Once again, the 'Riders' latest loss was more a story of missed opportunities than poor play overall - particularly in the third quarter, when Saskatchewan's near-total dominance on both sides of the ball led to a grand total of one point. But there's a downside to that type of loss as well, as the fixes normally available for a losing team don't apply to the 'Riders in the slightest.
Normally, the best advice for a struggling team is to take better care of the ball. And indeed, usually a losing streak involves losing the turnover battle handily - which tends to even out over time.
But the 'Riders' last two losses have featured a grand total of zero turnovers, to two for the team's opponents. So there's nowhere to go but down on that front.
Likewise, a struggling offence can normally find some obvious room to improve its completion rate. But Darian Durant has completed two-thirds of his passes over the past two weeks - and while a few too many of those have been for little or no gain, it's hard to see much prospect of pushing that number upward.
And aside from Geroy Simon's first-half eruption, the 'Riders' defence has played about as well as could be hoped for - holding two fairly strong offences to 22 and 24 points.
So what's left for the 'Riders to improve?
Well, the biggest problem looks to be getting some touchdowns out of the current possession offence. And there are a couple of obvious points which might help, including setting up receivers to take the ball in stride rather than catching the ball flat-footed, and designing plays to let Durant make better use of the time he buys to find receivers far downfield.
And of course it would help for the 'Riders to stop shooting themselves in the foot. In particular, it's beyond me how an offence with an elite quarterback has so much trouble working within the play clock - and indeed a faster-moving offence might also help to set up bigger plays by getting opposing defences off stride.
Meanwhile, the 'Riders' receivers have plenty of work to do on timing up the play without going offside - not to mention catching the ball once it reached them. (Needless to say, James Robinson didn't help on either front.) And of course, a better field-goal conversion rate would at least help to keep games close.
But even if the 'Riders can improve on those points, they might face enough concurrent decline in their turnover ratio to keep them on the losing side of any given game. Which means that while it's too early to give up on the season or any large number of the 'Riders' players, there's ample reason for concern that matters will get worse before they get better.
Update: I won't claim to have much insight on Dallas Baker, the import receiver who arrived in a trade for Luc Mullinder today. And hopefully he'll provide one of the playmakers the 'Riders have lacked.
But it's seldom a great feat of CFL roster management to trade a perfectly serviceable non-import for an import lottery ticket who was available as a free agent just months earlier. And if Baker isn't ready to help immediately, the effect of the deal will be to push the 'Riders even further away from where they need to go.
Monday, August 08, 2011
Sunday, August 07, 2011
Sunday Evening Links
Miscellaneous material to end your weekend.
- Floyd Norris' column on the gap between stagnant wages and soaring corporate profits. But let's add Digby's take as to what we can expect if the corporate sector gets its way:
- Sixth Estate adds a few more names and numbers to the Harper Cons' patronage list.
- The National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy concludes that the Cons' already sad excuse for a climate-change program is double-counting any expected emission reductions.
- Finally, Alison's latest comic - on the Cons' loyalty testing - is well worth a look.
- Floyd Norris' column on the gap between stagnant wages and soaring corporate profits. But let's add Digby's take as to what we can expect if the corporate sector gets its way:
- Erin is among many to point out how Standard & Poor's was determined to downgrade the U.S.' credit rating even when its entire factual basis for doing so was proven wrong."I've never seen labor markets this weak in 35 years of research," says Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. Wages and salaries accounted for just 1 percent of economic growth in the first 18 months after economists declared that the recession had ended in June 2009, according to Sum and other Northeastern researchers.In the same period after the 2001 recession, wages and salaries accounted for 15 percent. They were 50 percent after the 1991-92 recession and 25 percent after the 1981-82 recession.(J)udging from the claptrap these CEOs are babbling every chance they get (read the article), they are planning to squeeze more than just their workers --- they want to use this situation to blackmail the government into cutting their taxes and deregulating them even more than they already are. It doesn't make sense, of course. They are sitting on a ton of capital, it's not like they don't have the money to invest. It's sheer opportunism and they'll probably get away with it.
Corporate profits, by contrast, accounted for an unprecedented 88 percent of economic growth during those first 18 months. That's compared with 53 percent after the 2001 recession, nothing after the 1991-92 recession and 28 percent after the 1981-82 recession.
...
(I)t's not as if their profits are being being put to work at all. They just aren't being put to work in the US. And if the political establishment has its way, they'll be doing even more. Free trade deals are on the top of both parties' "jobs agenda." If all goes well, they'll end up with a few high profile loopholes temporarily closed in exchange for lower tax rates forever and some sweetheart trade deals. With any luck they won't even have to give up the loopholes.
- Sixth Estate adds a few more names and numbers to the Harper Cons' patronage list.
- The National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy concludes that the Cons' already sad excuse for a climate-change program is double-counting any expected emission reductions.
- Finally, Alison's latest comic - on the Cons' loyalty testing - is well worth a look.
What might have been
Wilf Day offers up one what-might-have-been scenario based on proportional representation. But as one astute observer pointed out at the NDP's Vancouver convention, there's another alternate set of possibilities which wouldn't have required a different electoral system - only some better choices by the then-leader of one of the parties which has seen its fortunes decline most.
When Michael Ignatieff decided he preferred keeping Stephen Harper in power to working with a progressive coalition in 2009, his operating assumption seems to have been that the Libs simply needed to bide their time in order to become the next government down the road. But what he seems to have missed was that the coalition itself offered an opportunity to entrench a set of party rankings that worked in the Libs' favour.
Indeed, there isn't a single plausible outcome of Ignatieff seeking to take power under a coalition that wouldn't have been a far better result for the Libs than where they ended up instead.
At best for the Libs, Ignatieff would have had a chance to govern for a year and a half with an NDP coalition partner and Bloc support - not only effectively neutralizing any criticism from any other party to the left of the Cons, but ensuring that the comparative popularity of Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe served to reinforce the argument that the Libs belonged in power after a subsequent election. And if the coalition had held together, the likely result would have been either a change in leadership for the Cons, or at least a serious loosening of Stephen Harper's hold on his party - weakening the Libs' strongest opponent at the time while strengthening their own hand.
What's more, even the less desirable outcomes from Ignatieff's standpoint would figure to have positioned the Libs in a secure second place for the foreseeable future. If the coalition had taken power but its underlying support structure had fallen apart, the Libs would have been able to blame whichever party withdrew its support for breaking a deal to keep the Cons out of office - which would have given them a particular opportunity to rebuild in Quebec where the coalition was most popular. And if a coalition had been stopped in its tracks by defections to the Cons or by a snap election that resulted in a Con majority, the Libs would figure to have had no trouble at least locking in their second-party standing for the duration of the majority mandate.
Instead, by deciding that he couldn't stand to rule with another party at the cabinet table, Ignatieff sharpened distinctions which played to the NDP's advantage - while ensuring that the Libs would be seen as enemies both by the Cons for agreeing to the coalition in the first place, and by the other parties and their supporters who wanted to see Harper toppled. And in retrospect, that offered the NDP exactly the opening it needed to establish itself as the true opposition to the Cons in seat count as well as in principle.
Of course, the NDP deserves in taking advantage of the opening. But it's hard not to see the Libs' fall as the product of Ignatieff's original sin. And while there's some reason to hope the long-term result will be a political system that better reflects the values of progressive Canadians, it's still worth a reminder which party blew its opportunity to change the Harper-ruled status quo.
When Michael Ignatieff decided he preferred keeping Stephen Harper in power to working with a progressive coalition in 2009, his operating assumption seems to have been that the Libs simply needed to bide their time in order to become the next government down the road. But what he seems to have missed was that the coalition itself offered an opportunity to entrench a set of party rankings that worked in the Libs' favour.
Indeed, there isn't a single plausible outcome of Ignatieff seeking to take power under a coalition that wouldn't have been a far better result for the Libs than where they ended up instead.
At best for the Libs, Ignatieff would have had a chance to govern for a year and a half with an NDP coalition partner and Bloc support - not only effectively neutralizing any criticism from any other party to the left of the Cons, but ensuring that the comparative popularity of Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe served to reinforce the argument that the Libs belonged in power after a subsequent election. And if the coalition had held together, the likely result would have been either a change in leadership for the Cons, or at least a serious loosening of Stephen Harper's hold on his party - weakening the Libs' strongest opponent at the time while strengthening their own hand.
What's more, even the less desirable outcomes from Ignatieff's standpoint would figure to have positioned the Libs in a secure second place for the foreseeable future. If the coalition had taken power but its underlying support structure had fallen apart, the Libs would have been able to blame whichever party withdrew its support for breaking a deal to keep the Cons out of office - which would have given them a particular opportunity to rebuild in Quebec where the coalition was most popular. And if a coalition had been stopped in its tracks by defections to the Cons or by a snap election that resulted in a Con majority, the Libs would figure to have had no trouble at least locking in their second-party standing for the duration of the majority mandate.
Instead, by deciding that he couldn't stand to rule with another party at the cabinet table, Ignatieff sharpened distinctions which played to the NDP's advantage - while ensuring that the Libs would be seen as enemies both by the Cons for agreeing to the coalition in the first place, and by the other parties and their supporters who wanted to see Harper toppled. And in retrospect, that offered the NDP exactly the opening it needed to establish itself as the true opposition to the Cons in seat count as well as in principle.
Of course, the NDP deserves in taking advantage of the opening. But it's hard not to see the Libs' fall as the product of Ignatieff's original sin. And while there's some reason to hope the long-term result will be a political system that better reflects the values of progressive Canadians, it's still worth a reminder which party blew its opportunity to change the Harper-ruled status quo.
Sunday Morning Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Tom Mills challenges the Cons to show any job creation whatsoever as a result of their non-stop corporate tax slashing:
- Meanwhile, Carol Hughes rightly points out that two NDP opposition day motions passed unanimously in the House of Commons - meaning that there's every reason to put pressure on the Cons to translate their support in principle into real policy changes.
- Finally, I'll look at a couple of Alice's observations in more detail later. But for now, her post includes plenty of noteworthy tidbits on where Canada's political parties were in 2010, as well as where they're going in the years to come.
- Tom Mills challenges the Cons to show any job creation whatsoever as a result of their non-stop corporate tax slashing:
The thing is, if corporate tax cuts really do create jobs, Flaherty should be able to demonstrate it by now with something a little more substantial than theories.- After a week of party operatives and media sources outside Quebec begging every NDP supporter they can find for some evidence of internal dissent angle to keep Nycole Turmel in the headlines, the big "gotcha" is...Adrian Dix' continued support for Turmel.
