placating its existing bases of support to make an effort to speak to the concerns of Quebeckers.
To the extent anybody wanted to make that case, it would seem to have been entirely debunked. But Eric's analysis takes it as a given that we should use Canada's 2011 election results as a starting point in applying a theory which is utterly inconsistent with those results coming to pass in the first place.
In reality, of course, a party has many different constituent groups to take into account, and the demographic breakdown of currently-held ridings figures to be at most a secondary consideration. In terms of direct influence, the more important figures are bound to be the MPs themselves, along with the party activists and supporters who take a direct interest in the party's message. And in terms of strategy designed to maximize future electoral outcomes, it would be utter lunacy for a party to focus more on the most-distant tranche of voters in ridings it already holds (who are included in Eric's numbers) than on swing demographics which might actually result in winning additional seats in the future (who are excluded).
Fortunately, I doubt that the NDP (or any other party) will decide to follow the suggestion to represent only the demographics in the ridings they now represent, rather than looking at a more complete picture as to who might be able to elect MPs in the future. But it's worth pointing out the flaws in Eric's analysis for the benefit of outsiders too - lest we otherwise see many more opportunities like the NDP's Quebec surge needlessly brushed off by the commentariat.
In effect, the assumption behind Eric's demographic profiling is that a party's raison d'etre is to represent all constituents within the ridings they've won, and none in the ridings they've lost.
But the supposed changes since May 2 themselves serve as an indication of just how far off base that assumption actually is. If one applies Eric's logic to the status quo as of a month ago, the NDP would have been considered a party whose geographic and demographic base was utterly inconsistent with any interest in winning votes in Quebec - based not just on its past vote shares, but on the theory that it would be too tied to placating its existing bases of support to make an effort to speak to the concerns of Quebeckers.
To the extent anybody wanted to make that case, it would seem to have been entirely debunked. But Eric's analysis takes it as a given that we should use Canada's 2011 election results as a starting point in applying a theory which is utterly inconsistent with those results coming to pass in the first place.
In reality, of course, a party has many different constituent groups to take into account, and the demographic breakdown of currently-held ridings figures to be at most a secondary consideration. In terms of direct influence, the more important figures are bound to be the MPs themselves, along with the party activists and supporters who take a direct interest in the party's message. And in terms of strategy designed to maximize future electoral outcomes, it would be utter lunacy for a party to focus more on the most-distant tranche of voters in ridings it already holds (who are included in Eric's numbers) than on swing demographics which might actually result in winning additional seats in the future (who are excluded).
Fortunately, I doubt that the NDP (or any other party) will decide to follow the suggestion to represent only the demographics in the ridings they now represent, rather than looking at a more complete picture as to who might be able to elect MPs in the future. But it's worth pointing out the flaws in Eric's analysis for the benefit of outsiders too - lest we otherwise see many more opportunities like the NDP's Quebec surge needlessly brushed off by the commentariat.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
On windows of opportunity
Following up on this morning's post, the usual point made to dismiss the idea of abolishing the Senate is that constitutional change is haaaaard, such that we shouldn't bother proposing any changes which would require it. And based on Canada's constitutional history, that might make for a sound enough argument.
But surely the Harper era has taught us that we can't afford to rely on precedents and conventions to protect us from the Cons' drive to take and hold onto power. And I'd argue that in fact, constitutional change may not be far away.
To see why, keep in mind that there are five provincial elections set to take place this year. And while we should be cautious about putting too much stock in current projections, there's at least a real possibility that we could see both Manitoba and Ontario elect Harper-friendly governments, while the other three provinces maintain their current governments.
So let's ask: what's the worst-case scenario if that scenario comes to pass?
Adding wins for the Manitoba and Ontario PCs to the current small-c conservative governments in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, we would see a distinct rightward bent and Harper linkage to provincial governments from seven provinces representing well over half of Canada's population. And that's a highly significant standard, given that it would create an obvious opportunity for Harper to push for changes based on Canada's constitutional amending formula. (Incidentally, that window would face a significant risk of closing in 2013 or sooner when British Columbia holds its next election.)
Of course, there isn't much talk about how the amending formula might apply at the moment - which seems to be based largely on the fact that past constitutional discussions have been premised on an assumption that any change should be supported by at least an attempt at consensus across different jurisdictions and ideologies, rather than an opportunistic government seizing a momentary political alignment to pursue longer-term ideological goals.
But given Harper's pattern of using absolutely every possible angle for partisan and political gain, we can't afford to assume that he'll choose differently if it's possible to rewrite the constitution to his advantage. And he may have enough supportive provinces to impose a narrowly-focused set of constitutional changes (such as, say, adding private property rights to the Charter) without addressing other constitutional grievances or paying much attention to the values of Canada's general public - particularly if nobody else works on raising alternative points of view in the meantime.
What's more, I'm not sure Harper would even expect to pay much of a political price if he did push ahead with constitutional changes. After all, the ideological linkages being pointed out as a matter of federal voting choices would seem fairly consistent with the changes we'd expect Harper to consider. And similarly, the interests which would lead Harper to want to make constitutional changes are generally shared by the provincial governments he'd need onside.
So what should we take away from the prospect of Harper being able to rewrite Canada's constitution toward his own ends? To start with, we should approach this fall's provincial elections with a close eye on what the results might mean for our system of government federally.
But equally importantly, we should recognize that no matter how hard Harper works to lull us to sleep, constitutional change may not be any further away now than an attack on the Cons' political opponents was when they claimed to want to work collaboratively in the fall of 2008. And it's essential both to be aware of the possibility and to work on shaping any change that might be discussed before it's too late.
But surely the Harper era has taught us that we can't afford to rely on precedents and conventions to protect us from the Cons' drive to take and hold onto power. And I'd argue that in fact, constitutional change may not be far away.
