Having dealt with the question of stadium construction in this morning's column, I'll take a moment to comment on the 'Riders' offseason - which looks to have taken another turn for the better with the (less-than-surprising) selection of Ben Heenan with the first pick of the CFL draft.
In general, there are two areas where the 'Riders have taken major steps forward since the end of the 2011 season. Rather than relying on the unpredictable Ryan Dinwiddie as the lone backup to Darian Durant (and having to be especially conservative with Durant as a result), the team now has both more upside and plenty of pro experience in a backup group including J.T. O'Sullivan and Colt Brennan. Which should both push Durant somewhat better from within, and ensure the 'Riders can survive without him.
But more importantly, there shouldn't be as much need to worry about Durant's health thanks to a revitalized offensive line. The most important task for the pre-season will likely be to integrate a massive set of new talent (Heenan, Brendon LaBatte, Dominic Picard and assorted others) with Chris Best and the remaining depth on the team's roster. But once that's done, the offensive line should be better than it's been in ages.
Of course, there has been one obvious hiccup in the 'Riders' player acquisitions this offseason. But while I'll give the same answer as to what the 'Riders should have avoided, I'll argue that the problem isn't the one that's been discussed by other commentators.
In general, a CFL team faces two main limitations on talent acquisition: a hard salary cap, and an import player limit. And the first step in building a team needs to be to maximize value taking those factors into consideration: looking for less-established players who aren't yet paid based on past performance, and non-imports who can help meet the roster quotas.
It's only once there's a sufficient base in place that it's worth putting much effort into adding veteran imports to fill particular needs. But even there, a team should be on the lookout for players who can be imported and developed.
And there are few positions where it seems easier to find import talent than defensive end. Indeed, near the end of Eric Tillman's tenure as 'Riders GM, John Chick and Stevie Baggs arrived from nowhere in particular and the CFL scrap heap respectively to terrorize quarterbacks for the 'Riders. Three of the CFL's top ten sacks leaders in 2011 (Winnipeg's Kenny Mainor and Jason Vega, and Edmonton's Marcus Howard) were brand-new to the league. And Kenny Rowe showed some ability to pressure quarterbacks in a late-season 'Riders audition.
So the case for trading for Willis would seem to be a weak one even if one didn't account for the possibility that his own gaudy numbers might have a lot to do with offensive lines treating Doug Brown as the greater threat. And that too looks to be a reason to think Willis might be overvalued - both in salary and in what he'd cost in a trade.
Meanwhile, the 'Riders managed to get superb results out of a second-round draft choice in 2011 by selecting Craig Butler, who looks to be a fixture in the team's secondary for years to come.
So how can a team justify trading multiple draft picks - which can help in both value for salary, and import/non-import calculations - to fill a position where skilled replacements are so readily available? I'd think the only way it makes sense as a single deal is if a team sees itself as unable to develop draft picks or new talent well enough to get value out of its younger players. But if that's going to be a team's operating assumption (and Butler offers at least one counterexample), then it has much bigger issues than simply patching individual holes.
And the Willis trade wasn't even the only example of the 'Riders trading draft value for the type of talent they should be able to find on their own.
So while the good news is that the 'Riders have set up their roster fairly nicely for 2012, the real danger from this offseason is that the team's planning horizon doesn't seem to extend far enough beyond that timeline. And the last thing 'Riders fans should want to see is for the team to fall into the Toronto Maple Leafs syndrome of consistently giving away long-term value to address perceived short-term needs.
Thursday, May 03, 2012
New column day
Here, on the latest attempt by the City of Regina to lump a stadium into several other unrelated plans in an attempt to win higher-level funding - and the need for citizens to instead assess it on its own merits.
And for some of the history of past efforts (at all levels of government) to reclassify publicly-funded stadium construction as something else in order to make it more palatable for the general public, see here, here and here.
And for some of the history of past efforts (at all levels of government) to reclassify publicly-funded stadium construction as something else in order to make it more palatable for the general public, see here, here and here.
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- The Cons' move to suppress Canadian wages by encouraging the use of disposable, temporary foreign labour is receiving plenty of due outcry. Here's Armine Yalnizyan:
After all, it's one thing for workers to fail to appreciate the importance of a movement which rightly takes credit for innovations which get taken for granted. But it's another story entirely when the Wall government is actually hinting about taking back the weekend.
- If we needed any proof that the Cons' public-sector slashing has nothing to do with actually reducing Deficit Jim Flaherty's most substantial achievement and everything to do with wanting to sell off as many public goods as possible before they get turfed from office, this nicely sums up their plans:
- Finally, Simon Enoch wonders whatever happened to the transparency once promised by the Cons. Andrew Coyne suggests that if Stephen Harper's goal was incoherent government, he's succeeded beyond what anybody could have imagined. And Frances Russell laments the Cons' efforts to turn Canada into a banana republic.
- The Cons' move to suppress Canadian wages by encouraging the use of disposable, temporary foreign labour is receiving plenty of due outcry. Here's Armine Yalnizyan:
And the Star-Phoenix:Disturbingly, the federal announcement also set out new wage rules that permit employers to pay temporary foreign workers up to 15 per cent below the average paid for that type of work locally, sanctioning the creation of a two-tiered “us and them” labour market.
Even if such a rule were rigorously applied and monitored – and budget cuts may eliminate the staff to do this job – it guarantees a downward trend in wages for everyone. Fifteen per cent below the average is a recipe for continuous decline when labour shortages are filled, as a matter of policy, by those who get paid less and are not allowed to stay long enough to ask for more.
...
Even the Chinese railway workers of the 1800s came with “landed immigrant” status. Emphasizing the benefits of a disposable class of workers is a very recent, and unsavoury, development in our history.
This nation was built by immigrants who had a stake in its future. Together we created an economy which today is the tenth largest in the world. While the economy will continue to grow, the distribution of the gains from that growth threatens to become rapidly even more lopsided.
- Meanwhile, the Wall government is introducing a new set of attacks on workers in Saskatchewan. But I have to wonder whether the obvious overreach involved in questioning the very existence of labour standards may only highlight the desperate need for strong organized labour to counterbalance employer excess.However, it's doing no one any favours in the long run - and could well be creating conditions for an ugly anti-immigrant backlash - with its decision to allow employers to pay those high-skill foreign workers as much as 15 per cent below the average regional wage for their occupation.
The differential wage scheme, which already is getting a hostile reception from organized labour groups, certainly runs counter to the free market philosophy espoused by business leaders as well (as) Conservative politicians across Canada. Unless it's a deliberate strategy to drive down wage rates nationally over the long term, as the unions and critics allege, this policy certainly makes little economic or social sense at a time when the booming regions of Canada are short of the skilled workers, not the cash to pay them.
...
The ability to offer lower wages to skilled foreign workers would benefit those employers who run non-unionized shops that aren't covered by negotiated rates. The long-term effect could well be the de-skilling of Canada's workforce, with employers increasingly relying on cheaper foreign workers and not investing as much in training, something that will be hugely detrimental to the aspirations of young Canadians, particularly aboriginals.
And with Ms. Finley's ministry noting the accelerated hiring process could be expanded to other occupations, what started out as a stop-gap measure to fill the need for skilled trades could soon be putting downward pressure on wages in other sectors.
After all, it's one thing for workers to fail to appreciate the importance of a movement which rightly takes credit for innovations which get taken for granted. But it's another story entirely when the Wall government is actually hinting about taking back the weekend.
- If we needed any proof that the Cons' public-sector slashing has nothing to do with actually reducing Deficit Jim Flaherty's most substantial achievement and everything to do with wanting to sell off as many public goods as possible before they get turfed from office, this nicely sums up their plans:
Three of Parks Canada’s most iconic attractions could soon be in the hands of a private operator.So the question isn't one of "cost-cutting" - as there's no net cost at all to the current hot springs operations. But the Cons' interest in eliminating the "public" part of public services is a far higher priority than actually dealing with a deficit built on reckless tax slashing. And if the result is to destroy in a year what's been built up over a century, that's fine with Harper and company.The federal agency — which has been hard hit in the latest round of federal public service cuts announced this week — plans to invite private-sector proposals to take over operation of the Canadian Rockies Hot Springs, which includes the hot pools in Banff, Jasper and Radium, B.C.
...
(F)ollowing the selection process and lease negotiations, a handover of hot springs operations is expected to be completed as early as May 2013.
...
Thiessen said together, the three hot springs generate only $5 million in revenue annually — a break-even situation for Parks Canada.
- Finally, Simon Enoch wonders whatever happened to the transparency once promised by the Cons. Andrew Coyne suggests that if Stephen Harper's goal was incoherent government, he's succeeded beyond what anybody could have imagined. And Frances Russell laments the Cons' efforts to turn Canada into a banana republic.
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
A Healthy Society - Chapter 3 Discussion
Chapter 3 of Ryan Meili's A Healthy Society focuses on the effect of income - both in total and in distribution - as a determinant of health. But while there's plenty of material deserving of further discussion, I'll point to his comments on the place of taxation and government spending as particularly worth some additional analysis:
There have been at least a few examples which have already been subject to debate in recent years, including recycling at the municipal level, prescription drugs at the provincial and federal levels, and the availability of broadband Internet access (particularly in rural areas). But should we be looking at, say, building retro-fitting as an ongoing bulk purchasing opportunity (rather than merely an occasional form of stimulus)? Can we treat social housing as an area where the "bulk bin" principle should apply as the basis for significant additional investment, justifying greater action as a matter of efficiency rather than merely doing the bare minimum to relieve concerns about social needs? And what other areas are there where the sheer purchasing power of a government is likely to bring us substantially better value than we're able to secure wandering into an unregulated market on our own?