Canada's corporate tax rate has dropped incrementally from 22.1% in 2005-06 to 16.5% today. The government should be able to track what jobs this has created.
Show us the jobs, I'd say. And show us full-time industrial jobs, not part-time service ones. Private sector, not civil service.
Otherwise, maybe we should give trickle-up economics a try.
- Meanwhile, Carol Hughes rightly points out that two NDP opposition day motions passed unanimously in the House of Commons - meaning that there's every reason to put pressure on the Cons to translate their support in principle into real policy changes.
- Finally, I'll look at a couple of Alice's observations in more detail later. But for now, her post includes plenty of noteworthy tidbits on where Canada's political parties were in 2010, as well as where they're going in the years to come.
Saturday, August 06, 2011
On warning signs
Shorter Jim Flaherty:
Of course economic trouble elsewhere in the world will have negative consequences for Canada. But we won't let that stop us from pushing the same bad advice that's done so much to cause it.
Of course economic trouble elsewhere in the world will have negative consequences for Canada. But we won't let that stop us from pushing the same bad advice that's done so much to cause it.
Saturday Morning Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- L. Aaron Wright nicely contrasts the fabricated hysteria over Nycole Turmel against the choices of the Libs and Cons:
- L. Aaron Wright nicely contrasts the fabricated hysteria over Nycole Turmel against the choices of the Libs and Cons:
Where was the outrage when Stephen Harper tried to recruit Mario Dumont of the ADQ in Quebec, a leader of the Yes side in the 1995 referendum?- Kevin Drum serves up some numbers on why unions matter - reminding us why the corporatist right so fears both:
Where is the outrage at Maxime Bernier, a Tory cabinet minister, who worked for the Parti Quebecois government as an adviser to then Quebec finance minister Bernard Landry?
I don’t recall any outrage when the Liberals welcomed Jean Lapierre back into their fold. He was made minister of Transport. Mr. Lapierre was not just a former Bloc MP, but also a Bloc co-founder.
All of these politicians supported Quebec sovereignty. Ms. Turmel never has. She is a federalist.
Among men, if you account only for the effect of individual membership in unions, (inequality) would be about a fifth lower (at 1973 unionization rates), which agrees pretty well with previous estimates. But if you also account for the effect of unions on surrounding nonunion employers (who often raised wages to compete with union employers and to avert the threat of unionization in their own workplace), the effect is larger: Unionization at 1973 levels would decrease income inequality by a full third...- Meanwhile, Ken Lewenza points out another corporate scam that's transferring money to the least scrupulous businesses at the expense of workers, as corporations are making a habit of simply shutting down without warning and leaving their employees out in the cold when it comes to money already earned:
The effect of unionization on women is less dramatic because women were never unionized at the same rate as men. For them, increasing returns to education are a bigger factor in rising income inequality than deunionization. For men, however, deunionization has had a huge impact...
(D)eunionization has allowed income inequality to rise partly because unions are negotiating wages for fewer people than they used to, and partly because unions no longer have the power to force the political system to pay attention to the needs of the middle class.
The abrupt closure of three IQT call-centre operations in Oshawa, Trois-Rivières and Laval has left 1,200 workers reeling, and government agencies scratching their heads. How can a company (in this case a multi-million dollar, multi-national telecommunications contractor) simply pack up and leave, literally overnight? How can they walk away from legal obligations, washing their hands of back pay and severance? Seriously, how?- Finally, the National Post rightly notes that recognition of both human rights and the negative consequences of gratuitously draconian policy is particularly important in dealing with targets who lack any public defenders. But it'll take plenty of reminders on that point to counteract the Cons' deliberate moves to shield themselves from criticism for analogous actions by declaring that nobody should care about the victims anyway.
Weeks have gone by but no one, as of yet, has any real answers to these questions.
Governments appear incapable of even tracking down basic information about the company, who’s in charge and whether or not they’re actually bankrupt.
There’s an assumption among Canadians that there must be rules and regulations holding corporations to account. But this latest fiasco is a rude awakening.
Indeed, we’ve seen this storyline many times before. In 2009, 2,400 non-union auto parts workers at Progressive Moulded Products (PMP) in Toronto faced a similar ordeal — returning from vacation only to learn that their employer had fled town, taking their separation payments with them. CAW members have seen it first-hand, too, at companies like Collins & Aikman in Scarborough, Aradco and Aramco in Windsor, and others.
Each case prompted a public outcry and a spontaneous fight back. Workers demanded what was legally owed to them. But after fighting long and hard, they inevitably end up with less than they are owed.
...
It is both immoral and economically counterproductive to allow deadbeat corporations like IQT to commit these wrongs with impunity. As a society, we must take a hard line with employers who think they’re beyond the greater good.
Friday, August 05, 2011
Friday Afternoon Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- Gerald Caplan calls out the non-stop and substance-free gotcha politics facing the NDP since the public started recognizing that it had a legitimate chance to form government:
- Finally, as Aaron Wherry notes, Canadians for Tax Fairness are making the case as to why we should feel good about paying the reasonable price of civilization.
- Gerald Caplan calls out the non-stop and substance-free gotcha politics facing the NDP since the public started recognizing that it had a legitimate chance to form government:
It never stops and never will. The moment the NDP seems even close to power, the knives come out.- And T.C. Norris also weighs in on Turmel:
The election was May 2. The NDP's rise began barely two weeks prior. Here's what it faced in these past three months:
"MassageGate." Suddenly, just before the election, it became necessary for the Sun media to smear Jack Layton over a massage he had 15 years earlier, and for Christie Blatchford to repeat the smear, even agreeing it was a smear.
"LasVegasGate." The NDP makes history in the election. It sweeps Quebec and emerges as Official Opposition. But its new MPs are immediately dismissed as a joke. Like a gang of bullies picking on someone who can't defend herself, reporters fall all over themselves to mock a candidate who spent part of the election in Las Vegas. She becomes a symbol of the immaturity of the new NDP MPs, even though few reporters had ever spoken to a single one of them. Having finally met them, these stories abruptly ceased.
"Jack'sCancerGate." Within seconds of Mr. Layton's announcement that he was temporarily stepping aside because of a new cancer but intended to return in the fall, the burial of the NDP began. The NDP was finished without Mr. Layton, even though he hadn't resigned. He was irreplaceable. Day after day for an entire week, the rhetorical question got asked and re-asked: Can the NDP make it Jack-less? The answer was seen to be self-evident.
"ComeCleanAboutCancerGate." Out of nowhere, the cry goes up that Mr. Layton must divulge everything about his cancer. What was he hiding? The world had a right and a need to know every single detail. Soon the rest of the pack picked it up. Everyone wanted to know something that was none of their business and of no conceivable use if they did know.
And now, finally, "TurmelGate"...
It's only a matter of time until Quebec realizes the province and its interests are no longer a priority for much of Canada, especially for a right-wing government that Québécois repudiated and where the west and Ontario dominate. For all of us who can't envision a Canada sans Quebec, there is dangerous potential here. Unexpectedly, the NDP has emerged as the best federalist bridge between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Jack Layton and Nycole Turmel are the embodiment of that bridge.
(N)ot only did Turmel spurn the Bloc, she did so to run for a party that historically had never had much electoral success in Quebec. So she supported a federalist party in a circumstance where she might have reasonably expected that to be a political liability.- Meanwhile, Caplan's list takes on an even darker tone when juxtaposed with the Cons' latest abuse of Abousfian Abdelrazik - as the declaration that Canadians should mindlessly trust their government's spin as to which undesirables should be arbitrarily stripped of all rights seems far too easily transferable to the Cons' willingness to play up any issue they can for political gain.
The fact that many in Quebec such as Turmel spurned the pro-independence party for a federalist party should be celebrated not mocked. Turmel is a long-time NDP member and supporter, her true allegiance. Her opponents in any case include many with previous sovereignist backgrounds: Liberal Jean Lapierre, who served in Martin's cabinet, was a co-founder of the Bloc, and Maxime Bernier, who is now back in Harper's cabinet, worked for PQ Premier Bernard Landry, a very serious supporter of Quebec independence.
Turmel represents exactly what we want to see Quebecers do about federalism, Mr. Rae, embrace it.
- Finally, as Aaron Wherry notes, Canadians for Tax Fairness are making the case as to why we should feel good about paying the reasonable price of civilization.
Friday Morning Links
Assorted and environmentally-themed content to end your week.
- Lloyd Alter highlights the Cons' contrasting treatment of environmental scientists (who are being fired in droves) and oil lobbyists (who figure never to lack for work).
- And allies around the world are starting to take notice of the Cons' dirty reputation.
- Fortunately, though, the oil lobby's advantage in money seems to be compensated for in creativity. While the tar sands lobby engages in clumsy manipulations to try to sell its case publicly, the Yes Men managed a slick PR move to smoke out the difference between anybody concerned with truly "ethical oil" and those who just want to paper over the entire industry's abuses.
- And finally, Susan Riley notes that we've managed to make strides on at least some environmental issues such as smog:
- Lloyd Alter highlights the Cons' contrasting treatment of environmental scientists (who are being fired in droves) and oil lobbyists (who figure never to lack for work).
- And allies around the world are starting to take notice of the Cons' dirty reputation.
- Fortunately, though, the oil lobby's advantage in money seems to be compensated for in creativity. While the tar sands lobby engages in clumsy manipulations to try to sell its case publicly, the Yes Men managed a slick PR move to smoke out the difference between anybody concerned with truly "ethical oil" and those who just want to paper over the entire industry's abuses.
- And finally, Susan Riley notes that we've managed to make strides on at least some environmental issues such as smog:
There is another factor at play, although it is often downplayed: the cumulative impact of government regulation. Starting in 1991, with the signature of a Canada-U.S. acid rain accord, there has been a steady decline in various pollutants in central Canadian air, not only those linked to acidification of lakes.
Last March, on the 20th anniversary of the pact signed by Brian Mulroney and Ronald Reagan, Environment Canada released an update, trumpeting a one-third reduction in smog-related pollutants and elimination of 50 per cent of sulphur dioxide since the accord was signed, along with declines in nitrous oxide and particulate emissions.
...
We have, figuratively and literally, breathing space this summer. But clean air shouldn't depend on prevailing winds. It will also take politicians blessed with the foresight of their predecessors - including their conservative predecessors.