To see why, keep in mind that there are five provincial elections set to take place this year. And while we should be cautious about putting too much stock in current projections, there's at least a real possibility that we could see both Manitoba and Ontario elect Harper-friendly governments, while the other three provinces maintain their current governments.
So let's ask: what's the worst-case scenario if that scenario comes to pass?
Adding wins for the Manitoba and Ontario PCs to the current small-c conservative governments in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, we would see a distinct rightward bent and Harper linkage to provincial governments from seven provinces representing well over half of Canada's population. And that's a highly significant standard, given that it would create an obvious opportunity for Harper to push for changes based on Canada's constitutional amending formula. (Incidentally, that window would face a significant risk of closing in 2013 or sooner when British Columbia holds its next election.)
Of course, there isn't much talk about how the amending formula might apply at the moment - which seems to be based largely on the fact that past constitutional discussions have been premised on an assumption that any change should be supported by at least an attempt at consensus across different jurisdictions and ideologies, rather than an opportunistic government seizing a momentary political alignment to pursue longer-term ideological goals.
But given Harper's pattern of using absolutely every possible angle for partisan and political gain, we can't afford to assume that he'll choose differently if it's possible to rewrite the constitution to his advantage. And he may have enough supportive provinces to impose a narrowly-focused set of constitutional changes (such as, say, adding private property rights to the Charter) without addressing other constitutional grievances or paying much attention to the values of Canada's general public - particularly if nobody else works on raising alternative points of view in the meantime.
What's more, I'm not sure Harper would even expect to pay much of a political price if he did push ahead with constitutional changes. After all, the ideological linkages being pointed out as a matter of federal voting choices would seem fairly consistent with the changes we'd expect Harper to consider. And similarly, the interests which would lead Harper to want to make constitutional changes are generally shared by the provincial governments he'd need onside.
So what should we take away from the prospect of Harper being able to rewrite Canada's constitution toward his own ends? To start with, we should approach this fall's provincial elections with a close eye on what the results might mean for our system of government federally.
But equally importantly, we should recognize that no matter how hard Harper works to lull us to sleep, constitutional change may not be any further away now than an attack on the Cons' political opponents was when they claimed to want to work collaboratively in the fall of 2008. And it's essential both to be aware of the possibility and to work on shaping any change that might be discussed before it's too late.
On vestigial entitlements
In the midst of the justified outrage surrounding the Cons' latest Senate abuses, a few people are starting to point out some of the other distortions created by the status quo which Stephen Harper seems so pleased to keep in place.
By any measure, Canadian voters cast their ballots for an NDP Official Opposition, as it ranked a clear second place by votes, seats or any other standard for popular support. But the party actually favoured by mere voters as the alternative to a Con government will continue to receive zero input in one of the two chambers that exercises formal power in considering and passing legislation.
Instead, because of the Senate's archaic structures, the Libs will continue to hold the title of official opposition in the Senate for now and the foreseeable future. And indeed, an individual who served as a campaign co-chair in the election that rejected the Libs is seemingly set to stay in a role which allows him to use the trappings of public office to promote his party over the actual opposition.
And what's worse, there's effectively no way of remedying the problem within the Senate structure as it stands.
Even if Stephen Harper were to make the utterly implausible decision to do everything within his power to deal with the glaring distortion among the opposition parties - including appointing NDP senators to rectify the imbalance - he wouldn't be able to advance the NDP to official opposition status in the Senate in time for the 2015 election. Likewise, a start to Senate elections would have no chance of overcoming the Libs' built-in advantage with senators of any political stripe in the Cons' first term in office.
And based on the more likely path where Harper keeps on using his appointment power for patronage purposes, the Libs could continue to benefit from an undeserved Senate advantage over the NDP even through nearly a full term of NDP government beginning in 2015 - to say nothing of the Cons' own exploitation of publicly-funded patronage in the meantime.
Of course, the problem isn't a particularly new one. In fact, one of the longest-serving Senate opposition leaders in Canadian history held that role primarily on behalf of a PC party which ranked in fifth place in the Commons party standings.
But now looks to be the first time that the gap between electoral outcomes and Senate standings has been so glaring under a government which pretends to be interested in dealing with the undemocratic nature of the Senate. And the fact that the Libs' vestigial caucus will ensure that the Senate will remain unrepresentative regardless of what reforms might happen for the better part of the next decade (or more) should serve as an indication that abolition is ultimately both an easier and fairer choice.
By any measure, Canadian voters cast their ballots for an NDP Official Opposition, as it ranked a clear second place by votes, seats or any other standard for popular support. But the party actually favoured by mere voters as the alternative to a Con government will continue to receive zero input in one of the two chambers that exercises formal power in considering and passing legislation.
Instead, because of the Senate's archaic structures, the Libs will continue to hold the title of official opposition in the Senate for now and the foreseeable future. And indeed, an individual who served as a campaign co-chair in the election that rejected the Libs is seemingly set to stay in a role which allows him to use the trappings of public office to promote his party over the actual opposition.
And what's worse, there's effectively no way of remedying the problem within the Senate structure as it stands.
Even if Stephen Harper were to make the utterly implausible decision to do everything within his power to deal with the glaring distortion among the opposition parties - including appointing NDP senators to rectify the imbalance - he wouldn't be able to advance the NDP to official opposition status in the Senate in time for the 2015 election. Likewise, a start to Senate elections would have no chance of overcoming the Libs' built-in advantage with senators of any political stripe in the Cons' first term in office.
And based on the more likely path where Harper keeps on using his appointment power for patronage purposes, the Libs could continue to benefit from an undeserved Senate advantage over the NDP even through nearly a full term of NDP government beginning in 2015 - to say nothing of the Cons' own exploitation of publicly-funded patronage in the meantime.
