In its interim report, this commission identified dissatisfaction with Saskatchewan's boundaries as they stand today. But that dissatisfaction doesn't necessarily point to a particular solution: precisely because Saskatchewan's cities are all divided up into pie-slice ridings, we don't have any frame of reference as to what options might work better.
As a result, I see two goals which we should meet with our new boundaries.
First, there's the need to better recognize communities of interest based on the information we have now. But in addition, there's a need to gather some more meaningful data to ensure we can make more clear choices in the future.
In my view, the development of some purely urban ridings is a huge step forward on the former front. But the commission's interim boundaries are equally useful on the latter - based on both the comparisons we'll be able to make to the present-day ridings, and the range of boundaries set up for the future.
In particular, we'll be able to directly compare:
- whether bedroom communities be paired with urban areas (as in White City and Balgonie) or rural areas (as in Martensville and other bedroom communities of Saskatoon);
- whether Moose Jaw in particular is best represented if it's linked to Regina (as in the current Palliser configuration), or if it becomes the major centre in a largely rural riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre-Lanigan;
- whether urban boundaries should be drawn primarily based on major arteries (as has mostly been done in the new Regina ridings) or geographic factors (which seem more prevalent in Saskatoon); and
- whether ridings should be drawn as exclusively urban or include some rural component - which can be determined both based on a contrast among the new ridings (comparing the exclusively-urban Regina Lewvan, Saskatoon Centre-University and Saskatoon West to the partially-rural Regina Qu’Appelle, Wascana, and Saskatoon Grasswood), and based on a comparison to the discontent with today's boundaries.
Now, the above isn't to say I don't see some room to tweak the proposed boundaries. In particular, I suggest:
- Treating suburban or commuter areas as a separate type of neighbourhood which should be grouped together where possible;
- Establishing lower initial population levels for urban centres based on the expectation that urbanization will continue;
- Matching boundaries at the municipal and provincial levels where possible; and
- Making minor changes to ensure that the new boundaries better capture communities of interest without - including by dividing both Regina's Walsh Acres/Lake Ridge areas and the new ridings of Lloydminster-Battlefords-Rosthern and Kindersley/Rosetown/Humboldt on a north/south basis rather than east/west
Ultimately, though, the goal in designing our new boundaries should be not only to reflect communities of interest now, but also to encourage further evolution of our boundaries based on better information. And again, the commission's proposal is a significant step forward on both fronts.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission Submission
As Noah has noted, I appeared in front of the federal electoral boundaries commission this afternoon. Here's a somewhat abridged and polished version of what I had to say - with a general focus on the value of being able to define boundaries based on better evidence in future revisions than we have available now.
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content for your Friday reading.
- The Cons' latest line of talking-point addiction isn't passing without some substantial comment from Canada's political press. Today, Jeffrey Simpson lambastes Stephen Harper and his party for trying to wipe out their own history and promises, while Dan Gardner considers the Cons to be a Monty Python skit in progress (minus the humour of course). And Aaron Wherry continues to document the farce.
- Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt suggests that we should expect any government to leave out democracy in no worse condition than when it took power - and I'll readily agree with that as a general principle. But it's also worth noting that the surest way to continue in the wrong direction is to focus solely on the problems with any given government, rather than holding all parties to the standard.
- Likewise, I appreciate the purposes behind Steve's proposal for a political code of ethics (including a requirement that public statements have some basis in fact). But I'm rather wary of any policy which may give top-down parties just one more way to force MPs to stay on a predetermined script - as MPs will surely see it as safer to take their party's word for the facts than to strike out on their own.
- Christopher Majka thoroughly reviews the effect of voter suppression in the 2011 federal election.
- Finally, Peter Prebble rightly criticizes the combination of Con neglect and Sask Party coal boosterism that's locking Saskatchewan into a needless dependency on coal power.
- The Cons' latest line of talking-point addiction isn't passing without some substantial comment from Canada's political press. Today, Jeffrey Simpson lambastes Stephen Harper and his party for trying to wipe out their own history and promises, while Dan Gardner considers the Cons to be a Monty Python skit in progress (minus the humour of course). And Aaron Wherry continues to document the farce.
- Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt suggests that we should expect any government to leave out democracy in no worse condition than when it took power - and I'll readily agree with that as a general principle. But it's also worth noting that the surest way to continue in the wrong direction is to focus solely on the problems with any given government, rather than holding all parties to the standard.
- Likewise, I appreciate the purposes behind Steve's proposal for a political code of ethics (including a requirement that public statements have some basis in fact). But I'm rather wary of any policy which may give top-down parties just one more way to force MPs to stay on a predetermined script - as MPs will surely see it as safer to take their party's word for the facts than to strike out on their own.
- Christopher Majka thoroughly reviews the effect of voter suppression in the 2011 federal election.
- Finally, Peter Prebble rightly criticizes the combination of Con neglect and Sask Party coal boosterism that's locking Saskatchewan into a needless dependency on coal power.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Thursday Evening Links
Assorted content to end your day.
- Common Dreams discusses the prevalence of inherited wealth among the U.S.' richest individuals (as pointed out by a report by United for a Fair Economy):
- Finally, Rick Mercer rants about the Cons' latest omnibus monstrosity in the making:
- Common Dreams discusses the prevalence of inherited wealth among the U.S.' richest individuals (as pointed out by a report by United for a Fair Economy):
Forbes claims that their list of the 400 richest people is 'the definitive scorecard of wealth' in the United States, but UFE rebuffs that assertion, saying that the narrative of wealth and achievement pushed by Forbes ignores the other side of the coin— namely, that the opportunity to build wealth is not equally or broadly shared in contempory society.- Thomas Walkom weighs in on the anticipated effects of the CETA - noting that the problems with the deal go far beyond billions in giveaways to big pharma, while the supposed gains are tiny even based on the Cons' blind faith in the almighty market:
According to the report:
In addition, the report points out that (and the new 2012 list from Forbes shows continuation of this trend) the rich in 2011 got richer as the poor got poorer. The growing wealth inequality, the report says, is not due to any inherent brilliance or dynamism of the wealthy, but because of carefully crafted policy and legislative reforms enacted by government at the behest of the these same individuals.
- The net worth of the Forbes 400 grew fifteen-fold between the launch of the list in 1982 and 2011, while wealth stagnated for the average U.S. household.
- The racial wealth divide is starkly apparent from the overwhelming whiteness of the list. The 2011 Forbes 400 had only one African American member.
- Women accounted for just 10% of the 2011 list, and of the women on the list nearly 90% inherited their fortunes.
Two examples cited by the report which directly impact the ability of the rich to retain and pass along their enormous assets:
- Tax rates on capital gains have been slashed, which especially benefits members of the Forbes list. The richest 0.1% receive half of all net increases in capital gains.
- Drastic cuts to the federal estate tax passed in the Bush tax cuts and the 2010 Obama tax deal allow the Forbes 400 to pass on more of their massive fortunes to their heirs, contributing to the growth of inequality and entrenching a class of super-wealthy heirs.
As the Council of Canadians has pointed out, CETA also promises to go far beyond tariff reduction. The Europeans want to prevent provinces and municipalities from favouring local business.- SOS Crowns points out that plenty of rural Saskatchewan communities will be losing broadband Internet access from SaskTel due to the latest anti-Crown edict from the Sask Party.
If as expected they get their way, this would wipe out Ontario’s remaining bus and train manufacturing capacity — and play havoc with Premier Dalton McGuinty’s green-industry strategy.
As well, Europe’s demand for greater patent protection is sure to raise the price of drugs. One study cited by Jacobs calculates the annual extra cost to Ontarians at $1.2 billion.
Why then has Canada chosen to take this path? The federal government’s answers are not convincing.