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Thursday Afternoon Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- No, we shouldn't be surprised that Clark-era PCs disagree with the Harper Cons given that their leader long since jumped ship as well. But Peter Blaikie's take on the Cons' dumb-on-crime policies is still worth a read:
- While I don't agree with Sixth Estate's hostility toward economists generally, this much is well worth emphasizing:
- No, we shouldn't be surprised that Clark-era PCs disagree with the Harper Cons given that their leader long since jumped ship as well. But Peter Blaikie's take on the Cons' dumb-on-crime policies is still worth a read:
A civilized, effective system of justice should have two overriding objectives: to protect society, perhaps forever, from the truly dangerous and, while punishing the others, using every possible effort to rehabilitate them, turning them into productive citizens.- Louisa Taylor notes that accuracy seems to be of no particular concern in the Cons' efforts to fearmonger about immigrants, as at least one member of their publicly-flaunted list of war criminals seems to be completely unknown to human rights groups who would have every reason to know if he was under any reasonable suspicion.
The government’s approach, in effect and almost certainly in intention, reverses these objectives. It is all stick and no carrot. It even abandons the highly successful, self-sustaining, century-old program of prison farms, which taught generations of inmates critical life skills.
...
In addition to the human cost of the tough-on-crime policy, the financial costs will be enormous, involving many billions of taxpayers’ dollars annually. Either the Harper government has no idea what the additional cost of more prisons, more inmates and longer jail terms will be, in which case it is incompetent, or, equally disrespectful of Canadians, it does know and refuses to admit them, thereby being dishonest.
- While I don't agree with Sixth Estate's hostility toward economists generally, this much is well worth emphasizing:
What is being advanced by mainstream economists is not (despite what their fake Nobel Prize says they’re doing) a science of the markets, so much as a theology of the markets. The economy written about in pieces like these is a raging beast beyond our control. It’s easy to forget that “the free market,” as such, doesn’t even exist. It’s an academic abstraction for a certain range of ways in which people interact, carefully bounded by laws and regulations. In their headlong rush to build a “science” worthy of the name, economists have built a god of their own making and are attempting to drag us down into the same mud they’re mired in. Depressions aren’t caused by greedy fraudulent bankers and their pet politicians stripping away law enforcement and regulation, and plunging into absurd schemes from which they know taxpayers will grudgingly bail them out — they’re caused by a long-term economic process that just “happens,” every 70 or 80 years, to cause a major contraction.- Finally, it's well worth noting when Barrie McKenna takes note of progressive economics on his normally corporatist blog:
Like all gods, the market appears to exist outside of human control, but at the end of the day it is our creation, and it is not a necessary one. We don’t need to allow preachers, or economists, to operate outside of the usual standards of logic and empiricism. We don’t need to run to either of these priesthoods whenever there’s a problem so they can prescribe meaningless fixes. We choose to create markets. And we choose to allow banks to operate as Ponzi schemes.
Canadian Labour Congress chief economist Andrew Jackson, on the other hand, sees Canada’s G7-leading finances as an opportunity to do a lot more to help the recovery and promote job growth.
“The major economic problem faced by Canadians is a very slow recovery and weak job market, not government deficits or rising debt,” Mr. Jackson argues in a blog post.
...
Canada’s finances are in relatively good shape, at least compared to other wealthy countries, Mr. Jackson points out. Total net government debt stands at 33.7 per cent of GDP in 2011, compared to the OECD average of 62.6 per cent. Total Canadian government deficits stand at 4.9 per cent of GDP, versus a 6.7 per cent average in the OECD. And interest costs on the debt are eating up 0.7 per cent of GDP, compared to a 1.9 per cent average in the OECD.
And yet Mr. Jackson said Canada is embracing more austerity than most of its rivals in the world by “artificially speeding” the pace of deficit reduction.
“Why are we taking the lead in imposing austerity, even though our economy is weak, and even though our deficit and debt is superior to most other countries?,” he wondered.
On equalization
One more note on today's fund-raising news which is best seen in Alice's historical quarterly data.
For 2011 Q2, total fund-raising for the NDP, Libs, Bloc and Greens was $7,918,876.12 - while for the Cons, it was $8,205,078.88. Which looks to mark a long-awaited return to parity between the Cons and their collective political opposition - as aside from a couple of easily-dismissed blips (2009 Q2 during Michael Ignatieff's honeymoon period and 2006 Q4 during the Libs' leadership convention), the Cons had managed to handily exceed all other parties' fund-raising combined since they took power in 2006.
Of course, one can't assume that dollars are readily transferrable among parties any more than votes. But at the very least, the past quarter offers some basis for optimism that in a more polarized system, there's indeed enough donor cash available for a united opponent to match the Cons' war chest - and that the opposition parties are moving closer to bringing in those donations.
For 2011 Q2, total fund-raising for the NDP, Libs, Bloc and Greens was $7,918,876.12 - while for the Cons, it was $8,205,078.88. Which looks to mark a long-awaited return to parity between the Cons and their collective political opposition - as aside from a couple of easily-dismissed blips (2009 Q2 during Michael Ignatieff's honeymoon period and 2006 Q4 during the Libs' leadership convention), the Cons had managed to handily exceed all other parties' fund-raising combined since they took power in 2006.
Of course, one can't assume that dollars are readily transferrable among parties any more than votes. But at the very least, the past quarter offers some basis for optimism that in a more polarized system, there's indeed enough donor cash available for a united opponent to match the Cons' war chest - and that the opposition parties are moving closer to bringing in those donations.
Not quite comparable
Alice notes that all three official parties in Parliament amassed record fund-raising totals during the course of this spring's election campaign. But it's worth adding one asterisk to the raw numbers.
While both the Cons and the NDP mostly raised money within the context of their broader electoral campaigns, the Libs' numbers include two major pushes where they elevated fund-raising above all other concerns - including a blitz at the start of the campaign, and then an effort to tap the party's bigger donors before election day (which coincided with the Libs' decision not to spend to the national limit in an attempt to pinch pennies). And while that difference doesn't mean the Libs have any less money to show for the campaign, it serves as reason for caution in presuming they can keep up the pace.
While both the Cons and the NDP mostly raised money within the context of their broader electoral campaigns, the Libs' numbers include two major pushes where they elevated fund-raising above all other concerns - including a blitz at the start of the campaign, and then an effort to tap the party's bigger donors before election day (which coincided with the Libs' decision not to spend to the national limit in an attempt to pinch pennies). And while that difference doesn't mean the Libs have any less money to show for the campaign, it serves as reason for caution in presuming they can keep up the pace.
New column day
Here, on the silliness of this week's hullabaloo over Nycole Turmel's past Bloc membership - and the lessons we can stand to learn about Quebec politics in response.
For further reading...
- Marianne White also treats this week's news as a teachable moment rather than an opportunity to scold the NDP for other parties' false spin.
- Brian Topp points out that the reaction from the Cons and Libs is all about fearmongering rather than any genuine concern about national unity.
- And Don Lenihan notes that identity conflicts are an entirely normal part of the Canadian experience.
For further reading...
- Marianne White also treats this week's news as a teachable moment rather than an opportunity to scold the NDP for other parties' false spin.
- Brian Topp points out that the reaction from the Cons and Libs is all about fearmongering rather than any genuine concern about national unity.
- And Don Lenihan notes that identity conflicts are an entirely normal part of the Canadian experience.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Juxtaposition
Kenneth Rogoff describes the type of policy needed to push developed economies out of their current slump:
too many policy-makers have relied on the belief that, at the end of the day, this is just a deep recession that can be subdued by a generous helping of conventional policy tools, whether fiscal policy or massive bailouts.So what are we getting instead? Let's ask Paul Krugman once again:
But the real problem is that the global economy is badly overleveraged, and there’s no quick escape without a scheme to transfer wealth from creditors to debtors, either through defaults, financial repression or inflation.
...
Is there any alternative to years of political gyrations and indecision?
I have argued that the only practical way to shorten the coming period of deleveraging and slow growth would be a sustained burst of moderate inflation, say, 4 per cent to 6 per cent for several years. Of course, inflation is an unfair and arbitrary transfer of income from savers to debtors. But such a transfer is the most direct approach to faster recovery. Eventually, it will take place one way or another, as Europe is painfully learning.
Consciously or not, policy makers are catering almost exclusively to the interests of rentiers — those who derive lots of income from assets, who lent large sums of money in the past, often unwisely, but are now being protected from loss at everyone else’s expense.
...
While the ostensible reasons for inflicting pain keep changing,...the policy prescriptions of the Pain Caucus all have one thing in common: They protect the interests of creditors, no matter the cost. Deficit spending could put the unemployed to work — but it might hurt the interests of existing bondholders. More aggressive action by the Fed could help boost us out of this slump — in fact, even Republican economists have argued that a bit of inflation might be exactly what the doctor ordered — but deflation, not inflation, serves the interests of creditors. And, of course, there’s fierce opposition to anything smacking of debt relief.
...
No, the only real beneficiaries of Pain Caucus policies (aside from the Chinese government) are the rentiers: bankers and wealthy individuals with lots of bonds in their portfolios.
Wednesday Afternoon Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Martin Patriquin offers up the definitive response to the pearl-clutching over Nycole Turmel's Bloc membership (italics in original, bold added):
- No, it's not news that right-wingers see deficits as an excuse to slash public services rather than having any actual interest in addressing them. But a reminder can never hurt.
- Nor is it particularly surprising that they're fully dedicated to ramping up a needless security state, and that cost evaluations and public consultations are no object in the effort.
- Finally, it's well worth joining the effort to share what looks to have been one of the few redeeming stories to come out of Anders Behrin Breivik's anti-left and anti-Muslim rampage.
- Martin Patriquin offers up the definitive response to the pearl-clutching over Nycole Turmel's Bloc membership (italics in original, bold added):
(H)ere’s the wee nuance that seems lost on the rest of the county, and one that is particularly important in the case of Turmel: the members of (sovereigntist) parties, whether they are on the left or the right, endorse this supposedly bedrock belief to varying degrees. The Bloc is/was made up of people like Jean Dorion, former president of the endlessly entertaining Société St Jean Baptiste; it’s also the former home of Jean Lapierre, who after co-founding the sovereignist party went on to be a cabinet minister in Paul Martin’s “home of the Clarity Act” Liberal government. Many, many members of the Bloc, along with the Parti Québécois and Québec Solidaire, are happy to live with Quebec’s current status as a province within a larger country. It’s a fact that vexes hardcore sovereignists and federalists alike.- Bill Tieleman points out that Canadians are poorer than they think by comparing soaring utility costs to stagnant wages.