Of course, the problem isn't a particularly new one. In fact, one of the longest-serving Senate opposition leaders in Canadian history held that role primarily on behalf of a PC party which ranked in fifth place in the Commons party standings.
But now looks to be the first time that the gap between electoral outcomes and Senate standings has been so glaring under a government which pretends to be interested in dealing with the undemocratic nature of the Senate. And the fact that the Libs' vestigial caucus will ensure that the Senate will remain unrepresentative regardless of what reforms might happen for the better part of the next decade (or more) should serve as an indication that abolition is ultimately both an easier and fairer choice.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Saturday Afternoon Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Doug Saunders nicely describes how centrist brokerage parties across the developed world have undermined their own relevance by putting their efforts into a failed corporatist experiment:
- Bruce Johnstone criticizes Gerry Ritz for his anti-democratic plan to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board:
- Doug Saunders nicely describes how centrist brokerage parties across the developed world have undermined their own relevance by putting their efforts into a failed corporatist experiment:
(T)he parties of the centre-left, like the Liberals in Canada and Labour in Britain, attempted an experiment in the 1990s and 2000s that they hoped would bring both rising equality and rising prosperity: A largely free and unfettered market economy, combined with low government debt and big investments in social services. The idea was that the booming economy would finance a state-supported rise in equality. The experiment mostly failed: While life did improve for the poor in the West, it didn't change at all for the middle class, and often got worse, as they watched the wealthy become ultra-wealthy. The increasingly angry “squeezed middle” are the people who tend to vote in elections, and many were driven to distrust the big parties whose experiment failed them.- Boris catches Stephen Harper playing dress-up once again, this time with a uniform normally reserved for trained military air crew members. But I suppose after a campaign where he successfully convinced the media to portray him as a "steady hand" despite his track record of getting his party and country into trouble for no particular reason, Harper can't see much limit to the false labels he can wear.
...
The new, more open and borderless world of the past 20 years has meant that the big centrist parties continue to work well for the winners, for the in-groups that benefit from their specific programs. But for those who become disconnected or distanced from the state, who have no daily need for government (as the very poor do) but also do not feel its benefits (as the wealthy do not), the big party no longer means anything.
“Since the opening up of the world after the end of the Cold War, we've see that mainstream parties find it increasingly difficult to present political programs that address winners and losers at the same time,” says Mr. Cramme. “You basically have both left and right-wing mainstream parties essentially speaking to winners – and all those who are left behind due to globalization, technological change, cultural disaffection, are not adequately represented by mainstream political parties, so we see a surge of extremist parties on both the right and the left.”
- Bruce Johnstone criticizes Gerry Ritz for his anti-democratic plan to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board:
Ritz's comment about respecting democracy is a bit rich, considering that he has done everything in his power to undermine the CWB since taking over as minister responsible for the board in 2007. This includes issuing "gag orders" on the CWB from promoting the benefits of the single desk in director elections, to arbitrarily changing voters' lists on the eve of director elections, to allowing Tory MPs to disseminate anti-single desk propaganda during election campaigns.- Finally, Orphaned Voter provides a nifty cartogram of Canada's 2011 election results in noting that a stunning 71% of votes failed to contribute to the election of any MP.
...
The act says if the minister responsible for the CWB wants to change the single desk or the types of grains the board markets, he must first consult with the CWB's board of directors and hold a vote among producers. In Goodale's view, that means asking producers two simple, straightforward questions: "Do you want the CWB's single-desk marketing system for wheat: yes or no?" and "Do you want the CWB's single-desk marketing system for barley: yes or no?"
No trick questions, like the barley plebiscite in 2007 that asked three questions, including whether farmers would support a strong, voluntary CWB - a red herring designed to muddy the waters around the single-desk issue.
...
So why would the Tories risk breaking the CWB Act by not holding a plebiscite, or killing the single-desk by ramming legislation through Parliament with their majority? Because they know they wouldn't win a plebiscite, a fair plebiscite that asks farmers to vote for or against the single desk, nothing more, nothing less.
On shared values
One of the main attempts to downplay the long-term significance of the NDP's Quebec breakthrough has revolved around the theory that the party's new wave of support involves a set of voters with unreconcilable values. But a recent CROP poll suggests that the NDP may actually have a more unified base of support than its main national rival:
Of course, it's worth noting that Leger obtained some radically different results with a question based on self-identification rather than policy preferences. But given that the parties figure to be far more likely to talk about underlying policies and values than left/right labels, there's some reason to think that by focusing on the inequality generated by the Cons' corporate-first economic policies, the NDP will actually have an easier time keeping its current Quebec support together than its main national competitor.
Sur l'axe droite-gauche, les électeurs du NPD s'inscrivent dans la moyenne québécoise, 61 % d'entre eux favorisant la répartition de la richesse, une position identifiée à la gauche, selon le sondeur, contre 39 % qui encouragent la création de la richesse, une idée dite de «droite».So while the NDP's support does include a substantial number of voters classified on the right side of the spectrum, its 61-39 split makes for a more consistent position than either Quebec as a whole or the Cons as a competitor. And in fact, it's the Cons - even after being reduced to what would seem to be their core voters - who face both a more even split in the composition of their vote, and the reality that a majority of the party's supporters disagree with its policy direction.
...
Parmi l'ensemble de la population, la droite recueille 41 % d'appuis contre 59 % pour la gauche. Il est intéressant de noter que 56 % des électeurs du Parti conservateur se classent eux-mêmes à gauche de l'échiquier politique, contre 44 % qui se disent de droite.