Ottawa cites a 2008 study it helped finance, which calculates the usual gains to trade predicted by economic theory. But such gains won’t be massive. In this case, the federal study says, they would amount to less than one percentage point of Canada’s gross domestic product, or about $12 billion.
If, as the Harper government assumes, all of this extra money were used to hire Canadians, then the deal would create 80,000 new jobs nationwide — which would help, if not solve, the problems faced by the 1.4 million who are currently out of work.
But Canadians know from grim experience that in the real world businesses don’t always spend their extra profits on domestic job creation.
- Finally, Rick Mercer rants about the Cons' latest omnibus monstrosity in the making:
On diverging paths
Earlier this morning, I noted that the NDP is developing on a promising line of economic messaging - highlighting the Cons' determination to place the interests of the wealthy and privileged over those of mere working Canadians. And I'd expect that principle to factor into the NDP's foreign policy as well.
But Campbell Clark suggests otherwise - reporting that the party plans to make the mistake of trying to match the Cons' "free trade" spin word for word. So let's take a quick look at another option available to the NDP if it's indeed searching for a foreign-policy theme.
Just as the NDP is rightly standing up for the principle that corporate interests are only one, overfed part of the broader policy picture at home, there would seem to be plenty of room to emphasize that trade is only one form of necessary and desirable interaction around the globe. And the Cons' obsession with the right-wing desire to promote trade and war only means that they've been refusing to engage with our diplomatic partners around the world when it comes to a bevy of other areas of shared concern, including immigration, human rights, health, the environment and democratic development.
In contrast, the NDP can plausibly point to its interest in that wider range of issues as better reflecting how Canadians see their country as a global actor.
Once that framework is established, there's still room for a message of "we like trade" as one of the forms of global engagement. But the openness to trade needs to be tempered with the recognition that several decades of focus on free trade have resulted in little benefit for many outside the world's elite. And in considering any given agreement on the merits, we should ensure that we don't merely hand multinational conglomerates yet more power to dictate that governments shall put no other priority above their interests.
So how does such a message compare to the one mooted in Clark's report?
For one thing, it actually leaves some room for contrast against the Cons on turf that's relatively favourable for the NDP. I'd be shocked if there's any prospect of actually gaining any leverage against the Cons by accusing them of being insufficiently devoted to signing free trade agreements, and I'm not sure it would be worth the damage to the NDP's broader message about the need for democratic decision-making even if it was possible. But a contrast between "trade only" and "trade only as part of the bigger picture" looks to allow for far more development among voters interested in that bigger picture.
And I'd have a hard time seeing it as less viable from the standpoint of demonstrating the NDP's fitness to govern. Again, any litmus test that suggests we should consider corporate approval as a precondition to forming government is bound to harm the NDP's wider interests. And there are plenty of friendly voices around the globe to send the message that a focus on broader well-being rather than doctrinaire free-trade promotion will make for better governance at home and abroad.
In sum, foreign affairs and trade policy look to be one more area where the NDP has to choose between defining a contrast with the Canadian public on our side, or choosing a supposedly easier road which ultimately leads exactly where our opponents want to go. And the party's grassroots may have plenty of work to do in making sure our leadership makes the right call.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
But Campbell Clark suggests otherwise - reporting that the party plans to make the mistake of trying to match the Cons' "free trade" spin word for word. So let's take a quick look at another option available to the NDP if it's indeed searching for a foreign-policy theme.
Just as the NDP is rightly standing up for the principle that corporate interests are only one, overfed part of the broader policy picture at home, there would seem to be plenty of room to emphasize that trade is only one form of necessary and desirable interaction around the globe. And the Cons' obsession with the right-wing desire to promote trade and war only means that they've been refusing to engage with our diplomatic partners around the world when it comes to a bevy of other areas of shared concern, including immigration, human rights, health, the environment and democratic development.
In contrast, the NDP can plausibly point to its interest in that wider range of issues as better reflecting how Canadians see their country as a global actor.
Once that framework is established, there's still room for a message of "we like trade" as one of the forms of global engagement. But the openness to trade needs to be tempered with the recognition that several decades of focus on free trade have resulted in little benefit for many outside the world's elite. And in considering any given agreement on the merits, we should ensure that we don't merely hand multinational conglomerates yet more power to dictate that governments shall put no other priority above their interests.
So how does such a message compare to the one mooted in Clark's report?
For one thing, it actually leaves some room for contrast against the Cons on turf that's relatively favourable for the NDP. I'd be shocked if there's any prospect of actually gaining any leverage against the Cons by accusing them of being insufficiently devoted to signing free trade agreements, and I'm not sure it would be worth the damage to the NDP's broader message about the need for democratic decision-making even if it was possible. But a contrast between "trade only" and "trade only as part of the bigger picture" looks to allow for far more development among voters interested in that bigger picture.
And I'd have a hard time seeing it as less viable from the standpoint of demonstrating the NDP's fitness to govern. Again, any litmus test that suggests we should consider corporate approval as a precondition to forming government is bound to harm the NDP's wider interests. And there are plenty of friendly voices around the globe to send the message that a focus on broader well-being rather than doctrinaire free-trade promotion will make for better governance at home and abroad.
In sum, foreign affairs and trade policy look to be one more area where the NDP has to choose between defining a contrast with the Canadian public on our side, or choosing a supposedly easier road which ultimately leads exactly where our opponents want to go. And the party's grassroots may have plenty of work to do in making sure our leadership makes the right call.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
New column day
Here, taking a quick look at the early-campaign strategies of Saskatchewan's NDP leadership candidates.
For more analysis on the race...
- Pat Atkinson offers her take on what the NDP needs to do while building through the leadership campaign and beyond.
- Murray Mandryk focuses largely on Trent Wotherspoon's crowd as defining the race so far.
- Bernadette Wagner endorses Ryan Meili.
- And Scott Stelmaschuk has been contributing plenty of thoughtful discussion about the leadership campaign at his blog.
For more analysis on the race...
- Pat Atkinson offers her take on what the NDP needs to do while building through the leadership campaign and beyond.
- Murray Mandryk focuses largely on Trent Wotherspoon's crowd as defining the race so far.
- Bernadette Wagner endorses Ryan Meili.
- And Scott Stelmaschuk has been contributing plenty of thoughtful discussion about the leadership campaign at his blog.
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Ish Theilheimer highlights why the corporate right is so eager to snuff out organized labour - and why progressives need to fight back:
- Ish Theilheimer highlights why the corporate right is so eager to snuff out organized labour - and why progressives need to fight back:
Since the 1980s under Reagan, US Republicans have worked to "de-fund the Left," going after advocacy groups, university student councils, progressive lawyers and legal clinics, charities, and, of course, unions.The Harperites understand the importance of this directive better than any conservatives in Canada before them. When they had a minority government, they worked systematically to eliminate funding for any of the issues they don't like, such as feminism, environment, and social justice. Now they have a majority, they are gunning for big game — unions — and only widespread public outrage can stop them....It's not too late for the labour movement to rebuild its image, was the message of speaker after speaker at SGN's workshop. Doing so, however, will require hard work, open minds, a lot of listening and research, and making key people in every organization responsible for a focus on improving the reputation and image of their union and unions in general....
There has to be a solution, because without strong unions, every progressive cause will be hobbled.
- Meanwhile, Bob Hepburn writes about some of the efforts to save and strengthen Canadian democracy in the face of the Cons' attacks.
- Karl Nerenberg observes that the Cons' immigration policy looks to be a throwback to the 1800s in terms of both an undercurrent of bigotry and a disregard for immigrants' well-being:
More than any government in recent memory, the current Conservative government has made immigration a central part of economic policy. Its overarching goal is the holy grail of neo-conservative economists, "more flexible labour markets." One way to achieve those is by strategically exploiting temporary migrant (workers).- But just as the New York Times is starting to call out Mitt Romney for his explicit class war against lower-income Americans, there would seem to be plenty of room to point out the same phenomenon in Canada. And the NDP looks to be headed in that direction by contrasting the Cons' privileged cronies against the millions of workers whose wages and prospects are being suppressed by corporatist policies.