And let’s have a look at Nycole Turmel’s record, shall we? First off, she was a member of the Bloc since 2006, long after BQ leader Gilles Duceppe had transitioned the Bloc from its original sovereigntist shock troop status to a hazy lefty bastion that, while ostensibly sovereignist in message, was more concerned with “defending Quebec’s interests in Ottawa.” Exhibit two: Turmel was member not of Parti Québécois—which is decidedly less whimsical on the issue of Quebec separation—but of Québec Solidaire, a left-first party whose own co-leader told me last year that “we are caught in the prison of the national question.”
Finally, and it’s amazing how few people have clued into this headsmackingly obvious point, but Turmel willingly ripped up her Bloc Québécois membership card to run for a dyed-in-orange federalist party. That alone should be evidence enough that her sovereignist credentials weren’t quite Parizeau-calibre. If anything, Turmel’s (temporary) ascension to the head of the party, like the NDP’s overwhelming victory in May, is proof positive that detaching the left from the sovereignist movement isn’t as impossible as it once was. How far we’ve come.
- No, it's not news that right-wingers see deficits as an excuse to slash public services rather than having any actual interest in addressing them. But a reminder can never hurt.
- Nor is it particularly surprising that they're fully dedicated to ramping up a needless security state, and that cost evaluations and public consultations are no object in the effort.
- Finally, it's well worth joining the effort to share what looks to have been one of the few redeeming stories to come out of Anders Behrin Breivik's anti-left and anti-Muslim rampage.
On hollow victories
Sean Holman raises the possibility that Christy Clark and the B.C. Libs may be no better off if they manage to hang onto the HST in the province's ongoing referendum than if they lose the vote. But I wonder whether it's worth going a step further.
If the vote to axe the HST succeeds despite any manipulations on the part of the government, then it seems at least vaguely plausible that the province might see itself as having sufficiently punished Clark and the Libs for their sins - and thus pay somewhat less attention as future revelations surface. But if Clark uses large amounts of public money and other resources to get her way on the HST, then every bit of news figures to feed into a sense that the Libs have escaped unpunished - making it easier for the NDP to build the case that the next election needs to do the job instead.
If the vote to axe the HST succeeds despite any manipulations on the part of the government, then it seems at least vaguely plausible that the province might see itself as having sufficiently punished Clark and the Libs for their sins - and thus pay somewhat less attention as future revelations surface. But if Clark uses large amounts of public money and other resources to get her way on the HST, then every bit of news figures to feed into a sense that the Libs have escaped unpunished - making it easier for the NDP to build the case that the next election needs to do the job instead.
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Telling
No, Tim Harper's take on the latest news about Nycole Turmel isn't any better than most of the media's coverage. But it does at least include one rather telling contrast:
But as far as Harper is concerned, that's not a problem to be remedied, but an excuse to bash the party which has successfully responded to that reality.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
Inside Quebec, the Turmel revelation will likely cause little damage.So thanks in part to the Cons' anti-coalition spin, much of Canada - including the vast majority of the media commenting on Turmel - is utterly ignorant as to what membership in the Bloc actually signifies in the province where the party operates. And indeed, even some commentators who normally rank among the most astute in the country have gone out of their way to be entirely oblivious to the possibility that any reasonable person could ever have supported the Bloc based on social issues, rather than out of separatist fervour.
It is understood in that province that one can be a federalist while supporting the social policies of the Bloc.
Outside Quebec, sensibilities are far different.
But as far as Harper is concerned, that's not a problem to be remedied, but an excuse to bash the party which has successfully responded to that reality.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
On building opportunities
There's no doubt that the trumped-up story about Nycole Turmel's one-time Bloc membership reflects the inevitable first real pile-on against the NDP in its new role as Official Opposition. But it's worth noting that the NDP also has an opportunity to turn that challenge in its favour - and the indications look to be positive so far.
For now, the main danger for the NDP isn't so much the certainty that the Cons and Libs will look to slam it at every turn as the danger of an intra-party split damaging its ability to fight back. And there's no doubt that concern trolls across the country will try to goad NDP members into contributing to just that type of internal breakdown.
But so far, there seems to be little indication that they're succeeding. And the more the NDP can keep a united front in the face of the other parties' contrived attacks, the more accustomed its new MPs will get to holding together - resulting in a stronger coalition once the siege ends. (Which may make the attacks all the more desperate as time goes by.)
What's more, there may even be an opportunity to shore up what might have been one of the greater risks for the party. While the NDP's Quebec sweep came largely at the expense of the Bloc, it's currently an open question as to whether the party can defend its seats against Lib and Con challengers without a seemingly strong Bloc in the picture. But the more energy the Cons and Libs dedicate to declaring that the bulk of Quebec's voters are unfit to participate in Canada's public debate by virtue of any past affinity for the province's once-dominant political party, the tougher they'll find it to win over those voters in the future - serving only to improve the NDP's chances of building on this year's electoral result.
That is, provided the NDP itself can hold firm and defend its newly-built coalition. But so far, all indications look to be positive on that front - meaning that there's ample reason for hope once the current storm passes.
For now, the main danger for the NDP isn't so much the certainty that the Cons and Libs will look to slam it at every turn as the danger of an intra-party split damaging its ability to fight back. And there's no doubt that concern trolls across the country will try to goad NDP members into contributing to just that type of internal breakdown.
But so far, there seems to be little indication that they're succeeding. And the more the NDP can keep a united front in the face of the other parties' contrived attacks, the more accustomed its new MPs will get to holding together - resulting in a stronger coalition once the siege ends. (Which may make the attacks all the more desperate as time goes by.)
What's more, there may even be an opportunity to shore up what might have been one of the greater risks for the party. While the NDP's Quebec sweep came largely at the expense of the Bloc, it's currently an open question as to whether the party can defend its seats against Lib and Con challengers without a seemingly strong Bloc in the picture. But the more energy the Cons and Libs dedicate to declaring that the bulk of Quebec's voters are unfit to participate in Canada's public debate by virtue of any past affinity for the province's once-dominant political party, the tougher they'll find it to win over those voters in the future - serving only to improve the NDP's chances of building on this year's electoral result.
That is, provided the NDP itself can hold firm and defend its newly-built coalition. But so far, all indications look to be positive on that front - meaning that there's ample reason for hope once the current storm passes.
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- Linda McQuaig notes that the same financial actors who caused the global economic meltdown that's being used as an excuse for austerity measures around the world are themselves making out like bandits - even though the public strongly favours requiring them to at least pay their share:
- Duncan Cameron comments on some of the factors which make Nycole Turmel an ideal interim choice to lead the NDP's charge, as well as what the NDP needs to do next:
- Linda McQuaig notes that the same financial actors who caused the global economic meltdown that's being used as an excuse for austerity measures around the world are themselves making out like bandits - even though the public strongly favours requiring them to at least pay their share:
For the past two years, Americans have repeatedly told pollsters that they support higher taxes on the rich as a way to reduce the deficit. A Washington Post poll last month, for instance, found 72 per cent supported raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000.- Alison rightly points out that many of the Canadian political media figures enlisted to declare that an incestuous system of the type which spawned the U.K.'s News of the World scandal are also the same people going out of their way to set up exactly that.
...
But a radical rump of Republicans, threatening to pull the trigger, succeeded in forcing Democrats to abandon tax increases on the wealthy — at a time when America’s wealthy are as rich as the tycoons of the Gilded Age. Feeling the gun at their temples, the Democrats joined the Republicans in the quest for deeper spending cuts — which will only make the disastrous U.S. unemployment situation worse.
So while programs helping students, the elderly and the poor have been picked over with surgical precision, hedge fund managers can get back to work destabilizing financial markets with full peace of mind, knowing they’ll continue to enjoy a tax rate lower than the mechanics who service their private jets.
- Duncan Cameron comments on some of the factors which make Nycole Turmel an ideal interim choice to lead the NDP's charge, as well as what the NDP needs to do next:
The issues that matter to Canadians are jobs and incomes, access to public services, healthcare in particular, environmental protection, and availability of recreation and cultural facilities for family members. These are issues addressed by public sector unions every day. As a noted public sector union leader, Nycole Turmel is well placed to articulate the concerns of Canadians for the future, which is why her appointment was so widely supported by New Democrats.- Finally, let's close with at least some good news, as Les Whittington's report on Competition Commissioner Melanie Aitken highlights the fact that there's at least one watchdog showing some bite in dealing with corporate abuses.
...
In the next six weeks, caucus members will be canvassing Canadians in order to draw up lists of party priorities for the fall. NDP members of Parliament will first want to know how much support there is for Conservative policies. How many Canadians feel spending billions on new fighter jets makes a lot of sense? What degree of support is there for sending giant tanker ships through the coastal waters of British Columbia? How do Canadians feel about retiring on public pensions that will leave many of them below the poverty line?
To the extent they are known, Conservative policies are not popular with Canadians. The problem is that the public does not have a good picture of what the Conservatives are up to. So the Official Opposition needs to publicize widely what the Conservatives are actually doing. How well the NDP is able to fulfill that task -- without being able to count on media co-operation -- will determine how well it serves the public interest.
On incomplete pictures
One might think that an expose into Nycole Turmel's political involvement would go back further than the past five years. But surely Daniel Leblanc wouldn't have cut anything important out of the story...
Unfortunately, Leblanc instead seems to want to be the first to present the anti-NDP spin to come, while leaving out any details which might provide an accurate picture of Turmel's professional and political history. And it's not hard to see a zombie lie in the making as a result.
Update: Dr. Dawg has more:
“I’ve been at this for decades,” Turmel said. “In the 1990s, I chaired cross-country NDP panels that consulted Canadians on their ideas about progressive government. I served as associate party president under (former leader) Alexa McDonough and moderated the leadership process that saw Jack Layton elected (in 2003).”Of course, there's a separate issue with the meme (now being spread to smear Turmel) that past support for the Bloc should disqualify a plurality of Quebeckers from having any say in how Canada is governed. Even applying that glaringly flawed standard, though, one would think that an individual's previous decades of intensive involvement with a federalist party might serve as a rather important bit of context.
Unfortunately, Leblanc instead seems to want to be the first to present the anti-NDP spin to come, while leaving out any details which might provide an accurate picture of Turmel's professional and political history. And it's not hard to see a zombie lie in the making as a result.