One example of a toolbox approach to economic management, one that reaches for the proper tool at the proper time rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, is the proper use of taxation policy. Taxation levels that impede economic development are unwise. That much is apparent. However, the notion has been taken to ridiculous extremes, with taxes falling in times of rapid growth for short-term political gain, disrupting public services and costing us money in the long term. What we need is the intelligent embracing of complexity rather than blind adherence to ideology and the approaches of organizations like the Canadian Taxpayers Foundation, who act as though (as Prime Minister Harper famously stated in 2009) all taxes are bad taxes, and all collective investment is a bad deal.Now, I don't think anybody this side of Neil Reynolds can argue with a straight face that small incremental increases toward the tax levels that have predominated over the past 50 years would meaningfully impede economic development. But after several decades of constant talk of reducing government involvement in any form of economic activity, I'll suggest it's well worth spending some time to consider the question of what additional types of investment might be subject to the "bulk bin" principle.
The fact is that most of us save money by paying taxes. Comparing use of public services to income, the majority of Canadian families use far more in public services than they pay in taxes. For example, families earning $80,000 a year use approximately half that amount in public services. This is due in part to the progressive nature of our tax system, which charges a higher percentage of tax to those with higher incomes. It is also due to the bulk bin principle; the more you buy, the less it costs. Imagine if each of us needed to pay directly for health care, roads, fire protection, snow clearing...the list goes on and on. Taxes, properly used, are each of us chipping in a small amount to buy something we need at a far better rate than any of us could get alone. The result is a great bargain on things we really need.
There have been at least a few examples which have already been subject to debate in recent years, including recycling at the municipal level, prescription drugs at the provincial and federal levels, and the availability of broadband Internet access (particularly in rural areas). But should we be looking at, say, building retro-fitting as an ongoing bulk purchasing opportunity (rather than merely an occasional form of stimulus)? Can we treat social housing as an area where the "bulk bin" principle should apply as the basis for significant additional investment, justifying greater action as a matter of efficiency rather than merely doing the bare minimum to relieve concerns about social needs? And what other areas are there where the sheer purchasing power of a government is likely to bring us substantially better value than we're able to secure wandering into an unregulated market on our own?
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Michael Harris sums up the first year of a Harper majority by pointing out the overwhelming need for change from the government we're stuck with now:
- Stephen Maher describes Robocon as a natural extension of familiar Republican dirty tricks - and gets an admitted vote-suppressor to agree with that link.
- Finally, Dan Gardner makes a curious case as to how some unspecified "loony left" (with only a single example) is giving Stephen Harper cover with his party's hard-right base. But I'm surprised Gardner misses one obvious implication of his own argument: if Harper might otherwise be pursuing regressive social policy in order to appease his base but has avoided it because he can accomplish the same goal by merely pointing to what Heather Mallick writes, then her commentary alone has had a far more direct effect on Canadian public policy under the Harper Cons than all the Very Serious People in the country combined.
- Michael Harris sums up the first year of a Harper majority by pointing out the overwhelming need for change from the government we're stuck with now:
The curtain has been well and truly whipped away from the PM’s self-promoting deceptions and he is revealed for what he is: a power-tripper on a mission to give Canada an extreme makeover that only the super-rich and the semi-comatose could endorse. And he is doing it with virtually no debate, creating something of a new phenomenon in Canadian politics; sole-source public policy.- And the Star isn't much more pleased:
...
This is not “strong, stable government” a la Harper’s PR mantra. It is oppressive, dictatorial regime-building that would do any petro-state proud.
- Trish Hennessy runs some numbers to keep in mind at tax time - with a particular emphasis on the massive majority of Canadians willing to pay more to ensure a reasonable base of public services.By now Harper’s signature impulse — to scale back Ottawa’s role in the federation — is beginning to be felt, and so is the cost. The Tory budget, skilfully marketed as a “modest” paring-back that will affect few jobs, will have major impact. Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page predicts it will shrink Ottawa’s contribution to the national economy to an “historical low” of 5.5 per cent, from a 50-year average of 8.2 per cent. Page says this will result in sharply slower growth and sharply higher joblessness over the next few years.
To many Canadians that won’t feel like the “smarter, more caring nation” that Harper promised in last year’s throne speech. It will feel more like a federal shrug of indifference. Workers at the CBC are feeling the pain, along with those who run our national parks, compile statistics, patrol the borders and ensure food safety.
- Stephen Maher describes Robocon as a natural extension of familiar Republican dirty tricks - and gets an admitted vote-suppressor to agree with that link.
- Finally, Dan Gardner makes a curious case as to how some unspecified "loony left" (with only a single example) is giving Stephen Harper cover with his party's hard-right base. But I'm surprised Gardner misses one obvious implication of his own argument: if Harper might otherwise be pursuing regressive social policy in order to appease his base but has avoided it because he can accomplish the same goal by merely pointing to what Heather Mallick writes, then her commentary alone has had a far more direct effect on Canadian public policy under the Harper Cons than all the Very Serious People in the country combined.
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- Andrew Coyne is rightly alarmed at the Cons' move to short-circuit any debate about major policy changes through an omnibus budget bill. And Bea Vongdoaungchanh reports that the biggest of those changes is to set our environmental laws back by half a century.
- David Macdonald highlights the $114 billion bailout which was necessary to keep Canada's banks afloat. And while it might be fair to say the potential price was worth it to avoid unnecessary disruption, I'd defy anybody to justify the Cons' being so generous with the banks while looking for excuses to push mere workers underwater.
- Andrew MacLeod reports on how the Cons are refusing to allow provinces to discuss the terms of a free trade pact with Europe - even when they're the ones who may end up on the hook for billions of dollars in drug costs and other negative effects.
- pogge duly slams the Globe and Mail for giving Gwyn Morgan a free pass to baselessly attack solar energy without disclosing any of his personal interest in shutting down renewable development.
- Finally, Ken Norman, Mary Eberts and Alex Neve criticize the Sask Party's regressive take on human rights in Saskatchewan.
- Andrew Coyne is rightly alarmed at the Cons' move to short-circuit any debate about major policy changes through an omnibus budget bill. And Bea Vongdoaungchanh reports that the biggest of those changes is to set our environmental laws back by half a century.
- David Macdonald highlights the $114 billion bailout which was necessary to keep Canada's banks afloat. And while it might be fair to say the potential price was worth it to avoid unnecessary disruption, I'd defy anybody to justify the Cons' being so generous with the banks while looking for excuses to push mere workers underwater.
- Andrew MacLeod reports on how the Cons are refusing to allow provinces to discuss the terms of a free trade pact with Europe - even when they're the ones who may end up on the hook for billions of dollars in drug costs and other negative effects.
- pogge duly slams the Globe and Mail for giving Gwyn Morgan a free pass to baselessly attack solar energy without disclosing any of his personal interest in shutting down renewable development.
- Finally, Ken Norman, Mary Eberts and Alex Neve criticize the Sask Party's regressive take on human rights in Saskatchewan.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Parliament in Review - March 30, 2012
Friday, March 30 was the first day of Peter Julian's budget filibuster. But while it accomplished its goal of avoiding several hours worth of Con talking points, was there much to take from Julian's own comments?
The Big Issue
Well, let's highlight a few of his more noteworthy observations. First, on the Cons' own plan to increase unemployment in Canada:
In Brief
Julian also opened question period with a series of budget-related questions, noting that "jobs" appears only in the title of the Cons' omnibus bill and inequality is nowhere to be found, while Robert Chisholm challenged Stephen Harper on some of the immediate negative reaction to the budget and Dan Harris pointed out that just two months earlier Harper had promised not to cut programs for seniors. John McCallum mused about the lack of cuts to the PMO, ministers' office and government advertising budgets while actual programs are being slashed in the name of austerity. And Jean Rousseau slammed the Cons' choice to cut food safety funding, while Sana Hassainia lamented that cuts to foreign aid will punish the poorest people in the world for the Cons' bad choices.
The Big Issue
Well, let's highlight a few of his more noteworthy observations. First, on the Cons' own plan to increase unemployment in Canada:
Second, on the Cons' broken promises which kept them in power with the promise of stability that's been replaced by gratuitous cuts to Canada's social programs:
In this extensive budget of 500 pages, there is a very key page that actually points to the government's admission that as a result of this budget, unemployment is actually going to go up. It is quite astounding that the government would put jobs on the front page of a budget that it knows is actually going to promote unemployment. The unemployment rate from 2011 will go up in 2012.
We know about the 19,000 jobs that it is cutting. I mentioned earlier one of the Canadian citizens who wrote to us expressing her concern about how seriously these public services are going to deteriorate. Also, for each job that we lose in the public service we lose another one in the private sector as well. Therefore, we are actually talking about nearly 40,000 jobs that would be lost in a very short time frame over the next little while.
How a government that is actively pushing a higher unemployment rate and actively throwing thousands and thousands of public sector and private sector workers out of work could possibly pretend that this is somehow a jobs budget is beyond me.