Of course, it's worth noting that Leger obtained some radically different results with a question based on self-identification rather than policy preferences. But given that the parties figure to be far more likely to talk about underlying policies and values than left/right labels, there's some reason to think that by focusing on the inequality generated by the Cons' corporate-first economic policies, the NDP will actually have an easier time keeping its current Quebec support together than its main national competitor.
On dropped priorities
In case there was any doubt that Stephen Harper has officially abandoned any commitment to making the Senate anything other than a patronage factory, his party's spin in the wake of his latest set of appointments should put the matter to rest.
Yes, at least one Con is trying to pretend that some kind of change is still on the table, if only by claiming that his party's past lack of past action should be taken as evidence of good faith in the future:
But then, a spokesman from the top makes it absolutely clear that Harper sees constant partisan appointments as the status quo:
Yet a PMO spokesman is openly musing about continuing to have the option of handing out seats to rejected candidates after the 2015 election. And as long as they're delaying any legislation, they're also showing no shame whatsoever about continuing to dole out seats on a purely partisan basis - cementing an anti-democratic majority to prevent any future government from enacting policies that reflect the will of voters - as 25 current Senators reach their retirement dates in the meantime.
All of which looks to firmly establish that Harper's new plan for the Senate is to use it to further entrench his own power, past promises and democratic principles be damned. Which means that rather than giving him a pass for even a second, anybody who actually believes that its a problem for unelected nonrepresentatives to wield veto power over Canada's government should be starting to work now on ensuring Harper gets removed from office in 2015.
Yes, at least one Con is trying to pretend that some kind of change is still on the table, if only by claiming that his party's past lack of past action should be taken as evidence of good faith in the future:
Tory senators had a majority in the Senate before the election call and made no effort to pass a bill in front of them that set out a process for the election of senators.But even Uppal's position is based entirely on the view that doing anything to change the Senate is at most a minor priority which can be delayed indefinitely. (And no, a focus on two bills which the Cons have promised to pass within 100 days doesn't offer the slightest excuse for delaying other legislation for over four years.)
Now with a 10-member Senate majority, (Tim) Uppal suggested his government could be trusted to pass its reform bills — one which sets senators' term limits to eight years and another that deals with election of senators — before the end of its mandate in 4 1/2 years.
Uppal would not commit to passing the two Senate reform bills before then, saying it was not at the top of the government's agenda and the Tories' budget and crime bills would come first.
But then, a spokesman from the top makes it absolutely clear that Harper sees constant partisan appointments as the status quo:
Harper spokesman Andrew MacDougall said that as long as the legislation wasn't changed, if Manning or any other senator resigned again to run as an MP in a federal election and was defeated again, he might still be re-appointed.Remember that with majorities in both houses of Parliament, the Cons face exactly zero barriers to changing the legislation surrounding the Senate. Which means that if a bill hasn't passed, it will be the result of the Cons' choice not to bother.
"I can't predict the future. It depends on whether the other Senate bill has been passed. If it hasn't, the law of the land is still the land of the land. And I'm not going to guess what the prime minister would or wouldn't do in that scenario," MacDougall said.
Yet a PMO spokesman is openly musing about continuing to have the option of handing out seats to rejected candidates after the 2015 election. And as long as they're delaying any legislation, they're also showing no shame whatsoever about continuing to dole out seats on a purely partisan basis - cementing an anti-democratic majority to prevent any future government from enacting policies that reflect the will of voters - as 25 current Senators reach their retirement dates in the meantime.
All of which looks to firmly establish that Harper's new plan for the Senate is to use it to further entrench his own power, past promises and democratic principles be damned. Which means that rather than giving him a pass for even a second, anybody who actually believes that its a problem for unelected nonrepresentatives to wield veto power over Canada's government should be starting to work now on ensuring Harper gets removed from office in 2015.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Friday Afternoon Links
Assorted content for your Friday reading.
- Trish Hennessy finishes up her election post-mortem with a call to action:
- And one of the main components of the Cons' current structure may be the next to learn just what the party's promises are worth.
- Finally, David Olive writes about the U.S.' new role as sweatshop to the world:
- Trish Hennessy finishes up her election post-mortem with a call to action:
Now is not the time to play small. Condition the field for progressive governance to stick as a natural way of doing politics.- As part of the Hill Times' coverage of the Canadian Association of Journalists' conference last weekend, Elly Alboim nicely sums up the problem with far too much election coverage:
Don’t leave it just up to the politicians (though feel welcome to throw your support behind politicians when they do take a progressive stance).
Don’t stay in the familiar comfort of critique and opposition. We Canadians ask more of you. Democratic government should be of and for the people. That’s you and me. It’s up to us to build the Canada we would be proud to hand over to the next generation. Starting now.
That takes our active engagement. It takes you and I getting out of hyper partisan mode, or out of couch potato mode, talking beyond the converted and doing new things in fresh ways. The more people we bring into the progressive fold, the easier it is to face our deepest fears and move forward, together, to secure and build the Canada we want.
Mr. Alboim, meanwhile, also chastised the media’s analysis of polling data throughout the election. Few polls indicated a Conservative majority, but he said the results wouldn’t have been a shock had more members of the media made a genuine effort to sift through the data to come up with accurate seat projections, particularly in areas like the GTA where the Conservatives picked up 18 new seats that were essential to securing a majority government.- With Stephen Harper having already found new and worse ways to break his previous promises about not appointing cronies to the Senate, would anybody be surprised if his fixed election date promise is the next to be re-broken?
“The core problem for journalists is that they treat election campaigns as news events. From my perspective, it isn’t structured that way,” Mr. Alboim said. “It’s an incremental process in which nothing really happens—the electorate makes up its mind. It’s like watching paint dry, and journalists don’t know how to report on the drying of paint.”
- And one of the main components of the Cons' current structure may be the next to learn just what the party's promises are worth.