...
Yesterday the privately endowed, non-partisan Toronto based Metcalf Foundation released a new study by social researcher Fay Faraday: "Made in Canada: How the Law Constructs Migrant Workers' Insecurity."
The Report points out that Canada is now taking in more temporary migrant workers (over 190,000 in 2011) -- who have very few, if any, basic rights -- than economic immigrants (a bit more than 156,000 in 2011).
The author concludes that this practice is creating a widespread situation of exploitation which, in the report's words: "...is not isolated and anecdotal. It is endemic. It is systemic. And the depths of the violations are degrading. There is a deepening concern that Canada's temporary labour migration programs are entrenching and normalizing a low-wage, low-rights 'guest' workforce on terms that are incompatible with Canada’s fundamental Charter rights..."
As the settlement of the west was Laurier and Sifton's legacy, the growth of a new temporary worker class without rights will be part of Harper and Kenney's legacy.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Tim Harper weighs in on the Cons' latest campaign of coordinated lies, and notes that the NDP looks to have learned one important lesson in how to respond:
- Dan Gardner longs for the day when evidence-based policy will be a basic expectation for government of all stripes. But that vision seems rather far off when the Cons can't discard anything which might produce evidence fast enough - especially if that means that useful data will be solely in the hands of their oil-sector benefactors.
- Finally, pogge compares the McGuinty Libs' consistent pattern of cuts and attacks on public services in the name of deficit reduction to their mealy-mouthed waffling when it comes to earning value for the province's own resources. And John Jacobs notes how the Harper Cons' CETA fetish figures to make matters worse.
- Tim Harper weighs in on the Cons' latest campaign of coordinated lies, and notes that the NDP looks to have learned one important lesson in how to respond:
The NDP may be here at the federal level for the first time, but they appear to have learned the first lesson when dodging such volleys — respond.- Meanwhile, Elections Canada is considering regulating at least some of the most obvious potential sources for abuse of citizens' information by political parties.
No charge is too ridiculous or over-the-top to be ignored.
The term Swiftboating entered the North American political lexicon because John Kerry took a holiday in 2004 rather than respond to Vietnam Swiftboat vets who questioned his war record.
So far, New Democrats have been up to the task, but when facing a government that never stops campaigning, the opposition will have to use a lot of its time in the spotlight parrying rather than proposing.
- Dan Gardner longs for the day when evidence-based policy will be a basic expectation for government of all stripes. But that vision seems rather far off when the Cons can't discard anything which might produce evidence fast enough - especially if that means that useful data will be solely in the hands of their oil-sector benefactors.
- Finally, pogge compares the McGuinty Libs' consistent pattern of cuts and attacks on public services in the name of deficit reduction to their mealy-mouthed waffling when it comes to earning value for the province's own resources. And John Jacobs notes how the Harper Cons' CETA fetish figures to make matters worse.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- The Ottawa Citizen asks whether Stephen Harper's Conservatives think Canadians are stupid enough to fall for their asinine carbon tax spin. Aaron Wherry confirms that the answer is an emphatic "yes".
- But then, we shouldn't be surprised to see the Cons unveiling ever more blatant distractions to try to call attention away from their continued contempt for democracy.
- The Star-Phoenix editorial board echoes Erin Weir's call to ban corporate and union donations to Saskatchewan political parties:
- The Ottawa Citizen asks whether Stephen Harper's Conservatives think Canadians are stupid enough to fall for their asinine carbon tax spin. Aaron Wherry confirms that the answer is an emphatic "yes".
- But then, we shouldn't be surprised to see the Cons unveiling ever more blatant distractions to try to call attention away from their continued contempt for democracy.
- The Star-Phoenix editorial board echoes Erin Weir's call to ban corporate and union donations to Saskatchewan political parties:
For a government that cites concerns about the undue influence unions have wielded over the decades on Saskatchewan labour legislation and has expressed annoyance with unionpaid ads that criticize its policies, it's a cynical stance to respond to Mr. Weir's proposal by saying, "We have no plans to change the current policy, which has been in place for many years under both NDP and Sask. Party governments."- And finally, a new Ipsos Reid poll makes clear that Canadians don't want to hand over billions in free money to big pharma for the sake of closing a free trade agreement with Europe.
Mr. Wall could well end up regretting poking a stick into this hornet's nest. Not only will it bring into sharper focus the policy choices being made by a governing party that's backed heavily by the corporate sector, but it also raises questions about the role of third-party advertising during writ periods. After all, if unions shouldn't be spending their members' money on political ads, what about corporations spending money from shareholders - among them mutual funds investing union members' pension money, for instance - for the same purpose?
Rather than remain the wild west of political party financing, with no limits on donations - even perennially conservative Alberta has a limit, albeit a whopping $30,000 per union or company during an election year, while Ontario's limit is $9,300 - Saskatchewan should act to put the control back in the hands of actual voters by eliminating corporate and union contributions.
Monday, September 17, 2012
The big lie and the bigger truth
Yes, it's inevitable that Tom Mulcair will have to answer the Cons' (however farcical) talking points about some nonexistent carbon tax. But there's more to the story than the "big lie" currently being pointed out by Mulcair - and the best way to turn the issue back around on the Cons is to take them at their word from four years ago.
After all, the Cons' commitment to a cap-and-trade system in 2008 doesn't just make them hypocrites for bashing the same idea now. Instead, it also looms as a massive broken promise in an area where the Cons have so often gone out of their way to prove they can't be trusted. And it also serves as a signal as to what the Cons really value rather than the best interests of Canadians.
Yes, Harper has pretended to agree with greenhouse gas emission regulation for the purpose of deflecting from the environment as an election issue. But he's only been willing to feign support for whatever policy seems furthest from being implemented - with the apparent goal of making sure that no single form of regulation gains enough momentum to be seen as an inescapable consensus.
Moreover, in government Harper has consistently refused to implement any policy which actually results in the oil sector (rather than the general public) taking responsibility for the damage unregulated greenhouse gas emissions can do to Canada's environment and the global climate. And the fact that a majority Con government is managing to be even more reckless than the previous minority versions only drives that point home.
So the real story isn't merely that the Cons are lying - it's that they're lying in service to their tar-sands masters, and will say or do anything to ensure a continued flow of wealth from the Canadian public to oil barons. And the best way to highlight that lie is to focus on asking when the Cons will get around to making good on their 2008 promise - and forcing them to argue against their own words and platform.
After all, the Cons' commitment to a cap-and-trade system in 2008 doesn't just make them hypocrites for bashing the same idea now. Instead, it also looms as a massive broken promise in an area where the Cons have so often gone out of their way to prove they can't be trusted. And it also serves as a signal as to what the Cons really value rather than the best interests of Canadians.
Yes, Harper has pretended to agree with greenhouse gas emission regulation for the purpose of deflecting from the environment as an election issue. But he's only been willing to feign support for whatever policy seems furthest from being implemented - with the apparent goal of making sure that no single form of regulation gains enough momentum to be seen as an inescapable consensus.
Moreover, in government Harper has consistently refused to implement any policy which actually results in the oil sector (rather than the general public) taking responsibility for the damage unregulated greenhouse gas emissions can do to Canada's environment and the global climate. And the fact that a majority Con government is managing to be even more reckless than the previous minority versions only drives that point home.