Update: Dr. Dawg has more:
(F)or promoting social justice (and make no mistake, that’s her main sin in the eyes of the usual suspects) (Turmel) is now coming under assault from the Right, and from Liberals hoping to leverage their way back into the public consciousness by tarring her as a closet separatist sympathizer—the exact opposite of the truth.[Edit: fixed wording.]
Monday, August 01, 2011
NDP Next Steps Roundup
Not surprisingly, plenty in the Canadian media have responded to the NDP's first big news of the summer with all kinds of discussion as to where the party will go next. But let's take a quick look at some of the particularly noteworthy coverage.
Sheila Copps' tribute to Jack Layton stands out as a show of respect from a political rival. In contrast, Tim Powers engaged in some concern trolling par excellence, warning Nycole Turmel that the Cons might not appreciate the NDP's principled opposition. But fortunately, Turmel doesn't seem to be taking Powers' advice.
Speaking of whom, Susan Delacourt profiled Turmel in her new leadership role. Bea Vongdouangchanh did the same for Brian Topp as the initial face of Layton's announcement. And Joanna Smith looked in depth at the NDP's team which has helped to propel the party to its Official Opposition status.
Daniel Leblanc and Gloria Galloway covered some of what might come next for the NDP - albeit with some stunningly obvious commentary (does anybody need to be told that the NDP should promote its own values rather than the Bloc's?) mixed in. Andy Blatchford noted that Layton's absence may make for an ideal opportunity for the NDP's younger and newer MPs to grow into their roles.
And finally, Gerald Caplan served up a reminder that the party isn't over no matter what.
Sheila Copps' tribute to Jack Layton stands out as a show of respect from a political rival. In contrast, Tim Powers engaged in some concern trolling par excellence, warning Nycole Turmel that the Cons might not appreciate the NDP's principled opposition. But fortunately, Turmel doesn't seem to be taking Powers' advice.
Speaking of whom, Susan Delacourt profiled Turmel in her new leadership role. Bea Vongdouangchanh did the same for Brian Topp as the initial face of Layton's announcement. And Joanna Smith looked in depth at the NDP's team which has helped to propel the party to its Official Opposition status.
Daniel Leblanc and Gloria Galloway covered some of what might come next for the NDP - albeit with some stunningly obvious commentary (does anybody need to be told that the NDP should promote its own values rather than the Bloc's?) mixed in. Andy Blatchford noted that Layton's absence may make for an ideal opportunity for the NDP's younger and newer MPs to grow into their roles.
And finally, Gerald Caplan served up a reminder that the party isn't over no matter what.
Monday Morning Links
This and that for your long weekend reading.
- I'm not ordinarily a huge fan of spending much time in the present focusing on the past. But Dan Gardner's suggested label for today's holiday looks to be well worth adopting - if nothing else as a reminder that even prior to Confederation, Canada's history includes a place at the forefront of the development of human rights.
- Kudos to the Hill Times' Chris Plecash and Darcy McDonnell for staking out the Cons' hidden cabinet meetings last week and reporting on the secrecy surrounding them. And if they and others keep up the effort, it may well be possible to force the Harper government to be at least slightly less secretive.
- Ian Welsh lists some of the lessons from the U.S.' trumped-up debt ceiling crisis and subsequent capitulation by the Democrats.
- Meanwhile, Paul Krugman nicely sums up exactly what figures to happen as a result of the deal. And as usual, he's criticized as being "completely unhinged" in the absence of any plausible basis to suggest that he's wrong.
- Finally, Erin catches right-wing mouthpiece Jason Clemens talking out of both sides of his mouth in describing the fiscal policy of the Harper Cons - as the same commentator who regularly bashes the Cons for having in fact expanded the size of government is trying to paint nonexistent cuts (rather than less reckless financial regulations) as the basic difference between Canada and the U.S. for consumption south of the border.
- I'm not ordinarily a huge fan of spending much time in the present focusing on the past. But Dan Gardner's suggested label for today's holiday looks to be well worth adopting - if nothing else as a reminder that even prior to Confederation, Canada's history includes a place at the forefront of the development of human rights.
- Kudos to the Hill Times' Chris Plecash and Darcy McDonnell for staking out the Cons' hidden cabinet meetings last week and reporting on the secrecy surrounding them. And if they and others keep up the effort, it may well be possible to force the Harper government to be at least slightly less secretive.
- Ian Welsh lists some of the lessons from the U.S.' trumped-up debt ceiling crisis and subsequent capitulation by the Democrats.
- Meanwhile, Paul Krugman nicely sums up exactly what figures to happen as a result of the deal. And as usual, he's criticized as being "completely unhinged" in the absence of any plausible basis to suggest that he's wrong.
- Finally, Erin catches right-wing mouthpiece Jason Clemens talking out of both sides of his mouth in describing the fiscal policy of the Harper Cons - as the same commentator who regularly bashes the Cons for having in fact expanded the size of government is trying to paint nonexistent cuts (rather than less reckless financial regulations) as the basic difference between Canada and the U.S. for consumption south of the border.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging
It's disappointing enough for the 'Riders to lose to Calgary at home. But it's doubly so to manage the feat while playing about as well as could possibly be expected in two phases of the game - leaving huge questions about an offensive unit which was supposed to be the team's strength.
On the bright side, Saskatchewan's defence was superb until the middle of the fourth quarter. In effect, the secondary looks to have taken a page out of the Stamps' playbook, pressuring receivers and jumping routes at every turn while making sure tackles when the ball did arrive. Meanwhile, the defensive line kept consistent pressure on Henry Burris. And the result was another game where one of the CFL's top offences was prevented both from finishing long drives, and from beating the 'Riders with big plays.
Meanwhile, the special teams finally seem to be performing consistently. Brandon West had the top single runback of the day, but both he and Tristan Jackson regularly generated positive yardage on kick returns. And Eddie Johnson's combination of booming kicks and frequent trips downfield to try to recover the ball figure to have given him a strong chance to hold onto his job even if Luca Congi returns healthy (particularly if the 'Riders do in fact prefer having one player handle kickoffs, punts and field goals).
But then there was the offence.
Yes, the 'Riders managed a few scattered big plays, and looked fairly decent by the numbers. But even when they were able to put points on the board, they did it more through stunts and lucky breaks than through any sustained control over the ball. And perhaps most problematically, the biggest issue facing the 'Riders this season still seems to be entirely unresolved.
There was never much doubt that Weston Dressler would be Saskatchewan's key receiver this season, and he's more than lived up to the title. But the 'Riders seem no closer to deciding who should join him as a go-to pass-catcher than they were at the start of the year. And with Jason Clermont moving far too slowly to get separation from most defenders, Terrence Nunn dropping what should have been a momentum-builder early in the game, Efrem Hill again pairing a single solid catch-and-run with a damaging penalty and Chris Getzlaf still looking inconsistent, the answer looks more and more to be that the 'Riders won't find what they're looking for on their current roster.
Fortunately, the end of the NFL's lockout raises the prospect of a Fantuz return and/or an influx of talent from south of the border before the CFL season is done. But if the offence can't figure out how to produce more consistently in the meantime, the 'Riders will have a huge hole to dig themselves out of once that talent arrives.
[Edit: fixed typo.]
On the bright side, Saskatchewan's defence was superb until the middle of the fourth quarter. In effect, the secondary looks to have taken a page out of the Stamps' playbook, pressuring receivers and jumping routes at every turn while making sure tackles when the ball did arrive. Meanwhile, the defensive line kept consistent pressure on Henry Burris. And the result was another game where one of the CFL's top offences was prevented both from finishing long drives, and from beating the 'Riders with big plays.
Meanwhile, the special teams finally seem to be performing consistently. Brandon West had the top single runback of the day, but both he and Tristan Jackson regularly generated positive yardage on kick returns. And Eddie Johnson's combination of booming kicks and frequent trips downfield to try to recover the ball figure to have given him a strong chance to hold onto his job even if Luca Congi returns healthy (particularly if the 'Riders do in fact prefer having one player handle kickoffs, punts and field goals).
But then there was the offence.
Yes, the 'Riders managed a few scattered big plays, and looked fairly decent by the numbers. But even when they were able to put points on the board, they did it more through stunts and lucky breaks than through any sustained control over the ball. And perhaps most problematically, the biggest issue facing the 'Riders this season still seems to be entirely unresolved.
There was never much doubt that Weston Dressler would be Saskatchewan's key receiver this season, and he's more than lived up to the title. But the 'Riders seem no closer to deciding who should join him as a go-to pass-catcher than they were at the start of the year. And with Jason Clermont moving far too slowly to get separation from most defenders, Terrence Nunn dropping what should have been a momentum-builder early in the game, Efrem Hill again pairing a single solid catch-and-run with a damaging penalty and Chris Getzlaf still looking inconsistent, the answer looks more and more to be that the 'Riders won't find what they're looking for on their current roster.
Fortunately, the end of the NFL's lockout raises the prospect of a Fantuz return and/or an influx of talent from south of the border before the CFL season is done. But if the offence can't figure out how to produce more consistently in the meantime, the 'Riders will have a huge hole to dig themselves out of once that talent arrives.
[Edit: fixed typo.]
Sunday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your long weekend.
- I'll agree with pogge that Tabatha Southey's latest is well worth a read. But while it's worth recognizing the differences between the respective priorities involved in managing a country as opposed to a family, there's one point hinted at by Southey which should be seen more as a similarity than it actually is:
- Antonia Zerbisias points out that we can't take a safesupply of water for granted. Sadly, Regina offers a case in point.
- The Cons make up poor excuses for their decision to prevent NDP MP Ryan Cleary from visiting the 9 Wing Gander air base. CC calls BS.
- Finally, Origins of Politics points out how Sun Media is giving far more reach and exposure to bigotry on the Canadian political scene.
- I'll agree with pogge that Tabatha Southey's latest is well worth a read. But while it's worth recognizing the differences between the respective priorities involved in managing a country as opposed to a family, there's one point hinted at by Southey which should be seen more as a similarity than it actually is:
(W)hile living within one's means is a noble goal, few people, and very few businesses, balance their budgets on a year-to-year basis. They have mortgages, for example, or loans taken out to expand investment, or because of unforeseen strife.Of course, part of the problem is that parties on the right tend to be averse to public ownership in the first place. But for the rest of us, it's well worth keeping in mind the value of owning assets publicly - and ensuring that value isn't lost to corporate-focused P3 or privatization schemes in deciding what to do with public resources.
But then they also have assets. So debt is also investment.
It's easy to alarm people over a deficit. It's a high number and people are forever being told that it's theirs and their children's debt and specifically how much of it is theirs, per capita.