The reality is this, and I want to make this clear. If the government had campaigned on what it really intended to do, it would have said that it would be cutting health care transfers; that it was going to force people to work two more years, regardless of people's ability to do that at that late age; that it was going to cut services, food and transportation safety and environmental assessments; that it was going to cut Canadian institutions like the CBC; and that it was going to cut the Auditor General so that the auditor could not check up on the government to see if it were using its money effectively, because it does not like the Auditor General because he or she questions its questionable purchases like the F-35s that go from $9 billion to $40 billion. If the government had actually said all of those things, members are as aware as I am that since Canadian families deserve much better, it would be the NDP on that side of the House.Third, on the continued deterioration of Canadian wages under the Cons and its effect on workers:
Wages are not keeping pace with inflation. Part-time workers saw their wages grow 1.4% over the past year. Full-time workers saw their wages grow almost at the rate of inflation. In both cases neither part-time nor full-time wages are keeping pace with the rate of inflation, but for part-time workers it is much lower. It is much worse and a much greater problem.Fourth, on the respective fiscal records of the NDP and the Cons:
This is a fundamental issue which, as Canadians, we certainly have to wrestle with. When we see only 200,000 net new jobs since May 2008, when we see that the vast majority of those jobs are part-time, and when we see the wages for those part-time jobs are falling further and further behind at $16 an hour on average and far below the rate of inflation, we are setting up a permanent situation of insecurity for Canadian workers.
Members should know that the annual fiscal period returns published by the Ministry of Finance show which parties are best at balancing budgets. It is important to note that every year now for 20 years, as the fiscal period returns are presented, one party outshines the rest. Now, of course, the NDP governments that are part of those fiscal period returns are provincial governments. We have not yet governed at the federal level. We are fighting very hard to be governing as of October 20, 2015.And finally, a summary of the effect of the Cons' economic policies on mere working Canadians:
However, NDP provincial governments, compared with Conservative and Liberal provincial and federal governments, have had the best record at balancing budgets and paying down debt for every single one of those 20 years.
So, to the individual who asked who am I to question to the Conservatives and who is the NDP to question the Conservatives, it comes from having strong fiscal management experience on a personal level, always managing money and paying down debt without cutting services, because that is how Canadian families do it.
(W)ith the policies it has put in place, with the cuts to services and benefits, such the OAS and health care support, as well as producing lower paying jobs and part-time jobs and getting rid of the value added full-time family sustaining jobs of before, which is the only way to put it because the government seems to be deliberately putting policies in place to cripple our manufacturing sector, that is what has led to crippling levels of debt in this country under the watch of the government.
What we are seeing increasingly is a country where a small number of Canadians are benefiting from the government's policies while the vast majority of middle class and poor families are struggling under record debt loads, trying to cobble together two or three part-time jobs just to keep a roof over their head and struggling to keep their head above water.Meanwhile, Scott Simms spent some of Julian's time guessing optimistically as to how Canada's economy has performed recently under the Cons. And John Baird was more interested in counting Lib MPs than any mere talk of the budget, the economy or jobs.
In Brief
Julian also opened question period with a series of budget-related questions, noting that "jobs" appears only in the title of the Cons' omnibus bill and inequality is nowhere to be found, while Robert Chisholm challenged Stephen Harper on some of the immediate negative reaction to the budget and Dan Harris pointed out that just two months earlier Harper had promised not to cut programs for seniors. John McCallum mused about the lack of cuts to the PMO, ministers' office and government advertising budgets while actual programs are being slashed in the name of austerity. And Jean Rousseau slammed the Cons' choice to cut food safety funding, while Sana Hassainia lamented that cuts to foreign aid will punish the poorest people in the world for the Cons' bad choices.
Dead and buried
Others have already pointed out last week's news that oil-sands operators are pulling out of a major carbon capture and storage project. But it's worth taking a closer look at their explanation, and how it compares to the Cons' claim to have the slightest interest in dealing with climate change.
Here's why the oil industry isn't bothering with CCS:
Such as, for example, the CCS project which is falling apart in the absence of a carbon price. In effect, tar sands operators have figured out the reality that the Cons are determined to avoid any regulation that could require the oil industry to pay any of the cost of the emissions it generates - and are making their long-term business decisions on the assumption that there will never be meaningful regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada as long as Harper holds power.
Now, we shouldn't pretend that CCS - in the tar sands or in power generation - was ever itself much more than an excuse to avoid broader steps to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. (Indeed, I'm sure the time put into promoting it can be described as another elegant excuse for inaction.) But the oil industry has just discarded the Cons' last remaining fig leaf - and that leaves the Cons instead trying to bury the emissions data which exposes their entire climate-change policy as a fraud.
Here's why the oil industry isn't bothering with CCS:
Let's keep in mind that the Harper Cons haven't merely poured hundreds of millions of dollars into CCS: they've in fact done so to the exclusion of any other climate-change funding (since their initial period of poorly-feigned interest in the environment when Stephane Dion was Lib leader). And after once suggesting they were willing to implement cap-and-trade as an alternative to a carbon tax, the Cons have since taking to claiming that all they're willing to do about greenhouse gas emissions is to pour money into unspecified innovation.“Our decision was essentially based on the fact that we could not see a way to make the economics of our CCS project work as we originally intended,” said Don Wharton, vice-president of policy and sustainability at TransAlta.
He said markets for pure carbon didn’t develop as expected, and federal and provincial governments took no steps to recognize the value of reduced emissions by implementing a price on carbon, for example, or a cap-and-trade system.
In short, despite nearly $800 million in government subsidies, the company had no incentive to invest in CCS.
Such as, for example, the CCS project which is falling apart in the absence of a carbon price. In effect, tar sands operators have figured out the reality that the Cons are determined to avoid any regulation that could require the oil industry to pay any of the cost of the emissions it generates - and are making their long-term business decisions on the assumption that there will never be meaningful regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada as long as Harper holds power.
Now, we shouldn't pretend that CCS - in the tar sands or in power generation - was ever itself much more than an excuse to avoid broader steps to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. (Indeed, I'm sure the time put into promoting it can be described as another elegant excuse for inaction.) But the oil industry has just discarded the Cons' last remaining fig leaf - and that leaves the Cons instead trying to bury the emissions data which exposes their entire climate-change policy as a fraud.
A Healthy Society - Chapter 2 Discussion
Chapter 2 of Ryan Meili's A Healthy Society discusses the place of politics as "medicine on a larger scale". Meili looks for lessons in our political discussion based on how medical knowledge has advanced in the past few decades, and points out a new definition of success that looks to be entirely transferable to our expectations of government:
After all, businesses figure to be motivated to take an individual's concerns into account only to the extent it's profitable to do so. But government actors bear responsibility for all people within their jurisdiction - and are ultimately responsible to make sure that everybody is included in decision-making.
Rather than applying the choose-from-a-predetermined-menu service model to the public sector, we should thus consider how we can set up our civil service to be able to achieve meaningful results in as many cases as possible, rather than being overly confined by top-down program definitions which leave too many concerns being answered with "that's not my job" or "we can't do that". And that flexibility in turn should be subject to a careful evaluation as to whether intervention on that basis achieves value for the resources used - which can both highlight areas of citizen demand that aren't being addressed, and determine which options might need to be closed off.
[Edit: fixed typo.]
One interesting result of this approach is that the definition of success has changed. We now talk about meaningful outcomes. When we know what is meaningful to patients and their families, we can know whether to move ahead with a difficult treatment, or spare the expense and discomfort. The guiding principle is to do what will make the most meaningful improvement in the patient’s quality of life rather than a focus on cure rates, survival times, or adherence to strict guidelines. This humanizing approach, based on what is significant in improving people’s lives rather than an insensitive numerical standard, is an important principle to remember when we discuss political interventions as well as medical.Of course, this doesn't figure to mean that measurable standards are entirely inapplicable, as Meili notes in discussing the move toward evidence-based medicine as another advance which we should seek to import into political discussion:
The analogy of the past practice of medicine and the current practice of politics is striking. Rather than on the best evidence, political decisions are made based on a polling of their popularity, ideology, and other sorts of best guesses of what might work. What is needed is a move to evidence-based policy. We need to develop the clearest understanding possible of our goals, our meaningful outcomes. We then must understand the obstacles to reaching them, and the actions most likely to have the desired effect. We need to use the best information and examples available to us in order to build a healthy society.But it's worth keeping in mind the lesson that it's impossible to arrive at the right answer as to how to make government work for people without constant engagement to determine whether we're asking the right questions. And the difference in incentives between the private and public sectors may offer a hint as to the role government can and should play.
After all, businesses figure to be motivated to take an individual's concerns into account only to the extent it's profitable to do so. But government actors bear responsibility for all people within their jurisdiction - and are ultimately responsible to make sure that everybody is included in decision-making.
Rather than applying the choose-from-a-predetermined-menu service model to the public sector, we should thus consider how we can set up our civil service to be able to achieve meaningful results in as many cases as possible, rather than being overly confined by top-down program definitions which leave too many concerns being answered with "that's not my job" or "we can't do that". And that flexibility in turn should be subject to a careful evaluation as to whether intervention on that basis achieves value for the resources used - which can both highlight areas of citizen demand that aren't being addressed, and determine which options might need to be closed off.
[Edit: fixed typo.]