So the real story isn't merely that the Cons are lying - it's that they're lying in service to their tar-sands masters, and will say or do anything to ensure a continued flow of wealth from the Canadian public to oil barons. And the best way to highlight that lie is to focus on asking when the Cons will get around to making good on their 2008 promise - and forcing them to argue against their own words and platform.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- If there's anything missing from Mark Weisbrot's musings about the possibility of a U.S. debt downgrade, it's that the only significant threat to the country paying its bills has been the Republicans' reckless willingness to block routine approvals in the name of exactly the austerity policies the bond raters are pushing. But he's right on in his suspicion about the raters' motives:
- Martin Regg Cohn discusses how the Ontario NDP's renewed hold on the balance of power should lead to some policies actually aimed at job creation:
- If there's anything missing from Mark Weisbrot's musings about the possibility of a U.S. debt downgrade, it's that the only significant threat to the country paying its bills has been the Republicans' reckless willingness to block routine approvals in the name of exactly the austerity policies the bond raters are pushing. But he's right on in his suspicion about the raters' motives:
It is clear that these credit rating agencies have a political agenda. Like most of Wall Street and the politicians that they can buy, they want the US government to cut spending and reduce its deficit. They are not particularly concerned about the more than 22 million Americans who are unemployed, involuntarily working part-time, or given up looking for work altogether. They would prefer a "grand bargain" on spending that cuts senior citizens' social security benefits. This statement from Moody's is a form of political blackmail on the part of the credit rating agencies.- Meanwhile, public servants in Canada are making a strong case against the Harper Cons' determination to feed that agenda - with PSAC holding an Ottawa rally yesterday, while correctional workers took the argument again dumb-on-crime policies to Stephen Harper's Calgary constituency office.
It's perhaps different from the corrupt system that led Moody's to give AAA ratings to more than 46,000 residential mortgage-backed securities between 2000 and 2007, many of which turned out to be worthless. Or the investment grade rating that the agencies gave to Enron until four days before its bankruptcy, or to Lehman Brothers until a few days before its collapse. Many of these ratings were likely influenced by the fees that the credit ratings agencies earned from the institutions whose securities they were rating.
And did I mention that Moody's, S&P and Fitch take about 90% of the revenue earned by the multibillion dollar ratings industry? Or that the three make about 98% of the ratings? There is nothing like a lucrative oligopoly to encourage all kinds of self-serving agendas.
- Martin Regg Cohn discusses how the Ontario NDP's renewed hold on the balance of power should lead to some policies actually aimed at job creation:
(W)hat good is popularity if you can’t do much good? Happily for Horwath, it’s also been a good summer for her party and policies.- Finally, Peter Julian fleshes out the federal NDP's position on economic development - featuring a focus on developing domestic industry beyond resource extraction:
Her bombshell byelection victory this month blocked the Liberals' bid for a majority — and allowed her to retain the balance of power. Without it, Horwath would have been powerless to pursue her party's agenda.
The other piece of good news: An unprecedented public speech by Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney late last month lambasting corporate Canada for sitting on a $560-billion stash of cash.
“This is dead money,” the governor lectured the business world.
Canada's influential central banker wasn't purposely cozying up to Horwath with his comments. But the NDP believes Carney’s musings coincide with one of its major policy planks: Corporations can't be trusted to create jobs with the cash lavished upon them through tax cuts — they need targeted hiring incentives to get the job done.
“What's very obvious is that the use of (reduced) corporate taxes for stimulus doesn't work,” Horwath told me. Now, she wants the minority Liberal government to get serious about her demands.
“I'm very hopeful though, considering what Mr. Carney has said, that our idea will have more cachet.”
For Horwath, the political and economic stars may be in alignment. She is keen to use her new-found political capital to put pressure on big business.
Q The oil industry is gearing up to produce around six million barrels per day in the next 20 years. Is the NDP against that development altogether or would you favour it if all the environmental conditions were met?[Edit: fixed typo.]
A There are two issues. First is the environmental pact. Due diligence is simply not being done, particularly by the federal government in terms of enforcing existing regulation. The rapid pace of the oil and gas development is worrisome in part because sustainability has not been established. But here is the other issue: We need to ensure the resources we develop should have, as much as possible, valueadded done in Canada. We are exporting raw bitumen, raw logs and raw minerals. The Conservative government's plan is to export more in raw state. This is a real problem because when you look at the disastrous trade deficits that we are seeing now in large part because we have a government that is focused on raw exports rather than the development of value-added products. We have lost half a million manufacturing jobs under the Conservatives' watch and they want to fuel raw exports rather than development of refinery capacity and upgrading capacity. When we are exporting raw bitumen, we are exporting jobs. We don't feel that the plan to carve out raw bitumen as fast as possible and ship it offshore is either environmentally sustainable or economically smart from a Canadian perspective.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Leadership 2013 Reference Page
A one-stop source for general links on the 2013 Saskatchewan NDP leadership campaign, to be updated as the race progresses. Please feel free to add additional suggestions in comments.
General Information and Discussion
Saskatchewan NDP - Membership
Leadership 2013 - Events - Rules - Videos - Financial Reports - Voter FAQs
Babble Discussion
Saskatchewan New Democrat Leadership Campaign (Leftdog)
Canadian Political Viewpoints (Scott Stelmaschuk)
Candidate Profiles - Head Tale (Jason Hammond)
Missing That Last Piece (Aaron Genest)
Candidate Information
Posts
Endorsement
Candidate Rankings Introduction - January 15 - January 22 - January 29 - February 5 - February 12 - February 19 - February 26 - March 5
All Posts By Label
Twitter
#skndpldr
General Information and Discussion
Saskatchewan NDP - Membership
Leadership 2013 - Events - Rules - Videos - Financial Reports - Voter FAQs
Babble Discussion
Saskatchewan New Democrat Leadership Campaign (Leftdog)
Canadian Political Viewpoints (Scott Stelmaschuk)
Candidate Profiles - Head Tale (Jason Hammond)
Missing That Last Piece (Aaron Genest)
Candidate Information
| Candidate | Sites | Profile | Update | Review | Ranking |
| Cam Broten | Website - Facebook - Twitter | Profile | Update | Review | 2 |
| Ryan Meili | Website - Facebook - Twitter | Profile | Update | Review | 1 |
| Erin Weir | Website - Facebook - Twitter | Profile | Update | Review | Withdrawn |
| Trent Wotherspoon | Website - Facebook - Twitter | Profile | Update | Review | 3 |
Endorsement
Candidate Rankings Introduction - January 15 - January 22 - January 29 - February 5 - February 12 - February 19 - February 26 - March 5
All Posts By Label
#skndpldr
Saturday Morning Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Jon Wisman and Aaron Pacitti put a price tag on the upward redistribution of wealth in the U.S.:
- Meanwhile, the latest snag in Robocon involves the Cons' phone bank service provider trying to conceal the evidence which would actually determine who's telling the truth as to whether live calls directed voters to the wrong places. And it's not hard to infer that the Cons and their suppliers would be much less determined to fight disclosure of the facts if they didn't undermine their public story.
- Jon Wisman and Aaron Pacitti put a price tag on the upward redistribution of wealth in the U.S.:
Between 1983 and 2007, total inflation-adjusted wealth in the U.S. increased by $27 trillion. If divided equally, every man woman and child would be almost $90,000 richer.- Simon Enoch points out that the Sask Party's plan for the province seems to be to turn Saskatchewan into Oklahoma North. And no, that's nothing close to a positive result:
But of course it wasn’t divided equally. Almost half of the $27 trillion (49 percent) was claimed by the richest one percent — $11.7 million more for each of their households. The top 10 percent grabbed almost $29 trillion, or 106 percent of the total. Meanwhile, the bottom 90 percent suffered an average decline of just over $16,000 per household.
What could be bought with the $29 trillion increase in the top ten percent’s wealth over the past three decades? Strikingly, it covers all of the expenses necessary for our future collective well-being — the very expenses that, we’re told, can’t be funded because of budget deficits and rising public debt.
The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the United States needs to spend $2.2 trillion over the next five years to meet its infrastructure needs. To ensure that Social Security can pay all promised benefits for the next 75 years would cost $8.6 trillion. Providing all needed Medicare funding for the next 75 years would cost a total of $4.6 trillion.