But no one ever tells them how much highway they own, per capita, or what section of the Grand Canyon is theirs. It's a very one-sided, frequently opportunistic way of expressing the situation.
- Antonia Zerbisias points out that we can't take a safesupply of water for granted. Sadly, Regina offers a case in point.
- The Cons make up poor excuses for their decision to prevent NDP MP Ryan Cleary from visiting the 9 Wing Gander air base. CC calls BS.
- Finally, Origins of Politics points out how Sun Media is giving far more reach and exposure to bigotry on the Canadian political scene.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Failing by any measure
It's no particular secret that "intensity" targets for greenhouse gas emissions are an utter joke, designed to facilitate the continued growth of heavy polluters as long as they make marginal improvements in per-unit emissions with no regard for the fact that our planet's environment doesn't stand to gain from dollars extracted. And it's also no particular secret that tar sands lobbyists (and consequently the Con government) have been pushing intensity targets for exactly that reason.
But what does it say about the interest of the oil industry and the Cons in living up to even their own flawed rhetoric that per-barrel "intensity" is managing to get worse?
But what does it say about the interest of the oil industry and the Cons in living up to even their own flawed rhetoric that per-barrel "intensity" is managing to get worse?
Unequal interest
In my column this week, I pointed out the need to combat poverty and inequality in order to achieve better outcomes in all kinds of areas even if we're not prepared to deal with them for their own sake. But let's follow up with a quick look at the choice facing Saskatchewan voters when it comes to addressing them.
On the part of Brad Wall's Saskatchewan Party, the story is one of complete unwillingness to even see poverty or inequality as issues worth acknowledging. Looking for even the slightest mention of inequality on the Sask Party's caucus site? Tough luck. How about their party site? Ditto. The party site refers to poverty once - not as a matter of policy, but in the profile of a single volunteer. And most appropriately, the Sask Party's caucus site mentions poverty once as well - in a general article on the budget where an anti-poverty group slams the Wall government.
But what about documents from the provincial government, which might be a bit less focused on sticking to anti-social talking points? The best example looks to me to be Wall's government direction report. Which mentions poverty only as a subset of children and youth issues - and inequality not at all.
In contrast, the NDP's party site, caucus site and latest policy report all discuss poverty at length as an issue which demands action. And while there's ample room for improvement in the handling of inequality on the NDP's web presence, at least the issue doesn't draw a complete blank.
Now, there's a long way for the NDP to go both in developing its own priorities to address poverty and inequality, and in spreading the message among citizens. But there looks to be absolutely no room for doubt that Saskatchewan voters who care about the issues will find a willing partner in the NDP - compared to total neglect from the Wall Sask Party.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
On the part of Brad Wall's Saskatchewan Party, the story is one of complete unwillingness to even see poverty or inequality as issues worth acknowledging. Looking for even the slightest mention of inequality on the Sask Party's caucus site? Tough luck. How about their party site? Ditto. The party site refers to poverty once - not as a matter of policy, but in the profile of a single volunteer. And most appropriately, the Sask Party's caucus site mentions poverty once as well - in a general article on the budget where an anti-poverty group slams the Wall government.
But what about documents from the provincial government, which might be a bit less focused on sticking to anti-social talking points? The best example looks to me to be Wall's government direction report. Which mentions poverty only as a subset of children and youth issues - and inequality not at all.
In contrast, the NDP's party site, caucus site and latest policy report all discuss poverty at length as an issue which demands action. And while there's ample room for improvement in the handling of inequality on the NDP's web presence, at least the issue doesn't draw a complete blank.
Now, there's a long way for the NDP to go both in developing its own priorities to address poverty and inequality, and in spreading the message among citizens. But there looks to be absolutely no room for doubt that Saskatchewan voters who care about the issues will find a willing partner in the NDP - compared to total neglect from the Wall Sask Party.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
Saturday Morning Links
Assorted content to start your long weekend.
- Thomas Walkom highlights the message being sent to students as to what workers should expect in the years to come. And it's well worth reflecting on whether the problem lies precisely with the politicians so eager to strip away the benefits workers have earned in the past:
- Finally, Ontario's provincial election is shaping up to be a wild one. And Andrea Horwath's stunning favourability rating of 63% and climbing - paired with sub-50% numbers for each of the other two main leaders - suggests that there's plenty of upside for the NDP as the campaign develops.
- Thomas Walkom highlights the message being sent to students as to what workers should expect in the years to come. And it's well worth reflecting on whether the problem lies precisely with the politicians so eager to strip away the benefits workers have earned in the past:
The old world, it says, was marked by full-time jobs, stable work environments and long-term employment.- Doug Saunders comments on the need to attack bigotry and religious fearmongering head-on - lest it serve as a breeding ground for the type of violent outburst perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik:
The new world, however, is characterized by short-term jobs. You may be on contract; you may be a temporary employee; you may work part-time. But the key is that you will probably be hired for a very short period (“just-in time work” is the moniker) and then “let go when the work is done.”
You will probably have to hold two or three jobs simultaneously for your entire working life.
You will have no pension, no benefits, no vacations, no sick days.
You will be constantly looking for work. “The permanent job, for the most part, is a thing of the past.”
How do you find a job? The labour market, the pamphlet says, is like a fish market: You are selling a commodity — in this case yourself.
And just as a fishmonger might wrap his mackerel in a fancy package, so you must make your labour power attractive to prospective buyers.
...
(T)he norm during that golden period of the 20th century when workers won their most basic rights was economic security. It was assumed that people had the right to live a life beyond the perpetual search for subsistence. If the chaos of the marketplace intervened, that chaos was tamed.
Now the market is back with a vengeance. This world of cutthroat competition and insecure work is not new. It may be disguised by new technologies such as the Internet or Twitter. But in essence it is very, very old. It is a world we thought we had conquered.
Every act of terrorism is built on a foundation of widely repeated ideas. To convert an ordinary person into a believer who’s willing to commit murder, those ideas must warn of an urgent threat of devastating proportions, one whose resistance and exposure will turn the terrorist into a hero and martyr. They must be repeated so often that they can be perceived as a crystalline truth that will be unveiled by the terrorist’s act.- Scott Tracey criticizes the Cons' stubborn refusal to engage with reality when it comes to actual crime rates, and the policies which can actually serve to reduce them.
...
(Anti-Muslim writers) begin with a demographic error: The claim that Muslims naturally have higher birth rates than others, that their numbers are growing faster than other new-immigrant groups did, that true Islamic believers are bound to become a majority in the West. This is demonstrably false.
Then they add a cultural error: that Muslims are nearly all literalist believers, that theirs is not merely another religion but a guiding ideology that commands its followers, that religion is the main force in the lives of these people so they can’t become ordinary members of Western secular societies. This, too, is demonstrably false.
Finally, they conclude with a millenarian message of impending societal takeover, in which the demographic and cultural fictions are combined into an urgent warning that, unless an unspecified something is done, we’ll all be under “their” command. Their works reserve their harshest condemnation for the political parties that dare tolerate or encourage this “takeover.”
Now we know that the authors of these works are part of a continuum of response that includes violence at its extreme end. Their ideas should never be banned or outlawed. But these figures, like moderates in other such movements, have a responsibility to work to eliminate the threats that have emerged from their ranks. And we all have a responsibility to expose their dangerous fictions.
- Finally, Ontario's provincial election is shaping up to be a wild one. And Andrea Horwath's stunning favourability rating of 63% and climbing - paired with sub-50% numbers for each of the other two main leaders - suggests that there's plenty of upside for the NDP as the campaign develops.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Juxtaposition
Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman:
Liberal Party Leadership Booby Prize Winner By Default Bob Rae:
Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.” But would that cult still rule in a situation as stark as the one we now face, in which one party is clearly engaged in blackmail and the other is dickering over the size of the ransom?
The answer, it turns out, is yes. And this is no laughing matter: The cult of balance has played an important role in bringing us to the edge of disaster. For when reporting on political disputes always implies that both sides are to blame, there is no penalty for extremism. Voters won’t punish you for outrageous behavior if all they ever hear is that both sides are at fault.
...
Many pundits view taking a position in the middle of the political spectrum as a virtue in itself. I don’t. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily reside in the middle of the road, and I want leaders who do the right thing, not the centrist thing.
Liberal Party Leadership Booby Prize Winner By Default Bob Rae:
The deep partisanship that has marked the crisis in the United States Congress has some lessons for Canadians. Polarisation is not the “new normal,” as New Democrats and Conservatives are preaching. It corrodes the body politic and takes us away from the simple truth that most people want a moderate, intelligent politics that’s based on facts, evidence, good values and compromise … we need to understand that most goals in politics, as they are in hockey or soccer, are scored from the centre. That’s where the action is, and that’s where most Canadians are...And that’s where the Liberal Party needs to be as well.
On clear choices
The fact that Nova Scotia's NDP government has managed to drag the province's budget into a substantial surplus even in the midst of difficult economic times has received some well-deserved attention over the past couple of days. But I'd think it's particularly worth noting the entirely typical response from the opposition Conservatives to the news that their province is one of the few jurisdictions in North America that's in the black:
But then, it's not as if there's some particular advantage to be had in paying down the province's debt, right?
Tory Leader Jamie Baillie said the increased surplus is a result of taxes that are too high, taking aim at the unpopular decision to hike the harmonized sales tax by two percentage points last July.That's right: even as their federal cousins show exactly how deep a hole one can dig by slashing taxes to the point where a government's budgets don't quite balance even at the best of times, the opposition to Canada's newest NDP government is insisting that it should be less responsible with the province's money.
But then, it's not as if there's some particular advantage to be had in paying down the province's debt, right?
The statements also reveal the province's net debt fell to $12.8 billion on 2010-11, a decrease of $217.8 million over the previous year. That will help the province avoid about $55 million annually in debt servicing costs, the Finance Department said.In sum, Nova Scotia's Cons are fully living up to the right's habit of refusing to accept responsible management when the alternative is reckless tax slashing. And it's well worth pointing out the distinction between an NDP which offers the former, and the Cons' obsession with the latter.
Still, that means the net debt for every man, woman and child in the province is $13,610.
An accidental opportunity
This morning, I theorized that the political fortunes of the NDP and the Libs will make for an interesting test case on the relative importance of leadership politics and party planning. But let's note part of the reason why Rae holds a relatively strong position within the Libs - and what it might mean in the years to come.