- Finally, David Olive writes about the U.S.' new role as sweatshop to the world:
U.S. and a few Canadian manufacturers have long been relocating in the low-wage U.S. South. They’ve now been joined by European multinationals, most of which also operate in Canada. The Euros leave behind the social-justice practices of their homelands, as keen to squeeze blood from a stone as the most avaricious business operator.
A stunning Human Rights Watch report from last September describes systematic exploitation of U.S. workers by such familiar European names as Ikea, Sodexo, BMW, Siemens, Daimler and Volkswagen.
“Even self-proclaimed ‘progressive’ companies can and do take full advantage of weak U.S. laws,” says Arvind Ganesan, HRW’s human rights program director. “The U.S. needs to close the loopholes in the country’s woefully inadequate laws to protect workers.”
...
China is no longer the “off-shoring” jurisdiction of choice. With annual wage gains now averaging 15 per cent to 20 per cent, combined with stagnant wages in North America, China will lose its labour-cost advantage over North America in just four years time, according to a report this month by the Boston Consulting Group.
From Hamburg to Lyon to Stockholm, the question is why aren’t we serving the North American market from lower-cost facilities there? Which means that “guilt-free shopping” will soon mean avoiding “Made in USA” labels on products made by workers denied a decent living wage.
Double standard of the day
Horror of horrors: at least two NDP MPs may not be absolutely certain as to how they might vote in a hypothetical future referendum! Stay tuned for a panel discussion featuring Jean Lapierre and Darrel Stinson on how this proves the NDP's disloyalty to Canada.
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- PLG highlights the less-discussed dangers resulting from the Cons' majority government:
- Finally, Gerald Caplan points out that in the wake of the Daily Show's skewering of Canada's asbestos industry, Canada will once again face a choice as to whether to keep standing in the way of international agreement:
- PLG highlights the less-discussed dangers resulting from the Cons' majority government:
A lot of people have been commenting that no matter what evil Harper would, in his heart, love to wreak in the upcoming Conservative majority, it won't really be that bad. The idea is that Conservatives will be wanting to position themselves for the long term as a natural governing party, and so they will act like safe hands and not do too much damage. There is something to this. But I think there are things such people are overlooking when they discuss how a Conservative majority will govern.- Which seems like a particularly maddening danger following an election where the Cons were lauded by 95% of the country's press as somehow being stable or safe. But Dan Gardner explains the obvious source of that impression, as editorial boards seem to have happily mistaken Harper's "decisiveness" for competence:
...
(T)he bottom line for me is that these Conservatives are basically bad at governing. They have no interest in or respect for governance as a concept.
It's partly that they don't think government should be doing most things it does in the first place. And it's partly that even to the extent they acknowledge government might have a role, that's not what they're there for--the basic purpose of modern Conservatives is to defeat enemies and amass power and wealth for themselves and the class they identify with. Presented with a lever of power, that's what their instincts say it's there for. So they just basically have no patience for careful policy-making or administration with an eye to the public good.
As a result, only part of the dangers of a Conservative government have to do with their pre-planned intentions to enact austerity or So-Con measures. Much has to do with what will happen as they are hit with the need to make policy decisions about governance on an ongoing basis, and they react according to their instincts and ideas about what it is to be in government. Which is to say, hamfistedly, incompetently, and in ways irrelevant to the needs of the country.
Successive prime ministers have all but erased parliamentary governance. In its place is a pyramid, at the top of which is the Prime Minister’s Office. Enthroned in the PMO, the PM is a pharaoh.- As plenty of commentators have pointed out, one of the main questions surrounding the future of Quebec politics is that of whether sovereigntists will seek to retake partisan territory by rebuilding the Bloc, or instead look for other outlets. And so far, the latter choice looks to be winning out.
Blame the PMs. But blame also ourselves. In our political culture, a leader who acknowledges uncertainty and encourages experiments is “indecisive.” A leader who permits dissent is “weak.” A leader who changes his mind in response to new evidence is a “flip-flopper.”
A real leader is one who centralizes power, is certain of everything, who breaks the knuckles of anyone who disagrees, who never admits to being wrong, and who will deny to his last breath ever having changed his mind about anything. A real leader is a Great Man issuing orders from the top of a pyramid.
And so, inevitably, we get a Great Man standing in front of a backdrop repeating the idiotic mantra: “Leadership. Certainty. Leadership. Certainty. Leadership ...”
Incidentally, in 2008, when the Great Man stood in front of that backdrop, he said with absolute certainty that he would never run a deficit. It seems he didn’t see the financial crisis coming. Or the recession. Or the deficit he’s been running ever since. That’s the thing about Great Men. They can’t see nearly as far as they think.
- Finally, Gerald Caplan points out that in the wake of the Daily Show's skewering of Canada's asbestos industry, Canada will once again face a choice as to whether to keep standing in the way of international agreement:
The Daily Show segment can only be seen a yet another serious international humiliation for Canada carefully crafted by Stephen Harper. Mr. Stewart’s devout fans around the world have to be asking: What kind of people run Canada anyway? Canadians themselves will simply watch and cringe, mortified.
By coincidence, we will know a lot more about the people who run our country very soon. On June 20, a meeting convenes in Geneva of the 143 nations, including Canada, that have ratified the UN’s Rotterdam Convention. The little-known but vital convention covers pesticides and industrial chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons.
Delegates will vote on a recommendation of the convention’s expert scientific body to put chrysotile asbestos (the only form of asbestos traded in the world today, and the form mined in Quebec) on the its list of hazardous substances. As Prime Minister, Stephen Harper has repeatedly joined with a handful of other countries in blocking this recommendation, putting the interests of the asbestos industry ahead of global health. As of now, he is pledged to continue this remarkable stand.