To pay for all Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and subsidies for purchasing health insurance through the Affordable Care Act for the next 10 years would cost $1.5 trillion. To close all projected federal budget deficits until 2021 would cost $7 trillion. Taking back the $29 trillion would cover all of these needs and the $5.1 trillion that would be left over could pay off about one-third of the national debt.
The rich managed to capture this $29 trillion because they gained greater command over the political process, which allowed them to engineer economic policy for their own gain. Their greater wealth meant greater command over the political process, which in turn made them wealthier. The explosion of corporate lobbyists and corporate campaign contributions leveraged their political influence.
Oklahoma adopted right-to-work legislation in 2001. Despite claims by proponents that the adoption of RTW would result in a mass influx of jobs to the state, since (its) adoption Oklahoma has lost a third of their manufacturing jobs and the average number of new companies coming into the state has been one-third lower in the decade since RTW was adopted than in the preceding decade. Moreover, Oklahoma’s unemployment rate in 2010 was double what it was when RTW was first adopted in 2001.- David Pugliese's blog post is a nice first step in pointing out the absurdity of the Cons wasting public resources to make identical announcements in multiple cities. But I'll suggest that best possible response might be to make use of the local media coverage the strategy is designed to pull in: a single video splicing together the voices and faces of a dozen spokespuppets chanting the same passage in unison (with duly ominous music) would just about match the dystopian vision behind the Cons' communications strategy.
Surveys of manufacturers show that despite the claims of RTW champions, right-to-work laws are not a significant factor in decisions to relocate. Indeed, in 2010 manufacturers ranked it sixteenth among factors affecting location decisions. For higher-tech, higher-wage employers, nine of the ten most-favoured states are non-RTW, led by union-friendly Massachusetts.
...Certainly, there is no doubt that the adoption of RTW significantly reduces average wage-levels. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the impact of RTW laws is to lower average income by about $1,500 a year and to decrease the odds of getting supplemental health insurance or a pension through your job—for both union and nonunion workers alike.
However, the impact of RTW is not confined to wages. According to recent research from the University of Michigan that examined the U.S. construction industry, the rate of industry fatalities is 40 percent higher and the rate of occupational fatalities is 34 percent greater in right-to-work states than in free-bargaining states. Given that Saskatchewan already has one of the worst workplace injury rates in the country, it seems we can ill-afford to adopt legislation that would contribute to even greater levels of risk for Saskatchewan workers.
Social issues are not immune to the effect of right-to-work laws either. Eleven of the 15 states with the highest poverty rates in the U.S. are RTW states, while nine of the 11 states with the lowest are worker-friendly. Furthermore, the percentage of the 2008 population living in poverty in RTW states was 14.4 percent, while the percentage in worker-friendly states was 12.4 percent. In regards to health insurance, we find that 18.6 percent of people in RTW states are uninsured, while only 13.9 percent of people in worker-friendly states are uninsured. Lastly, RTW laws may even influence your life expectancy! Darrell Minor found that of the 13 states with the highest life expectancy rates, 10 are worker-friendly states. Conversely, of the 12 states with the lowest life expectancy rates, only two are worker-friendly states. In worker-friendly states, citizens can expect to live 77.6 years (the median), while citizens in RTW states can expect to die at 76.7.
- Meanwhile, the latest snag in Robocon involves the Cons' phone bank service provider trying to conceal the evidence which would actually determine who's telling the truth as to whether live calls directed voters to the wrong places. And it's not hard to infer that the Cons and their suppliers would be much less determined to fight disclosure of the facts if they didn't undermine their public story.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- Jeffrey Simpson marks Peter Lougheed's passing by discussing what he brought to Alberta's political scene that's been sorely lacking ever since:
- Rick Salutin discusses why any positive change in our schools needs to be based on treating teachers and unions as essential stakeholders in any functional education system - rather than adopting the Lib/Con position that they're enemies to be beaten down.
- Finally, Travis Waldron posts about the latest evidence that tax cuts aimed at the already-wealthy don't do anything at all to help the wider economy.
- Jeffrey Simpson marks Peter Lougheed's passing by discussing what he brought to Alberta's political scene that's been sorely lacking ever since:
Mr. Lougheed, defending Alberta’s jurisdictional turf in conflicts with Liberal and Conservative governments in Ottawa, navigated his province through these shoals. The shame of his successors is that they took two of his cardinal convictions and discarded them in the rush for quick spoils and easy money – that natural resource revenues belong to the people and should be developed in a measured, balanced fashion, and that considerable money from those resources should be husbanded in a Heritage Fund for future generations.- Tim Harper makes the case as to why the Cons should have plenty to answer for in cutting off all diplomatic ties with Iran:
...
Mr. Lougheed governed not as an ideological opponent of the state – the red meat of modern-day conservative thinking – but as its ally. The state, he believed, was the people’s friend, which is what Tories tend to believe. And he used the state aggressively, perhaps in a few cases too aggressively, to buy an airline and make public investments, help the early oil-sands industry get its legs, create the Heritage Fund, build new social programs – all the while believing in the free-enterprise system as the best wealth-creation generator. He used the state aggressively, when necessary, against what he saw could be invidious practices of the oil and gas industry, for which he was banned from the Petroleum Club.
Put simply, Mr. Lougheed always understood the importance of the industry for Alberta, but he never directly equated its interests with the wider interests of Alberta.
Those who argue that leaving Tehran is a matter of principle, miss the point that we have eyes and ears on the ground, not on principle, but to promote our point of view and our sovereign interests.- But then, Aaron Wherry reminds us why the Cons' talking points are more safely presumed to be farce than fact.
Those who would argue that Tehran wasn’t listening to us anyway, miss the point that we should still have Canadian eyes on the ground to bear witness. Waving the white flag, taking our ball and going home, is hardly the high road.
...
Largely unheralded, they do not remain in dangerous environments because they are welcomed but because they subscribe to the well-worn dictum that you hold your friends close, but you hold your enemies closer.
We have kept embassies open during wars. We did not shut down during the darkest days of the Cold War.
...
Harper is correct that our diplomats are not soldiers, but often they are the next closest thing.
He owes it to the foreign service, allies and Canadian voters to give us a fuller accounting of why we decided to leave Iran behind.
- Rick Salutin discusses why any positive change in our schools needs to be based on treating teachers and unions as essential stakeholders in any functional education system - rather than adopting the Lib/Con position that they're enemies to be beaten down.
- Finally, Travis Waldron posts about the latest evidence that tax cuts aimed at the already-wealthy don't do anything at all to help the wider economy.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Thursday Evening Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Michael Lewis writes a fascinating piece on Barack Obama's life as president. And I'd think it's particularly noteworthy to consider Obama's self-discipline both as a model for self-improvement in theory, and as a risk factor in opening up a perception gap between a leader and his citizens:
- Meanwhile, Bob Hepburn notes the sad irony in a Prime Minister winning an award for "democracy, freedom and human rights" while fighting each of those principles tooth and nail at home and abroad.
- And Laurel Sutherlin points out how the Trans-Pacific Partnership being pushed by Harper among others looks to leave a gaping hole in the democratic department:
- Michael Lewis writes a fascinating piece on Barack Obama's life as president. And I'd think it's particularly noteworthy to consider Obama's self-discipline both as a model for self-improvement in theory, and as a risk factor in opening up a perception gap between a leader and his citizens:
“I want to play that game again,” I said. “Assume that in 30 minutes you will stop being president. I will take your place. Prepare me. Teach me how to be president.”- I very much hope I'm right in suspecting that Ezra Levant's attempts to foment hatred against Roma Canadians will fall flat based on their sheer absurdity. But Karl Nerenberg and Dr. Dawg are right to make sure Levant's attacks don't go unanswered.