Again, I tend toward the view that a huge part of Jack Layton's current level of popularity can be traced to the fact that he was able to build his reputation over a period of years without facing the attack ads flying back and forth between the Cons and Libs. And now that Layton has built his public image to a level far beyond that of Stephen Harper, any attempt to tear him down may well do more harm than good for the party trying to launch attacks - meaning that the work put into building up Layton's reputation has served to substantially negate one of the Cons' favourite strategies.
In contrast, there can't be much doubt that a new permanent leader for the Libs (or the NDP if Layton steps down) will face the same type of smear attempt by the Cons that Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff experienced. But the Cons have quite understandably concluded that attack ads against an interim leader of the third party aren't worth their time - which looks like an elementary exercise in efficient resource allocation.
That is, as long as Rae's leadership is indeed on an interim basis. But let's ask rhetorically: what happens if by the time the Libs enter into their leadership campaign, Rae has managed to focus on developing his own image (which is of course one of the few areas within his control) to the point where he's seen as being substantially inoculated against possible Con attacks, while the rest of the party's leadership contenders face the virtual certainty of being defined by the Cons in a massive ad buy which the Libs can't afford to counter?
Of course, the above isn't to say that there's any scheme on Rae's part to turn his interim leadership into a permanent one - a possibility which has obviously been a bone of contention within the Libs. But it seems entirely plausible that his interim role might unintentionally provide a way out of the trap the Libs otherwise face.
Again, I tend toward the view that a huge part of Jack Layton's current level of popularity can be traced to the fact that he was able to build his reputation over a period of years without facing the attack ads flying back and forth between the Cons and Libs. And now that Layton has built his public image to a level far beyond that of Stephen Harper, any attempt to tear him down may well do more harm than good for the party trying to launch attacks - meaning that the work put into building up Layton's reputation has served to substantially negate one of the Cons' favourite strategies.
In contrast, there can't be much doubt that a new permanent leader for the Libs (or the NDP if Layton steps down) will face the same type of smear attempt by the Cons that Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff experienced. But the Cons have quite understandably concluded that attack ads against an interim leader of the third party aren't worth their time - which looks like an elementary exercise in efficient resource allocation.
That is, as long as Rae's leadership is indeed on an interim basis. But let's ask rhetorically: what happens if by the time the Libs enter into their leadership campaign, Rae has managed to focus on developing his own image (which is of course one of the few areas within his control) to the point where he's seen as being substantially inoculated against possible Con attacks, while the rest of the party's leadership contenders face the virtual certainty of being defined by the Cons in a massive ad buy which the Libs can't afford to counter?
Of course, the above isn't to say that there's any scheme on Rae's part to turn his interim leadership into a permanent one - a possibility which has obviously been a bone of contention within the Libs. But it seems entirely plausible that his interim role might unintentionally provide a way out of the trap the Libs otherwise face.
On comparative advantages
Naturally, Jack Layton's leave of absence has raised plenty of speculation as to what will happen on Canada's opposition benches over the summer (and perhaps beyond). But Tim Powers hints at what may be the most interesting question to watch in the months to come.
Most of the time when a political party ends up under interim leadership, it's because events have conspired to rob it of any ability to develop or execute a long-term plan. And indeed, the Libs are in that situation for the third time in just a few years.
Like Bill Graham and Stephane Dion (post-2008 election) before him, Bob Rae's ability to substantially set his party's direction is significantly limited by the expectation that he'll hand the reins to a new leader in the relatively near future. In effect, Rae can't rely on the past planning of leaders who have been unceremoniously turfed - but nor can he afford to take any substantial risks or strong positions, lest he be seen as limiting the choices the party may want to make in the next couple of years. Which means that Rae - though perceived as a stronger politician than most interim leaders - is stuck acting more as a caretaker than a planner and decision-maker.
In contrast, there's no reason to think there's any particular desire within the NDP to substantially change course at a time the strongest leader in Canadian politics is sidelined temporarily. And so Nycole Turmel's role as the NDP's interim leader figures to be primarily to execute the plan that's been developed by Jack Layton and a strong team of advisers over a period of nearly a decade.
Which makes for a rather neat opportunity to test the comparative effects of two traits which are normally difficult to separate. If the Libs manage to make up ground on the NDP, that will speak to the importance of a well-recognized leader with extensive political experience. Or if the NDP holds its own, then we should be able to conclude that a strong plan and vision for a party's future ultimately mean more than the face of a single leader. And both parties will want to pay close attention to the results as they determine how to position themselves for the next few years.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
Most of the time when a political party ends up under interim leadership, it's because events have conspired to rob it of any ability to develop or execute a long-term plan. And indeed, the Libs are in that situation for the third time in just a few years.
Like Bill Graham and Stephane Dion (post-2008 election) before him, Bob Rae's ability to substantially set his party's direction is significantly limited by the expectation that he'll hand the reins to a new leader in the relatively near future. In effect, Rae can't rely on the past planning of leaders who have been unceremoniously turfed - but nor can he afford to take any substantial risks or strong positions, lest he be seen as limiting the choices the party may want to make in the next couple of years. Which means that Rae - though perceived as a stronger politician than most interim leaders - is stuck acting more as a caretaker than a planner and decision-maker.
In contrast, there's no reason to think there's any particular desire within the NDP to substantially change course at a time the strongest leader in Canadian politics is sidelined temporarily. And so Nycole Turmel's role as the NDP's interim leader figures to be primarily to execute the plan that's been developed by Jack Layton and a strong team of advisers over a period of nearly a decade.
Which makes for a rather neat opportunity to test the comparative effects of two traits which are normally difficult to separate. If the Libs manage to make up ground on the NDP, that will speak to the importance of a well-recognized leader with extensive political experience. Or if the NDP holds its own, then we should be able to conclude that a strong plan and vision for a party's future ultimately mean more than the face of a single leader. And both parties will want to pay close attention to the results as they determine how to position themselves for the next few years.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- Trish Hennessy crunches the numbers on vacation time for Canadians:
- And Susan Riley points out that if the Cons were the least bit interested in providing better retirement security through the CPP, there's a recent precedent for assembling the level of provincial cooperation necessary to overcome their current excuse.
- John Geddes tries to follow the money behind the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, and learns that any promised transparency is nowhere to be found.
- Finally, Alison is brilliant - this time with her discussion of Ethical Snake Oil.
- Trish Hennessy crunches the numbers on vacation time for Canadians:
47- In case there was any doubt, mere evidence that public-sector pensions are entirely sustainable won't deter the coalition of anti-government and financial interests looking to trash them.
Percentage of Canadian workers who say they need a vacation more today than they’ve needed in four years.
10
Number of statutory holidays Canadians are entitled to in a year. Lowest of 40 countries in an international survey of vacation time.
...
22
Percentage of Canadians who say they cancelled vacation plans due to work.
49
Percentage of Canadian employers who say they expect workers to check in periodically while on vacation.
...
14
Percentage of Canadians who say they feel guilty taking a vacation.
- And Susan Riley points out that if the Cons were the least bit interested in providing better retirement security through the CPP, there's a recent precedent for assembling the level of provincial cooperation necessary to overcome their current excuse.
- John Geddes tries to follow the money behind the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, and learns that any promised transparency is nowhere to be found.
- Finally, Alison is brilliant - this time with her discussion of Ethical Snake Oil.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Parliament In Review: June 22, 2011
The second-last day of debates in this spring's session dealt mostly with Bruce Hyer's motion on small business. But lest anybody think there would be agreement on the details of an issue where every party supported the motion itself (resulting in a rather inexplicable standing vote)...
The Big Issue
So what did the parties find to debate about while agreeing on the NDP's plan for small business taxes?
Well, the Cons tried to put forward Japan as a positive example - which led to Hyer's apt observation that corporate taxes are significantly higher there. (And I'll offer a reminder that in fact, the Cons' target tax rate is identical to Japan's definition of an abusive tax haven.)
Meanwhile, Dennis Bevington raised an important point as to how corporate tax slashing doesn't get passed along to consumers when products are sold in the world economy. To which Maxime Bernier could only respond (loosely paraphrased) "Hayek! Lower Taxes! Blargh!".
For the Libs, Joyce Murray proudly labeled herself as more anti-government than the Cons by taking credit for the B.C. Libs' regulation-slashing. But due credit to Scott Brison for criticizing corporate tax cuts while noting that they only offer anything to 5% of businesses.
And finally, Hyer served up a reminder as to which party actually has the best record of balancing budgets.
Budget Votes
The other main votes taken on the 22nd involved budget estimates and related legislation. And there were a few noteworthy departures from what one might have expected.
Rather than opposing the budget in full, the Libs voted for the Cons' requested Senate funding. And after making a show of supporting the Cons' budget, the Bloc joined the other opposition parties in opposing not only the main estimates, but also the budget legislation reflecting the policies they supported.
In Brief
Mathieu Ravignat challenged the Cons on their willingness to impose even higher prescription drug prices through the CETA. Laurin Liu and Megan Leslie offered timely questions on the toxic extraction of shale gas. Similarly, Anne Minh-Thu Quach and Libby Davies questioned the Cons' plan to do nothing about health care until 2014, and were met with a thoroughly worn list of unrelated spin. In presenting a petition, Nathan Cullen slammed the Cons for standing alone in the world in favour of unfettered asbestos production and exports. And Peter Stoffer countered the Cons' war on knowledge by introducing a bill to remove the GST from books.
The Big Issue
So what did the parties find to debate about while agreeing on the NDP's plan for small business taxes?
Well, the Cons tried to put forward Japan as a positive example - which led to Hyer's apt observation that corporate taxes are significantly higher there. (And I'll offer a reminder that in fact, the Cons' target tax rate is identical to Japan's definition of an abusive tax haven.)
Meanwhile, Dennis Bevington raised an important point as to how corporate tax slashing doesn't get passed along to consumers when products are sold in the world economy. To which Maxime Bernier could only respond (loosely paraphrased) "Hayek! Lower Taxes! Blargh!".
For the Libs, Joyce Murray proudly labeled herself as more anti-government than the Cons by taking credit for the B.C. Libs' regulation-slashing. But due credit to Scott Brison for criticizing corporate tax cuts while noting that they only offer anything to 5% of businesses.
And finally, Hyer served up a reminder as to which party actually has the best record of balancing budgets.
Budget Votes
The other main votes taken on the 22nd involved budget estimates and related legislation. And there were a few noteworthy departures from what one might have expected.
Rather than opposing the budget in full, the Libs voted for the Cons' requested Senate funding. And after making a show of supporting the Cons' budget, the Bloc joined the other opposition parties in opposing not only the main estimates, but also the budget legislation reflecting the policies they supported.