Here is the perfect issue for the Official Opposition NDP to pursue immediately and loudly. Happily enough, 76 per cent of Quebeckers oppose government financing for an asbestos mine with only 14 per cent in favour. Shamefully enough, this tiny minority includes most Quebec trade-union leaders.
...
Given the Rotterdam meeting, Stephen Harper must within weeks make clear exactly what kind of foreign policy he intends to conduct with his unassailable majority, and what kind of Canada he intends to show the world. Is Canada back? Or is Canada going backwards?
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Thursday Afternoon Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Alice's CPSA wrapup is well worth a read in general, but one bit of post-election analysis looks to have plenty of potential to carry over into the new Parliament:
- Scott Stinson recognizes that Stephen Harper's political strategy is based on playing Canadians for suckers - leaving only the question of whether he'll remember the lesson by the next time Harper puts on a facade for electoral gain:
- Finally, Andrew Leach is right to note that reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will require some significant action (which the Cons are only exacerbating by ruling out a cap-and-trade system). But the more important message is that continued delays out of the Harper government will only make matters worse:
- Alice's CPSA wrapup is well worth a read in general, but one bit of post-election analysis looks to have plenty of potential to carry over into the new Parliament:
From Ipsos-Reid’s work on leadership, Michael Ignatieff had been so far behind both Harper and Layton prior to the campaign, it begged the question for Darrell Bricker as to why the Liberals had pushed for an election at all. On key questions about preference for a coalition versus a Harper government, voters split 50:50 prior to the election (and the Conservatives finished up with 40 of the 50, and a majority government). But when asked whom they believed – Harper who said the opposition would form a coalition, or Ignatieff who said they wouldn’t – survey respondents sided with Harper 62:38.Of course the Libs no longer have to worry about public perceptions of Ignatieff - and it may be that an interim leader will avoid the worst of the ad blitzes that undermined their previous two standard-bearers. But there's little indication that they'll be able to avoid a leadership disadvantage for a long time to come, which may only help to entrench the election alignment going forward.
And when asked pre-election who would have made the best prime minister of a coalition government, 59 per cent picked Jack Layton, while 27 per cent preferred Ignatieff and 14 thought Duceppe would. Moreover Layton was winning on every measure of likeability (including as the leader respondents would most like to have a coffee or a beer with), though Harper always topped the list on measures of competence (“who will get things done”). Bricker said the Liberals must have been seeing the same numbers, and said it was no surprise the NDP would have wanted to go to an election if they saw the same thing as well.
- Scott Stinson recognizes that Stephen Harper's political strategy is based on playing Canadians for suckers - leaving only the question of whether he'll remember the lesson by the next time Harper puts on a facade for electoral gain:
Over the last five years, anyone inclined to rationalize Stephen Harper’s latest foray into decidedly non-conservative territory always had the minority government to point to. His hold on power was tenuous, one could say, so there were times he just had to choke down his principles and take action to protect his party’s station.- But in fairness, Kady notes that the history of Conservative Senate reformers abandoning their principles when the opportunity for patronage arises is as old as Canada itself.
So, when David Emerson crossed the floor in 2006, it was only so B.C. could have an experienced voice at the Cabinet table. When the Conservatives created a regional slush fund — sorry, economic development agency — for southern Ontario in 2009, it was simply a way to shore up votes in a key area. And when he began appointing partisans to the Senate in 2009 — in big blue dollops — it was just so his government could ensure that House legislation wasn’t held up by an unelected body.
He didn’t like doing these things, you see, but they just had to be done. Couldn’t be helped. Hold your nose, look away, and await the day when this unpleasantness was no longer necessary.
That day was supposed to have arrived on May 3. But as Wednesday morning’s events in Ottawa have made brazenly clear, the Prime Minister is not about to do a damn thing differently. Those of us who thought he might? There’s a word for that: suckers.
- Finally, Andrew Leach is right to note that reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will require some significant action (which the Cons are only exacerbating by ruling out a cap-and-trade system). But the more important message is that continued delays out of the Harper government will only make matters worse:
Mr. Kent’s decisions will determine whether or not we are in a position to meet our Copenhagen commitments, and determine either the costs we incur to meet our targets or the costs we incur as a result of not meeting them. Meeting them will require the most aggressive GHG reduction efforts undertaken by any economy in the world, and the challenge gets tougher with every day we do not act. Not meeting them may limit access to markets for our exported products and access to capital for our investment projects. Inaction could also provide other nations with justification for the imposition of low carbon fuel standards or border adjustment tariffs on our products.
If we are not going to meet our targets because we are not prepared to impose the regulations which would be required, then we need a significant shift in our strategy internationally. We should recognize that the gold standard for global effort on GHGs, the EU, has imposed a carbon price on their economy which only amounts to about $20/ton today. Canada would be much better served by committing to match our effort to theirs, rather than committing to do more and delivering less.
With a majority government in hand, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mr. Kent can and should set a clear path forward for Canada on GHG emissions. Whatever choices they make, they will not be easy ones.
Oh, the humanity!!!
A shocking revelation from Jane Taber: one of the new MPs elected this month doesn't know how to tie a tie! Clearly this is evidence of an unqualified candidate in far over his head! And pity the leader who has to babysit him!
Oh wait, it's a Conservative cabinet minister. So anything Peter Penashue has left to learn is a "compelling story", rather grounds for than hysterical shrieks about his lack of fitness for public office. Sorry for the confusion.
Oh wait, it's a Conservative cabinet minister. So anything Peter Penashue has left to learn is a "compelling story", rather grounds for than hysterical shrieks about his lack of fitness for public office. Sorry for the confusion.