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Parliament in Review - March 29, 2012
There's been much ado about the NDP's position on trade agreements based on the Cons' recent publicly-funded cheerleading for free trade at any price. But for anybody looking for the NDP's actual view on trade, the House of Commons debates from March 29 offer a rather thorough indication.
The Big Issue
That's thanks to a Parliamentary debate on the Cons' legislation to implement a free trade agreement with Panama. And the NDP made clear that it's willing to reasonably review and support trade agreements in general - but that it won't be bullied into backing deals that give preferential treatment to tax havens and serve to attack international labour rights.
Hoang Mai and Laurin Liu emphasized the former concern when it came to Panama. Helene Laverdiere focused on the Cons' refusal to insist on a tax information exchange agreement as part of the package, while noting that the NDP didn't have similar concerns about a deal with Jordan. (Incidentally, Con MP Mike Wallace recognized that distinction as well - which only shows how dishonest the Cons have been in their recent push to claim the NDP opposes trade of any kind.) And Jinny Sims rightly pointed out that if we're interested in doing anything about tax havens, we need to incorporate that concern into a free trade agreement at the outset - rather than rewarding a bad actor with preferential treatment then hoping for something to change without our doing anything.
On the labour side, Lois Brown pointed to a checklist of as labour rights attached as an unenforceable schedule as justifying pushing through the deal without any further review. But Chris Charlton rightly shot back that a statement of principles isn't the same thing as the binding investor rights forced into the agreement. Jean Crowder pointed out that workers in both countries stand to suffer from the deal, while Dennis Bevington lamented the Cons' determination to lead a race to the bottom.
But the best overall statement of the NDP's position came from Don Davies:
In Brief
The other legislation debated on the day was the Cons' military justice bill. Jack Harris pointed out that the Cons had once again shredded agreements reached between multiple parties in the previous Parliament in order to dictate the terms of the legislation, while Chris Alexander then had the nerve to demand that the NDP approve the unilaterally-dictated legislation without debate. And Raymond Cote raised a concern about summary trials for minor offences resulting in a criminal record, while the Cons' "dumb on crime" posturing - including a refusal to distinguish between military and civilian crimes - apparently took precedence over "support the troops" when it came to their position on the rights of military defendants.
Meanwhile, Sean Casey rendered Steven Blaney redundant by anticipating his talking points to try to excuse repeated violations of veterans' privacy. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe and Wayne Marston both noted that the OECD, the PBO and the Government of Canada's chief actuary had all rejected the Cons' spin that there was any need at all to cut Old Age Security, and asked why the Cons would plunge seniors into poverty by choice. In light of the Cons' plans to push through a pipeline owned by PetroChina, May asked when we could expect a national security test for foreign investment. Joe Comartin's Thursday question nicely framed a few of the bills which hadn't found their way before Parliament for some time. And finally, while Jim Flaherty's budget speech received plenty of attention, his attempt to excuse OAS cuts based on their being "far away" rather than, say, remotely justifiable as a matter of public policy looks to have deserved a bit more.
The Big Issue
That's thanks to a Parliamentary debate on the Cons' legislation to implement a free trade agreement with Panama. And the NDP made clear that it's willing to reasonably review and support trade agreements in general - but that it won't be bullied into backing deals that give preferential treatment to tax havens and serve to attack international labour rights.
Hoang Mai and Laurin Liu emphasized the former concern when it came to Panama. Helene Laverdiere focused on the Cons' refusal to insist on a tax information exchange agreement as part of the package, while noting that the NDP didn't have similar concerns about a deal with Jordan. (Incidentally, Con MP Mike Wallace recognized that distinction as well - which only shows how dishonest the Cons have been in their recent push to claim the NDP opposes trade of any kind.) And Jinny Sims rightly pointed out that if we're interested in doing anything about tax havens, we need to incorporate that concern into a free trade agreement at the outset - rather than rewarding a bad actor with preferential treatment then hoping for something to change without our doing anything.
On the labour side, Lois Brown pointed to a checklist of as labour rights attached as an unenforceable schedule as justifying pushing through the deal without any further review. But Chris Charlton rightly shot back that a statement of principles isn't the same thing as the binding investor rights forced into the agreement. Jean Crowder pointed out that workers in both countries stand to suffer from the deal, while Dennis Bevington lamented the Cons' determination to lead a race to the bottom.
But the best overall statement of the NDP's position came from Don Davies:
Trade allows goods and services that are within the productive capacity or local expertise or resources of one country to be exchanged with those of another. That is why I can say certainly on behalf of the New Democrats that we believe trade is good. We believe it is desirable. We believe it is critical to our economy.Meanwhile, Elizabeth May noted that the Panama deal figured to influence only a minimal amount of trade, then commented on the dangers of investor-state provisions which allow wealthy corporations to dictate government policy. Megan Leslie wondered whether the dealings between Canada and Panama would set up an exploitative relationship. Pat Martin observed that to the extent there is a disparity in influence, Canada's clout should allow it to help to elevate conditions in the smaller country rather than accepting that our employers will have to compete with Panama's wages and living conditions. Mathieu Ravignat noted that some Canadian companies have exploited workers and countries around the world, and that there's no value in defending the indefensible based on misplaced patriotism. Crowder criticized the Cons' secrecy in negotiating free trade agreements generally. Sims proposed a focus on multilateral rather than bilateral trade agreements. And Chris Charlton neatly summed up the Cons' position as "having espoused the principles of...robber barons".
The question that should be raised with respect to any trade deal is the terms on which that trade ought to be conducted. Are there any principles, policies or rules that should be applied when Canadians consider the exchange of goods and services out of our country and the entrance of goods and services into our country?...(W)e believe that we should have a policy that pursues well-managed trade, not free trade, not a closed approach to trade, but fair trade. That is the approach to trade this party has taken every since the free trade debates opened up in this country some decades ago.
Why do we take this position? We believe that Canadians do not want goods and services that use child labour to enter Canada. We do not want goods and services that are the product of destructive environmental practices to enter this country. Canadians do not want goods coming to this country from countries that have very poor human rights records. Canadians do not want goods and services to enter this country when those goods and services come from an economy that is so fundamentally different from ours, with such lower standards that it actually hurts Canadian employers' ability to compete.
In Brief
The other legislation debated on the day was the Cons' military justice bill. Jack Harris pointed out that the Cons had once again shredded agreements reached between multiple parties in the previous Parliament in order to dictate the terms of the legislation, while Chris Alexander then had the nerve to demand that the NDP approve the unilaterally-dictated legislation without debate. And Raymond Cote raised a concern about summary trials for minor offences resulting in a criminal record, while the Cons' "dumb on crime" posturing - including a refusal to distinguish between military and civilian crimes - apparently took precedence over "support the troops" when it came to their position on the rights of military defendants.
Meanwhile, Sean Casey rendered Steven Blaney redundant by anticipating his talking points to try to excuse repeated violations of veterans' privacy. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe and Wayne Marston both noted that the OECD, the PBO and the Government of Canada's chief actuary had all rejected the Cons' spin that there was any need at all to cut Old Age Security, and asked why the Cons would plunge seniors into poverty by choice. In light of the Cons' plans to push through a pipeline owned by PetroChina, May asked when we could expect a national security test for foreign investment. Joe Comartin's Thursday question nicely framed a few of the bills which hadn't found their way before Parliament for some time. And finally, while Jim Flaherty's budget speech received plenty of attention, his attempt to excuse OAS cuts based on their being "far away" rather than, say, remotely justifiable as a matter of public policy looks to have deserved a bit more.
A Healthy Society - Chapter 1 Discussion
Erin has already excerpted part of Ryan Meili's new book, A Healthy Society. And I'll be providing a brief chapter-by-chapter discussion of A Healthy Society in advance of its formal launch - beginning with this post discussing the book's introduction and first chapter.
In his introduction, Roy Romanow addresses a familiar theme: the need for a better means of measuring social progress than GDP alone, with a reference to the Canadian Index of Wellbeing. And Ryan Meili's first chapter introduces his own central organizing principle focusing on health (consisting of physical, mental and social well-being) - then informing what goes into that standard with a list of the factors which most heavily influence individual health:
Most of the factors listed by Meili map reasonably well onto the eight indicators contained within the CIW:
That said, it's still noteworthy that the equal weight given to different categories within the CIW doesn't seem to fit with the variable importance of the social determinants as contributors toward individual health. And indeed, two high-ranking social determinants (education and early childhood development) are lumped together within a single CIW indicator.
So as my key takeaway from the opening to A Healthy Society, I'll pose a couple of questions for discussion. Can we reconcile the differences (in weight if not in kind) between the social determinants of health referenced by Meili and the measures of well-being within the CIW? And if not, do we need to develop a new metric of societal health to inform our discussion of what we can improve based on Meili's core premise?
In his introduction, Roy Romanow addresses a familiar theme: the need for a better means of measuring social progress than GDP alone, with a reference to the Canadian Index of Wellbeing. And Ryan Meili's first chapter introduces his own central organizing principle focusing on health (consisting of physical, mental and social well-being) - then informing what goes into that standard with a list of the factors which most heavily influence individual health:
In order of impact, the factors that make the biggest difference in people’s health are: 1. income status; 2. education; 3. social support networks; 4. employment and working conditions; 5. early childhood development; 6. physical environment; 7. personal health practices and coping skills; 8. biological and genetic factors; 9. health services; 10. gender; 11. culture; and 12. mass media technology (i.e., television viewing and physical inactivity).Now, the difference between a narrow focus on economic measures and the need to consider more broadly what we seek to achieve through public policy is one that I've discussed before. But let's compare Meili's list and order of factors to the closest we currently have to an index of overall well-being.