In Brief
Mathieu Ravignat challenged the Cons on their willingness to impose even higher prescription drug prices through the CETA. Laurin Liu and Megan Leslie offered timely questions on the toxic extraction of shale gas. Similarly, Anne Minh-Thu Quach and Libby Davies questioned the Cons' plan to do nothing about health care until 2014, and were met with a thoroughly worn list of unrelated spin. In presenting a petition, Nathan Cullen slammed the Cons for standing alone in the world in favour of unfettered asbestos production and exports. And Peter Stoffer countered the Cons' war on knowledge by introducing a bill to remove the GST from books.
On non-news
No, it isn't news that the Cons tried unsuccessfully to recruit Thomas Mulcair around the time when he decided instead to run for the NDP. But for those looking for an actual topic worth discussing, what does it say that the Cons' idea of a "gotcha" is to dredge up their own failures?
Thursday Morning 'Rider Blogging
Yes, it's taken a few days to refresh my memory as to how to discuss a Saskatchewan Roughrider win. But as great as it is for the 'Riders to have broken into the win column (and in Montreal no less), most of the results of Sunday's game look to reflect the flip side of what I talked about last week.
Once again, the 'Riders and their opponents were mostly evenly matched in the trenches. But this time, they got every break possible when it came to turnovers, big plays and personnel - and just barely hung on to win despite those advantages.
To the extent there's a serious concern for the 'Riders coming out of Sunday's win, it has to lie on the offensive side of the ball. The good news was the the team's running game (featuring both Darian Durant and Wes Cates) and ball control were both far stronger than they've been so far. But on the latter front, the lack of turnovers until Hugh Charles' late fumble was as much a matter of the Als missing opportunities as of the 'Riders not serving them up.
And perhaps more importantly, the 'Riders once again failed to convert on some obvious chances to rack up points - turning four first-quarter possessions starting in or near Alouette territory into a total of seven points, then bungling a first-and-goal from the 4 with Ryan Dinwiddie in at quarterback. Which looked like a potentially fatal set of missed opportunities as long as there was some prospect of Anthony Calvillo getting the chance to respond.
Fortunately for the 'Riders, Calvillo's injury removed him from the game just after he'd put together his first strong series. But even though it undoubtedly benefited from facing Adrian MacPherson most of the game, the defence deserves loads of credit for its performance.
Indeed, perhaps the most impressive part of the game seems to have gone mostly unnoticed so far. The Alouette offence, normally one of the most explosive in the CFL, didn't manage a single play longer than 29 yards.
And that wasn't a matter of Montreal trying but barely missing either. Throughout the game the Als' quarterbacks had time to look downfield, but were forced to run or throw the ball away as the 'Riders' coverage stifled what may the league's top group of receivers. And unlike in the teams' previous meeting, every completed pass was met with a quick enough tackle to keep the Als from tacking on large amounts of yardage after the catch.
That textbook execution of Richie Hall's defensive strategy by the secondary, along with a superb game by the 'Riders' return team, were the two major differences between this game and the previous few. And those look to be important parts of the team's strategy in the weeks to come.
But it's also worth keeping in mind that most of the teams in the CFL are sufficiently evenly matched that luck often carries the day. And the 'Riders have plenty of work left to do to make sure they don't need to rely on quite so much of it.
Once again, the 'Riders and their opponents were mostly evenly matched in the trenches. But this time, they got every break possible when it came to turnovers, big plays and personnel - and just barely hung on to win despite those advantages.
To the extent there's a serious concern for the 'Riders coming out of Sunday's win, it has to lie on the offensive side of the ball. The good news was the the team's running game (featuring both Darian Durant and Wes Cates) and ball control were both far stronger than they've been so far. But on the latter front, the lack of turnovers until Hugh Charles' late fumble was as much a matter of the Als missing opportunities as of the 'Riders not serving them up.
And perhaps more importantly, the 'Riders once again failed to convert on some obvious chances to rack up points - turning four first-quarter possessions starting in or near Alouette territory into a total of seven points, then bungling a first-and-goal from the 4 with Ryan Dinwiddie in at quarterback. Which looked like a potentially fatal set of missed opportunities as long as there was some prospect of Anthony Calvillo getting the chance to respond.
Fortunately for the 'Riders, Calvillo's injury removed him from the game just after he'd put together his first strong series. But even though it undoubtedly benefited from facing Adrian MacPherson most of the game, the defence deserves loads of credit for its performance.
Indeed, perhaps the most impressive part of the game seems to have gone mostly unnoticed so far. The Alouette offence, normally one of the most explosive in the CFL, didn't manage a single play longer than 29 yards.
And that wasn't a matter of Montreal trying but barely missing either. Throughout the game the Als' quarterbacks had time to look downfield, but were forced to run or throw the ball away as the 'Riders' coverage stifled what may the league's top group of receivers. And unlike in the teams' previous meeting, every completed pass was met with a quick enough tackle to keep the Als from tacking on large amounts of yardage after the catch.
That textbook execution of Richie Hall's defensive strategy by the secondary, along with a superb game by the 'Riders' return team, were the two major differences between this game and the previous few. And those look to be important parts of the team's strategy in the weeks to come.
But it's also worth keeping in mind that most of the teams in the CFL are sufficiently evenly matched that luck often carries the day. And the 'Riders have plenty of work left to do to make sure they don't need to rely on quite so much of it.
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Andrew Jackson attacks the myth of expansionary austerity, particularly from a Canadian perspective:
- Linda McQuaig points out some of the pluses of the NDP's decision to make Nycole Turmel its interim leader:
- Finally, for those looking for a fix of political information to pass the summer, Kagro's 2011 election maps are well worth a look.
- Andrew Jackson attacks the myth of expansionary austerity, particularly from a Canadian perspective:
(T)here is very rarely any such thing as expansionary austerity, according to IMF staff economists.- Maude Barlow highlights the sad truth that third-world conditions - including a lack of running water - are still a reality in Canada, while our government is using its energy holding out against a global consensus on the right to water and sanitation.
In a careful review of the historical evidence, they find that, typically, a 1 percent of GDP fiscal consolidation reduces real private consumption over the next two years by 0.75 percent, while real GDP declines by 0.62 percent.
...
For Canadians this is surely sobering. We face no fiscal crisis – our net debt is far below the OECD average. Austerity cannot produce lower interest rates – short term rates are near zero and the 10 year Government of Canada bond rate is at a near historic low of under 3%. And, with the dollar hugely over-valued and the US teetering on the edge of another downturn, there will be no offset to fiscal contraction from higher exports this time around.
As we begin the 2012 federal Budget debate, Flaherty must be asked why his planned cuts do not risk derailing an already very fragile recovery.
- Linda McQuaig points out some of the pluses of the NDP's decision to make Nycole Turmel its interim leader:
"I think (it's) a great choice," said Linda McQuaig, a Toronto-based journalist and writer who recently co-authored The Trouble With Billionaires. "She's a union person, and a public sector union, at a time when the public sector is really under attack. She's a woman, and a staunch defender of pay equity."- The Fraser Institute runs into reality yet again. And the results aren't any prettier than usual.
She said that the appointment of Turmel sends "a good, clear message where NDP is coming from," in light of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's series of cutbacks to women's programs.
- Finally, for those looking for a fix of political information to pass the summer, Kagro's 2011 election maps are well worth a look.
New column day
Here, on how new evidence on the effects of poverty and inequality gives us all the more reason to fight them.
For further reading...
- Of course, the Equality Trust is the for more about the effects of inequality.
- And for some of the new research on the behavioural effects of poverty, see the recent papers by Bertrand and Spears.
For further reading...
- Of course, the Equality Trust is the for more about the effects of inequality.
- And for some of the new research on the behavioural effects of poverty, see the recent papers by Bertrand and Spears.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Coming soon to a country near you...
Yes, it's telling that Stephen Harper's spin on the U.S. debt ceiling crisis is to pretend that the problem has more to do with "the U.S. debt and fiscal situation" than his sister party's choice to hold the country hostage.
But since he's apparently willing to talk, isn't it worth asking whether Harper is interested in offering the slightest reassurance that his party won't do the same in Canada when it gets the chance?
But since he's apparently willing to talk, isn't it worth asking whether Harper is interested in offering the slightest reassurance that his party won't do the same in Canada when it gets the chance?
Wednesday Afternoon Links
Miscellaneous material for your midweek reading.
- Not surprising: Canadians find Stephen Harper's constant politicization of everything - including awards for volunteers - to be improper. Even less surprising: Stephen Harper couldn't care less.
- Meanwhile, the Cons' continued silencing of scientists is similarly predictable. But the reason this time looks to be particularly noteworthy:
[Update: pogge has more.]
- Simon Houpt's review of how negative advertising has backfired in the corporate sector is well worth a read. But I'd think it's particularly worth wondering whether it's still possible for the same to happen in politics - or whether voters have simply become so accustomed to it that they no longer assign enough penalty or negative association to parties who go negative for the usual distaste to apply.
- Finally, Ryan Meili takes the case for a Crown drug manufacturer to the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
- Not surprising: Canadians find Stephen Harper's constant politicization of everything - including awards for volunteers - to be improper. Even less surprising: Stephen Harper couldn't care less.
- Meanwhile, the Cons' continued silencing of scientists is similarly predictable. But the reason this time looks to be particularly noteworthy:
The Privy Council Office also nixed a Fisheries Department news release about Miller's study, saying the release "was not very good, focused on salmon dying and not on the new science aspect," according to documents obtained by Postmedia News under the Access to Information Act.So there may yet be hope for meaningful scientific research to be approved for public consumption - as long as it's billed as "New Research Triumph for Glorious Leader!" rather than promoted based on its actual content.
[Update: pogge has more.]
- Simon Houpt's review of how negative advertising has backfired in the corporate sector is well worth a read. But I'd think it's particularly worth wondering whether it's still possible for the same to happen in politics - or whether voters have simply become so accustomed to it that they no longer assign enough penalty or negative association to parties who go negative for the usual distaste to apply.
- Finally, Ryan Meili takes the case for a Crown drug manufacturer to the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
Pop quiz
To my recollection, exactly one Canadian political party has featured a candidate other than its leader in a recent ad campaign.
Guess which one, and in which province.
Then take the spin that the party's leader served as its lone face in that province with a heavy grain of salt.
Guess which one, and in which province.
Then take the spin that the party's leader served as its lone face in that province with a heavy grain of salt.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)