This was the third time I’d put the question to him, in one form or another. The first time, a month earlier in this same cabin, he’d had a lot of trouble getting his mind around the idea that I, not he, was president. He’d started by saying something he knew to be dull and expected but that—he insisted—was nevertheless perfectly true. “Here is what I would tell you,” he’d said. “I would say that your first and principal task is to think about the hopes and dreams the American people invested in you. Everything you are doing has to be viewed through this prism. And I tell you what every president … I actually think every president understands this responsibility. I don’t know George Bush well. I know Bill Clinton better. But I think they both approached the job in that spirit.” Then he added that the world thinks he spends a lot more time worrying about political angles than he actually does.
This time he covered a lot more ground and was willing to talk about the mundane details of presidential existence. “You have to exercise,” he said, for instance. “Or at some point you’ll just break down.” You also need to remove from your life the day-to-day problems that absorb most people for meaningful parts of their day. “You’ll see I wear only gray or blue suits,” he said. “I’m trying to pare down decisions. I don’t want to make decisions about what I’m eating or wearing. Because I have too many other decisions to make.” He mentioned research that shows the simple act of making decisions degrades one’s ability to make further decisions. It’s why shopping is so exhausting. “You need to focus your decision-making energy. You need to routinize yourself. You can’t be going through the day distracted by trivia.”
- Meanwhile, Bob Hepburn notes the sad irony in a Prime Minister winning an award for "democracy, freedom and human rights" while fighting each of those principles tooth and nail at home and abroad.
- And Laurel Sutherlin points out how the Trans-Pacific Partnership being pushed by Harper among others looks to leave a gaping hole in the democratic department:
The TPP is called a ‘trade agreement,’ but in actuality it is a long-dreamed-of template for implementing a binding system of global corporate governance as bold as anything the world’s wealthiest elite has attempted before. Of the 26 chapters under negotiation, only a few have to do directly with trade. The other chapters enshrine new rights and privileges for major corporations while weakening the power of nation states to oppose them. The TPP essentially proposes to establish a parallel system of justice where companies can sue countries in a tribunal of judges composed of unaccountable international trade lawyers with little to no process for appeal.- Finally, Andrew Jackson rightly challenges the theory that handouts to the corporate sector pay for themselves - at least for anybody who doesn't see increases in untaxed corporate income with no associated social benefits as an unbridled good.
This wild bastardization of the concept of justice endangers everything from affordable medicines, internet freedoms and intellectual property rights to democratically enacted labor laws and environmental protections. And that’s not to mention the massive outsourcing of middle class jobs from the US to countries like Vietnam and Brunei.
This isn’t just a bad trade agreement, it’s a wish list of the 1%—a worldwide corporate power grab of enormous proportions.
Saskatchewan NDP Leadership 2013 - What's In Store
While the Saskatchewan NDP's 2013 leadership campaign officially started last week and at least a couple of the candidates have already made strong entrances, I haven't yet had a chance to comment much on the contest.
But rest assured that there's plenty coming, especially with more candidate announcements coming over the next couple of days. In particular, I'll be setting up a reference page (similar to this one from the federal party's leadership race) to offer stable links to basic information about the campaign, as well as taking closer looks at the candidates as the race develops.
In the meantime, Leftdog is providing a steady flow of updates from the candidates.
But rest assured that there's plenty coming, especially with more candidate announcements coming over the next couple of days. In particular, I'll be setting up a reference page (similar to this one from the federal party's leadership race) to offer stable links to basic information about the campaign, as well as taking closer looks at the candidates as the race develops.
In the meantime, Leftdog is providing a steady flow of updates from the candidates.
New column day
Here, on the importance of substance over spin in politics - and the counterproductive effect of dedicating a party's resources to the opposite effect.
For further reading...
- As I've previously noted, the observations of Allan Gregg and Winslow Wheeler are here and here respectively.
- Joe Klein discussed the impact of Bill Clinton's DNC speech.
- pogge nicely sums up my take on Tom Mulcair's choice to trust in the Cons when it comes to Iran rather than mounting a meaningful defence of diplomacy, while Justine Hunter reports on Adrian Dix' statement that he's cutting down his policy agenda just as he approaches an opportunity to implement it.
- And finally, impolitical notes that Joan Crockett is taking the all-deference approach to its logical conclusion by stating explicitly that her job as a Con candidate and MP is to mindlessly do her leader's bidding.
For further reading...
- As I've previously noted, the observations of Allan Gregg and Winslow Wheeler are here and here respectively.
- Joe Klein discussed the impact of Bill Clinton's DNC speech.
- pogge nicely sums up my take on Tom Mulcair's choice to trust in the Cons when it comes to Iran rather than mounting a meaningful defence of diplomacy, while Justine Hunter reports on Adrian Dix' statement that he's cutting down his policy agenda just as he approaches an opportunity to implement it.
- And finally, impolitical notes that Joan Crockett is taking the all-deference approach to its logical conclusion by stating explicitly that her job as a Con candidate and MP is to mindlessly do her leader's bidding.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Pat Atkinson discusses the importance of unions in ensuring a fair deal for all workers:
- Sixth Estate notes that the Cons aren't any more trustworthy when it comes to their decision to strip immigrants of citizenship based on a presumption of fraud without even bothering to evaluate their circumstances.
- And finally, Mark Taliano contrasts the fair, generous and cooperative Canada which most of us value as a national identity against the Cons' limited focus on exploiting the country's resources for the benefit of those with the most wealth and power to start with.
- Pat Atkinson discusses the importance of unions in ensuring a fair deal for all workers:
It's because of unions and their tenacious advocacy on behalf of their members that workers not only in this province but also in other jurisdictions enjoy legislated workplace benefits gained through negotiation: the 40-hour work week, the eight-hour work day, equal pay for equal work for women, occupational health and safety, paid vacations, overtime pay and more.- Meanwhile, David Pugliese highlights the costs of the right-wing obsession with taking jobs away from public-sector workers - as the federal Cons, having laid off management and maintenance workers with the Department of National Defence, are now set to pay a nine-figure price to the private sector to perform exactly the same services.
These laws did not come easily. We now take many of these workplace rights for granted, but should we?
...
If the government wants to end union contributions to political parties, to be fair it should ban all corporate contributions as well. If unions want to spend their revenues to promote issues such as affordable housing, equal pay for work of equal value and human rights and to oppose certain government policies, that's up to them.
As for the rest of what elected union officials do on behalf of their members, that decision is for the membership to make, not the government.
- Sixth Estate notes that the Cons aren't any more trustworthy when it comes to their decision to strip immigrants of citizenship based on a presumption of fraud without even bothering to evaluate their circumstances.
- And finally, Mark Taliano contrasts the fair, generous and cooperative Canada which most of us value as a national identity against the Cons' limited focus on exploiting the country's resources for the benefit of those with the most wealth and power to start with.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- Don Lenihan responds to Allan Gregg's recent critique of Canadian politics, featuring this on the connection that ought to exist between ideology and policy:
- But let's acknowledge that the Cons are at least consistent in their efforts to suppress information: having imposed total communication control over all the levers of government under their direct influence, they're now trying to make sure supposedly independent institutions like the Auditor General are equally unable to communicate anything but Con-approved talking points.
- Finally, Alexander Stille writes about the connection between wealth inequality (particularly when it comes to inheritances) and economic stagnation - featuring an explanation as to why the status-seeking wealthy may see their interests served by tough times for society at large:
- Don Lenihan responds to Allan Gregg's recent critique of Canadian politics, featuring this on the connection that ought to exist between ideology and policy:
First, the fact that a policy is based on ideological conviction does not mean it is opposed to reason. According to Gregg, “to follow a course based on dogma or ideology, it becomes necessary to remove science and reason.” I disagree. As I wrote a few weeks ago, each of us has only a limited knowledge of the society around us. An ideology is a system of beliefs about the world that provides us with a bigger picture by giving us a story about our society as a whole. This story helps us interpret our experience and develop political views.- Meanwhile, the Cons' push to make policy based on the least information possible continues abroad, with the sudden move to cut all ties with Iran serving as the latest example. Brian Stewart tries to explain why they might "embrace surprise and bafflement" as their foreign policy cornerstones, while Andrew Coyne points out a conspicuous lack of a reasonable explanation so far and Doug Saunders notes that the effect is to utterly negate Canada's ability to influence Iran from here on in.