...
The lesson to be drawn from the list of determinants, and the one that is stressed to students, is that the most important factors that determine people’s health are social, and the most effective solutions are political.
Most of the factors listed by Meili map reasonably well onto the eight indicators contained within the CIW:
Income Status - Living StandardsOne CIW factor - that of democratic engagement - isn't reflected in Meili's list. But we might be able to explain that as reflecting societal rather than individual health - such that it makes sense to include it in the CIW even if it doesn't correlate directly with individual determinants.
Education - Education
Social Support Networks - Community Vitality
Employment and Working Conditions - Time Use
Early Childhood Development - Education
Physical Environment - Environment
Personal Health Practices and Coping Skills - Healthy Populations
Biological and Genetic Factors - n/a
Health Services - Healthy Populations
Gender - n/a
Culture - Leisure and Culture
Mass Media Technology - Healthy Populations / Time Use
That said, it's still noteworthy that the equal weight given to different categories within the CIW doesn't seem to fit with the variable importance of the social determinants as contributors toward individual health. And indeed, two high-ranking social determinants (education and early childhood development) are lumped together within a single CIW indicator.
So as my key takeaway from the opening to A Healthy Society, I'll pose a couple of questions for discussion. Can we reconcile the differences (in weight if not in kind) between the social determinants of health referenced by Meili and the measures of well-being within the CIW? And if not, do we need to develop a new metric of societal health to inform our discussion of what we can improve based on Meili's core premise?
Sunday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your weekend.
- For much of the relatively recent past, one of the areas of relative consensus in economic theory is that productivity increases would find their way to workers. But Paul Krugman shows that hope to be utterly misplaced:
- But of course, the Cons are doing their utmost to make sure as little of the benefit of any economic growth as possible goes to mere workers. And the Star takes them to task on their efforts to push cheap, disposable foreign labour to replace Canadians who might know and act on their employment rights:
- Finally, Michael Hollett suggests that anybody hoping for a more progressive and representative government get behind the NDP in order to implement proportional representation. And Brian Topp points out that the Libs' own perpetual appeals to strategic voting - which I'd note represent arguably the lone consistent note in the party's campaigns over the past decade - may end up being the greatest obstacle to their efforts to rebuild.
- For much of the relatively recent past, one of the areas of relative consensus in economic theory is that productivity increases would find their way to workers. But Paul Krugman shows that hope to be utterly misplaced:
Where did the productivity go?Which confirms all the more that we need to work more on redistribution, rather than on the hope that expanding the economic pie through productivity gains will benefit anybody other than those constantly angling for a larger share.The answer is, it’s two-thirds the inequality, stupid. One third of the difference is due to a technical issue involving price indexes. The rest, however, reflects a shift of income from labor to capital and, within that, a shift of labor income to the top and away from the middle.
What this says is that widening inequality makes a huge difference. Income stagnation does not reflect overall economic stagnation; the incomes of typical workers would be 30 or 40 percent higher than they are if inequality hadn’t soared.
- But of course, the Cons are doing their utmost to make sure as little of the benefit of any economic growth as possible goes to mere workers. And the Star takes them to task on their efforts to push cheap, disposable foreign labour to replace Canadians who might know and act on their employment rights:
Likewise, Thomas Walkom has this to say:Since Prime Minister Stephen Harper assumed power in 2006, the number of foreign temporary workers admitted into Canada has grown by 40 per cent. The temporary worker stream is now larger than the stream of permanent workers intending to set down roots and become citizens.
...
When Canada introduced its temporary foreign worker program in 2002, the governing Liberals vowed never to adopt the European model route in which “guest workers” are paid less than nationals and treated as second-class residents.But under Harper, the country is now moving in that direction.
- Lawrence Martin asks whether we still live in a democracy - and the answer is rather disturbing. And the Canadian Association of Journalists gives the Cons their due reward for suppressing information.Employers could solve their labour shortages by offering higher wages or — in the case of skilled trades — by training Canadians to do the job.
But, if government is willing, it’s easier and more profitable to import cheaper, trained labour from abroad.
And this government has shown that it’s willing. It says that if Canadians don’t want to see jobs going to foreigners, they should quit whining and accept lower wages.
Which is why Ottawa’s answer to complaints made about temporary foreign workers is to toughen Employment Insurance rules.
Kenney has warned that unemployed workers who refuse to take low-wage jobs will have their EI benefits cut off. If Canadians agree to work for less, he explains, Ottawa won’t have to bring in as many low-wage outsiders.
All of this is a solution of sorts, I suppose, albeit a 19th century one. But it is a solution that threatens to bring with it the kind of agitation now seen in countries like France, Holland and Greece — where the racist right is on the rise and where far too many workers view immigrants as mortal enemies out to steal their jobs.
- Finally, Michael Hollett suggests that anybody hoping for a more progressive and representative government get behind the NDP in order to implement proportional representation. And Brian Topp points out that the Libs' own perpetual appeals to strategic voting - which I'd note represent arguably the lone consistent note in the party's campaigns over the past decade - may end up being the greatest obstacle to their efforts to rebuild.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Parliament in Review - March 28, 2012
Wednesday, March 28 saw a final short day of debate on the Cons' minimal bank regulation bill.
The Big Issue
Peter Julian questioned the Cons' competence in rushing to force through a bill when the review period has been known for years. Hoang Mai lamented the lack of a serious look at Canada's financial system, while Robert Chisholm again noted that plenty of consumer protection options were omitted from the bill. Dany Morin followed up on the issue of consumer debt which has skyrocketed since the Cons took power.
Meanwhile, the big issue also included a massive diversion of attention as the opposition parties worked on allocating credit for the fact that Canada's banking system didn't end up the incomprehensible and unregulated mess that caused so much damage in the U.S. While the Cons' laughable claim to credit based on their demanding exactly what we avoided was easily dismissed, there was plenty of back-and-forth between Robert Chisholm, Don Davies, Wayne Easter, Elizabeth May and Geoff Regan as to the Libs' role - with the former two pointing out that it was Lib cabinet ministers who opened the door to discussion of deregulation only to be shouted down by citizen resistance, while the latter three tried to edit out that bit of history and give the Libs sole credit for the end result.
Unaccountable
Helene Laverdiere raised a point of privilege as to the Cons' refusal to actually answer her written questions - where very specific and targeted questions about the Office of Religious Freedom were met with boilerplate talking points which had nothing to do with the precise questions asked. And Peter Van Loan replied with the remarkable assertion that if his party saw fit to make a mockery of the written question process, her only recourse was...to re-submit the same question through the same process which the Cons had already sabotaged.
In Brief
I've pointed out before the seeming absurdity involved when the House of Commons holds standing votes on issues where there isn't a single dissenting MP to justify that procedure which is intended to reflect "division". And this day saw two such votes: the first on S-5, the second from Guy Lauzon including accountability of offenders as a purpose of the federal correctional system. Meanwhile, a more interesting vote took place on the Cons' flag-waving jingoism bill, with the Libs offering their support while the NDP and Bloc provided actual opposition.
Rejean Genest moved a motion on the right to housing and the need for investment to combat homelessness. Remarkably enough, the motion actually attracted the Cons' support, even as Jean Crowder highlighted their intention to utterly ignore the intent of the motion in the years to come. Meanwhile, it was the Libs who were ambivalent about their intentions.
David Christopherson delivered the line of the day on the Cons' bad-faith dealings with Elections Canada and unwillingness to allow Marc Mayrand testify before committee at any time other than during the budget lockup:
The Big Issue
Peter Julian questioned the Cons' competence in rushing to force through a bill when the review period has been known for years. Hoang Mai lamented the lack of a serious look at Canada's financial system, while Robert Chisholm again noted that plenty of consumer protection options were omitted from the bill. Dany Morin followed up on the issue of consumer debt which has skyrocketed since the Cons took power.
Meanwhile, the big issue also included a massive diversion of attention as the opposition parties worked on allocating credit for the fact that Canada's banking system didn't end up the incomprehensible and unregulated mess that caused so much damage in the U.S. While the Cons' laughable claim to credit based on their demanding exactly what we avoided was easily dismissed, there was plenty of back-and-forth between Robert Chisholm, Don Davies, Wayne Easter, Elizabeth May and Geoff Regan as to the Libs' role - with the former two pointing out that it was Lib cabinet ministers who opened the door to discussion of deregulation only to be shouted down by citizen resistance, while the latter three tried to edit out that bit of history and give the Libs sole credit for the end result.
Unaccountable
Helene Laverdiere raised a point of privilege as to the Cons' refusal to actually answer her written questions - where very specific and targeted questions about the Office of Religious Freedom were met with boilerplate talking points which had nothing to do with the precise questions asked. And Peter Van Loan replied with the remarkable assertion that if his party saw fit to make a mockery of the written question process, her only recourse was...to re-submit the same question through the same process which the Cons had already sabotaged.