On changed interests
Andrew Potter offers up a few theories to try to make Stephen Harper's take on the Senate look consistent over time. But I'm not sure they make as much as sense as an overall conclusion that his Senate stance - much like many of his other - has in fact changed now that his party holds power.
Keep in mind that until last year, the Senate had been controlled by a Liberal plurality or majority since 1941 - with the exception of the end and aftermath of Brian Mulroney's second term in office, when the PCs too were seen as an enemy of the developing Reform movement. Which means that at every turn, the Senate had served as a barrier looming in the way of what Harper and his political allies hoped to accomplish in politics.
That goes a long way toward explaining the constant drumbeat about a need for reform of some kind, as well as the enmity normally expressed toward the Senate as an institution. And indeed, even as Harper took power in 2006, he publicly portrayed the Senate primarily as an obstacle to his ability to control the country's agenda.
But now, the tables have turned. Harper holds an outright majority in the Senate already, and has four years to keep on appointing his cronies to publicly-funded positions which they can either use to launch future electoral campaigns, or instead occupy for decades to impede any future government's effort to chart a different course for Canada.
So an institution which Harper long had reason to view as a bulwark against his efforts now serves instead as a convenient means of propagating his own movement, even (and maybe especially) where it contradicts the will of the public. Which may explain why Harper's view of the prospect of reforming the Senate might have turned around completely - and why those of us who see the dangers of an unelected chamber being used to subvert democratic decision-making may have to be the ones to take up the cause of demanding change.
Keep in mind that until last year, the Senate had been controlled by a Liberal plurality or majority since 1941 - with the exception of the end and aftermath of Brian Mulroney's second term in office, when the PCs too were seen as an enemy of the developing Reform movement. Which means that at every turn, the Senate had served as a barrier looming in the way of what Harper and his political allies hoped to accomplish in politics.
That goes a long way toward explaining the constant drumbeat about a need for reform of some kind, as well as the enmity normally expressed toward the Senate as an institution. And indeed, even as Harper took power in 2006, he publicly portrayed the Senate primarily as an obstacle to his ability to control the country's agenda.
But now, the tables have turned. Harper holds an outright majority in the Senate already, and has four years to keep on appointing his cronies to publicly-funded positions which they can either use to launch future electoral campaigns, or instead occupy for decades to impede any future government's effort to chart a different course for Canada.
So an institution which Harper long had reason to view as a bulwark against his efforts now serves instead as a convenient means of propagating his own movement, even (and maybe especially) where it contradicts the will of the public. Which may explain why Harper's view of the prospect of reforming the Senate might have turned around completely - and why those of us who see the dangers of an unelected chamber being used to subvert democratic decision-making may have to be the ones to take up the cause of demanding change.
New column day
Here, on the Wall government's choice to do nothing to limit the dirty tricks which rose to prominence in this month's federal election in advance of this fall's provincial campaign.
For further reading, see:
- Paul Boin on the complaints raised after the federal election.
- Rob Ferguson on the response from Ontario's government.
- And a few of my previous posts on the voter ID requirements that have now been passed at both the provincial and federal levels without an iota of evidence that they serve any purpose other than to suppress the vote.
For further reading, see:
- Paul Boin on the complaints raised after the federal election.
- Rob Ferguson on the response from Ontario's government.
- And a few of my previous posts on the voter ID requirements that have now been passed at both the provincial and federal levels without an iota of evidence that they serve any purpose other than to suppress the vote.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Wednesday Afternoon Links
Assorted content to end your day.
- Adam Radwanski points out that Stephen Harper's latest round of Senate patronage figures to play into the NDP's hands as it looks to build public opposition to politics as usual:
- Adam Radwanski points out that Stephen Harper's latest round of Senate patronage figures to play into the NDP's hands as it looks to build public opposition to politics as usual:
If Mr. Harper was looking to signal once and for all that he’s abandoned his populist roots, he could scarcely have done better than Wednesday’s Senate appointments. Little more than two weeks ago, Josée Verner, Larry Smith and Fabian Manning were all rejected by voters in their ridings – the latter two after biding their time with supposedly temporary gigs in the Red Chamber. Now, all three will have the opportunity to serve in Parliament anyway, at what is theoretically a higher level, courtesy of the leader who only a few weeks ago was still extolling the virtues of an elected Senate.- John Geddes comments on how the NDP's strong labour base may play into its opposition strategy:
...
(F)or the New Democrats, this is a dream issue – and not just because it distracts from their own post-election foibles. It will give Mr. Layton, who has argued that the Senate should be abolished altogether, an opportunity to continue positioning himself as the outsider standing up for ordinary Canadians against Ottawa’s culture of entitlement – a message that will be key to any future success east of Ontario.
The Conservatives spent much of the recent campaign enjoying the NDP’s surge, because it mostly came at the expense of the Liberals. But for all that Mr. Harper might relish the prospect of his only national opposition coming from a party firmly to the left of centre, he might enjoy it a little else if that party starts challenging him on what was once safe Conservative turf. A few more announcements like Wednesday’s, and that might start to be a real concern.
It’s the public impression Layton’s caucus creates that will largely determine if he can prevent the Liberals from reclaiming their traditional centrist political turf. Appearing to be too close to organized labour could be a liability for the NDP. After all, only a minority of working Canadians belong to a union, about 30 per cent last year, down from 38 per cent in 1981. Unionization rates are lower still in the private sector, making the influence of public sector unions in the NDP a potential issue. And that influence is substantial and looks to be growing, with the election of potential caucus heavyweights like Nycole Turmel, the former president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and Robert Chisholm, a former Atlantic regional director of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.- Dwayne Winseck highlights some of the myths behind the demand for more restrictive copyright laws:
The clout of these and other advocates for government unions could be significant in the coming battle over departmental budgets. Harper has vowed to find $4 billion a year in cuts to direct federal spending, not including transfers to the provinces and individuals. Dewar says the NDP is sure to oppose any job cuts proposed to achieve those reductions. But he argues the NDP is uniquely positioned to try to bring government unions into discussions about saving money without shrinking the bureaucracy. “We can actually talk to public sector unions,” he says, “about finding ways to innovate.” And doing more than merely combatting restraint at every turn, he adds, will be vital to solidifying the NDP’s election gains. “The stereotype,” Dewar says, “is that we’ll just oppose cuts and that’s it.”