The story may be a left- or right-leaning one; and it will certainly generate convictions. But it doesn’t follow that these are either blind or irrational, even though they are often inconclusive. Take the right-wing view that robust social programs create dependency. While not everyone believes this, lots of very reasonable people do and lots of good policies have been based on it.
The lesson is that ideology can be — and often is — a legitimate source of policy.
- But let's acknowledge that the Cons are at least consistent in their efforts to suppress information: having imposed total communication control over all the levers of government under their direct influence, they're now trying to make sure supposedly independent institutions like the Auditor General are equally unable to communicate anything but Con-approved talking points.
- Finally, Alexander Stille writes about the connection between wealth inequality (particularly when it comes to inheritances) and economic stagnation - featuring an explanation as to why the status-seeking wealthy may see their interests served by tough times for society at large:
Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, also believes that low growth and inequality are interconnected, but he believes that the causal arrow moves in the opposite direction. As he put it in a recent interview, "I think it's inequality that's causing low growth." In his new book The Price of Inequality, he writes that, "Politics have shaped the market, and shaped it in ways that advantage the top at the expense of the rest." Rent-seeking, the ability of entrenched elites to allocate resources to themselves and smother opportunity for others, invariably leads to a less competitive market and lower growth.
...
But, according to Ilyana Kuziemko, an economist at Princeton University, there is also evidence that low growth does indeed increase inequality. Public-opinion data and experimental research indicate that people (or at least Americans) become less favorable to income redistribution during economic hard times. Gallup polls, for example, show support in the US for reducing inequality falling from 68% to 57% during the current recession, despite all of the public rhetoric — and evidence — that the top 1% of income earners have captured almost all of the gains from economic growth in recent years.Curiously, hard times may actually trigger among the economy's losers a psychological mechanism known as "last-place aversion." Experimental economists have found that subjects asked to play distribution games become much less generous toward those below them when they are in second-to-last place. They would rather distribute money to those above them on the totem pole than help those at the bottom to surpass them....
Thus, a slow-growth/high-inequality economy may become a self-perpetuating cycle.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Move along, nothing to see here
And certainly no reason for worry about this afterthought as the Cons decide which immigrants they'd like to throw out of Canada on their respective ears (or prevent from arriving):
And there are another 2,500 people who, for various reasons, have prompted the concern of the government. Mr. Kenney said they will be watched closely.
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material to start your week.
- Alice interviews Allan Gregg about his sharp criticism of anti-evidence politics, and finds some optimism on Gregg's part that clear falsehoods will eventually be treated with due disdain:
- And finally, Dr. Dawg points out why there's ample reason for concern that some voices (which are more and more seen as representing a standard right-wing take) are determined to stoke fear - with no regard for the likelihood of resulting violence.
- Alice interviews Allan Gregg about his sharp criticism of anti-evidence politics, and finds some optimism on Gregg's part that clear falsehoods will eventually be treated with due disdain:
Q. So, one of your early mentors, [US pollster] Richard Wirthlin, he’s arguing that values trumped issues in the work that he did for Ronald Reagan. He told George Lakoff that this was how Reagan managed to get elected: that people wanted to vote for him based on an appeal to values, in spite of most voters at the time disagreeing with his policies.- Meanwhile, Mia Rabson writes that notwithstanding incidents like the shooting at the PQ's election-night party, we shouldn't let fear stand between our leaders and the general public:
So, that being the case, that an appeal values will trump reason every time, how is it that you’re so sure we could use reason and knowledge to “fight back”, which was your closing call?
A. It’s the power, you know, it’s the power of 2 + 2 = 4. It’s irrefutable. It’s not very emotionally compelling; it’s not something that causes people to stand up and give you a standing ovation. But over time, it will prevail. Dick is right to the extent that people make their judgements using irrational criteria in a very rational way. I mean, choice – political choice, consumer choice, what have you – is a fairly rational intersection of self-interest and self-image. People ask themselves these two things: (i) is it like me – self-image, and (ii) is it for me – self-interest. And if the answer to both those things is “yes”, they’re likely to be chosen. But the way you transmit “I am like you” could be “you and I love children, or puppy-dogs” as opposed to “you and I both believe that we have to have a guaranteed annual income program”. So, yeah, there always is the element of the irrational in the rational, I just think it’s something we have to keep our guard up for.
Q. But is it also maybe that “you and I both dislike that other person” or “both fear this phenomenon”?
A. [laughs] Well, there’s always that as well, yes.
Q. Because that’s the basis of wedge politics.
A. Well it is, but I’ve always feared those who try to keep the population ignorant, or try to misdirect them, or fool them. I’ve got no problem with right-wingers. I’ve got no problem with left-wingers. I just want them to be honest, and to base their ideology, and put it out there and have it challenged by facts and reason.
Each year, it seems security around our politicians tightens.- But then, as Jim Stanford notes, it isn't only in politics that there's a push to insulate a privileged few from the masses - as even publicly-funded airport security systems are set up to filter out first-class travelers from mere ordinary people.
The federal government is spending $9 million this year to add new barricades on Parliament Hill.
Last month, a man heading for a regular paddle on a Toronto-area river was stopped and frisked by local police because Prime Minister Stephen Harper was campaigning across the river.
In August, newly minted Manitoba Opposition Leader Brian Pallister asked Elections Manitoba for an exemption from publishing his home address in his nomination papers for security reasons. He is the first leader to request such an exemption.
But compared to the high level of security around American politicians, we are still open. Security is there but most often unobtrusive.
It's the way it should be.
The more security we are forced to bear, the more difficult it becomes for the average person to engage with elected officials, and the more difficult it is for those officials to engage with the public.
- And finally, Dr. Dawg points out why there's ample reason for concern that some voices (which are more and more seen as representing a standard right-wing take) are determined to stoke fear - with no regard for the likelihood of resulting violence.
Sunday, September 09, 2012
Sunday Afternoon 'Rider Blogging
No, the Saskatchewan Roughriders shouldn't try to plan to win games the way they did today. But while the 'Riders left plenty of room for improvement, they also showed some positive signs beyond what we've seen so far in 2012.
At the top of that list was of course the play of Drew Willy, the 'Riders' backup quarterback who managed to lead the team to just enough offence to win in his first substantial playing time as more than a short-yardage or developmental player.
Within his first couple of series at the helm, Willy showed that he'd already figured out some lessons that younger quarterbacks all too often take plenty of time to learn - showing enough poise under pressure to find running backs with well-timed screens, to attack the line of scrimmage himself for positive yardage, or to back up to buy enough time to find an open receiver.
Naturally, the Bombers' defence was able to adjust to those strategies over the course of the game. And that's where Willy's surprisingly gaudy passing numbers don't tell the whole story: while a veteran quarterback Darian Durant might have picked up several more incompletions by getting rid of the ball when no positive play was available, the fact that Willy instead took multiple high-yardage sacks trying to back out of trouble didn't exactly serve his team better than the alternative. (Also, a good number of Willy's passing yards were the result of after-catch wizardry by Kory Sheets.)
Ultimately, Willy will need to become more comfortable throwing the ball quickly rather than giving ground waiting for openings that don't materialize. But the 'Riders should be more comfortable relying on Willy when needed than might have been the case before today's performance.