In Brief
I've pointed out before the seeming absurdity involved when the House of Commons holds standing votes on issues where there isn't a single dissenting MP to justify that procedure which is intended to reflect "division". And this day saw two such votes: the first on S-5, the second from Guy Lauzon including accountability of offenders as a purpose of the federal correctional system. Meanwhile, a more interesting vote took place on the Cons' flag-waving jingoism bill, with the Libs offering their support while the NDP and Bloc provided actual opposition.
Rejean Genest moved a motion on the right to housing and the need for investment to combat homelessness. Remarkably enough, the motion actually attracted the Cons' support, even as Jean Crowder highlighted their intention to utterly ignore the intent of the motion in the years to come. Meanwhile, it was the Libs who were ambivalent about their intentions.
David Christopherson delivered the line of the day on the Cons' bad-faith dealings with Elections Canada and unwillingness to allow Marc Mayrand testify before committee at any time other than during the budget lockup:
Talk about the Prime Minister's dream democracy: an electoral process the Conservatives can manipulate, our Chief Electoral Officer with no powers and all the journalists locked up.Thomas Mulcair reiterated the Cons' past commitments not to cut public services in advance of a budget that broke those promises. Peter Julian noted that the Cons had already said they had all the tools available needed to protect jobs at Aveos, then asked why they apparently couldn't be bothered to use them. Even before the Cons' budget legislation was presented, Megan Leslie raised the since-confirmed fear that vital environmental legislation would be gutted through an omnibus bill. Francis Scarpaleggia commented on the need for improved public transit for Montreal's West Island. Rathika Sitsabaiesan asked adjournment questions about post-secondary education. And Jonathan Genest-Jourdain left no doubt that the NDP hasn't forgotten the mess the Cons have made of Attawapiskat and so many other First Nations in believing their only job is to cheerlead for resource development.
Saturday Morning Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Paul Krugman writes a long-overdue obituary for the confidence fairy who was supposed to turn needless austerity into growth contrary to all economic evidence:
- One might think this is going too far on the secrecy front. But by the Cons' standards, isn't it only prudent to shred sports memorabilia just in case it doesn't support the conclusions in Stephen Harper's long-promised hockey book?
- Meanwhile, Tabatha Southey's form letter of apology should make for an important addition to the Cons' set of public relations tools.
- The Vancouver Observer highlights the foreign funding provided to the Fraser Institute by the Koch brothers.
- Finally, Robin Sears theorizes that Canada has added tolerance and diversity to its traditional values of peace, order and good government.
- Paul Krugman writes a long-overdue obituary for the confidence fairy who was supposed to turn needless austerity into growth contrary to all economic evidence:
So, about that doctrine: appeals to the wonders of confidence are something Herbert Hoover would have found completely familiar — and faith in the confidence fairy has worked out about as well for modern Europe as it did for Hoover’s America. All around Europe’s periphery, from Spain to Latvia, austerity policies have produced Depression-level slumps and Depression-level unemployment; the confidence fairy is nowhere to be seen, not even in Britain, whose turn to austerity two years ago was greeted with loud hosannas by policy elites on both sides of the Atlantic.- Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher report on Elections Canada's continued efforts to track down the source of the best-known calls behind the Robocon scandal.None of this should come as news, since the failure of austerity policies to deliver as promised has long been obvious. Yet European leaders spent years in denial, insisting that their policies would start working any day now, and celebrating supposed triumphs on the flimsiest of evidence. Notably, the long-suffering (literally) Irish have been hailed as a success story not once but twice, in early 2010 and again in the fall of 2011. Each time the supposed success turned out to be a mirage; three years into its austerity program, Ireland has yet to show any sign of real recovery from a slump that has driven the unemployment rate to almost 15 percent.
...
But while the confidence fairy appears to be well and truly buried, deficit scare stories remain popular. Indeed, defenders of British policies dismiss any call for a rethinking of these policies, despite their evident failure to deliver, on the grounds that any relaxation of austerity would cause borrowing costs to soar.
So we’re now living in a world of zombie economic policies — policies that should have been killed by the evidence that all of their premises are wrong, but which keep shambling along nonetheless. And it’s anyone’s guess when this reign of error will end.
- One might think this is going too far on the secrecy front. But by the Cons' standards, isn't it only prudent to shred sports memorabilia just in case it doesn't support the conclusions in Stephen Harper's long-promised hockey book?
- Meanwhile, Tabatha Southey's form letter of apology should make for an important addition to the Cons' set of public relations tools.
- The Vancouver Observer highlights the foreign funding provided to the Fraser Institute by the Koch brothers.
- Finally, Robin Sears theorizes that Canada has added tolerance and diversity to its traditional values of peace, order and good government.
On equivocal labels
I'll agree with the commentators pointing out that Nanos' polling on party labels shows far more trouble for the Cons than for the NDP. But let's point out another part of the story that the media spin seems to be leaving out.
Plenty of the terms used in association with political parties are indeed fairly easily classified as "positive" or "negative": if anybody wants to make a case as to how "untrustworthy", "arrogant" or "useless" could be anything but unambiguously damaging to a party, I'd love to hear it.
But "socialist" - the leading descriptor of the NDP - falls among a few terms which aren't quite so easily pigeonholed. Indeed, even in the U.S. with a generally more conservative voting public, it tends to be a polarizing term which is nonetheless seen rather positively by a substantial chunk of the voting electorate (italics in original, bold added):
Plenty of the terms used in association with political parties are indeed fairly easily classified as "positive" or "negative": if anybody wants to make a case as to how "untrustworthy", "arrogant" or "useless" could be anything but unambiguously damaging to a party, I'd love to hear it.
But "socialist" - the leading descriptor of the NDP - falls among a few terms which aren't quite so easily pigeonholed. Indeed, even in the U.S. with a generally more conservative voting public, it tends to be a polarizing term which is nonetheless seen rather positively by a substantial chunk of the voting electorate (italics in original, bold added):
Of these terms, socialism is the more politically polarizing – the reaction is almost universally negative among conservatives, while generally positive among liberals.Now, it's true enough that other labels like "progressive" might speak positively to a far larger set of voters - and the use of "socialist" so far has mostly been a matter of the Cons trying to brand the NDP for their own supporters. But if the absolute worst label the Cons can attach to the NDP is one that's still seen positively by a third of respondents, that doesn't exactly hurt the NDP's chances of starting on at least even terms against a party whose own base is in the same range.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Friday Morning Links
This and that to end your week.
- Paul Wells comments on the NDP's new style of opposition:
- Lysiane Gagnon points out that Quebec's child care system - so often highlighted by the right as example of unsustainable spending that should be stopped through an end to interprovincial transfer payments - is in fact a smart use of resources which more than pays for itself. But that won't stop the Cons from trying to demlish it.
- Althia Raj reports on concerns that the Cons' tight time frame for comment on proposed electoral boundaries might shut Canadians out of the process. But I'd view the concern more as reason to be prepared than reason for panic - as it's still open to anybody to be heard as long as we recognize the limited opportunity to do so.
- Finally, Brian Topp cites Wildrose's campaign flop as an example of parties needing to rein in their candidates, and points to the leading precedent for the type of hypercentralization that's now seen as the default setting in Canadian politics:
- Paul Wells comments on the NDP's new style of opposition:
And it looks like there's ample reason for Harper to be worried.When I used to ask the Liberals, when they were the Official Opposition, why they didn’t calm down a bit in QP, they would complain that gesticulating was the only way to get on the news. And indeed the calmer New Democrats are not getting a lot of space on the news. What is getting space is Bev Oda’s global OJ adventure, Stephen Harper’s 70-year digressions, and private members’ bills that seem inspired by the Danielle Smith playbook of political success. Which may explain why the NDP does not begrudge the government its time in the spotlight.
The sharply reduced tolerance at Langevin Block for Oda’s expense account, once it became public, and the clear signal of disapproval for Stephen Woodworth’s motion, suggests Harper is realizing he is no longer facing the ineffectual histrionics the Liberals threw at him for five years.
- Lysiane Gagnon points out that Quebec's child care system - so often highlighted by the right as example of unsustainable spending that should be stopped through an end to interprovincial transfer payments - is in fact a smart use of resources which more than pays for itself. But that won't stop the Cons from trying to demlish it.
- Althia Raj reports on concerns that the Cons' tight time frame for comment on proposed electoral boundaries might shut Canadians out of the process. But I'd view the concern more as reason to be prepared than reason for panic - as it's still open to anybody to be heard as long as we recognize the limited opportunity to do so.
- Finally, Brian Topp cites Wildrose's campaign flop as an example of parties needing to rein in their candidates, and points to the leading precedent for the type of hypercentralization that's now seen as the default setting in Canadian politics:
Our political system tends towards hyper-centralization, and imposes a discipline on elected representatives that, at least some of them sometimes believe, disrespects and disempowers them. A “crisis of surplus consciousness” can result, in which the few at the top end up with too much to do (and therefore cannot do it well), which the vast majority of other team members end up with too little to do (and aren’t happy about it). This, to be precise, used to be said with reference to the hyper-centralized system in place in the Soviet Union. It could also be said of a number of poorly-led, hyper-centralized private corporations. It may be what parliamentary systems inherently drift into.That said, I'd think it's worth distinguishing (as Topp does to some extent) between "bozo eruptions" that reflect poorly on a party primarily to the extent they call into question whether its candidates are fit to hold public office, and the use of respectful disagreement a political gotcha.