...
He was scheduled to give his first speech since the election this week at a CLC convention in Vancouver. The event was planned long before the Tory minority fell and the election was on, but the symbolism is potent. He can’t afford to drop what Brian Topp, one of his key strategists—and executive director of the performers’ union ACTRA in Toronto—has described as Layton’s formula of “optimistic, sunny idealism” and “fiscally prudent pragmatism.” Those may not be themes traditionally used to rally a union audience. But as the politician who has just brought Canada’s labour movement closer than ever before to federal power, Layton is in a position to set his own tone.
The music industry is not in decline. In fact, the “total” music industry has grown from roughly $1.26-billion in 1998 to just over $1.4-billion today. Worldwide, the growth has been even more impressive, especially in the fast-growing economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (the BRICS).- Finally, Erin compares the relative effects of wages and profits in contributing to economic growth:
But the reshuffling of new and old elements in the industry has not been kind to the traditional big four global record labels, EMI, Universal, Warner Music and Sony. A few massive concert promoters – Live Nation (Ticketmaster), AEG, etc. – also threaten to usurp their place at the centre of the music universe. Bands such as Radiohead, the Arctic Monkeys and Pearl Jam now go straight to audiences with their music, while picking up whatever slack ensues through concerts.
...
So, copyright reform? Absolutely.
Picking up where the last Parliament left off will deliver important advances with respect to user created content and limited liability for ISPs. However, the crackdown on users, attempts to turn ISPs into ‘gatekeepers’ on behalf of the music industry and permitting digital locks to trump people’s rights, will lead us down a bad path.
The key insight is that, since the relationship between profits and investment is relatively weak (a point often noted on this blog), the balance hinges on the significance of trade flows. Since net exports are zero for the world as a whole, the global economy is wage-led. Big economies like the Eurozone and United States are also wage-led. But small open economies tend to be profit-led because trade flows loom large.
Stockhammer’s analysis helps explain the generally poor performance of neoliberal “trickle down” economics for the world as a whole. It also sheds light on Europe’s economic policy paradox.
For individual European countries, it seems rational to pursue pro-capital policies to gain a competitive edge. But since the whole Eurozone is wage-led, member countries would enjoy more growth if they all pursued pro-labour policies.
...
The presentation also got me thinking about smaller economies (like Canada), for which the policy implications are less straightforward. Progressives should still support pro-labour policies to achieve a more equal distribution of income and we should not aspire to provoke a competitive “race to the bottom” by pursuing pro-capital policies.
However, simply boosting wages in a small open economy would not add to its growth. More domestic consumption could be more than offset by diminished export competitiveness (unless wages simultaneously rose elsewhere through international coordination).
To me, this analysis underscores the need for progressives to articulate alternative strategies to promote investment and exports, especially in smaller economies that may not be wage-led. Instead of accepting pro-capital policies across the board, we should advocate investment in public infrastructure and targeted support for actual private investment as well as policies focused on higher wages and income redistribution.
On gratuitous appointments
Following up on this post, let's note that there's one factor which makes Stephen Harper's latest Senate stacking even more of an embarrassment than his previous few rounds.
After all, Harper has tried to excuse his previous appointments by pointing to supposed obstruction (however fabricated) as creating a need to push for a party advantage in the upper chamber, while claiming that his new appointments are required to facilitate reform later on. But with his previous set of appointments, Harper's party had already reached a majority which allowed it to push through whatever legislation it wanted.
And if Harper temporarily lost that majority only because two of his previous appointments were using their publicly-funded positions as a launching pad for failed campaigns, that hardly seems to offer any excuse for reappointing them - particularly when he'd have once again reached a majority by September on retirements alone.
Which means that there's no excuse about needing to appoint more cronies in order to be able to pass legislation - whether related to Senate reform or otherwise. Instead, this is the most glaring example yet of patronage appointments for their own sake, with absolutely no pretense that they offer any greater ability to govern. And while it may not be much surprise that Harper is starting his first majority by replicating that pattern from his previous terms in government, the fact that he's managed to reach a new low in rewarding his cronies looks to confirm that a majority will only see more and worse of his previous partisan excesses.
After all, Harper has tried to excuse his previous appointments by pointing to supposed obstruction (however fabricated) as creating a need to push for a party advantage in the upper chamber, while claiming that his new appointments are required to facilitate reform later on. But with his previous set of appointments, Harper's party had already reached a majority which allowed it to push through whatever legislation it wanted.
And if Harper temporarily lost that majority only because two of his previous appointments were using their publicly-funded positions as a launching pad for failed campaigns, that hardly seems to offer any excuse for reappointing them - particularly when he'd have once again reached a majority by September on retirements alone.
Which means that there's no excuse about needing to appoint more cronies in order to be able to pass legislation - whether related to Senate reform or otherwise. Instead, this is the most glaring example yet of patronage appointments for their own sake, with absolutely no pretense that they offer any greater ability to govern. And while it may not be much surprise that Harper is starting his first majority by replicating that pattern from his previous terms in government, the fact that he's managed to reach a new low in rewarding his cronies looks to confirm that a majority will only see more and worse of his previous partisan excesses.
Tomorrow's Conservative Slogan Today
Join Stephen Harper's Conservatives - where failure has no consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)