Meanwhile, the 'Riders' defence may not have held the Bombers scoreless again, but its latest performance wasn't much less impressive than that from the previous week. In particular, the secondary did a fine job against some of the CFL's toughest receivers, with both Chris McKenzie and Terrell Maze winning plenty of one-on-one battles when matched against Terrence Edwards and Chris Matthews.
If there's any point which calls for some attention in the coming weeks, it's an uncharacteristically-weak performance on special teams - including a return touchdown by Demond Washington and a mediocre return game centred on Jock Sanders' zig-zagging (though he more than made up for it with his contributions on offence).
But for today, the 'Riders were just barely able to make up for that rare gap with a stout defence and short-handed offence. And that should bode well for the team's chances once it's back to full strength.
At the top of that list was of course the play of Drew Willy, the 'Riders' backup quarterback who managed to lead the team to just enough offence to win in his first substantial playing time as more than a short-yardage or developmental player.
Within his first couple of series at the helm, Willy showed that he'd already figured out some lessons that younger quarterbacks all too often take plenty of time to learn - showing enough poise under pressure to find running backs with well-timed screens, to attack the line of scrimmage himself for positive yardage, or to back up to buy enough time to find an open receiver.
Naturally, the Bombers' defence was able to adjust to those strategies over the course of the game. And that's where Willy's surprisingly gaudy passing numbers don't tell the whole story: while a veteran quarterback Darian Durant might have picked up several more incompletions by getting rid of the ball when no positive play was available, the fact that Willy instead took multiple high-yardage sacks trying to back out of trouble didn't exactly serve his team better than the alternative. (Also, a good number of Willy's passing yards were the result of after-catch wizardry by Kory Sheets.)
Ultimately, Willy will need to become more comfortable throwing the ball quickly rather than giving ground waiting for openings that don't materialize. But the 'Riders should be more comfortable relying on Willy when needed than might have been the case before today's performance.
Meanwhile, the 'Riders' defence may not have held the Bombers scoreless again, but its latest performance wasn't much less impressive than that from the previous week. In particular, the secondary did a fine job against some of the CFL's toughest receivers, with both Chris McKenzie and Terrell Maze winning plenty of one-on-one battles when matched against Terrence Edwards and Chris Matthews.
If there's any point which calls for some attention in the coming weeks, it's an uncharacteristically-weak performance on special teams - including a return touchdown by Demond Washington and a mediocre return game centred on Jock Sanders' zig-zagging (though he more than made up for it with his contributions on offence).
But for today, the 'Riders were just barely able to make up for that rare gap with a stout defence and short-handed offence. And that should bode well for the team's chances once it's back to full strength.
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- Stephen Kimber makes the case for a financial transactions tax in Atlantic Business:
- Finally, after of plenty of speculation as to who might run for the NDP in Calgary Centre, Brian Malkinson has thrown his hat into the ring. And it took no time at all for environmental lawyer Murray Rankin to step up in pursuit of the nomination to succeed Denise Savoie in Victoria.
- Stephen Kimber makes the case for a financial transactions tax in Atlantic Business:
(W)hat can supposedly sovereign nations do when individual governments seem powerless in the face of rampant globalization and footloose capital?- Meanwhile, Tabatha Southey's take on the Republican convention is particularly apt in calling out the deception behind small-business rhetoric:
Well, they could get together to create an international public counter-balance to out-of-whack corporate power and – at the least – begin to mitigate some of the worst effects of unfettered globalization.
Agreeing to a locally adopted, globally implemented financial transactions tax would be a smart start.
The idea – popularly known as the Robin Hood tax – originated with Nobel prize-winning economist James Tobin, who pitched a variation of the tax following the 1990s Asian financial crisis. Not surprisingly, his proposal has only gained traction in the wake of the 2008 global meltdown.
The miniscule tax – averaging no more than 0.05 per cent – would be tacked on to the cost of buying and selling all stocks, bonds, mutual funds, currencies, derivatives, futures, options, etc… (but not ordinary consumer transactions like credit card purchases, deposits and withdrawals).
Besides serving as a (probably only slight) brake on speculative trading, such a tax would have the more important impact of raising up to $400 billion a year.
Some of the revenue raised through the tax could be used to, in effect, either force banks to fund their own future bailouts or help underwrite economic recoveries. The rest could be put to all sorts of public goods at home and abroad, like maintaining and improving public services, fighting climate change, reducing world hunger … or some combination of the above.
I plan on coupling that knowledge with what I learned at the rest of the Republican convention, which is that there’s no problem that cannot be solved by opening a small business.
Unemployed? Open a small business. Underpaid? Open a small business.
Can’t afford another baby? Open a small business. Have an autistic child? Open a small business.
In a convention markedly devoid of specifics, at least there was that. I came away so hopeful: If my car won’t start, I’ll open a small business. I‘m sure a dab of small business will arrest a run appearing in my tights. Overwhip that cream? Just add a splash of small business. Syria needs more small businesses.- Luisa D'Amato writes that for all the attention paid to micro-targeting and robo-calling as some parties' preferred means of delivering a message to voters, the NDP's by-election victory in Kitchener-Waterloo can be traced in no small part to personal contact with constituents.
And every successful person at that convention could give you the reason for their success – it was born of a small business. Even though that small business may have been started three generations ago, and might have been an oil well.
I have no objection to big business, but small business was put forward at the convention the same way people always show you the baby version of any ugly-ass species of animal they want you to love.
Never mind the fact that most people aren’t in the financial position to open a small business. Or aren’t suited to run their own businesses. Or that half of all small businesses fail in their first five years.
- Finally, after of plenty of speculation as to who might run for the NDP in Calgary Centre, Brian Malkinson has thrown his hat into the ring. And it took no time at all for environmental lawyer Murray Rankin to step up in pursuit of the nomination to succeed Denise Savoie in Victoria.
Saturday, September 08, 2012
On timelines
For the most part, I tend to be skeptical that annual caucus retreats should be seen as having any substantive impact on the political scene. But the NDP's meeting last week in St. John's did provide some noteworthy news in the form of Tom Mulcair's election readiness timeline:
Meanwhile, the steps involved in being ready for an early election figure to have some spillover benefits as a matter of general party-building, particularly if the option of early election planning is contrasted against the option of taking a break from other activity.
At the same time, though, there's also some opportunity cost involved in charting an election course immediately if that takes away from a focus on longer-term movement building. And it'll be worth ensuring that the 2014 focus merely represents a slightly altered timeline as part of the greater project of leading a more progressive Canada.
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair wants his party to be "completely ready" by the fall of 2014 for a federal election that he predicts will come sooner than expected.
...
"We're counting on the past to guarantee the future," Mulcair said. "We're thinking that the likely timeline is the spring of 2015, which makes it even more important for us to be completely ready for the fall of '14."
Mulcair opened the retreat by advising his caucus that "a two-year countdown has started for us."
"By the fall of '14, we've got to be completely ready to take on the Conservatives in the next election with a much more generous and fair vision of (sic) type of Canada that we all want to build together."Now, the most important consequence of the announcement may be to negate exactly the danger Mulcair raised as to a snap election. While I'd think it's an open question whether Stephen Harper's instinct would be to seek an early election or hold onto power as long as possible, it's probably fair to say that the only way we'll see an election before the fall of 2015 is if the Cons think they can catch the other parties off guard. And if the NDP signals its plan to be ready early, then the effect may actually be to push Harper back toward the fixed election date.
Meanwhile, the steps involved in being ready for an early election figure to have some spillover benefits as a matter of general party-building, particularly if the option of early election planning is contrasted against the option of taking a break from other activity.
At the same time, though, there's also some opportunity cost involved in charting an election course immediately if that takes away from a focus on longer-term movement building. And it'll be worth ensuring that the 2014 focus merely represents a slightly altered timeline as part of the greater project of leading a more progressive Canada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)