Parliament in Review: March 27, 2012
Tuesday, March 27 saw a day dominated by the type of serious discussion about the role of the financial sector that we should expect in the years to come - even if the basis for that discussion was less than we should have hoped for.
The Big Issue
The main topic of debate was Bill S-5, a bill on financial regulation which originated in the Senate. And it's surprising to me both how little disagreement there was on the bill, and how petulant the Cons were about the NDP's small attempt to improve it.
While otherwise noting his party's support for the bill, Peter Julian proposed an amendment on the hot-button issue of...the compellability of employees in the Superintendent's office with respect to knowledge acquired while enforcing the legislation at issue. Jean Rousseau worried that without the amendment, an "iron curtain" could hide real issues discovered by the Superintendent. Scott Brison expressed his support as a matter of transparency. But the Cons first stuck to their talking points about "trying to strengthen our banking system" rather than actually addressing the idea in substance, then tried to put on the record that secrecy is everywhere and thus to be supported.
Meanwhile, in much more substantive debate, the Cons went out of their way to highlight that the list of matters put under political control includes bank acquisitions (which will now be subject only to ministerial approval), a point which was duly criticized by Alain Giguere and Hoang Mai. Robert Chisholm pointed out the continued lack of consumer protection after multiple banks decided not to cooperate with an ombudsman's office once touted by the Cons, a point which was then echoed by Glenn Thibeault. Chisholm, Jinny Sims and Libby Davies all noted that something more than technical amendments might have been appropriate to deal with the financial sector. Giguere expressed what strikes me as the due level of alarm about having financial-sector rules set by an unelected, patronage-based Senate. Helene Leblanc suggested that the public have some say in what's done with financial-sector rules, with Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet offering the example of high credit-card rates and Mathieu Ravignat pointing to hidden fees as issues that demand action. Sadia Groguhe expressed concern about the harmful effects of debt and speculation on Canadians' financial stability, while Francine Raynault discussed the need to regulate speculation and derivatives. Elizabeth May pitched a financial transactions tax. And Olivia Chow lamented the recent imposition of account fees on seniors by two major banks.
Predictably, though, the Cons insisted that the bill absolutely had to pass by April 20, leaving no time to seriously debate whether it was worth passing in the first place as they voted down the amendment and pushed the bill forward. But while any actual gap in legislation created by that time frame would have been a severe problem (and several NDP speakers seemed to accept the premise), as far as I can tell the supposed deadline was itself supported by little more than the Cons' own PR. And if it's true that the Cons are indeed setting up legislation with a time bomb set to explode again 2017 as part of a standard five-year cycle, then that should raise a serious question about their motives in doing so - particularly since Harper's gang of Senate cronies will likely be able to block the passage of any replacement legislation under another party's government.
In Brief
Apparently Nycole Turmel's stint as NDP leader wasn't seen by the Cons as demanding quite the same level of message control as, say, Remembrance Day. And so Peter Van Loan actually moved to allow Bloc and Green speakers to join the official parties in saluting her performance as interim leader of the Official Opposition.
Meanwhile, Jasbir Sandhu called on the Cons to confirm Canada's opposition to the death penalty which was about to be applied in India for the first time since 2004. Romeo Saganash and Chisholm both offered their own statements about the NDP's leadership campaign. Matthew Kellway pointed out that though requirements were apparently drawn up to match the F-35s' specifications, the Cons "bungle(d) this file so badly they cannot even cheat properly" as the F-35s still fell short. Alexandre Boulerice called out Robocon as the electoral fraud that it was, while Niki Ashton noted that the last set of Cons behind an illegal electoral scheme were punished with appointments to the Senate. Jean Crowder asked why upwards of a quarter of EI claims don't receive a response within a month. Linda Duncan rightly slammed John Duncan for describing the very communities for which he bears ministerial responsibility as "socially dysfunctional" while eliminating programs to improve their conditions. Louis Plamondon introduced his motion to make the Governor General's salary subject to the general tax regime. That was met with Shelley Glover's response that the Cons are all in favour of royalty which doesn't play by the same rules as anybody else, while Mai and Stephane Dion offered less histrionic takes. And Irene Matthyssen asked once again about the Cons' failure to do anything meaningful to reduce seniors' poverty.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
The Big Issue
The main topic of debate was Bill S-5, a bill on financial regulation which originated in the Senate. And it's surprising to me both how little disagreement there was on the bill, and how petulant the Cons were about the NDP's small attempt to improve it.
While otherwise noting his party's support for the bill, Peter Julian proposed an amendment on the hot-button issue of...the compellability of employees in the Superintendent's office with respect to knowledge acquired while enforcing the legislation at issue. Jean Rousseau worried that without the amendment, an "iron curtain" could hide real issues discovered by the Superintendent. Scott Brison expressed his support as a matter of transparency. But the Cons first stuck to their talking points about "trying to strengthen our banking system" rather than actually addressing the idea in substance, then tried to put on the record that secrecy is everywhere and thus to be supported.
Meanwhile, in much more substantive debate, the Cons went out of their way to highlight that the list of matters put under political control includes bank acquisitions (which will now be subject only to ministerial approval), a point which was duly criticized by Alain Giguere and Hoang Mai. Robert Chisholm pointed out the continued lack of consumer protection after multiple banks decided not to cooperate with an ombudsman's office once touted by the Cons, a point which was then echoed by Glenn Thibeault. Chisholm, Jinny Sims and Libby Davies all noted that something more than technical amendments might have been appropriate to deal with the financial sector. Giguere expressed what strikes me as the due level of alarm about having financial-sector rules set by an unelected, patronage-based Senate. Helene Leblanc suggested that the public have some say in what's done with financial-sector rules, with Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet offering the example of high credit-card rates and Mathieu Ravignat pointing to hidden fees as issues that demand action. Sadia Groguhe expressed concern about the harmful effects of debt and speculation on Canadians' financial stability, while Francine Raynault discussed the need to regulate speculation and derivatives. Elizabeth May pitched a financial transactions tax. And Olivia Chow lamented the recent imposition of account fees on seniors by two major banks.
Predictably, though, the Cons insisted that the bill absolutely had to pass by April 20, leaving no time to seriously debate whether it was worth passing in the first place as they voted down the amendment and pushed the bill forward. But while any actual gap in legislation created by that time frame would have been a severe problem (and several NDP speakers seemed to accept the premise), as far as I can tell the supposed deadline was itself supported by little more than the Cons' own PR. And if it's true that the Cons are indeed setting up legislation with a time bomb set to explode again 2017 as part of a standard five-year cycle, then that should raise a serious question about their motives in doing so - particularly since Harper's gang of Senate cronies will likely be able to block the passage of any replacement legislation under another party's government.
In Brief
Apparently Nycole Turmel's stint as NDP leader wasn't seen by the Cons as demanding quite the same level of message control as, say, Remembrance Day. And so Peter Van Loan actually moved to allow Bloc and Green speakers to join the official parties in saluting her performance as interim leader of the Official Opposition.
Meanwhile, Jasbir Sandhu called on the Cons to confirm Canada's opposition to the death penalty which was about to be applied in India for the first time since 2004. Romeo Saganash and Chisholm both offered their own statements about the NDP's leadership campaign. Matthew Kellway pointed out that though requirements were apparently drawn up to match the F-35s' specifications, the Cons "bungle(d) this file so badly they cannot even cheat properly" as the F-35s still fell short. Alexandre Boulerice called out Robocon as the electoral fraud that it was, while Niki Ashton noted that the last set of Cons behind an illegal electoral scheme were punished with appointments to the Senate. Jean Crowder asked why upwards of a quarter of EI claims don't receive a response within a month. Linda Duncan rightly slammed John Duncan for describing the very communities for which he bears ministerial responsibility as "socially dysfunctional" while eliminating programs to improve their conditions. Louis Plamondon introduced his motion to make the Governor General's salary subject to the general tax regime. That was met with Shelley Glover's response that the Cons are all in favour of royalty which doesn't play by the same rules as anybody else, while Mai and Stephane Dion offered less histrionic takes. And Irene Matthyssen asked once again about the Cons' failure to do anything meaningful to reduce seniors' poverty.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Paul Wells had previously theorized that the size of environmental demonstrations in Montreal might hint at the NDP's ability to establish a long-term base. So what ended up happening?
- It's noteworthy enough that the Cons are attacking Nathan Cullen directly for having the nerve to stand up for his constituents. But it's especially remarkable that this little tidbit seems to have passed without comment:
- On that front, the fact that the Cons are pushing austerity even at the expense of economic development and jobs surely places near the top of the list of topics they don't want to discuss - perhaps ranking behind only still-growing inequality. And it's great to see Kevin Page pointing out both.
- Finally, congratulations to Pat Atkinson for earning a place in the pages of the Star-Phoenix.
- Paul Wells had previously theorized that the size of environmental demonstrations in Montreal might hint at the NDP's ability to establish a long-term base. So what ended up happening?
What happened in Montreal was a great big rally for Earth Day whose messaging was, in part, overtly anti-oil-sands. And it seems to have been a hit. Apparently something like a quarter of a million people marched in lousy weather.Meanwhile, one of the Cons' leading cheerleaders in Quebec is quite explicitly trying to push "drill baby drill". Which only figures to help highlight the glaring gap between the Harper Cons' obsession with the tar sands, and the environmentally-responsible values shared by the Quebec protesters and so many other Canadians.
- It's noteworthy enough that the Cons are attacking Nathan Cullen directly for having the nerve to stand up for his constituents. But it's especially remarkable that this little tidbit seems to have passed without comment:
The Tories are promising more attacks against individual New Democrats in the “coming days.”Which looks like about the most blatant statement yet that the Cons are neither willing nor able to do anything other than smearing their opponents. But the fact that they see the need to now get personal with anybody who dares to speak out against them might also signal just how incapable they are of defending any of their actions on the merits.
- On that front, the fact that the Cons are pushing austerity even at the expense of economic development and jobs surely places near the top of the list of topics they don't want to discuss - perhaps ranking behind only still-growing inequality. And it's great to see Kevin Page pointing out both.
- Finally, congratulations to Pat Atkinson for earning a place in the pages of the Star-Phoenix.
New column day
Here, following up on Sarah Schmidt's report showing that an outright majority of tested food products are inaccurately labeled by noting that nutrition information is just one of many areas where we're being told to take the corporate sector's word as to what's good for us.
For further reading:
- Joanna Smith reports on the gap between what the federal Cons are claiming about CFIA cuts, and what's actually being experienced by civil servants.
- And details about the planned environmental code for Saskatchewan are available here.
For further reading:
- Joanna Smith reports on the gap between what the federal Cons are claiming about CFIA cuts, and what's actually being experienced by civil servants.
- And details about the planned environmental code for Saskatchewan are available here.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Jared Bernstein discusses the effect of raising taxes on the highest-income households, featuring this in particular:
- Craig McInnes theorizes that the Cons' bullying to ram through approval of new tar sands pipelines will lead to a serious backlash in B.C.:
- Finally, the most foolish part of the Cons' stick figure advice for civil servants facing job losses is how easily the medium can be adapted in response.
- Jared Bernstein discusses the effect of raising taxes on the highest-income households, featuring this in particular:
Growth and jobs. History shows that higher taxes are compatible with economic growth and job creation: job creation and GDP growth were significantly stronger following the Clinton tax increases than following the Bush tax cuts. Further, the Congressional Budget office (CBO) concludes that letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire on schedule would strengthen long-term economic growth, on balance, if policymakers used the revenue saved to reduce deficits. In other words, any negative impact on economic growth from increasing taxes on high-income people would be more than offset by the positive effects of using the resulting revenue gain to reduce the budget deficit. Tax increases can also be used to fund, or to forestall cuts in, productive public investments in areas that support growth such as public education, basic research, and infrastructure.- Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor report on EKOS' polling showing that it was non-Conservative supporters who were targeted for vote suppression in Canada's 2011 election, while Saskboy points out that it's not hard to figure out who stood to gain from Robocon.
- Craig McInnes theorizes that the Cons' bullying to ram through approval of new tar sands pipelines will lead to a serious backlash in B.C.:
the message out of Ottawa is that the government isn’t all that concerned about the environment. The message is that its primary concern is making sure that nothing stands in the way of the development of the oilsands.- Meanwhile, it's ridiculous enough that Peter Kent is outraged by his own words about scientists being told what to say by political hacks. But isn't his supposed clarification even worse - if scientists are being told to "(spread) the good news of the policies of our government", rather than actually discussing scientific findings in accurate terms?
The problem with the threat of an over-ride is it casts every other move the government is making to streamline the process – regardless of whether it has another rationale – as part of the headlong rush to get the pipelines built.
...
What I really don’t understand is the Conservatives’ failure to appreciate the political risks in trying to push these projects through. While it may be deemed radical for a Conservative from Alberta to be opposed to the pipelines, opposition in B.C., especially to increased tanker traffic, sits squarely in the middle of the road, cutting across all party lines.
“Radical” here more reasonably represents the people who are vowing to stop the pipeline by any means necessary. If British Columbians believe they have been given a fair hearing and lost fairly, there won’t be much tolerance for illegal acts.
But if the common experience of British Columbians is to feel we are being bulldozed by Ottawa, all bets are off.
- Finally, the most foolish part of the Cons' stick figure advice for civil servants facing job losses is how easily the medium can be adapted in response.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- Yesterday's Alberta election certainly proved somewhat of a shocker - producing about the best possible result short of a minority scenario that would have allowed the NDP to exercise the balance of power, as the slightly-less-right party won even as its most notorious ideologue went down in flames. But I'd still think it's a wide open question as to whether the PCs will actually govern consistently with the wishes of the progressive voters who offered strategic support (as suggested by Sheila Pratt), or whether they'll instead veer right in order to win back some of the mass of Wildrose voters - meaning that even a majority government provides virtually no certainty as to what comes next.
- Keith Beardsley points out a massive opening for the NDP to make ethics and accountability into a decisive issue in the next federal election, while Lawrence Martin has some suggestions as to reach that result. Meanwhile, a new CROP poll shows the NDP with a commanding lead in Quebec.
- Brian Topp is back writing for the Globe and Mail online after the NDP's leadership campaign - and his take on the first phase of France's presidential election is well worth a read.
- Finally, Stephen Gordon breaks down the types of taxes collected by the OECD countries.
- Yesterday's Alberta election certainly proved somewhat of a shocker - producing about the best possible result short of a minority scenario that would have allowed the NDP to exercise the balance of power, as the slightly-less-right party won even as its most notorious ideologue went down in flames. But I'd still think it's a wide open question as to whether the PCs will actually govern consistently with the wishes of the progressive voters who offered strategic support (as suggested by Sheila Pratt), or whether they'll instead veer right in order to win back some of the mass of Wildrose voters - meaning that even a majority government provides virtually no certainty as to what comes next.
- Keith Beardsley points out a massive opening for the NDP to make ethics and accountability into a decisive issue in the next federal election, while Lawrence Martin has some suggestions as to reach that result. Meanwhile, a new CROP poll shows the NDP with a commanding lead in Quebec.
- Brian Topp is back writing for the Globe and Mail online after the NDP's leadership campaign - and his take on the first phase of France's presidential election is well worth a read.
- Finally, Stephen Gordon breaks down the types of taxes collected by the OECD countries.
Hyer Ground
When Lise St. Denis decided last year to leave the Official Opposition to move down the opposition back benches, I noted that the most important issue was likely less her individual choice than whether it would lead to more MPs following suit. (Which of course it didn't.)
And to a large extent, the same goes for Bruce Hyer's decision to sit as an independent: the long-term effects will likely be minimal if other members facing similar choices keep working within the NDP. But it is worth noting one key background point in Hyer's decision.
It's been well noted that the one issue of caucus discipline involving Hyer took place under Nycole Turmel's interim leadership last fall. So Hyer's timing may have been less a matter of seeing anything change to his dissatisfaction under Thomas Mulcair, and more an issue of disappointment that the NDP's new leader didn't restore the party's previous stance allowing MPs to vote their conscience on the gun registry.
But it's still true that a change has indeed taken place since the last election, as MPs who campaigned on a position which was seen as consistent with party policy have found themselves facing discipline for exactly that stance. And that may be particularly important in light of Mulcair's primary leadership campaign proposal to allow for diversity of voices within the NDP.
Remember that Mulcair has (rightly) promised to encourage regional campaigns working within the party's existing policy framework in order to better address local concerns. And the leading example as to how that idea has worked in the past is...the NDP's base in Northern Ontario, which helped Hyer and a number of other MPs to get elected - in part by enabling candidates to put aside the gun registry as an issue.
Now, it could be that party members will make a decision on the gun registry that would take Hyer's stance outside the realm of party policy by 2015. But for now, Hyer's departure again highlights a question as to whether the candidates working within regional campaigns can count on the same flexibility in voting on issues after an election that they've been offered while campaigning. And Mulcair may need to clarify that point in order to encourage more regions to follow Northern Ontario's successful model.
And to a large extent, the same goes for Bruce Hyer's decision to sit as an independent: the long-term effects will likely be minimal if other members facing similar choices keep working within the NDP. But it is worth noting one key background point in Hyer's decision.
It's been well noted that the one issue of caucus discipline involving Hyer took place under Nycole Turmel's interim leadership last fall. So Hyer's timing may have been less a matter of seeing anything change to his dissatisfaction under Thomas Mulcair, and more an issue of disappointment that the NDP's new leader didn't restore the party's previous stance allowing MPs to vote their conscience on the gun registry.
But it's still true that a change has indeed taken place since the last election, as MPs who campaigned on a position which was seen as consistent with party policy have found themselves facing discipline for exactly that stance. And that may be particularly important in light of Mulcair's primary leadership campaign proposal to allow for diversity of voices within the NDP.
Remember that Mulcair has (rightly) promised to encourage regional campaigns working within the party's existing policy framework in order to better address local concerns. And the leading example as to how that idea has worked in the past is...the NDP's base in Northern Ontario, which helped Hyer and a number of other MPs to get elected - in part by enabling candidates to put aside the gun registry as an issue.
Now, it could be that party members will make a decision on the gun registry that would take Hyer's stance outside the realm of party policy by 2015. But for now, Hyer's departure again highlights a question as to whether the candidates working within regional campaigns can count on the same flexibility in voting on issues after an election that they've been offered while campaigning. And Mulcair may need to clarify that point in order to encourage more regions to follow Northern Ontario's successful model.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)